The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Serbia was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles
This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board.Eastern OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Eastern OrthodoxyEastern Orthodoxy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illyria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illyria and Illyrians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllyriaWikipedia:WikiProject IllyriaTemplate:WikiProject IllyriaIllyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
The responsibility to explain recent changes lies with the user who recently provided new information, especially given that the material was disputed. Please, do so. — Sadko(words are wind)10:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need to inform the administrators that the user Sadko has been blocked from editing Eastern Europe.[[1]] Again he started deleting sources and doing disruptive editing on Wikipedia. [[2]] 192.71.144.210 (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite ridiculous that this happens every time anything remotely "negative " about Serbia is added to the article. It took an entire RfC just to add a basic link to crime in Serbia, so I'm not surprised to see a well sourced section removed on dubious grounds. It seems the priority on this article is a little bit too focused on bragging about sports rather than giving a balanced and neutral overview of the country as a whole.
We can have a section dedicated to telecommunications, but not human rights.
I think there is a wider issue on this article than just recent changes, there is a pretty clear nationalistic opposition to anything critical of Serbia being added to the article. The problem is this isn't a propaganda site, it's meant to be a neutral encyclopedia and it is WP:NOTCENSORED.
@Sadko Since you opted to remove everything that was added about human rights rather than trimming it and incorporating it into an existing section, what section do you propose this information is added to given that the edit included several high quality up to date sources? What sources do you feel should be added to offer a more balanced overview? TylerBurden (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was neither a high quality nor well informed section, it was per wp:cherrypicking included with pointing out different years with exclusively negative changes in it, and since this is contentious topic, editors should be aware of wp:neutrality policy, Sadko was correct in several points, that those statistics always changes, that other countries don't have it included in their articles, like Germany, USA or even Albania or Kosovo, and that this section was disproportionally too long, and since this article is summarisation of most important information about this country and the people - lots of parts are already included in contemporary period, i.e. there is a section that already states that: "According to a number of international analysts, Serbia has suffered from democratic backsliding into authoritarianism,[149][150][151] followed by a decline in media freedom and civil liberties." Furthermore there are articles about human rights that are specifically created to cover human rights issues of specific country. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could add 1 sentence (Politics) based on Civil liberties index. Critical thoughts and comments have already been provided in the article, as is appropriate. Initiating an RfC is often justified, as it helps Wikipedia progress; however, personal opinions and random complaints are not relevant to the discussion. Additionally, please be mindful of where you're placing your comments, as this thread is slowly becoming disorganized. — Sadko(words are wind)21:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new section I created is essential for understanding the current state of human rights in Serbia, particularly in light of significant concerns raised by reputable sources, including Amnesty International and the United States Department of State. This content highlights a notable decline in the observance of human rights since 2012, as detailed in the Freedom House Report and recognized internationally. Wikipedia encourages the inclusion of diverse perspectives, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, and underscores the importance of citing reliable sources as outlined in its guidelines. The information presented in this section is well-supported by credible references, and removing it would not only compromise the article's integrity but also contradict Wikipedia's commitment to providing comprehensive and balanced coverage of critical issues. According to WP:UNCENSORED, content should not be removed simply because it is controversial or critical. I'm sorry but accept it. And also regarding WP:NPOV, the section aims to present factual information grounded in reputable sources, thereby contributing to a balanced representation of Serbia's human rights landscape. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really the case? From what I can tell, this looks like a classic example of WP:CHERRYPICK. All of this could be summarized in one or two sentences within the sections that already exist in the article. This addition is weak because it focuses on just a small part of a much larger topic, and strangely, it highlights only the negative aspects. Furthermore, similar sections are missing in many, if not most, articles about UN member states. For instance, the issue of Human rights in the USA is briefly mentioned with a link to the main article, and there's no separate section in the Germany article either. Given that this page is already overly long, with over 500 references and recent efforts to streamline some sections, adding more material (with even more to come) seems excessive. Once there's consensus on this issue, more sentences could be added if necessary. This addition, in my book, is simply way bellow the level of this article. Also, those statistcs often change, which has been the case with Serbia. There is none of that in the text you proposed. Also, please do not engage in EW and do not drag other editors into similiar situations.
Secondly, could you kindly point out where and when you achieved a clear consensus to include Milosevic's photo? What we need is a clear proof of concensus on this matter. I used the Visual Editor and didn’t notice the bold, caps-lock text you added, advising editors not to be bold and act based on their own judgment, which, all things considered, would likely lead to the image being removed. — Sadko(words are wind)13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What policy based reasons do you have for removing the image of Milošević when he is one of if not the biggest topic of the section it accompanies? TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked a clear and relevant question and got no answer. It makes one wonder why.
There are 2 problems here: 1) It is highly doubtfull that WP:CONSENSUS was achieved. 2) There are WP:SANDWICHING issues. Do check the old (2010) and the new (2022) WP theme, width - wide.
Another question arises: why was an artistic photo of Milosevic used? Wouldn't a picture of him alongside other Balkan leaders and foreign mediators signing a peace agreement be more appropriate? Including a more descriptive caption could provide additional context and prevent any potential misinterpretation. — Sadko(words are wind)21:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadko. Hitler's picture is on the Germany page [[3]], so nobody moves it. Hitler was a historical figure like Milošević. You would put a picture where he is signing as some kind of peacekeeper to make him look better, instead of his portrait, and he ended up in the Hague as a war criminal. These are historical facts. Everyone can see your Serbian POV, that's why you were blocked from editing [[4]] Eastern Europe.192.71.144.210 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're going to complain about not getting an answer, while also completely avoiding the question directed at yourself. How is that productive?
No good reason has ever been given for removing the image, he is a focal point of the article section, and is thus entirely appropriate per MOS:SECTIONLOC, which is an established standard per the WP:MOS, not some essay like WP:CHERRYPICKING that is constantly being referenced to with this article.
I have no idea what you are even on about regarding the "artistic photo", it is a high quality image taken around the timeframe the section describes. The section is about Milošević's tenure, not him signing peace agreements. It's quite baffling you think that would be a WP:DUE change and seems to be entirely based on your personal feelings rather than Wikipedia standards. TylerBurden (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Step by step TylerBurden. Once again, where and when was this consensus reached? I’ve never seen captions added warning editors "not to mess" with a single image without any prior consensus. That's not okay towards other editors. I’ve checked the archive.
It's quite simple: the photo was likely taken by one of the best Yugoslav photographers, renowned for his portraits. Yes, the first half of his career (which included an entire war, by the way) concluded with that signature, so to speak. That's highly relevant and fitting. Exactly, MOS indicates there shouldn't be too many images, and now we have a mess. If this stonewalling continues, another RfC might be necessary. — Sadko(words are wind)22:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't accept that there have been multiple discussions about the image and none of them have resulted in the image being removed being consensus, then perhaps you don't understand the idea of consensus.
At this point you're straight up misrepresenting what's on the article, the editor note (which I did not add, by the way) included is "PLEASE SEE TALKPAGE AND ITS ARCHIVE BEFORE REMOVING THE IMAGE", I think that is not unreasonable given multiple attempts to remove it that have cited reasons violating WP:NOTCENSORED such as him being "controversial".
Are you actually arguing that the image is somehow less suitable because it was taken by "one of the best Yugoslav photographers"? Please explain how that makes sense because I must have missed that policy or guideline that prohibits the use of work of renowned photographers. Giving particular weight to any certain event is not neutral, including a picture that is simply of him makes a whole lot more sense, the IP above while very direct has a point that it arguably comes across like trying to present him in a certain way.
The only WP:STONEWALLING (another essay) I see on this article is the POV nationalist opposition to content critical of Serbia, given that the latest RfC overcame that stonewalling which was initiated by an editor above, Theonewithreason, feel free to start one since it tends to bring in neutral eyes that will look at things objectively. TylerBurden (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully ask that we avoid labeling people, as it's not considerate; WP is not X. It would be helpful to incorporate more references and constructive additions to the article. While adding tags and discussing politically-minded aspects of the country is important, it's just one part of the bigger picture and shouldn't be the primary focus. No worries, will do. Have a good one. — Sadko(words are wind)23:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have expressed desire before to change the image, and now you attempted to do so in a WP:BOLD edit, followed by other image changes, as is your right, and I have mine to revert you. Not sure how else you want me to elaborate "in good faith", sorry if you took offense I guess.
Your reason give for the change: "added with additional context and detail. I firmly believe it is more informative and visually engaging compared to another standard portrait"
"Visually engaging" is very subjective, you seem to have based this entirely on personal opinion, why is a picture of a banknote more visually engaging than an actual image of the man described? If I'm a reader reading about someone, I'd probably more likely want to see an image of them than some banknote.
1) A 500 billion banknote is certainly not something editors come across every day, don't you agree? Official portraits of politicians, on the other hand, are much more common. 2) Using Vector Legacy (2010) presents a significant issue — the entire appearance becomes a chaotic mess. Give it a try and see for yourself. 3) My caption provides significantly more detailed and relevant information. 4) I’ve consolidated the essence of another image into this one, making the article readable and well-structured in both the old and new Wikipedia skins. — Sadko(words are wind)23:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting sure, but not the right place for it. The reason why such sections with heavy focus on an individual are often accompanied by an image of said individual is because well, it makes sense, see the aforementioned reasons. The relevance of the banknote simply isn't there, at least not compared to an image of the person the section is largely about. I use Vector Legacy 2010 and it looks fine, I also tried switching it to the default and it looks fine there too. TylerBurden (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
