:::::::::::::::I'm only implying that there may be space in the article for a description of conflicting sources, but that can't happen while suppression of the whole dispute is being attempted. As to the "read" vs "interpret" thing, I didn't mean that one "only needs to be able to read", but just that some things take interpretation, but other things can be read pretty directly from WP:PRIMARY sources (whose use, consistent with policy, isn't ruled out). 
 :::::::::::::::Were there any changes in the constitutions? Yes, the wording did change. 
 :::::::::::::::Would I say that it was insubstantial? Pretty much, as the mentioning of Serbs together with other nations instead of on their own is, perhaps, symbolic, but, by itself, can have no juridical effect. 
 :::::::::::::::Why would I say that in the light of several sources claiming otherwise? Because some of the sources make no precise reference to the Constitution parts that changed; some mix up the 1990 Constitution with the 2001 amendment by talking about "national minorities" in the context of the 1990 Constitution; some, even though they were presented as such, simply make no such claim, but instead claim things like that there were "practical" changes (discrimination, which can happen regardless of constitutions) but no obvious juridical change in rights. These are things that put the reliability of the sources into question.