Talk:Serbia/Archive 6

World champions in waterpolo 2009

Maybe somebody should refresh Sport and write that Serbia national water polo team became World Champion once again this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.115.21 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2003, Zoran Đinđić was assassinated by a Serb ultranationalist."

In fact he was shoot by a member of the secret police jovanovic zvezdan, as a part of a coup d'etat.It doesn't have to do anything with ultranationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.44.78 (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. No such user (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borders with...

In the Kosovo article, that country borders with Central Serbia, and in this article, Serbia does not border with Kosovo.

I think this is a POV way of describing reality, and that there are NPOV ways of describing *today's* international border. --Mareklug ^talk 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to suggest one? --Cinéma C 00:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV to report the POV of an article subject: the majority of Serbians (and their government) consider Kosovo part of Serbia, while the majority of Kosovars (and their government) do not. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of I think of that line of argumentation, the fact of there being an international border on the Kosovo/Serbia (however you call that) line is indisputable. It requires a passport and a visa to cross it. This should be acknowledged when we NPOV list what Serbia borders with. --Mareklug ^talk 04:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah visa is needed in Mareklug world, but in reality there is no need for any Kosovo vissa.--Avala (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mareklug, go to Kosovo, and find out for yourself, instead of trolling this page... --Cinéma C 21:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling this page, and the tone of the answers from Avala and you is decidedly partisan and lacking assuming good faith. I don't know the particulars of who requires a visa and who doesn't in the eyes of either Serbian or Kosovan border guards, but it is obvious that a passport control is being performed there, hence there exists an international border. So what does Serbia border with if not Kosovo? Please, be objective and dispassionate. --Mareklug ^talk 11:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC) P.s. Look what I just found: Serbia has agreed to set up a full operational border and custom control with its southern neighbor, the Republic of Kosovo. [1]. That's published source and we are supposed to adhere to sources, not patriotic OR.[reply]

"www.newkosovareport.com" doesn't sound like a WP:RS find a better supporting source. man with one red shoe 13:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mareklug, as User:Cinéma C said, go and visit Kosovo yourself and as a Polish/US citizen you don't need a visa but if you have problems with your passport, your access will be refused, and you will get the idea. Thank you. kedadial 15:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is a Serbian source: [2]. It's a fact, nothing to do with sources: Jakšić said that this is a very painful issue for Kosovo Serbs, along with the fact that Serbia “supports the introduction of a regular border between Serbia and Kosovo”. --Mareklug ^talk 14:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could something along the lines of "central Serbia boarders Kosovo to the South, whos status is disputed", obviously it could be worded much better than that. IJA (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made an earlier edit changing the wording to state that whether Albania borders Serbia or not is a matter of controversy, specifically that of Kosovo's status. It was edited back to list Albania as uncontroversially bordering Serbia, with a reference to a UN resolution of 1999. I hope anyone will agree that the situation has changed significantly since 1999, with a large number of UN member states recognizing Kosovo as an independent state, while others still consider it part of Serbia. It's therefore POV to list Albania among the neighbors of Serbia without stating that this is a matter of controversy. I've changed the wording again. Please discuss here before changing it back. Kenji Yamada (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we're getting into an edit war over the sentence including Albania among Serbia's neighbors. Can we at least agree that whether Albania is a neighbor of Serbia or not depends on whether Kosovo is part of Serbia, and this latter point is controversial? Any statement to the effect that Albania and Serbia share a border, period, is POV, unless it makes it clear that this is a matter of controversy. The facts of the matter are 1) Albania borders Kosovo, 2) Kosovo was until fairly recently regarded as part of Serbia by nearly all other countries, and 3) Kosovo is now regarded as part of Serbia by a large number of countries, but is regarded by an also large number of countries as a sovereign state and therefore no longer part of Serbia. If we say, in whatever grammatical form, "Albania borders Serbia", then we are committing to the point of view of the governments of Serbia, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, Vietnam etc. in preference to that of the USA, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia etc. Kenji Yamada (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administration of Kosovo

Kosovo is not under the administration of EULEX. EULEX provides only technical assistance to the local police, justice and customs services. Direct international influence in Kosovo internal politics is applied through the office of the International Civilian Representative/EUSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarusburns (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of Kosovo is somewhat controversial. You may wish to suggest your ideas at the Kosovo talk page instead. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a mention of the Great Serb Nikola Tesla?

Perhaps article could mention the great Serbian Inventor(Born in Croatia of Serbian Parents july 10,1856 died Jan 7 1943 New York City N.Y. USA>) Theres the Tesla museum(also not mentioned in article located in Belgrade , with Teslas ashs and variuos models of his iknventions.Thanks! PMSN080909.Thanks!JANUSROMA (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Serbia, while Nikola Tesla was Serbian he lived in Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary, France, USA from what I see in Wikipedia, so his place is in Serbs (where he already appears) not in Serbia. man with one red shoe 12:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply saying that Kosovo borders the rest of Serbia. Serbia's article page doesn't mention that it borders Kosovo for the simple reason that Kosovo is part of Serbia. Kosovan Albanians may have declared independence but it's recognized by barely 25% of countries around the world. If the southern states of the USA decided to declare independence it wouldn't be recognized either - in fact the USA's constitution makes it quite clear that states can't leave and a war was fought over this very issue. --217.203.131.146 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla was a Serb and a very important person in the history of the world. He should be mentioned. It doesn't make sense for Tesla not to be mentioned. Gingermint (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla is a person, and a scientist. He has his own article. That he was a Serb is totally irreverent to what he has done, and what he has done is totally irrelevant to Serbs and Serbia. Prodego ^talk 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Serbia, while Nikola Tesla was Serbian he lived in Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary, France, USA from what I see in Wikipedia, so his place is in Serbs (where he already appears) not in Serbia. (I have no problem to repeat my answer if people don't bother to read it before they post...) man with one red shoe 04:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone proofread this?

Very weak english writing at work here. Has any native English speaker read the entire article? Realize how many mistakes there are? I wanted to edit out the mistakes, but realized I am barred from doing so. Please, someone take 10 mins and clean it up. Looks completely unprofessional and unkempt.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar47 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milosovic trial

Milosovic was being tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, not the International Criminal Court. Both are located in the Hague but obviously different entities. I am new to this so could not make the correction. (Dutchwolves (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Changed, thanks! Prodego ^talk 17:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He should have been tried AND sentenced by both. Comited genocide didn't he? Human Rights Believer (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he was ever sentenced. Prodego ^talk 04:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albania borders Kosovo

"Albania, to the southwest, borders Kosovo, Serbia's southern province, which has declared its independence"

Is this supposed to be neutral?

First of all, Kosovo is not Serbia's province, it's a territory claimed by two opposing sides. The only international legally binding document that talks about Kosovo is UNSCR1244, which claims Kosovo as a province of FRY, of which Serbia is the legal successor. To this day, this document is in effect and the majority of the world has not showed any disregard for it. On the other hand, some countries, REALLY influential ones, decided to support Kosovo's bid for independence, and after the Kosovo government declared it (even though that same government... doesn't really govern Kosovo - the UN does, with EULEX taking most of the work off their back) they recognized it. Thus, Kosovo can no longer be called "Serbia's southern province".

Second of all, this isn't an article about Albania! You can't start a sentence with "Albania borders...", it's just absurd. Serbia borders Albania through the disputed territory of Kosovo *footnote* but not according to those who consider Kosovo a separate country. If you'd like it the other way around, you'd really like to confuse the unsuspecting reader, claiming that Serbia borders Kosovo, but also claims that Kosovo is Serbia, therefore it really borders Albania. Sincerely though, either way you'll get a lot of people angry, so take this into consideration - this is an article about Serbia, the UN officially sees the borders of Serbia touching Albania and the majority of world states agree. Makes more sense to say it borders Serbia, emphasize that it's through Kosovo, but say that it's disputed. Nice, clean, clear. I know, the Albanians won't like this. Well, facts are facts, the phrasing is a matter of personal viewpoints - I'd go with "simple" rather than "pro-Albanian" for no reason.. other than it being "pro-Albanian" or "pro-US". --Cinéma C 06:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sentence are you proposing to replace the current one? Kenji Yamada (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia borders Hungary to the north; Romania and Bulgaria to the east; the Republic of Macedonia and Albania<ref name="autogenerated1">Serbia borders Albania through the disputed region of Kosovo [3], whose declaration of independence in 2008 is disputed.</ref> to the south; and Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro to the west.

--Cinéma C 18:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't agree to that wording, as the sentence itself states unequivocally that Albania is a neighbor of Serbia and then adds the footnote as an afterthought. It's as if we were to list Taiwan as part of the People's Republic of China and then add a footnote to the effect that Taiwan is a disputed territory under the de facto control of the Republic of China. This would be POV, although as in the Kosovo case, it would be in line with the most recent position of the United Nations (in this case, General Assembly resolution 2758). Kenji Yamada (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree that the current wording is somewhat clumsy, but I'm also against unequivocally stating that Serbia borders Albania and hiding the dispute in the footnote. Alternative wording could be along the lines of Serbia also claims the border with Albania, along the disputed province of Kosovo. No such user (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this version sounds good to me. How about Serbia claims a border with Albania along the disputed territory of Kosovo? The sentence starts with Serbia, it's succinct, clear, and makes no implicit or explicit commitments to either point of view. Cinéma, can we get you on board with this? Kenji Yamada (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's not just Serbia. It's United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, the Final Helsinki Act of the OSCE 1975, the Constitution of Serbia and the majority of states in the world. To say that Serbia claims a border with Albania is correct, but it's misleading, because it's not just Serbia making the claim and their claim is based largely on UNSCR 1244. --Cinéma C 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. We're going to have to make this longer to include that information. Here's a first attempt: Serbia claims a border with Albania along the territory of Kosovo, supported by UN Security Council Resolution 1244. This claim is implicitly disputed by a number of UN member states. See Kosovo status process. Kenji Yamada (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please no. This is WP:LEAD section, and such ugly disclaimers are really unnecessary. The dispute is complex, hard to summarize in one sentence, and should just be mentioned in a neutral manner (and it is already there, 3 sentences later). We're certainly not bound with legalese issues (especially since de facto situation, i.e. the reality that Serbia does not control its Albanian border at all, defies the de jure state, however one defines it). Further, "This claim is implicitly disputed by a number of UN member states" borders on WP:SYNTH. If the formulation Serbia claims is not acceptable, let's try to find another one, but we should really avoid at all cost to mention "disputed territory under UN control which proclaimed independence..." at every place where Kosovo is mentioned. No such user (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Serbia borders Hungary to the north; Romania and Bulgaria to the east; the Republic of Macedonia to the south; and Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Montenegro to the west and its border with Albania is disputed." It's simple and it's true. --Cinéma C 02:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this. Seems to take care of everybody's concerns. Kenji Yamada (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this too, and I'll implement the change. No such user (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to congratulate you guys for picking the best option and for reaching a consensus. Great work! man with one red shoe 14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was a joint effort and I'm also glad we came to an agreement. --Cinéma C 05:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia has no border with Albania. After the Milosevic plan for Greater Serbia when his Serb militias invaded Kosova and annexed it, he was eventually kicked out by the UN and Nato. After that, Kosova was a UN-zone within Serbia & Montenegro, another country, and before the UN left, Kosova declared it's independence. Kosovoa is also recognized by a large number of world states, and all democratic. I can't help it if non-democratic dictatiorships are opposed to Kosova being free of fascist Serbs. Human Rights Believer (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's not "Kosova", it's "Kosovo" in the English language. "Kosova" is how Kosovo is called in the Albanian language and this is the English language Wikipedia so please respect that (and don't make me start writing in Cyrillic or Arabic script ;)).

Second of all, whether Milosevic had a plan for a Greater Serbia or not is a matter of your own opinion. Serb militias didn't invade Kosovo, the Yugoslav army was always there, since Kosovo was a part of Yugoslavia. An army can't "invade" or "annex" land that is legally theirs. Please stop spreading absurd lies.

Third of all, whether or not the countries that recognized Kosovo are democratic is irrelevant, as all states are equal under the UN (and if you think Saudi Arabia is democratic, go with a female to Riyadh and leave her alone on the street for about 5 minutes). The fact is that the majority don't agree with your viewpoint and therefore can't be agreed as a fact. Also, are you suggesting that Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovakia,.. are all non-democratic dictatorships?

And finally, you have made a big mistake by calling Serbs fascist. Such language is not tolerated on Wikipedia. One more comment like that and I'll be forced to report you. --Cinéma C 17:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DFTT, WP:AE#Human Rights Believer. No such user (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Cinéma C points out, the last UN resolution on the subject was Security Council Resolution 1244 in 1999, which considers Kosovo to be part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, of which the default successor state for legal purposes is uncontroversially Serbia. A large number of states (actually, a majority) do not recognize the independence of Kosovo. Democracy notwithstanding, it's contrary to Wikipedia policy to decide which point of view on the status of Kosovo is right. That Serbia no longer actually controls Kosovo is a fact. That Kosovo is no longer legally part of Serbia is one possible point of view in a current controversy, as there are different answers on this point depending on whether we appeal to the most recent UN resolution (SC 1244), the laws of Serbia, the foreign policy of the various UN member states (USA, UK et al. vs. Russia, China, Serbia et al.), the opinions of the majority of current Kosovo residents, etc. Kenji Yamada (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to take into consideration is that Serbia does have defining influence in North Kosovo, as the people there, mostly Serbs, depend entirely on Belgrade's aid. For them as well, there is no border between Kosovo and Serbia, there is only a continuous land, something also explicitly stated in the Constitution of Serbia. --Cinéma C 17:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Yugoslav army was basically a Serb army by 1999, if not by 1993. Hope this Helps.137.205.73.61 (talk)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}
Please include under invasion of Yugoslavia also the following as this article should also confront Serbia's antisemitism during WWII:
== Serbian antisemitism, and Serbian massacres of Jews ==

The Belgrade government issued the only post-stamp in Europe 1939 saying that "Belgrade is the first Jewish free city in Europe". Anti-Jew-laws were passed before the German invasion during WWII. Prince Paul was pro-Axis and the reason why Germany invaded Yugoslavia was the war with Russia and the fact that Serbia was Russia's ally. At least 70.000 Jews were killed in Serbia with the cooperation of the Serbian people.Source: Yad Vashem Memorial Jerusalem.--SerbsforPeace (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to contribute. Wikipedia is not a forum to "confront" issues. If these are significant historical events, find a scholarly article to cite and scale the mention of the events to something that satisfies wp:weight. Celestra (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please include under invasion of Yugoslavia also the following as this article should also describe Serbia's antisemitism during WWII because the anti-jew laws passed in Belgrade and the thousand of Jews killed in Serbia constitute an important part of it's history:
== Serbian antisemitism, and Serbian massacres of Jews ==

The Belgrade government issued the only post-stamp in Europe 1939 saying that "Belgrade is the first Jewish free city in Europe". Anti-Jew-laws were passed before the German invasion during WWII. Prince Paul was pro-Axis and the reason why Germany invaded Yugoslavia was the war with Russia and the fact that Serbia was Russia's ally. At least 70.000 Jews were killed in Serbia with the cooperation of the Serbian people. Source1: http://www.goethe.de/prs/mif/m09/jun/de4635587.htm Source2: http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/semlin/en/holocaust-in-serbia.php Source3: Yad Vashem Memorial Jerusalem.--SerbsforPeace (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove other editor's posts from the talk page. I've reverted that change, but copied your sources to the discussion here at the bottom of this page. I'm not familiar with the Goethe Institute, but it does seem like a reliable source. Unfortunately, it does not contain any mention of the facts you are asserting. The open.ac.uk source is not a peer reviewed site and the "content of this site and any potential errors and omission is entirely" that of Jovan Byford, the site's author. That may or may not be a reliable source for uncontroversial content, but it also says nothing of stamps or anti-Jew laws or 70,000 killed. If you would like to request the addition of some neutral content based on those sources, you are welcome, but please stop repeating the same unsupported request. Celestra (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

500000 Roma most of them expel from Kosova the biggest untruth - Kosovo never had more than 50000 Roma, Ashkalia, Egiptian etc. and now there are 30000 of them in Kosovo. Serbia has more than million Roma etc in reality.

Environment

National Park of Shar mountain was and it is in territory of Independent state of Kosova Environment section is patchy, and contains some outdated information. NATO bombing did make impact at the time, but it was 10 years ago. I found a comprehensive new study at:

http://www.sida.se/Global/Countries%20and%20regions/Europe%20incl.%20Central%20Asia/Serbia/Environmental%20policy%20brief%20Serbia.pdf

as well as

http://www.balwois.com/cms/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=81&Itemid=166

but I'm short on time right now. No such user (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian War Crimes

I see there is no mention of Serbian war crimes but plenty about Ustase. This does not seem NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Serbian invasion of Croatia and Bosnia never happened?!?!

How funny and curious that the author "accidentally" skipped this part of Serbian history like it never happened or it is irrelevant. But he was very outspoken talking about Jasenovac and blaming it all on Croatians forgetting about the Nazi's.

Oh well, i'm not here to ruin your glorious version of Serbian history neither i will even bother to dispute it, together with those Jasenovac figures, but if you're writing something at least write the whole story.

p.s. looking forward for a day that Vukovar or Srebrenica people (at least those two for start) will receive an apology from the serbian goverment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjerod (grjytl dntalk • contribs) 03:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is ridiculous to have a whole separate section on the Ustase genocide and yet not a single mention of Serbian war crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the gentlemen writing above, the Ustase committed their crimes without seeking any permission from their Nazi 'masters'. In fact, Alexander Löhr, the a Luftwaffe General even wrote protests to his government about the activities at Jasenovac. The Germans even court-martialed 2 Croatians for horrible crimes against humanity in 1942. The crimes in Jasenovac happened before the height of the Final Solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar47 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a very constructive way to display your opinions? No, it isn't; regardless of the details, Wikipedia is apolitical, meaning it does not favour anyone's opinion on anything; only what is proven to be true. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 17:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World Court has found no evidence directly linking Serbia and the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on February 26 2007 that there was no proof that Serbia or its leaders planned to wipe out the non-Serbian peoples of the Balkans, or that a chain of command existed linking them to the atrocities committed in Bosnia. There is no doubt that Milosevic bore substantial responsibility for the political developments that facilitated the break-up of Yugoslavia. However, the ICJ ruling flies in the face of the claim of Western governments and the media that the Serbian President was the all-powerful figure who “directed what went on in the Balkans” or single-handedly “destroyed the delicate balance of ... Yugoslavia.” "The significance of the World Court ruling on genocide in Bosnia" By Paul Mitchell, 16 March 2007 --Cinéma C 22:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really affect the history of it though Cinema C. After all, we do have articles about such things. It does seem strange to have a section for the Ustase genocide, but not Serbian war crimes. IMO, neither section belongs in this article, but certainly include both or none. Prodego ^talk 02:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the Ustase section. After all, Wikipedia is apolitical (lol).137.205.73.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You should NOT remove it! Ustase did a big crime against Serbs and had one of the largest camps during WW2 in Europe!

So, is there consensus to remove the Ustase section? --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 12:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it. It was written with an obvious POV attempt; while the genocide did take place, it was carried out outside of Serbia proper. Should have a sentence in WW2 section, but not the whole section. No such user (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am against it! Never remove it. This is history and a sad fact. You should thought of that genocide before you have done it, back to WW2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.177.107 (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^ I agree137.205.73.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Don't remove it. No doubt about that genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.146.5 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I remind everyone that the WWII Independent State of Croatia included a part of the territory of todays Serbia. The section should include crimes committed on that territory (i.e. Sajmiste Concentration Camp), but I don't think the section should be removed. --Cinéma C 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema C i don't know where are you getting those kind of articles, i'm refering to the world court thing that has found no evidence directly linking Serbia in the war in Bosnia, lol, even if such article and statement really exists than the world court is a big joke of an institution, seriously, don't want to be rude or anything but that is just absurd and even offensive for the bosnian people who lived thru it. Maybe that same court says that there is no evidence that Serbia invaded/destroyed Croatia? What about Kosovo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjerod (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be absurd? Bosnia was allowed to submit evidence to prove that there was a chain of command running directly to Serbia. No such evidence could be found. Last time I checked, Bosnian leadership bears the brunt of the responsibility for the Bosnian war -- see the Lisbon Agreement if you care for more details. I'm not an expert on Croatia, but what about Kosovo?Dean

Cool,if wikipedia is apolitical,why not simply state the facts and list the genocides Serbia did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.100.48.166 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What genocides would those be?Dean

To the autor of the section. This is Wikipedia. It is apolitical. The name of the article is Serbia. The section is not mentioning or referring to Serbia. This is a paradox. I suggest to remove the section to some other existing article or to open a new article about the topic. It is like that in the article Italy there is a section about economic activity of Italian emigrants in Chile - doesn't really make sense. My suggestion is to have this in the article Serbs. Croatian or Bosnian territory is not Serbia.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question. Serbia, did not "invade" Bosnia, and, Croatia, Yugoslavia did! Remember, people in Yugoslavia, were singing the Yugoslav anthem until 2006! hope that clears it up. FC Toronto (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communication section - percent of internet users

It is not true that Serbia is the first nation in the relative number of internet users in the Balkans. According to the same source, Greece, Croatia, Slovenia and Italy have higher relative number of users. Look at the Balkan peninsula, it includes ALL the countries from Italy to Greece. The formulation of the sentence should be changed.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ FC TORONTO You havent changed the false information provided that I was refernig to. You just changed a couple of words and the same misinformation is present. Note that Italy, Slovenia and Greece are also balkan states. If you do not accept the geographical description of Balkan peninsula, then you have to define your understanding of the term "Balkan states".Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italy and Slovenia are not Balkan states in any but the most loose interpretation of "Balkans". And I must note that you've just extended the definition. No such user (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what I have done. I actually reduced it. For such statements you must know to count and to know geography. Even though you refuse or do not know that, you can not change what is the Balkans Peninsula. It includes Trieste and part of Slovenia, like part of Croatia; actually the same case. I don't see the point in saying that Serbia is a balkan state when it is only partially located on the peninsula and at the same time saying that Slovenia and Italy (with the same case; being partially located) are not on the peninsula. Do what you want. Look at the map of the balkans. The thing you are referring to is not Balkan peninsula but a political construction of the Balkans. This is however controversial political topic. If you mantion Balkan, then the geographical term is understood. This is not loose but strict interpretation of the B. peninsula. If you insist in your own geography, go ahead.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics - source and harmonisation with the article "Demographics of Serbia"

The table provided in the article about population census is not the same as the one in the article demographics of Serbia. The numbers are more or less OK but the list of different nationalities is not consistent. For example, according to the article DoS, there are more Montenegrins, Yugoslavs, Macedonians and Croats than Albanians or Germans, but they are not listed in the table of this article. On the other side, The figure for Slovaks is saying 1,08% here and in the article Dem.of S there is 0,79. Is there any reason why or is it all a mistake?Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. I wish it was the sole factual error -- the whole section needed an overhaul. Actually, the whole article needs an overhaul, but I'm exhausted by this sole section... No such user (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History section needs to be condensed and have a more diverse focus than just on wars.

The history section of the article is very long and almost entirely focused on wars. Furthermore the history section is cluttered with so many images that it is difficult to read with so many images jutting into the article, these need to be reduced to essential ones. The history info on wars needs to be condensed to allow other history to be included, such as the history of the culture, economy, politics, and very important historical figures from Serbia.--R-41 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music section?

There's missed music section mentioning Serbian national dance like kolo and oro, then Serbian instruments like gusle as well as big success winning Eurovsion 2007. in national language song after 1998. for the first time as well as the fact that in 2004. Serbia was the only country singing in Serbian while all the rest were in English and took the 2nd position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.223.222 (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge

Someone had placed merge tab on Republic of Serbia (federal) to merge here, but didn't put the tab on this page. so just put tag and also just informing to see this page to talk about it Gman124^talk 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be merged because the article of Republic of Serbia (federal) is not about the present day independent country of the Republic of Serbia, but is referring to Serbia when it was a constituent republic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, in which Serbia was not a independent country, but part of a federal state.--R-41 (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POerhaps mention of Tesla Museum photos Also Nikola Tesal?

Perhaps mention of the Tesla museum Photos of musuem.Mention of great Serbian American inventor Nikola tesla(1856-1943) in the article?BOMBAYBOY (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I considered putting in Tesla, but I looked Tesla up and he was an ethnic Serb born in Croatia and who spent most of his life in Croatia and the United States, not in Serbia. However the Tesla Museum is in Belgrade so perhaps a picture of the museum and a description of its honouring of Tesla.--R-41 (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Com on, what are you talking about? Tesla spent the most of his life in Lika (traditionally Serbian populated Gospic) in Austro-Hungary... Croatia didn't exist! By Tesla will all of his stuffs were moved to Serbia. So respect him as a Serb and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.223.222 (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Another xenophobic ultranationalist fanatic anonymous user who cannot entertain a calm and civil conversation with anyone who even slightly offends their fanatic beliefs and who has probably been banned from Wikipedia. How pathetic. I won't even entertain responding in a dignified manner to this bigot.--R-41 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

huh such heavy words and totaly unnecessary R-41 :( and honestly i'm sick and tired of people like you reacting like this when someone tries to state someones heritage (national or religious). He was born in Austro-Hungaria, spent more time later in Graz and Budapest educating and later emigrated to USA. And yes...he was a Serb - a terrible thing to say some might add but this doesn't change the fact that you can be born in Bejing to French parents and still be FRENCH and not Chinese Jarovid (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that was you who was making claims as an anonymous user, probably after being banned I suppose for your aggressive behaviour and extreme reaction to a perceived mistake on my part, I have no sympathy for your behaviour. I meant from the territory that is considered the Republic of Croatia today that is shown on maps, that is outside of present-day Serbia that is at hand. To get mad over that seems insane. And to yell at me "respect him as a Serb and nothing else" is a very angry and insensitive tone to take with a user. I am a person interested in the history of the Balkans, I am not of Balkan descent, but I understand the politics of the Balkans, I believe that you are one of many Balkan ultranationalists, enraged by the wars of the 1990s and full of xenophobia towards those who were against your nation. As an ultranationalist you cannot tolerate any claim or statement outside of your ultranationalist points of views. So when I said he was from "Croatia", you took that as a political statement, when it was not, you did so because you support irredentist claims on the Republic of Croatia. I get it, and I don't particularly care one way or another about who should "rightfully" have such territories. I imagine that you will consider responding by yelling at me more with more intense insults - don't bother, I've run into many aggressive types like you before, all that I will and should do is report you for making personal attacks. So spare me the need to type a report, don't waste your time talking to me to convince me of anything and don't try to piss me off.--R-41 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uf the worst case of logodiarrhea i'v seen in years and as a man of the medical profession i recommend you seek some guidance fast....people say - presumption is the mother of all mistakes... i'm am not the user you got in conflict with, don't care for his views or opinions (much less for yours), i was just trying to point out that being insulting doesn't make your statement more true, as you just shown how shamefully ignorant you are playing history as someone who doesn't know the facts coz there were no black and white situations in the Balkans and every side has it's share of crimes but that doesn't mean shit to people like you who like to talk about someone elses history with zero knowledge. Please contribute to pages about Canada or canadian geeses and stay away from Balkans. You know shit about our history and politics and people like you-ignorant and highly limited playing peacekeepers and mediators- contributed in destruction of a beautiful country called SFRJ just to fulfill their morbid plans to exploit other nations and their natural resources. First off all you, in your limited perception, didn't realise that when talking about croats living in serbia or serbs living in croatia one must be precise not to define them by geography but by nationality, not because i want it, you, bugs bunny or anyone - it is a template used in Balkans as here people are over sensitive about their heritage...justified or not. And branding me as ultranationalist is a personal attack and slander- people in charge can check my IP since i'v got nothing to hide and my account was registered before the conflict between you and anonymous took place. You just shown how small you are, making EMPTY threats for violations you committed towards me in your silly response...and please don't play the "i'm angry Canuck don't piss me off" routine coz it makes your point more infantile. And since we are making presumptions i think you are probably some frustrated ex-yugoslav serbophobe/croatophobe since all your "contributions" are one-way oriented, highly biased and laced with ignorance and intolerance. Jarovid (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you get what I said, stop talking with me, I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories or your xenophobic views of Canadians. You're wasting your time, don't bother wasting anymore. --R-41 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics map is propaganda

Bunjevci (and Šokci people for that matter) are Croats. Yes they are a "sub-group", but they are still Croats first. Showing them as separate ethnic group on maps in just trying to diminish the Croatian presence in Serbia. In fact, having the different options on a census is misleading as some will pick one or the other based on fear of discrimination.207.236.177.82 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is rasism up... Those people are not Croats. Some of them also feel like Serbs of Rman catholic religion and majority as separate ethnic group. This is the proof Serbia is democratic and allow everyone to be what he, she, it wants to be... Bosniac, Bosniac, Muslim, Muslim, Montenegrin, Montenegrin.... no matter they are Serbs by origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.223.222 (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that they are allowed to be what they want, why you stated at the end that despite what they choose they are Serbs. That's kind of contradictory, or? Serbs by origin? Despite their different declaration? That's not democratic.

The most famous Serbs's were Nikola Tesla he was the first scientist who knew how to use and create scientist and used it's power to light a light bolt, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.193.103 (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could everyone here stop with this anonymous user crap. Sign in with real accounts if you want any controversial arguments of yours to be taken seriously. Anonymous users who make controversial claims are typically users who have been banned from Wikipedia. I suspect that some of the anonymous users here are such banned users, given there very aggressive accusations they are making. To make claims from an anonymous account after being banned is deceitful, manipulative, cowardly, and pathetic. Create a new account, stop the aggressive behaviour, be cooperative, and bring references to back up your points.--R-41 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bunjevci are NOT Croats, that kind of rant was usual during SFRJ trying to boost Croatian numbers in Vojvodina and simply assimilate a dinstinctive group with a rich tradition. Recently there was a rather large campaign of Bunjevac national council in Subotica,Serbia trying to protect their heritage from being plagiarized buy local Croat community- "Duzijanca" amongst many examples Jarovid (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all users engaged in arguments here, do not use this discussion page for a soapbox for your personal opinions and rumours, read Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX#SOAPBOX, Wikipedia bans soapboxes. Wikipedia is not some blog about the rumours, opinions, beliefs of users, it is an encyclopedia that is to use reliable references.--R-41 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 91.148.92.94, 17 May 2010

Done. User warned for vandalism. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. Jarkeld (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}} change that sentence in albanian at the beginning with 'serbia', as it should be. guess this kind of trolling is amusing to some people.. thanks![reply]

91.148.92.94 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC) serbia is in england —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.28.95 (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Kosovo-note

The Template-note is intended as an NPOV status description for inclusion in all Kosovo-related articles. It describes the level of international recognition/non-recongition of Kosovo-statehood internationally. At the moment, the Template-note includes the opinion of those states that are not UN-members but do recognise Kosovo. However, the Template-note does not include the opinion of those states that are not UN-members but do not recognise Kosovo. Some users (including me) think this is biased and want a change. Please contribute your views and participate in the vote. 84.203.72.8 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possible solutions to this: (1) included both UN recognized and non-recognized states that recognize or do not recognize Kosovo; or (2) only include UN-recognized states that recognize or do not recognize Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks R-41 - but there is little point giving your view here....it only counts if you give your view on the relevant talk page. Thanks. 84.203.72.8 (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian recent history

    I have a suggestion regarding the Serbian history page, witch is about recent Serbian history,

specifically about the latest Serbian independence, after the dissolution of Socialist Federative Republic of Yougoslavia. From the legal point of view Serbia became an independent state on April 27, 1992 when Serbia and Montenegro joined in passing the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After that the state of Serbia and Montenegro, witch was formed in 2003 became the legal successor of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and later after the Montenegro's successful

referendum for independence, Serbia became the legal successor of the state of Serbia and Montenegro.

So I think that Serbia clearly became independent on April 27, 1992, not on june 5, 2006 as it states here. On june 5, 2006 Serbia just changed it's name, from Serbia and Montenegro to Serbia. The following link should be helpful http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5388.htm#people.Mferando (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian recent history

    I have a suggestion regarding the Serbian history page, witch is about recent Serbian history,

specifically about the latest Serbian independence, after the dissolution of Socialist Federative Republic of Yougoslavia. From the legal point of view Serbia became an independent state on April 27, 1992 when Serbia and Montenegro joined in passing the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After that the state of Serbia and Montenegro, witch was formed in 2003 became the legal successor of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and later after the Montenegro's successful

referendum for independence, Serbia became the legal successor of the state of Serbia and Montenegro.

So I think that Serbia clearly became independent on April 27, 1992, not on june 5, 2006 as it states here. On june 5, 2006 Serbia just changed it's name, from Serbia and Montenegro to Serbia. The following link should be helpful http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5388.htm#people.Mferando (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typos that need to be fixed

The table under the title Wetlands reads Municiplaity instead of Municipality

Mbabuskov (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian sources for articles on Serbian topics

In the articles Oralno doba and Marko Živić Show, authored Serbian media sources are being used for citations. For Oralno doba:

Press Magazin: "Oralno Doba Uz Anu I Cecu" - Google translation: "Oral and Age with Anu Cecu"
Blic: "„Oralno doba“ kao kabare" - Google translation: "Oral period as a cabaret"
Press Magazin: "Lane skinut sa Foksa!" - Google translation: "LANE removed from the FOX!"
Politika: "Lane i prijatelji" - Google translation: "Lane & Friends"

For Marko Živić Show:

Blic: "Ukinut „Marko Živić šou“" - Google translation: "Terminated Marko Zivic show"
Kurir: "UĆUTKAN!: Televizija Foks bez logičnog objašnjenja ukinula šou Marka Živića" - Google translation: "Keep quiet!: Fox Television without logical explanation Marko Zivic show canceled"

While yes, the limitations of Google Translate are to be acknowledged, the content of the citations and the wide use of them in Serbia suggests to me that they are suitable, however I request that a determination be made as to whether or not the Serbian language sources Press Magazin, Blic, Kurir, and Politik might be considered reliable enough for citing these articles on Serbian television shows, as English language sources are unavailable. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those all are daily newspapers; Politika is the most serious, Blic is the most read, while Kurir and Press are yellow tabloids, but good enough for articles on popular culture. No such user (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This came up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oralno doba and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marko Živić Show. I said that there was no real notability in these old shows to warrant standalone articles, and that occasional mentions in print media, esp. tabloids, doesn't count for notability. Others disagreed, but apparently mostly on the grounds that deleting those articles would somehow be discouraging to per-country articles (I even got initially accused that I was doing that out of sheer spite!). AFAICT nobody from Serbia had any input whatsoever. Since comment is free, IMHO that likely proves my point that they were indeed not really notable enough for anyone to bother even commenting about it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you: one-season shows on a lesser TV station are bound to get some media coverage, and then get quickly forgotten. However, strict reading of policies would probably affirm the keepers' position.
The problem is that we don't have a proportional coverage of Serbian (or any other smaller country's) topics: if there were (better) articles about much more notable shows and titles (random redlinks: Sedmorica mladih Kapelski kresovi Utisak nedelje Kvadratura kruga Malo misto), Oralno doba and such (which are fair articles) might go in; as it is now, it looks like wasted effort to me. Oh well.No such user (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gracious input. I think it does serve the project to include articles from countries less properly represented within these pages. And yes... it is a pity that we got no Serbian input for an article about Serbian television here in enWikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

Hi Serbia editors...I am not really pro Serb or anti Kosovo etc..but because I built up a consensus for change at Template: Kosovo-note, a group of editors are about to ban me...See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and scroll down to the Kosovo template section....I guess I annoyed some editors because I was persistent in seeking a conensus....so now I will be punished by being banned. They will pretend that I am a "sock" etc. Thanks if you can help. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Serbia in Albanian

Serbian constitution maintains that it has sovereignty over Kosovo. Since the ethnic Albanians would make up a significant minority for the country, the name of Serbia should be included in the Albanian language as well. Actually enough precedent has been set on these issues but I wanted to know everyone's thoughts. So, what are your thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.26.239 (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good point. Be Bold, insert the translation and see what objections will be made. -- Heptor _talk 21:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a ridiculous suggestion, why don't we add the Arabic name for france on it's page as well. Or how about the Hungarian name for Romania on that respective page. It is a bit far reached. Bezuidenhout (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the practice is to use the official names. If Albanian is an official language of Serbian then yes it should be added, but I doubt. man with one red shoe 22:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

why isn't the Kosovo independence declaration in the history section, even if Serbia doesn't recognize and even if it were to return as an integral part of Serbia this is still a part of it's history, if should at least have a paragraph -- C D 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a lot more photos of Serbian influental politicians, such as Nikola Pasic or King Aleksandar I Karadjordjevic, rather than war bombing pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.217.206 (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding photos

Please add these photos(or some of them):

--94.140.88.117 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

You should have mentioned some Serbian painters (Uros Predic, Paja Jovanovic, Konstantin Danil, Djura Jaksic etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.217.206 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Serbs

The basic name, Serboi, originates in the works of Tacitus, Plinius and Ptolemy in the 1st and 2nd centuries, describing a people living north of the Caucasus. Following the migration into Central Europe, Serbs established a state called Sorbia (Belasrbia - White Serbia) in the 5th century. The term White Serbia (White Rus/White Ruthenia, Belarus) is connected with Iranic word-side system because of their Sarmatian heritage, as Sarmatians were indo-European proto-Iranic branch of people who used colors as world sides: white designated the west, red the south, green the east, and black the north. Part of Sarmatian and Scythian tribes settled at present day Ukraine/Russia around river Tanais (river Don). The historian Ptolemy identifies the Serboi as a tribe who lived north of the Caucasus, and other sources identify the Serboi as an Alan tribe in the Volga-Don steppe in the 3rd century. Some historians argue that the arrival of the Huns on the European steppe forced a portion of Alans previously living there to move northwest into the land of Venedes, possibly merging with Western Balts there to become the precursors of historic Slav nations. Their arrival in the Balkans is thought to have happened in the sixth century A.D., when Serbs settled among the other Slavic tribes that settled there a century earlier and mixed with them forming a medieval Serbian nation. Some of the White Serbs did not leave and their descendants are known as Sorbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studiesad (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloat

Sorry, folks, but this [4] latest series of edits was the drop that spilled the cup. The article was 140 kB and growing, and it started losing respect for the reader and importance of certain stuff. Now we have a section on cuisine, rock music, waterpolo each, with every single item accompanied by picture, some of which include ducks, 10-odd city panoramas, 10-odd forests, 8 meals and so on. Enough is enough, really, and now a lot of the article simply distracts the reader's attention with a too big level of detail. I did re-read it and it is painful to follow at times. For about an optimal article in this regard, see Austria.

I do respect the work of others, but please see Wikipedia:Summary style. There are articles for such details, but it has no place in the main Serbia page. I have a certain impression that those articles are under-cited and under-developed, and that this article gets all the edits.

I do plan to address those issues, and clean up the article, moving the contents to sub-articles, as my time permits. But please try to put yourself into a reader's perspective, and put the right level of detail. No such user (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Excitator, 2 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the Culture/Science section, "phycisist" should be "physicist"

Excitator (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Sorry but I see not the ((Kosovoref)) template in usage, and the mountains of Sar are not listed as being in kosovo. I would suggest that you clearly mark the disputed areas clearly. I have added this to the wikiproject Kosovo for watching. Please use the same standard of marking that you use on the Kosovo articles. thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Cup

Serbia won Davis Cup in Dec,2010 for the first time. The same needs to be added in Sports section. 203.99.217.10 (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Ritu Bhatia 12/07/2010[reply]

border with Albania disputed?!

Currently in the lead is written that "its border with Albania is disputed. (hidden note to see this archived discussion)"

I understand that the issue is not easy, but the current variant is misleading and maybe wrong. It is wrong, because I think that the SFRY-Albania border is properly demarcated, etc. in the pre-1990 times and there are no border disputes there (don't have a source at hand, so it would be good if someone has source showing that - or alternatively showing that there was some dispute over the SFRY-Albania border. Are there any current border disputes between Albania and RoK? If there are then we can assume that they are "continuation" of previous dispute between Albania and SFRY/Serbia).

So, if Kosovo is part of Serbia - then the border with Albania is not disputed - and if Kosovo is an independent state - then there is no border of Serbia with Albania.

I propose: "Serbia borders Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia to the west; Hungary to the north; Romania and Bulgaria to the east; to the south 'Kosovo, whose status is disputed'[insert your preferred wikilink here] borders Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. (additional "and Central Serbia borders only Macedonia and Montenegro" may be added in the 'south section' if someone finds this useful) - or -

"Serbia borders Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia to the west; Hungary to the north; Romania and Bulgaria to the east; Macedonia and Montenegro to the south and additionally Albania - trough 'Kosovo, whose status is disputed'[insert your preferred wikilink here]." Alinor (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If. man with one red shoe 14:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but I think the proposed change is OK. man with one red shoe 14:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and changed the text accordingly. No such user (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srbija je najbolja a ako to Englezi nemisle onda su... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.84.16 (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ENGLISH Wiki, anonymous IP - use English here.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC) HammerFilmFan[reply]

"Zero spot" / androids?

Under the "Science" section, the following sentence makes no sense, at least to someone who doesn't already know the topic at hand (i.e., me): "Serbian academics founded “zero spot”, and because of that all androids of the world are able to walk." Delmonte (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Androids???? LOL!HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC) HammerFilmFan[reply]

Edit request from 213.198.253.102, 2 January 2011

213.198.253.102 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Marecare96, 2 January 2011

213.198.253.102 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems biased

- This article seems to be biased somehow and doesn’t talk of issues that might be disadvantageous to Serbs.

- The article doesn’t speak correctly of Voivodina and its short status as a Serbian province in Austria-Hungary. (See main article Voivodina.)

- The article doesn’t mention a major territory issue: after World War I in 1920, the region of Voivodina was detached from Hungary and was granted by the victorious allied powers to the Kingdom of Serbia in the Treaty of Trianon, and in 1945 it became part of Yugoslavia.

- The article should refer in more details to Serbia’s role in the Yugoslav wars. Again, it seems to be biased and it doesn’t mention facts and issues that might be disadvantageous to Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.71.114 (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is barely any reference on the kosovo war and serbian involvment in that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.7.62.30 (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anthem of Serbia

Can someone put the national anthem of Serbia on the main page of the country please! this is the file: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.168.23 (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New coat of arms

Please can you update to the new coat of arms. I see flag is updated, but coat of arms isnt.

Bets regards,

Mihajlo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.194.215 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albania borders Kosovo II

No such user changed a clause in the opening paragraph from

its border with Albania is disputed

to

additionally, it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status is disputed

He explained his edit in Talk:Serbia/Archive_6#border_with_Albania_disputed.3F.21. However, this wording fails to address one of the concerns (specifically, my own) discussed earlier in Talk:Serbia/Archive_6#Albania_borders_Kosovo, a discussion in which three editors came to a consensus that addressed multiple concerns about wording. I'm changing it back, pending a proposal for alternate wording that satisfies the following criteria: a) The clause should be succinct; b) Serbia should be the subject of the clause; c) The clause should not state unequivocally that Serbia borders Albania, as this is or is not the case depending on the status of Kosovo, a matter of dispute; d) The clause should not imply that Serbia is alone and unsupported in claiming Kosovo as part of Serbia, since UN Security Council Resolution 1244 supports this claim. Kenji Yamada (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"its border with Albania is disputed" can not remain. It is simply wrong. Do you have any source suggesting that the border is disputed (not Kosovo, but its border with Albania)? I think you don't.

Your a/b/c/d requirements. a) contradicts d) - you can't describe the whole Kosovo situation, who supports what, etc. in "succinct" way (that's why we link to disputed). And I don't think that we need UNSCR1244 or recognition counts inside the sentence in the lead describing the borders. Such things can be placed in the Politics/Geography/Administrative divisions sections - but not in the borders sentence of the lead.

What is your proposal for the wording?

"additionally, it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status is disputed" - lets see a/b/c/d. a) OK; b) OK ("it" - this is part of the borders sentence that starts with Serbia); c) OK - there is even a link to a page about the dispute; d) N/A and OK - the only change I propose is to change the 'disputed' link to here. Alinor (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of an Albanian-Serbian border is disputed. If Kosovo is not part of Serbia, then Albania and Serbia share no border. The wording it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status is disputed implies that the existence of an Albanian-Serbian border is not in dispute, whatever the status of Kosovo. That's not the case. Kenji Yamada (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually having a disputed border has a specific meaning in international relations, it would imply that Albania and Serbia are disputing the border. man with one red shoe 03:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. How about Serbia's claim to Kosovo, which shares a border with Albania, is disputed. Kenji Yamada (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status is disputed" - doesn't this make clear that Kosovo is bordering Albania and whether Serbia borders Albania or not depends on the status of Kosovo (mentioned afterwards as disputed)?

Your proposed wording doesn't blend with the whole sentence automatically. Could you make a proposal for rewording the whole sentence, not only the Albania part - so that we can see how it would look like? Alinor (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that wording makes it clear that whether Serbia borders Albania or not depends on the status of Kosovo, because it doesn't specify what about Kosovo's status is disputed (namely, whether it's part of Serbia). I could accept it in this modified form:

it claims a border with Albania through Kosovo, whose status as part of Serbia is disputed.

Kenji Yamada (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually, Serbia borders Kosovo, it has multiple border-crossing points and a borderline guarded by KFOR, can't ignore that. It doesn't really border Ablania since it's government has no control over this border, this border is only theoretical, you would need extra sources even to prove that it is disputed, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH, I haven't personally heard of the Kosovo border with Albania being disputed, even if this is implied we can't state it unless a reliable source is quoted (WP:SYNTH) --Cradel (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about "..."it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status is disputed"? Alinor (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the best wording. man with one red shoe 02:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fine with Kenji's amendment above, "...whose status as part of Serbia is disputed." It succinctly clarifies what exactly about Kosovo is disputed. I'm not sure about "borders Albania" versus "claims a border with Albania", as I feel enough was said already. I'm not opposed to it, either. No such user (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what about the fact that it de facto borders Kosovo, or do we just ignore that? I do not see the importance of even mentioning the inexistent Serbian-Albanian border, something like this would be probably better and much more reflecting reality:...it also borders the disputed region (or autonomous province if you like) of Kosovo, which in turn borders Albania. --Cradel (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with leaving out "claims" if "as part of Serbia" is included. That would still make it clear that the existence of an Albania-Serbia border is in question. Kenji Yamada (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about "..."it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status as part of Serbia is disputed"? I think this makes it obvious enough - "trough Kosovo", so if it is not "part of Serbia", then obviously Serbia borders Kosovo instead of Albania, right? Alinor (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can accept that. Kenji Yamada (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a geographical border and an administrative border, the Alb-Ser administrative border doesn't exist while the geographical border does (assuming Kos as part of Ser), on the other hand the Kos-Ser administrative border exists and isn't disputed while the geographical one exists here as well (assuming Kos. isn't part of Ser). In order to be neutral we have to mention the undisputed facts, Kos-Ser admin. exists while Alb-Ser admin. doesn't, that is the important de facto reality and must be added to the article. As for the geo. borders, any of the proposals work for me --Cradel (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change

Please do not change the facts about establishment of the first state,kingdom,empire,etc. as they are all correct,and can be checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekonstruh (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "do not change" on Wikipedia. Right below your edit box, it reads:

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

That being said, no one disputes correctness of those facts (they are all stated in the text), just their relevance for the infobox. The infobox is supposed to summarize the most important landmark events for the modern state. While I don't agree with having just one (Montenegrin independence referendum), I don't agree with 9 in your version either, which are contradictory: in the section titled "Modern statehood" the first event is in 768 (!).

I propose retaining

| established_event1 = Principality of Serbia (medieval) 8th Century
| established_event2 = Independence from Ottoman Empire 1804
| established_event3 = Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918
| established_event4 = Independent republic 200

Of course, there are other solutions. However, I don't think that the e.g. short-lived Despotate or the proclamation of Empire (which is basically just a whim of one ruler to "upgrade" his title) are of so big importance to be in the infobox. No such user (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what the hell is 768/8th century??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.213 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the article

Some people consider that the article is too long. I suggest that the "History section" should be rewritten. Perhaps, the same way the French did it (see France). Pictures should remain the way they are, because they seem to be pretty good. And, "Music" should be shorter.

In fact, articles on many other countries(like for example: US, UK, Argentina, France, Mexico) are even longer.

Also, coat of arms should be changed, because the flag is. And anthem should be in english - "God of justice", and we should also put the media file.

mm.srb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm.srb (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I placed that tag, after someone added bunch of just tangentially related information (too detailed and mostly unreferenced coverage of science, music, and few more things, which would be better suited for detailed articles, see WP:SUMMARY). After nice cleanup by User:Buttons (thanks!), the length is about fine. Some sections, like Music, are still too detailed, but overall, the tag is unjustified. I would argue that other country articles' are too long, either.

The problem with new coat of arms and flag is that we do not have high-quality, SVG versions of the image. The JPEG we have does not look good at all when scaled down; since the difference is only in details, in my opinion it is better that we keep the old version around rather than display the correct but smeared version.

No opinion on the anthem's language. No such user (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Serbia has 7.498.001 citizens excluding Kosovo and Metohija according to the last census from 2002 : http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=6 Can someone make a correction ?

Pedja770 (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is up-to-date with October 2010 estimate by the national Bureau of Statistics [5]. No such user (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia nature and sports

Someone please put more nature images of Serbia because it has a beautiful nature so find some interesting pictures and about Sport section please put at least 2 more pictures of football team or basketball team please!

I agree that there must be much more pictures of Serbia's landscapes, mountains (Zlatibor, Kopaonik, Stara planina...),popular destinations (such as Vrnjacka Banja), monasteries, buildings, wheat fields in Vojvodina, rivers (Danube, Morava, Drina, Lim). I live in Serbia and reading this article makes me think I am living in a country in which is the most important thing its history.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.210.26 (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economy 2011

Should the GDP be updated with the 2011 estimate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.1.217 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motto should be stated

Our country motto Only Unity Saves the Serbs / Samo Sloga Srbina Spašava should be stated on the page. There should also be the english translation of the anthem God of Justice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.123.82 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.82.80 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the official motto of the country. Ostalocutanje (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Holocaust/Genocide over the Serbs in NDH

I spotted some stuff here: Holocaust/genocide over the Serbs in NDH As a Jew well-versed on these matters I would like to make a clarification on this matter. The Holocaust is specifically the mass murder by Nazi Germany of various peoples deemed undesirable. It is not exclusively the slaughter of 1/3 of the Jewish population. The Jewish portion of the Holocaust is commonly referred to as "HaShoah" or the Calamity in Hebrew. Please do not confuse the two. Thanks! =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Serbia

Serbia has 7.498.001 citizens excluding Kosovo and Metohija according to the last census from 2002: http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=6 Someone please put that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.90.52 (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and Metohija is part of Serbia. Alek serb (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is disputed as everyone knows. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly is with Abhazia and South Osetia, but same principle is not applied. What is mandatory in recognition of countries is UN and according to UN Kosovo is part of Serbia all statistics should reflect that view. If someone is interested for Kosovo situation there is Kosovo page so Kosovo statistics can be read. Again, not same principle is used for Georgia. What everyone knows is that those who have 80% of world GDP allow themselves to create even encyclopedia not following their own principles. Or, simply write under description of Wikipedia that it is based on predominantly western views and media since it really does not take scientific analysis to verify that

18:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)18:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)18:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)~~`. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.15.138 (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT CHANGE THE DATES

I've made a change to the formation events and dates adding two more important events and dates,do not change or reedit them,as they are completely correct!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekonstruh (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Now, do you read the answers to your questions? You were already told that, in Talk:Serbia/Archive_6#Do_not_change:

There is no such thing as "do not change" on Wikipedia. Right below your edit box, it reads:

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

That being said, no one disputes correctness of those facts (they are all stated in the text), just their relevance for the infobox. The infobox is supposed to summarize the most important landmark events for the modern state.

Button's concern was that Loss of independence is not an "establishment". My concern was that proclamation of the Empire was not a landmark event that deserves mention in the infobox. Nobody disputes accuracy of the years: both years are already in the article text. Nobody disputes that the sky is blue either, but we don't write it in the article about Serbia. No such user (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SERBIA contains KOSOVO and this should be reflected in small sumary

In small sumary in right corner of the page statistics should include Kosovo. According to UN Serbia contains Kosovo and there is not such an state in UN. Thus, similarly as it is done with Georgia, statistcs should reflect hole country. Additiona information can be provided for Kosovo, Vojvodina as autonomus regions. There should be one rule for all.

--109.245.23.89 (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe people have gone over this many many times. Kosovo is a disputed territory and so it is treated as such as best as possible. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some statistics may not be available in a form including Kosovo and statistics for Kosovo alone cannot be added to those for Vojvodina and Central Serbia because this would constitute original research. The best thing to do in that circumstance is to admit the deficiency. This article presents Kosovo as part of Serbia (while noting the existence of the dispute), so I don't know what else could be done. --Khajidha (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brioni summit.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Brioni summit.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 116.214.31.129, 21 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Republic of Djokovic

116.214.31.129 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albania/Kosovo border issue

I propose that the current wording "additionally, it borders Albania through Kosovo, whose status as part of Serbia is disputed" be changed to "The location of Serbia's southwestern border is a matter of dispute. Serbia asserts its claim on the region of Kosovo and thus considers itself to border upon Albania. The competing claim that the Republic of Kosovo is an independent state would interpose that country between Serbia and Albania." I realize that this is longer, but feel that it presents the information more clearly and in a more neutral fashion. --Khajidha (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose, the current wording was worked on for a long time and reached consensus, it's short and pretty clear, I don't see any advantage of the more wordier version (by the way if it's more wordier people will find more things to protest against, for example is not only that Serbia "considers itself" that border is recognized by many other states) man with one red shoe 13:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumanovo Treaty

I would like to move the above article from Kumanovo Treaty to Kumanovo Agreement. This is because while the "International Security Force" is not an international organisation or capable of signing treaties etc. It's never been registere with the UN either (for that reason). Any way, I wanted to move it but got this message:

Source and destination titles are the same; can't move a page over itself. Please check that you didn't enter the destination title into the "reason" field instead of the "new title" field.

If there is an interested editor or two who could help me out on the technical aspects to moving the page that would be great. Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formation of Yugoslavia after Kingdom

Paraphrased from a comment added to an inapplicable page (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... add more information and hopefully validate the history written "...Following World War I, Serbia formed Yugoslavia with other South Slavic peoples which existed in several forms up until 2006, when Serbia regained its independence..."

The written preview article is condensed, but should not inaccurately define national events, by eliminating Yugoslavian origins and international as well as socio-political constructs that happened after the Yugoslav monarchy came to an end. Perhaps a better statement could be, "...Serbia contributed in part to the creation of the "second Yugoslavia", following the events that took place after World War II..." without exhibiting pro-Serbian bias. Please refer to Wikipedia historical reference Josip Broz Tito.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.127.4 (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]