Talk:Ramush Haradinaj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Kosovo (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Ramush Haradinaj is part of the 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Albania (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Ramush Haradinaj is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

March 5 massacre[edit]

Is this the URL that can be used to source the fact? If so, how much can it source ? The whole paragraph or just the second sentence (the one mentioning the massacre itself) ? - Best regards, Evv 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, second part of that sentence was stating that the report about Serbian support for Haradinaj come from the BBC, not related to the other change I made regarding the 5th march attack on Jasharis Davu.leon 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
lol My fault, I misunderstood it :-) Best regards, Evv 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A statement from one person, whose name is not even mentioned in the article, does not form a basis for stating that the Serb population of Kosovo supports Ramush Haradinaj. The truth of the matter is that, the Serb minority boycotted his election due to the fact that he is indicted as a warm criminal who committed crimes against the Serbian population.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"to visit his family" - deleted[edit]

Who can be sure about why he went back to Kosovo, if not for sake of the wars and crimes he took part in, later? The way this text was was, it sounded much too subjective, as if he was a martyr that couldn't but illegally visit his family etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Well the next sentence as much as says that he was also using the trips to scout out gun-running routes, and I'm pretty sure he did visit his family if he went back to the country where they lived, but whatever. It's not essential to the article. Davu.leon 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Pure POV[edit]

The article looks like it was written by Haradinaj himself.

Dove t. (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

some of the problems here:
  • the fact that he is on trial is not mentioned in the introduction.
  • the quote describing the Serbian attack in the begining of the second paragraph is too long.
  • on the other side: the charges against Haradinaj are hardly described at all, and are said to be "vague". are they?
  • the trial section is mostly praise for Haradinaj's descision to stand for trial. It should be mentioned but not at such length.
  • the statement of a single Serb person about Haradinaj being a good leader shouldn't be mentioned at all (there are other views among the Serbian community) and anyhow it is irrelevant to this section.

Dove t. (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Trial for war crimes at ICTY[edit]

He was not on vacation or for business in the Hague but to respond on charges for war crimes. The former heading was ridiculous POV. Further: acquittal does not prove innocence. The Dutch news NOS Journaal reported today that many witnesses abstained from making a declaration because they felt intimidated. Otto (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You could also refer to Carla del Ponte's book "The Hunt". They were not just intimidated, they were brutally persecuted. 1 was mysteriously assassinated by fire weapons, one's throat was cut slit behind a cafe, 7 were killed in mysterious circumstances, all of them never found out. This all happened within months, right before they were invited. One infamous one was a guy that fled from Kosovo to Montenegro fearing for his life, he was killed in a car accident. Del Ponte also stated that he was intimidating the very judges themselves.
The ICTY actually had a strong case against him, but it was systematically destroyed by Haradinaj's mafia links, so this is not a declaration of proved innocence - but he had to be released because of lack of evidence, which was previously already there. As almost half a year ago the Chief Prosecutor said, the "vicious gangster with the blood of many innocents on his hands" will probably have to be released because legally, the case has collapsed because of a campaign aimed against the witnesses. And as expected - he was released. A worthwhile is to note that this has been done because of legal bounds, and that most of the ICTY actually regrets for this act. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be correct. For instance, the "witness" Tahir Zemaj was killed, along with his son and nephew, in January 2003 -- more than two years before Haradinaj was indicted. It appears unlikely that Zemaj's death was related to the investigation; he'd been the leader of a group (FARK) that was a rival to the dominant KLA, and had been the target of at least one other assassination attempt several months earlier, before Haradinaj was even under investigation. (Cite: I've seen several Serbian sources listing Zemaj as the "chief prosecution witness", which is hardly possible, and also listing his son and nephew as among "nine" or "ten" witnesses killed.

This is not to say witness intimidation wasn't a problem in the Haradinaj case. Clearly it was, and at least one witness died under suspicious circumstances. But you've put "ten" deaths in the article, supported only by a cite to blic.yu. (For non-Balkan readers, Blic -- pronounced Blitz -- is a very popular tabloid paper in Serbia, better noted for sensationalism than accuracy.) So, I really think this needs to be revised. -- Doug M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't up for dispute anymore. No witnesses were murdered. The original court found that witnesses were intimidated (that's different) and they ordered the exceptional meassure of HAVING ANOTHER TRIAL!! Ordering a retrial for an aquitted indiviual has never happened before in the history of international law. Its an extreme measure. It took an additional three years of evidence and... Haradinaj was ACQUITTED AGAIN! This time there was NO mention of witness intimidation. No witnesses failed to come. The court moved to a secret location (also never before done) in order to hear the evidence of every single witness. How many times does this man have to be tried before the possibility is considered that he wasn't guilty??

Now with respect to the witnesses, there is a very clear record of what happened. During the first trial 81 witnesses were called against him. (read the judgment. its here [1]w and here [2]) Two witnesses didn't come. They formed the basis of the retrial. They came during the retrial and added no new evidence. (again you do have to actually read the judgment to get this information.) On top of those two witnesses, one witness did die before the initial trial. But this was NOT under suspicious circumstances. The death was fully investigated by Montenegrin authorities who found it to be an accident. The ICTY Trial Chamber noted this separately. (but its also in the judgment. Its summarized here : [3]. That's it. That is the only witness who died during either trial. And it was from a CAR ACCIDENT in Montenegro.

For you, Nado158, to list that 10 witnesses were killed is irresponsible. To reiterate NO witnesses in EITHER trial were murdered. This isn't up for interpretation. It is a fact. Please see the statement from the ICTY Chief Prosecutor. This is man in CHARGE OF PROTECTING WITNESSES : [4] I see that Nado158 has been commended by wikipedia for edits on Serbian soccer and I can only surmise that such an interest in Serbia is the catalyst behind the reckless additions here. But lets go through some of these 10 witnesses listed and check his facts. Before doing so, however, its worth considering the opening statment here and asking where do you get the information that "of 10 witnesses were called against him only one survived." Again I sound like a broken record. Read the judgment!! 81 witnesses were called against him by the prosecution in the first trial and something like 50+ were called against him in the second trial. Its all there if you take even half a moment to research this and I apologize for my tone but it's infuriating that you keep changing this entry with such reckless and false information.

Of the witensses you mentioned 1. Kujtim Berisha: see above car accident and statement from court. 2. Ilir Selmaj does not exist. The name you are looking for is Ilir Selimaj. He was killed in 1999 in relation to another trial in Western Kosovo that didn't involve Ramush Haradinaj. His death occured fully 6 YEARS before the indictment against Ramush Haradinaj was confirmed.) 3. Bekim Mustafa and Avni Elezaj were never witnesses against Mr. Haradinaj. Again you can look at the statements from the court and the prosecutor and the defence - so every party involved in the process - all say that there were no witnesses murdered. I suspect if you did even the faintest bit of research you would find that these men either (i) don't exist, (ii) are still alive, or (iii) were killed years before the indictment of Mr. Haradinaj. (that seems to the pattern with these names) 3a. Tahir Zemaj was killed in 2003, two years before the indictment against Ramush Haradinaj was announced. 4.the "heavily protected" Sadrik and Vesel Murici. These were never witnesses against Mr. Haradinaj (again read the judgment) but more importantly THESE MEN ARE STILL ALIVE!!! [5] They were named in a council of Europe report as having been killed but much to the embarassment of the rapporteur they are still alive. They held a press conference stating their surprise at being listed as dead. It was big news in the region. 5. Tova Sabahate and Isuf Haklaj. Again you seem to have gotten your names mixed. There is no Tova Sabahate. There is Sebahate Tolaj and Isuf Haklaj. These two were police officers who investigated murders in western kosovo in the early 2000's. They were themselves murdered in... November, 2003. So two years before the indictment was made public. And just to drive this point home, the indictment against Ramush Haradinaj only became public in 2005. They don't tell suspected indictees that there is an indictment against them for obvious reasons. (see for example: Radovan Karadic and Ratko Mladic and their years in hiding) The witnesses you have listed (some of whom are still alive TODAY) were all killed long before any indictment was brought against Ramush Haradinaj. It follows that they could not have been killed in relation to the ICTY proceedings. No one knew at the time of their death that there would be ICY proceedings! thus, who killed them and for what reasons is not known. But purely as a matter of fact, it is an impossibility that they could have been killed in relation to the ICTY case against Ramush Haradinaj. And to repeat this base rumor on a site like wikipedia is irresponsible. Its reckless and it should be stopped. Immediately.

The name[edit]

WHy in God's green earth was his name written also in "Serbo-Croatian"? He is Kosovar, an ethnic Albanian. That a pure insult and has NOTHING to do with this article or his name. I deleted it. I refuse to allow such a POV agenda. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

He was born in Yugoslavia, Serbia, where he had spent most of his life. That has nothing to do with insulting, but is standard practice in the Wikipedia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Had he been born in Greece, it would be also written in Greek. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
He was born in KOSOVA!!! His name should be in Albanian...the end. I don't see Seslje or Tadic name in Albanian. This is BS. What good is it to have his name in Serbian Croatian. Kosova2008 (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it too obvious that, if the name exists in that language, it's relevant and, by having it in that language, more people can read it and comprehend it? What is the bug up your ass? Seems you have some bigotry here. Geofferic TC 05:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Article 5 [Languages] 1. The official languages in the Republic of Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian.

This is the text of the proposed constitution of Kosovo. See proposed constitution. It is discriminatory to prefer one national languages above another in an article about a national Kosovaran politician in an English wikipedia. This apart from the fact that the sovereignty of Kosovo is disputed. Otto (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference list[edit]

Dont no how to add this to the ref list, maybe someone else could do it: --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards, Ev (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramush Haradinaj not-guilty verdict? (for second trial)[edit]

According to this article [1] Ramush Haradiaj received a not-guilty verdict early January 2011. I have never visited this website so I do not know the accuracy of it and it is a bit difficult to access the Hague tribunals website. Can some one check this out?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonizzcertified (talkcontribs) 19:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is true, Haradinaj is in his homeland Kosova now. He is a free man. -- (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ben Emmerson is the human rights lawyer at ICTY[edit]

Ben Emmerson says: "Even though I am a pacifist by nature I understand that legitimate violence can sometimes be unavoidable. But that recognition inevitably forces you into debating what are the limits of acceptable violence. I have often found that soldiers and commanders, with experience of the theatre of war, have greater respect for human life than the politicians who send them into battle," Ben Emmerson QC is in a philosophical mood as he discusses Ramush Haradinaj, the former leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, whose case he has championed through the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Acquitted in the first trial Haradinaj, is awaiting a judgement on a partial Appeals Chamber retrial and Emmerson is confident he will be cleared again: "This guy fought an honourable war." -- (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


Why is is his religion relevant(in the infobox)? Isn't his ethnicity far more relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


We have a problem with a particular user. He writes the sentences as he wants, ignoring the audited texts, does everything what he wants, ignored warnings and Wikipedia rules and sources. He assess the sources after its own criteria. He change facts, distorted the facts and does not write in the encyclopedia sense...also strong strong POV and vandalism.--Nado158 (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nado158, let's try to work this out. I am not vandalising Wikipedia and I am trying hard to assert a neutral POV. I am a new user and just learning how to cite and how to communicate with you. There are really, I think, only two points of contention. 1. you claim that 9 witnesses were murdered during the Haradinaj trial. Here is my problem with this. First, I think it is false. two of the witnesses you list are still alive. (see above in the talk section) the rest were killed long before the ICTY trial began so their death was not a result of them being witnesses to the trial. (just check the date of their death against the date the indictment became public) No one knows who killed them.Epeos (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh man, first, i didt claim that, this say a lot of sources and this witnesses are dead, 14 of them, and several of them were protected witness. Yes, no one knows, but they are all considered potential witnesses and your personal opinion can not change this.--Nado158 (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Who considers them potential witnesses??? Not the ICTY. Not the ICTY Prosecutor[6] or the ICTY trial Chamber. So if the ICTY does not consider them ICTY protected witnesses what are we talking about? Remember this section is Ramush Haradinaj First Trial at the ICTY.Epeos (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of relevant and independent sources have written about it. These things were not mentioned in vain, and this for years.From England, Germany, Spain, Russia, Serbia, France ect. All point of views from relevante sources independant from the ICTY. And you do not understand we can not check your sources or read? Learn how to place the sources that we can read your claims. If you can not, then make your edeting no sense. You destroyed the years of work by other users here, distorted, totally rewritten and erased sources that were relevant.Where does it say they are not and where are the evidence that? they wont to be witnesses???,what happens with them? according to what criteria they were chosen all witnesses?--Nado158 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No witnesses were murdered. Those are not my words, they are part of the public record from the ICTY Trial Chamber and the chief Prosecutor at the court. here: I will list the references for you again. Trial Chamber: [7] The Office of the Chief Prosecutor at the ICTY: [8] The ICTY Press Officer : .[9]. These are people involved in the trial. The Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor is not involved with the ICTY. His opinion or his thoughts are not relevant. Or rather they are relevant to show bias but he was not part of the International War Crimes Tribunal process. Their offices are not related and he had nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Does that make sense? The most relevant source is the public record of the trial. I mean just step back for a minute. How can the proposition that witnesses were murdered during an ICTY trial be sustained if the ICTY formally states that no witnesses were murdered during the ICTY trial??? What's more if you read the cites I've provided you will see that the ICTY Prosecutor and the ICTY Press Office claims that no witnesses were murdered to directly refute newspaper articles similar to the ones you are citing. (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Those are also not my words, they are part of the public record from therelevant newspapers and the chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte ect. You listest vain,then he links left are not open and therefore not verifiable. I told you not copy from Wikipedia gsagt the ICTY. Why is the opinion of the Serbian and other mediaa is not relevant? Because there are Serbs? Because the articles are not pro Haradinaj? Alle müssen dneken wie du es ihnen versuchst zu verkaufen oder das ICTY? Are you serious? That's your own opinion, but they are relevant, as are the in England, Germany and other sources which Wikipedia sees fit. We have to include also other opinions which based on facts.To deny the murder of all them which are in relation with the trial are totaly wrong.--Nado158 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Haradinaj has never been charged or suspected. Everyone involved with the court says no witnesses were murdered. There are quotes I've cited from the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber. The Trial chamber consistently found that Haradinaj was NOT a threat to witnesses. So to my mind these statements directly from the Court are more credible than the newspaper articles you cite. Particularly so given the fact that there are some manifest errors in the names listed. From that position, to say that 9 people were murdered suggests that somehow Haradinaj's acquittal was only achieved through killing witnesses. That undermines the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court and slanders Haradinaj's innocence. So I don't think that it should be a part of the article.Epeos (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand the meaning of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is independent of all, however, it reported in the encyclopedia purposes. All these things that you say are biased and not neutral. You distort the trial, and try to make everything perfectly about Haradinaj and the trial, what surely was not. Newspaper reports (not all) are here legitimate sources that are in turn based on legitimate sources. Here, nothing is slandered, here are described the things from different aspects who occured.--Nado158 (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry again maybe I am misunderstanding you. Newspapers can be valuable tools. BUt they can also badly distort the truth as well. You have to look at where the information in the newspaper article comes from. Here it is not clear. This is a section about Ramush Haradinaj's trial at the ICTY. The most relevant sources for this section must therefore be (i) the trial record, (ii)statements from the court, (iii)statements from the prosecution and (iv) decisions and judgments of the court. I don't think it is bias to say that the Chief Prosecutor's office, the ICTY Press Office and the court all formally stated that no witnesses were murdered in relation to the ICTY trial. In fact if you read their comments they are refuting the very newspaper articles you cite. TThat sort of source does not belong on wikipedia.Epeos (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But not this newspapers ect, and also this are not sources from a forum or anything else. We are not here to find out the truth, to make the work fpr ITCY or to be a copy of ITCY, but we are here to report right and relevant topics, all in encyclopedic sense. It is not only the opinions of the ICTY to be included, this is a violation of the democratic freedom and Wikipedia supports this in encyclopedic sense. And just go to the opinion of one organ that is simultaneously criticized by a lot of other relevant institutions, or doubted is wrong or regulate according to Wikipedia rules. Many important people such as Carla del Ponte, ect. have commented about this, but you delete and ignore it, because you want represent everything clean as you want it. It was not. And we must mentioned that. If is was realy so is not our job, aber we must mentioned that after the report of relevant sources.--Nado158 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are facts. No witnesses were murdered. You can mention an atmosphere of intimidation. (I did in one of my edits. I even included the court's discussion on this. You deleted it.) You can talk about how this was so severe it triggered a retrial. (I included this in another of my edits and even included a discussion about the scope of the retrial which was the first ever in international criminal legal history. you deleted it.) But it should not be recorded on wikipedia that witnesses were murdered. I mean just look at your list. Two of the witnesses you list are still alive! [10][11] Others are names of individuals that died years before the ICTY process started. It follows that they could not have been ICTY witnesses. (they may have been witnesses in another trial but that is not what this section is about. There is no indication that they were murdered by Ramush Haradinaj. They have no business being in this section)

Notable facts are also witnesses that would have contributed to the process, were murdered. Not for nothing that these people were mentioned. Before you tell me something about allegations, you should first think about what you've done. You come here as a NEW user and change everything, destroying the years of work of the users here, make a salad from the facts that you can recognize nothing more, you removed relevant sources, but yourself can not place sources, do it all according to your will and make me allegations just because I'm trying to prevent your pro Haradinaj POV and aggressiv editing?? If you want to change something then do this gradually, step by step, and with Wikipedia rules and not by destroying everything and messed bring. Which witnesses live and which are not? tell me? we will clarify this or finde a solution. And these witnesses have business here because they wanted testify.--Nado158 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact the court repeatedly found that Ramush Haradinaj posed no threat to witnesses. Here are the judgments it specficially says that in. I've cited the actual paragraphs for you to read from the judgments of the Court. Just match the date and title with the pdf on the website. [12] [13] [14] [15] These are many judgments from the ICTY. They are made by two different trial chambers. All find that Haradinaj posed no threat to witnesses.Epeos (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. Again, Wikipedia is not ICTY.--Nado158 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The second issue that we disagree on is your: "Crimes and Scandals section" And here I just think that you are reposting libel. The accusations of drug dealing and other crimes are often based on "secret sources' and even though they are printed in newspapers they are still libel. Haradinaj has never been charged let alone convicted of any of this. And unless there is a source that is credible that says, "I saw Haradinaj do... X" Or some other source of information that is NOT rumor, hearsay or based on "secret intelligence" all you are doing with this section is repeating a libel. And so I think its important to be very careful with these sorts of statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeos (talkcontribs) 01:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Omg, thera are many important sources which are accepted in Wikipedia. You should read the Wikipedia rules bevore you come here and destroy all and you think you can do what you want whit your own rules. You said just because he was not convicted, it means not it could have been or was involved in this. The repotd, newspaper and secret servics reported this, so the claimed this and we write this here. You pick out your sources for your own POV,(and you have no sources to 90%), renoved other sources, etc. You try to beautify the things here to play down and you say it wills make neutral. Come on please...and at last, i do not said this, the sources said this.--Nado158 (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
He was brought into connection with this in work with a lot of relevant and variety sources. He is not the only politician who has such sections on wikipedia, though they were not charged. There are relevant sources, only why you not personally look so, this not mean that it is so. If this is determined by the BND, CIA and written by many major newspapers that they have informatione about Arkan, or German politician, than they are rigthsources and mentioned right??? and not at Haradinaj? If you have information about crimes agains Albanians on the same way, than we should be mentioned, and when the victims are Serbs should not be mentioned?or are against the Albanians theorie of 120% unguilty in all things??? come on please. --Nado158 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This type of information only serves to reduce the image of Ramush Haradinaj. I agree with you that newspapers are important sources. But just because it is printed in a newspaper doesn't mean its appropriate for wikipedia. You have to look at where the information in the newspaper comes from. For instance, if a newspaper quotes a court judgment or quotes an official with knowledge of the issue then it is a valid source. If a newspaper repeats gossip, rumor, or hearsay... or if a newspaper reports from "secret sources" or "confidential information" the content of that report is of much more limited value. And when you are talking about a living person, and accusing him of crimes on the basis of this type of information I think that you are running afoul of wikipedia's libel rules.Epeos (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Try to stay away from accusing other editors of "committing libel". Keeping your discussion civil means sticking to the content, not to each other. Also, a reminder to use the four tildes after your comments so it's easy to see who wrote what on a talk page. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will try not to say this in the future. I guess I'm a bit confused though. Isn't that a serious issue when dealing with a living biography? I take your point that saying "committing libel" is not productive and I won't say it in the future. But the material is a problem in the sense that it gives a living individual a negative image and the source is, in the end, groundless. But I will refrain from accusing another editor of "committing libel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeos (talkcontribs) 05:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This type of the removing of information only serves to push the image of Ramush Haradinaj or to cover up the things. Here is not appropiate for wikipedia and the same newspaper and sources on other articles or in other relations are good and appropiate??? From where come the infromations??? My be we sholud exactly write here what Haradinaj whish in the section CONTROVERSIES, than its good infromation?come on please--Nado158 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Witnesses Killed[edit]

No witnesses were murdered. This was confirmed by the International Court itself. It was also confirmed by the Prosecution. When you list any witnesses as being murdered you are undermining the legitimacy of the ICTY. I see that you list a lot of sources to support the idea that witnesses were killed. Those sources are false. It is like finding a bunch of sources that say Obama was not born in America. Its easy to do because there are lots of people out there willing to publish garbage. Sources are not all equal!!

Please, come on please. This are absolut right soursec (proven newspaper)and not garbeg. They are not false. You know this--Nado158 (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The sources listed here directly conflict with the Statements from the ICTY, the Prosecution and the Court. I trust the formal record of the court that managed the trial over a bunch of newspaper articles that seem to originate from Serbi. Now I've read the judgment from both cases and and I've seen all 97 names from the first trial and all 56 names from the second trial. That represents all the ICTY witnesses in this case. None of them were murdered. One of them was killed in a car accident. (Kujtim Berisha) The idea that witnesses were murdered is a way of attacking Haradinaj. Not surprisingly it comes from his adversaries in Serbia. Another way of thinking about this is comparing the differences between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources take precedence. They are objective. Or as close to objectivity is possible in the human condition. (e.g. All of the sources you list are just like web pages that say Obama is a muslim from Indonesia. They are reporting a rumor. They might be persuasive if there wasn't a primary source that directly conflicts with them. The trial record and the statements from the ICTY primary sources. They are like Obama's birth certificate.)
From Serbia?aahhh ok.And? What is your actually your intention here? These sources are based from sources of different countries.--Nado158 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to seriously engage with this issue you have to deal with the facts. The facts are that the Court itself has stated that no witnesses were murdered. The Chief Prosecutor's office has stated that no witnesses were murdered. The Press Office for the ICTY has stated that no witnesses were murdered. Finally, if you actually read the judgments both of the judgments from the first and second trial make it clear that no witnesses were murdered. NO WITNESSES WERE MURDERED.Epeos (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You should see the facts. You take out the things from the context. Here and all opinions (not only from the court) are taken into account and not just your personalized.--Nado158 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No they are not opinions. They are the facts established at trial... which is what this section is about. Ramush Haradinaj's trial. I don't think it is productive to say I should see fact. Our difference is that you are choosing to rely on newspaper articles from all across the web and I am choosing to rely upon the Trial record and what the officers of the court and the Court itself has publicly stated.

All these facts should be included and not just only from ICTY. Do you understand knwo?--Nado158 (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As a general point those primary sources are a better foundation for information. but more specifically from the list of individuals who are supposed to have been murdered because they were ICTY witnesses, at least two of them are still alive!! So we know that these newspaper sources are of questionable reliability. A closer look at the rest of the names reveals that most died long before any ICTY indictment against Ramush Haradinaj was ever issued. The one exception is Kujtim Berisha. It is not fair to associate these names with the ICTY indictment. And it is doubly wrong to do so after the ICTY itself has specifically refuted the claims that witnesses were murdered.

I explained above--Nado158 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you have. How do you explain the fact that two of the witnesses you have listed as having been murdered claim that they are still alive??[16][17]

I did claim that--Nado158 (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As it is, what you are doing is implying that the only way Ramush Haradinaj was acquitted was becasue witnesses were murdered. That isn't true and it delegitimizes the ICTY trial process. Exactly this was one reason--Nado158 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See this material is a problem. Here is why I think it is a problem. the definition of defamation from wikipedia is: Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image.

so what this does is it dramatically reduces the image of Ramush Haradinaj. It changes his image from an individual acquitted because there was not enough evidence to support a convicion to a man acquitted because he had witnesses killed. So I understand that to be against wikipedia rules, but more importantly that information distorts the truth. Ramush Haradinaj was acquitted because there was no evidence of his guilt. [18] He did not harm and posed no threat to witnesses.Epeos (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, where on EARTH do you get the number that only 15 witnesses were called against Haradinaj? 97 witnesses were called during the first trial and 56 were called during the second trial. All of this is in the crib notes of the decision at the ICTY website. I've cited it all in the article that you keep changing. It seems to me that you simply haven't read the actual court documents. You need to do that research before you insist that 15 witnesses were called and 9 of them were murdered. What you are doing now is simply repeating a load of poorly researched articles from across the internet. The sources that are most relevant here are the ICTY trial records. They unequivocally state that no witnesses were murdered. If you look through the talk section and the edits you keep deleting you can find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

They are not the most relevant, but they are among the most relevant, but just as well as the other relevant and be involved (because of neutral pov). You can correct and meaningful to write, but not delete things that are checked.--Nado158 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand you again. In your edit of the article you say "In the process lacked the evidence because of the original fifteen witnesses to testify against Haradinaj, only one survived." Now none of that is true. There were 97 witnesses during the first trial and 56 during the second. Where does the number 15 come from? None of the witnesses you listed were ICTY witnesses in the case against Haradinaj except Kujtim Berisha. Most of them died long before the case was ever started. The ICTY had nothing to do with them. The paragraph implies that this is the reason that Ramush Haradinaj was found not guilty then that information is contradicted by the ICTY trial court. It should be deleted.Epeos (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC) (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Die Presse from Germany


I think the best way for the two of you to move forward would be a structured conversation. Both of you have seemed open to the idea of mediation, and I'd be happy to help out.

To begin, let's have each of you write up a brief statement (250 words or less) on what the dispute is and what you desire as the outcome. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nado158[edit]

Dear Lord Roem

My desire and intention is that the written Artikle is neutral, and it includes a healthy overview of the entire situation. He should be represented by verifiable and reliable sources of information. The article should contain, what published and were evaluated by an independent source, not only from one side or the ICTY. These include doubts about the course of the process and its difficulties, and that with the murdered and intimidated witnesses or were considered as witness, or should be a witness, but no longer could (because murdered) or want not to do this anymore. Among the controversies: first, there are reliable and published sources (reputable publications ect.) And have a unique relevance to the article / biography, therefore, this issue is actually inevitable. The allegations or incidents are significant, based on reliable sources and is documented in respected publications, and thus belongs to the article. I think if you do not all of these things mentioned in the encyclopedic sense, this lead to a strong distortion of the entire process flow, as well as the background and the consequences, and thus the entire biography, which in turn is not a neutral and good Wikipedia-article would result.

Yours sincerely!--Nado158 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

STatement by Epeos[edit]

(sorry for the confusion but I think this explains my position better.)

Here is the problem with this article as it stands from my perspective. It says simultaneously that witnesses were murdered and that witnesses were not murdered. Both statements cannot be correct. At the moment the wikipedia page is internally inconsistent. One of those sentences is correct. One of those sentences is incorrect. This is not a POV or a bias. It is a conflict of sources! Both statements cannot exist so you have to choose between them.

So what I've done is (i) I've tried kept the best source. i.e. the primary records. This is a section about the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) so I looked first at the public record from the trial. That establishes that no witnesses were murdered. The Court says, the press office says this and the Chief Prosecutor's office says this. So then step two: (ii) assess the credibility of both sources. I cannot think of any reason to mistrust the ICTY. It is an international organisation committed to truth and justice. So its credibility is high and it is a primary source.

In contrast, Look at the newspaper sources. They are secondary sources which isn't necessarily a problem but if you have to choose between conflicting primary and secondary sources primary sources are better. But more importantly, there are many reasons to mistrust the newspapers you cite. Here are some reasons: 1. some of the individuals they list are not dead so there is immediately a credibility issue with the information. 2. The rest of the names are of individuals who died BEFORE the trial began and before there was even an indictment (which was issued in 2005.) They therefore cannot have been ICTY witnesses. There were no ICTY witnesses before 2004. 3. The only remaining witness from the list is Kujtim Berisha. His story is dealt with in detail in the article. So to say that there are all of these ICTY witnesses that were murdered has serious credibility issues. If the newspapers were the only source of infomration then that might be valid. But there is a contradictory better source. So we must use that. You can say in the article 'Media reported that up to 19 witnesses were killed but that the ICTY refuted that fact" But you cannot say that of 15 witnesses 9 were killed. That isn't right. This issue is important and it reflects on the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court.

As a final note, I think that sources from Serbia should be treated skeptically. I have tried to avoid them just like I have tried to avoid sources from Albania. Both sources are prone to bias. To Serbia, Ramush Haradinaj is a war criminal of KosovO. To Albania, Ramush Haradinaj is a war hero of KosovA. These sources are not neutral. Or at least are much less likely to be neutral. It is much better to find a source from a neutral institution. The ICTY is just such an institution. Any newspaper that quotes the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor is reporting a natural bias. This shouldn't be part of Haradinaj's wikipedia page.

Your version is not neutral. Only ICTY is not neutral. Also, it depends on it to which newspapers. There are Spanish, German, Austrian, Russian newspapers ect., and not Serbian. To the relation with the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor: Do I understand that correctly? The defendant, therefore, Haradinaj and his team may defend themselves and testify about the topic, and the victim, or the defense or speaker of the victims can not defend themselves and to express his opinion? And this is neutral?--Nado158 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Besides, I'd like to add something. Haradinaj is for many Albanians also not a hero, in opposite, but ok.--Nado158 (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well its not the defendant at all. Its the Prosecutor! He was against Haradinaj. i.e. he was trying to convict him. And it was the Court which by definition strives to be neutral. I have intentionally left off all statements from the defense or from Albania! That is why I think its neutral.

But leave that for now, Nado how do you feel about my suggestion going foward. That we say in the article that media sources claim that 19 witnesses were killed and that the ICTY Court and Prosecutor dispute this fact?Epeos (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So as a way forward I would be happy to include Nado's point that media reports claimed up to 19 witnesses were killed but that the ICTY refuted that fact. That seems like a good way of addressing the issue. Epeos (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is not 18, or 19, or 5, I mean the witness are murdered according to many sources and/or have been intimidated. ICTY has refuted allegedly the things, but others have an another opinion and allegedly ITCY. And where are your sources?--Nado158 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Nado I've cited my sources many times. Maybe I am citing them incorrectly? Here they are again: Chief Prosecutor responding to media reports that witnesses were murdered. [19] The ICTY Press Officer responding to media reports that witnesses were murdered: .[20] the Court itself responding to accusations that witnesses were murdered. [21]. None of these sources are from the defence. But I think we can agree to language as a compromise: Lets say that there were many media outlets that claimed witnesses were murdered. Those claims were refuted by the ICTY. Doesn't that capture both our points?Epeos (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Here are some more cites from the Court. These are judgments make during the trial from 2006-2010. I've included the paragraph references. [22] [23] [24] [25] [also am I citing correctly?]Epeos (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Just can just give the raw link on the talk page, no need to wrap it in ref tags or use the cite templates, it won't show up without a reflist at the bottom of the page. Noom (t) 20:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I mean the article as it stands, the article lists two individuals as having been murdered in organised explosions that are still alive! Look here are interviews with them where they talk about how surprising it was to be included in a list of ICTY witnesses who were murdered.[26][27] I mean that should not be on wikipedia. It doesn't matter what newspaper cited it.Epeos (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
You contradict. First you put Croatian PORTAL as a source, second you put an SERBIAN SOURCE, but bevore you didnt accept the Serbian source...mhhh. The last source is from a blog. So, you contradict again, who you see the Muriqi brothers was mentioned as witnesses in the case against Ramush Haradinaj, and bevor you said the are not. They alive, really good for them, but this not change the murder of the other witnesses and the intimidation . Also, long time ago they said something different, i signe for intimidated. However, what the source say also is “The protection of witnesses as a cornerstone for justice and reconciliation in the Balkans” Gardetto described Kosovo as a “black hole” when it comes to witness protection.--Nado158 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

B92 is a source, we can use this in relation with the Muriqi brothers ect.ok?--Nado158 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are saying and I don't mean this offensively because I can't speak Serbian and I think its amazing that you can be such an effective editor in a second language. But here I sometimes do have trouble understanding your point. I'm sorry but maybe we just have misunderstood each other. I'm highlighting the sources I used earlier to show the problems with using these type media sources. You can find sources that say anything. That witnesses are dead that witnesses are alive. My position is that you shouldn't use those sources at all because they are unreliable! This is particularly true when you have the primary neutral sources. i.e. court documents. When dealing with a section on the ICTY you need to stick with primary sources first. i.e. sources from the ICTY.
Can we agree on the following language: "Various media reported that many witnesses were killed during the trial.(you cite your sources) The ICTY Prosecutor and the Court have refuted that fact.(I'll cite my sources)" That captures both our points. Epeos (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting compromise. Nado158, your thoughts? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree. They played down the thing and I for example do not exaggerate or puffed the thing. Sorry--Nado158 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC) The Publico from Spain Der Standard from Austria The Pravda from Russia

Say more than enough about the murdered witnesses--Nado158 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok I understand that. But the Court (which oversaw the trial) refuted the media reports that any witnesses were killed. So what do you think of saying exactly what we have been discussing here. e.g. "Many media sources claimed that witnesses were murdered during the trial. (you cite) The ICTY Court and the Chief Prosecutor disputed those claims. (I cite)" I mean I'm open to a different wording. What do you think?? Epeos (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Only maintains by the ICTY, but fact is a lot of them was brutal murdered. And your version play this all down and ICTY is disputed. Haradinaj was released from lack of evidence and not because it has been proven that he has ordered nothing or done anything. You should learn to read the links within text. You've noticed this not before?--Nado158 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But it is not a fact that ICTY witnesses were brutally murdered. this editorializes the issue. The individuals listed here may have been brutally murdered or they may not have been. Different sources say different things. But according to the ICTY itself these individuals were not ICTY witnesses. Isn't that the end of saying ICTY witnesses were murdered? Do you think the ICTY is covering up that fact? Do you see the problem with saying that ICTY witnesses were murdered when the ICTY itself says that they weren't?? And remember this did not come from Haradinaj or from me, but from the Court itself. From the Prosecutor who prosecuted Haradinaj. From the ICTY press office. From the ICTY Trial Chamber..?Epeos (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A short part from the Press text "In fact, even during the proceedings at first instance, nine key witnesses who came in a chain strange accidents and assassinations killed. Although the witnesses against intimidation and death threats were reported, Haradinaj was repeatedly extended home leave was granted. Fearing for his life, one of the remaining key witnesses had finally withdrawn before appeal his statement".--Nado158 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Importent media from Austria. They write about 10 murdered witnesses ect ect. i can give ypu mcuh much more.--Nado158 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC) .The B92

killing of 19 witnesses--Nado158 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I can read the press statements you are citing. Its a bit disrespectful to tell me to learn to read... Because my point - which I don't think you have ever addressed is that there is a conflict between our sources. Your sources say witnessses were murdered. Mine say no witnesses were murdered. They can't both be right. Now I think that empirically the sources from the court itself are better sources than various news articles and should be dispositive. But I recognise the need and am willing to compromise. let's compromise!!! We will say that media claim that witnesses were murdered and then say that the ICTY disputes that claim. That captures your point that there may be more to the story than that ICTY would like us to believe (which I disagree with) and it captures my point which is that the ICTY oversaw this trial and disputes the fact that witnesses were killed (which you diagree with.) Its a fair compromise. What is wrong with that?Epeos (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

First read again, and second, you understand me wrong. I said you must leran to read the links, because i see you done this not before thats all and not an insult. Thats importent to read the links. I am not agree with this and i said this above why. You work only with ICTY, thats not realy neutral. ICTY is disputed. It is logical that they acquit Haradinaj who say this, what they should do? To contradict? It's totallly one-sided and distorted things. If, then we most write much more.--Nado158 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I understand what you are saying about reading the links. well then I think we will have to ask for a ruling from a third party. The ICTY acquitted Ramush Haradinaj because he was not guilty. "Not only was there no evidence that he was involved in criminal behaviour but there was evidence that he took steps to stop criminal behavior in his subordinates." Retrial Judgment Summary Pages 7-8
If your position is that the ICTY is not neutral or that it is covering up the fact that witnesses were murdered I think we can not go any further. I will point out again that the list of names you cite includes individuals who died long before the indictment against Haradinaj was issued. They could not have been witnesses. It includes names of individuals who claim they are still alive. They could not have been murdered. I don't think that they are reliable. Adding more sources that say the same thing doesn't make a point stronger. Its like claiming that Barack Obama was not born in America and citing a million websites that make that claim. If you start with something that isn't true repeating it doesn't make it better. At the same time I understand that you don't think the ICTY is reliable. I don't see how that is possibly the case and I respectfully submit it suggests a certain POV. But given that these are our positions, I don't see what is wrong with the compromise I suggested. It makes the claim that you want and states the claims that I want. (and we both can agree to disagree on the reliability of the ICTY and the newspaper articles) But that seems not to be enough? Ok. we will have to wait for a moderator. For the sake of simplicity I won't add anything else here until Lord Roem instructs us on what to do next. Epeos (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hold on everyone. Your arguments are getting nowhere; it's like two ships passing in the night. My understanding of this dispute is that it's over whether witnesses during the war crimes trial of Haradinaj were killed, and if so, what the nature of their deaths were (i.e. suspicious or just coincidence). The Tribunal said there wasn't anything to be seen from their deaths, but some newspaper articles disagree.
Do you both agree with that much? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I agree with that with one caveat. I understand the ICTY to say that only one witness died: Kujtim Berisha and none were murdered. The rest of the listed individuals were never ICTY witnesses. Epeos (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you post a URL link to the statement/decision of the Tribunal regarding that issue for the sake of clarity in this discussion (your link above shows the full list of Tribunal documents, so it's a bit hard to navigate)? Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure: here is the link where the office of the chief prosecutor claims no witnesses were murdered. p.s. OTP = Office of the Prosecutor. url= Here is another one:
Here is a link where the Court is quoted as saying none of its protected witness program was murdered. That one person died and that this death had been investigated and determined to be an accident.
Here is a statement from the Press Officer of the ICTY who speaks for the court which says no witnesses were murdered. url=
The court documents all exist on that page and you have to match the date and title of the document which is annoying and not convenient. They are all online, but require a little work to get to. I have them downloaded and can email you the court document if that is easier?Epeos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with this. Why? Fourteen witnesses in the trial of Ramush Haradinaj, Ljah Brahimaj and Idriz Balaj by the Hague tribunal were liquidated before they were called to testify, the data that occurred prosecution for war crimes during investigations. According to the Prosecution, even those in the protection of the Hague tribunal, started in 1999/2000. According to the prosecution of war crimes, however, in the period since 2001 until 2007 were killed: Ilir Seljimaj, Smailji Hajdaraj, Bekim Mustafa, Avni Eljezaj, Tahir Zemaj, Sabah Toljaj, Isuf Hakljaj, Sadik Musaj, Ismet Musaj, Sinan Musaj Dželjadin Musaj, and Kujtim Berisha, of which Sadik were i think protected witnesses. In 2003, in an ambush Ilir Seljimaj was shot and killed, and the wife of his brother Ferid Seljimaj was also liquidated. In another ambush , Smailji Hajdaraj, was shot and killed. Bekim Mustafa and Avni Eljezaj were killed during 2002, by firearms, while in ambush, and on 4 January 2003 Tahir was killed with his son Enis and brother Hasan Zemaj. It is believed that these murders were the result of Ramush Haradinaj ordering to prevent them from testifying against him at the ICTY, and were carried out under the orders of Zemaj Haradinaj, as stated in the document made Agim Elshani, Avni Elshani, Ćerim Elshani, Adem Elshani Ahmet Elshani, Sali Ljajic and Florim Ejupi. Member of the KPS police Toljaj Sabah, along with another witness, also a member of the KPS police Isuf Hakljajem, were killed in an ambush, shot in 2003 after which their vehicle was set on fire. In 2005 Sadiq Musaj was killed, and his brother Dželjadin Musaj was also killed in an ambush . Dželjadin Musaj was in the witness protection program. In 2007 Kujtim Berisha was killed in Podgorica. In addition to these, 14 potential witnesses were killed. Liquidation of other potential witnesses continued in fall 2000, when in central Pristina Xhevat Mako, was killed.In the light of this document, how can the Hague Tribunal claim that Not one person was killed? Has The Hague Tribunal an ounce of credibility?--Nado158 (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think The Hague is a very credible institution. I think that the idea that the International Criminal Court is not a credible institution is strong POV. aI think you have well articulated the very crux of our disagreement. Lets wait and see what a third party says. Epeos (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My links look my links...--Nado158 (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The Publico from Spain Der Standard from Austria The Pravda from Russia Importent media from Austria. The B92 Die Presse from Germany

This is also importent

Thanks both of you for responding quickly and providing your sources. It appears there's a clear dispute amongst the sources as to the nature of these deaths/whether they really were witnesses. The articles on both sides seem credible enough, but there doesn't appear a single consensus on the question.
That being said, I think the suggestion to note both sides (i.e. "Some newspaper outlets stated potential witnesses had been killed, but the Tribunal rejected that statement...") would be both a fair reflection of the dispute and a fair compromise between you two. Thoughts? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree.Epeos (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I can not agree to 100% with. It should mentioned who was murdered, how many were killed and who ect. To write about a Trial who took many years in only two sentences is not fair, because this play the things down. ICTY and the process has been heavily criticized, also that should be mentioned. Have you considered why the process has been included again? Members of the international community have criticized the ICTY ruling. Two former employees of the Hague Tribunal, Carla Del Ponte and Florence Hartmann, also heavily criticized. The former spokesperson of the ICTY, during Carla Del Ponte's time as chief prosecutor, Florence Hartmann, described Haradinaj’s acquittal as a complete failure of international justice. Of cource that Epoeos is agree because it is played down everything and his sources are biased. It makes from a elephant a fly. By what argument ICTY reject the International allegations? What else would they say, they are the ones who have acquitted him, the others have different opinion. ICTY asserted that, but a lot of potential witnesses were murdered and intimidated the whole process.--Nado158 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The ICTY is a very highly respected court. It does have its critics, in part because it was the first international criminal court since the Nuremburg Tribunal and it had a lot of legal issues to iron out. But it isn't biased against witnesses! It isn't bias in favor of Ramush Haradinaj. And it isn't trying to cover up the fact that witnesses were murdered! Sorry I don't think its very productive to call the ICTY bias.Epeos (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Nado that there is a place for criticism of these type of high-profile decisions. But, I don't think it would be appropriate to make this article into an article about the trial. More detail can be given there and depth would certainly be more acceptable. For the purposes of this though, I think a short statement of what the allegations are and the denials by the Tribunal are sufficient. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I am happy with that and happy with your wording of the issue. Thank you for your help.Epeos (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Also, to be clear, I'm happy for the article to state that an atmosphere of intimidation palled the first trial. that this atmosphere of intimidation triggered a retrial which was the first ever of an acquitted individual. That newspapers reported that witnesses were murdered but that the ICTY Trial Chamber rejected those statements. I mean doesn't that kind of capture your point Nado?Epeos (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Lord Roem, but an example. Should be in the 9.11 attacks only describe a plane crashed into the twin towers in NY, or what were the backgrounds, such as the assassination has expired, who has flown it, how many men was involved, who many was murdere etc. That's a big difference. And we can mentioned this And here its the same. It began in 1999 and ended, and the 2012. And who you see is a difficult topic, and the reader should understand all this (to explain to little is just as wrong as to explain too much). I think we can find a balance and and already existing text i relation to this topic includes already some improtent things.I think anything else would not be really fair and non-neutra.Thank you very much.--Nado158 (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that background is important. But criticism of the Tribunal itself is not relevant to Haradinaj's specific case. Critics of the decision can and should be mentioned; everything must be taken through the lens of the primary subject of the article. I think you can agree to that? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to show this article from - The New York Times - about the death of Agim Zogaj, a further key witness. Thank you--Nado158 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC) He should later testify against Haradinaj, but its never happen. However, i agree with you Lord Roem.--Nado158 (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the article Zogaj was a witness in a local Kosovo case governed by EULEX against Fatmir Limaj. Not Ramush Haradinaj. Not the ICTY. Limaj was originally tried at the ICTY and later he was tried by EULEX in Kosovo. This death was from the second EULEX trial. Further authorities determined that this death was a suicide. (see this Chicago Tribune) I just think its best to keep things short and simple because things are trickier than they seem. Where does it say he would later testify against Haadinaj?? I'm confused.Epeos (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In other articles, he was considered a potential witness, he was a commander in the UCK together with Haradinaj. The NYT and other sources said its what may be not a suicide (His brother and wife also). However, i am tired to explain all again and again ect. On dead witness more or not will not chang the whole facts in this moment. I go to sleep. Good Night--Nado158 (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so we have agreed on the language suggested by Lord Roem? Lord Roem will you change the article? I don't think I should given the fact that I was a party to the dispute... Epeos (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The protection has expired, so you both are free to edit the article. It looks like you have an agreement, great job! Face-smile.svg -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you again for your help. Epeos (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

First Trial[edit]

how to write it? The current version is this:--Nado158 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In the process lacked the evidence because several witnesses to testify against Haradinaj, was murdere. This pulled back his testimony, however, after he survived an assassination attempt just yet. The remaining nine witnesses were: Kujtim Berisha, who crossed in Montenegro by a Jeep,[25][26][27] Ilir Selmaj, who was after a bar fight mortally 4wounded with a knife,[25][27] Bekim Mustafa and Avni Elezaj was shot,[25][27] the heavily protected witnesses Xhejdin Musta, Sadrik Murici and Vesel Murici was killed by professionally organized bombings,[27] and Tava Sabaheta and Isuk Haklaj, the former officer of the Kosovo Police, who was kiled by an gun attack.[25][27] However, according to the prosecution of war crimes, in the period since 2001 until 2007 were killed: Ilir Seljimaj, Smailji Hajdaraj, Bekim Mustafa, Avni Eljezaj, Tahir Zemaj, Sabah Toljaj, Isuf Hakljaj, Sadik Musaj, Ismet Musaj, Sinan Musaj, Dželjadin Musaj, Murici Sadik, Veselj Murici and Kujtim Berisha, of which Sadik, Bliss and Murici were protected witnesses.[27] The International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague rejected that statement and claimed no witnesses were murdered. [28][29] The co-defendant Lahi Brahimaj was sentenced to six years in prison.

Well "murdered" probably isn't the neutral phrasing I was talking about above. Nado158, to avoid turning your recent reverts into another edit war, could you post the language that you'd prefer in the article below? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What else should we write? So many newspapers say they were murdered. Fact is they are all dead...was shot, one or two murdere by carbombs, ect ect.What else should we write?--Nado158 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well they may be dead or they may not. Two of the "witnesses" say they are still alive: But I am still really trying hard to understand this. If the Court itself says that no witnesses were murdered during the process then to believe that witnesses were murdered requires a “buy-in” that the ICTY is covering up the murder of ICTY witnesses. Or that the ICTY is wrong about witnesses it is charged to protect being murdered. That is an enormous allegation that would shake the very foundation of the court. If you want to talk about that issue, do it on the ICTY page. Here let's just explain our dispute. Lots of newspapers say one thing, the court says another. Then lets be done with this and go watch Real Madrid play Barcelona!! :) Epeos (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Its not that much important what court said about it. Obviously most of them were killed in an organised manner per numerous sources about it. its nothing wrong to say that they were killed, if they obviously are. ICTY statement is nonsense, but you mentioned that statement anyway. Political neutrality of that court was already seriously shaken before, and i may say, several times, so their motives may be understandable. At the end, i also agree with the current version. Only one witness remained, as all others were killed, in one way, or another. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
These individuals may have been killed in an organised manner pursuant to the sources that you listed. But the ICTY claims that they were not witnesses. i.e. that no witnesses were murdered. To my mind to call the ICTY politically motivated is a legitimate criticism. It takes it a step further to say that the ICTY is wrong about the murder of its own witnesses or that it is covering up the murder of its own witnesses and I think that it reflects a strong nationalist POV (and depending on the case that could be Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian or Albanian). But its an extreme allegation to say the ICTY is wrong about its own witnesses. Regardless this sort of material belongs on the ICTY page. Haradinaj did not harm any witnesses:
1. Decision of Ramush Haradinaj's Provisional Release 10 September 2010 para. 29-32
2. Decision of Ramush Haradinaj's Provisional Release 14 December 2007 para. 18-20
3. Decision of Ramush Haradinaj's Provisional Release 14 December 2007 para. 18-20 url=
4. Decision of Ramush Haradinaj's Provisional Release 6 June 2005 para. 46-52
Thanks I'm going to watch the football match now. (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
None said that he did it, but only that those people were killed. That is the fact. So, they weren't witnesses, per unfortunate event that lead to their death. This is not ICTYopedia, but one neutral encyclopedic project that must reflect facts anyway. P.S. Who are you IP, to edit only this page in few days now? Maybe you should create account, only to avoid the possibility to be switched with some of the previously banned editors from this page. As your first edits where major reverts (with comments about our rules) i have a doubt that this IP is SPA, Lord Roem. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

For Epeos...your links contradicts with:--Nado158 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The Publico from Spain Der Standard from Austria The Pravda from Russia Importent media from Austria. The B92 Die Presse from Germany

Lord Roem, i explained before with the example. Should be in the 9.11 attacks only describe a plane crashed into the twin towers in NY, or what were the backgrounds, such as the assassination has expired, who has flown it, how many men was involved, who many was murdere etc. That's a big difference. And we can mentioned this and here its the same. And who you see is a difficult topic, and the reader should understand all this. In the article should be noted that they were murdered. There's a big difference whether someone is dead because he made suicide, or that he is dead because he was shot or killed by a car bomb. This includes who and how was murdered? It does not happen in every trial that killed more than 15-16 ect witnesseses like in the movies although the witnesses before even have tell their fears to the ICTY. Best example ist the 9.11 example. And we must write all this also --Nado158 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, but I'm asking for how you would write that. What's the exact paragraph/sentences you'd like to see in the article? --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted who much of the potential witness were murdered and how they lost their lifes, and who they actually was, because they was former KLA leaders or members, former FARC members, politicians, ect. people took an important position and releation to Haradinaj. All this had influence on the court decision --> lack of evidence--Nado158 (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone help me understand? I am asking sincerely. The two statements cannot co-exist. right? witnesses cannot both have been murdered and not have been murdered. So we can agree on the compromise already suggested (media says X but the court says Y) or we have to choose between sources. It that is the case the statements from the ICTY that no witnesses were murdered must be relevant. We are talking about a page about Haradinaj and a section about the ICTY trial. Haradinaj's wikipedia page has lots of other sources. It isn't an ICTY-opedia. In the section on the ICTY it seems like statements from the court should be the most relevant. right? I mean if this were a section on the parties in the Citizens United decision in the United States the statements from the Supreme Court and court officials would be dispositive. Likewise, if this were a page about Rod Blagojevich you could use lots of different sources. But for the section about his trial : the Illinois District Court v. Rod Blagojevich, the statements from the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Attorneys involved in the case would be the most persuasive. The same reasoning applies here. And we can still say that media reported that witnesses were killed. But it is not right to ignore the ICTY judgments and statements and list individuals who were killed. There is a difference between those statements. One reports the fact i.e. media outlets claim witnesses were killed and the other jumps in on one side. The Court by nature has looked at both sides and made a decision. The statements from Haradinaj's trial are the best sources for a section on the ICTY on Haradinaj's wiki page. If the section was on something else then you are absolutely right to say that other sources might be better. This section is on Haradinaj's trial at the ICTY. (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
More compromise: How is this Nado?
The Serbian war crimes prosecutor made a statement to the press claiming that in the period since 2001 until 2007 a number of witnesses were killed. The names he listed included: Ilir Seljimaj, Smailji Hajdaraj, Bekim Mustafa, Avni Eljezaj, Tahir Zemaj, Sabah Toljaj, Isuf Hakljaj, Sadik Musaj, Ismet Musaj, Sinan Musaj, Dželjadin Musaj, Murici Sadik, Veselj Murici and Kujtim Berisha, of which Sadik,and Veselj Murici were protected witnesses.[25] Responding to this allegation, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague specifically rejected that statement, calling it a politicization of the court and claimed no ICTY witnesses were murdered during Haradinaj's Trial. [26][27] In The co-defendant Lahi Brahimaj was sentenced to six years in prison.Epeos (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That lists the witnesses like you want and tells us where the allegations come from and how the court responded to them. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeos (talkcontribs) 14:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Why do we need compromise now? Everything is sourced. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The answer to your question is on the Talk page above. Sources conflict. No consensus. etc. thanks.Epeos (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
No. If you have contradicting sources (we dont, by the way), then all sources should be presented. This is not compromise, but removal of sources. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Well hang on a second. There are a set of sources said best by the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor that claim a number of ICTY witnesses died. right? Then there are a set of sources from the ICTY and people involved in the case that no witnesses died. Those two sets of sources conflict. If we post on the page "Witnesses were murdered" (cite) "Witnesses were not murdered" (cite) the page is incoherent. right? Its logically impossible that both are true. And we can go one step further and say that to make any declarative statement about the conflicting sources represents a POV. Your POV is that the ICTY is not credible and the Serbian war crimes Prosecutor/various media are credible. My POV is exactly the opposite. So we can avoid both POV's by simply stating what each side said. Does that make sense? We don't say witnesses were murdered and we don't say that witnesses were not murdered. Instead we can say that : "The Serbian war crimes prosecutor and various media outlets have claimed that...(these witnesses were murdered -- you cite ALL your sources for people to see). The ICTY trial chamber and the chief prosecutor refuted that statement and claimed...(blah blah blah. I"ll cite all my sources for people to see). That completely avoids the problem. You can cite all of your sources and I can cite all my sources and we present the full nature of the issue. What's more, we can do it in a way that reflects both sides of the problem rather than asserts a fact that we legitimately disagree about. So that is what the language of that paragraph has been shaped to do. (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Epeos (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC) [sorry when I don't sign in this is my IP. Just so there is no confusion]
Refuted (by the ICTY in its official capacity) opinion pieces by a Serbian prosecutor (one of the parties with the most interest in disseminating such "rumors") can't be added as facts. Personally, I find Lord Roem's early proposal quite appropriate.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course, it can be added. And it's certainly not party and notONE party who have interests. All the guys are dead right?All the guys are dead right?and all of them have be very strongly associated with Haradinaj, the trial, ect. These reports are of independent international sources from many countrys AND ALSO from Serbian sources, but not only from Serbian sources. This Serbian sources occurring here are accepted in Wikipedia exactly like those of other countrys. Why should they not apply here? Elsewhere the same sources apply and the same sources should here not apply? Such sources are used everywhere on Wikipedia and here it should not be used? These are all recognized international newspapers etc, and not internet portals of newspapers of parties. We have a lot sources from German newspapers on German articles, or English sources on English articles ect. It is fact that all of them was potential witness, and not just because they were the enemies of Haradinaj. The Serbs have the interest in disseminating such "rumors". Which rumors? They killd. Sad but true. At last, this is not ICTYopedia--Nado158 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think Lord Roem's proposal is best. But was trying to address Nado and Whitewriter's concern.Epeos (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The proposal of Lord Roem goes in the right direction, but it sould be described some detailed, and not in your disguised form.--Nado158 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Nado, I've revised based on your concerns and listed all the names you wanted listed. Please don't talk about "my disguised form". I am not trying to disguise anything. There is a legitimate conflict of sources that we need to work out. I think Lord Roem's proposal is fair but I have now gone further and listed all of the names you wanted included. What is wrong with that? If you want to include how these people died, maybe another solution would be to move it to the Kosovo war crimes page? Or propose your own language but try to avoid a declarative statement that witnesses were murdered (and I will avoid any declarative statement that witnesses were not murdered. Because each position represents a POV. ok?) (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC) (sorry that was me not logged in. Epeos (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. OK, I have maybe expressed incorrectly. I did not mean it like that. I apologize. I'm 101% we both find a solution. I just think we should do some small modificationson your version, that's all. But potential witnesses were murdered. I ask you. Are all those people killed in relation with Haradinaj? Yes or not? What do you think all this happen, and what do you think why all newspapers write about this in releation with Haradinaj? Be honest?No releation with Haradinaj? come on. All this witnisses, if they would be alive, they would be or coud be potenzial witnesses and this is about all write (and in this respect does not matter what it says ICTY, but of course thay may have a statement to this). And some of them was already witnesses in other cases i think against Haradinajs area. All this is not POV and i tell you why? All this different sources wrote about this and reported about this, and this peoples are really dead (murdered). ICTY say witnesses are murdered thats all. And at last, I never said, that we should remove the ICTY part.--Nado158 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm happy to modify it. I mean starting from Lord Roem's language I've already modified to list all the names. What else would you like it to say? as to POV, the media sources mostly report that witnesses were murdered. Well let's be sure to include that in the article! "Various media from different countries have reported that witnesses were murdered." Or something like that. But the list of names and details of their death comes from the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor. I don't think he is a reliable source for a page about Haradinaj. Particularly when the ICTY directly contradicts him. Even so, let's include his statement and list the names he alleges! and then I'll revise the rest of the article to remove the language that says witnesses were not murdered. I'll change it to only say that the ICTY claims that no witnesses were murdered. That way we don't have one article that says two opposite things. What do you think?? (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Epeos (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nado, I've revised again and included the details of their death as per your request. I also moved the paragraph into the section "Witness Intimidation" just for general flow. The "First Trial" section talks about the "atmosphere of intimidation" and how that triggered the need for a second trial. Then there is a section on witness intimidation. I tried to include the names and details reported of the witnesses and then the ICTY comments about those witnesses. Does that work for you?Epeos (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Also I removed all language that declaratively said that no witnesses were murdered. Instead I have put, the ICTY claimed... etc. I mean witness intimidation is not minimized on this version. It has its own section on his wikipedia page! What do you think? can you live with it? Epeos (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please wait and do not change further. We are not 24h on Wikpedia. We all need time.--Nado158 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
completely understand. Take your time. I'm not going anywhere. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeos (talkcontribs) 21:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
ok its been a couple months and I haven't heard anything from you. I am going to revert the text to follow Lord Roem's wording exactly. Ok? Thanks.Epeos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
No. Nothing is different in the mean time, so... revert blind push. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm using to Lord Roem's wording. I had given Nado an opportunity to suggest other wording. He obviously hasn't. Its been months. The language I am removing is my own which I asked Nado to comment on. He hasn't so we will now use the moderator's wording. tLord Roem's suggestion is going to govern here. take it up with him. Thanks but its been too long a process to revert now.Epeos (talk)
Then stop with blind reverts and removal of sources. Everything is sourced, and if you dont like it, that is not the reason to remove. Nado didnt responded, well, i am. Roem didnt proposed anything specific, but the discusion. Do notdisturb stable version before we agree, and once again, do not remove sources from article, or i will ask for admin help. You are not improving article, but trying to hide those informations, that is very obvious... Now, stop with reverts, and start talking here. After we agree, we will edit article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Whitewriter. First, your tone on these boards is, frankly, aggressive. That is, at least, when you are not calling me a sock puppet. please watch yourself. I am not blind reverting. I'm reverting to language suggested by Lord Roem after a lengthy dialogue between Nado and myself that Lord Roem moderated. Its all posted above. Please read it. There is an inherent tension in the article as it stands we asked for moderation and the language I have changed it to was suggested. If you don't like how it reads then by all means take it up with the administrators. Its disingenuous to talk about "changing a stable page" or telling me that we need to come here "to start talking." I've waited for months for Nado to respond and now I'm editing the page pursuant to the administration's moderated suggestion. The material I am removing does not belong in this article. I've explained why. The information is all above and the language we agreed upon was the result of a long and labored PROCESS. Please read it. Don't just come onto this page and arbitrarily revert without understanding that process. Finally, Nado can't agree anymore because he is blocked from commenting on this subject.Epeos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not reverting what I don't like. I'm reverting material that makes the article incoherent. You can't say simultaneously that 'no witnesses were murdered' AND that 14 witnesses were murdered. So what you do is you talk about what each side reports. You say that, the ICTY confirms that no ICTY witnesses were murdered and on the other hand a politically appointed non-affiliated Serbian Prosecutor in Belgrade says the opposite. You don't report what the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor says as a fact. Because that is misleading and makes the article incoherent.Epeos (talk)

Organized Crime and Controversies[edit]

I've deleted content from this section because I believe it violates wikipedia's biography of living persons rule. The content came from a single "secret" source. Two journalist used this source to make sensational claims about criminal behoviour. The original source is anonymous, supplies no basis for its conclusions and reports serious crimes which have never been verified. Haradinaj has never been accused of those crimes. Blanket statements about Haradinaj engaged in drug-running and other criminal behaviour or being being a mafia god-father that come from "secret" sources which cannot be verified or challenged seems to violate the Biography of Living Persons rule. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This doesn't cut it. It is essentially just bad gossip originating from anonymous sources that is being repeated.Epeos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Weasel wording[edit]

Perhaps there has been some confusion. The name of the Republic of Kosovo is "The Republic of Kosovo". Not the "disputed republic" or the "partially-recognised republic" or whatever; that's not it's name. If you want to add caveats and qualifiers, just follow the link - the Republic of Kosovo article is already full of them. bobrayner (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The legal status of the independence is disputed and not recognised by all countries including (former) host. Janjušević (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Struck out comments by sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
That is described amply, already, in this article and in other articles. It's not clear what you mean by "host", but the last thing we need is more qualifiers, more weasel wording, and more caveats. bobrayner (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Host=Serbia. The only place I see weasel wording is the fantasy regarding the NUTS business on Serbia's statistical regions. Janjušević (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Struck out comments by sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there has been more confusion. This article is about Ramush Haradinaj. You know where the NUTS article is; you have just reinserted a hoax there. bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Kosovo is a disputed region, Romania isn't, end. If you believe an article is a hoax, nominate its deletion and don't make bold redirects. Janjušević (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Struck out comments by sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)