Talk:Organ theft in Kosovo

Sources

B92* Prosecutor: One of KLA victims identified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.247.17 (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

More Evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.82.250 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

An ethnic Albanian witness of KLA torture camps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.193.209 (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.37.172 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.40.115 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Albanian locals stops the Council of Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.35.134 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Serb agents arrested by Kosovo Police, on "organ harvest" propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majuru (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

As most sources are from B92 I have added the pov tag.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Check again, "most source" are not from B92, which is anyway a reliable news-site. Not all Serbian sources are POV, you know. Athenean (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Apart from b92, The Huffington Post, which is a pov blog is cited many times.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, there is 17 sources, and you tagged it? By which argument you think that contemporary source is not neutral? Anyway, B92 was accepted at WP:RS as good, and reliable. So, please, remove your tag. --Tadija^speaks 17:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read this thread [1] again to refresh your memory. B92 is a fine source, not all Serbian sources are POV, you know. Athenean (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

B92 and all the other Serbian so-called reliable sources

Copying from BBC End of the road for Kosovo organ claims? Even the Serbian authorities, who have propagated the tale of the yellow house most consistently, have their doubts today.

"I still believe something happened there," said a Belgrade source, close to the war crimes court, "but nothing on the scale of what has been suggested... and possibly not even connected to the KLA".

But constant revelations in the Serbian press that new evidence, or new witnesses have emerged for the organ-trafficking allegations, have all proven either false, or unsubstantiated...Even the Serbian authorities, who have propagated the tale of the yellow house most consistently, have their doubts today.

"I still believe something happened there," said a Belgrade source, close to the war crimes court, "but nothing on the scale of what has been suggested... and possibly not even connected to the KLA".

• All these false, propagandist etc. claims copy/pasted in this article from Serbian newspapers have to be removed, because they are nothing more than false allegations or plain propaganda.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree, let's delete them --Vinie007 00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• You are welcome to bring sources that claim different. Until then, you will not delete them, because you dont like it. Also, you tagged all sources that you find problematic for your pov, being Serbian or not, so i will remove your unfounded tagging of this article. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that I would call it a source, but these things are also mentioned in the writings of that no-good apologist for New World Order Carla Del Ponte. Definitely not a Serbian newspaper. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove this article: investigation proves allegations to be false

The article at

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/10166800.stm
 End of the road for Kosovo organ claims?
 By Nick Thorpe BBC News, Pristina, Belgrade and Tirana 

puts an end to these allegations. I am not sure how could such an article with no evidence got in wikipedia in the first place. None of the references mentioned in the article give a name of an existing live person who's organs were stolen.

Please remove this article. It is in the best interest of Albanians Serbs.

Agroni (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Uh, no. It is nowhere near done. Your article is an editorial which asks if the investigation is over before it began. Article mentions that blood and surgical instruments were found at that one location. It even talks about murdered witnesses and how Albania is not allowing the investigations to take place http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8531289.stm], until the blood decomposes apparently. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That article is two months older than the latest one.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a continuing situation, timescale is not important. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

vetevendosje statement

http://www.vetevendosje.org/?cid=1,2,2627&author=0 Translation

Swiss Rapporteur of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, Dick Marty presented his report on claims that members of the KLA paskan paskan trafficked abused people and human organs. These claims are disclosed in the wake of allegations and përbaltjeve raised by the former chief of the Court at The Hague, Carla del Ponte. Among those who apostrofohen as protagonists of such inhumane actions and connected to organized crime referred to the former Prime Minister of Kosovo, Hashim Thaci.

VETËVENDOSJE! considers that the claim to the KLA spotted, this time by Hashim Thaci, is the trend of embarrassing and unacceptable, designed to degrade in the low activity of the criminal war of liberation of the people of Kosovo. KLA who can not tarnish by Hashim Thaci, or any individual. Despite the fact that certain persons may have misused the noble war of liberation with the purpose cleaner for personal gain, it can not interfere with the efforts of our people for freedom, a noble effort to emerge from the shackles of violence to escape repression and ethnic cleansing.

KLA summarizing the history of war and sacrifice for the liberation of the Albanians, 2.500 martyrs of the war, families of martyrs, war veterans and invalids. Anyone who may have misused the KLA, not to hide behind the KLA.

On the other hand, if the EC and the EU suspect Hashim Thaci, let's not use it only to spotted KLA. And instead treat it as their main strategic partner in maintaining stability at the expense of the people of Kosovo, let them decide to justice. We druhemi that these claims are not Council of Europe in view of justice, but more towards increasing the pressure on Hashim Thaci to new negotiations and concessions to Serbia for its entry as to accelerate the EU. The people of Kosovo does not have to pay the price of the machinations of regional stability through political figures linked to organized crime Balkans. Even raids EULEX in ministries and luxury homes of politicians, never followed the law, but political pressure in exchange for obedience.

All of these charges, which are only remaining charges are being made only now, before negotiations with Serbia. Boris Tadic said he would confer with Thaci until charges are proven CEO. Everything is showing that Tadic is Hashim Thaci turn love.

Pristina, 16 December 2010

VETËVENDOSJE!

Hope this helps. Mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Vetevendosje is an ultranationalist organization. Your additions to the article are also extremely POV and unacceptable. I will replace them with material from the Guardian, a reliable source. Athenean (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

All views should be presented although it does not mean we can include what everyone has said. In this case and news relating to Kosovo Guardian has a leftist bias against Kosovo. --NOAH (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What additions are POV? I tried to be very very factual and neutral. I did not add any VV statemen, I just translated it for understanding. The point is that the guardian report is based on unreleased/prereleased material and the EULEX has shot it down. If you have any new sources, please tell me. I am interested in the facts. bring them on! James Michael DuPont (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your additions are POV because 1) They imply that the report was leaked on purpose on the day of the elections to somehow sabotage the elections, which is unsourced conspiratorial POV, and 2) the EU and EULEX have not "denounced" the report in any way, rather, they have said that they take the report very seriously, and called for evidence to be presented. The report was also adopted by the Council of Europe, which you have omitted to mention. And since you claim to be interested in the facts, here are some sources [2] [3] [4]

[5] Del Ponte Dick Marty [6]. The Guardian and Balkan Insight are perfectly good sources, and if you are interested in improving the article as you claim, I expect you to add the material in NPOV fashion. But so far, my impression is you are only interested in spinning this. I hope you prove me wrong. Athenean (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are fine for now. I don not want to spin anything. lets make this a factual article. Ok, denounced is a bad term, you fixed that. The point of the date of release is important, because it was not planned to be released. it was pre released.I think that is significant. The document is still not official. Lets make at time line, put all the news and facts on the line, and show what is referencing what. We need to show a chain of facts. If there is evidence of the crime, please make sure they are clearly marked. thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Right now the article contains a lot of propaganda and allegations presented as facts. It must be rewritten to comply with NPOV rules of Wikipedia. --NOAH (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Btw the arrest of that doctor is from another totally unrelated case, so WhiteWriter shouldn't add it again.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have started to clean this up. We need to makre sure that the wikipedia presents citable facts and not just random inforrmation. I have also requested protection against IP spam on this page. James Michael DuPont (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

Feel free to add to this, it should be in the article, but lets work on this on the talk page. James Michael DuPont (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

12th Dec

• Council of Europe report published http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/APFeaturesManager/defaultArtSiteView.asp?ID=964

14th Dec

• Tuesday 14 December 2010 15.17 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/illegal-organ-removals-charges-kosovo

Kosovo physicians accused of illegal organs removal racket Medicus clinic linked in Council of Europe report to alleged Kosovo Liberation Army organ harvesting atrocities

• Tuesday 14 December 2010 15.17 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/kosovo-prime-minister-llike-mafia-boss

Kosovo PM is head of human organ and arms ring, Council of Europe reports Two-year inquiry accuses Albanian 'mafia-like' crime network of killing Serb prisoners for their kidneys

• 14 Dec 2010 / 18:06 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/new-details-emerge-in-kosovo-organ-trafficking-case

New Details Emerge in Kosovo Organ Trafficking Case The trial of seven Kosovo residents suspected of involvement in a massive human trafficking ring in 2008 is being linked to allegations that members of the Kosovo Liberation Army sold the organs of prisoners during the 1999 conflict. -- this refers the guardian report.

15th dec

• 15 Dec 2010 / 12:41 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/a-bomb-has-finally-exploded-in-albania-s-face

A Bomb Has Finally Exploded in Albania’s Face In light of the Council of Europe report on KLA crimes in Albania, Tirana must stop ducking responsibility for such abuses and start investigating crimes, whoever committed them. --- Based on the reports previously mentioned, no new facts.

16th dec

• 16 Dec 2010 / 15:23 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/report-committee-adopts-kosovo-organ-trade-inquiry

Committee Adopts Kosovo Organ Trade Report The Council of Europe's Legal Affairs Committee today adopted a draft resolution calling for investigations into allegations that top Kosovo officials were part of an organised crime network that trafficked organs. -- News here, the report is now official and will be given in Jan to act upon.

The Committee said the report will be debated at the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly, PACE, on January 25, 2011. Gross is "confident" that three-quarters of the assembly will vote to adopt the report in January.

There are some useful quotes in there that can be used.

• 16 Dec 2010 / 20:39 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/carla-del-ponte

Del Ponte Calls for Kosovo Organs Trade Inquiry The former ICTY prosecutor says the International Criminal Court or a special tribunal should investigate allegations of murder and organ trafficking by Kosovo politicians. Michael Montgomery --

So the result of this is that there is still no proof, but enough indication that the Council will likey adopt it in Jan. But there is still no proof, but a basis for action. What will the action be? does any one know?

thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, this is an evolving story, and doubtless will continue to evolve. This is not a done deal by any strecth, there will be more reports, cases, trials, there is a lot of future here. Our job is not to pass judgment or predict the future, but to keep the article up to date using what has so far been published in reliable sources. I think you have done a good job above, and that is a basis for adding material to the article. Athenean (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, well then, lets remove references to the organ theft from the election page if we remove it from this page, if it is POV. I think that there has been an connection the election with the timing , maybe the election was just a catalyst for the release, I dont know the reason but people were adding reports to the election page and that is why I got involved in this article at all. James Michael DuPont (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Video

@WW: Please do not remove sourced content, or start an edit war over the video. Talk pages are made for this purpose. Majuru (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The video looks like a copyright violation. I have removed it. Can you demonstrate that it isn't or provide an alternative source for the video that isn't a copyright violation ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

moved from my talk page Sean.hoyland - talk 14:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How can this [7] possibly be a copyvio? Can you provide a link regarding this copyright violation, or clarify more on the matter? Majuru (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How is it not a copyright violation ? That is what needs to be established. It's a video with a logo in the corner, presumably the channel that owns the copyright of the video and it's been posted on the kodmors Youtube channel. Can you demonstrate that the person/organization that posted the video owns the copyright to the video and can therefore publish it on Youtube without violating copyright or that the video is not copyrighted ? See WP:YOUTUBE. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What we need, is a dispute resolution. But I don't think that the link to this Youtube page, violates copyright in any way. Majuru (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you don't think the video is a copyright violation and therefore linking to it is okay ? Did you follow the link Wikipedia:Youtube#Restrictions_on_linking, read it and understand why it is relevant to this case ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is the link to the Video a copyvio

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGYqdvyRXy0

Can't you find an article with the same information?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ref

Made some changes, "Carla ... saw blood" moved to references. Majuru (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

London Review of Books

[[8]] Majuru (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Independent

Evidence, please! [[9]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majuru (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this paragraph - regarding Marty's report - should be inserted in the lede:

There is not one single name or a single witness to the allegations that Thaci was involved in the harvesting of human organs from murdered victims. That such disgusting practices happened and happen elsewhere in the world is not in doubt. But Marty fails to link Thaci directly to organ harvesting though the lurid title of his report – “Illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo” – is designed to maximise headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majuru (talk • contribs) 10:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is from 23 December 2010. It is old attitude now, and it is questionable how that stands today. Also, similar news are already in the article, so i oppose adding this one also. There are simply no need for that. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How about instead we remove from the lede the now outdated claim by Raatikainen, which was made BEFORE Marty's report came out, and also the conspiracy theories about the Russian Duma, which are sourced to www.mapo.al? Athenean (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Report, unfounded propaganda

See this article, at the Irish Times [10]. Majuru (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to revert the unjustified removal of the citation from the article by Whitewriter. Majuru (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That edit is just POV pushing on a wide scale. I strongly object its reversion, as it is misinterpretation of the source. Also, you must write the reason and arguments on your (possible) revert. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You gave no argument about the removal to a perfectly normal reference. I don't see the POV pushing in here. Why these references are POV? Majuru (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I didnt removed any reference, as you may see. Arguments are:

1. Reference point is already presented in the article.

2. When it is written like you did, it may be misinterpretation of the source, so it is better without it.

3. Per WP:CITE

4. Unnecessary info.

And that is mostly it... :) :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

WW revert

The source says: The B92 team obtained this information from the sources located in Belgrade, while according to statements from people they spoke to, this is not an issue discussed publicly in Albania. [11] Also "backed by her own visit at the site" is a problem. What site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majuru (talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

Can we add some images in this article? What can we add? Anyone have some idea? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles which only allege that a crime has occurred should not be included in these categories

I see someone has forgot about it. --Niemti (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this article needed a cleanup so badly. --Niemti (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposing renaming the article to Kosovo organ trafficking allegations

"Organ theft in Kosovo" is fundamentally wrong for two reasons:

1. It's just allegations (there's not even any trial still, not to mention convictions)
2. The "theft" murders are alleged to take place actually in Albania (kidnappings in Kosovo)

--Niemti (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

I agree that the title is wrong. It should in fact be "Allegations of Organ Theft in Kosovo and Albania", for three reasons:

1. It is still only allegations;
2. The alleged organ thefts in 1999, if they took place, took place in Albania not Kosovo;
3. My proposed title is in line with the PACE Resolution, and reflects a NPOV.--Markd999 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 Disagree. we have sources for this title, and numerous international reactions and reports. It is far bigger then only allegation. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter - Of course there are sources for the allegations. Of course there are lots of international reports. Even Kosovo authorities have (perhaps unwittingly) accepted that the Albanian sources which Dick Marty referred to existed. He may (or may not) be biased, but I am not suggesting that he is a pure fiction writer. But he accepted the amendment to the title of the PACE Regulation which included the word "allegations". He said that there needed to be a properly independent and thorough international investigation to try to get the truth. This seems fine to me; there are of course differences between the report itselF and the resolution, which may be attributed to the facts that he is both a professional prosecutor, and a profesional politician (he has to get the votes, and the publicity - nothing wrong in this). But nothing to do with the title. If he had said that the allegations were proved, it would be a different thing altogether. Incidentally, the article has a number of (very slight, but important) inaccuracies. For example, although the article, relying on "The Guardian" says that the resolution endorsed the report, the resolution does not claim to do so. It says that there needs to be a proper investigation.--Markd999 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter: I intend to rename, as proposed, since only you have objected. If necessary I shall take this to the Arbitration Committee, although this should not be necessary in the Wikipedia community. But there is an important WikiPrinciple at stake: one does not put as fact potentially libellous material about living people, and allegations of crimes are only allegations if they are not proved. I have no objection to the article stating the allegations (and such rebuttals as are relevant) Markd999 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you will NOT rename as you think that is the best. You may use rename proposal template, and ask entire community. Without formal request and template, i will revert back. And i am by far not the only one objecting. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Markd999, if you want to move the article to a new title, the proper procedure is to file a requested move on this talkpage, not to threaten to move it unilaterally. FWIW, I also prefer the present title. Athenean (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Athenean, Thanks, I'll do this. Thanks also for your courtesy to a relatively new editor, especially since on this issue you disagree you disagree with me.

Markd999 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Organ theft in Kosovo → Allegations of Organ Theft in Kosovo and Albania – The primary controversy on the title of this article relates to allegations that Serb civilian prisoners of the Kosovo Liberation Army were killed and organs harvested. A Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution has said that these allegations are credible, that they had not been properly investigated at an earlier stage, and should again been investigated. (The title of the Resolution as passed also included the word "allegations"). The Resolution also included the allegation that if this war crime had taken place, then given the structure of the KLA, the current Prime Minister of Kosovo must have known of it.

The allegations may or may not be true. The evidence may or may not be compelling (there is, of course, much dispute on this). But they remain allegations. Moreover, even if they are true, the alleged organ harvesting took place not in Kosovo but in Albania. The present title must therefore be factually wrong, even if the allegations themselves are eventually found to be correct. Markd999 (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Allegations of organ theft in Kosovo and Albania" (no random capitalization). --Niemti (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support move; I too would support a move, on NPOV grounds. bobrayner (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is actually against NPOV, instead for it. Allegations means that this maybe never happened, but that is not true. We only (still) dont know for sure exactly who and how, but the event itself is not in question. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose move Per wrong title, as organs was not stolen in Albania, but Kosovo, also per most common name, and per wrong usage of word allegation in this case/title. This is nationalism based title, in order to minimise committed crime . --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"This is nationalism based title, in order to minimise committed crime ." - what does it even mean? The only alleged crime where anyone was actually indicted / arrested (but nobody convicted, and we don't play judges here) is the Medicus clinic affair, which indeed took place in Kosovo. But in this case we would have to throw away everything Albania-related, that is most of the article. And speaking of "nationalism" - you're a self-described Serbian. Are you sure you're not having any problems with WP:POV right now? --Niemti (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What, i should not comment here then? How come... --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose move Since organs was stolen only in Kosovo and not in Albania.--Medule (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? 1. There are no conviction yet. 2. The most known (and most serious) allegations are about Albania (the "yellow house" thing), which is highly contested. --Niemti (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? That is not the reason for renaming the article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose move After Dick Marty's report no one can talk about "allegation". --Alexmilt (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a plenty of people who doubt or reject the "yellow house" story. You too read the article. --Niemti (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, so what? That does not mean that this never happened, but only that it is highly political and controversial material. By renaming like this, you are moving away from NPOV. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and support move, of course. Just without random capitalization. --Niemti (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a preference, thus I won't weigh in as regards the move debate, so consider me a nonparticipant in that aspect. However, the procedure (started on September 22, 2012) is questionable as during 20:43-22:39 (September 23) essentially the same argument was made by two users, of which one (Alexmilt) was last active a month ago on another move debate and before that with the exception of few minor edits his activity involves another move debate (started by WhiteWriter), while the other (Medule) was last active in 2007. Users Bobrayner, Enric Naval, Gaius Claudius Nero have at times reported instances of canvassing by WhiteWriter including a straightforward such message on SRWP, therefore some admin input should be requested.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Considering the reappearance of hitherto silent accounts who only woke up to !vote here, it seems that the Balkan canvassing problem has reappeared. Was the canvassing on this wiki, or a different one, or was it off-wiki? bobrayner (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, i am guilty for every person appearing here (and everywhere) disagreeing with your political proposals. Everyone trust you that i started massive invitation campaign all over wikipedia. Or, something that actually happened, there are other people on wikipedia except me. And they will say what they want. I see that traveling circus of yours working perfectly. Your way of discrediting other opposing votes is stunning. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, their arguments were invalid (based on their incomplete and/or just wrong knowledge of the issue, apparently without even reading the article). --Niemti (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, their arguments are not invalid. You may disagree with them, but that is hardly a reason to "make then" invalid. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It was invalid, because the Medicus affair is only a small part of the article, and most of it deails with alleged harvesting in Albania. Albania and Kosovo are two different countries. --Niemti (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

hum... What? Did you even read the article? Drenica group, kidnapping on Kosovo during the war, Dick Marty report, The Guardian documents. Small part of article? What are the basis for your proposition actually? We do not have allegations about organ trafficking it self, but the role of Thaçi and the rest in it. But that is not the reason for renaming. I would strngly disagree about word "allegation", but we (maybe) can add "and Albania" but that is not common name of the event. Really, this rename request is not in line with guidelines. --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I did write the article. The article is not titled "Kidnapping in Kosovo". And yes, "organ trafficking it self," is just allegations, except of Medicus case (which will end in either convictions or acquittals, or both, and you might read WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). --Niemti (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but still disagree. Of course that some find this only as allegations. It would be quite inappropriate that prime minister of a "new-born nation" be part (and head) of this awful unimaginable incident. But per sources, this is not only allegation. We have media sets that use title as we are, but mention that some of those are still allegation, as we did also here. And, we do not have that practice on wiki to add word alleged in title, except for events that supposed to happen, but didn't. Sure, we may (and should) create redirect under your proposed title, if you want. But that is useless, and that link is not used on wiki. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you disagree. "We have media sets" (lol) is about the Medicus clinic affair allegations ("the Kosovo case, which relates to organ transplants carried out in 2008 ... The owner of the Kosovo clinic at the centre of the allegations, Lutfi Dervishi of Medicus, has denied any wrongdoing") and not about the "yellow house" allegations at all. You're either being ignorant, or you're actively misinterpreting sources. Which is not allowed on Wikipedia and can lead you to being blocked. --Niemti (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, you are not good faith anymore, so, bye for now. O, nice, this is medicus, that is ok, but this is yellow house, that is not ok. These are not two unrelated happenings, but only one infamous idea, to steal organs from living people. That did happen, so proposed title is very wrong and misleading. There is nothing else to be said from me. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you were there as an eye witnness and so you know "That did happen", either. --Niemti (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Apart from the misuse of sources... could WhiteWriter offer some other explanation why dormant accounts suddenly wake up to cast a crucial !vote? Unfortunately, this (and the revert-warring Belgrade IPs) does seem to happen repeatedly on disupted kosovo/serbia topics. bobrayner (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Equally odd how the same people who insist the allegations are indisputably true then feign ignorance about where the organ harvesting is alleged to have taken place. It was not in Kosovo. Nor was there any suggestion in the Marty report that the Kosovo Serbs who had been removed to Albania were kidnapped with the express intention of harvesting their organs; rather, that this was an idea which occurred later on. Markd999 (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title isn't great but the new one is no more NPOV than the current one. I take note than most of the cited articles employ the term "organ trafficking". The term alleged is not found in a single article title listed. I am not inclined to support a move that runs counted to the titles listed in the articles sources.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, article TITLES? OK then. I think you dind't look really well, did you? "Albania's House at the End of the World: Family Denies Organ Harvesting Allegations", "Politician angers MEPs over Kosovo organ harvesting claim", "Were Kosovo patients slain for organs?", "New allegations in organ trafficking case", "Serbs' Claim of Kosovo Organ Ring Is Investigated", "Kosovo must probe organ harvesting accusation, official says", "Endorsement for report alleging Kosovo PM links to organ trade racket", "Dick Marty Clarifies Organ Harvesting Allegations". (In addition: "Kosovo says draft report on PM Thaci is baseless", "Albania PM Calls Dick Marty Racist and Anti-Semitic", "Denis MacShane says Thaci smeared".) --Niemti (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

O, one more user i invited. It looks like that this user also didn't read the article, and don't know anything about it... I guess we should not count this person either. (just to be clear, i am not serious). --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Kosovo organ trafficking" (or some derivative thereof) appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. The term “organ theft” should consequently be replaced. Including the term alleged for the time being would be fine by me, if there was a consensus that if the Medicus affair results in a conviction that the articles would be moved correspondingly.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe just these two issues, allegedly taking place in two different countries (or even more of them), at different times, and with completely different circumstances (Medicus accusations have illegal transplants within Kosovo, allegedly without paying the volunteer donors from well outside ex-Yugo and with involvement of corrupt health ministry officials), and involving all-different people too, should be separated from each other and discussed in the different articles. --Niemti (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose move. this proposal is actualy POV--Јованвб (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As said by someone who uses a template reading "This user opposes the independence of Kosovo and Metohia." without elaborating. --Niemti (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What a joke. --Niemti (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• This was definitely a borderline "no consensus" case, and should probably be treated as such in future RM discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Medicus clinic and/or Yusuf Sonmez should be split from this article and into their own

Especially since Sonmez is investigated also by Azeris for his work there (with Ukrainians). Shouldn't. --Niemti (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical questions

I'm leaving questions here for things that i'm not sure which way they should go.

1. First line. It says organ theft in Kosovo allegations (plural) and the "yellow house" case (singular). After this it says "refer". This sounds strange coming after the singular "case", which makes one think that refer should be instead refers. The easiest way to fix this is either to change allegations to allegation or case to cases. But then the line goes on to just use "case", so I would think allegations to allegation would work better. Or you don't have to do anything, since it isn't technically incorrect, as case is a part of the parenthesized part of the sentence, but it does interfere with the introductory flow of the article for the reader and I know it threw me off for a second.

Just that one for now. Silverseren^C 06:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. Removed doubled word allegation, as "case of an alleged crime" is mentioned few words away from that spot. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing

I did a lot of copy editing of this article. I don't see anything else needing copy edit work right now so I removed the copy edit tag.Coaster92 (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work.--Zoupan 11:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, great! Article needed it, thanks! --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Convictions in Medicus case should be added

5 found guilty in the Medicus Clinic case. Should be added to this article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22343589

--Jondavis (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Errors and omissions?

Hi all - I'm new to this Wiki thing, so please don't shout too loudly if I've transgressed, but I'd like to raise a couple of points/issues.

1) Footnote 59 B92, 2011/02/17 id. 72766

-Referencing the original document as "CX-103" was a mistake by B92; the document is actually called "CKX-103" Http://www.france24.com/static/infographies/documents/kosovo_house_2003.pdf

2) Footnote 60 "International tribunal acquits former Kosovo PM in war crimes retrial - CNN.com". CNN. 29 November 2012.

-Nowhere in the article does it mention that the acquittal included (allegations) of organ theft. -None of the Indictment(s), Trial(s), Judgment(s), or Appeal(s) for BOTH the Haradinaj appearances at the ICTY mention anything about organ theft/trafficking www.ICTYTranscripts.org

3) As per JonDavis (above) Update on the Medicus Clinic: Three persons convicted for illegal kidney transplants: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/convicted-kosovo-organ-trafficking-ring-article-1.1330339 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TochlearSpirelski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

4) External links/footnote of/to the task force? www.sitf.eu  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TochlearSpirelski (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope this helps, and I haven't broken any major rules by doing this. I'm not going to do any front-page editing, as just doing this bit has stretched my IT skills. I'll leave any further developments up to those who know better!

Toch 12:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)TochlearSpirelski (talk)TochlearSpirelski (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Isn't it weird to have a wikipedia article about organ transplantation, that lacks a single source which is reliable in transplantology? --89.250.12.207 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Organ theft in Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090825030817/http://www.alertnet.org:80/thenews/newsdesk/LA494858.htm to http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LA494858.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Organ theft in Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402154741/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=12&dd=27&nav_id=64057 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=12&dd=27&nav_id=64057
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926065215/http://www.javno.com/en-world/doctors-who-harvested-serbs-organs-arrested_200692 to http://www.javno.com/en-world/doctors-who-harvested-serbs-organs-arrested_200692
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120814192441/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/12/turkish-doctor-yusuf-sonmez-arrested-in-organ-trafficking-ring/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/12/turkish-doctor-yusuf-sonmez-arrested-in-organ-trafficking-ring/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110127031735/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=01&dd=25&nav_id=72324 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=01&dd=25&nav_id=72324

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)