Talk:Serbian Progressive Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

The English

Someone needs to really improve the English in this article. It's sadly not very well translated. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Understanding, help please!

I know the Talk page isn't for discussion, but since the article doesn't explain, maybe it would be fruitful. This page tells me next to nothing about the party platform, in what sense it is supposedly "right-wing," its take on the EU, on Albanians, etc. Please address this but, to be selfish, let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.216.84 (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This might be of some use to you. Regards. Buttons (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a right wing party

I've altered the adjective that SNS/SPS is a right-wing party, since they have not taken any "right wing" actions since they came into power. The citation listing it as a right-wing party was even an opinion journalism piece from 2010 (in that year I would have however agreed with that assessment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusdies (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ideology

I've removed the references to nationalism (and right-wing populism) as ideologies of the party, primarily because they referred to an individual, rather than the party itself. Also, the rhetoric and policies coming from the party as of late do not even remotely resemble the nationalist outbursts of its predecessor. Its vocal aspiration to join the EU and engage in dialog over the Kosovo issue is quite clear in that regard. Buttons (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are 10 sources

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

PS Also, stop putting the "citation needed" tag in regard to the political position. The reference for the claim that this is a centre-right party is in the article (the very first reference). 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but learn to include the citations in the infobox itself. Buttons (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I erased the claim that SNS is economically liberal. Policies of SNS-led government are highly interventionist, non-transparent, prone to foreign borrowing and especially subsidies in the economy. They favor large public sector, while upholding high taxes on businesses, and they are saving inefficient companies (such as Železara Smederevo steel mill) using taxpayers money.--Ravnicar (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20090327154309/http://sns.org.rs/sr/o-srpskoj-naprednoj-stranci.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Serbian Progressive Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080928191726/http://www.b92.net:80/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=09&dd=24&nav_id=53724 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=09&dd=24&nav_id=53724
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120523070408/http://www.b92.net:80/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=05&dd=20&nav_id=80345 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=05&dd=20&nav_id=80345
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140221121000/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=05&dd=24&nav_id=80417 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=05&dd=24&nav_id=80417
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140204034947/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=09&dd=29&nav_id=82410 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=09&dd=29&nav_id=82410
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131006184904/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=85864 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=85864

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Serbian parliamentary election, 2008

How should the Serbian parliamentary election of 2008 be listed, if at all, in a table of parliamentary elections?

The Serbian parliamentary election of 2008 was held on 11 May 2008. The Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) was formed by a group of 21 former Serbian Radical Party (SRS) MPs who left and formed the SNS, which held its first congress meeting on 21 October 2008. So the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) did not exist at the time of the 2008 election.

Most other language Wikipedia articles on this topic do not have a table of parliamentary elections. Of those that do, such as Italian, the table does not include 2008. This is a reasonable choice.

If the table does include 2008, how should it be filled in? "Overall seats won" has been filled in as 21, but that is the number of members who left SRS to form SNS. Nobody voted for SNS in 2008, so 21 is misleading. But if it does say 21 overall seats won, it should clarify this by explaining under "Popular vote" and "% of popular vote" that the party was "Part of SRS". —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Well in some way they won seats because it was signifficant part of SRS that left and formed SNS group, but of course we have to point out in boxes and notes that seats were not won on elections 2008 immediately, but only after split in SRS. It is good for visitors to know that SNS was nearly 4 years parliamentary opposition before they form government in summer 2012. User:Nikgudz 20:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Labeling

I'm having issue with flatly declaring the party's orientation as right-wing populism, which places them in the basket with FPÖ, Alternative für Deutschland, National Front (France) and likes. Labels in the infobox have been sourced to a number of offline sources, so I cannot verify what they actually say. As a matter of fact, a number of sources assign the "centre-right" label to them:

• Vassilis Petsinis (28 June 2017). "Enter Serbia's 'Orbán'? Aleksandar Vučić and his catch-all politics". Open Democracy.
• "Vucic Declares Victory In Serbian Parliamentary Elections". RFE/RL. April 25, 2016.
• "Former PM Aleksandar Vucic sworn in as president". Al Jazeera. 31 May 2017.
• "Serbia on EU path seeks to improve ties with Moscow". EURACtiv/REUTERS. 28 March 2017.

From my own knowledge, they are mostly in an "ideology-free" and "pragmatic" basket, which does rely on populist strategies domestically, but those are mostly tied to promises of economic success and reforms rather than any pronounced ideological positions. Policy-wise, they advocate joining European Union, military neutrality, business-friendliness and austerity with a declared social care, while maintaining ties with Russia and China. Those are pretty much dead-center political positions in Serbia. They also pay lip service to labor, minority and LGBT rights and freedom of press (where their track record is far from European standards). But I'm afraid that we have WP:SYN problem of adding "populism" (described in sources) and "right-wing" (more like "center", actually) into right-wing populism, which they are decidedly not.

It's probably worth noting that even deep-left Jacobin (magazine) has more nuanced approach, noting the eclectic nature of their policy, quote [11]: The SNS started as a pro-European Union faction within one of the bastions of nationalism, Vojislav Šešelj’s Serbian Radical Party. This unique position allowed it to adopt the DS’s economic platform in the 2012 presidential and parliamentary campaigns, effectively fusing the nationalist, pro-Russian wing with the “modernizing,” pro-European wing. Nikolić represented the traditionalist arm, while Vučić represented the seemingly more progressive side, but both agreed on enacting neoliberal austerity. SNS — and Vučić’s tenure as prime minister — seemed to resolve this central ideological conflict, which plunged the other political parties into a deep crisis. No such user (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

National Assembly seats

@178.223.28.233: You keep changing the number of seats for 90 to 96 in the infobox, while it's stated and sourced in the article that the party has 90 seats. Why? And, according to what sources? byteflush _Talk 03:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The source of the confusion might be the fact that there are currently six non-partisan members of the National Assembly who are aligned with the Progressives (as outlined in List of current members of the National Assembly of Serbia). They shouldn't be counted as party members, but perhaps there could be some way to account for them in the infobox? CJCurrie (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, that's what the other article says, thanks for the info, didn't notice it before. However, there are no sources to the claim, so it should probably be removed there too. byteflush _Talk 22:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Technically, there is a source (the MPs in question are independent members of the Progressive Party assembly group, which is a different thing from the actual party). As I say, perhaps there's a way this information can be referenced here. CJCurrie (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If you mean Serbian Progressive Party Parliamentary Group, then it's 106 seats, but those don't belong to the party. Further down, it does say 90 + 6 aligned independents, but I see no source. That's why I mentioned removing it from there, too (along with the unsourced +1 for Dveri). If you do have a source, I'd be happy to add it to both articles, and stop this edit war. =) byteflush _Talk 23:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency between direct SNS parliamentary seats and its coalition members

This might lead to some level of confusion in some readers. Before I make any further changes in this article, should all coalition members be included in the numbers, i.e. does SNS count 188 seats in the national assembly or 158? Is data for previous parliamentary elections correct? From where should data of internal distribution of the coalition votes be sourced from? What are the sources now? This article frequently had incorrect data in the past, as a solution I suggest to add a source to each specific number. Best regards, LukaAndjelkovic (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not certain that either number (158 or 188) is correct.

188 is certainly incorrect. It's not proper practice to include the seats won by other parties who ran on the Progressive list.

158 may not be correct either, insofar as some of the MPs counted as "Progressives" are independents who have caucused with the party (or will, when the assembly reconvenes). My preferred way of squaring the circle would be to include some reference to this in a footnote (e.g., "includes x-number of independent MPs who caucus with the party"). CJCurrie (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this party right-wing? Is it even conservative? etc.

This party does have far-right roots and might have been named "right-wing" in the beginning, but since they came to power they did not made a single right-wing or conservative policy. European commission is "concerned" that the party is distancing from EU, they do "left-wing things" such as adding a LGBT female prime minister in a country where either is completely unacceptable by the almost entire society and making sure that 50% parliament members are female, while the parliament is defacto one-party and feminism is unheard of, likely as an attempt to appeal to the EU. It is really hard to say what is the "ideology" of this party except staying in power. LukaAndjelkovic (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Foreign policies - United States

@Ezhao02: @Elserbio00:

---

I haven't found any sources for the United States section for the past few days and it seems like I'm out of luck. Do you both have any? Thanks Vacant0 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I’ll try to look for some. Do you know if the Serbian page has any? Ezhao02 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about the SNS page on sr.wiki then I can tell you that there's no refs/text. Vacant0 (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was asking about. I've been looking at some sources, and it seems like most only discuss the SNS's positions on the EU and Russia. I haven't found much to do with the United States, but I'll keep looking. Ezhao02 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: If necessary, we could potentially use the party program and see what it says. Obviously, this isn't preferred, since it is much better to discuss how the SNS has acted in government rather than how it has promised to act. Otherwise, we can just remove the section. Have you found any reliable Serbian-language sources? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

There aren't reliable sources in Serbian either, most of them are either from their website or pro-government biased tabloids which aren't WP:RS. I will still look for sources though but I'm not sure if I'm able to find them anymore. Just to let you know, they haven't updated their program for 9+ years and I wouldn't prefer having their program here. Vacant0 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your opinion here. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I'll remove the section if I don't find anything Vacant0 (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox + lede

@Elserbio00:, @Ezhao02:, @Braganza:, @Amanuensis Balkanicus:

---

I'm starting a discussion to form a consensus for the infobox and lede. I've expanded this page a lot and it's still being constructed, and I don't think that further changes to lede and the infobox will be made and thus I want to form a consensus with other editors. Primarily, for the infobox, the only changes that can be made are to the "ideology" and "political position" sections.

• Populism — ,
• Right-wing populism — ,
• Neoliberalism — ,
• Conservatism — ,
• National conservatism — ,
• Pro-Europeanism — ,
• Centrism — ,
• Centre-right — , ,
• Right-wing — ,
• Big tent —

My proposal is to leave the political position how it is, conservatism is in my opinion somewhat disputed so I'd rather have "populism", "neoliberalism" and "pro-europeanism" listed. Others who see this are welcomed to join.

Also to mention, per MOS:INFOBOXREF, I'll move the refs out when we reach consensus after this discussion. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• I agree with Vacant0, only "populism", "neoliberalism" and "pro-europeanism" should be included in the infobox as this party truly does not follow a specific ideology other than these three. Elserbio00 (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Including Nationalism and Conservatism in the Infobox?

@Elserbio00:, @Vacant0:, @Ezhao02:, @Braganza:, @Amanuensis Balkanicus:

---

Most of the reliable media or research organization sources you can found that reporting major political events in Serbian politics, refers to the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) as an conservative, nationalist or national conservative party. Party national, as well socially conservative appearance definitely can be seen from most of SNS official public statements, as in the individual rhetoric and views of the majority of party high-ranking members, as well of party local branches. Besides its populist, neoliberal, big tent and declaratively pro-EU positions, which have already been included, i think that conservatism and nationalism should be included in the infobox of the party as well, as those are also one of most important ideological and social positions that define this party. Take look at some of the recently published sources for conservativism: France24, Voice of America, Reuters, Al Jazeera (all dating from 2020). Parties and Elections in Europe (updated after 2020 election) listed SNS as national-conservative, while EIU, Financial Times and SeeNews all calls party both, nationalist and conservative. So, since the much of reliable sources say so, we should include both; Conservatism and Nationalism in the infobox, at least as 'factions', or just by including —National conservatism . WalterII, 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Europeanism in ideology inbox

In the ideology section of the page, it says that some party members are considered eurosceptic like the current leader of this party, Aleksandar Vučić. Therefore Pro-Europeanism should not appear in the ideology inbox. Pomchi-Inu87 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Pro-Europeanism in infobox?

Really? How is this listed as one of the three fundamental ideologies of the party? Even the article contradicts itself in regards to this. 46.123.254.13 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Reinstate WikiProject Crime banner

I reverted this edit by @Vacant0 because this article is of interest to WikiProject Crime This article discusses the Serbian Progressive Party "... accusing businessman Miroslav Mišković of corruption and arresting him ..." In general, WikiProject members decide what articles are within the scope of a particular WikiProject. If you disagree, please discuss why you think the WikiProject Crime banner should not be applied to this article and explain your reasoning. Please attempt to achieve a consensus before removing the WikiProject Crime banner a second time. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe: That WikiProject is irrelevant and UNDUE. This is a political party, and as far as I know that WikiProject isn't used for political parties. The Crime WikiProject states: "This WikiProject is about criminals and crime-related topics."

The quote you used does not prove the point, as Miroslav Mišković is not affiliated with this party; a party official was the one who accused him of corruption and arrested him. The reason why that WikiProject was present on this talk page is because of the POV SNS-related allegations of crime and corruption article, which included the Crime WikiProject. Again, in order to include a such WikiProject, there needs to be a strong evidence by reliable sources that the party is actually involved in crime, which is not the case here. Even the Golden Dawn party, which was proclaimed as a criminal organization, does not have that WikiProject listed on its talk page. Vacant0 (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vacant0: I have removed the WikiProject Crime banner. It seems the banner was added with this edit after content was merged from a deleted article. It seems the banner was added too, without considering the change in the nature of the topic. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Coat of Arms and Flag

@Vacant0 I added the sources to the files for the SNS coat of arms and the ceremonial flag of the SNS, the symbols are present in the public less often than the "logo from the flag" which according to statute SNS 'should only be used on the SNS flag. SNS violates its own statute, because it prefers to use the "logo from the flag" instead of the official coat of arms of its party. The logo as a symbol is not mentioned separately in the SNS statute, except in the appearance of the SNS flag. Please revert my edit. --Smiroje (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That's the point. The coat of arms and the ceremonial flag exist but are rarely used to represent the party. Therefore, there is no point in having those in the infobox. It is weird that the logo (which SNS has used since its formation!), is not in the statute, considering that most other parties have the logo (znak) in its statutes. Anyways, the logo and the flag that are currently in the infobox are officially used by SNS and third-party sources, and unlike the coat of arms and the ceremonial flag, they're the most notable and recognisable, and therefore they should be kept. I'd add the coat of arms to the article (not the infobox), but considering that in the body of an article, images are placed near the relevant text (and the coat of arms is not mentioned nor it is supposed to be mentioned in the text as it is not important information), the coat of arms cannot be added to the article. Also, keep in mind that SNS has not updated its statute in over a decade and that if they are already preferring to use the logo over the coat of arms to represent themselves, then it does not make any sense why Wikipedia should use something that the party does not even associate itself with, in this case that's the coat of arms and the ceremonial flag. Vacant0 (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Serbian Progressive Party/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 22:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Shushugah any updates? (t · c) buidhe 06:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The article got promoted so I assume that Shushugah forgot to update this at the GA drive. Vacant0 (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup it is GA approved :) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a 270+ day old review with 6,000 words of text. I am not an expert on Serbian politics, but I will try my best in providing constructive feedback and checking source integrity. I am going through this now

Well-written

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:

• Y

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

• Y Lede has issues (see further below)
• Y MOS:LAYOUT is correct
• Y neutrally worded for most part. No weasel words. I gave some examples where important context is missing. Will continue careful reading of select sources

Verifiable with no original research

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

• Y

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

• Y

(c) it contains no original research:

• Y

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:

• Y checked using earwig

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

• Y I gave some specific suggestions below but basically yes

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

• Y mostly agree, although some of the history could be trimmed further, but not a blocker for me.
• Y

Neutral

• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
• Y

Stable

• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
• Y
• Y

Illustrated

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

• Y

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

• Y
• Y

Overall

1. Well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated

Foreign sources

• Appropriately, the article makes use of WP:FOREIGNSOURCES. Most of them correctly use lang parameter with ISO values SR or DE, however some of these seem to be locales. The valid ISO language codes for Wikipedia are listed in Template:Citation Style documentation/language/doc. sr-latn is explicitly mentioned as a non supported example of IETF language tag in the earlier documentation.
  • Replace language=hr-HR with language=hr
  • Replace language=sr-RS with language=SR
  • Replace language=sr-LATN with language=SR or language=SR-el
    •  Done
• With 279 instances of non English language sources being used, they should all ideally have trans-title= parameters with English translated titles. It makes it harder to skim/search the different sourcing.
  •  Done This might take a little longer, will look to finish this by the end of the day. Added all missing title translations.

Lede

The lede is absolutely too long. The first paragraph could be trimmed to:

• The Serbian Progressive Party (Serbian Cyrillic: Српска напредна странка, romanized: Srpska napredna stranka, SNS) has been the ruling political party of Serbia since 2012. Miloš Vučević has served as its president since 2023

Second paragraph could be trimmed as well. Third paragraph could be outright removed in my opinion. The fourth paragraph is incredibly confusing/contradictory. Instead perhaps summarize that social scientists characterize SNS by its political fluidity/pragmatism, and doesn't consistently fit into a conservative frame.

•  Done I will trim it down as most as I can by keeping only the most important information in the lede.

History

For feedback on this section

Formation

In the first sentence start with the fact that Nikolić left SRS to found the early predecessor of SNS, after a conflict with SRS member Šešelj.

What does this sentence mean? By that period, SNS mostly received support from SRS members, while the SNS parliamentary group sat at 21 MPs

•  Done Reformatted that sentence. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

2008 - 2011

• According to Radio Free Europe source, while SNS did support the Srebrenica Declaration, they also wanted to condemn all victims of the massacre, which is an important political position/nuance that is missing here.
  •  Done
• abstained from voting
  •  Done
• Replace two mentions of NS with New Serbia for clarity
  •  Done

2012 - 2013

• to consult for them (consult with means in the other direction)
  •  Done Yes, typo, fixed now.

2014 - 2016

• secure it or ensure it instead of grammatically incorrect insure it
  •  Done

Ideology and platform

You don't need to cite and quote so many sources saying they are populist.

• I trimmed some content from this section (regarding populism).

• The description/debate of their political compass should be separated from domestic section, as being populist is more foundational than domestic/foreign/other policies. Perhaps it could be separated into its own subsection political leanings grouped underneath Demographic characteristics? I would also create subsection Freedom of press.
  • I personally wanted to ask your opinion on this, but this looks good. I've split the subsections and reorganised the sentences a bit.
• There is a WP:WEIGHT issue, Orlic claims that Serbia ranks higher than some EU countries in Freedom House metric. This sounds dubious, and I couldn't find what he was referencing here. We shouldn't leave such a quote in place unless it can be verified or contextualised.
  • Removed it.
• although that its image -> although its image
  •  Done
• SNS took part in a meeting with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials in 2019. -> should be sorted chronologically by year like the other sections
  •  Done

Spot check references

Apologies for the delay. With over 300 sources, I have spot checked the following sources with special focus for controversial claims over routine factual claims:

• EarlierRadio Free Europe source was not verifying contextually the claim it made, that is now fixed (see above)

• Serbia BBC

• European Policy Center

• V-Dem Institute report is missing a link to the report, which I found here. I would also specify that the claim is found on page 19, instead of the range of 12-23, which was interesting reading but not actually relevant for the sourced claim.
  •  Done. I meant pages 12 and 19. Not 12 through 23. This has been fixed now. On p12, you can see the graph where Serbia is ranked as an electoral autocracy. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing coverage

• While there is coverage of Serbia's relationship with Russia, as a reader I was curious if Ukraine changed SNS stance. It has not from what I read/found online, e.g these two articles, but would be good to insert that in the article. Source 1, and source 2.
  •  Done
• Militarily cooperating with NATO? Would be good to wikilink to Kosovo Force, which is the main NATO mission that Serbian military cooperates with beyond military exercises/trainings. Sourcing is already there.
  •  Done

References