Talk:Kosovo–Serbia relations

The article gives serbs autonomy but they don't have it

Serbia agreed to a deal to which Serbs have no autonomy from Pristina. There is nothing on which Pristina does not set the rules. That is why pristina appoint the police commander and they set the rules of the courts. Qwerty786 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The power of Wikipedia is vastly over-stated here. It is an online amateur encyclopedia without any authority to grant autonomy to political states. ? 50.111.18.25 (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

History

Surely this article should provide information on the historical relationship between Kosovo and Serbia going back to the days of where Kosovo was a de jure part of Serbia all the way back through the Yugoslav period. As it stands this article contends there was no relationship prior to the Kosovar declaration of independence, which is a clearly flawed position. Some information of the history of the SFR Yugoslavia and the internal politics of the state would be a good background for the article. IrishStephen (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That information is in other articles on these subjects - this article "begins" with the creation of Kosovo as an independent/sovereign political unit. 50.111.18.25 (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kosovo–Serbia relations. 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 https://web.archive.org/20090112172342/http://www.balkaninsight.com:80/en/main/news/8857/ to http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/8857/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 03:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

the latest on the situation, I believe ...

Reliable Source - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/14/world/europe/kosovo-serbia-train.html 104.169.26.177 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not a forum. 23 editor (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

And the O.P. was not using the TP as a forum - he/she related a relevant event from a Reliable Source - so - what are you talking about, 23 editor?? 50.111.42.37 (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kosovo–Serbia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607012810/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=10&nav_id=48316 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=10&nav_id=48316
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607012855/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=25&nav_id=48766 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=03&dd=25&nav_id=48766
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417012707/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR70/008/2012/en/96c7db1f-84c5-4774-af73-f5aea39c9ac8/eur700082012en.pdf to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR70/008/2012/en/96c7db1f-84c5-4774-af73-f5aea39c9ac8/eur700082012en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207144738/http://www.balkaninside.com/nikolic-very-close-to-an-agreement-with-kosovo/ to http://www.balkaninside.com/nikolic-very-close-to-an-agreement-with-kosovo/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927150747/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2013&mm=04&dd=19&nav_id=85799 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2013&mm=04&dd=19&nav_id=85799

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

POV sections

I removed two recently added sections as their language was gross POV, and the importance of them to one article that summarizes the relations between the two countries is questionable. If anyone thinks the two sections should be on the article, they should be rewritten and the new version posted here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This article might be of help [1]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "Sport" section

I wrote the following section and it was removed for WP:NPOV and WP:RS, but I don't understand why. What's wrong with it?

Sport

Kosovo is a full member of several international sporting organizations; this has caused conflict and tension when events are hosted in Serbia and Kosovo is to officially compete as its own country.

2021 AIBA World Boxing Championships

Main article: 2021 AIBA World Boxing Championships § Controversies

Kosovo's boxing team was denied entry into Serbia at border control, shutting them out of the tournament.

2022 World Athletics Indoor Championships

Main article: 2022 World Athletics Indoor Championships § Kosovo's participation

World Athletics, Kosovo, and Serbia reached a compromise where Kosovo would be allowed to compete but a blank space would be displayed instead of Kosovo's flag on all official materials (including websites and stadium screens).

References

Zowayix001 (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations between Serbia and Kosovo (don't) exist?

I think that official diplomatic "relations between Serbia and Kosovo" do not exist, because the procedure for establishing them should be completed (eg for one side to recognize the other). Liaison officers serve to implement the Brussels Agreement, not officially as ambassadors because they do not have serious powers. Savasampion (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with how the lead was, your reasoning doesn't make much sense. There exist relations between the two countries even though Belgrade doesn't recognize Kosovo's independence. Ahmet Q. (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I would recommend that you read the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and probably you will realize that there is a way in which relationships are established. My opinion is that the Brussels Agreement does not meet the conditions to be considered an international treaty, and in itself does not represent a general legal act of internal law.--Savasampion (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Except that still does not mean that there are no relations between the two countries. No-one said that Wikipedia articles have to follow the Vienna Conventions, for reference check the Israel-Palestine relations, China-Taiwan relations,... articles. Ahmet Q. (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)