Talk:North Kosovo crisis (2011–2013)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Serbia involvment

I am not sure if Republic of Serbia is officially involved in conflicts. Kosovo Serbs are, however, Serbian Goverment participates only in negotiations and does not support rebelion.--DustBGD89-3 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Title

There is no border between central Serbia and Kosovo and Metohia, just an administrative line. Border implies two equal entities. However, Kosovo and Metohia is regarded by majority of UN members as autonomous province of Serbia under temporary international rule, based on UN Resolution 1244. Also, former title implied that Serbia was somehow involved in the incidents which is not the case. Perunova straža (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Further edits are done on order to have wording that represents the real situation, based on international law, treaties and documents, instead of one-sided biased view. Perunova straža (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly consensus i\s not 1 editor, and to change the title in the box and lead change the article with consensus.
Border does not mean to "equal entities" you have provincial borders and city district lines, etc.Lihaas (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits explained

  1. unexplained[1][2]
  2. unexplained an dunsourced[3]
  3. per title sectio above and pov[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
  4. edit war without consensus to restore
  5. pov
  6. not done
  7. 2 words?Lihaas (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

New name

2011 North Kosovo crisis is more descriptive--93.137.112.209 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to start a requested move. Jenks24 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This may have more credence than the unilateral (and deceptive) move to [its current incarantion. (itf its a broder clash there has to be another border)Lihaas (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I woul dalso support this npov move.Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Third phase?

Should we consider these new attacks as a phase number three? Responce appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.173.7 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, i would say yes... --WhiteWriter speaks 16:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

KFOR is not a pro-Albanian force, it is officially neutral, it has fought with ex-KLA forces as well as Serb forces

KFOR is not a pro-Albanian force as some have claimed, it has fought ex-KLA forces, though it has miserably failed in the aftermath of the Kosovo War to protect Serb civilians from ethnic Albanian nationalist militants. See this reference: [13]

KFOR is part of the UNMIK mission in Kosovo. Claims that KFOR is pro-Albanian are common by Serb nationalist and anti-NATO sources, but the reality is that KFOR was created part of a UN-authorized mission with the UN Security Council voting in favour - including Russia (that is widely considered pro-Serbian on Kosovo issues). Generally pro-Serbian governments in Russia and Greece have historically sent soldiers to take part in KFOR.--R-41 (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point where in article is KFOR claimed as Albanian? Thanks for invite. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
In the infobox KFOR is put on the side of the Albanian-majority led Republic of Kosovo government versus the Serb-majority led North Kosovo. It is part of UNMIK, that is officially neutral on the ethnic-Albanian vs. Serb ethnic conflict.--R-41 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
But, in this moment, KFOR is opposed to Serbs of Kosovo, and not RoK. Сукоби на Јагњеници (in Serbian) Your edits are factually incorrect. KFOR is NOT officially neutral in this situation, it IS on the side of the RoK, as they try to push RoK's politics, using brutal force. If you want to place KFOR in the neutral section (where they are not) you will have to gain consensus with more then 6 different users agreeing. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Here you can see that, so called neutral, KFOR pushing away and beating peaceful sitting protest in Jagnjenica. In this moment, KFOR is using force over Serb civil population to establish RoK politics and borders on North Kosovo. That is very definition what neutral mission should not do. Wikipedia must be neutral, in the meaning that must present thing as they are, and not as they should be. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
From the video that appears like standard riot patrol, plus the protestors were provoking the guards, it was not a sitting protest. KFOR was sent to Kosovo keep ethnic Albanians and Serbs from attacking and killing each other. If KFOR does not show up to put itself between Albanians and Serbs, the Kosovo Security Force would be there and Albanians and Serbs would likely start killing each other. Plus the video is a short, edited clip from Radio Television Serbia a state-sponsored public broadcaster is hardly a neutral source, the Government of Serbia has a stake in the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict in Kosovo. Look, don't pretend that this is a normal topic, this is a topic about a long-term vicious and murderous ethnic conflict that involves long-held xenophobia and ethnic cleansing by both sides, ethnic Albanian and Serb; I clearly understand that you fully support the Serbian position, and have a predisposition to oppose the Albanian side. Ethnic Albanians and Serbs regularly issue death threats to each other over the internet and call each other vulgar and racist terms; so a report exclusively one side or the other is not reliable, the two sides generally viciously hate each other. Yes, the Western-led component of KFOR probably do have a bias against Serb side, because Western states were blamed by their populations for not doing enough to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Karadzic government of Srpska that Milosevic and his ally in the federal Yugoslav government, Borislav Jovic, agreed to provide financial assistance to and military equipment to Srpska; and the belief by the West that history would repeat itself in Kosovo, if Milosevic's government and Serb nationalist paramilitaries were not stopped in 1999. As I said, KFOR was created by the United Nations as part of UNMIK, with the support pro-Serbian Russia in the UN Security Council, and has had pro-Serbian governments take part in KFOR peacekeeping operations, including Russia and Greece. KFOR has fought against both Serb paramilitary forces and ex-KLA Albanian paramilitary forces to maintain order in Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
First, this was sitting protest, video is of the afterwards. Google Jagnjenica. "protestors were provoking"? O c'mon... Again, you explained very well what is the reason for KFOR's existence, and what is their supposed mission, but i didn't talk about past. I am interested in 25 July 2011, and after. In that time, KFOR is not neutral. I dont see how barricade may take peoples life? Barricade is peaceful protest, opposition to the forced politics! But KFOR is trying to brake down the barricade, and push, by force, RoK Albanian custom workers into North Kosovo, what is against agreements. That is cause of the problem in the moment! RoK is not participating, as KFOR is doing their job. KFOR is not neutral in here, KFOR is on RoK's side in this conflict. KFOR is helping RoK to gain full control over entire Kosovo territory, what they should not do. KFOR is directly against Serbia and their citizens, and against political and national will of the Serbs of Kosovo, what we can se by their tearing down of the barricades. Neither KFOR, nor UNMIK should have political attitude in here. They suppose just to stop violance, and to stop possibility of the new war. That is their primary goal in there. KFOR did helped in the past, that is out of the question, but also, they failed to help when it was the most important. You should have in mind that Eastern world have very different attitude toward UNMIK role in Kosovo then the western world (of which you are a member, as you said so your self). In that same atmosphere, Wikipedia should represent factographic trace in time, and not supposed one. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
KFOR has to be able to maintain order and stability over the whole of Kosovo as described in the mandate of UNMIK. The Serb protestors are barricading their entrance into the area, and it is well known that the Serbs are planning to secede the north from the Albanian-majority south that the RoK refuses to accept, plus Serb nationalists will never give up their demands for Serbia to get back Kosovo Polje - that will cause a war. Plus there are far more international issues at play than just disgruntled Serbs in North Kosovo. If North Kosovo is allowed to secede, this will set an international precedent for any ethnic enclave to secede, including the Albanians of the Republic of Macedonia, the Turks of Cyprus, the Ossetians of South Ossetia - a sure cause for legitimizing ethnic conflict. As I said, do not ignore the fact that Albanians and Serbs generally viciously hate each other, if KFOR doesn't get inbetween Serb protestors and Albanian law enforcement, they WILL kill each other.--R-41 (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... Well, i am afraid that your comment is filled with personal opinions that are questionable. As far as i know, and as far as media tells us, none really cares for Kosovo Polje. It is only about Serbian people there, and the most important, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo. Kosovo Polje is just a sad story. Also, neither me, neither you can know what will cause the war. Serb nationalists? Can you point that in references, please? I cannot find that warmongering nationalists today even with a stick! Entire political chorus of Serbia acts like kittens now... That anyone of them are really nationalist, we would not be in this situation today, so trust me, it is over with Serbian nationalism. But i am afraid that Albanian nationalism is something all of us should dealt with... Again, we should not talk about North Kosovo future here, we should only talk about present, and the most important, article. Please, gain consensus for your edits, as i am not convinced that those are needed. And, please, dont point my origin as arguments, i know that you didnt meant anything wrong, but if you think that my origin is argument for my edits, i should place Kosovo je Srbija parole everywhere. But i dont do that. Again, gain consensus for your edits, with vast majority of users in favor for your edits. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
'Serb nationalists will never give up their demands for Serbia to get back Kosovo Polje - that will cause a war. R-41' As I remember, Albanian nationalists caused a war by wanting ethnic enclave to secede from Serbia. --Bas-Celik (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
And that is just one interpretation on a long, viscious, and murderous ethnic conflict between Albanians and Serbs stemming from the early 20th century, to which I clearly can see that you, Bas-Celik, are on the Serb side of this conflict in placing the blame on Albanians, just as a person on the Albanian side would place the blame on the Serbs. Neither nationalist side is innocent, they have both pursued ethnic cleansing and genocide over the course of this long conflict.--R-41 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM.--В и к и T 09:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

its not really forum discussion was tryign to sourt out th einfobox
R-41's edits seem biased as hehas not not added 1 source but justmade changed. Furthermore, "From the video that appears like standard riot patrol" indicated that they were AGIANST the protesters hence on a difference side. Though i wouldnt mind adding 3 sides as a compromiste to the infobox.(Lihaas (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)).

Casualties

Some of the numbers dont add up (and theres probably double counting too). Many additions were made without sources. 58 wasnt surced, 50 was removed confusing changes 43 unsourced 35 nd 90 unsourced33 unsourced12 unsourced(Lihaas (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)).

Neutrality Tags

It seems pretty clear that no consensus is possible at the moment. Since all the tags say is that the tone or neutrality is disputed, the tags should stay up until some kind of consensus emerges. I don't have the time or energy to get into the nitty gritty of the debate itself. Carinae986 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

First Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No clear consensus to move, although current title may not be ideal, it is supported by sources and does no harm to the WP in the short term. Allow this one to work itself out in 2012 Mike Cline (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes → 2011 North Kosovo crisis – Relisted. Flurry of last minute comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Entire situation is by far bigger then just border or administrative line, and at the end, new title is NPOV, as Serbia's POV is that we dont have border between Kosovo and Serbia, but just administrative line. All sources points that North Kosovo is location of this events, and not just thin line in question... --WhiteWriter speaks 01:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. Has it really been commonly described as a "crisis", though? I've heard much talk of "clashes", but not a "crisis". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is numerous sources for this. CHRONOLOGY OF CRISIS IN NORTHERN KIM, Solution to North Kosovo Crisis "In Sight", The northern Kosovo crisis, "Sides close to solution to north Kosovo crisis", etc, etc... --WhiteWriter speaks 16:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
There is about 500.000+ examples that your proposition is not the Wikipedia practice... 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, for example. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Rename to 2011 Kosovo-Serbia border conflict. There's no widely used term but various descriptive titles, most of which don't use the term "crisis".--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, i suppose that today is not the different, but you should read conversation in the requested votes, before you vote. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes is nonsense and big mistake. Clashes are only on teritory of North Kosovo btw Serbs and KFOR. Republic of Serbia has nothing with it. This title gives wrong impresion. --Alexmilt (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Clashes are in four municipalities of Northern Kosovo, only btw Serbs and KFOR. Serbia proper is out of it. Serbia has no presence there. --Bas-Celik (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the claim that Serbia has nothing to do with it, cannot be taken seriously. The "new" name is not used by international media, plus inaccurate. Majuru (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Here are some examples of the Kosovo "border clashes": [14], [15], [16]. The name is supported by the world media, the ultimate source of this page. Majuru (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Except for one the rest of the supporters of the move are all Serb users, so they can't be blamed for adopting this view as it's the official stance of Serbia. However, internationally the dispute and Serbia's involvement has caused negative reactions [17][18][19] i.e it's an issue, in which Serbia is one of the two participants.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
You can be banned for national and ethical profiling of users, and you have been already warned about that. Stop. + Your post is not true, as always... --WhiteWriter speaks 00:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  1. Merkel Says Kosovo Clashes Show Serbia Not Ready For EU
  2. Kosovo: Border crossing tension continues after clashes
  3. Serbia, Kosovo seek deal to end border tension
  4. Serbia, Kosovo delegates to holdfresh talks on border dispute
  5. On the border of conflict
  6. UN envoy calls for patience, dialogue on Kosovo border tensionsetc. Btw why didn't you use the title of WPR, which is Kosovo's North is Europe's Latest Frozen Conflict--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support As the Serbian government always insists that it abides that UN resolution 1244, and that it does not want to divide Kosovo, there is aboslutely no way that this is a border dispute. This is simply a dispute about control and whatnot. Kosovo is part of Serbia, and the Serbian government feels that the northern region is part of Kosovo. Therefore there is no border dispute. The dispute is weather or not Pristina controls the northern area or if the northern area controls itself/has autonomy. (LAz17 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)).
  • Support. New name is more precise and more neutral. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Majuru. bobrayner (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV still isn't resolved. The tone is very anti-RoK and anti-KFOR in this article.

The tone of this article is anti-RoK and anti-KFOR. The infobox says that the Republic of Kosovo of seeking to "impose" "Pristina-declared" laws on the North - that is a very negative way of saying that the RoK is intending to assert its sovereignty and territorial integrity over the whole of Kosovo. Second, the infobox puts quotation marks on the statement that KFOR intends to assert law and order in Kosovo, that is delegitimizing its claim - a POV on KFOR.--R-41 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You have an answers above. Also, it would be wise to point those POV areas, so all of us can fix them. If you just template it without normal detail explanation of POV sentences, template can be removed per Wikipedia guidelines. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Your answers in the previous section only clearly indicated that you oppose KFOR for supporting the RoK's actions that you have also clearly stated that you oppose, so you precisely support these POVs. The specific issues I am addressing is that the sentence in the Infobox stating that the RoK is seeking to "impose" "Pristina-declared" laws be changed to that the Republic of Kosovo is "seeking to assert sovereignty and territorial integrity over the whole of Kosovo", and that Serb protestors and officials in North Kosovo are seeking "to maintain North Kosovo within Serbia and oppose assertion of sovereignty by the Republic of Kosovo over North Kosovo". And that the section in the Infobox on KFOR be changed to that KFOR is acting to "fulfill its UNMIK mandate obligations in North Kosovo including maintaining order". The issue of KFOR's position needs indepth study to place its position in the infobox. Clear evidence from reliable sources - i.e. not from the Republic of Kosovo's media or Serbia's media, and not newspaper clips reacting to issues of the moment and often unreliable or exaggerated - must be found to back up claims of KFOR is pro-RoK and evidence . KFOR is cooperated with RoK law enforcement - but is it also cooperating with Serbian law enforcement? Is it opposing the Kosovo Serb actions in the North out of support for the RoK or (as I think it is) acting according to its UNMIK mandate to maintain order over all of Kosovo including the North that Serb protestors are barricading KFOR from entering. Also, it has been claimed that KFOR was initially unaware of the RoK's actions - indicating that KFOR was not involved in plans by the RoK regarding North Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
No R-41 your edit is biased. Kosovo is DISPUTE TERRITORY as established across wikipedia. this is not a new outlet to take a [western] side. Though i would agree to the KFOR statement of seeking to pursue its mandate, but certainly not that Kosovo is establishign its writ/sovereingty because that violated the disputed states.
"cooperating with Serbian law enforcement? Is it opposing the Kosovo Serb actions " No it is not, and yes it is CLEARLY opposing Kosovo Serb actions . there is NO doubt on that...if there was there would be no such article.(Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)).
Of course Kosovo is a disputed territory, I am not challenging that. I am stating that the Republic of Kosovo is attempting to assert sovereignty over North Kosovo that Kosovo Serbs reject. Yes, KFOR is opposing Kosovo Serb actions, but they have insisted that they are opposing them on the grounds that they are undermining KFOR's UNMIK obligations by denying freedom of movement to North Kosovo because of barricades. Why would there be such an article if KFOR and the RoK weren't on the same side? The answer: first you are asking a rhetorical question - there are many possible reasons of conditions on the ground there why it could happen, one of which is because it is known that the RoK did not inform KFOR of its sudden actions, and secondly because nationalists on both sides generally violently hate each other in general, which is why there needs to be UN-authorized peacekeepers there to keep the two rival groups from killing each other. Lastly, the Serbian government is both critical of some of KFOR's actions but also of Kosovo Serb militants who have provoked violence. Where is there this "clear" evidence that KFOR is on the RoK's side? Because they cooperate with RoK law enforcement? The United States cooperated with police employed by Nazi Germany to maintain order in the US occupied zones of Germany after WWII ended in 1945, the U.S. was not pro-Nazi. Besides, NATO, the leading component of KFOR has been negotiating with the Serbian government to have the roadblocks removed, and NATO and the EU have worked out an agreement thusfar for joint-Serbian-RoK management of crossings. see here: [20]. Also the same article shows that NATO is being far more favourable to Serbia under Tadic than it was during the Milosevic regime, it wants the issue resolved quickly so that Serbia can join EU, and France's representative on the issue of NATO's position stated that "Serbia has made progress" and that "We must give Serbia signs of encouragement", with the only NATO members holding reservations over accepting Serbia's EU membership being: Germany and Austria both of which have soldiers in KFOR who were injured by Kosovo Serb protestors.[21] So overall, NATO and moreover KFOR have not been anti-Serbian on this issue. Please look at the source before responding, especially where it indicates that NATO is negotiating with the Serbian government, that NATO supports a solution that will include both Serbia and the RoK on the crossings issue, and that NATO wants the issue resolved quickly so that Serbia can enter the EU without complications or opposition, none of these appear to be anti-Serbian, some even seem pro-Serbian.--R-41 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but what is exactly your point? Several editors told you that they disagree with you, but you still template the article as you find it necessary to do that. Dont you think that you are going little over the top? This subject is under ARBMAC editing restrictions, so please, dont push... --WhiteWriter speaks 16:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I am continuing to address this issue, because other users on this page have clearly stated their personal opposition to the RoK's action and support a POV on the matter. User:Lihaas from the userpage's infoboxes says that he/she is a supporter of the Kosovo is Serbia position, that he/she is a National Socialist (Nazi) as well as supporter of various far right European political movements such as Jobbik and National Union Attack, and likely has a clear POV on this issue, as it affects her/his personal interest. Considering that there have been only four editors that include me, you (WhiteWriter), Lihaas - a self-described Nazi who supports Kosovo as part of Serbia, and Bas Celik who blames the Albanians for the situation in Kosovo, how can this currently be representative of the issue. Suppose a number of Albanian editors, who on their userpages state that they support Kosovo independence, were to arrive on this talk page, due to their personal interest they would likely have different views than User:Lihaas or User:Bas Celik, and if there were a significant number, the situation on this talkpage could turn in another direction. There need to be more users from a variety of backgrounds - including people who do not have a direct vested interest in the Albanian-Serb conflict in Kosovo - and perhaps an administrator invited to discuss or if necessary arbitrate an NPOV solution to the issues on this article. Also, the contention that KFOR (and thus UNMIK that it is associated with) is pro-RoK is a serious issue. I have presented evidence from this source: [22], that shows that NATO - the leading component of KFOR is seeking a bileteral agreement betweeen Serbia and the RoK on the issue of crossings. The source I presented shows that NATO wants the issue resolved so that Serbia can be accepted into the EU without further delay due to the immediate issue in Kosovo. The source shows that KFOR's major issue is the freedom of movement in North Kosovo - in particular the freedom of movement of KFOR forces in North Kosovo without being prevented from entering areas due to Serb protestors' barricades. So I have brought up evidence that contests that KFOR is only pro-RoK, just as others have brought up evidence that claims that KFOR is pro-RoK. The position of KFOR in the infobox needs to be determined with evidence. We need to use the Wikipedia policy of third opinion from a number of users, preferably with no direct vested interest in one side or the other of the issues on this article, to resolve this issue. Rational discussion has only occurred between me and you (WhiteWriter) on this issue, Lihaas and Bas Celik have demonstrated that they clearly support a POV on this issue.--R-41 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)--R-41 (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Further please keep your POV out of the matter and dont discuss users bit content instead. And dont make presumptions! Nazi = National Socialist GERMAN WORKERS PARTY. its a proper noun, it is not the other national socialist parties in the world (NSCN from Nagaland, for example)(Lihaas (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)).
Response to third opinion request:
I see no evidence of non-neutral language in the article. Furthermore, KFOR is widely considered pro-Albanian by pro-Serbian and neutral observers, while I couldn't find any non-pro-Albanian parties to claim it neutral.—Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw that this was still an issue on the noticeboard, so I thought I would see what it was about. I read the article, and I thought it was ok for the most part, atleast as an outsider who isn't familiar with the ins and outs of balkan politics. The caption box on the right is another matter, however. IMHO there are three value-laden descriptions here:

"Keeping Albanian police out of North Kosovo" implies that they don't belong there and ought to be removed. That's a political opinion, not a fact. Probably alot of Albanians think that they do belong there. It would be more neutral to say that there is a conflict over which state should exercise sovereignty in North Kosovo.
"Imposition of pristina-declared laws" implies that the laws are being forced on people against their will. Maybe they are, I don't know. But I think it's fair to ask "who says that people don't want these laws?" The citation doesn't really say, it just links to another wikipedia article. I think we normally cite by referencing sources external to Wikipedia, so this seems problamatic to me too.
"Maintaining Law and Order" is a value laden phrase for alot of reasons. The most obvious, I guess, is the presumption that the other side is in favor of lawlessness and chaos. Again, I don't know the particulars of Balkan politics, but I imagine that the real issue isn't whether there should be law and order, but who should be writing the laws and who should be maintaining the order. Anyway there's a long history of groups in power using catchphrases like "law and order" to justify cracking down on dissident minorities, so I think this is language that doesn't belong.

It seems to me that these statements ought to be rephrased in more neutral language. Carinae986 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are the questions of references, not WP:NPOV. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, i agree. The best thing is to find some references for that, and i will do that tomorrow, in other thread. Thank you, with your posts, this overall question is settled, and concluded. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree. The problem is that the language is unencycopedic because it takes a definite stance in an ongoing political dispute. That is a clear WP:NPOV issue, and it can't be cleared up simply by showing that other people also hold that opinion. The problem can only be cleared up by changing the language, or else changing the article to show that these are opinions held by some, and not facts which represent a consensus among qualified experts. I would not consider this matter resolved. Carinae986 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Make a userspace draft, link it here, and it will be discussed. Who knows, may be Your version would be better. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk)
I won't be able to do that until monday, but if this issue is still unresolved then, I will. Carinae986 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Czarkoff you said that KFOR is widely considered pro-Albanian by neutral observers. Which are those and could you link to some such responses?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I would provide a link for this claim, but that involves long digging the piles on internet. If I was that committed to the article to actually perform such digging, I would be an editor of this article. Still, I formed my opinion a while ago when I actually came across such references, and I see no reason to change it. Given the history of the KFOR mission, it's pretty evident it would never happen unless there was a strong bias towards Albanians in Kosovo. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
To Czarkoff, the Times of India, a newspaper associated with a country that supports Serbia's claim to Kosovo, recently published an article that shows that NATO - the leading component of KFOR, wants this dispute in Kosovo quickly resolved by a bilateral agreement between the Republic of Kosovo and Serbia so that Serbia's entry into the EU will no longer be stalled by this issue, see here: [23]. France, a leading NATO member, has stressed that Serbia needs "encouragement" not reprimand to resolve this issue and claims that Serbia's inclusion in the EU will bolster Balkan security.[24] In NATO only Germany and Austria - whom have had soldiers in KFOR wounded in the recent events in Kosovo have shown reluctance to include Serbia in the EU.[25] Of KFOR's historical and present contributors, Argentina, Armenia, France, Greece, India, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, and Ukraine have historically held either favourable attitudes to Serbia over the period of the Balkan conflicts since the 1990s to present or have supported Serbia's position on the Kosovo issue - nine of which support Serbia's claim of sovereignty over Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but all of Your statements actually prove the pro-Albanian position of majority of KFOR suppliers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-Albanian"? Czarkoff, what are you talking about? Did you even read the source I provided to you? The source shows that NATO is supporting Serbia's accession into the EU, that NATO has worked out a bilateral agreement between Serbia and the RoK that will include both Serbia and the RoK in dealing with crossings of people from north Kosovo into Central Serbia. I have informed you that a series of major states involved in KFOR have supported Serbia's claim to sovereignty in Kosovo, including: Russia, India, Greece, and Spain - these countries' combined represent over one billion people and all have substantial military power - they should not be ignored they have been significant components of KFOR. And there are other pro-Serbian KFOR member states as well. Russia in 1999 voted in the UN Security Council to authorize the creation of KFOR, without Russia's vote KFOR would not have been created.--R-41 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There are three points of view on Kosovo:
  • Kosovo is independent (pro-Albanian bias);
  • Kosovo is an autonomous province of Serbia (pro-Serbian bias);
  • Kosovo is a disputed territory.
As Your source claims, KFOR is helping sides "in dealing with crossings of people from north Kosovo into Central Serbia", thus taking pro-Albanian position of independent Kosovo. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
What needs to be remembered is this. KFOR is an excrement of NATO, installed on a mandate that the sovereign security forces withdraw. Although it was supposed to assume the role of local administration adhering to the laws of the government it expelled, it actually effected a U-turn and ceremonially supervised the internal bodies to rule spawning centralised Albanian rule in most of the country and local Serb rule in five municipalities. Now it may indeed be neutral on a ground level in that it acts to prevent one group of civilians harming an opponent bunch regardless of victim ethnicity, but I would ask the following question to those claiming KFOR is neutral: had the situation been reversed, the U.N not requiring national forces to pull out, the peacekeeping force commissioned to suppress rebels and prevent a breakaway state, and not a single one of its participant governments recognising its independence when the declaration was made, baring in mind also that Spain withdrew from the project after amending its position from 1999 (pro-NATO) to 2004 (anti-U.S) - would it still be neutral? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
"in dealing with crossings of people from north Kosovo into Central Serbia" is not a pro-Albanian statement - it was a statement by me that mentions Central Serbia that refers to a region of Serbia. Czarkoff, have you read the source I provided? Plus stop slandering me as pro-Albanian on this issue - I personally view the Kosovo conflict as a violent ethnic conflict perpetrated by both Albanian and Serb sides dating back to the early 20th century and I believe that while reconciliation between Albanians and Serbs was nearly impossible after the Kosovo War that any referendum of of Kosovo becoming independent should have been delayed for at or between 20 to 30 years since 1999 due to the extreme ethic hatred sparked by the escalation of Albanian-Serb conflict in the 1990s, and so that both Albanian and Serb refugees could have returned to their lands in Kosovo. As for Evlekis' statement, it is a POV-filled soapbox and a wasted contribution from the second vulgar sentence that compares KFOR to excrement. So now we've had Lihaas - a neo-Nazi, Bas Celik - a person who blames Albanians for the entire conflict in Kosovo, and Evlekis who has interjected in an otherwise rational conversation to add that "KFOR is excrement of NATO" - they have an anti-KFOR or anti-RoK POV, but I don't just blame this side, if a bunch of Albanian nationalist editors arrive here we would get vulgar-filled denouncements of the pro-Serbian side - this situation is totally unacceptable, this discussion SHOULD NOT become a verbal slugfest between pro-Serbian and pro-Albanian editors, we need more people involved in this discussion who do not have a gripe against one side or the other.--R-41 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't make it explicit: I don't claim that You have biases. I claim the KFOR to have bias in this situation. And I conclude it not because of the "Central Serbia" wording in article, but because the discussion over crossing the assumed border actually implies the presence of border. The said border is only supported by pro-Albanian version, as two other versions assume the lack of international borders in the region (either due to continuity of Serbia in pro-Serbian version or disputable status of territory in neutral version). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The Serbian government has signed an interim agreement to cooperate with the RoK over crossings. While it is true that the Serbian government does not recognize there being a political border between Central Serbia and Kosovo, it is known that the Serbian government wants to keep illicit drugs from being smuggled into Central Serbia from Kosovo, as there is a substantial illicit drug trade in Kosovo, so in that sense Serbia does recognize a boundary between a more stable Central Serbia and a more unstable Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Onward slightly

This is not a border for Serbia, and they don't call it like that. Anyway, You called for 3O and I provided it. Unfortunately, I can't devote enough time to this discussion, and I don't see any way I can help it, so I stop watching it. Good luck! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I only got involved to try to ease things. I make no secret of the fact that I detest KFOR/NATO and every other outfit that New World proponents hide behind but this wasn't the point I was making. I was simply implying that it is a little over-optimistic for anyone to lie to himself that KFOR is unattached to NATO and it can therefore only be as neutral as NATO was in its campaign that led to the creation of KFOR and the other international institutions acting in Kosovo. My own feelings don't come into this, and believe me, I have no pro-Serb bias: if NATO had intervened the other way as they just about did in my mother's country Macedonia in 2001 - I would feel the same way. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It is true that KFOR has a strong NATO base and that NATO was involved in the Kosovo War that attacked Serbian forces. But people need to remember the circumstances in the 1990s and 1999 - the government of Serbia was led by an autocrat, Slobodan Milosevic who had exploited Serbian nationalist grievances in Kosovo to rise to power, Milosevic and his ally at the SFRY's federal level Borslav Jovic are known to have provided funding and weapons to the Srpska government in the Bosnian War that resulted in ethnic cleansing. Western populations were disgusted by the Sarajevo market attack in 1994 and demanded that the west take action against Serb forces (prior to 1994 both the UK under diplomat Lord Owen's activities and France were generally pro-Serbian), and the massacre at Srebrenica only compounded the Western view that the Serb side in the Yugoslav Wars was the most dangerous and ruthless. My point is that since the Bosnian War, the Western world had witnessed failures to prevent genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda and there were strong demands to "act fast" to prevent a potential ethnic cleansing of Albanians from Kosovo. Today the circumstances involving Serbia are substantially different in terms of the kind of government in Serbia as compared in 1999 to what it is now. In 1999 Serbia was led by a technocratic authoritarian pseudo democracy founded from a degenerated Marxist-Leninist system that promoted Serbian nationalist sentiments to uphold itself from collapsing like other Marxist-Leninist regimes did. Today Serbia is a liberal democracy that has arrested war criminals from the wars of the 1990s and wants to be in the EU. NATO was opposed to the Serbia of 1999, it supports the Serbia of today because the Serbian government overall has abandoned nationalist policies and now NATO supports Serbian EU membership.--R-41 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
We've gone right off-topic (neutrality of KFOR). First of all, the successors to the SFRY were ALL run by autocrats with no exceptions; secondly, every side in every conflict committed atrocities against its opposing population; thirdly, the "horrified population in the west that begged their governments to act" is a shocking indictment of the rife ignorance promoted by anti-Belgrade governments and their associated media - the average person still thinks the Yugoslav wars were Serb militias versus non-Serb civilians and that's where the chapter ends. And despite this, you talk liberally about Srebrenica and the Sarajevo market attacks despite thousands of publications from outsiders that refute these chapters (Srebrenica mainly). Now I am a realist, I know how politics works and that figures are permanently inflated by the victims and played down by the perpetrators, sources in turn either back one horse or the other, and people with a genuine interest can never discover the facts; the fact is that ALL political incidents have alternative views. To this end, I am not convinced by any argument from anyone on any matter in any political sitaution. I do however ackowledge that these views exist and that had anything emerged to disprove an opponent 100% then that opposing view will vanish instantly. To suddenly prove that everything Serbs are accused of is 100% true as reported and Serb claims are 100% false would not weaken the overall Serbian position of the 1990s as there is still much they can argue. Concerning the post-2000 system, nobody "abandoned" nationalist policies because the 1990s government never adopted them in the first place. The country was called FR Yugoslavia NOT Serbia and it comprised two republics one of which was Montenegro and as one country, it recognised Republic of Macedonia. This is wholly inconsistent with Serbian nationalist ideology: had the country been called Serbia, had the Radicals been in power and restored the monarchy, and had it only been after the revolution that Montenegro was awarded autonomy followed by a Belgrade recognition of Macedonia, we might have been able to discuss "abandoning Serbian nationalism" but no part of this is remotely true, so it cannot be a true nationalist goal that was the target. As for "arresting war criminals" and bootlicking for EU membership, many ordinary people believe that this is the most shameful chapter in Serbia's recorded history - they arrest "war criminals" whilst many others not only doubt the allegations and the storyline in question, but even question the ICTY and its existence. This whole subject is far from being universally accepted from any angle. Furthermore, whilst I don't disagree with you about it being an illiberal democracy before 2000, it is anything but liberal today. I hold that there is none anywhere in this world, but I can assure you that the only thing October 5 saw was regime change; power is still exercised by a handful, the system is still contrived to keep undesirables out and mark my words - you will NEVER see Demokratsta stranka in opposition unless another revolution happens, just like Montenegro - all along, Đukanović was the power man, Milošević could do nothing to stop him when he turned Montenegro from 1996 and rejected the Dinar. Today he is neither PM nor president but every Montenegrin and political expert knows that there are THREE masters in Montenegro - Đukanović, Svetozar Marović and Ranko Krivokapić and that's the end - it doesn't matter who is PM and president. The fact is that the socialist opposition will never get into power and this lot will never step down - unless as we said, a revolt changes things. Yet, Montenegro is hailed as a "liberal democracy" by the very same sources who claim that of Serbia, Croatia and Macedonia. Go to these countries and call them "liberal democracies" and see how many friends you make. The most famous example occurred in 2001 - PM Đinđić signed Milošević's death warrant when sending him off to the Hague AGAINST the wishes of President Koštunica whose hands were tied. On paper, the head of state is higher than head of government and such actions officially need to be approved by head of state. This could never happen in a liberal democracy, the least that would have happened would have been the head of state officially agreeing with the move but here there was no secret of the weakness of the president. There is a saying that within a system, there are two places a powerful man can never find himself, one is in opposition and the other is prison. Many leaders were once incarcerated (Mugabe, Jerry Rawlings) but there had to be regime change before they could be leaders, even if they had to orchestate it themselves! In Serbia, DSS has hopped in and out of government, but DS has consistently been there in some capacity - Serbs know who pull the strings there. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Dindic signed Milosevic's "death warrant"? So you believe the conspiracy theory that the Hague killed Milosevic? You claim that there is a "refutation" about Srebrenica? Do you mean refutation of the thousands of counted bodies and the DNA testing of the bodies at Srebrenica? Milosevic not supportive of nationalism? Milosevic's supporters were fervently and violently nationalist, historian Sabrina Ramet states that they shouted slogans like "Long live Serbia—death to Albanians!" and "Montenegro is Serbia!" in a 1988 protest the the "anti-bureaucratic revolution" . I never said that Djukanovic's Montenegro was liberal democratic, he is an opportunist - once a supporter of Milosevic when he was popular and then went against Milosevic when Milosevic was becoming unpopular amongst youth from 1996 onward. Yes, I know that there was a state called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia it was created in 1992 and after a spar between Serbia versus Montenegro - Bulatovic was offered quick access by Italy's diplomat in Yugoslavia to what was then the European Community in 1991 and briefly supported leaving Yugoslavia until Serbian media denounced him as a traitor and he backed off. The FRY was created to legitimize Srpska and Krajina joining a union with Serbia because Serbia could claim that these were "Yugoslav" territories wanting to remain united with "Yugoslavia" - as the former SFR Yugoslavia previously held these territories, the FRY could claim them. The FRY was controlled by Milosevic when he was president of Serbia - the federal presidents were initially appointed by the republics, Cosic was forced to resign over a disagreement with Milosevic, and diplomats met with Milosevic as Serbian president in the early to mid 1990s, not the federal president. As for the Republic of Macedonia, prior to secession Milosevic intended to overthrow its leadership and replace them with politicians loyal to him, and supported the return of Serbs, who had been pressured to leave their lands many years prior, to return to their lands and supported self-determination of Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia - in other words the right for Serbs there to be united with Serbia. For this go to Google Books find and read page 72 of Ackermann, Alice (2000). Making Peace Prevail: Preventing Violent Conflict in Macedonia. and page 351 (for info on Milosevic supporters shouting "Long live Serbia—death to Albanians!" and "Montenegro is Serbia!") and page 79 (for more on Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia) of Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. The Milosevic regime in general fostered violent nationalism, even former members of Milosevic's government have admitted to that now, including Dusan Mitevic the former head of Radio Television Serbia who when interviewed for the PBS documentary Wide Angle, Milošević and the Media. that "the things that happened at state TV, warmongering, things we can admit to now: false information, biased reporting. That went directly from Milošević to the head of TV.". I know this is off topic, but your claims about the Milosevic regime to not match up with evidence. Were the Western powers historically biased against Serbia in the 1990s? In the context of the 1990s Balkans wars after the Sarajevo Market attack of 1994, the Srebrenica massacre of at least 8,000 people, and seeing the absolute destruction of urban Sarajevo brought about by Bosnian Serb artillery, and that this was all paid for by the FRY's underground funding of Srpska, certainly cast a negative shadow over the Milosevic government. So yes, the West was biased against the Serb side of the Yugoslav Wars and Serbia - in a specific context and towards a specific government - Milosevic's government. But Tadic is not like Milosevic and NATO knows that - that's why they are supporting Serbia's EU candidacy. This doesn't mean that all of NATO's behaviour has been altruistic though, there is of course immense self-interest involved - NATO prefers Serbia to be in the EU sphere than in Russia's sphere. I'd agree that NATO has been very anti-Russian but not necessarily anti-Serbian, it wants Serbia drawn into the West.--R-41 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
In the game of politics, every individual does what suits him best and I never claimed that what we see on the surface is the true picture. But regarding "Montenegro is Serbia", even if early supporters of his did indeed say this, they never got it - whereas actual supporters of his that I personally know to this day identify as 100% Montenegrin as does his own brother Borislav. How about that for a true attempt to "incorporate" Montenegro? What Milošević had hoped for through his anti-bureaucractic revolutions was a structure of allies wherever he could that would be loyal to his leadership. Indeed this may have created a dictatorship with a Serb at the heart of it but there is no evidence that Serbian identity would have been forced upon all citizens followed by a namechange. And if "loyal servants" were all Milošević needed to achieve "Montenegro is Serbia" then he didn't need to hide behind any outfit; Montenegro would have been seen to transmute status from within, but this never happened - and would not have been accepted by Montenegrin proponents. The complex nature of overall Serbian involvement (nation and governmental) in 1990s conflicts meant that Serbian nationalism was certainly at work - Serb nationalists were out there and did take control of their proposed territories for a brief time and this in turn attracted the interest of wider Serb nationalists, but you don't really wish for me to provide you sources about the uneasy relationship between Milošević and his counterparts in Krajina/Bosnia stemming from different ideological values. That said, Milošević never had complete control of Knin and Sarajevo. Had Yugoslavia been bigger or with different nations in different places, these opposition-to-independence groups didn't even need to be Serbian. Compare this to Moscow's interests in South Ossetia and Abkhazia; they may not be Georgians and anyone can call this a centralised plot involving powerful monsters and loyal puppets but nobody in his right mind can call it "Russian nationalism" when the deed was beneficial to two distinctly non-Russian nations. Back to Milošević, his involvement with often-forgotten Fikret Abdić is another piece that doesn't fit the nationalist bill - Abdić led a faction of Muslims. If Milošević were happy for this group to be independent of him then the nationalist argument goes out of the window as Serbian irredentism incorporates all of BiH. Alternatively, had there been a secret plan to unite Abdić's entity with Belgrade nationally then this too would have added to the absurdity that the oddly shaped "FR Yugoslavia" is a Serb nationalist beacon. Because not only did Abdić start life as a Bosniak politician and early opponent of Izetbegović; not only was the latter thrust into power in mysterious and controversial circumstances (as if people wanted the war to happen), but Abdić's APWB was also a temporary frontier with the plan having been to overpower ARBiH and take as much of BiH as possible leaving only the parts he had agreed to cede to Tuđman and Milošević - so this way or that way, Abdić fought to be a Bosniak leader in control of a Bosnian entity. Then there is the question of the actual Serb nationalists who made no secret of their ambitions. Vojislav Šešelj? Was he powerful? Well he certainly would have never accepted a Serbian-Montenegrin union with his 1990s mindset and he openly refused a Macedonian state and identity, but could do nothing about it. The man even spent a time in prison within the same regime which I told you is a place that a powerful person can never be. But even the Radical supporters viewed the union as a coalition they never truly believed in; as for Šešelj, his involvement with Milošević only cost him his honourary status awarded to him by Momčilo Đujić - and this could never have happened if the entire project was one Serb nationalist venture. If you go round Serbia or places where Serbs are a majority, you will often see stalls selling Serbian national insignia from WWII Chetnik badges to black outfits and pictures of Mladić, Karadžić, or historical figures such as Đujić or Draža Mihajlović, or other merchandise hailing Serb hooliganism et al. But nowhere is to be seen any dedication to Milošević, or FR Yugoslavia. Another absent symbol from the "Milošević nationalist display" is the Orthodox church. I mean, is a reformed communist who continued to brand himself athiest really qualified to lead an Ultra-Serbian ideal? The once powerful Serbian Orthodox church is another station where you'll never find pro-Milošević sentiment, and believe you me, it has nothing to do with ill-treatment of Albanians why it opposed him! So if Milošević were a nationalist, then who are all these big men with dark beards wearing black clothes or displaying White Eagles or other nationalist insignia but blatantly ignoring Milošević??? Does this mean nationalists have abandoned Milošević?? WRONG. To whom he was popular, he remains so. He was never the most widely liked figure but to his supporters, he was a man who could do no wrong: to this end, he is still the hero for SPS supporters and these can be Montenegrin (I know some in Berane) just as they can Serbian. SPS supporters are not ultras. They are another bunch of people completely and they still have his picture in their houses, where you won't find Draža Mihajlović. The anti-Milošević sides (western press, leaders) labelled him and his supporters nationalist but they did to boost their own campaigns - even they cannot be expected to know these things and the average westerner doesn't even have the incentive to ask why his country never aspired to take Macedonia. For them, it is enough to know that he went to war with other ethnicities and that is enough to brand him another Hitler and that's all there is. Also, I realise that the option of keeping Macedonia within its borders did not present itself to Milošević, but had there been a pro-Milošević faction among Macedonians, would there have been need? Indeed not. Be that as it may, this cuts no ice with nationalists as they would neither bond with a pro-Belgrade "Macedonian" party and nor would they ever recognise Macedonia; this is the one thing that nobody provides a satisfactory answer for. All right, you cannot achieve Macedonia but if you believe it's yours - why recognise it? When on 26 April 1992, FRY was declared, it could have more easily taken Macedonia in with it and left it to its own devices despite the world not recognising this as part of it - but it locked its own self out of any future bargain with Macedonia and if FRY was a Serb nationalist state, then this is the first time in history an active region has declared independence to break from a land believed to be its own. It doesn't add up. But on the whole, it's the recognition of Macedonia that refutes the story, and the diplomatic ties between Belgrade and Skopje. Finally I'm going to enlighten you on this "Montenegro is Serbia" misconception. About 30% of Montenegro declares itself Serb, they have an absolute majority in towns such as Pljevlja and Herceg-Novi. They know their land is Montenegro and they love it but they consider the nation Serb and this they do whether they liked Milošević or not. None of this however means that self-declared Montenegrins have a "Montenegro is Serbia" vision, but even as late as May 2006 after the man had died, the referendum on Montenegrin independence produced a higher percentage (44%) of unification proponents than there are Serbs per hundred, so it is a futile argument to claim that Serbian-Montenegrin unity is a Serb nationalist state in disguise. Interestingly, of all the Montenegrins I knew to support the union, none was a supporter of Milošević. Finally, not that I want to get into the logistics but in the west, Milošević is largely the man the blame for all that happened in Ex-YU from 1991 onward despite three wars not involving Serbs. I don't know what idiot in his right mind can believe that one isolated party in Belgrade was the drive behind over a million people's motivation not to be sucked into states where they would drop to ethnic minorities. Bosnian Serbs no more needed the big country to their east than Abkhazia needs a "bigger Abkhaz" nation over its frontier with Russia. If not for Russia, Abkhazia would still have wished to be independent of Georgia. And if it's all right for Albania to offer support to Kosovans in the 1990s, Zagreb to Bosnian Croats, what then was the west's problem with Belgrade helping transnational Serbs in their struggles? The war was ugly - I know that and don't excuse it. The number of victims caused by Serb actions is disproportionate to its own victims at the hands of others, I know that too. But that has to do with the overall strength of the figures and their weapons. It doesn't detract from the reality that all sides were at it, and people who prate about the siege of Sarajevo never ask themselves why the town needed to be besieged (with Serbs facing inward rather than out) if not for an ARBiH presence inside the city. People also ignore the fact that the Srpska army and the ARBiH continually overran areas between 1992 to 1995 within Sarajevo and both harmed their opposite ethnicities. Has Washington even screamed to Israel to calm itself down just because it is more advanced than its Palestinian opponent thus causing greater casualties? I neither support Israel nor Hamas, Muslims nor Serbs, but the harder you go in, the quicker you hope to end it and claim victory; and it's pointless having the power to do this if you're only going to apply 50% strength for the purpose of "fairer fighting". Indeed fairer fighting might cause fewer casualties here and now but the war could also go on longer and longer, and what makes one side right and another one wrong in its claim? And finally, even if you are the weaker party and your population is suffering, is it not as much your own fault for prolonging your own campaign? Could not one of the warlords have capitulated earlier in the 1990s? And if he didn't - why should his opponent? Notice I am not picking on one person over others. But it is a fact that Bosniak, Croat and Albanian forces all besieged towns and villages - the fact that they weren't the size of Sarajevo and didn't go on so long doesn't make it a lesser crime. It just meant conquest was easier from the onset - either you do something or you don't. And the press NEVER presented it like this. Just to end, I say nothing about Milošević's death. What I said about the death warrant was both informal and stated in a way that the event ultimately led to death. I hear two stories about the death, one from ICTY proponents and the other from opponents, in other words, I think they're ALL telling lies and we'll never know the truth. Sadly I'm not like some and I cannot play adjudicator and declare one party correct and the other one wrong when both continue to oppose each other. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I never said the West was all-altruistic about its international relations policies. Yes it is pro-Israel and yes NATO is anti-Russian, and the US-led IMF and World Bank want to impose neoliberal economic policy on poorer countries. Why was it necessary for the FRY to be formed in 1992 rather than continuing the SFRY? The answer is because the international community declared the SFRY to be in a state of dissolution in 1991 and referred to it as the former Yugoslavia from that point on as well as the fact that the SFRY's institutions were a mess with the collapse of the Communist Party and Serbia & Montenegro could not expect to get IMF support unless they agreed to its neoliberal economic demands. Continuing a "Yugoslavia" allowed territorial claims on Srpska and Krajina to be fulfilled without being able to be directly accused of being Serbian irredentism. It is true that Milosevic was not a real nationalist - he was an opportunist who played the role of a nationalist to win support in Serbia, played the role of peacemaker during the Dayton Accords to win international acceptance, and played the role of democratic reformer to win those disillusioned with the old communist regime. But by pursuing his goal of winning nationalist support he bolstered and legitimized nationalism. You have to have evidence to say that someone is lying, especially on the issue at hand of KFOR's position on this issue, just saying that you have an intuition that someone is lying without evidence would never hold up in a place like a court or an academic journal.--R-41 (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
the vast majority of commnets here are forum discussion about politics, but this is not a forum we hsould discuss content for the articles enhancment.(Lihaas (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)).
And you have a huge flag of Bahrain on your user page with the slogan, "Let The People Speak"!! In a roundabout sort of way, the discussion was about a small part of the article - neutrality of international representation in Kosovo. One thing leads to another and before you know it, topic abandoned! Either way, it's not an issue, I don't cast any doubt upon R-41 as an editor and would not be seen to be engaging in an edit war with him. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Whsat i have on my personal user page means BUGGER ALL! IF YOU AHVE NO ARGUEMENT then dont comment on personal reactions, WP comments on CONTENT(Lihaas (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)). !

Edits explained

  • [26] please dont remove sources because an editor doesnt like it. If there is such a problem take it to RSN, VOA is NOT recognised as a pov source here and is accepted as RS.
  • [27] any sourced? the opinion of editors is not valid grounds for unilateral changes.
  • [28] no on e is saying theyre on the same side and agree (read the article for content), its just opposition to the protesters that started this "border clash" alternatively as said above the 3-side infobox could fit.
  • [29] most of the changes here were made per WP:Bold even if unilateral , but per WP:BRD please discuss such massive changeds FIRST.(Lihaas (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)).

Look everyone, legally KFOR along with EULEX is part of UNMIK that is officially neutral and recognized by the Serbian government

Considering that no progress has been made recently, I am creating a section in for UNMIK is needed that will include under it KFOR and EULEX and it will be a third party section. I will put a note in the infobox that states that though KFOR is legally linked to UNMIK that is officially neutral, it has been viewed by some to be a pro-ROK force, especially its large NATO component.--R-41 (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

None agreed to this, R-41. You should open discussion to gain consensus for this infobox separation. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Forget it. Let's just delete this whole article - it is unreliable and has no hope of ever becoming reliable with the hostility between the two sides of this argument. Just put a small summary of these events in the Kosovo article. This article is crap and there is has been little to no will or effort by the majority of users on this page to resolve the serious POV issues, editing was basically abandoned since December - Third Opinion editors left in frustration, this article is finished, it can never be improved.--R-41 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of this article

Since mid-December almost all editing on this article collapsed following Third Opinion users resigned from discussions on this article in frustration. There appears to be little chance of any consensus on this article as opposing sides on the issues of neutrality would not come to any agreement, as such the article is completely unreliable. There is no will on the part of a majority of the users who have edited this article to resolve the issues of POV related to KFOR and UNMIK, and many users here have explicitly demonstrated a clear anti-Albanian and anti-ROK POV. All attempts to find a suitable solution to these issues have been futile and the article remains POV-ridden and hopeless to achieve a neutral stance. I am supporting that this article be deleted and that relevant material describing the actual events - but not opinions on those events - be moved to the Kosovo article.--R-41 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand that lack of faith for reaching a consensus is a reason good enough for deletion. --biblbroks (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Biblbroks that a lack of reaching consensus is in no way a good reason for deletion or moving of material of this article at all.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This article has become a POV fork from the Kosovo article that is being used for anti-Republic of Kosovo, ant-KFOR and anti-Albanian POVs. I welcome any attempt by you two users to resolve it, because I and two Third Opinion users tried to remove the POV but failed, the POV is too intensely held by the users. There is no will at all by most of the users who edit this article to remove the POV from this article and as it stands the article is currently prejudiced. By the way, I am not an Albanian or Serb and hold no attachment to either side, I came here to sort out the POV.--R-41 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
One way of reducing the bias might be to remove the {{infobox military conflict}} completely from the article. I am not proposing this as a final solution since I am not sure about it, I am just considering it as an alternative to the current situation because this wasn't (isn't) quite a military conflict per se, was it? There were opinions on sr.wikipedia (sr:Talk:Криза на северу Косова и Метохије (2011)#Bitka??) which suggest that this should be portrayed more as a crisis not quite as a conflict. What do others think? --biblbroks (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you are the only one who is questioning this articles neutrality, despite several other editors, and 30 request. If you have some other idea, you should propose new version, add new better sources, follow dispute resolution process. Please, don't blast the article if you don't want to help it. I will repeate. You are the only one who questioned it, and you didnt even follow basic dispute resolution process, not gave us propositions, backed in arguments. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The only thing that the user could do is to put it up for AfD and let the community decide if it should be deleted or not. But most likely it would be Kept within a day or two.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
No, one of the Third Opinion editors also questioned it. Why have there been a majority of people in favour - because the majority of editors for this article have been Serbs, or open supporters of Serbia's position on the sovereignty of Kosovo - such as the neo-Nazi user Lihaas. Not a single Albanian user has edited this article, and I imagine if they did, they would completely disagree with the content of this article. This article contains anti-RoK and anti-Albanian POV.--R-41 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
But can you understand that a disagreement of opinions is not a reason for deleting an article. On the other hand it is a reason to continue discussing the issues without taking other users opinions as bad faith or similar. I understand that this issue is controversial and "sides" can try to make the article about something which isnt true etc etc... But its always better with discussions then plain deletion. If you feel that it absolutely should be deleted put it trough a AfD process where users can make a majority decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

24 reverts by one IP in a day

Note: said IP is now blocked for 3RR violation for a day. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Goals" section clear POV

Appears to state the "goals" of one side without considering the "goals" of the other side, and phrased in appreciably non-neutral language. As the section stands, it states in Wikipedia's voice that one side is "right" and the other side is "wrong" which goes against WP:NPOV]. Collect (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You cannot just remove entire section. What is your rational for this, please explain it to me. This section quite clearly explains the situation, factographically, without taking sides. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope - it states in Wikipedia's voice the precise position of one side in the conflict. Such is not the stuff of "neutral point of view" q.v. Collect (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious and racist statement

The infobox says "Pristina-controlled Albanians" seek to control North Kosovo - so Pristina controls all Albanians?! Shouldn't it be "Republic of Kosovo's law enforcement"? Because as it stands now, "Pristina-controlled Albanians" seems to be saying that all Albanians in Kosovo are under mind control of the government of the Republic of Kosovo. It also implies literally "removing" Albanians - so is the Serb side literally admitting that it is pursuing ethnic cleansing of Albanians in North Kosovo? It might be, both sides have done it in this long centuries-old vicious conflict between Albanians and Serbs - it is true that Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo generally viciously hate each other, but I doubt the Serb nationalists would openly admit this to be a goal. "Pristina-controlled Albanians" - that is a ludicrous and racist statement used to demonize Albanians as aggressors on majority-Serb populated land that itself contains a number of Albanians, the more neutral statement "Republic of Kosovo's law enforcement" seeks to control North Kosovo is not racist, not assuming mind control, and is more accurate.--R-41 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny, you have earlier blindly reverted any edit [of registered users] to the "goals"-section, but now suddenly, an obvious non-neutral IP edits and you chose not to, but instead make a section named "Dubious and racist statement", only to push deletion perhaps? Well, I've decided that I will return, since no progress has been made since I last was here. I want to emphasize that if we want a neutral tone, then we'll have to review the status of North Kosovo from the beginning. The North Kosovo referendum, 2012 was just finished, and according to it, North Kosovo officially does not accept the Republic of Kosovo, but continues to claim the jurisdiction of Republic of Serbia. As far as UNMIK is concerned, we'll have to find publications were their agenda in this case is clearly stated. Also, a more appropriate name would be North Kosovo barricades. --Zoupan (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
The North Kosovo referendum was an unofficial poll that had no legal consequences because neither the organizers nor the rest of the factions (including Serbia) supported or declared recognized as such. Even Boris Stefanovic, Serbia's representative during the talks with Kosovo's government called it completely unnecessary and meaningless --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It nevertheless shows what the people and municipalities of North Kosovo want.--Zoupan (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Rename

This name is very wrong, and should be changed. Neither only 2011, neither only border, neither only Serbia and Kosovo. Does anyone have some good and interesting proposition? North Kosovo clashes, North Kosovo crisis, something else? --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The name gives the impression that it was a border clash, i.e. a conflict between the two sides, however, the event is about ethnic Serbs in Kosovo opposing the Republic of Kosovo's claim to the administrative crossings in North Kosovo. WhiteWriter has the best propositions, furthermore, the previous move request had 8 against 4 in support for a rename to "North Kosovo crisis".--Zoupan 17:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
There was no consensus for any change and the current title is based on the majority of the references, which regard it as a border conflict/clash etc. i.e. please stick to the sources. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
WhiteWriter's proposed names are good. Id support a change to 2011-2012 northern Kosovo clasihes/crisis. Also WP:CCC...(Lihaas (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)).
North Kosovo crisis seems the best name.--Zoupan 16:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
WW doesn't represent all the parties involved, especially after taking initiatives in sensitive areas. Majuru (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
No consensus, start a requested move discussion. Majuru (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved (even ignoring the final support !vote with no rationale). May not be the perfect title, but appears to be the current common description from the links and cites given. Lede should be clarified as needed to help avoid any misinterpretation that the cause of the crisis is Kosovo. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes → North Kosovo crisis –

As explained. Current name is wrong in several ways, First, not only 2011 anymore, second, not only border since long ago, and third, not only between Kosovo and Serbia, but between KFOR also. This started as border conflict, but now it is far bigger than just that. Also, per international sources. CHRONOLOGY OF CRISIS IN NORTHERN KIM, Solution to North Kosovo Crisis "In Sight", The northern Kosovo crisis, "Sides close to solution to north Kosovo crisis", Kolundzija: North Kosovo crisis brings uncertainty, 2011 European Commission Progress Reports: What’s the score for the Western Balkans?, etc, etc... --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The sources haven't changed and the circumstances haven't changed i.e. only the timeline can be changed. Regarding new sources:
As Nikolic takes office, a clash on the border (SET Times)
The French Government on Monday strongly condemned violence on the Kosovo-Serbia border (Kuwait News Agency)
Violence flares in northern Kosovo .. Roadblocks have been set up by Serbs in a bid to stop Kosovar and EU authorities from taking control of the border with Serbia (Euronews)
Shots fired as K-For tackles Kosovo Serb roadblocks ...Serbs set up roadblocks last year after Kosovo and the EU tried to take control of the disputed border with Serbia ... The border has been the scene of recurrent violence between K-For and ethnic Serbs who make up the majority in northern Kosovo. (BBC)
As the sources were mentioned I will remind that as many have reported the canvassing that goes on regarding certain users, who seem to edit only on such instances if anything similar happens it'll be reported immediately.
Regarding WW's sources: With the exception of Balkan Insight (whose title of a single story was picked} the rest are either blogs, advocacy pages or Serbian websites and Serbian-language sources (which aren't relevant on English-language WP). Of course regarding some of them I fail to see how they demonstrate a common use at all. Also the majority of the sources of the previous months can be checked on the earlier move discussion.
--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
As i stated, this started as a border incident, but it's not that anymore. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Since one article first reported by Tanjug and later reposted on BI was brought I searched the Balkan Insight archive:
Kosovo Border Attacks Could Destabilize Macedonia
Kosovo Serbs Hold Fire Over Border Takeover
Kosovo Northern Border Crisis Resolved
Slovenia worried over Kosovo-Serbia border
For the rest of the stories about Kosovo-Serbia's border check BI's archives
As the sources demonstrate this isn't a northern Kosovo dispute but a borders dispute.
Btw you can't support a move proposal you started yourself.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
well, its a given that he supports it so thats really a mot point.
I would support 2011-2012 northern Kosovo crisis OR 2011-2012 northern Kosovo clashes, either way im fine with. After all with the referendum that was a consequence (official or not) its quite clear that the question is if the instititions of the rpeublic of kosovo area supported.
Also some of those sources need to be added to the page. Will be  Done(Lihaas (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)).
  • Oppose. North Kosovo crisis is not a neutral name. It's a misnomer, misleading, because it implies a "crisis in Kosovo". The causes of conflict lie deep in Serbia's heartland, in Belgrade. Nikolić's election proves it even more.Majuru (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--R-41 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Kosovo_crisis_(2011–2013)/Archive_1&oldid=1079346316"