Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
R-41 (talk | contribs)
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Kosovo}}, {{WikiProject Serbia}}, {{WikiProject International relations}}, {{WikiProject Politics}}.
 
(252 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30}}
{{talkpage}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WPBS|
{{WikiProject Kosovo|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject International relations}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Balkan=y}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Twofingered Typist|date=20 September 2021}}
}}
{{Annual readership|days=180}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:North Kosovo crisis (2011–2013)/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
}}


== Border presentation proposal ==
==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.--[[User:DustBGD89-3|DustBGD89-3]] ([[User talk:DustBGD89-3|talk]]) 21:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

== New name ==
[[2011 North Kosovo crisis]] is more descriptive--[[Special:Contributions/93.137.112.209|93.137.112.209]] ([[User talk:93.137.112.209|talk]]) 16:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:Feel free to start a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. [[User:Jenks24|Jenks24]] ([[User talk: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)[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
::::I woul dalso support this npov move.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 18:06, 18 October 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. [[User:Perunova straža|Perunova straža]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Perunova straža|Perunova straža]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

== Edits explained ==
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=455396311&oldid=455340312 unexplained][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453267953&oldid=453240089][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=449724861&oldid=449172836]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=454916134&oldid=453723756 unexplained an dunsourced][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=450811238&oldid=449996422]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453723756&oldid=453720480 per title sectio above and pov][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453706149&oldid=453697610][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453697610&oldid=453694853][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453694846&oldid=453694459][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453694108&oldid=453693927][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453693487&oldid=453693020][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453691935&oldid=453687186][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453686952&oldid=453686557][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453686557&oldid=453686421][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453686020&oldid=453347932]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=453720480&oldid=453706149 edit war without consensus to restore]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=452880775&oldid=452773186 pov]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=445647748&oldid=445343344 not done]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=446117737&oldid=445647852 2 words?][[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 04:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

== Requested move ==
{{Requested move/dated|2011 North Kosovo crisis}}

[[2011 Kosovo&ndash;Serbia border clashes]] → [[2011 North Kosovo crisis]] – <small>'''Relisted'''. Flurry of last minute comments. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)</small>


As explaining the Kosovo borders can be bulky and with many of the terms not universally acceptable here, I would like to know how editors feel about this idea. Whenever discussing border crossings with the three non-disputed neighbours which all recognise Kosovo (Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia), the Kosovo template note suffices. On articles such as this and for all others concerning Serbia as controlled from Belgrade, that note doesn't fit in anywhere. Plain old "border" is used in sources but so are rerefernces to Kosovo as a country. On here we exercise tact and refer to the ''partially recognised state'' for the Republic of Kosovo on administrative matters, and the ''disputed region'' for the land itself or for non-administrative subjects. "Border", like "country" is defining in that it suggests a final status in black and white. Qualifiers such as ''administrative'' are fine by me but are dismissed by some editors as "weasel wording" and this might be leaning in the direction of a Serbian position because in truth, the ''administrative'' zones date back to 1999 when Yugoslavia withdrew all security forces pursuant to the Kumanovo agreement subsequently making Kosovo a separate entity from that point. Just now as I edited [[Vehicle registration plates of Kosovo]] I spotted what I hope might be the solution. On that article, the term '''"contested border"''' sits comfortably with no edit-warring taking place over it. It doesn't deny the republic, it doesn't deny Serbia's claim of Res. 1244, it is de facto operative no matter who controls it, and it is short and easy to type without long explanations. Can I see how editors feel about that suggestion?
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... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 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". [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 06:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
::Well, there is numerous sources for this. [http://www.kurir-info.rs/vesti/kriza-na-kosovu/hronologija-krize-na-severu-kim-125612.php CHRONOLOGY OF CRISIS IN NORTHERN KIM], [http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/solution-to-north-kosovo-crisis-in-sight Solution to North Kosovo Crisis "In Sight"], [http://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Regions-and-countries/Kosovo/The-northern-Kosovo-crisis-99511 The northern Kosovo crisis], [http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=08&dd=04&nav_id=75754 "Sides close to solution to north Kosovo crisis"], etc, etc... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 16:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. After a bit of googling around, it does seem to me that the proposed name is more common, and it has the benefit of neutrality to boot. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As per above.--[[User:Zoupan|Zoupan]] ([[User talk:Zoupan|talk]]) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''REname''' but to [[Kosovo–Serbia border conflicts, 2011]]; alternatively "conflict". In any event the date should be at the end. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 16:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
::There is about 500.000+ examples that your proposition is not the Wikipedia practice... [[2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami]], for example. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 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".--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:ZjarriRrethues|<font color="white">'''—&nbsp;''ZjarriRrethues''&nbsp;—'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:ZjarriRrethues|talk]]</sup> 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. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 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. --[[User:Alexmilt|Alexmilt]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Bas-Celik|Bas-Celik]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Majuru|Majuru]] ([[User talk:Majuru|talk]]) 19:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
:Here are some examples of the Kosovo "border clashes": [http://www.euronews.net/2011/11/28/two-nato-troops-injured-in-kosovo-border-clashes/], [http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/NATO-Concerned-About-Kosovo-After-Deadly-Border-Clashes-126340988.html], [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-09/28/c_131163597.htm]. The name is supported by the world media, the ultimate source of this page. [[User:Majuru|Majuru]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/germany-dashes-serbia-s-eu-candidacy-hopes][http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2011/12/02/feature-02][http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Kosovo-Violence-Threatens-Serbias-EU-Aspirations----134860113.html] i.e it's an issue, in which Serbia is one of the two participants.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:ZjarriRrethues|<font color="white">'''—&nbsp;''ZjarriRrethues''&nbsp;—'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:ZjarriRrethues|talk]]</sup> 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... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 00:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


Please note that a positive outcome may resolve matters across many articles and set a standard. [[User:Evlekis|Evlekis]] ('''Евлекис''') ([[User talk:Evlekis|argue]]) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
:::
:Sources just call the border a border - [http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/07/20117275833470595.html example]. Sources generally don't call it an "administrative border"; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Kosovo_crisis&diff=549239795&oldid=549237712 attempts] to add that are just [[WP:WEASEL|weasel wording]]. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 02:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I agree with Majuru. Most credible news agencies refer to this as border clashes (Reuters, BBC, Washington Post, etc.).--[[User:Gaius Claudius Nero|Gaius Claudius Nero]] ([[User talk:Gaius Claudius Nero|talk]]) 07:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
::Say something new, this argument was already refuted. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter|WhiteWriter]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 21:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. There are no border clashes between Kosovo and Serbia, or at the "border" between Kosovo and Serbia as the present title implies. The crisis started about two border crossings but has become much more widespread and affected the whole teritory of northern Kosovo.--''<font face="bold">[[User:Wikiwind|<span style="background:#633B7E;color:#FFD550;padding:0 2px">В и к и</span>]][[User talk:Wikiwind|<span style="background:#FFD666;padding:0 2px;color:#0000;"> T </span>]]</font> 08:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Sources just call the border a border, rather than an "administrative crossing" or any other silly wording like that. If your political stance is not compatible with [[WP:V|what sources say]], you have my sympathies, but hitting the revert button won't change reality. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 01:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as nominator. Per overwhelming references regarding this subject, and per fact that confrontations are happening over entire territory of North Kosovo, and not on the borders anymore. This may be political question for pro-[[Republic of Kosovo|RoK]] users of Wikipedia, in order to minimize North Kosovo problem, and point border between Serbia and Kosovo, that is political and POV title. And some more references. ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/01/eu-north-kosovo The EU must confront the north Kosovo crisis] - Guardian, [http://www.m-magazine.org/index.php/en/news/kosovo/1605-bosch-the-crisis-in-the-north-of-kosovo-must-be-resolved-as-soon-as-possible.html The crisis in the north of Kosovo must be resolved... ] - M-Mag, [http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2011/11/24/visualizza_new.html_14782573.html Kosovo: crisis in north...] - ANSAmed, [http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/9747/kosovos-north-is-europes-latest-frozen-conflict Kosovo's North... The latest crisis in Kosovo.] - World politics review, [http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=08&dd=04&nav_id=75754 Sides close to solution to north Kosovo crisis] - TANJug...) --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 11:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Agree, per my comment above. If someone finds a reliable source that uses the term "administrative crossing" then it could be used ''as well as'' what the current sources say, but in the absence of such sources, we use what the current sources used in the article say. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|send... over]]) 01:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
#[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/02/us-serbia-kosovo-merkel-idUSTRE7B112A20111202 Merkel Says Kosovo Clashes Show Serbia Not Ready For EU]
User was blocked, but those sources are priceless...
#[http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English/Security/Kosovo-Border-crossing-tension-continues-after-clashes_312695578353.html Kosovo: Border crossing tension continues after clashes]
*UNHCR: [http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=country&category=&publisher=HRW&type=&coi=SRB&rid=&docid=4f7abd602&skip=0 The four Kosovo Serbs, including the Mayor of the town of Vitina, were arrested by Kosovo police as they tried to cross back into Kosovo at the Belja Zemlja '''administrative border''' between Serbia and Kosovo]
#[http://www.canada.com/Serbia+Kosovo+seek+deal+border+tension/5794620/story.html Serbia, Kosovo seek deal to end border tension]
*UNMIK: [http://www.un.int/jamaica/sc/UNMIKApr9'01.htm We continue to call for increased surveillance of the '''administrative border''', in order to put an end to the extremist activities there and to stop the traffic in illegal weapons.]
#[http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=471497&version=1&template_id=39&parent_id=21 Serbia, Kosovo delegates to holdfresh talks on border dispute]
*Amnesty: [http://www.amnesty.org/ar/library/asset/EUR70/020/2003/en/20fd17be-facd-11dd-b531-99d31a1e99e4/eur700202003en.pdf On 8 May 2003, the first group of remains identified by the ICMP using DNA analysis were handed over - at the '''administrative border''' between Serbia and Kosovo - to UNMIK by the Serbian Coordination Centre for Kosovo and Metohija.]
#[http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2011/11/serbia-and-kosovo On the border of conflict]
*VOA: [http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2007-04-27-voa28/342674.html Several thousand displaced ethnic Serbs and members of other minorities gathered at Kosovo's '''administrative border''' (Rudnice-Jarinja) to protest the U.N. plan and demand a return to their homes.]
#[http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.asp?id=35229 UN envoy calls for patience, dialogue on Kosovo border tensions]etc. Btw why didn't you use the title of WPR, which is [http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/9747/kosovos-north-is-europes-latest-frozen-conflict Kosovo's North is Europe's Latest Frozen Conflict]--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:ZjarriRrethues|<font color="white">'''—&nbsp;''ZjarriRrethues''&nbsp;—'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:ZjarriRrethues|talk]]</sup> 15:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
*Helsinki Committee: [http://www.helsinki.org.rs/reports_t13.html The police check-points at the '''administrative border''' with Kosovo as well as houses of Serb civilians were targets of artillery attacks launched from the territory of Kosovo, mainly from Podujevo municipality.]
*'''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. ([[User:LAz17|LAz17]] ([[User talk:LAz17|talk]]) 18:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)).
*CNN: [http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/16/i_wn.02.html Elsewhere in Kosovo, NATO peacekeeping forces seized an arsenal of weapons along the administrative border with Serbia.]<br>
*'''Support'''. New name is more precise and more neutral. [[User:Vanjagenije|Vanjagenije]] ([[User talk:Vanjagenije|talk]]) 09:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like sources generally '''do''' call it an "administrative border" --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter|WhiteWriter]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 23:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', per Majuru. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 08:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
:Only one of those sources is contemporary to the events that are the subject of this article, the HRW you have called "UNHCR". The rest pre-date the declaration of independence and are basically irrelevant to these events. Happy for the term to be added, so long as it does not replace the term "border". [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|send... over]]) 01:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
::{{done}} --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter|WhiteWriter]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 22:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
:::fine by me. The article is still unbalanced, but hopefully this will stop the POV pushing. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|send... over]]) 22:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


== The crisis in northern Kosovo is not yet complete. ==
== Third phase? ==
Should we consider these new attacks as a phase number three?
Responce appreciated. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/212.124.173.7|212.124.173.7]] ([[User talk:212.124.173.7|talk]]) 15:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hmmm, i would say yes... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 16:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


The crisis in northern Kosovo is not finished until you create the [[Community of Serb municipalities, Kosovo]]. They are still in the course of the protests and barricades. I am an eyewitness.--[[Special:Contributions/79.101.223.175|79.101.223.175]] ([[User talk:79.101.223.175|talk]]) 13:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
== KFOR is not a pro-Albanian force, it is officially neutral, it has fought with ex-KLA forces as well as Serb forces ==


== External links modified ==
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: [http://books.google.ca/books?id=lEuAsrRADOoC&pg=PA373&dq=kfor+serbia&hl=en&ei=1u_TTpriIaXW0QH89-BM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=kfor%20serbia&f=false]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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.--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk:R-41|talk]]) 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
:Can you please point where in article is KFOR claimed as Albanian? Thanks for invite. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 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.--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk:R-41|talk]]) 21:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
:::But, in this moment, KFOR is opposed to Serbs of Kosovo, and not RoK. [http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/ci/story/1/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/998834/%D0%9A%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80+%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BE+%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%83+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%9A%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8.html Сукоби на Јагњеници] {{sr icon}} 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. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 21:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
:::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK5sX0NX8VY 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. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 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 [[United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo|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.--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk: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 [[2004 unrest in Kosovo|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. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 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.--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk: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. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 18:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[North Kosovo crisis]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=707879806 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
::::::::''''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. --[[User:Bas-Celik|Bas-Celik]] ([[User talk:Bas-Celik|talk]]) 23:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121001164116/http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ksfr/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1836135/World/Kosovo.says.will.not.accept.NATO-Serbia.deal to http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ksfr/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1836135/World/Kosovo.says.will.not.accept.NATO-Serbia.deal
:::::::::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.--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk:R-41|talk]]) 00:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
Please read [[WP:FORUM]].--''<font face="bold">[[User:Wikiwind|<span style="background:#633B7E;color:#FFD550;padding:0 2px">В и к и</span>]][[User talk:Wikiwind|<span style="background:#FFD666;padding:0 2px;color:#0000;"> T </span>]]</font> 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.([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 19:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)).


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
== NPOV still isn't resolved. The tone is very anti-RoK and anti-KFOR in this article. ==


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 09:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
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|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.--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk: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. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 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.--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk: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.([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk: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|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: [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/NATO-chief-urges-Serbs-to-dismantle-Kosovo-roadblocks/articleshow/11025692.cms]. 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.[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/NATO-chief-urges-Serbs-to-dismantle-Kosovo-roadblocks/articleshow/11025692.cms] 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.--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:ARBMAC|ARBMAC]] editing restrictions, so please, dont push... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter |WhiteWriter ]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 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. 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: [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/NATO-chief-urges-Serbs-to-dismantle-Kosovo-roadblocks/articleshow/11025692.cms], 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 needs to be determined with evidence.--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk:R-41|talk]]) 03:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


== Casualties ==
== Brussels Agreement ==


The Brussels Agreement needs to get expanded, or deleted. I request permission to delete the section.
Some of the numbers dont add up (and theres probably double counting too). Many additions were made without sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=463296848&oldid=463190719 58 wasnt surced, 50 was removed] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=463190222&oldid=463115424 confusing changes] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=463115424&oldid=462968292 43 unsourced] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=462968292&oldid=462963540 35 nd 90 unsourced][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=462757283&oldid=462757007 33 unsourced][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Kosovo%E2%80%93Serbia_border_clashes&diff=462130814&oldid=461927440 12 unsourced]([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 20:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)).
[[User:GermanGamer77|<span style="color:black">German</span>]][[User talk:GermanGamer77|<span style="color:red">Gamer</span>]][[Special:Contributions/GermanGamer77|<span style="color:gold">77</span>]] 21:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:12, 21 February 2024


Border presentation proposal[edit]

As explaining the Kosovo borders can be bulky and with many of the terms not universally acceptable here, I would like to know how editors feel about this idea. Whenever discussing border crossings with the three non-disputed neighbours which all recognise Kosovo (Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia), the Kosovo template note suffices. On articles such as this and for all others concerning Serbia as controlled from Belgrade, that note doesn't fit in anywhere. Plain old "border" is used in sources but so are rerefernces to Kosovo as a country. On here we exercise tact and refer to the partially recognised state for the Republic of Kosovo on administrative matters, and the disputed region for the land itself or for non-administrative subjects. "Border", like "country" is defining in that it suggests a final status in black and white. Qualifiers such as administrative are fine by me but are dismissed by some editors as "weasel wording" and this might be leaning in the direction of a Serbian position because in truth, the administrative zones date back to 1999 when Yugoslavia withdrew all security forces pursuant to the Kumanovo agreement subsequently making Kosovo a separate entity from that point. Just now as I edited Vehicle registration plates of Kosovo I spotted what I hope might be the solution. On that article, the term "contested border" sits comfortably with no edit-warring taking place over it. It doesn't deny the republic, it doesn't deny Serbia's claim of Res. 1244, it is de facto operative no matter who controls it, and it is short and easy to type without long explanations. Can I see how editors feel about that suggestion?

Please note that a positive outcome may resolve matters across many articles and set a standard. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources just call the border a border - example. Sources generally don't call it an "administrative border"; attempts to add that are just weasel wording. bobrayner (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Say something new, this argument was already refuted. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources just call the border a border, rather than an "administrative crossing" or any other silly wording like that. If your political stance is not compatible with what sources say, you have my sympathies, but hitting the revert button won't change reality. bobrayner (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, per my comment above. If someone finds a reliable source that uses the term "administrative crossing" then it could be used as well as what the current sources say, but in the absence of such sources, we use what the current sources used in the article say. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User was blocked, but those sources are priceless...

It looks like sources generally do call it an "administrative border" --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those sources is contemporary to the events that are the subject of this article, the HRW you have called "UNHCR". The rest pre-date the declaration of independence and are basically irrelevant to these events. Happy for the term to be added, so long as it does not replace the term "border". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fine by me. The article is still unbalanced, but hopefully this will stop the POV pushing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The crisis in northern Kosovo is not yet complete.[edit]

The crisis in northern Kosovo is not finished until you create the Community of Serb municipalities, Kosovo. They are still in the course of the protests and barricades. I am an eyewitness.--79.101.223.175 (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North Kosovo crisis. 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 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels Agreement[edit]

The Brussels Agreement needs to get expanded, or deleted. I request permission to delete the section. GermanGamer77 21:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply