The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While numerous editors made arguments that it was notable and covered by enough sources to exist as an article, the stronger arguments were made by those who argued that the current contents were unfixably non-neutral. Because sources exist on this topic, editors are welcome to create a new article on this topic, but they absolutely must be sure to avoid any appearance of bias and treat all sides equally, both in the text and in the title of the new article.  —  Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo

[edit]
Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fundamentally half of the article is a WP:CFORK of the largely unrelated 2004 unrest in Kosovo, 2008 unrest in Kosovo and Organ theft in Kosovo, while the rest is composed of a WP:NOTNEWS list of various dubious incidents which only have in common that Serbs were allegedly involved. In fact, one mentions a conflict between Serb officers and Albanians and another the destruction of Serb tombstones, although the source explicitly says that the police ruled out "ethnic motives". In conclusion, the basic premise of the article is based on the fact that "something" Serbian (ranging from headstones to Serb police officers) was involved in alleged and non-alleged unrelated events with unrelated causes and motives, thus all of them can be grouped under an all-encompassing article about "persecution".

As a sidenote, if you do happen to take even the slightest interest to review this AfD, please do so whether you agree with my assessment or not as many of these AfDs are plagued by organized tag-teaming (often, users that haven't been active for many months or even years are notified via email and turn these discussions into votestacking competitions) — ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite interesting that you two came to the AfD in such a manner and with such personal attacks against obviously unrelated and impartial editors with no "national" WP:COI. That being said, no irrelevant events that simply include in some cases just the word "Serbian" and aren't linked by the sources can be grouped under the term "persecution".--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indicative of the votestacking mentality of these AfDs is that as soon as someone provides a view about the AfD, !keeps "happen", but after a favorable "numerical status" is established no further !delete comments or even replies are added to the discussion. Of course as soon as that changes again !keep votestacking occurs.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fine in principle; but in practice, attempts to reform the article have been swiftly reverted. As long as an article exists at this title, it's doomed to become a one-sided laundry-list... bobrayner (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been waiting for "scholarly view" over 5 years. It can be recreated then that scholarly view finally shows up, if it ever does. There isn't really anything in current content that deserves preservation and isn't already in other wikipedia articles.--Staberinde (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it does. a lot of material are listed only here, and nowhere else in wiki. While some others are only introduction to the main article subjects I have expanded the article a bit more, with rock solid international reliable sources addressing this abuses and attacks toward Serbs. @Bobrayner All neutral reformations will not be reverted. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your expansion of the WP:NOTNEWS list that you have grouped under the term "persecution" is indicative of the non-scholarly content of the article. How can unrelated events, the participants of which are mostly unknown and their motives are also unknown be grouped under such a term?
  • Serb officials attacking and getting attacked by Albanian civilians,
  • headstones destroyed by people with "no ethnic motives",
  • events in which people from many different ethnicities including Albanians died,
  • people attacked by unknown assailants with unknown motives
were all grouped in a WP:NOTNEWS POV hodgepodge with the pompous headline of "Persecution".--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be serious. If Kosovo police proclaim that attack was not ethnically motivated, that means NOTHING after we all know their role on Kosovo. They are there, watching. This is nothing else then ethnically motivated attack to destroy and persecute everything Serbian on Kosovo. Dont think of us here as an idiots. They attacked that monument only because it was Serbian! --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Your treatment of the AfD and these topics in general is indicative of the issues that bobrayner mentioned. Personally, I'm interested neither in such debates ("we" vs. "them") nor discussions where sources are ignored with "this is nothing else than" labels and irrational groupings. (Btw the "connection" of the removal of a Yugoslav WWII monument by civilians in retaliation to the removal of the Presheve monument by Serb state structures with "persecution" is lost to me and apparently to the sources since they didn't report any "persecution"). Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that it is lost to you, i didnt even expect it to be different. Monument of terrorist organisation in Serbia was moved, while 100 monuments across Kosovo was mischievously and tactically destroyed. In that "retaliation system", in the past almost 15 years, this article state to us that it was always more then retaliation. As it is now. Also, please, stop excluding your self from "we" vs. "them". You may speak about that to someone else, who was not here in the past 8 years of your accounts and editing. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I've been around wikipedia since 2005. That is definite "upgrade" given that the last time you accused me of sockpuppetry you only included me as a second possibility below bobrayner[1]. Which 100 monuments were destroyed, by whom, how are they related to each other and who has grouped them under "persecution"?.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite interesting that two more Serbian users come together to offer their !keep without of course sources that connect any of the article's content or policies.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. I respond in your language. Quite interesting that you as Albanian want to delate the article, better to cover these events or to disguise. Try someone of us for example to delete the persecution of the Albanians? No. How do you know if I am Serb? Only when someone is not of the opinion of an Albanian, he is immediately a Serb or what? There is nothing worse to be Serb or Albanian or whatever. For you as Albanian its normal to delete the article abut tracking of non-Albanians in Kosovo, but at the same time for you its "interesting" that non-Albanians, especially Serbs, try to argue against it?Please stop with your double moral. This is not Albanopedia or Serbopedia or Romanopedia ect, its Wikipedia. We have a lot of sources and your argue that the sources connect with policies is weak. After your statement we should the 9.11 attack and their victims, and the background put into question or delate, because there are political backgroud? 100% Surely not. We will work all together to improve the article. For this we need time and not a deletion.--Nado158 (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,how do you write, there are always two sides of the story, that's why we have wiki rules, but why should be delete this side of the story??? It should be improved but not delated.--Nado158 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well over half of the sources are international sources. Nationalist propaganda because its handled about prosecution commited by Albanians? Would all this victims be Albanians you would vote as Albanian for the remain of this page right? it this not double moral? Prosecution, ect., of Albanians may exist everywhere but not about non-Albanians? This is neutral?This page is abolut not POV. You should perhaps read again the real meaning of the term POV. All these sources are POV right? But the same sources be used on pro-Albanian side there is suddenly no POV?come on. What polarizes the ethnic divisions within the region is suppression of pages, or the cover-up from pages, which are from the other side of the story, the non-Albanian side. You wrote, the fewer of these sorts of pages is better? And exactly that is absolut not neutral and have a puff of propaganda, and besides this, this is POV. This page is not an invention, also not the events, the background and the murdered people, the prosecution of the non-Albanians ect ect. This is not noot Porpaganda. Propaganda are not things which are based on true events.--Nado158 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in my humble opinion, these sorts of polarizing editorial pages (e.g. persecution of non-Albanians or "persecution of Albanians") are not particularly useful to wikipedia. But I that is just my own opinion.
The problem objectively with the page is that by definition it ONLY talks about persecution of non-Albanians. I'd have the same problem with a page that ONLY talked about the persecution of Albanians. The problem isn't with the source per se (though I haven't read through them all). Source problems could be fixed by the wikipedia community. The problem here is with the way the page is structured. The page is it inherently non-neutral as a stand-alone full fledged page. If this content must be included it should be a section of a page on human rights abuses during the Kosovo war (per Irondome's suggestion) but frankly all of these "lists of persecution" from the Kosovo War appear in so many other articles on wikipedia (see e.g. List of Massacres in Kosovo War, Kosovo War, War Crimes in Kosovo) that repeating the same information here ad nauseam (and in an inherently selective manner) seems redundant, exhausting and serves only to further one interest over another. I'd have the same objections about a page devoted exclusively to Albanian victims of Serbian war crimes. (ps I don't understand what you mean by Albanians may exist everywhere but not non-Albanians. So to the extent I haven't addressed that... sorry.) and thanks. Epeos (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that's the point. You can not on one side where it exclusively to the pursuit of blacks going to require, installed persecutions of other peoples like Indians . There are other sites separately for this. This page is about this topic here. Your own mind, I can understand very well, but Wikipedia is a enceclopedyc page. You and I have no influence on world events, and when they arise, they will be reported here, whether it is an earthquake, a war, or sports. I wish we could have no material to write negative or such sad things like this. I wish there were no victims on all sides, no dead Serbs, Albanians, etc., but we can not change, unfortunately. Of course there are some overlaps with the Kosovo war, etc, but most things have happened until after the war. Much is not available in other articles. And much of what still could be added there is also not present. On the contrary, exactly the deletion of this page would serve only to further one interest over another. We have for example pages and articles devoted against Serbian side, where mentioned only one side, the anti-Serbian side, where only mentioned Serbian war crimes, but not the other war crimes against Serbs and other people. We have other examples with other nations too. Against Germans, etc. etc. I support neutral pages, but sometimes the facts are clear and the remove would be not neutral. In any case, in Serbian, Albanian, American etc. You can not make from a perpetrator a victim, and vice versa. Thanks--Nado158 (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there are SO many pages that say the exact same information. I mean there is already a "persecution of Serbs" page! Can't you stuff all of this information onto that page? There is a "Kosovo War" Page and a "Kosovo" page. where crimes against serbs are voiced. There is a "list of massacres in Kosovo" page. There is a "Kosovo war crimes" page. There is a "Serbs of Kosovo" page. All contain reiterations of the same information. Do we really need yet another one? And one with such a small (and one sided) scope? We don't have a "persecuction of Native Americans in Illinois" page. Instead we have a page about Native Americans which describes their persecution and includes a section about Illinois among other places. So that's the argument for shuffling this "page" into a section on another page.
But the second argument I see voiced here is that the page itself is structurally bias. I mean, look at the title of this page! "Persecution of Serbs and non-Albanians in Kosovo???" i.e. persecution of anyone who isn't an Albanian??? There are no pages (that I know of) that read "Persecution of Jews and all non-Germans during WWII" There are no pages that read "Persecution of non-Serbs in Kosovo." or "Buildings that are not neo-classical in Chicago." The title defines the subject negatively (i.e. it defines the absence of a thing rather than defining a thing) In doing so with a race of people it explicitly excludes an ethnicity central to understanding the conflict it describes. In my opinion this "page" should be renamed for what it actually is: "Persecution of Serbs in Kosovo" and it should be include as a section under the Persecution of Serbs page. The attacks on Jews can be added to List of Massacres or Kosovo war crimes pages or one of the other myriad pages that proxy as ethnic scorecards for this conflict. To create yet another page and to premise the reasoning for it upon the fact that "the other side has structurally bias pages" is an argument which fails to hold water.Epeos (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true that there are so many sites that say exactly the same. On the contrary. Of course, there are other articles about other ethnicities. E.g. the persecution of the Jews. And to this subject, there are many different sides + the main page. How do you see it going. And here is the topic for the persecution of Serbs in Kosovo.--Nado158 (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added attacks on Jews. Source from the Jüdische Zeitung--Nado158 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But surely two wrongs don't make a right! If there is a problem with the Serbia page, then address it on its own merits. The answer must not be to create another inherently bias page!Epeos (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added also informations by a report from Amnesty International--Nado158 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new attack was today, two Serbian childrens was injured by a bomb attack on a Serbian house--Nado158 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added in this case sources from the U.S . Salon Media Group--Nado158 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added also sources from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, BBC, and imporved some links.--Nado158 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently WP:NOTNEWS means nothing for some users here. I support the title Human right abuses in Kosovo proposed by user Irondome. At least, we get rid of POV title and enter more materials on human rights abuses by every side in Kosovo. That seems more NPOV. Aigest (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article at Human right abuses in Kosovo is certainly viable, although it ought to have very different content, and the journey there (from the current content) is likely to be a bumpy ride with lots of reverts. If people really want a Human right abuses in Kosovo article I would argue that it's better to start one from scratch. But if somebody took away the "delete" option and left us with a choice between status quo and an article at this new title, the new one would obviously be an improvement. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page handled about the pursuit of non-Albanians in Kosovo, because several ethnicities (Serbs, Roma, Ahskali, Bosniaks, Gorani, Jews, Montenegrins ect) were or are attacked by Albanians, which has increased notably since the disputed independence of Kosovo. The rename of the article in Human right abuses in Kosovo is for these items incorrectly, because this is about no-Albanians, and the new headline of this page would not reflect this. If the name must be changed, which I personally can not understand, because there are also other similar items with such NAME, then (i think) it should be named Persecution of non-Albanians in Kosovo, although its also would not reflect the topic of the page, because 90% of the victims ect are Serbs. Because of this i think the current name of the page is absolut right.--Nado158 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current title is a magnet for all sorts of trouble, edit warring etc, Nado. Human rights abuses in Kosovo I still think is less problematic as a title, and anyway the material and the weight of number of attacks and ethnic breakdown of victims etc could be easily accomodated in the text, providing the evidence meets consesnsus. In that sense the title is irrelevant. Irondome (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, there are cases where Albanians are/were persecuted by Serbs in Kosovo, but they aren't as widely...promoted. One must understand that this issue of persecution is not one-sided as has been perceived from this debate. --Prevalis (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
indeed there are "grey areas", a universal phenomenon, and a part of our bleak record as a species. Which is why I am treading very carefully here.Irondome (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bobrayner. The same holds for Epeos or not? The rules are the same for all "new" users.Thanks--Nado158 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that question is only for editors that he disagrees with. All "my side" SPA accounts should not be disturbed. Quite obvious... :) :) --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've never had a previous account. I am brand-spanking new to wikipedia and seem to have run naively directly into the buzzsaw of the balkans.Epeos (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O, please, stop. In your eight edit you cited POV wiki guideline, and in you 15th opened a referenced report on WP:BLP/N. We are not idiots. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for your personal agenda, it should be dealt with on other place then this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. and for what its worth accept my apologies. Still, I'm not a sockpuppet and you shouldn't attack the sincerity of my edits and comments. Foodsupply was in fact blocked becasue he was Oldhouse2012 who was in fact blocked for being disruptive. So bobrayner was exactly right.Epeos (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, Epeos, but I suspect that you are sockpuppet too and only investigation can prove that you are not. Since administrators do not allow me to have account, somebody else can open investigation about Epeos? I suspect that sockmasters are either ZjarriRrethues or Bobrayner. 200.192.255.146 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: 200.192.255.146 was blocked as an IP proxy of Oldhouse2012. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
why don't they let you have an account?? Is it because you've abused the system a little bit? what a bummer man. I'm still not a puppet though. I'll open an investigation on myself if that would make you feel better just so people stop using it as an excuse to avoid substantive discussion... (but I don't actually know how to do that yet.)Epeos (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "It is a fact that different groups have committed human rights abuses in Kosovo against others over centuries.", if you know about any of these then you are free to launch a page. If we were dealing with a list of isolated examples where it was simply the case that ethnic Albanians attacked non-Albanian targets then I too would have joined the "delete" campaign. However, persecution of any kind is a notable subject, in this case doubly so as the persecution is systemic: perpetrated by loyalists to one movement against persons deemed unfavourable to the cause. So the "this is nothing new" argument along with its partner "incidents are not related" are baseless. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about addressing the commonly-held concerns about lack of compliance with WP policy? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about them and I do have one or two ideas but I need more time to propose them - sorry this post is void of more information, I've edited a bit too long and it's nearly 4am here in the UK. As soon as I return I will endeavour to explore new avenues taking all arguments into account. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, most of these incidents have not been linked to each other, have not been grouped under the term "persecution" or a similar term by the sources and most of them don't even have proven or alleged culprits and motives. Since the AfD, basically every single case that has involved Serbs in Kosovo (even when later the perpetrators were proven to Serbs that had engaged in criminal activities for personal reasons) has been added in this WP:NOTNEWS list including ...graffiti spraying.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 46 sources to support every statement, so the only reason I see for outright deletion is a sorry attempt at denialism by the "Delete" lobby. This article has never sat comfortably with Albanian editors and yet most fail to spot the connection with all these incidents: it is not a charge sheet printed to list every attack on a non-Albanian but an article on a real issue. It earns the status of persecution not because of the behaviour of the perpetrators but because of the lax attitude of their supposed authorities with much of the felony itself having links to the very top. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be 46 sources that mention incidents but they aren't grouped under persecution or labeled as such by the sources. Of these incidents most have no convictions, no suspects and no attributed motives, thus there's a gross POV and OR when you assume without evidence the basic premise this WP:NOTNEWS list has been built upon i.e. ethnicity-motivated crimes that occur in an organized manner. For example, a story about a Serbian couple that returned in Kosovo in 2004 and was killed in 2012 was added[2]. However, the source explicitly says that the police still have no suspects and nobody has been arrested yet.. Where is the premise that this was a hate crime that belongs to a wider series of events that constitute persecution based on? No suspects, no motives and no arrrests. Essentially, every incident that has occurred in Kosovo and has included Serbs has been interpreted as a hate crime that is part of a wider persecution.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a mere coatrack of unconnected news reports of bad things that have happened to (mainly) Serbs in Kosovo over a long period. Where are the sources that link them together? Where are the sources that say they are part of a wider program of persecution? Listing them in this way, without sources that say they are linked or part of a wider scheme is pure WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. And there is no "delete" lobby. There is a "WP policy-based" lobby and an "ignore WP policy so we can keep our coatrack" lobby. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a WP policy-based lobby, the other is a pure denialist faction, and these opt to delete the artcle. It's funny how each says "delete" yet nobody proposes how we deal with an article with statements supported by 46 sources. But don't take my word for it, ZjarriRrethues hit the nail on the had with his last post: "no suspects, no motives, no arrests". Who is responsible for investigating and solving crimes? The de facto authority and we all know who this is. Only people with their head in the clouds can believe that life in Kosovo for non-Albanians is marvelous and they have full state protection. The earliest examples on the article pertain to KLA-based activities and still no motives - and some prate that this does not amount to persecution. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite having no sources you consider this a legitimate article because "only people with their head in the clouds can believe...". That sounds a lot like many WP:TRUTH arguments that are often heard in AfDs. Btw if you removed all similar items[3] from that incoherent news list, you'd be left with a stripped-down WP:CFORK of some articles I mentioned in the original filing of the AfD. For example, a very unfortunate story about two Serb children that were hit by a grenade in northern Mitrovica about two weeks ago has been added. The three sources again mention no suspects and no motives, while it's been made clear that The police spokesman could not say if it the incident was ethnically motivated.. The next day a suspect was detained who in fact was a Serb who was in conflict with the family of the two children. Not only is there no hint of this incident and many others being ethnically-motivated attacks that is also linked to many others and grouped under an organized scheme of persecution but there is also a suspect. Of course, when I removed[4] the incident I was reverted by Nado.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The example you present doesn't belong to the article, and I admit there are many listings which can be removed. I believe the article can be trimmed and it may be that there is very little left. From one perspective I can see the forking matter, from the other (the vantage point of Serbs) I can see there is an issue whereby one cannot feel safe. Irrelevant examples definitely need to go. Once we have done this (and I'd like to take part in the pruning operation), it may then be worth every editor here re-assessing where we go. Merge? Rename? Delete? Keep? Split among three extant articles? There are many options but a clean-up of the existing page is certainly in order. I don't recommend any new examples be added for the time being. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ZjarriRrethues...The Serb was released because there was a misunderstanding. I can show you sources. Also, the family has criticized his arrest and has rejected accusations that he was the perpetrator.--Nado158 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still best not to include it for the time being. Several of the examples are weak cases of systemic persecution. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*STRONG DELETE. Per WP:CFORK, per WP:NOTNEWS and per WP:NPOV. Never had I read such utter garbage and s total unconnected pile of pathetic Serbian propaganda as this article. All of the examples are speculation, sourced by Serbian media, and most don't even know who the killer/abuser even was. There is no evidence of persecution. The Republic of Kosovo police is multi-ethnic like the Kosovan state. Ethnic Serbs are welcome to join that force and live a normal Kosovan life, they are allowed political representation and they enjoy autonomy in the north. They have the right to vote and to work. They are allowed to travel to Kosovo with Serbian passports, so where on earth is the so-called "prosecution"? I am amazed the article has lasted as long as it had but now it is time to wipe it off once and forever. All of it's editors are well-known Serbian nationalists who push pro-Serb POV all of the time here. Kosovo 2008 Albania 1912 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)— Kosovo 2008 Albania 1912 (talk • contribs) sock of WP:DE vandal User:Sinbad Barron. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you are talking about is official publication and naturally it would be unprecedented to admit wrongdoings from a high level. The government of Bahrain claims fair treatment of all persons and groups but you will not be satisfied with that rationale if you spoke to the country's Shia population. There are many examples on this page which need to be removed and I am promising to do this very shortly, but like I said, from an administrative level - there is no persecution and no constitution can openly endorse this. On a grass roots level, matters are different. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, there would be reliable scholarly sources that says there is systematic mistreatment of Serbs by Albanians in Kosovo. All we have so far is a list of news articles. Where are those sources? Without them, this is just WP:SYNTH. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the cases confirm that non-Albanians and non-secessionist Albanians are subject to persecution. If "scholarly" means Noel Malcolm or Tim Judah or any other writer to plagiarise Rexhep Qosja then you will never find it. When a scholar is of Serbian origin then it is generally looked upon as POV. So a bulk from the list leaves readers with a choice: they either realise that quality of life varies according to ethnicity or they resort to denialism and pretend that life for Serbs in Kosovo is exactly the same as for ethnic Swedes in Finland. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

give me a break. Exactly which sources use the word "persecution"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ICTY as reported by Reuters for Haradinaj. The fact that he was acquitted is not evidence that it didn't occur, just a so-called 'lack of proof' that the actions were attributed to him personally. Obviously one needs proof of the atrocity before he can pursue suspects. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I certainly echo the concerns about the article being a coatrack and POV. The facts seem to have been crowbarred into fitting the conclusion. Dolescum (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot "crowbar facts to fit a conclusion", they are either facts or they are not. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so? Dolescum (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the interesting link. It is not a case on this article though, some days ago it was worse before pruning began but we are rapidly running out of sections we can remove. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, there seems to be a total of 44 sources covering about 15 years. The English Defense League caused more noted incidents than that, if memory serves me correctly, in less time.
The article attempts to portray violence in Kosovo as unidirectional against ethnic Serbs. News reports such as this Guardian piece cast doubt on that presentation.
Furthermore, this piece from the United States Institute of Peace seems to disagree with the precept guiding the articles title:
Independence generated excitement and celebration in Kosovo, but its Albanian population—about 90 per cent of the total—has refrained from violence against minorities. Despite provocations, Kosovars have not sought, as some feared they might, to chase Serbs from the new state. This correct behavior needs to continue.
So...yeah, it still looks like a coatrack of grievances which is best flushed. Dolescum (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) EDL is an opponent of the British regime and has no links to it. 2) Their activities in no way compare to the Podujevo bus bombing. 3) The earliest incidents in the article pertaining to the beginning of the UNMIK period (before and immediwtely after) are certified cases of genocide and that in itself goes far beyond persecution. So, best to flush facts? QED. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another WP:TRUTH comment that really is typical of these AfDs. So far there are no sources that connect these incidents, group them together or even establish them as ethnic crimes given that there aren't any suspects or motives regarding most of them.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every country has idiots running about, looking for people to harm. For example, the existence of David Copeland does not imply that there is systematic persecution of his victims. You'd also expect an instrument for the United States government to have noticed if this was going on. The fact you raise the matter of wartime atrocities is interesting, you seem to wish to focus on one side in isolation, when it is well documented that both belligerents in the Kosovan War committed unspeakable horrors. This reaffirms my conclusion that the article is merely a coatrack for grievances and should be flushed. Dolescum (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. government? Don't make me laugh. It sees what it wants to. In fact much of the equipment used to cause the atrocities by the "side in isolation" was provided by them. The U.S. turns it eye on a lot of things when the relevant regime serves them. Also I never said "wartime", the page itself has things going back to when the war was happening. The war officially ended with the Kumanovo agreement when FRY agreed to withdraw security forces but atrocities against non-Albanians - although stemming from the war - continued for some time. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now you're rejecting sources out of hand because they fail to agree with you. I see little further point in continuing to communicate with you. Dolescum (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the level of debating has been steadily deteriorating.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for proposal

[edit]

As far as I and everyone else to vote 'keep' is concerned, the article is fine as it stands. Some of the controversial material has been removed these past two days. Even so, there needs to be consensus and I can see that there are problems with the word "persecution" as no source groups every listing and categorises them as such. I see from the page history that on the day the page was created in January 2008 by a user now banned for editing without being logged in that several article names were tried. To all those who voted 'delete', how would you feel about this page moving to Attacks on minorities in Kosovo 1998-present? Comments please. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't coatrack this discussion as it deals with the AfD. That being said, your suggestion is again WP:NOTNEWS. (Btw don't expect that to be used to reintroduce various opinions as "new ones" to circumvent the relisting of the AfD) Ridiculous lists of incidents that mostly have no suspects and no motives are neither academic material nor can be grouped together under any kind of premise. There can be no such article simply becase various Serb editors over the years added all kinds of criminal activities that involved Serbs. To me, per the policies your suggestion sounds just as irrational as a suggestion for writing an article about List of X crimes that happened in Y in Z period--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I asked for eveybody's opinion amongst those to favour deletion, not just yours. I accept that you don't agree to the proposal so let that be an end to it. There are more editors than you to favour deletion and I would like all of them to have their say. I will remind you that you do not own this project page are not here to give other editors orders on how they steer the article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Phil Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious sock puppet or SPA account, invited here off line by one of "Delete" users above.--Nado158 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is amusing. I'm sure you have some evidence that I'm a sockpuppet or an SPA, right? You'd be happy to share that, wouldn't you? After all, you'd not go around throwing baseless accusations without even checking my edit history, now, would you? So perhaps you'd like to share that with the rest of us? Dolescum (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it only, but sorry, it is not without reason. However, It's nothing personal. Maybe I'm wrong, mabe not, but it is allowed to check this. There are certainly admins they could check this. Thank you and regards.--Nado158 (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're referring to WP:SPI, yes? My username doesn't seem to be listed there, curiously. I invite you to file a case or redact your accusations. Dolescum (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a accusations just a guess. I think, you must not dramatize it. Thank you and regards!--Nado158 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing opponents of sockpuppetry is a standard tactic employed by one side of this rather polarised debate. If you get accused of sockpuppetry just for trying to get rid of chronic pov-pushing, wear it as a badge of honour. bobrayner (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this were my tactics, then I could this have may be learned from you, because you have used up above already with respect to the new user Foodsupply which has voted for a KEEP, while you ignored in the same moment new user Epoes who voted for a DELETE. So, I must think that you questioned only for editors that disagree with your opinion. If you get accused someone of standard tactic which you've previously used self, which badge you should wear then? Regards--Nado158 (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This adversarial approach is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Please stop. The last time I tried reverting & reporting a sock who was supposedly on "my" side, your ally WhiteWriter simply declared that I was the sockmaster. Which demonstrates how reason, neutrality, and AGF are abandoned in the headlong rush to push serb nationalist POV on en.wikipedia. Please stop, Nado158. bobrayner (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you started with the adversarial approach. My ally? All my allies who disagree with your opinion? Bobrayner, I support reason ect. and we know it, all is Serb nationalist POV who you already said that, and in opposite all is pure Albanian engels truth right? However, we can now talk about 1000 years about this, so please stop it, let stop it. I interesst only for encyclopedic articles. My respect to you and best whishes.--Nado158 (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who sees me as Albanian can only be viewing the world through a very distorted nationalist lens. I wouldn't mind if it were just on pages like this AfD; but there's lots of this crap in article-space too, which misleads readers. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bob. You are sailing pretty close to the wind here Nado. If you were accusing me of being a sock, like you have with Bob and Dolescum, you would be at ANI right now defending your actions in front of the community. Both Bob and I have reported suspected socks, all we have seen from you is a lot of mouth and no money. I suggest you back off and concentrate on addressing the legitimate concerns of editors, especially those that aren't fellow travellers here in Balkans articles. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I respect this Thank you.--Nado158 (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious sock puppet or SPA account, invited here off line by one of "Delete" users above.--Nado158 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that most victims are Serbs. Reliable independent sources show that most victims of persecution in Kosovo are not Serbs. Personally, I dislike the encyclopædia being used as a platform for nationalist myths; it is unfortunate that not everybody shares this stance. bobrayner (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The full title of the article is Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo. Everyone is free to add instances where it wasn't always Serb. The page is not about the history dating back to earliest settlement which would cover centuries of Ottoman rule. To this end, even I am uncomfortable with examples from when the Kosovo war was happening. It should focus only only UNMIK-onwards because this represents the time Kosovo has been governed exclusively fom within. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about recent history. UNMIK counted 488 murders since June 1999, of which 161 were positively identified as Serbs and 197 positively identified as Albanians; this is a completely different story to what our article says, our article is dedicated to picking individual cases, and weaving them into a bigger story, whilst discarding cases which don't fit. Of course, it's quite arbitrary that the article only covers recent incidents, since there's no such restriction in the title; who made up that restriction? bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the answer to your question is the original author, now blocked so we can't interview him. The article history shows there were several suggested and tried names for the article before the current name was chosen. It is definitely a two-part episode since it begins from when the war was happening but apart from that there is nothing arbitrary: one location, perpetrator invariably symapthiser of regime, victims perennially suspected opponents. These three things weld the article's purpose far better than several pages that exist on WP which contain wildly estranged contents. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw don't let the "abundancy" of sources lead you to conclude that the sources necessarily correspond to the text. Many have been misrepresented by a user who currently faces an WP:AE report. For example, In August 2005, two Serbs were shot dead and two injured when their car was taken under fire by Albanians during a tire change.[5], source:Two Serbs shot dead and two injured when their car is fired at.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not twist my things and please do not denigrate me. I've already added a new source which describes these things etc.Thank you.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nado158 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 February 2013‎

Those are reasons to clean up the article through regular editing, we have lots of contentiously argued articles, we don't just delete them because they have problems. We clean them up. Insomesia (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has deteriorated with the addition of more misrepresented WP:NOTNEWS events. However, if we did remove all the unrelated incidents it would remain a WP:CFORK of other articles and a WP:NOTNEWS list-like article as there's no "persecution" grouping by RS of events or acknowledgment that there's an organized scheme that could be labeled "persecution".--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the article has deteriorated then feel free to restore the page to its condition in January when you launched this campaign. It is the opinion of every delete-editor that the events are wholly unrelated, are redolent of everyday life in all parts of the world and that the events do not constitute persecution and the latter is based on a scanty yardstick which is that no source records every incident and deems it by that term. If you venture outside this area of editing you will find there are countless articles that link even more estranged subjects over a wider time-frame and across more parts of the world. The point is that one editor believes we are "straying from the topic" because much of the content belongs to Crime in Kosovo, a tiny article by comparison - yet it is an unequivocal and obvious fact that persecution is subordinate to crime, it is not as if you can "legally" carry out the sourced acts of the page somewhere. But the fact remains that certain groups in Kosovo do not live as comfortably as others. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Insomesia. The page has seen major changes since its nomination for deletion. These are likely to continue. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Evlekis. I think we all know your view, you have re-stated it over and over. It is unnecessary and confusing for the closing admin for you to jump in every time someone makes a comment you agree with. Please restrain yourself. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not here to admonish editors who don't share your view, the discussion has been dominated by a number of individuals but I see no requests for restraint in that direction. Confine yourself to the topic of the discussion. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are you here to offer long polemics about the quality of life enjoyed by Serbs in Kosovo while trying to present their difficulties as a systematic campaign of persecution. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No? Then maybe I got the wrong end of the stick. If I am not supposed to visit those two points then what is the purpose of this talk? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have got the wrong end of the stick. The purpose of this talk is to ascertain whether this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. It is not a debate about whether Serbs and non-Albanians are persecuted in Kosovo, but about whether we have enough coverage in independent reliable sources saying that they are persecuted, which is not the same as a collection of news reports of crimes whose victims happen not to be Albanian. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honour among thieves I see. For your information, my position is based entirely on the sources of the article. The argument just happens to be stale, some editors say that these do not constitute persecution, others such as I say they do. Now when another editor - already to have posted several times himself - repeats the same old points but puts a new angle on them, I have every right to refute them. That is the purpose of this conversation. The editor who introduced this project has in the past tried to have the page removed through ordinary talk page proest, as indeed have many other of his associates. Since the project was launched, I have worked extremely hard to improve the page to the point that many of the statements which caused problems have now been removed and many removals are attributed to me. It is clear that the existence of this page upsets some people's preferred POV imbalance, it has nothing in the world to do with site guidelines - those are being used politically as a weapon, and as ever when this is so, they are being exploited to mean what people want them to mean. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the issue is not whether you or I or any other Wikipedia editor thinks that these cases amount to persecution, but whether independent reliable sources say that they do, for which no evidence has been presented. As regards "honour among thieves", you might like to note that the last time I remember taking part in the same deletion discussion as the nominator we were firmly opposed, so I don't see how that phrase can describe the situation here. You need to accept that not everyone is arguing from a sectarian nationalist point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last remark is correct, not everyone represents a "sectarian nationalist point of view" because I certainly don't, I do however suspect the delete-lobby to argue from that angle but that is not something I will discuss now. I am the only editor to both contribute to the article's content and remove from it what I felt did not belong. All the rest either pile on the text+sources (the keep-lobby), whilst the others do nothing but tag/dispute/remove. It wouldn't hurt the latter party to go out and actually look for things to improve the article for a change. However, it is clear to anybody that their minds were made up long before clean-up operations began: the rejection of a proposal to remove 'persecution' from the title certifies that this word was never the issue as has been claimed in all other sections of this talk. As regards "independent reliable sources", I see from the top of this project page that we have no sources for the claim of the title. I accept that there are very few but the idea that there is none is wild and subject to the tactical limited search ploy. A few sources to testify that persecution in Kosovo exists can be found, and knowing them from the onset helps with the wording:

But note when you deliberately cite a term verbatim, you get zero for more subjects than you think:

Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Peacemaker67, your behavior in simply editing to post "me too" content resembles barracking of other editors. Please desist, other editors are capable of reading what has been written without you repeating it at them. Dolescum (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with the behaviour of any editor then you may report him via the correct channels. Your allegation of barracking is your own viewpoint, not a real issue. Speaking on which, perhaps you should read the first five words of your above statement back to yourself and then determine whether your post was necessary. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category