Talk:Serbia/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6


Another Wikipeida failure

This article's account of the 1990s is unbalanced - Bosnia is ruled by islamic fundamentalist, it says, and Croatia by the Utase, but there is no mention of mass killing by Serbian militias, the acts of torture the committed, or the complicity of the Serbian government. Here's the quotation from the World Factbook, which is used by the article for a source on other issues. I think it is an equally good source on this topic:

Serbia led various military campaigns to unite ethnic Serbs in neighboring republics into a "Greater Serbia." These actions led to Yugoslavia being ousted from the UN in 1992, but Serbia continued its - ultimately unsuccessful - campaign until signing the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995. MILOSEVIC kept tight control over Serbia and eventually became president of the FRY in 1997. In 1998, an ethnic Albanian insurgency in the formerly autonomous Serbian province of Kosovo provoked a Serbian counterinsurgency campaign that resulted in massacres and massive expulsions of ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo. The MILOSEVIC government's rejection of a proposed international settlement led to NATO's bombing of Serbia in the spring of 1999 and to the eventual withdrawal of Serbian military and police forces from Kosovo in June 1999.[1]

Serbian war crimes

There should be more about Srebian war crimes, serbian torture and genocide inflicted on the Balkans. In this article Serbia s potrayed like a Disney country whilst it commited the worst atrocities and horror since the Nazis.
Please see Kosovo Liberation Army

There probably is enough about it. The article on Germany only mentions the Holocaust briefly, which is right, since it wasn't committed by the modern state. In any case, there are plenty of articles where you can find out about the crimes committed by all sides in the Balkan wars.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Serbian war crimes during WWII

There's no mention of the fact that Serbs murdred 30.000 jews during WWI
Please see Kosovo Liberation Army

Communist torture

There's also no mention of the torture of thousands of political prisoners on the prison island of Goli Otok by the communistic Serb elite in Yougoslavia. Many of these prisoners fought for human rights and democracy


What about sports in Serbia? Srbia was the world champion in basketball, woleyball, water-polo, vice-champion of Europe in football (u21), many other sports, Ana Ivanovic, Jelena Jankovic, Novak Djokovic, Nenad Zimonjic are from Serbia...

The section on sport is way to long and features too many names. It features photographies of THREE tennis players, none of them even residing in Serbia, and one football player, who plays for an English club. I think this section needs to be shortened and photographies replaced.

What are you talking about ? Novak Djokovic, Jelena Jankovic and WORLD NO. 1 Ana Ivanovic are Serbian and they are born in Serbia! Their current place of residence can not and does not make them non-Serbian. What kind of nonsense is that ?! If you Have something against Serbia's success in sports than you should mind your own business and let the sports page be even bigger with each and every future success of Serbian sportsmen. Thanks God editing is disabled for standard users.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not a standard user. Second - Who's business is editing this page? Only yours? After all, I am from Serbia, and it is my business no less than yours. Talk pages are no places for personal arguments, so I won't get into one with you... So, if you have a suggestion or an objection, here's my talk page: talk. If you want to write about Serbian sport there's an article Serbian sport, and if you want to write about Serbian sportsmen there are articles Serbs and List of Serbs. This bunch of information doesn't belong here.


The majority of UN states have not recognized Serbia's right to seek an ICJ court ruling on Kosovo's independence declaration. This article is misleading as only 1/3 voted for the court case. (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the map NPOV, a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Do NOT push towards the view of either pro-Serbia or pro-Kovoso. A very similar case is People's Republic of China, who claims Taiwan as an integral part of China, though ROC (Taiwan) is recognized by 23 countries. In its article, the map shows Taiwan in a lighter color. So the best solution for the map of Serbia is to show Kovoso in a lighter color, just like the case of China.-- (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As clearly stated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a place for asserting any opinions. As for myself, I was born in China (though not in China now), of course I am a supporter of Chinese reunification, and I personally also favor Serbia reunification. HOWEVER, this does not prevent me from being a strong defender of NPOV, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. Different views and opinions may exist as everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, but Wikipedia is NOT a place for asserting opinions. If anyone has any suggestions, feel free to discuss here, but please do NOT break the policy and principle of Wikipedia. Thanks.--Wengier (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just use the second almost exactly the same example Cyprus.--Avala (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Cyprus#Map_.2F_contradiction. There is already a discussion there. Also, it was you who said "western sahara maps are a good thing to look at for solution", right? There is no problem to follow the Western Sahara maps as you previously said (see Morocco), but why contradict with yourself now? The current map shows actual controlled area in orange, claimed area in yellow, and with no border in between. Isn't it the best solution? As for the Cyprus map, a better map will be required if there is any significant division of opinion (I'll make one if necessary). --Wengier (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In the intro paragraph, should it not also say "borders Kosovo"? Anon, June 29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Whether it "borders Kosovo" is disputed, because Serbia claims Kosovo as part of its territory.-- (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo still is part of Serbia. Neither UN nor Serbia haven't recognised the independence of Kosovo. So, it is necessary to do something with map that shows Kosovo as an independent state.Taamu (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
To present the map of Serbia only with Kosovo is not NPOV, since Kosovo, differently from Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are recognized by no one, is a partially-recognzied country, like Israel.
mountains of Serbia (without Kosovo)
borders of Serbia (without Kosovo)

And we cannot say that Kosovo doesn’t exist as a country just because it is not part of the UN. Let’s remeber that many nations, like West Germany, Spain and South Korea, were not part of the UN for a long time, and were not considered as “non-existent” because of that; and Swizerland did not belong to the UN until recently, and no one denied its existence.

And if Kosovo is presented in Wikipedia as a "disputed region" with three infoboxes because of questions of NPOV, the article about Serbia should show the maps WITH and WITHOUT Kosovo.

Yes, this article will have to be changed, as it currently contradicts the article Kosovo. Maps of Serbia and mentions to Kosovo will have to reflect both the Serbian province and independent state POVs. Húsönd 12:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Does the Serbian area figure include or exclude Kosovo? It's unclear. Kingal86 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The map of Serbia should include Kosovo as a distinct region. Two maps, one from google and the other from the BBC maintains this stance:

If this is not changed, then I propose we change the article on 'Kosovo' to show it as an equaly distinct country, in the interest of maintaining the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Photographs in Medieval section

In the section, Serbia#Medieval_Serb_kingdoms_and_the_Serbian_Empire, the 3rd and 4th picture squeeze the text and the text ends up going under the pictures. Can we move those pictures? Beam 14:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Add this please:

Does this article provide too much description to crimes of the Ustase? I am uncertain, what do others think?

I am fully aware that the Ustase movement was a brutal and genocidal one which committed mass murders of Serbs, but the article goes indepth, describing that the Ustase murdered many thousands of children. I think this information could be provided on a different article, such as the article Independent State of Croatia. What should be clear is that Serbs and Serbian society were profoundly affected by the crimes of the Ustase in World War II. We could mention that the Ustase killed Serb children, but I am concerned that this will lead to more morbid descriptions of the crimes of the Ustase. I think it is best to keep it simple, concise, and accurate, which is that the Ustase murdered hundreds of thousands of Serbs in World War II. A link could be provided for users to examine the Independent State of Croatia, or perhaps an article entitled "Crimes of the Ustase movement".--R-41 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this article suppose to be about the country of Serbia, or about how Serbs are being victimised during WWII in the Independent State of Croatia which comprised mostly the territory of the former Yugoslav republic of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina? I even consider the statement in that section that Ustashi atrocities have a supposed impact on today's society in Serbia proper, which never was a part of this WWII era Croatian state (with the exception of the Srem District in Vojvodina) to be POV. Having this section in this Serbia article, is like saying that the post-WWII ethnic cleansing of Volksdeutshe ethnic Germans also have a 'profound impact on Germany society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you be asking that question if this was the israel page? - anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Standard of English

I have spent quite a long time trying to clean up the English of the article, for example mistakes in the use of the definite article. I have not completed the task, which is a huge one. The article has clearly been written largely by non-native speakers. APW (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read the part "Genocide of Serbs by the Ustase regime in Croatia" and it needs some tidying up (punctuation, etc.) please can someone do it? I would have done it myself were the article not semi-protected. thanks. 29 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed there is no mention of the genocide of Bosnians. This was a major event in the end of the nineteenth century, and must be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Following on from my previous point about the standard of English in the text, the article is clearly extremely tendentious, and (uninstructed as I am) it seems to me to be designed in quite large part to paint the Serbs as innocent (yet heroic) victims. I doubt that this is really balanced in the way a Wikipedia article should be. APW (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbs have collectively tried to exterminate all their neighbours at least one time in the past. Serbs have more mortal enemies than any people on the planet. Belgrade recently rejected Macedonian Orthodox church, claiming that they all Macedonians are Serbs and have no right to existance. So Serbs need to go back to Russia where White plague is turning Russians into an extinct concept. (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So what we have here? I can t read more than two words on this page as my eyes may start to bleed, guess what? the map is out of date....EUREKA!!!! so the saying that Kosova will remain serbian only on serbian maps seems to be true;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly wisdom (talkcontribs) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this immature and xenophobic material. You sound like eight-year-olds yelling at each other. Post relevant, reliable, sourced material, on facts. THIS IS NOT A BLOG. Don't bother posting your opinions here, opinions are not wanted on Wikipedia, go post them on some blog or forum somewhere else on the internet.--R-41 (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of the fact that Milošević was tried for war crimes? Why no mention of Radovan Karadzic? Why no mention of what happened in Sarajevo? Why is the phrase "ethnic cleansing" absent? Every country (including my own) has its dark moments in history, but pretending they never happened does no one any good. This is not a tourist brochure. It is supposed to be an objective, comprehensive article. Matt Thorn (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
For one thing, Sarajevo is not in Serbia, this is an article about Serbia. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hah! By that logic, an account of the My Lai Massacre has no place in a history of the U.S.. Germany's invasions of Austria, Poland, France, etc., have no place in a history of Germany. Please pull your head out of the sand and quit running from the truth. Matt Thorn (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Is My Lai Massacre in the USA article? -- man with one red shoe (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Without speaking to the My Lai issue, why would Karadzic be mentioned in this article? He's a Bosnian Serb, not a Serbian Serb. He would be perfectly fine in the Serbs article, which is about the ethnicity and not the country. Milosevic and his wars, on the other hand, would be perfectly appropriate. // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
My apologies regarding Karadzic. I was mistaken in raising his name. Man with one red shoe, the very long article on the United States includes a link to a separate article on the Vietnam War, which does discuss the the My Lai Massacre. Surely the role of the Serbian government in the Bosnian war deserves more than just this:

The Serbian government initially supported the Serbs of Croatia and the Bosnian Serbs in the Yugoslav wars fought from 1991 to 1995. This period of political turmoil marked a rise in ethnic tensions and xenophobia between Serbs and other ethnicities of the former Communist Yugoslavia as most of the other ethnicities demanded independence while Serbs saw the secessions as tearing apart the Serb nation which had a heavy populace in Bosnia & Herzegovina and Croatia. Sanctions were imposed by the United Nations, which led to political isolation and economic decline of the SRJ.

This makes it sound as if there was simply some mutual "ethnic tension," rather than an "ethnic cleansing" carried out by Bosian Serbs with the financial and military assistance of the Serbian government. By the way, Man with one red shoe, the very long article on the United States includes a link to a separate article on the Vietnam War, in which the My Lai Massacre is discussed. The main article on the USA speaks frankly about the shameful history of the treatment of Native Americans and slavery. (Unfortunately, the article on the USA makes no mention of the shameful internment of Japanese Americans.) Matt Thorn (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't because the place for such info is in "History of USA" article not in USA article. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This arguing is pathetic. It seems that some users are trying to accuse the entire Serb people of endorsing the murderous actions in the Balkans wars because of the rise of xenophobic ultranationalism which did cause much damage. What is acceptable is to say that there has been a rise of xenophobia in Serbia as promoted by ultranationalists which resulted in xenophobic crimes to take place. What is unacceptable is for people to blame Serbs themselves. We don't just blame Germans for World War II and the Holocaust, obviously German people did the crimes but we recognize that it was the Nazis and xenophobia promoted by them and other German ultranationalists which led to this. Also wasn't just "Americans" who committed the My Lai Massacre as mentioned in this discussion board and it wasn't just "the Americans" who committed the Abu Ghraib maltreatment, and it wasn't just "the Americans" who interned Japanese-Americans, it was groups of hateful people who happen to be Americans as well as hateful people inside governments who did this. In Serbia, its the ultranationalists who created the atmosphere of xenophobia which existed then and now amongst a significant number of Serbs. These people were aided with the help of an authoritarian communist government under the politically ambitious Slobodan Milosevic that opportunistically promoted nationalism to save itself from falling to political oblivion as communism collapsed in eastern Europe, as communism was becoming increasingly unpopular. It's naive to claim that Serbs as a nation in unity committed war crimes against others, it was those who were under the nationalist influence that caused this. It's a fact that xenophobia exists in Serbia and that Serbs committed crime, it is not a fact that to say that all Serbs sponsored this, nor that all Serbs should be seen as responsible. It was Serbs with ethnic nationalist sympathies that did these crimes. I recognize that Serbia and Serb areas of Bosnia right now have serious problems with xenophobic nationalists, so has Germany, but just as there were and are are Germans who opposed the Nazis and now oppose the neo-Nazis, there are Serbs who oppose the ultranationalists.--R-41 (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2008 (U Its an easy question to answer who did all the crimes in ex Yougoslavia and who started the war. No one but the Serbs and Serbia did the crimes. The majority of Serbian people have their hands full of blood from the crimes and massacres they did to other nations like Albanians, Bosnian Muslims and Croats. It is a shame to try to hide all these crimes and massacres and the world should never forget the massacres compared to Hitler's, therfore the Serbs and Serbia will remain guilty and responsible forever for what they did to Humanity.

Too many pictures, too little content

This page is filled with pictures but has far too little content. If more information was available on this page, the current number of images would be acceptable. But as of now the page appears cluttered with pictures.--R-41 (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Change on the map

Kosovo is a disputed state. I think that the current map is not NPOV and does not display the current situation in the region. Kosovo should be shaded in an other color, the same as in the Kosovo article. Emto (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

agreed, it ought be yellow and have something saying it claims kosovo but kosovo is a partially recognised state —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talkcontribs) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Motto: Само слога Србина спасава
“Only unity saves Serbs” —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Kosovo is not a disputed state nither a partially recognised state but it is a fully recognised state by most important and powerfull states of the whole world. It will soon become also member of UN and other importatant institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Countries forced to recognize and some regret

Fix note 70

It's screwed up!!! -- (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Done! (At least I think so, does it look right to you now?) Franamax (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks good to me!!!--Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Name

One important thing not mentioned in the main article on Serbia is where the name of the region itself came from. Both the current Serbia and the older form Servia -- with a "V" -- come from the Latin word servus, meaning a slave or servant. I have a reprint of a book, originally published in 1899, which contains the older form "Servian". (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it can't be in an article unless you provide some litterary proof for that, and as I can see you already tried to push that theory in other articles...

As far as I know "Srbija" (as it s called in original Serbian) derives from "srbiti" which means "itching". The name came into existance during the first outbreak of the plague in midieval Europe.

Eastern Orthodox is a Catholic Church


In the Midievel Serb Kingdoms section, there is a description of "... shift towards the Eastern Orthodox rather than the Catholic faith..." This should probably read (change in bold): "...shift towards the Eastern Orthodox rather than the Roman Catholic faith..." Generally, "Catholic" denotes Roman Catholic but here where it is specifically compared to an Eastern Orthodox faith it would be better to make that clear. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are in communion and could all be considered Catholic. Later in the article Roman Catholic is used more clearly.

Sorry to say it, but you're thinking of eastern catholic churches. orthodox ones are excomunicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talkcontribs) 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
editsemiprotected declined: no agreement on the change. —EncMstr (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is 92 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles.

The sport section is too long and should be edited. On the other hand the article Sport in Serbia is almost empty. Please remove the sufficient images and text and place it in the right article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milosppf (talkcontribs) 17:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Date audit

I made a call (based on the opening formats) to go with international format. If anyone disagrees with this change from (mostly, but inconsistently) US format, please buzz me and I can easily change it back. Tony (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


I found new info on HDI in Serbia from the Republic development bureau:

'The growth of the HDI in Serbia continued through 2004 reaching the value of 0.811'DedMed (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see

Here And discuss it there. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Made the article for future?

This article made before 2006

at that time it's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -- (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


The given GDP (PPP) of US$ 81 billion was to high: This years IMF number is US$ 58.268, GDP (PPP) per capita is US$ 7,738.,NGDPDPC,PPPGDP,PPPPC&grp=0&a=

Founding U.N. member?

The UN "considers that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations, and therefore decides that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should apply for membership in the United Nations and that it shall not participate in the work of the General Assembly."[2] The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted on 1 November 2000, replacing, instead of continuing, the membership of Yugoslavia in the UN held by the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which officially remained a UN member until that day. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro on 4 February 2003. Since the declaration of independence by Montenegro on 3 June 2006, the membership of Serbia and Montenegro in the UN has been continued by Serbia on the basis of Article 60 of the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro. Please correct the article.Mrcina (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source

For those users who use CIA page as source: CIA is not a financial institution. IMF is more reliable source than CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gggh (talkcontribs) 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Serb History - Origin of present day Serbs

Given that Dominik Mandic (respected historian) details that most present day Serbs are of Wallach (Vlah) stock, why is this part of history not documented in the history section for Serbia's wiki page? The influential Serbian families Kara-Djordje and Obrenovic were descended of Wallach (Vlah) stock. Many present day influential Serbs are of Wallach (Vlah) stock. Given that genetic and anthropological studies show that the majority of present day Serbs living in Serbia have weak slavic links, why is the Wallach (Vlah) origin not detailed here? Also, in present day Serbia in some areas the Wallach's (Vlah) continue to speak their medi-evil Romance language. The Wallach's originated from Northern Africa and arrived in the Balkans as Roman mercinary forces. The Wallach (Vlah) connection to modern day Serbia cannot be ignored and should be documented as a significant part of Serbia's history. (St7st7st7 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)) 25/10/08

You are horribly wrong when stating such a claim. The so-called "Karađorđevići" are in fact of Albanian stock who were victims of Serbinization. Their original surname was "Pjetrović", which was later hyper-corrected to pro-Serbian "Petrović". Karađorđe's father was originally an Albanian Catholic from Gucia (or Gusinje), a Montenegrin town who's population is 75% of Albanian origin, the other 25% of Montenegrin Serb origin. He eventually settled in Serbia in his lifetime, and possibly converted to Serbian Orthodoxy, or his wife was of Serbian Orthodox stock, I honestly don't remember that part. Thus, when Karađorđe was born, he was raised as a Serb. --Prevalis (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
And as for the Obrenovići, they are in fact of Montenegrin stock, originally from the Bratonožić tribe, though incorrectly thought to be of the Kuči tribe. --Prevalis (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
And no, 80% or so of today's Serbs of Central Serbia, from the 1800s on, all claim either Montenegrin (mostly) or Bosnian ancestry, which in fact is true. Yes, I am not saying Serbs are of Vlach origin, but claiming "most present day Serbs are of Wallach (Vlah) stock" is entirely false. --Prevalis (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say I disagree with most of what you write. These immigrants into historical Serbia (Rasa) where from the regions you mentioned among others. However, they were of original Wallach (Vlah) stock. In the time of the Turks it was the Wallachs (Vlah) who were entrusted to support Turkish incursions into Bosnia, thus this is how they settled there. These Wallachs (Vlah) at the time were fully aware of their Wallach origins speaking their romance language. Very little ethnic Serbs were ever in Bosnia. Many ethnic Serbs that resisted Turkish incursions into Serbia fled to Vojvodina. This is a reason why the people in that region have a higher percentage of lighter hair than in todays central Serbia. Should also keep in mind that around 1530 AD there were in Serbia about 700,000 to 800,000 Orthodox Serbs and about half that number of Wallachs (Vlah). Following is relevent excerpt from Dominik Mandic's work (Croats and Serbs, Two Ancient and Different Peoples) showing significant impact of Wallach (Vlah) stock on Serbian society:

The modern Serbian writers frequently complain about their unpleasant characteristics, which the urban Wallachs i.e. Tzintzars, brought with them into Serbian public life. The Serbian historian, the archimandrite Hilarion Ruvarac, a native of Srijem, struggled all his life against the "cunning and treacherous Serbs of Wallachian stock." Jovan Skerlic complains of the "indolence of the East which has come to course through our bloodstream." (12) Dusan Popovic, professor of sociology and Serbian history at the University of Belgrade, devoted a complete book to the Tzintzars and to their influence on the Serbian bourgeoisie and on public life. Among other things he writes: "Our modern unsavory factionalism has its roots in this tendency. Moreover other negative characteristics of this tendency remain in our bourgeois society, such as the arrogance, narrow-mindedness, egotism and deceit. These traits are no small matter, at least not in our society, and not for our state and our people."

It was the Wallachs (Vlah) who flourished to an extent under the centuries long turkish rule of most of the Balkans. During the demise of the Turks the Wallachs (Vlah) took the Serbian identity to unify and grab power under this front. This is why most influential people in Serbia are of Wallach (Vlah) stock. The remnants of the ethnic Serbs are mainly in Vojvodina these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St7st7st7 (talkcontribs) 02:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe in “respected Serbian historians” — most of them emerged in two periods: the 1918-1941 Royal Yugoslavia and the 1980-2003 post-Tito Yugoslavia. Many of them are compromised by Greater Serbia ideology.
In terms of “origins of the Serbs”, I would prefer the history acknowledged by most outside the Balkans: Serbians, Croatians, Montenegrins and Slovenes have a common origin in ancient pagan Slav peoples which inhabited the region around the Carpathians and migrated to the Balkans during the Medieval Great Migrations. In the Balkans, they were converted to Christianity and began to develop their different identities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Typing Error

There is error in the Climate section. It says "The verage annual air temperature for the period 1961–90", instead of "average". Since I cannot fix it, anyone can do it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How can a sourced changing be considered as vandalism?

My changing has been reverted as "vandalim", although it is sourced: I consider the undiscussed revert itself as an act of vandalism. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is not vandalism, but CIA is not a "reliable source" stop pushing it as such. man with one red shoe 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the website of the CIA. Wikipedia does not endorse views of a government. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia" (see logo in top left corner) and not "the US-sponsored encyclopedia".

The CIA claimed that the Kosovo Liberation Army was a terrorist organization in 1997. Today, the US sees the KLA as freedom fighters. During the 80s, the Taliban were freedom fighters. Now they're a terrorist regime that has to be destroyed. So much for reliability.

Schwarz from Mannheim, don't pretend like you don't know the rules of Wikipedia. It's all about the consensus. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How about including both numbers like they do it in the German Wikipedia: --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting proposal, but it leaves the reader a bit confused. Also, I know that he can scroll down, but anybody can also scroll down the Kosovo article, and despite that, people (including me and you) are arguing over one word at the beginning of the article. The area of Georgia is still what it is with S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, even though Russia and Nicaragua recognized them as independent. Yea, more countries recognized Kosovo, but the majority still don't. I suggest you put a 1 next to the area and explain at the bottom of the box that it is including Kosovo. If people want to see the area of Kosovo, they can just click on Kosovo, and there you go. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A Curious Absence of Serbian Genocide Information

It is very curious that most of the topics of late and recent history present Serbia as a victim, yet Serbia's Cetnik movement which slaughtered tens of thousands and their most recent ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Croatia are nowhere to be found... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolmonkee (talkcontribs) 17:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, classic Serbophobia :D --JUSTICE 23:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Serbophobia? Most people in the world have no idea where Serbia is. Among those who do, few even care one way or the other about Serbia. In order to move to the future, it's important to note "Some church thinkers have forwarded the thesis that myths are more truthful than histiography." (Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide) It's time to move past that. Americans have recognized our genocide of Native Americans on the international stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian British. Badagnani (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Locator map

The map shows Kosovo as part of Serbia, but the reality is that Kosovo is a disputed territory with a different government than that of Serbia. Please change the map and shade Kosovo under a different color. --alchaemia (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG!! Are you totally serious? LOL. Kosovo is a part of Serbia and everyone knows that. LOL. (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

per Talk:Kosovo#locator_map, if we're going to use File:Europe location SRB with KOS.png at Kosovo, we need to display File:Europe location Serbia, Kosovo highlighted.png (or similar) here. --dab (��) 22:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Since both articles are closely connected, it is reasonable that we apply the same principle on both. We seem to have a NPOV solution over there. Please, leave your comments on the talkpage before reverting images. Caption under the images can be modified, suggest possible wordings. --Tone 14:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
When Georgia's breakaway regions are highlighted, as well as all other breakaway regions, I will support highlighting Kosovo in Serbia. Kosovo is neither recognized by the UN, nor the majority of the world's countries. --JUSTICE 22:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Once we get those highlights or whatever in Georgia (country) or Cyprus articles then we'll get them here. Until then, follow the regular borders.--Avala (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally think we should follow UN recognized countries/borders, that's the closest to "consensus" that we can get. man with one red shoe 00:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the Kosovo talk page, West Sahara has a similar number of recognitions as Kosovo and the territory is clearly shaded Morocco. (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Bože pravde, then you need to stop calling for a highlighting of Serbia at the Kosovo locator map immediately. You can't call for a compromise on the Kosovo article while pushing the Serbian pov at the Serbia article. We need to highlight disputed territories due to our NPOV policy, period. --dab (��) 12:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Nobody disputes that Serbia is an independent state. Kosovo, meanwhile, is still recognized as a Serbian province by the vast majority of the world. The two articles don't have to be the same anyway. --Tocino 23:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
35 countries provided opinion to the ICJ. I think we can assume that these are the most ardent and strong supporters or opposers of Kosovo independence. On one side we have Czech Republic, France, Switzerland, Albania, Austria, Germany, Finland, Poland, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Estonia, Norway, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Latvia, Japan, Ireland, Denmark, Maldives and Sierra Leone and on the other side we have Cyprus, China, Romania, Egypt, Slovakia, the Russian Federation, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Serbia, Spain, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Brazil, Argentina, Azerbaijan and Bolivia. So we have a tally of 21 : 14 in Kosovo's favor (Serbia is included with the 14, of course). These numbers prove that there are more countries in favor of Kosovas independence than against it and most countries are indifferent, or to say it in the words of New Zealands Prime Minister: "We will neither recognise nor not recognise." Therefore it is wrong when Tocino says that "(Kosovo) is still recognize as a Serbian province by the vast majority oft the world" and so we should change locator map to NPOV by changing Kosovos color as suggested. -- (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, Czech Republic is everything but the ardent supporter of Kosovo's independence. Second, 14 countries aren't providing arguments agains Kosovo, but Kosovo's independence. There's a difference. Third - 3/4 (in shere number of countries, in population is much, much more) of the world is still seeing Kosovo and Metohia as the part of Serbia that was illegaly separated. The tally of 21:14 is simply a show for the day in court... It has nothing to do with the number of supporters or opposers. And finaly, if countries were exposed to such extreme preassure of USA to recognize independent Kosovo, just saying they WON'T recognize is a great effort. --PrimEviL 05:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It is wrong when you say they won't recognize, they just do not announce if they or if they not recognize, like New Zealands PM said. And the number at the court shows that more countries do indeed support Kosovas indepenence than oppose it. These are the facts, everything else (pressure from the US or Russia) is your conspiracy theory. -- (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC) PS: It is 22 to 14, because its only fair to count also Kosova when we count serbia.
Serbia is the plaintant, Kosovo is the disputed part of Serbia. Not an UN member.--PrimEviL 15:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me resume, when we want to highlight Kosova because serbia has no more control over Kosova, you say most of countries see Kosova as part of serbia, when we show you that this claim is baseless considering the majority supports Kosova at the ICJ, you insist that Kosova is no UN member and when we answer that West Sahara is also not a UN member and although it is marked, see Morocco, you again refuse to admit the necessity to highlight Kosovo by claiming that most countries see Kosova as part of serbia, what we already disproved. I don't think you are interested in a constructive discussion but rather show a behaviour known as inat. -- (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Suit yourself. I have no intention of discussing with you. Claim isn't based on the number of it's supporters. It's based on UNSCR1244, on the constitution of Serbia, on the final act of Helsinki agreement. Albanian right on self-determination is achieved by expulsion and harrasment of other nations(namely Serbs) during ~60 years after WWII, by ilegal immigration from Albania, by fabricated events in Račak, by terroristic guerilla warfare during the 1990's, by unfounded and uncalled for aggression of NATO in 1999, by rigged "negotiations" led by both Martti Ahtisaari and by "Troika" council. The right is provided by neccessity of USA/NATO for Camp Bondsteel. Hasn't there been such need, it is highly unlikely that any of events started after march 24th 1999. Try not to delude yourself, please. --PrimEviL 18:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

PrimEviL: There was no migration to Kosovo under the communist regime. The border was sealed tight. The reason why the demographic change has occurred in Serbia is: 1. Financial, Serbs moved to central Serbia for a better job/life. 2. Albanians had more children than Serbs. Now, no one can deny that Kosovo is a disputed territory as almost one quarter of all countries have accepted it as a state. This is needed to be shown also on the map. I am not saying to remove it completely, but shaded in an other color or something to show that it is disputed. Emto (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


It is common to stash various patriotic nostaligia into the "established" slot in the country infobox, but this is going rather too far: as far as not mentioning the actual establishment of the country under discussion. It is perfectly silly to have the infobox list stuff like Raška (state), which have about as much to do with Serbia as Magna Germania has with Germany. In any case, this article is concerned with the Republic of Serbia, which was established in 2006, or arguably the successor state of Yugoslavia established in 2003, which changed its name after the secession of Montenegro. The 2003 and 2006 dates are in any case of central importance to the "established" box, while various picturesque medieval kingdoms aren't so much. --dab (��) 13:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there are no political entities in political history called First state and First Kingdom regarding Serbian history. Instead i think there should be names of pages where this links lead to: Raska and Duklja. That is, of course, if these entities could be considered as important. I personally think that the two more important political entities in the history of Serbia are the Serbian Empire (1346-1371) and the Kingdom of Serbia 1882-1918. I agree with the above article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ekonomija i nezaposlenost

taj ko moze neka promeni informaciju o nezaposlenosti.vec davno nije 18%.nego 14% procenta u oktobru 2008.evo i sajta: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Autor teksta je uspeo za cela 4 grada da da tacan podatak o broju stanovnika, i naveo je 19 gradova, iako Srbija ima 24 grada. pod navedenim linkom postoji Knjiga 9 - gde se nalaze uporedni podaci za naselja u prethodnih 7 zvanicnih popisa stanovnistva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Porposed deletion of Raša Djelmaš - Serbian/Yugoslavien drummer born in 1950 in Belgrade.

Hi, wondering if anybody here would care to comment if the guy above is notable in Serbia. Alledgedly, "He was a member of many very popular Serbian and Yugoslav rock bands (YU grupa, Pop mašina, Zebra..." Please reply at that talk page. This message may be deleted after about 14 days or so - I only post it here to alert potential editors to the issue. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


For centuries straddling the religious boundary between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, joined up later by the penetration of Islam, Serbia remains one of the most diverse countries on the continent. Centuries on, different regions of Serbia remain heavily cosmopolitan: Kosovo province houses a 90% Muslim community (due to Albanian immigration and removal of Serbs), Vojvodina province is 25% Catholic or Protestant, while Central Serbia and Belgrade regions are over 90% Orthodox Christian.

This is clearly POV. Provide a credible source which posits the claim that Albanians immigrated and removed Serbs from there and remember: these sorts of posts reinforce the view that this article should be classified as {{NPOV}}. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Good day all. Since Serbia sees Kosovo as an integral part of its territory the case for Kosovo's independence should be mentioned earlier in the introduction. There is also a misleading element to this article, the majority of the UN did not agree to Serbia's call for an ICJ ruling on Kosovo's independence, it just so happens enough countries voted in favor of it. Furthermore, the last sentence of the introduction should read: Serbia has asked for an advisory (non binding) opinion from the ICJ in order to make it clearer to viewers that the ICJ has no jurisdiction or formal powers. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Another non-neutral point of view: Serbia is not bordered by Albania according to 58 (59 including Taiwan) countries, including most of the English speaking world, over 70% of the worlds GDP. This needs to be addressed. Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Interestedinfairness inasmuch that if we require the locator map at Kosovo to highlight Serbia, we must also require the locator map at this artice to highlight Kosovo. Both are requirements of WP:NPOV on exactly equal footing. Hence, I propose that the locator map should be replaced with (for example) File:Europe location Serbia, Kosovo highlighted.png. As long as this isn't done, there are at least good grounds to consider this article biased wrt the presentation of the Kosovo question, and needs to be tagg with {{NPOV}}. --dab (𒁳) 07:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tag Serbia as {{NPOV}}. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, tagged. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Support change of image, Kosovo is disputed and should be shown as such on the map. Otherwise it is a POV to insist that in the Kosovo article Serbia should be highlighted. --Tone 10:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Arguments such as "58 countries, majority of English speakers or 70% of world GDP, etc" really don't matter here. The article is neutral enough when it comes to Kosovo. Kosovo is not recognized by the UN nor does it have majority support to become a member. (Buttons (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC))
  • When Kosovo become a member of the UN, then administrators can change if they think wikipedia page about Serbia.--Boksi (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that Kosovo should be highlighted on the map. Textual part is ok. NeroN_BG
Changed. Prodego talk 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Human rights

Feel free to add any further evidence related to human rights in Serbia. Thanks. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).

Serbian Genocide not included?

Since topic 25 has not been addressed, I'd like to bring it up again. There is a separate section on Ustase genocide, yet no mention of Serbian genocide against Muslims, Croats, and Bosniaks in the dissolution of Yugoslavia. There is much scholarship on this, I can include it if any want to dispute this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You might be wondering why you dont have support with your accusations. The reason why you dont have much support here on Wikipedia in making Serbs look like genocidal lunatics is because that propaganda tool against Serbs has lost its usefulness. Serbia today dosnt present a threat to anyone, given the fact that our economic industry is significantly foreign owned (much like the industries of Croatia, Bosnia and all other countries who belived in the propaganda, that of serbs being "genocidal", which you are trying to perpetuate.Mike Babic (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Like the kind gentlemen pointed out, we need to consider that there has been an vast amount of scholarly attention payed to the crimes committed by the Serbian state. The fact of genocide perpetrated by the Serb leadership is epitomized most vividly by the Srebrenica massacre. There were also war crimes committed in Kosovo and all are definitely worth noting in the article.

The real reason the gentlemen did not receive support is because this talk page is inhabited mainly by Serbs.
  • I would agree to mention Serbian genocide against Muslims, Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians, just as I would agree that all the former Yugoslav states include sections on the crimes they committed during the wars. Kind regards (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).
My dear friend, claims of genocide in Bosnia were fully examined and Serbia (part of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) was found innocent on all counts, consequently all claims against Serbia were dismissed. Certain comment label a given individuals as less knowledge about a subject. Killings in Bosnia/Croatia/Kosovo were a nightmare, I know since i lived though one such episode. Yet realize that Serbia, or Serbs, as a single entity have zero percentage of blame, given the fact that special army units were, in fact, responsible for committing massacres. Once again, I simply wish that you spent more time studying the subject, and realising how people like Jovica Stanisic, who was a spy for the CIA, had input in the war. Now, I wont reply to your comments, most likly, since judging by your comments i can see that you are not at the level where we can mutually benefit from a possible conversation. I'm asking you, once again, to read up on the subject and stop being an small-minded racist, whos' words are actually self-damaging.Mike Babic (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mike Babic, If what you say is true, then the section about Ustase genocide should be removed, they had, at most, support of 5% of the population of Croatians. Therefore, by your logic, it should not be included because they were a special government and nazi military units. I wish you would read more. Ustase regime was Nazi puppet.-remy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mike Babic, have you read this? Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The new map is unacceptable

Kosovo is way too small on the map so its inaccurate. I dont have the skill to change it. I would kindly ask someone to make it an realistic size. Thanks for the help people.Mike Babic (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparing it with the map does indicate it is (very slightly) too small. File:Europe_location_SRB_with_KOS.png is better, but the highlighting is the wrong color, since Kosovo is the secondary region, and Kosovo should be colored similarly to Serbia, not merely also marked. Perhaps someone has the skills to edit that map? Prodego talk 05:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking in to it more, I found File:The_position_of_Kosovo_within_Serbia.PNG. The colors aren't as nice, but is this map acceptable? Prodego talk 05:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Prodego: I think that map should be better. Emto (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like no objections, done. Prodego talk 02:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Marking Kosovo on the locator map

Based on some of the above sections, and the repeated uncommented reverts of changes to change the map, I think this topic merits a more complete discussion to form a clearer consensus. Should Kosovo be detonated in some way on the locator map in the infobox? Discuss below. Prodego talk 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about the Kosovo dispute. This is an article about Serbia, so the UN recognized borders, which the vast majority of nations also individually recognize, should be shown in the infobox. Georgia is in a very similar situation with Serbia, and you don 't see Abkhazia and South Ossetia in different colors on the map in that article's infobox. --Tocino 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is recognized by 60 UN members, including 3 of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, Georgia and S.Ossetia are not. As a result, and in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, if we are going to highlight Serbia in the map of Kosovo, then we must remain consistent and apply the same rules to this article.

Other editors and administrators seem to agree with this. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and other editors and administrators seem to disagree with you too. --Tocino 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the Morocco article is the correct way. Western Sahara, UN recognized, is shaded as part of Morocco, why should Kosovo be any different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is definitely a given that Kosovo will be included on the map as part of Serbia. The real question is whether it should be marked any differently than the rest of Serbia, as is done on the Morocco article, or not, as on the Georgia article. Keep in mind that just because there is a denotation on Morocco that there isn't on Georgia isn't of itself justification for or against marking Kosovo. Also, as this may be of interest, here is discussion regarding the shading on Morocco Talk:Morocco#Map_issues, and Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 4#Russia recognizes independence of Abkhazia and S.Ossetia (which ironically references the lack of denotation on Serbia) for the discussion regarding the map on the Georgia article. Prodego talk 19:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Either way we look at it, if Serbia is highlighted in the Kosovo article, then Kosovo has to be marked in the Serbia article. In the interest of maintaining neutrality, this is the only solution. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).

That isn't the case. I think Kosovo should be marked, but if we were to treat Kosovo as a region of Serbia the markings you describe make perfect sense. Since it is a region in conflict, I would propose shading it similar to what is done in the Morocco article, making sure it is clearly denoted as within the borders of Serbia. If in the future the UN chooses to redraw the borders of Serbia to exclude Kosovo, I believe that Kosovo should still be marked on the locator map of Serbia, as the legitimacy of this region's nationhood would still no doubt be in contention, but instead, the border of Serbia be marked to exclude Kosovo. I am not an expert in map design or the styles we use, but this seems logical to me. Prodego talk 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We should follow the example set out by neutral news sources; AFP, here BBC, here ? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)).

Georgia is a good example to follow in my view. Also, the article Kosovo referes to the region of Kosovo while the article Serbia refers to the country of Serbia. I dont believe that BBC (British govement sponsored) is a neutral source, although it is definitely acceptable as a reference point. I would love to hear opinions on this.Mike Babic (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Another user has changed the style of the map completely (and this marks Kosovo). I've asked him to contribute here rather than make undiscussed changes. Prodego talk 06:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was me. I observed some discussion on this talk page regarding the map (not this, though), and intended on adding a notice but had to run out and then forgot. Ah well. Anyhow, the map I added is similar to those used in many other European (e.g., Netherlands) and other country articles, something which I was hoping to do with other European articles with inconsistent maps; also, I opted to colour Kosovo a different, lighter shade of green given its current political status: while recognised by many UN members, it is not by many others including Serbia proper. (To compare, for example, look at the map for China, which colours Taiwan (a somewhat similar entity to Kosovo in terms of political statehood, status) and other major contested lands in a similar way.) I don't necessarily want to get embroiled in any controversy, though, and apologise if I somehow stirred the pot. There you go. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC does not have a relationship with the British government in the sense that it is being presented here. Which ever way we look at it, Kosovo has to be marked separate of Serbia, that is definitely a given if we want to maintain neutrality. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This revert is perplexing, more because of the comment that it's a 'geographically incorrect map' -- how so? It is in use in many other European articles, and probably more accurate than the other map (with orange motif) in use not to mention it having a better projection. As well, this commentator hasn't even commented on the talk page about this or anything at least as far back as February 2008. If said editor doesn't elaborate, per BRD, I may revert back to the prior map on that basis. Anyhow, I wonder whether a poll is required to determine what sort of map should be in place. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The sheer fact that Kosovo is going to be shown as related to Serbia on the map should be enough to appease ultra-nationalists, methinks. So I'm not sure what all the fuss is about? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

I've asked that user to comment as well. To everyone else, I may simply start reverting anyone who refuses to explain their edits, and revert things without comment. It isn't conducive to collaboration. Prodego talk 00:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations, recognized as a state of fifty countries. There are a lot of territory in the world this type and not mean that everyone should now make a new map.I'll put the map of Serbia, which should stand on this page, while Kosovo may become a member of UN,then I'll let administrators decide what to do.--Boksi (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That is beside the point. To not highlight Kosovo assumes that there is no issue or contention regarding its political status, which is incorrect. For example, Taiwan (AKA the Republic of China) is not a UN member either, but it is noted on the map in the 'China' article in a similar way (and that situation dates back to the 50s at least). More states recognise Kosovo than they do Taiwan. Morocco/Western Sahara is another example. If Kosovo was recognized as a UN member (i.e., as a state), it would not be highlighted on the map of Serbia at all. The newer locator map rightfully and equitably acknowledges this -- a state to some, but a part of Serbia to others -- and the majority of opinion above seems to agree with distinctly including it on the locator map. (Of course, the map can be enhanced.) Wishing something is so and trying to force that belief on the rest of us (while edit warring without even the courtesy of commentary beforehand) won't make the issue go away. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In any case Kosovo will be marked on the map as part of Serbia. The question is if should Kosovo's status, where it is effectively not under the control of Serbia, but rather the UN and the Republic of Kosovo, merit marking it in some way. I believe it does. Prodego talk 06:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't really want to enter into this debate, but I have since been emboldened. I'm willing to help develop an alternate map if need be, but believe the one recently uploaded (in place of the one with limited perspective) should stand until then. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I think Kosovo should be a bit darker for one, it is hard to see. Prodego talk 07:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Bosonic dressing (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New Map Of Serbia

Explain to me why isn't in the same way shown Transnistria in Moldova? Or South Ossetia or Abkhazia in Georgia? Why do you make this only a case with Serbia? --Forsena (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, those other disputed areas have almost no international recognition -- if that -- which is one determinant of statehood: per above, Kosovo does have more international recognition than, say, Taiwan (which is shown on the map for China in a similar way). Kosovo is considered a part of Serbia by some, but as a state by others ... and this cannot be ignored in the locator map. In addition, per my talk page, we are actually discussing the creation of maps that more equitably exhibit Moldova, Georgia, and their disputed territories. That doesn't mean we need to wait here. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

before we discuss Transnistria etc., it should be clear to everyone that the question of "should we represent the territorial dispute in the locator map" cuts both ways. That is,

  • if we show Serbia including Kosovo in the Serbia locator map, we also show Kosovo only in the Kosovo locator map
  • if we show Kosovo shaded in the Serbia locator map, we also show Serbia shaded in the Kosovo locator map.

That's the two options. Anyone making a change to one locator map as a gesture of good faith will also need to make a change to the other. Reverting one article but not the other is not arguable. --dab (𒁳) 20:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, i.e., showing Kosovo shaded/lighter in the Serbia locator map and v.v. I am in the process of updating all the European locator maps -- of course, it will take me a bit of time to do!  :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you obviously don't know or act like so is that most of the world (almost 140 countries out of 192) does not recognize the illegal declaration of Kosovo independence. The same is the case with. From the moment you start showing other partially recognized provinces like Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and many others in a different color then you can show Serbian province of Kosovo in a different color of Serbia, because it's well known that there are a lot of other self proclaimed and partially recognized republics and only Kosovo is shown in a different color. --Forsena (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Per above. Yours is an excuse to subvert one point of view for yours. Do I need to point out yet again China/Taiwan? Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
For those who may be interested, I've added a similarly formatted map of Kosovo and also Moldova (which also exhibits Transnistria, which is harder to see given its shape). So, please do not invoke the lack of locator maps with a similar format exhibiting disputed territories as a reason to push a viewpoint at this article. Thanks, and more to come. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, I undid the map change to Kosovo for the moment, I think the trouble with using these colors is that green and green are chosen specifically to show Kosovo and Serbia as one state (as the UN recognizes it). In Kosovo, that makes it appear Serbia itself is part of Kosovo (or allows the two to be easily confused). As marked on Kosovo right now there is a darker grey area of Serbia. If we look at other maps of sub national regions, for example Georgia (U.S. state) the shading on the overall country is much less pronounced than the green scheme put in use on Kosovo by Bosonic. I think a dark grey is the best color to denote Serbia on a map of Kosovo, as it currently has. The color scheme should be changed to green though, in line with other countries. Prodego talk 00:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I've updated the Kosovo map as suggested and placed it in that article; I'm unsure if the darker grey for Serbia totally works, though, since the prevailing colours in the map are already shades of grey. (How ironic!) I'd suggest a dull green, and am open to suggestions. Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Final Map discussion

Location Serbia Europe.png

Before trying to determine some sort of consensus - does anyone have any issues with the map: File:Location Serbia Europe.png itself, and adding it to the Serbia article (That is, ignoring other articles for the moment)? I saw a problem with the caption that was in use, but we can change that. Prodego talk 22:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this but staying out of commenting to avoid being accused of POV. I'd say that File:Location Serbia Europe.png is a fine map and cannot see why it should not be included, although I've noticed Turkey and some other Caucasus countries aren't included into Europe, that could be a problem for some people. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
As for the continental borders, they are equitably placed and any number of reputable publications will corroborate them: viz. the waterways between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean (for Turkey, placing Trakya in Europe and Anatolia, AKA Asia Minor, in Asia), the crest of the Caucasus (with a portion of Caucasus states on either side); the Urals.[1] As well, although Cyprus is in the EU (and noted as such in said maps), it is closest to Turkey and often included in Asia (and noted as such for non-EU maps). I'm staying away from (incorrectly) equating Europe with the EU, the Council of Europe, etc. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the map follows the borders that I've being taught at school, I was referring to the fact that someone might come along and revert it saying that Turkey is in Europe, but I guess that has already happened at some point as the format is used on other articles. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Acknowledged. :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[2] Resolution 1244 Reaffirm the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (i.e., Kosovo remains part of the FRY, to which Serbia is now the recognized successor state) and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2 of UNSCR 1244 (an annex that envisions, inter alia, a Kosovo status process);--Boksi (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Boksi, have you seen the date on the document you linked? I think some things have changed since 1999. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no UNSC resolution that cancels that one. It's like saying that the United Nations Charter adopted in 1945 is rotten because so many things changed since then.--Avala (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
How many times do I have to remind editors of similar situations elsewhere, like China/Taiwan (and said map)? Statehood is not totally dependent on UN recognition but moreso on recognition of other states. To have a map in place that totally ignores the disputed status of Kosovo is one that caters solely to one point of view and (per policy) just won't do. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If all other countries show the map of Europe without Kosovo in their infobox I don't see any reason for the article on Serbia to be different.--Avala (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But the document [3] refers to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a state that doesn't exist anymore.
Having Kosovo shaded differently only aknowledges that there are special circumstances, the map itself does not state that Kosovo is indipendent or anything else. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't play ignorant card here. Serbia is a legal successor to the FR Yugoslavia.--Avala (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As Prodego noted; "ignoring other articles for now", therefore the claim that other articles don't show Kosovo does not hold any water in this talk. Nevertheless, even maps of Yugoslavia show Kosovo as separate to Serbia in one way or another, so I don't see what res. 1244 has to do with it. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)).

Good point. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It is also important to note that Kosovo IS shaded green precisely because it is Serbia (per the UN, as mentioned above). There was an error in the caption about this, but that will be fixed if the image is used. Kosovo, due to it's disputed status is merely marked on the map as a disputed region, NOT to indicate it isn't part of Serbia. With that in mind, are there any other issues? Prodego talk 04:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur, and defer to prior comments regarding the map. (Actually, I purposely and ambiguously labelled Serbia as just 'green' for those who maintain that Kosovo is unequivocally part of the country, i.e., all green may be S., but am easy on that point.) My only real reservation, edit warring etc. aside, is that the map is not in SVG format ... yet. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This format of locator map is not a good choice for Europe, especially southern Europe. Don't we have locators that don't leave the countries looking like specks of dust? Jd2718 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The locators for Croatia and for Bosnia and Herzegovina are much more readable. Jd2718 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it would display larger when placed in the infobox. A similar format is used for France and Spain. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
France and Spain are huge compared to Serbia, and let's not talk about Kosovo/Kosova on its own. Jd2718 (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes; arguably the format of maps at Croatia, Bosnia/Herzegovina et al is not a good choice for Europe, either: the use of Mercator projection is unwarranted, heavily distorting Northern Europe, and contains too much detail for a simple locator map. The current projection gives a truer reflection of Europe's shape, and the colour scheme is similar to those of many other locator maps in use. As well, 'specks of dust' are targetable with a locator circle, and perhaps also with an inset. The intent is to retrofit all European locator maps to the current format. Anyhow ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"The intent"? It would be a mistake to standardize the maps at the expense of making them invisible. The color scheme is a nifty piece of near-WP:OR, emphasizing "Europe" and fading out the boundaries. And the no-color in the water makes them even harder to read. Bad idea. I'd oppose standardization if it meant using this map, and I specifically oppose its use here. Jd2718 (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Jd2718, why here specifically? As far as general map issues, my understanding is that this map change is part of a greater map standardization project, and I assume this is something that Wikiproject Countries, or something similar, would be involved with designing. Remember this is a locator map, it isn't supposed to be 'zoomed in' on a particular country, it needs to show all of Europe. My understanding is that Bosnia and Croatia's maps will eventually be standardized as well. You would have to discuss the general format of the country maps with Bosonic Dressing, and the Wikiproject. Actually, looking at the images as they are sized in the article [old new], on the new map Serbia is (on an absolute scale) slightly larger than on the old map, so it should be more visible. It certainly isn't a comparative 'speck of dust'. Additionally, it is a map, it can't be original research. Europe is a continent, the map is about locating Serbia on that continent. It isn't about locating any other country, so of course they aren't going to be emphasized. This map format, including the uncolored water, is standardized, take a look at the map used on the United States article. It isn't really something to be discussed here, it is something to be discussed with Wikiproject Countries (or whatever the relevant one is). However, if you have any problems with this particular map, as you mentioned, those would be good to hear. Prodego talk 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense, but, if it's not too hard, providing an inset for smaller countries would be a good thing and would silence most future opposition. And I'm talking about countries the size of Slovenia or smaller (giving Slovenia as an example for want of a better one). Brutaldeluxe (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The color scheme is horrendous. Kosovo/Kosova blurs completely into the boundary. Why locate Serbia in Europe and not in the Balkans? Southern Europe? Eurasia? the Mediterranean? Wikipedia should not be about making arbitrary rules, conventions, and guidelines and enforcing them; it should be about making a good encyclopedia. What is the best choice for a locator map for Serbia? Not what choice should we make for every country? And in fact we know that other countries in Europe use different locators, right? The creation of a map, btw, IS research. Jd2718 (talk)
To Brutaldeluxe, I imagine at the very least locations like Vatican City will require insets, but I do not design these maps, and that would be a question for one of the map designers. Serbia is probably large enough to not need one. To Jd2718, the 'arbitrary conventions' you are talking about are Continents, countries are marked on locator maps within Continents. There are much more 'zoomed' high detail maps that would be used elsewhere in the article. The reason Kosovo is similarly colored to the rest of Serbia is to indicate it is a part of Serbia. Prodego talk 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've agreed to the new map from the start, it's just that from my experience on wiki sometimes you have to make changes that are unequivocably right to most people, starting from Jd2718, that is all. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You asked for issues. You got them. Without hyperbole, Serbia appears quite small, the adjoining borders which would help fix its location are washed out, the water bodies that would help fix its location are not clearly marked. Kosovo is a speck, and fades completely into Serbia's border. On many screens it will be invisible. If the color scheme is fixed, and I do believe that that would be a shame, but if it is fixed, then resizing so that, perhaps London was at the northwestmost corner would improve the map dramatically. Jd2718 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Jd2718, you're just trolling now, aren't you? Why not concern yourself with the Great Britain map which is less inclusive than the one being proposed for Serbia? Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith Brutaldeluxe, I see nothing that would suggest Jd2718 is doing anything other than raising possible concerns, as was requested. Prodego talk 01:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Prodego. I could see the point, if there was no substance to what I was raising. But at the very least the blending of the relatively small amount of light green into the light border has to be of at least some concern? And Brutaldeluxe, you're welcome to review my contributions; you'll understand that I am far more likely to watch Serbia than to watch Britain. Jd2718 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Heeded, staying out of it till called upon. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
And I've raised my objection; I will also wait on the side. Jd2718 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Certianly Jd2718, it is all about discussing the potential problems, not about dismissing any. About the color scheme, it is important that the color used for 'disputed regions' be clearly identifiable as part of the country in question, which is a deep green color, while still being distinguishable from it. The map's creator is using what seem to be the standard colors, but there is really no standard at this time for the 'disputed region' color. I don't have the level of graphics skill to make even such simple changes, but a change, perhaps a slight darkening of the region, should be possible (although that would require changing some other maps as well), hopefully Bosonic dressing, the designer, will have a few comments on if that is possible, and perhaps an example. (I would suggest we not clutter this page with that, Bosonic, and you discuss it on Jd2718's talk page, and return with any changes). Prodego talk 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I will take commentary under advisement. This map and others depict (or will) said territory within Europe or the EU (since that is an important polity). All are one format for ease and consistency; maps for outlier states will have insets or be more regionally focused. The colours for disputed parent/child territories are based on the map at China (which depicts Taiwan etc.) As well, as someone with optical challenges, I am not having challenges locating either Serbia or Kosovo on the maps (which would be less of an issue with monitors of lower resolution, and mine is pretty high) -- and, if someone does, the big green circles/motif is sufficient, and a user would simply have to click on the map (gods forbid) for more detail ... just as they would have to do now. (Transnistria in Moldova, however, is hard to see, and I believe this would be an issue in any event given that territory's shape.) If other colour schemes are provided or suggested, I will consider integrating them ... but the majority of locator maps in Wikipedia already use the green motif and have done so for some time and the majority of commentary has been positive, so who am I to argue? Furthermore, a hodge-podge of maps currently exist, and I hardly see why making maps consistent across a clutch of articles is a 'mistake' ... particularly when many of the related articles are already using the same template anyway. My two cents, but I'm open to suggestions. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is page about Serbia without the map, so will not come to a conflict of interest. If someone wants to see where Serbia shall take Atlas and see.--Boksi (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This won't happen. As many commentators have indicated above, to be equitable, the map of Serbia must somehow note the disputed territory of Kosovo (of course, this depends on context). 'Hiding' the problem won't make it go away. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Boksi, what you are trying to do is unacceptable. The "thing" that is shown on the map is not Serbia but Central Serbia and North Serbia without it's whole southern part. Resolution of the UN 1244 is really something you cannot dispute since it is the highest resolution regarding the issue. It is a UN resolution that guarantees the sovereignity of Serbia over it's province of Kosovo-Metohija. The fact that large majority of the world around 140 countries out of 192 sees Kosovo as Serbian province is another thing why the map needs to be changed.. My proposal regarding the issue is that the whole Serbia is painted with one color while you can put this picture in other part of the page and put caption "Kosovo is a disputed territory of Serbia". I have just made and uploaded a picture which shows whole Serbia and features EU countries in a different color making the image itself more informative. If boksi and Bosonic think this is acceptable we can put the image by bosonic in other part of the article and say it is a disputed territory. --Forsena (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No. The UN resolution is not in dispute, but it is not simply about what the UN or its members may think. Consider, again, China and Taiwan: more states officially recognise Kosovo than do they Taiwan (even more recognised Taiwan unofficially), but Taiwan is especially noted on the map of China. The same should apply here: many see Kosovo as a Serbian province, while others see it as a sovereign state. The map you created is inappropriate, not only because it pretends the issue regarding Kosovo doesn't exist, but because it is designed specifically for use with EU countries -- Serbia/Kosovo are not EU members. As well, your behaviour is troubling: you first say that such a map format is acceptable when it is used for other countries with disputed territories; once this is done (e.g., with Moldova with Transnistria), you come up with another excuse. Please get on with it. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Correction to edit summary: the map doesn't omit Kosovo per se, but doesn't highlight it given its political status and aforementioned issues. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This is getting to be a tired argument, the reason Kosovo is green is because it is part of Serbia. If this is confusing, please explain why. Prodego talk 21:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

@Bosonic dressing Why are you touch the original map, before the end of the discussion........--Boksi (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I boldly made edits beforehand: I do not need your consent. You reverted without the courtesy of discussion or even edit comments[4] until asked repeatedly to do so, so mind your words. As well, due to various editors, the discussion may be never-ending and futile: that's no reason to forego progress. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I want to remain neutral in this discussion, however what I will say is that there should be consistency throughout Wikipedia, whatever is chosen for Serbia as regards to Kosovo, should be the same for Georgia as regards to AB&SO and Moldova and Transnistria etc. Therefore I will support what have creates consistency throughout wikipedia. Also please bare in mind that Kosovo has the most recognitions for a non UN partially recognised country (apart from Palestine). Ijanderson (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


It has been a bit over 2 days, and I think we can wrap this up and look at the issues. It looks like there are 5 thoughts raised above:

  1. Use of a Euro centric map, and the borders of Europe
    Largely a non-issue, this is the way locator maps work (locating a country on a continent)
  2. Kosovo is part of Serbia, per the UN, and needs to be marked as part of Serbia
    Kosovo is green because the UN recognizes it as part of Serbia, a caption explaining that the green regions are Serbia should resolve this problem
  3. Other locator maps don't mark Kosovo
    Per the UN, Kosovo is not a country, and therefore, it should not be on other locator maps. As part of Serbia, which is the focus of this map, it can be marked.
  4. Serbia is hard to see
    This is an issue with any locator map, it is designed to show the location of Serbia on the European continent, there are far more detailed, and closer cropped maps that are used elsewhere in the article.
  5. Color choice issues
    These are the standardized colors, we can't do much about them here. Discussion of those, and changing those on all articles needs to be brought up with Wikiproject Countries, and shouldn't block adoption of the standard.

Most of the issues have been resolved in some way, excepting the color scheme ones which we can't really do much about. Given this, is there anything else that needs to be changed, and would be blocking adoption of the map? I suggest sub sections ====Issue==== below this, so if anyone thinks anything listed above is still a problem, or has something I missed, we can discuss it. But please keep comments short (including whoever starts the section), one or two sentences. The goal here is to see what the majority of people see as problems. Prodego talk 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the map does not currently show Kosovo as independent of Central Serbia. Even under Yugoslavia Kosovo was marked out. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)).

As of now, it doesn't, because it's the old map. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing? No objections? Has every issue really been resolved? Its been 2 days and nothing, 1 more and I'll go ahead and implement the map change. Prodego talk 04:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The map is still the same. The point of the discussion is to appease the Serbian camp, why? It's very clear to every one neutral that the map of Serbia must show Kosovo as a distinct feature from Serbia.

Why not just show that map (with Kosovo), until you can figure out the intricacies of which particular map to use?

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)).

It doesn't matter what is displayed while it is discussed. The discussion is the important part. Prodego talk 23:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Also 3 hours until the day is up, if anyone is still not satisfied with the image, this is your last chance... Prodego talk 23:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Per the above, their are no remaining objections, so consensus has clearly been reached. Thanks everyone for their input. Prodego talk 06:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Friend, I didn't want to get involved in this map dispute because I knew inevetably Kosovo would be highlighted. One thing though, I've noticed that the Kosovo page features Serbia in a shade of grey. Why is this not the case for this map? If this is going to cause too many problems, then we can forget it however.(Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)).

Well, originally, that map featured (the rest of) Serbia in light green (which I prefer, or similar), but it was changed to dark grey as requested. I'm open to reverting, or changing otherwise. This should probably be dealt with over there. Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's discuss that on Talk:Kosovo, where it belongs. Prodego talk 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the Kosovo model is great. Why not apply the same to this article? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)).


Since Kosovo is mentioned in the lead and in the interest of neutrality, how about including this in there:

"Recent trends suggest that only a small minority of the citizens of Serbia consider the fight for Kosovo as a priority for them" (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).

This could be a better place for it. There are plenty of other article where this kind of information would be more welcomed under Category:Kosovo_War and Category:History_of_Kosovo Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I still think that, since the lead in the article mentions the status process and the stance taken by the Serbian govt, then the views of Serbia's citizens should also be highlighted? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).

This almost certainly does not belong in the lead, it would give undue weight to Kosovo, whereas this article is about Serbia. Prodego talk 23:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Interestedinfairness, you really should consider editing the articles I suggested, I'm (nearly) sure that there you won't find editors that scream in horror at the mere suggestion that Kosovo is indipendent. Your background makes you a good candidate for Category:History of Kosovo and Category:Kosovo War.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, Prodego; the fact that Kosovo is independent is only the concern of ultra-nationalists, I'm sure this deserves a mention. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)).

But this article isn't about Kosovo. It is about Serbia. Prodego talk 00:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Undue weight, for sure it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. man with one red shoe 01:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's not about Kosovo then by your logic Kosovo shouldn't be in the map at all.-remy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article is Serbia. Since Kosovo indisputably was (at the very least) part of Serbia, it is relevant to the article. The opinions of Serbians on how important 'reunifying' Kosovo with the rest of the country is to them is not relevant. Prodego talk 05:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The only time Kosovo has been legally part of Serbia was from 1991-1992, after the Yugoslav constitution of 1974 was ripped up -- illegally -- by Milosovic. Nevertheless, if Kosovo is going to mentioned in the article, I think it is pertinent to address the fact that only a very small minority of ultra-nationalists -- and war criminal apologists -- consider Kosovo a priority for them. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)).
Wikipedia is not a place to push your opinions, almost everybody agrees that the lead is not a place for such info. I would argue that body of text is not either for many reasons WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V. man with one red shoe 14:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not violate any of those Wikipedia principles you suggested.

Firstly, I doubt it violates WP:NPOV, as the information comes from a reputable NGO who conducted research in Serbia (see: the Belgrade Center for Free Elections and Democracy).

Secondly, it is not my original research. I have cited sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented, as per WP:OR. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)).

There's no need to get into those things in the lead of the article about Serbia. There are thousands of things that can be referenced by very reliable sources, but they don't deserve to be in the lead of the article. man with one red shoe 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest a place in the article where it does deserved to be mentioned? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)).

I'm not sure it should be incorporated at all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it reports encyclopedic facts, not political attitudes that can change every day, basically a political attitude is not an encyclopedic fact. But if you were to include such info you probably should include it in a section or article about Kosovo, most likely Kosovo war (maybe a section about "attitudes at the end of war") but again, I think that attitudes are not an encyclopedic fact. man with one red shoe 01:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it not a fact that most of Serbia's citizens do not care for ultra-nationalist myths? I don't think Wikipedia is a place to propagate State propaganda. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

Opinions are not encyclopedic facts. Wikipedia is not a polling place. man with one red shoe 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the opinion (ultra nationalists, again) that the "great Serb migration" occurred should be deleted also? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

I think you have a problem with differentiating between opinions and events. That "great Serb migration" that you refer to is an event which happened or didn't happen (I frankly don't know, I'm not versed in Serbian history) but if it happened I'm sure it can be referenced by reliable sources, if it didn't happen you can probably challenge it successfully and obtain its removal (till then this is a type of "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS" argument), while the opinion that Serbs or small groups of Serbs (nationalists or not) held about various events is something that should not be mentioned in Wikipedia because is frankly not an encyclopedic fact. Moreover, labeling people or a group of people, as "ultra-nationalists" or "war apologists' is frowned upon and irrelevant, nobody is interested in interpretations of who is extremist or who is ultra-nationalist and who is not. By the way, that's also a logical fallacy (ad hominem). We don't judge ideas by who utters them, but by their truth value. In this case an "obsession" doesn't have such qualities, mentioning such an obsession would be relevant if we had an article about Serbian collective psychoanalysis or Obsessions at Serbians which thankfully we don't have.
My English is not great, and my power of explanation is limited, please read this carefully, preferable two times and try to understand what it means before you even think of replying. You come up as a person who has an ax to grind and wants to introduce crappy content only because it serves your opinions, you come with supporting arguments that basically say "other crap exists" and you don't seem to understand the basic difference between facts and opinions. I suggest you pause and think before you post... I'm saying this as a totally uninvolved editor, I'm not a Serbian, Croat, Muslim, or Albanian and I don't have any problem against any nation, but I do have problems with people who are not able to understand when they are wrong and continue in their mistake instead of cutting their loses. man with one red shoe 04:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll take your advice and drop it. Cheers for the response, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)).

Macedonia centralised discussion

Following the conclusion of the Arbcom case (WP:ARBMAC2), a new centralised discussion for Macedonia-related naming issues has now been opened at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. Shadowmorph ^"^ 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the map stupidity

Please stop the map revert war, I hope an admin will protect this page because this is getting ridiculous. man with one red shoe 22:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I put the map to the old version while it is discussed. Prodego talk 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment there's no consensus to change the map from what's currently on the article (at the time of this talkpage edit). [5]. --Tocino 03:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel is not recognized by 26 UN member states. By some peoples logic, it should not be on any maps. Many of those countries that do not recognize Kosovo do so because of the implications it would have on independence movements in their own territory (PRC, Sudan, Ethiopia), while others have enough trouble asserting their sovereignty within their own borders (Chad, CAR, DRC) -rdog3000

Once again, ultranationalists are back at it. Looks like Kosovo is controlled by Serbia again! Can't believe I didn't hear this on the news! (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)rdog3000

Kosovo is a disputed territory, that's why it is important that you can see it directly on the map. Emto (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree,it is disputed,so it should be highlighted.

The whole article talks about the "southern Serbian province of Kosovo." This doesn't fit into NPOV. (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)-rdog3000

Would have to agree with you there. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)).

Macedonia Request for Comment

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Shadowmorph ^"^ 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


"In 1912 Kosovo was reacquired from the Ottoman Empire"

This needs to go because it does not adhere to Wikipedia principles of NPOV. The word conquored seems more appropriate, as the population (overwhelmingly Albanian at the time) did not want Serbia to 'reacquire it'. Indeed, recent studies (Isa Blumi - Rethinking the late ottoman period 1860 - 1912) actually shows that Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo actually worked together to reject foreign interference in the Viyalet. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)).

Ehhh, no. Conquered is far less neutral than re-acquired. Whilst you're technically correct. You're not actually using the NPOV policy. I do not agree that it needs to go. --Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit as it was not neutral. Reacquired is neutral as it does not imply anything other than what happened. --Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider. To say a territory was "reacquired" after a 600 year absence against the wishes of 75% of the population who were apposed to Slavic rule does not sound at all neutral to me. The Albanians would argue that it wasn't a reacquisition of territory, as their ethnic group had been the hegemonic element in the territory since forever, whilst the Serbs would argue on the contrary. Thus a middle ground term that doesn't feature either the word "reacquire" or "conquer" is necessary.

How does that sound?(Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)).

Don't know what you imagine the word means, but here it goes: acquire -- "to come into possession or control of often by unspecified means". That's the perfect NPOV term any other term would take sides. All the rest of the conditions can be explained: how was acquired, by force or not, what people living in the region thought about that, what did they do, etc (of course all of these with required references), but the term is perfect for these situations. man with one red shoe 21:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Friend, we are discussing the word reacquired to mean to acquire again and not the word 'acquire'.

But, I think you might have solved it serendipitously!

It can be written as "acquired" rather than "reacquired". (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)).

Was it not in their possession before? Even what you wrote implies that 600 years before it was part of Serbia... thus reacquired. man with one red shoe 23:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
A quick look at this [6] suggests that annexed/reannexed is the correct term for this instance. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brutaldeluxe. Reacquired makes it sound like it was added by nonviolent means. (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)rdog3000

Annexed is more political than militarial. I think that the verb to annex would give a completely different understanding to the sentence. --Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To gain some sort of consensus, I would agree with user:Brutaldeluxe's suggestion. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)).

you are priceless. So you graciously agree to the proposal of another editor sharing your own pov in the first place. You know, "consensus" is about finding a solution with the people you disagree with, not with those you've agreed with all along. --dab (𒁳) 06:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

here is my proposal. I have no idea what this material is doing in the WP:LEAD. This is the Serbia article, remember? Why on earth would you discuss the particulars of territorial changes during WWI or Kosovo's status in the article lead? How about we remember this is the article about a country, and give some demographic, topographic, geological and climatic key data in the lead instead of obsessing over Kosovo?

Here is what I cut from the lead, as completely WP:UNDUE:

For centuries, found at, and shaped by, the cultural boundaries between the East and the West, the Serbian medieval kingdom – later renamed the Serbian Empire[3] – occupied much of the Balkans. The Serbian state disappeared by the mid-16th century, torn by domestic feuds, Ottoman, Venetian, Hungarian and later, Austrian occupations. The success of the Serbian revolution against Ottoman rule in 1817 marked the birth of the Principality of Serbia, centered in the Šumadija region. This was the first nation-state in CEE.[4] In 1878 formal independence was enacted yet in 1912 The Ottoman Empire conquered [5] the Raska and Kosovo. In 1918 the region of Syrmia, followed by the former autonomous Habsburg crownland of Vojvodina, proclaimed their secession from Austria-Hungary to unite with the Kingdom of Serbia.

After World War II, Serbia became a federal unit within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Following the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Serbia once again became an independent state in 2006, following the Montenegrin independence referendum. Serbia is a member of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Council of Europe which it presided over in 2007. It is also a potential candidate for membership in the European Union and a militarily neutral country.[6]

In February 2008, the parliament of Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia. Serbia asserts Kosovo as its southern province ruled by a temporary government, set up by the United Nations, under the United Nations Resolution 1244. Serbia's government, as well as the UN Security Council, has not recognized Kosovo's independence. The independence proclamation has been acknowledged by 60 out of 192 UN member states while United Nations Resolution 1244 is cited as one of the reasons for not recognising the secession. On October 8, 2008, the UN General Assembly approved Serbia's request to ask a U.N. court if Kosovo's secession was legal. The deliberation on the ruling is expected to take two years in the International Court of Justice.[7] [8]

As a reflection of the bickering that went into this article, the "history" section is about five times too detailed. There is a history of Serbia article you know. If you want to elaborate on the history of Serbia, why don't you edit that? The "history" section here is supposed to be merely a brief summary of the main article.

I suppose we can go back to circular debates on individual verbs once the most glaring problems of balance in this article have been addressed, but at present the "acquired" vs. "annexed" debate is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. --dab (𒁳) 07:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that I object on cutting -- on the contrary -- but you completely left out the summary of state history, and Kosovo dispute from the lead, and left in that "Serbia is landlocked but has rivers and canals", which is very important indeed. Can we work this out a bit slower? No such user (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest that some users read books (but also the actual discussion), before making comments. My contention lies with the use of the word "reacquire" not "acquire" -- so please read the discussion dab before making smart alec remarks, because, frankly, they're not that smart -- Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And now for a more serious discussion

Adminhat on

My English is not great, and my power of explanation is limited, please read this carefully, preferable two times and try to understand what it means before you even think of replying. You come up as a person who has an ax to grind and wants to introduce crappy content only because it serves your opinions, you come with supporting arguments that basically say "other crap exists" and you don't seem to understand the basic difference between facts and opinions. I suggest you pause and think before you post... I'm saying this as a totally uninvolved editor, I'm not a Serbian, Croat, Muslim, or Albanian and I don't have any problem against any nation, but I do have problems with people who are not able to understand when they are wrong and continue in their mistake instead of cutting their loses. man with one red shoe 04:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from above

Yes indeed.

This is far past where it should have ended. This tendentious editing from all parties needs to and must stop. What would you like, to settle the matter or to wind up in a Macedonia-like ArbCom case that sucks valuable time from your own and others lives when there are more productive things to do?

No one is going to win. That is the ideal end result of a compromise; there is no victory and there is no defeat. Prodego settled the discussion, as an administrator should. The user even went as far as to say "Any objections?" None of the now reverting parties objected.

If you all would like to spend another megabyte arguing with walls, be my guest. Otherwise, I will protect The Wrong Version.

Adminhat off Keegan (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What about genocidal acts of certain Serbian groups in the Balkan conflicts of the 1990's? It seems to violate neutrality by having a fairly detailed overview of Ustase atrocities but absolutely no mention of JNA atrocities71.85.2.201 (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)rdog3000

Would agree 100%, this is an area of Serb history which is definitely the most famous and readers would expect something about it to be on the page. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).


Maybe we need somewhat longer "military" section (actually, I'd argue not, but let's put that aside), but the previous one was unsalvageable. Few selected quotes:

  • Vojska Srbije (Armed Forces of Serbia) is a government agency that is responsible for operation of the Armed Forces of Serbia. -- circular definition. "Government agency" is nonsense. Military is not an agency.
  • in order to protect Serbia from armed threats by training military personnel based on its strategic, operational and tactical defensive plans. The primary task of the agency is to provide defensive preparations in case of war, and to organize various peacekeeping missions abroad. -- looks like overwritten from a military doctrine document. That's pretty much what every army in the world does. Empty talk.
  • Dating back to the 5th century, Serbia has a long military tradition, and it has played a significant part in the history of Europe. a medieval Serbian state called Raška was formed in the seventh century and lasted until the 14th century when the state evolved into the Serbian Empire. Eventually, after the Battle of Kosovo, the relatively strong and unified empire was fragmented into many states, together called the Moravian Serbia. -- Kosovo myth revisited. How does this actually relates to military? If any history is to be mentioned, it should probably focus on WWI, 1990s and recent reorganizations. No such user (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be useful to add things like wether conscription is enforced, how much of the GDP goes to military expenditure, total number of military personnel and international cooperation during manouvres. I also think the link at the header should be to military of Serbia, not history of the military of Serbia. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the suggestion. No such user (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to you for doing such a good job. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Added fact to lead

"United with south Slavic people, including Albanians, Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't get why Albanians should be mentioned there, were they more significant than other non-Slavic people ? in terms of numbers, they weren't. And as far as i know they had no special political power/status compared to other minorities. The sentence describes the basic perception behind the creaton of Yugoslavia, a unification of the three nations into one, obviously based on the cultural relatedness of the three prevailing ethnic groups, it would be really pointless if we started mentioning every other group. Can you elaborate ?--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes; the Albanians are quite distinct from Slavs. And two million of them would constitute significance to merit a mention in the sentence. For the benefit of the article however, we can avoid these technicalities and word the sentence thus :"After World War I, Serbia united into a federation called the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)).

if you add Albanians you'll give the impression that they wanted in Yugoslavia, which I doubt is your intention, the objective of Yugoslavia was to unite Southern Slavs, the rest, regardless of number were "minorities". BTW, I doubt Albanians were two million at that time, even in Albania there were not 2 million people at that time: man with one red shoe 23:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
More like half a million.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


I agree that the history section was too long before. But please, Brutaldeluxe don't just revert, see the talk page first. The Illyrians were present in Serbia for thousands of years before the Serbs migrated from Poland, this must have relevance to the article. The "Greeks" get a mention, yet the Illyrians contributed more to the regions history and subsequent development (?) Plus the source is highly rated (see Illyrian talk page). You guys agree?(Interestedinfairness (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).

unencyclopaedic claim

What does that even mean... You are pushing your own personal style of writing. I'm sorry but that is wrong. You are wasting efforts of other editors because of your claims...Rex Dominator (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rex, you are a new editor, you need to get acquainted with the inner workings of writing an encyclopaedia before you throw yourself head first into making major changes to an article. Your edits contained many grammatical errors, so I had to revert them. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it pretty soon. Meanwhile, try to give a summary of your edits when you make a change. Nothing personal, Brutaldeluxe (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I say this with respect. Please dont attack the Editor, attack his work. I ask that you provide me an example of what you think doesn't constitute good grammar. Post it here, so that we can discuss it.Rex Dominator (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is my improvement


  • The northern third of the country is located entirely within the Central European Pannonian Plain.

My edit

  • The northern third of the country is within the Central European Pannonian Plain.


My edit

Rex Dominator (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rex I'm not attacking you, I'm just saying that an edit was made that does not conform to standards.
First: the article is written in British English, your edit did not take this into account.
Second: the grammar. As an example, you put "The largest two Serbian cities" when this, following English grammar would mean that Serbia only has two cities, which for some reason, are large. "Over a quarter of Serbia territory are forests" is also another example.
Third: your $250 grammar software is probably worthless for use on Wikipedia. I can use Babelfish (which quite likely cost more than $250), but it doesn't mean that I can subsequently start major editing in Mongolian.
Fourth: verbosity. Why add "After the citizens of Serbia ousted Slobodan Milošević" when "After the ousting of Slobodan Milošević" says the same thing, but in less words?
First of all, thank you for your reply, and your discussion (especially since you didn't start edit warring-hopefully this will continue to be the case). My main argument is that my edit was generally productive, and that it would be easier to edit out certain mistakes from my edit, as opposed to editing out all of the mistakes from the previous version (many of which I corrected). My understanding of the differences between British English and English as spoken by the rest of the world's is limited however I know that the spelling of certain words plays a huge role. Therefore, maybe we can work to change all the wrongly spelt words in the article. With the fourth argument it was important to note how the president was ousted. it adds the potential to link this sentence to more details pertaining to Serbia. For example, i would link the sentence with the 5th October (Serbia) Revolution. Serbian citizens were directly responsible for ousting the president. My edit is in no way perfect however it is easier to edit the mistakes out from my edit, as opposed to editing from the previous version which had many more mistakes.Rex Dominator (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No worries Rex, I normally correct edits as they come in, the problem is that you made several edits in many different sections so the only choice left was to revert the whole lot. As for the Milosevic issue, making it "After the ousting of Slobodan Milošević" would be the best thing. Since the article is about Serbia it seems superfluous to state that its citizens ousted Milosevic. Further, I suspect that not all citizens were against him, so saying that they all did would raise more issues. Remember that the article is about the present country and not its history, so we should not dwell too much on such issues; in fact the history section needs to be shortened to leave more room for more relevant issues. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I really like the German page so when I edit Serbia I try to compare the two pages. I noticed that this page contained a significant amount of grammatical errors. I'm trying to fix that. Also, I will take greater care when editing in the future and i promise to fix the errors that i have made as soon as I'm able.Rex Dominator (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I assume you mean Germany. The United States page is an even better example to follow. Unfortunately, as the Serbia page stands now, most of the errors present were created by you. The best thing you could do is to revert to the last stable version and then slowly edit, waiting for user consensus to approve your edits. Refer to WP:BRD, it's what happened tonight.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Brutal- you're clearly being disruptive with your edits here on this article. I'm warning you for the third time, stop being disruptive. Wikipedia:Be bold. my grammar corrections are much needed on this article and I have the right to be bold meaning that I could make a lot of changes. you haven't proven your case is that my grammar is wrong. stopping disruptive I'm telling you for the third time.Rex Dominator (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I give up. You want a shit page for your country, you can have it. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Rex, please thoroughly read WP:BRD. It's OK to be bold, but when a number of users raises concerns and reverts, it's time to discuss and go slowly. And not call these people "vandals", revert back without a shred of edit summary (like you did with my edits couple of days ago)

You "fixed" the article, from admittedly less-than-perfect English to still worse English. Granted, some of these changes were for the better, but most were for worse:

  • "Easternmost" is spelled together.
  • There's no reason to change "The northeastern border of the country" to "Serbia’s northeastern border", "Serbia participates" into "Serbia takes part", "due to" into "because of" etc. etc. etc. It is not OK to change something just because you can. That alienates other editors and creates an impression that you want to own the article. You are the one who is pushing your own style of writing, which is bad at that. The previous style was introduced by a number of other editors, not by Brutal or myself.
  • In Serbian language passive voice is seldom used indeed. That is not a reason to almost exterminate the passive voice from the article. For example, you changed "After the ousting of Slobodan Milošević on 5 October 2000, the country was governed by the Democratic Opposition of Serbia." into "After the citizens of Serbia ousted Slobodan Milošević on 5 October 2000, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia governed the country." Why??? It sounds worse IN ENGLISH. Or "The districts and the City of Belgrade are further divided" into "Serbia has 24 districts"
  • You changed "but significantly short of an absolute majority" to " but significantly short of a majority". That alters the meaning.

I don't claim that I have perfect command of English, but you apparently don't either. The difference is that I don't try to "fix" things that aren't broken, and then quarrel when someone points that out.

Bottom line: I'm reverting the article to a previous version. No such user (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is such Crap. EVERY book on grammar tells you that an ACTIVE voice is preferred to a PASSIVE voice.


  • Over a quarter of Serbia (27%) is covered by forest.[57] In 2010, as projected, the national parks will take up 10% of the country's entire territory.[


  • Over a quarter (27%) of Serbias territory is covered by forests[55] and by 2010, national parks are projected to make up 10% of the country's entire territory

I know that my edits were the best when comparing them to the previous versions.Rex Dominator (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I agree that the history section was too long before. However, I only added two sentences that were perfectly sourced. The Illyrians were present in Serbia for thousands of years before the Serbs migrated from Poland, this must have relevance to the article. The "Greeks" get a mention, yet the Illyrians contributed more to the regions history and subsequent development (?) You guys agree?(Interestedinfairness (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).

What you added was ok. It would be nice to see additions to sections on the modern country though. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No article rating

I notice that the article has never been given a rating. As it stands now I would say it is nearly complete, and should reach at least a B rating. It would be good to get it rated and get information on the missing pieces that could see it become a featured article. Does anyone agree, and more importantly, does anyone know how to do this? Brutaldeluxe (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats a noble idea Brutaldeluxe. Sadly, i cant do it myself yet I would praise anyone who does give this article a rating. Also, good article status is a high goal that we can achieve.Rex Dominator (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
There should be inclusion of Serbian war crimes. I would put more but someone is trying to silence me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Serbia was found innocent on alleged war crimes in Bosnia, Croatia, and in Kosovo. This is a fact that is based on reality and a ruling in the court of law. Wikipedia, and the article Serbia is free for anyone to write. You can attempt to write anything on its, its called freedom of speech and is present in the article Serbia. So feel free to write about alleged warcrimes yet be mindful that Serbophobia and the false demonization of Serbia will not be allowed.Rex Dominator (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^ "United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/1" (PDF). United Nations. 
  3. ^ not to be confused with the short lasting Serbian Empire of Jovan Nenad
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^,_2008.pdf
  7. ^ "The ICJ said on May 19 (2009) that it had received written statements from a total of 36 member states of the UN on the question. The court has set July 17 as the deadline for states and organizations that have presented written statements to submit written comments on the other statements."
  8. ^