Talk:Kumanovo Agreement

Ongoing problem

It's unfortunate that somebody keeps on editwarring to add this. It's clearly a misuse of sources. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Why is this misuse of source? It is clearly notable and related. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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 — ^talk 23:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha, this traveling circus you two organised works perfectly. Please, see where else i contributed, and join to revert me. Disgraceful way to push POV. --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User's account no longer exists.^

Will you add some of the quotes that according to you verify the edit or not?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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. --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

So... why did who object to what exactly? Int21h (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• 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."

Yes, the source is verifiable, reliable, and the quote authentic and contributive. I will return referenced assertion removed by Bobrayner.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

The result of the move request was: uncontested move. DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Kumanovo Treaty → Kumanovo Agreement – The Article suggests that the Agreement does not conform to international law on treaties. Markd999 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Support, on WP:COMMONNAME grounds; "Kumanovo agreement" seems to be more widely used in sources, particularly in more reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 00:23, 6 October 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.