Talk:Aleksandar Vučić/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Aleksandar Vučić. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aleksandar Vučić. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aleksandar Vučić. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aleksandar Vučić. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

First Deputy Prime Minister Section

Hi, I work for Bell Pottinger and the Government of Serbia is my client. I have declared this before on the COI Noticeboard before proposing edits/updates to the articles for Ivica Dačić, the National Assembly (Serbia) and the Accession of Serbia to the European Union.

I would like to suggest an edit to this article to reflect Vučić's activities as First Deputy Prime Minister, in particular his role in the coalition government’s efforts to tackle corruption, as well as in talks on Kosovo and Serbia’s bid for EU membership.

Looking at the article structure, it would make sense to include a section between Serbian Progressive Party and Croatian relations titled First Deputy Prime Minister, which might include the following:

First Deputy Prime Minister

Dacic was appointed First Deputy Prime Minister in the new cabinet following a parliamentary vote on 27 July 2012.1

Anti-corruption

Within the new coalition government, Vučić also became head of the office for security services co-ordination, establishing a dedicated group of police officers to tackle high-level corruption.2 In a March 2013 opinion poll, Vučić won a 71 per cent personal approval rating, mainly because of his anti-corruption campaign.3

Kosovan relations and EU membership

Vučić has been central to negotiations on Serbia’s bid for EU accession, travelling to Brussels for talks with the EU’s Foreign Affairs Commissioner Baroness Ashton, as well as to Mitrovica to discuss the details of a political settlement between Belgrade and Pristina.45 During his visit to Mitrovica, northern Kosovo, to garner support for the Brussels-brokered deal, he urged Kosovo Serbs to “leave the past and think about the future”.5


Also, as a final sentence to the intro might be added:

He is also Serbia’s Defence Minister.6

Feedback on these suggestions would be very much appreciated, and I note that there is a neutrality dispute. I will post again on the COI Noticeboard regarding this proposed edit. Many thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Hello Vivj2012. I noticed a couple of things for now:

  • "establishing a dedicated group of police officers to tackle high-level corruption" is not directly supported by source, or failed to see it?
  • I propose to replace "Kosovan relations" with "Kosovo" in part of the subtitle because it contradicts Serbia's position on Kosovo (Serbia and its ministers do not have relations with Kosovo because they view it as part of Serbia).
  • " 71 per cent personal approval rating, mainly because of his anti-corruption campaign" should be reworded to avoid copyright issue with Reuters.
  • the same source which support the assertion about PPV being defense minister says that he also "oversees the intelligence agencies". Don't you think it is important enough to be added to the article? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Antidiskriminator, thanks for getting back: on your first point, the source says: "Anti-corruption activities in Serbia are spearheaded by Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic. Soon after the government was formed, Vucic became head of the office for security services co-ordination, forming a special group of police officers to tackle high-level corruption cases." Let me know if you think my suggested edit should be reworded.
  • On your second point, yes, you're right – it's inaccurate to talk about "relations with Kosovo". Perhaps a section titled EU Membership and Kosovo? The two are closely related as Brussels is keeping a close eye on the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina in the context of Serbia's bid for EU accession.
  • Third point: also agree – perhaps reword to: "Vučić’s 71 per cent personal approval rating in a March 2013 opinion poll was in large part due to his anti-corruption campaign."
  • I also agree with your last point – that could perhaps be added to my suggested final sentence in the intro, i.e.: "He is also Serbia’s Defence Minister and oversees the intelligence agencies."
Let me know if you're happy with these, and if so I'll put the templates in HTML ready for you add to the main page as we did for the Dačić article. Thanks again. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I am sorry because I somehow overlooked that source actually does support your proposed wording. Thank you for addressing all my objections. I agree with your suggested edits and I am ready to add them to the main page after you format proposed text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Antidiskriminator, here's the formatted text as discussed:

First Deputy Prime Minister

Dacic was appointed First Deputy Prime Minister in the new cabinet following a parliamentary vote on 27 July 2012.[1]

Anti-corruption

Within the new coalition government, Vučić also became head of the office for security services co-ordination, establishing a dedicated group of police officers to tackle high-level corruption.[2] Vučić’s 71 per cent personal approval rating in a March 2013 opinion poll was in large part due to his anti-corruption campaign.[3]

EU membership and Kosovo

Vučić has been central to negotiations on Serbia’s bid for EU accession, travelling to Brussels for talks with the EU’s Foreign Affairs Commissioner Baroness Ashton, as well as to Mitrovica to discuss the details of a political settlement between Belgrade and Pristina.[4][5] During his visit to Mitrovica, northern Kosovo, to garner support for the Brussels-brokered deal, he urged Kosovo Serbs to “leave the past and think about the future”. [6]

  • Then as a final sentence in the intro:

He is also Serbia’s Defence Minister and oversees the intelligence agencies.[7]

Thanks very much. Vivj2012 (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. I changed Dacic to Vučić in the first paragraph you proposed because I think this was mistake. Please let me know if I was right.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks very much. Yes it was a mistake! Good spot. Thanks again. Vivj2012 (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there any chance to lock this article for editing? It's being abused because of the elections --24.135.5.171 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "New cabinet elected; PM, ministers take oath of office". b92. 27 July 2012. Retrieved 18 September 2013.
  2. ^ Pekusic, Biljana (20 May 2013). "Vucic urges Kosovo Serbs to accept 'the future'". Southeast European Times. Retrieved 18 September 2013.
  3. ^ Vasovic, Aleksandar (29 March 2013). "Ruling Serb Progressive Party stays popular: opinion poll". Reuters. Retrieved 18 September 2013.
  4. ^ Sengupta, Kim (04 August 2013). "Aleksandar Vucic: The man who's bringing Belgrade in from the cold". The Independent. Retrieved 18 September 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ "Aleksandar Vucic: Kosovo Serbs 'should accept deal'". BBC News. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 18 September 2013.
  6. ^ Pekusic, Biljana (20 May 2013). "Vucic urges Kosovo Serbs to accept 'the future'". Southeast European Times. Retrieved 18 September 2013.
  7. ^ Vasovic, Aleksandar (29 March 2013). "Ruling Serb Progressive Party stays popular: opinion poll". Reuters. Retrieved 18 September 2013.

Vučić's family in WWII

Vučić's claim that his "paternal grandfather Anđelko, great-grandfather Rade, uncles and almost the entire family were killed by the Ustaše" was researched by Jutarnji list in a recent article.(in Croatian) While JL is definitely far from a source sympathetic to Vučić, their rebuttal seems fairly well-researched and fact-based and leaves at least a reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of his statements (which AFAIK have not been independently confirmed). I'm not suggesting a particular editorial action here, it's just FYI. GregorB (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandar Vučić: Hrvati se rugaju mojim ubijenim precima!

Oca moga oca, Anđelka, jednog od najbogatijih srpskih domaćina u selu Čipuljić, ustaše su odvele u prvoj grupi i nedugo zatim likvidirale. Moj otac ga nikada nije ni video, jer se rodio nakon njegove smrti. Ubili su ga, a nama su kao porodici poznata imena ustaških koljača koji su u tome učestvovali, i potkazivača i neposrednih izvršilaca. Takođe, ubijeni su i Stevo Vučić, Ilija Vučić, Đorđo i Rajko Vučić, najbliža familija moga oca. Svi su ubijeni na početku Drugog svetskog rata. ... Na strani moje bake, očeve majke, porodica Kunovac, stradao je još veći broj ljudi, koji su ubijeni samo zato što su Srbi. Ubijeni od ustaške ruke u mojoj familiji broje se desetinama. U poslednjem ratu sve kuće Vučića, kao jedne od najuglednijih srpskih porodica, srušene su i spaljene. To su, takođe, obavili hrvatski 'junaci', jer kameni zidovi nisu mogli sami da se brane.

So, we have the word of the Prime Minister of Serbia against Vaso Trifković (who?) and Catholic priest Juraj Batelja.--Zoupan 19:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the ENGLISH wiki, Zoupan .....

"My father's father, Anđelka, one of the richest Serbian hosts in the village of Čipuljić, took the Ustasha in the first group and then liquidated them shortly. My father never saw him since he was born after his death. They killed him and we, as families, were familiar with the names of the Ustasha knights involved in this, both the indictees and the direct perpetrators. Also, Stevo Vucic, Ilija Vucic, Djordjo and Rajko Vucic, the closest family of my father, were also killed. Everyone was killed at the start of World War II. ... On the side of my grandmother, father's mother, the Kunovac family, an even greater number of people were killed, who were killed only because they were Serbs. The Ustasha hand in my family was killed by dozens. In the last war, all the houses of Vucic, one of the most respected Serb families, were demolished and burned. This was also done by the Croatian 'heroes', because the stone walls could not defend themselves." 50.111.50.240 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent makeover

Folks, some of the recent changes are allegedly/probably a lobbying manipulation, here is the link (http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/corruption/serbia-pm-vucic-illegally-used-public-funds-campaign/ ); serbian opposition party rtw. the link (http://dostajebilo.rs/osi-vucic-nelegalno-koristio-drzavni-novac-u-kampanji/?lang=lat ). We should check it out. --Ivan VA (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

English in Brighton

"He learned English in Brighton, England, and worked as a merchant in London for some time." Any details on this - eg was he studying at an institution in Brighton? MultipleTom (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

President

The majority of this section seems to promote the anti-Vučić narrative by putting way too much focus on the particular type of criticism of Vučić, which questions the neutrality of the section. It definitively needs rewritting.

--Reollun (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

One year later the people are in the streets around Serbian TV stations protesting against him. Altering the article too much probably isn't justified. Doesn't look good for him . . . 50.111.50.240 (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

hundreds of thousands take to the streets in protest

Associated Press: https://www.foxnews.com/world/serbia-anti-government-protesters-surround-state-tv-building 50.111.50.240 (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Reuters article

@Sadko: The source is very reliable. You and @Resnjari: should not rv again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sadko's reasons have been shifting with each edit. So far it looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no evidence that the Reuters source is not RS, or that it has been taken out of context. In fact the part that is in "" is quoted to avoid issues and to show that Vucic did make that statement. I wont revert again and i await discussion.Resnjari (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I stand with all of the "shitfting" reasons. The statement is indeed taken out of context, I took the time to watch the original video and read the key statements in Serbian. The article quotes what the journalist found appealing and it is not a peace of balanced proper old-school journalism. This is.[1] Resnjari will be able to read it.
There are no other sources in English with the same quote, or at least that's the search results I got. How about you? This standalone out of nowhere statement will not hold ground regardless of my opinion on the matter (that is not that relevant here), but because the article is dubious. Furthermore, this teaming up is not going to help here. I clearly said that I disagree with this source. You could try harder and accept that there is/was no consensus on the matter and to try to not shut down other editors (or attempt to). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Sadko, no doubt Reuters is very reliable. Furthermore, those words of Vucic have been reported by other media outlets too, based on Reuters. I can not post links rn but you might also search them by yourself. Copy the statement and paste it on the search bar of the search engine. You can also add "Vucic" to the string. You can also add content from other reliable sources too, as @WEBDuB: just did. Vucic has made many, often contradictory, declarations about Kosovo. All of that is part of daily politics; whether those declarations are what one expects from Vucic or not is another thing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
That is off the point. I was commenting this very article not Reuters in general. The statement added in the article means very little because other parts of the speech are missing and this way it is completely misleading. Yes of course that it is daily politics and this sort of edit looks like an equivalent of daily politics to me. I did search for more refs, and this one in use is the most extreme in the way that it cuts the speech, which is (yet again) misleading. Once again: do you realise what no consensus means? I will give you a hint: keeping the content within the article while writing something like "talk to the talk page" is not a good way to go (to put it mildly). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I see your point that parts of the speech were not covered in the Reuters article, whereas the Radio Free Europe article covers the parliamentary session and its wider deliberations among Serb politicians. That said, there is no denial that Vucic stated what he did and that it was notable and probably is what caught the attention of Reuters and its two journalists who wrote the article. No Serbian leader to date has stated otherwise and Vucic making such a comment is an admission of the current reality that exists. Your opposition to not having that content in the article still does not suffice.Resnjari (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
1) I made the claim that the article is misleading as it quotes just a tiny part of the speech, which can be easily manipulated. That is a fact. 2) I gave you the ref. which proves so. That article gives the full picture, unlike the one which you provided and like to belive that is the reality (and current' reality can be very much changed in a 100 years or so, we had and even still have the capacity to do so, times are changing). :) 3) You did not care for any additional info. You did not care that another editor disagrees with the ref. but went https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding. 4) Another editor did the work per NPOV for you. 5) This is a nice example how to not cooperate with other editors and push an agenda, all under the disguise of shallow politeness. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sadko:, do not mess the discussion with your ususal nonsense about how editors who do not agree with you have an "agenda". You should be consistent with what you say and do. You said in the summary of the edit I reverted that "Better source is needed and I will keep an eye on this". The edit was the addition of the "better source needed" tag. Reuters is a very reliable source. In some of your comments you are saying that it is reliable, and in others that it is not reliable. Reuters, whatever your definitive opinion, is reliable. You can not add such tags whereever you wish. If the problem is the way how the content is written or placed in the article, things can be sorted out easily. My concern was the tag, not the content. Its addition, removal or modification is up to you and Resnjari. Cheers to all, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Bunch of nonsense; the problem is not from my side because I did leave the source and clearly explained what my concern is. I showed good faith, which can not be said for all sides. This edit, without the other vital info. about referendum and the whole context, is a clear example of an agenda. It is quite plain. You either do not understand quite well what the issue is or do not want to. Better source needed was placed with proper concern about the source and because I was not able to find the same info. in English. I have explained everything and do not wish to go in circles. And no, there was no contradiction with my comments or views, that notion is just brough up as a smoke screen for refusing to cooperate with other editors while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding. The strategy, so far, is to push an agenda or source to one's liking or an idea (such as this one, while adding forum-like comments about "reality", while living God knows where). If the sources are challenged or undo is made, "talk to the talk page" mechanism is evoked and teaming up is taking place. Users who disagree are invited to "cool down" (a 3RR tag is added to the their UP) while the final idea (read: endgame) is to simply defend the original stance instead of finding NPOV. Those are my observations so far and I hope that other editors are taking notice. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Look the two reporters (Sekularac and Vasovic) of the Reuters article focused on that part of the speech because it was notable and different from the other points which have been repeated by the Serbian leadership and other politicians. Its why it made news in English media like Reuters. Additionally if Vucic was really taken out of context, he himself would not have been going around and proposing the idea of "demarcation with the Albanians" (i.e a territorial swap). If he really thought that Kosovo could be reintegrated into the country with Serbia being in a strong position to achieve it, why the "demarcation"? Anyway, i ain't dealing with the rest which looks more like insinuations than anything else.Resnjari (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Nice spinning. See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The article's neutrality is questionable

The article about Vucic, who has been the leading politician in Serbia for seven full years now (since 2012) has a slanted narrative that focuses almost exclusively on the criticism of Vucic, but to be more exact, only a particular kind of criticism. His 'ultranatiolist' past, as well as the 'deterioration in media freedoms' section clearly don't contribute to a neutral viewpoint, despite the fact that the article deals with the biography of a living politician and a country leader (and bound to be controversial one way or another). What we are seeing here is that the article leans towards the anti-Vucic narrative and criticism of his policies from the viewpoint of pro-Western liberal democratic agenda. The article fails to include any noteworthy mention of Vucic's neoliberal policies, as it probably suits the liberal democratic circles and Serbian pro-Western comprador elite and which pretend to criticize him otherwise but on whose support he relies in governing the country. So it seems that we have a rather selective criticism of Vucic which is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. The article should be re-written to a large extent to maintain neutrality. --Reollun (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

True, NPOV is nowhere to be found here. You could start with editing and slow removal of Controversy paragraph (with good content copied within the rest of article). I am sure that other fellow editors (myself included) will join in. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Articles about many other authoritarian rulers include sections such as public image or image and perception, controversial opinions and statements, dictator charges, etc. The ideology is barely mentioned, but the way of ruling is described. The [Google Scholar search] showed that there is а scientific consensus that Vučić is an authoritarian ruler and that freedom of the media is suppressed. The OSCE and the European Commission also agree, as well as relevant organizations such as Freedom House, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, IREX, CIVICUS, etc. In addition, one of the longest-running protests in Europe are currently ongoing, which was supported by many Serbian intellectuals, against the way of ruling and scandals of ruling party (not ideologies). Right-wing and ultranationalism period are particularly unquestionable. I don't agree that this is a POV, but the summarizing the content from peer-reviewed scientific journals, relevant international organizations, prominent observes, and mainstream media (which is not tabloids). Are there any reliable sources that say something different about his way of governing? It is ОК to reorganize content, but no essential information needs to be removed. It would also be some form of censorship.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that there is no doubt that we have a borderline authoritarian ruler, my only concern is that the article's focus is more on controversies and not on his work (projects, initiatives nd what not). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox image

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is unanimous consensus that the image in the infobox should be Choice "B." TrueQuantum (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What image should be used in the infobox? --Vacant0 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  • A (current image)
    A (current image)
  • B
    B
  • C
    C
  • D
    D

B then C Alhough C is a higher quality image when enlarged, B has nicer framing and composition and looks better when compared to C at the size of an IB image. ~ HAL333 17:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I think B if that is the country flag in the background. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

B Framing is better than the others. zchrykng (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

B seems like the best choice. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

B It has a better framing and the country's flag is in it. Sea Ane (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

B, maybe C The other two are terrible pictures.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

B It looks to be the most appropriate and neutral. I think there is pretty much unanimous consensus here. CranberryMuffin (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

B, has better framing than the rest.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Talk:Aleksandar Vu?i?" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Talk:Aleksandar Vu?i? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Talk:Aleksandar Vu?i? until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Vučić o Kosovu: Biramo između slatke laži i gorke istine". Radio Slobodna Evropa (in Serbo-Croatian). Retrieved 2019-10-25.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aleksandar_Vučić/Archive_1&oldid=1165486914"