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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I added that the government of Serbia is an authoritarian dictatorship since the President today announced that no other government shall be formed as long as he lives. I would like this edit to stay and I would like to ask for protection of the page, so that it cannot be further edited. Bsinisa (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I do not know how to create or edit these SVG files myself, but the current globe map used on this article has wild inaccuracies. French Southern America is highlighted in Green, the borders of the European Union are a country, Kosovo is strangely smooth to the extent it lost Mitrovica, and there are graphical issues like the border of Croatia being semi-transparent or thinned out. Freakmenn (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted it to a previous version which has the EU borders and does not highlight French Guiana. CMD (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it because it contained a single raster image embedded in an SVG file, rather than a fully vectorized image. I forgot to consider that the borders were inaccurate. Xodrium (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theonewithreason Per WP:BRD, since you want to remove any estimate of the Romani population that isn't the official Serbian state one, you should be providing your explanations for doing so here.
There are numerous sources stating that the actual number of Romani people in Serbia is higher than the official estimate, partially due to discrimination leading to Romani people concealing their identity. What exactly is wrong with including both the official and unofficial estimates? TylerBurden (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite simple, there is significant drop of population in all ex yu countries in the last 10 years, in Serbia case as per population census in 2022 there were 6.647.000 residents [[1]] comparing to 2011. census [[2]] where there was 7,186,862, every single ethnic group including Serbs had population drop due to mostly emigration, i.e Hungarians who are second largest ethnic group counted 253,899 in 2011 but dropped to 184.000 etc. Per WP:COMMONSENSE Romani population also dropped which is confirmed by official census however the sources you are posting show not just that their population dropped but even increased, also this page is summarisation of information not a unofficial estimation and speculations. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not common sense, but your own WP:OR, speaking of which, would @Sadko mind explaining how an edit containing three references is original research, or are we just going keep removing well sourced content citing random policies that don't apply?
Per WP:DUE: "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Evidently the Romani population being higher than the official estimate is a significant viewpoint, yet it's seemingly being censored from the article. I wonder why that could be. TylerBurden (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mind adding that the actual number could be and likely is higher, but I do take issue with citing specific figures based on original research, especially given the significant gap between 250,000 and 600,000. Census data strongly suggest that the latter is highly improbable. — Sadko(words are wind)21:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sadko. The neutrality also requires that the sources should represent wp:rs which also means that the sources who are claiming different point countering the official source should present verifiable information, per wp:v which failed in this case, also per wp:undue the editor who is posting those sources should reconsider all other sources discussing this subject i.e. this source of equal quality says that due to discrimination around 59 000 Romani people between 2014 and 2017 asked for asylum in Germany [[3]], The same case was presented for the other Balkan countries. So as you can see, Romani people also emigrate like other ethnic groups. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is necessary to list some sources in plain view, since you keep claiming it's unsupported despite references being provided.
Since you are bringing up Germany, a German source (German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development) = 500,000+
These are reliable sources, themselves citing research.
This should be as you said, simple, we have different sources saying different things, so including the official census while adding that other estimates give a higher number is how you handle such a situation according to WP:NPOV. If basic Wikipedia policy like this can't be respected, I guess we'll (once again) have to initiate an RfC to bring in uninvolved editors. TylerBurden (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Sadko said, there is no problem in saying that the Romani population is probably higher then estimated, that is in every Balkan country but to claim 250 000 to 600 000 is wp:or speculation. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the source you posted, that claims that figure estimates that based on a web site [[4]] which cannot confirm those estimates to be official and also making this claims based on 2017. that is 5 years before the Serbian official census, and before covid so this is also WP:AGEMATTERS. The German source is based on information and speculations based on 2011 source which only confirms my argument since the claims in 2011 were lower than 11 years later even though the numbers of Roma in 2011 was officially higher, logically since Serbia had more people overall, Theonewithreason (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is bizarre at this point. You are claiming these figures are WP:OR (ironically while yourself talking about things like covid, actual original research provided by none other than yourself), when they are literally the numbers in the source. The entire point is that the estimates are not offical, are you seriously claiming this data is only deemed valid if it's from the Serbian state?
It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to play detective with WP:OR, which is what you have been doing in this entire thread. The only job is to give a WP:DUE representation of sources, and if WP:RS still deem these numbers accurate enough estimates to include in reports that are actually more recent than the official 2022 Serbian census, then no amount of WP:STONEWALLING and actual original research is going to change it. Now both of you are even admitting that the sources are likely correct in saying that the number is higher, but it seems like you have some sort if cutoff point in how many Romanis are allowed to be estimated, despite there actually being numbers in the sources, so what is this number and what WP:RS (other than the official Serbian census, which is already included and no one is arguing for to be removed) supports it? TylerBurden (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is to check sources, and those sources failed verification and WP:AGEMATTERS, and like I said the estimate that sources are posting that between 250000 and 600 000 Romani population is wp:or, since none of them can verify those estimates. Theonewithreason (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please tone down a bit, TylerB; such assumptions and claims (like you have some sort if cutoff point in how many Romanis are allowed to be estimated) are not appreciated. Criticizing others simply for holding different views goes against the spirit of open discussion and democracy, the core value of western civilization. : ) It's fairly straightforward: claiming that ~10% of Serbia’s population is Romani raises concerns about verifiability, as outlined in WP:VERIFY, and may easily fall under WP:OR. We're applying WP:COMMONSENSE in this case. — Sadko(words are wind)21:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, an RfC is needed, since neither of you are actually addressing the questions and points. This seems to be one of the only articles it's necessary to hold RfC's to add basic information, quite reminiscent of when an RfC was required a couple years back to add a simple link to crime in Serbia. I guess it's what happens when Wikipedia articles are patrolled by WP:TENDENTIOUS nationalists. TylerBurden (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should estimates on the Romani population other than the official 2022 Serbian census be included in the demographics section? --TylerBurden (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: Since WP:RS suggest that the actual population is much higher, possibly to the extent of Romani people being the largest minority in the country, only listing the official Serbian census based on self submitted identities seems not only WP:UNDUE, but is poorly informing readers about a notable minority of the country. According to these other estimates, Romani people are likely purposefully not identifying as such to avoid discrimination, or lack documents. Some sources include the EcR/Council of Europe, Civil Rights Defenders and Balkan Insight. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No:The current RfC is poorly formulated and lacks substantive information. It's unclear whether it's asking for a specific sentence or expressing a general sentiment. This ambiguity makes it misleading, especially given that our colleague TB appears to be asserting that up to 10% of the Serbian population is Romani, based on WP:SYNTH which heavily ventures into questionable WP:OR territory. One of his sources is 8 years old. There's also a potential problematic undertone: disagreement is subtly framed as morally or ethically suspect, effectively discouraging open discussion by implying that dissent equates to being labeled with negative terms (see the messages and the tone above please). — Sadko(words are wind)19:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:SYNTH, the numbers are right in the sources, it seems you think somehow repeating this accusation will make them go away. Based on the arguments above, how can we WP:VERIFY the Serbian census as accurate, given that it's entirely based on self reported ethnicities? Looks like there is agreement that the actual population is higher, and this is a notable enough fact that it has been covered significantly in international studies and reports. I suppose we could ignore the numbers even though we have them and just be vague instead, simply stating that the unofficial number is likely higher, if that's what you prefer. TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes/No: I fail to see an issue with the editing policy as expressed by other editors in the discussion above, but such estimations are possibly out of scope being too detailed for an article with only abstract text of multiple sections on separate topics. However, it could be edited using the mentioned RS that the "official number is likely underestimated" without specifying the estimated number (which differs in the RS). The estimated number could be mentioned in the article Demographics of Serbia or even better, where could be even further elaborated, the Romani people in Serbia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of population estimates other than those from the official 2022 Serbian census in the demographics section can be appropriate, provided that such estimates come from reliable, verifiable, and neutral sources, in accordance with Wikipedia’s core content policies—especially WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS.
While the official census data is the standard source for demographic statistics and should be given primary weight, it is widely acknowledged by scholars and international organizations that Romani populations are often underreported in official statistics due to a range of factors, including social stigma, self-identification issues, and mistrust in authorities. Consequently, credible alternative estimates—for example, those published by the Council of Europe, UN agencies, OSCE, or reputable academic studies—may be included to provide context and balance, especially if they are significantly different from the official numbers.
No: As per reasoning above, and what two other editors here presented, most of the sources present different estimates, and have problems with several Wikipedia policies like WP:AGEMATTERS some of them being contradicting to itself with estimations and there are other sources presenting even different estimations, however given that editor TylerBurden already made another edition to the article [[5]] and I was agreeing with that statement in discussion above, I think that this addition is acceptable . Theonewithreason (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.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. CMD (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
