Talk:Assembly of the Community of Municipalities, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Name?[edit]

Is this really the appropriate name? The serbian original name doesn't include 'Serb' at all. --Soman (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know I'm just calling it what the BBC called it. If they have an official web site or something, I'd be happy to see it. What is their name translate from Serbian? I can make out Kosova and Metohija, but I don't know the rest. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 22:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Same here, my serbian isn't hat great. However, the word 'srpski' is clearly absent. --Soman (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be moved[edit]

I think this article should be moved to "Community Assembly of Kosovo" because Wikipedia does not use Kosovo and Metohija or Kosova. E.g. the official English name of Kosovo's largest poltical party is Democratic Party of KosovA, but we use Democratic Party of KosovO. Why shouldn't this rule apply here too?? --NOAH (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

false analogy. Using the name 'Community Assembly of Kosovo' would not simplify identification for any user. There is no policy that the name 'Kosovo and Metohija' cannot be used, there are other articles using this name. --Soman (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is false analogy. I would like to hear you explanation about why we can use Kosovo and Metohija and not KosovA? Both terms refer to the same area what we in English call Kosovo. --NOAH (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we can never use the term 'Kosova', it depends on case to case. I have no firm opinion on the DPK case. But there is also a difference between the concepts (concepts, not necessarily the territorial limits) of Kosovo/Kosova and Kosovo-Metohija. The concept of Kosovo-Metohija is that its an area made up by to constituent areas (Kosovo and Metohija). --Soman (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This was abolished by the Brussels agreement[edit]

The whole thing is about acting like Kosovo is part of Serbia but that's not true even to Serbia now. Serbia agreed all its parallel institutions would be abolished and this is one of them. Started 2008 ended 2013. This doesn't exist anymore it is illegal. Most Serbs have all resigned. Qwerty786 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Hello, I have the following issue on Association of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo and Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities: The second article is about the Assembly of the body described in the first article. Initially, this body, the Association/Community of Serbian municipalities was a body/institution for the municipalities having a Serbian majority in Kosovo supported by the Serbian side and state and not recognised by the Albanian side, much like the Serbian side did not recognise the Albanian Kosovo government. Now, there has been a preliminary agreement between the two sides, the Brussels Agreement (2013), which says the following:

1. There will be an Association/Community of Serb majority municipalities in Kosovo. Membership will be open to any other municipality provided the members are in agreement.
2. The Community/Association will be created by statute. Its dissolution shall only take place by a decision of the participating municipalities. Legal guarantees will be provided by applicable law and constitutional law (including the 2/3 majority rule).
3. The structures of the Association/Community will be established on the same basis as the existing statute of the Association of Kosovo municipalities e.g. President, vice President, Assembly, Council.
4. In accordance with the competences given by the European Charter of Local Self Government and Kosovo law the participating municipalities shall be entitled to cooperate in exercising their powers through the Community/Association collectively. The Association/Community will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning.
5. The Association/Community will exercise other additional competences as may be delegated by the central authorities.
6. The Community/Association shall have a representative role to the central authorities and will have a seat in the communities’ consultative council for this purpose. In the pursuit of this role a monitoring function is envisaged.

with the following articles being on how the police and courts of both sides will be integrated (or rather how the Serbian structures will integrate in the Kosovo Albanian ones).

When I first discovered the two articles, they looked like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Serbian_municipalities%2C_Kosovo&diff=603650169&oldid=601377418 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assembly_of_the_Community_of_Serbian_municipalities&diff=603649920&oldid=601251366 . So I basically tried to update these articles based on the thought that since the old and new Communities/Associations would be voted upon by the same people (people living in Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo) to represent the same people and it is mentioned clearly in article 3 of the Agreement that they will have even the same structure and so on, one was the continuation of the other.

I tried talking with User:Qwerty786 on his/her talk page and mine, but while I thought we could reach a consensus, he/she just moved to thrice remove the content about the old Assembly from its article ([1], [2] and [3]) based on his/her conviction that since it was according to him/her abolished, it should altogether be eliminated from wikipedia. I kept telling him/her that the agreement tries to be neutral and does not talk anywhere about abolishments, but rather about merges and integration, but to no avail. I did try to use NPOV wording and did suggest asking for a third opinion and generally tried to explain why I believe what he/she does is wrong, but we could not reach an agreement. As the articles are rather small, I wouldn't see splitting them into two for the old and the new structures as the way to go, as I also do believe that they are highly related and about the same things.

Could someone suggest how to deal with this, apart from getting into an edit war? Heracletus (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

They were parallel institutions. The Brussels agreement is meant to abolish all Serbia government parallel institutions Qwerty786 (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Mark Miller (Maleko Mela) and I am a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. While I have no special powers or authority, I do need to inform the participants here that this dispute lacks an extensive discussion. For this reason I will be closing the DRN filing and requesting participants continue discussing the issues here on the talk page. If, after and extensive discussion, the dispute has not been resolved, please feel free to re-file. My apologise that this case was allowed to move forward but clearly this has very little discussion.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Extensive discussion exists. The user talk pages were utilized and that is acceptable and I should have checked that before I made the claim of "little discussion" so I have redacted that above by striking out and urge parties to continue at DR/N and as many volunteers who can help are welcome Bejnar. I Apologize for the mistake but the case does remain open!--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Suggestion: It seems to me that either two separate articles one on the 2008 assembly and one on the new assembly would be appropriate, or if there is not enough text, then one article with two separate sections would do, being careful in the lead not to conflate the two. While both have similar names, functions, etc. it is clear that they are distinct, if nothing else than in source authority, but the parties have pointed out other at least superficial differences, such as the names and intra-boundaries of the participating municipalities. While I am a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is how I heard about this, I guess that by making this suggestion after Maleko Mela has closed the DRN as not having sufficient discussion, I have disqualified myself from acting as a DRN volunteer in this instance. Nonetheless, I suggest that two articles, one being historical, would be a good way out of this situation. As to the legal question as to whether one is a continuation of the other, the answer is not really, no more than Ataturk's government was a continuation of the Ottoman Empire, their authority comes from two different legal sources. The new supplants the former. That is the legal answer to the legal question, it says nothing about the various things that in fact will continue. As to the question of the use of the word "abolish", "abolish" is a strong word, the integration of the courts and police will both de jure and de facto abolish separate courts and separate police, but will not abolish courts or police. Control and authority change but not the underlying function, and many of the same people may end up doing the same jobs. It is not important whether the Brussels agreement used the word "abolish", what is important is that the word should not be used in the Wikipedia article unless it is accurate. In this case, it is likely better to word things in terms of "change in authority" and "integration of pre-existing police in the affected municipalities into the regular Kosovo police force" whenever possible. I hope this helps you resolve your differences. --Bejnar (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
So, @Bejnar:, you first wrote that writing this piece of suggestion disqualifies you as a DRN volunteer for our case, then, when the case was reopened, you took it and failed to mention that you had written this piece of suggestion. How lovely. Are you an involved editor now or an impartial Dispute Resolution volunteer?
And, you managed to mix everything even more:
The old Community of Serbian municipalities in Kosovo (and Metohija) had an official name, which of course was pretty much rarely used in full to refer to it (the same applies to the two Koreas or Bolivia for example), because it was quite long. The new Community is to be formed, and thus, nobody knows its official legal name. However, it will of course be something along the lines of "Community of the Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo", as that is what its role is... Oddly enough, the previous Community had pretty much the same name, referencing Kosovo as "Kosovo and Metohija", which is the full legal name of the region in Serbian, and instead of referring to a Serb majority, it referred to just Serbian municipalities. The authority of the law may or may not be the same, but let's keep this for a bit later, along with the boundary.
You use the Turkey vs. Ottoman Empire example as an example of one state not being the continuation of the other. Apart from the fact that it took Turkey some time to drop the Ottoman Empire legalities, for example the Turkey article reads: "The Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the newly formed "Republic of Turkey" as the continuing state of the Ottoman Empire...", let's take Russia and the Soviet Union, different borders, different source of authority, of law, different political system, citizenship, guess who succeeded legally the Soviet Union, including a UN Security Council permanent seat? Russia.
Therefore, your "legal answer to the legal question" demonstrates not only the bias you suggested in this comment that would hinder you from serving as the DRN volunteer in the case, but also legal shortcomings.
You further continue about the word "abolish", while the specific structures are to be under primary Serbian control, which in turn will be under the ultimate control of the central Kosovo Albanian authority. Taking this even further, about the Community, it will be a Community for Serb-majority municipalities, which pretty much are the ones which were under Serbian control and held Serbian elections in 2008, because obviously their majority went against the Kosovo Albanian government and participated in the Serbian-held elections. However, the dispute over the word "abolish" was that Qwerty786 kept insisting that everything Serbian was abolished after the Brussels Agreement, including the previous Community, instead of things being replaced, integrated or merged.
Even if you want to play it as if the new Community is based on Kosovo law according to the Agreement, I can equally suggest that it is based on an Agreement of the Serbian government. To be even more precise, this Agreement of the Serbian government explicitly authorises elections to be held "with the facilitation of the OSCE in accordance with Kosovo law and international standards" in order to create this Community and its Assembly. Therefore, the source of authority can again (partly) found to be the Serbian government. If we go even further to consider that according to Serbia, the Pristina government is legally merely an establishment under UN authority, which it allows to operate in a part of its territory, thus, in the end holding sovereignty but not authority on it, things become even more complicated.
Art. 3 says: "3. The structures of the Association/Community will be established on the same basis as the existing statute of the Association of Kosovo municipalities e.g. President, vice President, Assembly, Council." so the structure of the new and the old one are the same. They were also voted by pretty much the same people, Serbs in Serbian majority municipalities in Kosovo and will represent these people. The things that have changed are: 1. Now, also the Albanians recognised this Community and structures, and, 2. The Assembly will no longer explicitly legislate for the Kosovo Serbs, but "will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning." (art. 4).
Of course, since I have made these same points only 5-6 times already, and you chose to disregard them here, I consider you biased. And, severely so, because the main point of the Agreement is not to divide (legally) or otherwise and define what belongs to whom and how, as also Qwerty786 tries to do, but to unite the Serbian and Albanian communities in Kosovo in a working framework of operation. This is why no references are made about the central government, sovereignty, abolishments and so on.
Serbs in Kosovo voted to elect their own Community and its Assembly in 2008 under Serbian ballots. Serbs in Kosovo voted to elect their own Community and its Assembly in 2013 under Kosovo ballots. You cannot possibly say that the two Communities or Assemblies are unrelated or completely distinct. Furthermore, in the way the article was formulated by me, before Qwerty786 reverted it, it mentioned the new Community and Assembly (and that it was made "in accordance with Kosovo law and international standards") and also the pre-existence of the previous format, clearly mentioning that it was under Serbian authority and Kosovo Albanians and UNMIK considered it illegitimate. There was no reason to remove this content, as it was sourced, and very very NPOV, mentioning just the facts and the opinion of all sides. There is also no reason to not include this just as history within 10 lines, and to just make two articles, which you propose to be distinct. Heracletus (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Qwerty786 tried to remove historical facts, because according to him/her, "all Serbian institutions were abolished in Kosovo". The Beatles have been disbanded, let's remove now all related content from John Lennon's page here. And, what about any of The Beatles work after Lennon died? Surely, if they didn't have the same composition, it cannot be the same band, so, let's delete all of that, and then suggest we make it into a different unrelated article. Or, what about their initial formation, going under different names or Ringo Starr replacing Pete Best? Surely they were multiple different bands... Let's just delete all the related articles or make 500 unrelated little stub articles about each different name, lineup and so on. Of course, the main one about the 4 people everyone knows as the Beatles should not exist at all, as they did disband, didn't they? Heracletus (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
After I made my above comments (15:43, 28 April 2014), Maleko Mela indicated (19:56, 28 April 2014) that he had improvidentially closed the DRN and that I should go ahead and act as a volunteer. But given that you object, I shall not further participate. Good luck on reaching a settlement. --Bejnar (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I object because you did not disclose your suggestion when you took the case. It's like a judge delivering a verdict based on a previous trial and then asking for initial statements on the case. Furthermore, even if we disregard any bias on you, your "suggestion" uses an example which I just disproved. Moreover, because you may try to question my resemblance of your text to a verdict, the phrase: "That is the legal answer to the legal question, it says nothing about the various things that in fact will continue." is not a suggestion. Heracletus (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
First of all, volunteers do not disqualify themselves simply for posting on the talk page...as a volunteer for DRN. This has been discussed and the consensus of editor's is that DRN volunteers are disqualified from the request if they have interacted with the editors involved or the article...BEFORE THE FILING. Second, there is nothing to disclose about the suggestion here. If such were true everyone involved would be disqualified for not disclosing every suggestion ever made on this page. You are literally Wikilawyering the volunteer who tried to help to keep them out of the dispute and you have begun to make personal attacks on the filing that I, myself had to remove. While it is within the right of volunteers to remove PA from DRN discussions, it is also your right to complain at the proper noticeboard for that removal if you would like.
However, beside all of that, it has come to my attention that this filing involves only two editors. I will call Hasteur back to this filing as it is clear this is a difficult closing. Let me be clear...this is a difficult closing, not a difficult DRN. The difference being, the involved editors or not assuming good faith, have made personal attacks and objected to a volunteer without a basis to policy or guidelines. I will request their opinion as to whether or not they feel the dispute should continue on the DRN board. If they agree with the close, we will likely refer it to 3rd Opinion. If the case stays open, Hasteur will most likely be the volunteer that assists the case moving forward...however, I am also going to alert an administrator to look into this case, and keep an eye open as it is my opinion that this case is becoming uncontrollable. There is also one other possibility and it is also a likely choice. That is formal mediation through the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, when a volunteer expresses an opinion on a case, then they should do so on the relevant DRN subsection, especially if they are the ones who will later take up the case. Otherwise, indeed, they are involved editors: they not only have a personal opinion on this, but have actively expressed it here, thus getting involved. I have already covered that this was more than a dispute resolution suggestion, and the volunteer did acknowledge it may have disqualified as a volunteer on their own, before I raised any objections. If you don't like the obvious, that when someone publicly expresses an opinion on something, they cannot later be expected to mediate as uninvolved, then I guess you are wikilawyering. Furthermore, I did not only object on their comments over them being more than suggestions and thus taking a clear position, but also on them not even disclosing this activity. I mean, ok, you have your own position and you have stated it publicly. At least, have the decency to state this when you take up the case. However, the specific volunteer did just withdraw on their own, even though I did not explicitly ask for it. And, then, you came here, to tell me what? You are wikilawyering indeed... You come here to argue for another user. You also state that there is no basis on policy or guidelines for something which is pretty obvious. If I state somewhere that my opinion is that the sun is yellow and then two users come and ask for mediation over whether the sun is yellow or white, I cannot just go there and try to mediate. Bejnar wrote about legal succession here, which he perceived as a basic argument about the connection and continuation of the Serb Community before and after the Brussels Agreement, and he/she went even further arguing about it using Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. You cannot just claim that no position has been taken. And, I countered that argument.
Regarding what you call a personal attack, when it's the third time that I make a point and I get a reply taking the same position as my point but trying to be against my point, I am indeed concerned over whether the user cannot understand the language or faces some other issue. But, why you take it up here and not post all this in the DRN? I regard you as not unbiased in this, as you go on to accuse me of "not assuming good faith,[having] made personal attacks and objected to a volunteer without a basis to policy or guidelines". Furthermore, you accuse me of wikilawyering, while at the same time, you were prompted about what had happened on your personal talk page and came here to argue for the volunteer who prompted you. If a lawyer does not argue for his/her client, what else do they do? Heracletus (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

assembly of community of Serb municipalities in 2014[edit]

It will be established if new assembly is continuation of this one soon Qwerty786 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)