Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Over the past few weeks, several non-Wikipedia people with expertise in Serbian media and I have worked on compiling the first list of reliable, situational, and unreliable sources in Serbian language, modelled after lists categorised in Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources, though far more comprehensive and detailed than most of these lists. The list can be located here: User:Vacant0/Reliable and unreliable sources.

The list includes an introduction to the media situation in Serbia, alongside over 40 media listed under reliable, situational, and unreliable categories. The listed media are the most-used in real life, as well as on Wikipedia. The talk page includes a few more media that we did not discuss during the creation of this list.

The idea behind this creation is to have a WikiProject list of sources that will be useful for other editors unfamiliar with the situation in Serbia (e.g. WP:VG/RS has a list of sources for video games). I've seen people unfamiliar with Serbian sources using sources listed in the unreliable section, which is concerning to say at least. Before voting on whether to adopt this list or not, I am opening a discussion on adopting final changes to the list. To gather more feedback, I will also notify WP:RSN. Once the discussion ends, I will open a RfC. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I skimmed the list, and noticed the harsh rating of Glas javnosti. IIRC we have a fair few articles referenced to them, so this sounds like a fair bit of work. Search engine finds 972 hits for what could be their domains. We should probably make a list of to try to assess the impact.

Likewise for B92 and Večernje novosti, though the avoidance advice there is more nuanced. --Joy (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Glas javnosti, maybe we can split pre-2010 and post-2010 status? Most usage of Glas javnosti on Wikipedia seems to before they ceased publication. I'll research the source a bit more. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I've researched a bit more about the newspaper's history and found that it had good editorial standards until about 2003, when it shifted towards more tabloid journalism. So, maybe we can consider it a reliable source until the foundation of Kurir in 2003. I'm open to hearing opinions from others though. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Why do you need an RFC? Projects maintaining such lists is quite normal and doesn't need approval. Anyone who disagrees about any particular source can discuss not with the project, and if that fails to satisfy their objections raise it at RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought it was required, to get approval from others on a such list. If it is not needed, then great. Though, I'd still like to hear opinions from others on the list and see if it has to be modified a bit (e.g. Glas javnosti was brought up). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

No you don't need approval, just remember such lists are meant to be the project supplying their knowledge of the subject to help other editors not an authoritive list of which sources can and can't be used (even the RSP isn't a list of allowed and prohibited sources). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

"even the RSP isn't a list of allowed and prohibited sources" - it shouldn't be, but in practice it is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Same goes for WP:VG/RS. Maybe for other lists too? I don't know, but I'm only familiar with WP:VG/RS as it is treated literally as a list of which sources can and cannot be used. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, but it's understandable that that's what it becomes in practice, because you need a pretty good reason to go against the local consensus of editors well-versed in the topic area.

As an avid reader of Serbian news, I see no issues with the list itself. Just two typos — "liberl" and "Dnevnil". Great work! JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the feedback. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

RTS and AI. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

My impression of that article:

RTS AI slop slop AI slop. AI slop, slop slop AI slop. AI slop, slop slop slop "fact-checking" AI slop, RTS. AI slop.

I mean it doesn't take much reading comprehension to see they're just putting churnalism on steroids. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing surprising from RTS, though. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I try not to get used to it. They win when the bar is pushed so low people stop getting outraged. JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel like I saw this somewhere on some other news site but don't remember which one. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

New report has been published. It has been shown that students have been regularly portrayed as terrorists and fascists, while Vučić has been portrayed as a "savior". Critics are portrayed as enemies of the state.

• Alo: 529 manipulative stories
• Informer: 399 manipulative stories
• Srpski telegraf: 294 manipulative stories
• Politika: 253 manipulative stories
• Večernje novosti: 197 manipulative stories
• Kurir: 191 manipulative stories

Another reason why these sources should be blacklisted. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What about koreni.rs? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Just off of first impressions, I wouldn't say it's reliable. JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I've used Koreni at Serbian Party Oathkeepers for an uncontroversial statement, though I can't tell whether it's content can be considered reliable or not. I'll give it a deeper look tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a look and here's my conclusion. It seems to be an anti-SNS site that publishes opinion pieces, while it also serves as a news aggregator, copy-pasting content from other websites, particularly from those with conservative and anti-SNS viewpoints. I'd avoid using it, but would not call it unreliable as long as they do not spread disinformation and/or conspiracy theories, etc. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

But if it's just aggregating content from other websites, just cite those websites instead. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s helpful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Euronews was the first one to publish the false claim that students in Niš veoted the candidacy of Bojana Maljević on the Student List. Just to keep in mind... Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Does that mean we should move it to "Situational/additional considerations apply" in the list?

It's the only entry in the list of "Generally reliable sources" that doesn't say it's independent. --Joy (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Tbh, I'd rather wait to see if anything else similar pops up. If it does, we can derank it to situational. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Takeover of N1, Nova. Should be completed in the next few days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

August discussion

Throughout the next few days, I'll be gathering information about more news outlets that we can add to the list. Once I finish this, I'll propose the additions and then we can discuss/amend them. I'd also want to clarify the situation regarding Kosta Nikolić, as I don't believe we should mark *all* of his work as unreliable. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The main page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia has an announcements section on it, and at a whim I decided to put something in it (for the first time in a decade) about the contest above. Any ideas on what else could generally go there? I feel like a monthly summary of GAs, as well as a little blurb when someone manages a FA, would be a good idea. JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid: How do we update this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It's transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/Announcements. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the recent GAs. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd personally put the names of the editors there as a thank you, rather than focusing on the individual articles. I can do it if you agree, but feel silly doing it because they're mostly you. JustARandomSquid (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to do it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

A important template is simply being deleted without consensus, while the Croatia and Albania templated is not being deleted here. It is explicit a scoundrel double standard here. Is anything going to be done? Zumzum8 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not see any double standard here. The template about Albanians is also being considered for deletion as you can see here. If you were concerned about consensus, you could have participated in the discussion. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am writing to ask for support and opinions regarding this article. Ocurred grotesque pov mass removal of important sourced content (3 published peer-reviewed papers) and abuse of cherry-picking from the article

The removal is in bad faith and it is part from editorial gang that can be checked by revision history. Even the title is wrong in nationalist POV way, the papers says it is most expected be Saint George Tower, and the actual article name is so-called by some authors, exists disagreement between academics per paper.

They do not own the article, yet they act as if they do. Their rhetoric is intimidating and passive-aggressive, accompanied by vague explanations. Exists WP:Gaming abuse and see this isn't going to lead anywhere. The article's current state is shameful, revisionist, and bizarrely manages to be worse than the unreliable Grokipedia version. I would like to see what can be done. Cheers. Hilandarion (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page. While you're right that they have removed three sources from the article, they all come from the same author. Therefore, it could be a minority opinion regarding the name of the structure. Nevertheless, please discuss it on the article's talk page without attacking others. Your edit warring and removal of talk page notices is not a good sign for a (presumably) new editor. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

World War I, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Anyone looking for a project? An editor at the help desk recently asked about the article Belgrade Fortress and suggested it might need some cleanup. I took a look and there are definitely some issues with readability. Normally in such cases I'd go back to the sources, but they're mostly Serbian which I can't read. I thought I'd make a comment here and see if anyone with proficiency in Serbian might want to take a look and see if they can make it a little easier to understand. (I can point out which parts are most confusing to me if that's helpful, just let me know.) Thanks! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Upon @JustARandomSquid:'s recommendation, I've created a page that lists GA/FA/B-class articles that should be regurlarly maintained. Most of these articles were written by me. As you can see, some articles are in a dire status and they need to be updated ASAP. If you want to help, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I'll help you out. I'll start updating some of these myself over the next period. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)