This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Kosovo North Kosovo crisis (2011–2013) is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Serbia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

Feel free to start a requested move. Jenks24 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I woul dalso support this npov move.Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As per above.--Zoupan (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• REname but to Kosovo–Serbia border conflicts, 2011; alternatively "conflict". In any event the date should be at the end. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Here are some examples of the Kosovo "border clashes": [13], [14], [15]. The name is supported by the world media, the ultimate source of this page. Majuru (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [16][17][18] i.e it's an issue, in which Serbia is one of the two participants.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with Majuru. Most credible news agencies refer to this as border clashes (Reuters, BBC, Washington Post, etc.).--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.--В и к и T 08:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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-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. (The EU must confront the north Kosovo crisis - Guardian, The crisis in the north of Kosovo must be resolved... - M-Mag, Kosovo: crisis in north... - ANSAmed, Kosovo's North... The latest crisis in Kosovo. - World politics review, Sides close to solution to north Kosovo crisis - TANJug...) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)).[reply]
• Support. New name is more precise and more neutral. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Majuru. bobrayner (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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: [19]

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)[reply]

Can you please point where in article is KFOR claimed as Albanian? Thanks for invite. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

But, in this moment, KFOR is opposed to Serbs of Kosovo, and not RoK. Сукоби на Јагњеници Template: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. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)).[reply]