Kumanovo Agreement 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 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
Have you read the paper? If so, please add some of the quotes, which
according to you verify the edit. Btw I do expect the quotes within a reasonable amount of time, otherwise I'll remove the sock's edit and if it's added back without verification ask for admin intervention and full protection of the article, will have been disrupted.--
— ZjarriRrethues —talk23:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
My dear Zjarri, burden is on you, and not on me, as you support removal of sources that, "according to me", verify edit. No, i will not play this shameful game with two of you. --WhiteWriterspeaks00:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)reply
No. Wikipedia editors do not verify edits. Wikipedia users do not meet WP:CITE requirements. Edits are verified by reliable and verifiable sources. Also, as I understand it, edits that have good faith edits, or edits that may be contentious, should be discussed and not removed on sight. In this case, a verifiable source was given, so I think removal on sight, without prior discussion, was possibly improper. If the quote given was accurate (which I don't think I checked), and it contributed to the article, then I thinked the removal without prior discussion was likely improper, and I say the removal (reversion?) should itself be reverted.
Was the source verifiable and reliable, and the quote authentic and contributive? Yes, I think so, so the a priori removal was improper and the material should be re-added immediately, noting it is being challenged. And then the discussion can begin about why someone wants it removed.
Referenced source: "... the Kumanovo Agreement, is dubious under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and, as a consequence, so too are parts of Resolution1244 referring, implicitly or explicitly, to paragraph 10 of Annex 2 of the same resolution."
Other sources "Given that the suspension of the NATO bombing campaign was conditioned upon the fulfilment of the treaties conditions, the conclusion of the Kumanovo Agreement was procured by unauthorized force, the lawfulness of which is highly disputed" - p. 892
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary - Oliver Dörr, Kirsten Schmalenbach;
Article: "Some legal academics have argued that the Kumanovo Agreement "is dubious under the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and, as a consequence, so too are parts of Resolution 1244 referring, implicitly or explicitly, to paragraph 10 of Annex 2 of the same resolution."
Well, i didnt expect this. But article is now protected. If anyone of you is actually interested in dispute resolution instead of edit warring, talk now, and DONT WAIT until protection is over, just to revert again without agreement, as Bobrayner do all the time. --WhiteWriterspeaks12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Granted that the source exists and is accurately cited, I shall not remove it. But given that any agreement which ends an armed conflict is likely to reflect the coercive powers of the parties to the conflict, it follows from the source's argument that all peace settlements are legally void, and that we should therefore ignore the German and Japanese Instruments of Surrender and return to the Second World War. I suggest this argument belongs in a separate article on how sublimely silly some academic international lawyers can be. Incidentally, France and Norway have not signed the VCLT and the USA has not ratified it, so I can't see how NATO could be subject to it.
Markd999 (
talk)
16:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)reply
I am against your suggestion to remove very important assertions about the subject of this article (supported by many reliable sources on this subject) under excuse that it "belongs in a separate article on how sublimely silly some academic international lawyers can be".--
Antidiskriminator (
talk)
16:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)reply
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I agree: for a start, a Treaty would have had to have authorised signatories of the Governments of all NATO states, plus ratification afterwards. I can't think of a reputable Western source which refers to this as a treaty. It was primarily an agreement between two military forces on the modalities of Serbian withdrawal from Kosovo (and from a buffer zone in Serbia along the border) and its real name, a Military-Technical Agreement, was precisely that: how quickly could they withdraw logistically.
It contains a bit of political stuff, like the possible return of Serb forces to perform some functions, but I doubt whether either side (military, not political) took this seriously, except as ordered by their political masters; the agreement was technical.
Btw, the original negotiations took place in the Evropa Kafe in Blace. At least Serbia avoided signing its capitulation in a notorious Albanian-run brothel.
Markd999 (
talk)
20:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)reply
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 or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.