Talk:Kosovo/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Kosovo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Prizen is bigger than Mitrovica

I have reverted an edit today that stated Mitrovica in the north was bigger than Prizen. In its dreams. Buffadren 14:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

2004 River incident

The two first comments have been copied here from my talk page. - Ev 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worded too strongly but the river incident is important to explain how things sparked off. There is doubt about the facts and even one child that survived supposed though the UN said they were not chased. Others say there were and the family have been pressed by UN etc. Either way it should be mentioned.Its not a minor event...I am happy to have you phrase it if you like Buffadren 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As my edit summary states, I removed the text because it was unsourced. – The current Attribution policy clearly states that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true", then going on to say that "any unsourced material may be removed".

For uncontrovertial text I simply add the {{fact}} tag, but when it comes to "the alleged chasing of four Albanian children into a river where they drowned" I prefer to have the sentence well-sourced or not at all.

In any case, I would prefer to have any new wording discussed [here]. My personal feeling is that the issue should be explained in detail at the 2004 unrest in Kosovo article, but that it doesn't merit a mention in the brief summary of the main Kosovo article. - Best regards, Ev 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions are well considered, I will get those sources for you and if not we shall agree to exclude it. Buffadren 16:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article from the BBC that refers to the children but not in enough detail to be acceptable for i'd imagine but let me know. [[1]] Buffadren 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If we really want that text, we could source it with this Amnesty International report: The March Violence: KFOR and UNMIK’s failure to protect the rights of the minority communities (July 8, 2004) (see the 3rd paragraph), or this Human Rights Watch one: The Sparks That Caused a Fire (July 2004) .

However, in my opinion the clear and concise wording by Envoy202 (was sparked by a series of minor events that soon cascaded into large-scale riots) is much better suited for this article than a more detaild one (along the lines of was sparked by a series of events including the alleged chasing of four Albanian children into a river where they drowned, This and other events soon cascaded into large-scale riots).

1). Because the incidents were minor, basically rumors and unproved allegations. There's no need to go into such details in this brief summary of events.
More important is how those allegations were manipulated to escalate the situation; see this OSCE report: The Role of the Media in the March 2004 Events in Kosovo (.pdf), Vienna, 2004.

2). Because we already have the 2004 unrest in Kosovo sub-article (linked from "Kosovo after the War" sub-section) where such details can be expanded at will.

3). Because mentioning the March 16 chase & drowning of three Albanian children will surely lead Serbian editors to call for the inclusion of the March 15 shooting of an 18-years-old Serb in Caglavica (not to mention the many other incidents by both sides that had ocurred in the previous months) making the "brief summary of events" even longer and more detailed.

Of course, if other editors agree to include this detail in the text, I will respect the consensus :-) Best regards, Ev 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough evidence to back its inclusion and to refer to it some way may infer that there is. I think we should 'park' it for now and let it rest. However I do suggest that we remove the word 'minor' as this word caused me to include the Children incident. We can revisit it again some time if needed.Buffadren 13:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I find that the incidents themselves were minor, and that Envoy202's wording adequately describe the situation. – When the text was discussed (see 90s History...Take Two) there were no objections to the word "minor". Let's wait and see what other editors have to say about the issue :-) Best regards, Ev 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree,even though the word is misplaced.It implies that the Albanians kicked off trouble without any provocation. Buffadren 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't read the word "minor" as implying lack of cause/justification for the subsequent violence. That could be the case in an isolated sentence or paragraph; but here, in the context of the "Kosovo After the War" sub-section within the the "Modern history" section, just one paragraph after mentioning the refugee crisises and the numbers of deaths, it is clear that the situation was quite tense, and that a minor incident was all that was needed to spark major troubles (as is usually the case in such situations). – I don't expect any reasonable person reading the article to come to the conclusion that the unrest started because of a minor incident only.

As I see it, this minor incident itself was not the real cause of the unrests, but merely the spark that lead Albanians to vent resentments and frustration with the slow pace of change. If anything, the provocation that led Albanians to "kick off trouble" was not the minor incident itself, but its use and manipulation as a rallying cry to escalate and justify the unrests, and thus send a clear message to all parties involved in the region. - Best regards, Ev 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Official languages in Kosovo

Please refer to Kosovo Assembly Law 02/L-37 [2] Article 2 names Albanian and Serbian as the official languages of Kosovo, and continues with

"In municipalities inhabited by a community whose mother tongue is not an official language, and which constitutes at least five (5) percent of the total population of the municipality, the language of the community shall have the status of an official language in the municipality and shall be in equal use with the official languages."

Prizren is cited as an exception in this article, as Turkish shall be an official language there. Additionally, this legislation has a further category: Languages in official use (Article 2.4). This Kosovo Law was promulgated by UNMIK Regulation No. 2006/51.--ams 22:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you find that we have dealt with this in detail in the Talk Page archives.Buffadren 13:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the article would be improved by changing or adding something about Kosovo's official languages, Alexmarysimp/ams ? - Regards, Ev 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I just read on paper that henceforth Turkish is also an official language in Kosovo like in Pristina and Mitrovica. According to the news (that i will give you the link anyway), Kosovo Democratic Turkish Party (KDTP) member Idris Mumcu offered this proposal and it has been accepted by majority of the municipality parliament.

After the voting, Albanian and Bosnian members have congragulated the KDTP members for approval.

Mumcu said: "It was not easy at all but there was a huge amount of sensibility. We have talked with each members and they all changed their minds, therefore there emerged a consensus for Turkish to be an official language."

Additionally, Enver Rakovica, an Albanian member has declared: "We have a very good decision for Kosovo and Prsitina Turks. Henceforth, Turkish will be officialized and used as other officials by our municipality." [[3]]

The source is in Turkish from Hurriyet newspaper, one of leading papers in Turkey. Also, I will keep searching also for an English one. So please we consider this news to place it in infobox. Thank you..

user:umi1903 —Preceding comment was added at 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On the flag of Kosovo

File:Flagofkosovo2.PNG

this may be the flag of kosovo in kosovo's independents movement.

just asking permission to add it before i actually add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatferret36 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be an interesting addition, Thegreatferret36 :-) However, the current Wikipedia Attribution policy requires that we cite the provenance of any fact/information mentioned in (or added to) the article, and that only reliable sources are to be used to this end.

So, do you know of any reliable published source mentioning this flag proposal ? How did you came to know about it ? - Best regards, Ev 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Albanian American Civic League, led by former U.S. Congressman Joe DioGuardi, has been promoting this flag. He has been taking out full-page advertisements in various media outlets trying to get support for it. It is not, to my knowledge, being seriously considered by the Pristina-based working group on national symbols. This flag should not be included in the article. Envoy202 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Envoy202. Here's a link: Albanian American Civic League’s proposal for a flag for the independent state of Kosova.

Thegreatferret36, this flag proposal could eventually be added to a new "Flag of Kosovo" article, when an official flag is adopted and the article created. - Regards, Ev 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

yah i got it from a similar page like that.. and if kosovo is getting independance from serbia it needs a flag right? it should atleast be worth mentioning in this article, i'll try to make a article bout it though. (Thegreatferret36 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

i never made an article.. so would one of you like to make it instead? (Thegreatferret36 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think it's premature. There wouldn't be much to report. That being said, an especially ambitious person could perhaps cobble together an interesting article about "Flags of Kosovo" and report on the various flags that are floating around out there (e.g., the goofy AACL proposal or the controversial 'Dardania' flag that Rugova loved but the PDK despises). Envoy202 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would really like such a "Flag of Kosovo" article, dealing with those odd proposals and with Pristina's work on that field :-) But, as Envoy202 points out, it would have to be very well sourced. - Best regards, Ev 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard last weekend in Vienna that the Pristina working group on symbols was considering a design competition for the flag. This could be noted in a future flag article (I think it might have been reported in the local press -- check out Koha Ditore as a source). My personal belief is that this will not happen in time for independence. Symbols are, by their nature, emotive and the Kosovars will likely not reach consensus for awhile. Envoy202 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote too soon! I just saw this in a press summary: STATE SYMBOLS CHALLENGE KOSOVO’S ASSEMBLY (Koha Ditore, p. 5) "The newspaper writes that the issue of Kosovo’s state symbols appeared to be more complex than the Assembly Presidency thought at the beginning. On 12 March, they decided to proceed this issue to Assembly’s session, that will be held today. Even though they decided to announce a national competition for the flag, emblem, without the anthem, and to establish an ad hoc committee to review the ideas, this proposal has not been included on the agenda for Friday session. The chiefs of caucuses could not agree on Thursday about the proposal and criteria that should be determined about the competition. Sources from the meeting also said that participants had diverse positions." Envoy202 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And thats exactly why we should keep the AACL flag out of this article. It has no basis to begin with. I am not in favour of a Flag article either. Premature Buffadren 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

recent articles confirm that expectations remain the same with or without Russian approval

From B92 today:

The Council for Foreign Relations expert believed that Ahtisaari’s plan surely paved the way for the recognition of Kosovo’s statehood outside the UN Security Council.

“The U.S. hasn’t yet implied that it would make steps towards accepting Kosovo’s independence outside the UN Security Council, but we cannot exclude the possibility they would do that in the near future,” McMahon concluded.

In the media, there is some speculation of how Kosovo will become independent, but there is no expectation that Kosovo will be returned to actual Serbian sovereignty. Whether seen as right or wrong, returning Kosovo to Serbian rule (without or without substantial autonomy) is seen as simply not possible. The Kosovars will not accept it and Serbia has neither the political nor the necessary military might to force it upon them. While Russia is indeed throwing its renewed political weight around, it is most likely that they will use the Kosovo situation to their best political advantage and then abstain when the time comes. And as stated frequently, if Russia or China were to prevent a new Security Council resolution, the US and several other countries will recognize Kosovo unilaterally. Again from a purely pragmatic point of view, the international community has little choice but to grant eventual independence to Kosovo. There is no other viable alternative. NATO is not going to allow this to descend into a Palestine situation where the military force would be seen as an occupying force and therefore hostile. After 8 years of promises, the international community must provide the Kosovars a clear path to statehood, or else, as Richard Holbrooke pointed out today, there will be armed conflict again. Hence, the sentence in the intro "According to the news media, it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence." remains an entirely accurate assessment. Furthermore, if an editor were to change it to "According to the news media, it had been widely expected that the talks would lead to some form of independence.", they would have to add an explanation. Otherwise the sentence is non-sequitur. Fairview360 21:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360 cites the Report: Plan explicitly recommends independence, B92, March 15, 2007, article.

The changes to that sentence were intended to clarify that the Vienna talks between Belgrade & Pristina ended without fulfilling those expectations. Some form of independence remains the expected outcome, but now as a result of negotiations at the UN Security Council, instead of an agreement between the main parties. – I would propose to simply modify that sentence into: "According to the news media, it is widely expected that the negotiations will lead to some form of independence." - Best regards, Ev 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My preferred formulation is: "It is widely expected that the status process will lead to Kosovo's independence, which will be subject to a period of international supervision." I always thought the "according to the news media" line was dumb and should be dropped -- there are many reliable sources expressing this view, not just AP or Reuters reporters. As for "negotiations" versus "talks," I think it is better to just say "process," a word that covers everything that has been happening, including negotiations between the parties and now action in the UNSC. Finally, I think we can be more specific about the nature of the independence. Most of the media articles now are reporting on the preferred formulation of "supervised independence" or else "independence, subject to a period of international supervision." It's clearer that way. To say "some form of independence" leaves people wondering exactly what that means. Envoy202 18:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Another link about Kosovo

From BBC News site: Memories of Kosovo. It has some more info about the problems between Albanian-speaking people in Kosovo under perspective of its inhabitants.--MaGioZal 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This section has been trimmed back. I see no value in adding this now. Buffadren 14:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not agreed

This has been parachuted into the article. I feel it should be removed for many reasons. Is there agreement please.

Articles by Slavenko Terzic, Ph. D. SANU - Albanian ethnic cleansing of old Serbia, Kosovo, Serbian issue, and the Greater Albania project, Kosovo and Metohija in Serbian history

Buffadren 15:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support/Oppose

Let's make a list of all countries, that oppose or support independence of Kosovo (for information's sake). Anyone is free to add/remove. Sources next to each country are not needed, but are recommended. Thanks to everyone for participation. --PaxEquilibrium 22:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The countries are listed in alphabetical order. --PaxEquilibrium 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Oppose list includes:

countries which have directly officially declared (that) they do not want an independent Kosovo
countries which have indirectly insinuated (that) they will not recognize Kosovo's independence

The Neutral list includes:

countries that support compromise between Belgrade and Pristina
important countries that do not have any official standpoint

The Support list includes:

countries that stand for an independent Kosovo
countries that think independence is a better solution and/or will probably recognize independence of Kosovo
countries which support an (internationally) imposed solution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Oppose

Neutral

Support

Discussion

Should we include Northern Cyprus and Cyprus differently? (74.122.179.59 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Cyprus sure; but I'm skeptical about North Cyprus, since it's not really a globally-recognized country. --PaxEquilibrium 01:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this a rather bizarre and premature discussion. I think everybody understands by now that Ahtisaari's final report will be distributed to the UN Security Council on Monday (it's been leaked...the Washington Post and Le Monde already had decent summaries). After the report is out there it will be much clearer where countries stand on independence (paraticularly after Ahtisaari's April 3 presentation to the Security Council). The EU states most squishy on independence have been Romania, Greece, Slovakia, Spain. Otherwise the consensus is reasonably strong in favor of independence, although there are some lingering disagreements about the "how" and the "when." Among the non-permanent UN Security Council members, the Africans (Congo-B, South Africa, Ghana) and Indonesia have been the weakest, with the Latins and Qatar more or less on board. I'd suggest this whole conversation be revisited in 3-4 weeks after more countries have shown their hand. On a side note, I'd observe that the status-related sections of the article will need some serious revisions after the events of next week. I'll try to get around to it, although I'll be traveling for part of the week. Envoy202 02:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I must agree, this proposal is bizarre and odd. Meritless Buffadren 11:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well since we've been dealing with a lot of predictions before, I decided to join in. :) There is no point in delaying, if things change we'll just add/remove correspondive countries. Italy, for example, says that consensus is impossible... anyway, this should give some sort of an image, and it can't be premature since it deals about presence and not future. Cheers. It's here to give us at least some sort of an image to the situation. --PaxEquilibrium 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that Ahtisaari's proposal is well known, I think that this can be in the article. Probably every country should be sourced... Nikola 10:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry to say but this support/neutral and oppose list it not complete and based on lies. The gouvernment of the Republic of Montenegro deceided to stay neutral. This is official, and confirmed by several Montenegrin politics. Also the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is neutral, but, they don't admit it or publicate it. Because there still lives some Albanian minority.

In the real world, behind the closed doors, the Republic of Montenegro and the Republic of Macedonia both opposes an Independent Kosovo. 82.94.66.244 07:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Can sombody who know serbian explen my what is meaning: mletačka Arbanija , Mlečići and Church vojvod (in alb. lit. :"vojvodë të kishave"). I am not joking bur realy Im traing to find out what is differe betwen the Serb Volk and members of the Serbian Church. Is logic that not every ortdox in west Balkan is a serbian volk member (montenegrien is serbian church member but not a member of the serbian nation=religion terminologie "rase"). Realy is not a jocke. I need thate even if I dont like the truth. Till now I was supposing and holping that is not thru, but now I know, somthing is in bush. - Hipi

Pleace let this quesqen of indipendent, this is out (is finished now take a seat and wayt the proclamation of the new UN-resulution, time is mony). Also if you sombody wount to help me is wilcommen but I dont wount nationalistic propagander.

For peopel who understend what a but Im talking see this:

Dr. Gaspër Gjini, Skopsko-Prizrenska biskupija kroz stoljeqa, Zagreb, 1986
Mark Krasniqi, Rojtarët e kishave në Kosovë, ‘’Gjurmë e gjurmime’’, Prishtinë, 1979
Michel Aubin, Du mithe..., f.2;
G. Ostrogorski, Serska oblast posle Dushanove smrti, Beograd, 1965; S. Novakoviq, Srpske oblasti X i XI veka;
Skënder Anamali – Muzafer Korkuti, Ilirët dhe gjeneza shqiptare, Tiranë 1971

And somthing for me is not clear: Way Karagjorgje is speken about "zakona grčkoga" and is not saing "zakona srbi" or "zakon crnogorraca" (What is meening with: zakon=law or perhaps zakon=tradition).

Mletacka republika means Venice republic. Mlecici were citizens of Venice republic. Mletacka Arbania is probably a name for Venice domains in Arbania.

It means the arbresh in Zara, Dubrovnik and Split (But, Vuk Stef. Karagjigj is talkin about Boka of Kotor?), this is a big ? for me. Beacose he say thate the peopel down ther, iuse this term for german arbania too.

I don’t know what Church vojvod means because it’s pulled out of context. Vojvod is a short of vojvoda or duke (as medieval title). --Marko M 09:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I can not understade the sentence from Mark Krasniqi: Durin the Ottoman Emper in Kosovo they have givet to Serbian Church personalty, all rights over the christians and right to take a takse from they. To do this and to take care about the Christians object they have maked "Vojvodë të Kishave", engl: "Church vojvods". This was "tolereitet" (not-official) from Vezirs and Pashas.

In fackt the albanian peopel never iuse the name metohia, they say Dugagjin or iuse osman terms about thate but not metohia. This is maken me trubel, in regel case they iuse the toponim "Crkva", for a part of Vilage is not a special case when they iuse sebian toponims. The seme situation is in albanian folklor and literatur.

I think thate in serbian languge the name "Metohia" has comme in from this "Church Vojvod". Vojvod (in this case) it most be somethin like rouler of some land with some rights. (Otoman - Vasal who adminstrate some land). M. Krasniqi hase translete like "watchkiper/bodygard" (strazhari) of the church. It looks like the Church has work area over the Duk of Gjin, and in rest they diden haved "vojvoda".

Perhaps hase somthing to do with Church hiarchie way they say Kosovo i Metohia. The Church in Peja and Prizren was till late in XIX under the Bitol Church, but I dont know the border betwen the Serbian Church (centrum Belgrad or old Rashka) and the Church in Dugagjin ( thate time under Manstir/Bitola Church in Makedonien). Is not a jocke I am traing to understand what was happend.

Metoh or Metohija is a medieval name for church and monastery lands with special privileges. Church Vojvod could also means a church land. Vojvod could be short from Vojvodstvo which also means a piece of land under the control of a feudal lord. --Marko M 10:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am right , The Serbian Church in Kosovo was a Vasal of the Ottomans?

Interesting conclusion. How can church be a vassal of any earthly kingdom when it answers only to God?

Anyway don’t bother. Soon there will be no orthodox churches and monasteries in Kosovo. The latest news from Kosovo, Mortar attack on Visoki Decani --Marko M 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How the Church cann have a land (territory) when in answer is God? Let this things they need mony to be in life. Anway for me is interesing way only the part of Gjinis Duk is Metohia and not Kosovo part. And please if you wount to help, then help me to understand but stop with soucht things. I am not a religiose-fundametalist men, I belive in god and the religion is a way in witch I wount to respect the God. A bout wat are talking here hase not to do with god but with the institution Church witch organised the way of the respect for God. We are talking for 15 centery not for the national Church i later time. You dont have to forget since the Serbian Church was declaretit like a national Church to many albanians was declaretit als muslims, the church members in Knin (Croatia), Bosnja elswehr, even today dont understand what thate is meaning. My friend is not a same to be a "grecee zakon" and serb (the contes in witch the Belgrad is iusen). If you make this mistace soon or latter you are going to pay about thate and this peopel are going to hait the Serbian nation more thane albaners in Kosovo and more thane enybody else in this planet. But, how I say for me is importen to understand way, is existing metohia as term in serbian languege only for Gjins Duk.

And for the Decan manastir dont wory, ther is tha folk (alb. fisi ) Gashi, they have maket the bazamet of thate Church and they will never let to bee destryed, they diden let thate during the Ottoman time. The Church is more older thate the serbian natialist church is saying. This church is going in future to pruf thate the this folk was durin all the time in this area. This is a problem of Serbian national Church with centrum in Belgrade. At the day in witch the arceolgs are going to be free to go in, the Serbian National Church is going to lose the "old Serbia" as theyer area. See the boock in serbian languege "~~Putovanje u novu Serbi~~" (correkt: L. Popoviqit “ Putovanje po novoj Srbiji ”)(The tuor in new Serbia)

Wow. Sorry man. I am trying to help you to understand, not to make such unsubstantiated conclusions. Does any of the books you listed in your question say something like that? If I understand correctly you only found a fact that orthodox monasteries on Kosovo owned some land even under the Ottoman rule. This lands were granted to the monasteries by Serbian monarchs before fall of Serbian empire. Since the monasteries were economic and cultural centers, Ottoman Turks respected their privileges in their own interest. If you want to know more about this you should read a book “Ethnical and demographical processes on Kosovo and Metohija” by Milovan Radovanovic, Liber press, Belgrad, 2004, ISBN 86-7556-018-5 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum --Marko M 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

year 2004. I dont read soutch books not beacos he is a serb but beacose the time in witch was writet 2004, the propagander war. But thank for this : This lands were granted to the monasteries by Serbian monarchs before fall of Serbian empire (~~empire=?~~ it was Bosnien Kral Tvrtko the empare of Bosnia, Dalmatia, Zeta, Rashka from latin dokument). Since the monasteries were economic and cultural centers, Ottoman Turks respected their privileges in their own interest.. Also is thate what I am saying the church was a vasal. I dot see here somethink else. The fackt thate it was not only a culturl but econimcan center to, and the fackt thate they have keeped this and they have loste only the political right it is maken they to vasal. O.K you cane call this proces how you wount, but the fack wasal , beacose the for ottomans this was not importen if they are ortodox, bajraktar, zhupan, duk or king all they most pay and dont have political and military (a bout the last I am not shore, in Mirdita they have keepet they military sturctur and in they area they was like to say today "Police") right.

Some explanation

Actually, the Serbian Church was re-organized in 1557 by Ottoman Grand Vizier of Serbian origins, Mehmed-paša Sokolović, who placed his brother (or just relative) Makarije Sokolović as the first head of the new Church. The SOC gathered all the territories where Serbs lived: Rascia, Zeta/Montenegro (with Scutari), Bosnia, Herzegovina, Slavonia, northern Macedonia, Thracian Macedonia, Banate, Bacs, Slavonia, Syrmia, Hungarian Serbia, Baranya, continental Dalmatia and the western Frontiers. It lasted until 1766 when the Ottomans subjected it fully under the puppet Ottoman Ecumenical Patriarchate (although for years "de facto" it already took it, Phanariot Greeks were Serbian Patriarcs). When it was created, it did have large territory, and de facto control over entire Kosovo much more than the Kosovar Vizier or Ottoman Emperor (Consider that the Ottoman Empire much more depended on the Porte, and was not absolutist under the Sultans as it crumbled into misery). Although the Ottomans were rulers, the people never obeyed them and listened to the Patriarchs Serbian always. At times the Serbian Patriarchs even led armies to maintain the rights, as the Serbian Church had enjoyed autonomy as an independent Church but was de facto vassalaged to the Ottoman Empire. And yeah, it functioned as a "state". BTW these exact same territories became the borders of the later plan for a Greater Serbia (and I don't think that's an accident). --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pax, your remark that Serbian Patriarchs lead armies to maintain their rights could make a wrong impression that Serbian Orthodox Church had its own army. Patriarchs only lead Serbian people against Ottoman rule during Austro-Turk wars in 17 and 18 century. Maybe you can say that Pecka Patrijarsija had some state like features but it didn’t have army. --Marko M 08:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you wery mutch. Your commets I take like a influence of the new time. I know thate is not easy to seperet the feeling from realty. Any way I have "taket" thate the nationalty of the peopel in this time it was non-sence and it was more easy to breack-out and finde realty. The peopel witch was born in Shkodra, Kosova, Manastir, Janina - Wilayed hase coorpereted with Sulltan or with Hight Port. I am asken beacose Sami Frashëri was agains Sulltan, The Egypian Governer and the Bagdat Governer hase maked war with Sulltans army like Ali Pash Janina.

The Albanian nation is not born from religion, but they have as center point the blood. Serbian nation is not clean if they are a nation they are more church members. Beacos of this in Kosovo they moust moust deal with Serbian Church but, here is problem with the Serbian state. I think they moust deal with Church and not with Serbia. The Kosovo ortodox Church after the situation is cool most desaid if they ount to be independent from Belgrade and if they wount to take the titel Serbin Ordox Church, beacose the Belgrade Church dont have this right. Et the end Kosoo Church is a cultur of Kosovo and not of Serbian State.

I don’t deny that there was some kind of relationship between Serbian Orthodox Church and Ottoman Turks in Kosovo and Metohija but that relationship could hardly be called vassal. You can read here on Wikipedia what Vassal means. If there is such a conclusion in any of the books you read, please quote it. And about the book I suggested, I knew what you are going to say but you are wrong. The author of this book used as a reference many books written by Albanian authors. If you want, I could list some of the used books of Albanian authors on you user page. --Marko M 08:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. This hase not to do with albanians or serbs but with the time in witch it was maked. And somtimes I have problem to understande what you are meaning with Serbian Church. I know that the Church in Istambol it was not so strong but Officel it was strong inoft. And oficel name of the church it was not Serbian but Constatinopel. This is proved from Serbian peopel whan they iuse "grcki zakon" they diden say "serbian zakon". The Belgrade hase proklamedet as protecter of the Churchis in this contrys after 1766 and hase started to remake a new image "serbian image" over the "old tradicional image". This is a logical proces. A iusely muslim in Balkan (Bosnia, Bulgarian, Albanian, Serbien , Turkie (Balkan site) ... ) hase to his old tradition putit some arabish worlds and now with the Raki in ther hands ae sayin thate they are muslim. Cann you tall my way? How can you explen the konflict betwen "tradicional islam" and "islam" over the all Balkan? There are soutch thinks thate nationalty and religion make you problem to be in writgh way to finde out Who is Who? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.177.142.40 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Abot the Vasal. Of corse thate from church side this can not be vasalitet, but from the vie poit of Sulltan this is clear Vasal. The church in one way is representing a instutition and in secend way is a spiruturel manifest. And the Church als institution in fackt was Vasal. You don have to forget thate I am not saying thate was Serbian Church but the ortodox Church in and over Balkan.

Thanks, realy.

Now, for me is the big quesqen, did the ortodox Church let the folk dow , or the folk hase let the ortodox Church foling down, in Kosovo. (with Catholic Church I know there is every thing clear). I am saying this beacose now in Balkan are some "profesors" (how to say the hoxha with scool) and they dont hawe a chanche to breake the tradition of the peopel, event thate thate, they say thate they are muslims. This is crasy but is thrue. It must bee something (in memory) thate this peopel make to be so strong dependet in tradition.

I have foundit the a answer:http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en

Such, also, were the boundaries of the archbishoprics of Ochrid, Pec and Turnavo: i. e. Churches within drawn boundaries. They were neither constituted by reason of phyletism nor were their members of the same race and language. The later expressions “Latin, Greek, Armenian Church” and so on, do not, in general, express discrimination by nation, but differences in dogma. In the same way, the Church of Greece, of Russia, of Serbia, of Wallachia, of Moldova, or, more improperly, the Russian, Greek, Serbian etc. Church, mean autocephalous or semi-independent Churches in autonomous or semi-independent realms and with definite boundaries: those of the political realm, beyond which they have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It follows that they exist not because of nationality, but because of the political situation, and that their members are not all of one race and language...

Explenation

Will someone explain to me what does this means, quote:

Kosovo and the breakup of Yugoslavia

Inter-ethnic tensions continued to worsen in Kosovo throughout the 1980s. In particular, Kosovo's ethnic Serb community, a minority of Kosovo population, complained about mistreatment from the Albanian majority, which was his ways of achieving his means of occupation of a foreign country that is Kosova.

I urge administrators to delete second part ot this sentence from the article since Kosovo wasn't a foreign country at that time, regardles of the final solution of Kosovo status. --Marko M 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You should have removed it yourself, you are not prohibited from editing the article. Nikola 10:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that. I was thinking that maybe someone could offer a valid explanation for this statement. Anyway you already did it. --Marko M 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It was obviously added by someone who is "pro-Albanian". First part of sentence reffers to Kosovo as "Kosovo", the second part as "Kosova", term used by Albanians. ArhangelSerbia 08:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)]

And of course you think it should be pro-serbian? Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella490 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council

OK, this is how's the big picture:
Support

Permanent

Temporary

Oppose

Permanent

Temporary

It will be a hard decision. Especially because of Russia (and Communist China to an extent). BTW why is nothing mentioned in the article? --PaxEquilibrium 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An article about the above topic --Andrija 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it relevant? --PaxEquilibrium 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Paul, The United Nations position is far from secure as your chart shows, I agree with you it should be inserted into the article albeit not in the form above, but in text. There is also the Russian stated 'dual standards' issue That is Why should Kosovo get independence when South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the Moldovan region of Transnistria bordering the future EU be denied their independence too. . All this is becoming incresingly interlinked and the future security of Europe will be determined by how Russia plays its hand here. Precedents are being created that will have a bearing elsewhere to. Buffadren 12:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My friend this is not a quesqen of Kosovo (Kosovo is so large like Hamburg), is not in quesqen Ossetia or what you are saying, there are large places with more thane 80 milions peopel about witch you have lernit like a State of XXXX. Kosovo is only the key (So hase toldidet Milosheviq to Serbians) and so is going to comme. The borders witch was maked with pensil after Berlina, Versai or S... konferenc. The reality and the memory of the peopel is comming out and they are supported now. The answer of the quesqen for Kosovo is clear since the NATO trups was driven in. It is something new in the east Europe but they are going to like it. Only the centrums of the powers they dont like it this era. For the individum is freedom, for the power centers is ocupation. You cane taket how you wount but if it was not this era you dident haved this PC to writte in internet. The power centers in east Europe (Rusia too) cane not eny more keep the human peace with the terminolgy from midel age. Today the peopel cane ride and write (they have "Wikipedia") and there locig is growing up. And this is god for human being. Ofcorse I dont support the speed in witch this is happend but they say thate the dont have so much time.

Exempel: Today in Balkan a logic of a men with 8 years school is large then the logic of the prister (pastor, hoxha, ect...) in midel age. Today in Balkan in each Home (perhapse Room) you have a Church or Xhami (the pepopel dnt have to comme to the prister the prister is commen at your home and learn and explean you the work of God). It depend on individum if he wount to respect the God and in witch form he wount.

I have no idea what you are talking about Hipi, but what do you mean by this: Kosovo is clear since the NATO trups was driven in? --PaxEquilibrium 18:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Religious Demography

Kosovo has an area of approximately 4,211 square miles and its population is approximately 2 million. Islam is the predominant faith, professed by most of the majority ethnic Albanian population, the Bosniak, Gorani, and Turkish communities, and some in the Roma/Ashkali/Egyptian community, although religion is not a significant factor in public life. Religious rhetoric is largely absent from public discourse, mosque attendance is low, and public displays of conservative Islamic dress and culture are minimal. The Kosovo Serb population, of whomapproximately 100,000 reside in Kosovo and 225,000 in Serbia and Montenegro, is largely Serbian Orthodox. Approximately 3 percent of ethnic Albanians are Roman Catholic. Protestants make up less than one percent of the population and have small populations in most of Kosovo's cities. Approximately 40 persons from two families in Prizren have some Jewish roots, but there are no synagogues or Jewish institutions.

Foreign clergy actively practice and proselytize. There are Muslim, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant missionaries active in Kosovo. There are approximately 69 faith-based or religious organizations registered with UNMIK which list their goals as the provision of humanitarian assistance or faith-based outreach.belgrade.usembassy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.176.134.163 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Population

I want to solve all the populace controversy that rotates around Kosovo. Data shows that the non-Albanian population of Kosovo-Metohija before the war was something not much more than 360,000. Of those, less than 300,000 were Serbs. That statistics to the up claiming that a hundred thousand Serbs live in Kosovo and two hundred twenty-five thousand outside is I believe, just another example in which typically Serbian sources count a lot of non-Serbs among the Serbs. Now, 360k+ were non-Albanians, and below 200k are today (much below, but the figure is not known) of whom around 120,000 are Serbs (taking to granted that the figure isn't 150,000 as other sources say). Now it is known that Milosevic transferred tens of thousands of Serb refugees from west of the Drina to Kosovo. So before calculating the figures before and after the war, we must take to granted that during the war there were nearly 462,000 non-Albanians. It must be also taken to granted that this (referring to the last) could've been be an overestimate.

Estimates of non-Albanian refugees are 65,000-100,000-200,000-250,000-300,000.

Before the war there were more than 1,500,000 Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija. Now there should be between 1,800,000-2,000,000 Albanians in Kosovo (with most of the refugees from the war returned, and an additional over 100k Albanians from Albania that moved in). Throughout the 1990s there were (note: very roughly) around 1,360,000 Albanians in Kosovo. In the peak of wide-scale warfare across Kosovo, there were around 917,000 Albanians (although the figure might be underestimated).

Estimates of Albanian refugees are 500,000-700,000-800,000-1,000,000.

I hoped this solves the controversy at least a little. --PaxEquilibrium 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but do we need to consider ecomonic refugess as well as political conflict refeugess, I am not an expert on this area but is this a factor Buffadren 12:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of ignoring the refugees completely to avoid lengthening the confusion instead of solving it. I'd just note the 462,000 non-Albanians because of Milosevic's transfers, because those people that left in truth became Kosovars and were victims too (twice, once in Krajina and then in Kosovo). --PaxEquilibrium 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I think its wrong to whitewash the issue but I agree the article is too long. Perhaps do a small edit on it. Buffadren 09:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why are you starting this discussion when we have just painfully resolved it. You are performing an OR, and completely neglecting the fact that people have children and that number of people in 1998 was not the same as the number of people in 1991. Nikola 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is laing about the Churchs in Kosovo

I dont know who but somebody is laing about the ortodox churchs in Balkan.The supporters of the today serbian Church are saying something els and the mother church somthing els. It is so confuse.

...bla, bla ...
This wide jurisdiction of Constantinople started slowly to decrease through the granting of the autocephalous status to local Churches: to the Church of Russia in 1589, to the Church of Greece in 1850, to the Church of Serbia in 1879, to the Church of Romania in 1885, to the Church of Albania in 1937, and to the Church of Bulgaria in 1945.
...bla, bla .... http://www.ec-patr.org/patrdisplay.php?lang=en&id=5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.184.176 (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Huh? --PaxEquilibrium 10:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo Symbol Page

I'm not quite done yet, i only finished the flags section and i'm not quite done that yet. I still need more descriptive descriptions of the flags, and i need to find the sources, Find a National Anthem, and write the symbols page.

But this is an overall look of the article, come see it at my User Page and comment on it in it's talk page. (Niceferret1 17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

The article about the flag could only speak about proposed flags; and I believe that a valid article could be made about it; but what would article about anthem talk about? I never heard that there are any proposals? And why do you call it national anthem, Kosovo is not a nation? Nikola 19:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

i understand that, It's more of a rough copy then the real thing, i still have to proofread it, get more information. And i heard on the news that kosovo is also choosing an anthem. I may be incorrect though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niceferret1 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I have to say that all your flags are absolutely unacceptable. All the proposed designs are merely a variation of the Albanian flag. THis cannot be representative of ALL the people of Kosovo.

All this just exposes the militaristic and aggressive intent of the Shiptari. It is a blatant quest to create a greater Albania. –Dr.robertg 10:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WWII and the Holocaust

I didn't expect that someone would actually dispute this and rm it, but I've been searching a little. So far I've found claims by a Serbian Orthodox Bishop that was the sole survivor of an extermination camp near Gnjilane that housed 900 Serbs. According to him, and another man who survived in Pec/Peja, 95% of all Serbian settlements (from simple villages and housing to arable land and vineyards) in Metohija (western Kosovo) were raised since 1941. He dedicated his life to the research of crimes after WWII.

I've also found the orders of the Second League of Prizreni from 1944. Then the world was crumbling upon them as the Allies were approaching and there was a democratic uprising back home in Tirana. The order called for a general draft of all Albanians aged between 16 and 60 and an immediate execution of all Serbs, Jews and Romanies on controlled soil (most already were prisoners). It also contained a list of advices regarding which execution types should be used (they were scarce on both gas and ammunition).

It also planned that in case of an allied offensive, every single city and land is to be destroyed behind retreating across Montenegro to meet with the Ustašas on the retreat to the northwest to defend Nazi Germany from allied invasion under the flank of the SS Scanderbey. --PaxEquilibrium 13:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a documentation about this. The name of this document is Nacertanie from Ilija Grashanin. It present the serbian doctrin in the "New Serbia" for more literatur:

Albanska liga - (Albanska kongra) Jovan Vasiljeviq (Beograd 1909)
Rumeliden Geqlrei I. II, - Bilall Shishmir Istambull 1979
Vranjska Kotlina I, - Jovan Trifunovski Skopje 1969
Putovanje po novoj Serbiji, - Stefan L. Popoviq Beograd, 1950--Hipi Zhdripi 14:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And here is the list of the sebs who cames to Kosovo during the Yugoslav (serbian) agrar reforme. sq:Serbët në Kosovë#Ardhacakët serbë "Serbs in Kosovo#serbs seatlers" Data is koming from the book AJ B, MAR, 96-21-69; 96-51; Dr. Milovan Obradovic, Agrarna reforma i kolonizacija Kosova (1918-1941), Prishtinë, 1981, fq. 306-339.

Some of them have get the land from albanians and laeter they have sale to albanians and after the Milosevic kame in Fushë Kosovë they have startit to say thate they was discrimenedet. --Hipi Zhdripi 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC) --Hipi Zhdripi 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not it! The numer is not a number of the persons but the number of serbian family.--Hipi Zhdripi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The ethnic cleaning in Ballkan after the fall of Sulltan

We need a article about the ethic cleaning in Belgrad Pashalluk, and in New Serbia during the year 1817-1903.

During this time all the religios monument of the non-serbian ethicts in Belgrad Pashalluk was destroid. Only one moshe in Belgrade was left. (How many non-serb was in this area ? Only Good know thate). When we take a look to the Wikipedia, in all serbian articles there is no word about this. What was hapend with non-serb race (race in church langueg for a ethnic peopel with same cultur, blood and so one...). What was hapen with albanians (shqiptari), boshnjaks (not bosnians= this is a new term), cherkez, goran, bugarians, makedonians etc. they was all muslims and orthodox (like today a american, he can be a Democrat or Republican !Not it this area, bisnes was the way of life). They haved there ethical cultural centren in Belgrad Pashalluk. Ther cultur is destroied, there monument was maket to sebian national church (all bizantin churchs and a new religiose monuments from this peopel). We dont have to forget during the Ottoman empire in this region all this peopel hase live and work there, like a serb can have a home, work pleace a passport in Germany today. They was the citysens of the Ottoman emire like the serbs. Way this peopel most be asimiledet or give up there owen cultur, they was not gilty becose the Sulltan hase meaked war. If they was then was serb too, they was in same sitution. This peopel was looking only for a better life like many, many serbs today in USA, Europe ect. I wount to ask a serb who is living today in US, Can you imagen when the some bandits camme today to your home and tale you thate you most declared yourself als indian, and you mos go to moshe other ways you most leve this country and your capital (dukat, home, ect) most stay here. And you dont accept this, and they start to bit you, and druop your children in watter.

I know thate this was hapend to the serbs in other pleaces but, the today mape of the ethnic grups, eth nic monuments is speeking who is who? In Serbia all this dont exist enymore.

Since the Serbian state (not it! Is not a same Byzantinum, and Serbian Church with Serbian State) was foundit they have stardet with genocied agains the non-serbia membrs of thate state. The tragedy is more extremly when we see thate this politic till now in year 2007 is going on. --Hipi Zhdripi 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're violating the ArbCom's injunction; this will only lengthen it. --PaxEquilibrium 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo, Hipi is banned from editing the article but not the talk page. Thatcher131 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

An article for your reading

From the archives of Time Magazine, Crimes Of War, June 28, 1999.

An excerpt:

“The horror stays locked in Gentiana Gashi’s mind. Her eyes are red-ringed holes in a pinched, exhausted face. She came home safely to Cuska last week, but she is still harrowed by the unspeakable memories of May 14, the day she left. Back then, she stood beside her weeping mother, too terrified to cry out, as she watched the Serbs march her father away with the other men, hands clasped behind his neck. He looked back once, tears streaming down his face. Gentiana’s mother wept silently too as she watched her husband’s retreating figure until laughing Serbs herded the women out of the village, elbowing them with sly smirks, singing obscene songs. That night when the women slipped back into Cuska, it was Gentiana who picked through the charred pieces of bodies inside three smoldering houses to find the remains of her father. She used to give him massages, she said. Ten men had died in that house, but when her fingers touched a familiar torso, ‘I knew his back, so he was my dad.’

To save her mother from the hideous sight, Gentiana helped three women gather up the human debris of her father and 34 relatives and neighbors into little bags. They tagged each with a name and buried them in two communal graves. Then all those who had survived fled, some to the hills above the town of Pec, some to Albania, anywhere away from the Serbian brutality.

Gentiana Gashi is 11 years old.”

Well, I’ve posted the same content in two other articles about Kosovo, and if you want to make any reference or sourcing related to the Time’s article, feel free to do that.--MaGioZal 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is that relevant for this article? Nikola 08:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You can post whatever you like, war propaganda is not worth the paper it's printed on.--Methodius 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: one of the journalists that collaborated with the article above is Vreme’s Dejan Anastasijević, which recently had his house bombed.--MaGioZal 20:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sections disappeared?

Why did all the text disappear from the Kosovo Politics section? I thought that was a great summary of politics, the political leaders/parties and the legal framework of Kosovo. It seems as if the history section is way too long, but the politics section has been crunched to nothing. Also, there are no references to the separate article on the Kosovo Future Status Process. I'd be grateful if someone could shed some light on this? THANKS! Envoy202 16:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Millosh Kopiliqi

On few places Millosh Kopiliqi is mentioned instead of Miloš Obilić. It should be changed or noted that it is same person

UNDP report

Ok, the reference is good now. But I am not sure whether this should be placed in the begginig of the article? It is important, but maybe it should be placed in Kosovo after the war, or Politics secion? --Velimir85 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The ethnic ratios of Kosovo

I think that the main article, "Kosovo", does not go deeply enough into how the current ethnic ratio in Kosovo came to shape.

Kosovar Albanians claim, most probably truely, that they are the descendants of the original Illyrian tribes which inhabited the the Kosovar region.

With the arrival of the Slavic tribes c. 600-800 AD, Kosovo became heavily slavicised. The serbians claim that the hordes of medieval Orthodox monasteries scattered about Kosovo is evidence of this.

Under the section "ottoman rule" the author stated that the there was a massive migration out of Kosovo of both Serbian and Albanian families to escape the wrath of the Ottoman rulers (for their insurrections). This is not entirely true.

If you read any historical book about the region, it will state that the exodus was only of the Serbian people. Very few ethnic Albanians fled. It was only the ethnic Albanians that converted to Islam (to receive more privillages, or less oppression, under Ottoman rule). There was Serbian conversion to Islam too, but virtually none in the Kosovo region. All the Serbians that did convert to Islam came from the Bosnian region- who are today known as Bosnian muslims.

It was this exodus the began the dwindling of Serbs in Kosovo. This process continued in the modern era -in the twentieht century- when Yugoslavia was united after WWI and again after WWII. This occurred even though Serbia was the dominant republic in Yugoslavia- especially militarily and politically (hence the ensuing tensions between Serbia and Crotia, and lesser extent Slovenia). But in Kosovo the Serbian people continued to become the minority. There are several socio-cultural reasons for this.

1) Tito gave the Albanians a large amount of autonomy- Albanian speaking universities, schools, etc. This sparked a sense of self-identity on the Albanian people. They began to wish to seperate form the "slav" Yougoslavia and create a 'greater' Albania- spreading propaganda and ethnic nationalism.

2) Kosovo was the most backward province of Yugoslavaia. Many Serbs left to go to university and work in other places such as Belgrade

3) Converseley, Kosovo was still a far cry better than Albania (which is about as developed as Afghanistan), so many Albanians fled Albania (under punishment of death)and took up residence in Kosovo.

4)The serbian population growth rate was smaller. Being Islamic, Albanian families often had 8 to 12 children per family.

5) The final factor was the commencement of outright violence against Serbians by their ALbanian nighbours. This had began as a secret terrorist group - the KLA- which recieved financial support and military links with organisations like the Taliban. (It is quite ironic, and typifies American hypocrisy, that the US supported the KLA in their 'just cause', yet has vowed that the Taliban are the enemies of the free world). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr.robertg (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC).Dr.robertg 10:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Go and see a doctor, quick! And, yeah, don't forget and blame everything on the "American hypocrisy". Kosovar 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback "kosovar". You raised good pionts, NOT! You're childish commentary only shows that you have no valid contrary facts.

And those are valid historical facts you mentioned, Dr.robertg. Through the history the Serbs were leaving or were forcing out, while Albanians were migrating in and encouraged to do so. For example, under the ottoman rule while Serbian/ortodox people were leaving, Ottomans did not need the empty land, they encouraged Albanians to move in. ArhangelSerbia 09:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea that Kosovars bred more 'because they are Islamic' is offencive. 155.188.183.5 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1,000,000 Albanian refugees

During the conflict roughly a million ethnic Albanians fled or were forcefully driven from Kosovo, several thousand were killed (the numbers and the ethnic distribution of the casualties are uncertain and highly disputed).

I may be wrong, but that is slightly a POV figure, mostly quoted by the "extremist" sources that tend to be pro-Albanian, just like pro-Serbian sources write "over 300,000 Serbs ethnically cleansed". I've seen 700,000 mentioned as the *middle* most reliable figure, and as I've seen, BBC tends to mention the whole span of possible refugees, simply putting 500,000-800,000. --PaxEquilibrium 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pax, this is a piece of information for you personally: there were somewhere around 800,000 registered refugees from Kosovo during the NATO bombing, mainly in Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro. However, there was a very large number of people who fled to Bosnia, Turkey, Hungary, Bulgaria and other places just before the bombing where you didn't need a visa to stay for a few months. The fact is that every single Kosovar Albanian that could leave Kosovo during the bombing left. I was in Budapest during the bombing and there were many Albanians there (and, even more Serbs from Serbia). So, I would not be surprised if 1 million Albanians fled, but BBC and other sources talk of refugees only, hence this number reduces to only those that seeks humanitarian aid (shelter, food, etc.). There is some confusion about people that (generally, have money and go and stay somewhere with their own money) fled and those that seek humanitarian aid, i.e. refugees, which results in the difference in figures. Kosovar 02:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only talking about sources. This has nothing to do with whether I believe 500,000; 800,000 or 1,000,000 left. --PaxEquilibrium 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Using the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts as source…

Well, I think that to use publications and statements issued by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is not very wise since this academy served basically as a mouthpiece of Slobodan Milosevic’s dicatorial policies, mainly during Yugoslav Wars.--MaGioZal 05:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence and examples to back up your claim here MaGioZal? -- Phildav76 09:54, 24 April

2007 (UTC)

Have you heard about SANU memorandum? Have you heard about Cubrilovic(SANU member)? I recommend you to visit SANU website and read what they write about Albanians. It is racism and xenophobia. Any reference to SANU is the same as referring to Mein Kampf by Hitler. --Noah30 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law at work in the wild :) --Methodius 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

........ as referring to Mein Kampf by Hitler. Ha, ha. Very funny. We still need some evidence. --Marko M 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What does SANU memorandum or Cubrilovic have to do with dozens of other members of SANU or tens of thousands pages of their books, articles etc.? You are simply using argumentum ad hominem transfered to an institution. And claiming you cannot use reference to Serbian Academy in an article about a Serbian province is plain absurd. Please stop being POV oriented. --Velimir85 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

few weeks ago they published a new "book" with anti- Albanian texts written by Milosevic friends. All Serbian nationalist websites link to SANU. But in this case we need a accessible reference (you used this word when I added something without link). We also need the full speech. Otherwise the quote may be fabrication. I searched and only Serbian nationalist websites had the quote. This says a lot. Go to the SANU website and read what they say about Albanians --Noah30 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What book?How do you know who was a friend of Milosevic? How is that relevant? What was Milosevic found guilty of?Why is linking important and how do you qualify site as a nationalist? Don't get lost in unrelevant and POV "facts"...--Velimir85 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes they published a book/ texts were different Serbian nationalist wrote how bad Albanians are. Search SANU and Kosovo and you can read more. And it was you who came up with "accessible reference". And the author of the books was not in the meeting he is referring to. The quote is POV no matter from what angle you see it. And please stop glorifying Milosevic one of the worst dictators during history.--Noah30 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"As a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU) in 1986 Marković, together with Vasilije Krestic and others, wrote the "Memorandum of the SANU", a document that has formulated the central tenets of Serbian nationalism. While outside of Serbia, the document has been viewed as a preparation for full scale Greater Serbian expansionism, many Serbs consider it to realistically depict the position of Serbia in the Yugoslav federation. He was a vice president of the Slobodan Milošević's Socialist Party of Serbia until 1995 and a one time chief ideologue and executive of it. At other times, he was a vocal critic of the official SPS party line." In SANU's latest "memorandum" published in February this man has written a new text. --Noah30 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

However, Noah, you have no evidence that Mustafa Kruja didn't say the quote that I added. SANU did have a nationalist approach, but it never twisted facts like quotes and such. It did twist their understanding of what the quotes and facts meant in a general sense, but I didn't add that, did I? Please don't remove referenced text. It's just not allowed. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I added two references in case someone didn't accept the SANU one:

Genfer, Der Kosovo-Konflikt, Munich: Wieser, 2000. page 158.

Interesting book, you should read it. Enough said. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You still do not see your mistake, Noah? No matter how much you hate someone on personal basis or hate his surroundings you cannot on that basis attack his views and claims. Period. Argue with what is said, not with the man who said it. And accessible reference is possible when you take info from internet, and you did that with UN report. When you quote a book or something, give an ISBN number if internet is not available.--Velimir85 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And first of all, as I'll always repeat, said memorandum simply never existed. See Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts for details. Nikola 19:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

War crimes reference

hrw.org/reports/1999/kosovo/Obrinje6-02.htm#P521_75869 - This is the only relevant thing Dodona contributed so I'm leaving it. Rest of the comments are deleted because no usable references or sources were provided. Without it it's a POVm with strong nationalist bias.--Velimir85 22:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

War crimes committed by “ Christian “ Serbs troops in Kosova is very extensive do not try to minimize it there have been many crimes and rapes ,torture between the civil and unprotect population. Dodona

Absolutely. Christian Serbs and Muslim Albanians show so much similarities in this area.--Velimir85 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you but there not such similarities or if there are such, are just isolated inexcusable counteractions.

Please do not turn this into chat topic again.--Velimir85 11:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Albanian religion

And for other accusation like Albanians were converted in Islam is not true, because Albanians is multi religious society, because “they were pagans since pelasgic time and they honored sun ,their religios never was so strong and the tolerance between Christian and Muslim was very high”. Having in consideration Arvanitas( originally Albanians ) with orthodox religion the raport beetwen Christian and Muslim is almost equal. See. Kolias “Arvanitas and origin of Greeks”. Dodona

Template:Editprotected

Was there anything specific you had in mind? If you have a specific edit, re-add {{editprotected}} with your suggestion. If it's a general request for unprotection, please list it at WP:RFPP. —dgies^t_c 06:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dodo, but you are incorrect. Most albanians did convert to Islam. Yes a few are Catholic or Orthodox, but over 90% are Islam, and they DID convert to Islam during Ottoman rule.

You need to read a book

What is the name of your book? I refered to the present situation ,the raport christiam and muslim is almost equal, most of Albanian are pagans, the world knows who you are and you can not play anymore with such thesis.My name is Dodona.

Dodona, you are obviously an Albanian. Your lack of knowledge about your own people is astounding. Any one who is non ignorant knows that Albania is a predominantly Islamic country. THis is not to say that everyone is a devout Muslim. Just like one would say that France is Catholic, but not every french person goes to church every day. I'm not disputing your claim that there is rapport between albanian muslims christians and pagans or whatever.

If you want to stop sounding totally stupid read the book by Dennis Hupchik "the Balkans, from Constantinople to Communism', or read any other book. Dr.robertg 11:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also this CIA site https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/al.html

Yes I am and you are probably Serb are you?! I am claiming a fact want it or not :Albania is a multi religious country with very high religious tolerance, having in consideration Arvanitas which are Albanian orthodox in area of Balkan , the rapport between Christian and Muslim is almost equal. See Kolias “ The Arvanitas and origin of Greek”. Dodona In CIA reference i wonder how you quote that , they are aready 30% christians , but the situation has change and the claim thta they are more then 90% in Islam sorry but it is your dream

This article needs to be revised!

I have noticed that this article focuses on history mostly. I am not sure if it actually fulfills the standards set for a country article on Wikipedia. Some people write only whatever is helpful to their own interests and never talk about other important stuff.

I hereby volunteer to completely revise this article or even replace it with a new one if necessary. I will be spending at least two months in Kosovo and I can collect enough information to build a nice article. I just need an administrator to help me.--User:Getoar 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't need to fulfill the standard for a country, because it's not a country, so total revision is not really neccessary. But new info is always welcome and you can always add referenced new information. About collecting information, do remember that Wikipedia has a policy against original research, so be advised.--Velimir85 17:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that you will be able to completely rewrite the article after spending two months in Kosovo? I was in Greece, for example, but mere fact that I was in Greece didn't made me more capable of completely rewrite the article on Greece. Nikola 07:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I won't be doing any original research. I will just make sure all the information has strong references. Second, Nikola, I didn't hold a torch for you to know what you did in Greece. I am saying that I will contact institutions such as the Statistical Center etc. while in Kosovo and improve the article.--Getoar 22:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the History section is the most problematic. It's long, long, long. I think the history section could easily be shortened to 1/5 of its current size. Most of the ancient and medieval history should be removed. I think the post-1912 history is OK -- the most recent history is more interesting to people anyway. Also, in a few weeks, we'll need to update the article as all the final status process concludes in the UN Security Council. Since that situation is moving fast, I've not been inclined to keep the article updated. Envoy202 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

HEy Envoy. As someone who is not from the area, you do not understand that the medieval history is crucial to the people of the balkans. Wrongly or rightly, that's the way it is. And i do think it is important to be included to get the big pictureDr.robertg 11:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr.robertg, we should include a little history, but now it looks like the whole article is about history. There should be parity among components of this article, and the history part should not be longer that the one about the United States. Right now, besides history, there's nothing in this article.--Albanian since Stone Age 18:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said get rid of it, just condense. I think you could cover all the medieval history in 1-2 paragraphs max. Byzantine era, arrival of the Serbs, Battle of Kosovo Polje, events of the 1690s, Ottoman period. Short and sweet. Envoy202 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll just say that I don't think that contacting institutions such as the Statistical Center of Kosovo will be better for the article. Nikola 10:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No Nikola! We need to contact SCK as long as the population of Kosovo changes everyday on Wikipedia.--User:Getoar 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well surely a linked reference is required at the poulation section if not a listing as an external link ? Buffadren 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit on Infobox

{{editprotected}} Adding Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo on 1974 to Status. Matthew_hk t c 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please gain consensus first; this is very controversial page. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

Much as some people may object, the fact remains that Kosovo is still part of Serbia. The first map does not reflect this, as Kosovo and Serbia are labelled separately. The word "Serbia" should cover Kosovo as well as Central Serbia. I'll make a map and put it here for the time being.--Hadžija 19:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen up, because we don't want to have to go through this again. A broken line represents an internal border. INTERNAL, get it? Davu.leon 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So you have no objections then?--Hadžija 17:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to present your map here and seek support for it, but be advised prior to your hard work, the current version is accepted by most editors here, but, by all means present your proposal.Buffadren 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that that which Hadzija opposes is the text "Serbia" giving the image that the country has several entities, on being Serbia and the other Kosovo (rather that the latter being the part of the previous, at least officially). --PaxEquilibrium 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's it basically. It is factually wrong, as is the caption "location of K. with relation to S.", because K. is legally within S.--Hadžija 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But in fact it’s separated from it and not administered by Belgrade since 1999 — almost a decade.--MaGioZal 08:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, excercising authority and administering is not the same as having sovereignty, or indeed internationally recognised borders. See also: Cyprus/Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus since '74, PRC/ROC since '49, or Croatia/RSK '91-'95 and BiH/RS(BiH) '92-'95 for that matter. Also, Bosnia and Herzegovina under Austro-Hungarian administration but Ottoman sovereignty 1878-1908. So I'm not sure what the point you're making is.--Hadžija 09:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; he already said legally, and Kosovo isn't separated from Serbia legally... well wasn't for a day in that time. Also, Xavier himself said that he will not repeat that mistake and bring UN protectorate over South Ossettia, because as he said it only makes people more distant rather than close, as shown with cases in the Republic of Serbian Krajina and Kosovo (not that they've not been quite helpful of course). --PaxEquilibrium 10:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly advise against changing the map, people. This map is a now and broadly accepted compromise between a map showing entire Serbia and a map showing just Kosovo (without Serbia at all). The edit wars surrounding the map (among other things) led this article to arbitration last time. We did not invent this map ourselves. I made it, based on a map shown on the BBC news website, which gave us the idea. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I would prefer to use a map showing the whole country, I second Reinoutr's post. - Best regards, Ev 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox suggestions

Someone with the necessary authority needs to add the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo (1974 - 1990) to the infobox, and link the Kingdom of Serbia text to the article. Also, "Part of independent Serbian state" sounds ugly and we should look at rewording it. The first two requests shouldn't be controversial (one would hope). Neither should the last, for that matter.--Hadžija 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent anonymous edits

I believe the recent anonymous editor who has been posting a list of alleged Serbian "kriminels" [sic] is User:Hipi Zhdripi, who is banned from editing articles related to Kosovo and banned permanently from editing anonymously per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo - his style and spelling is very distinctive and the IP addresses are from networks that he has used in the past. He is not permitted to edit Wikipedia anonymously. If he posts again, I recommend deleting his contribution and reporting the matter to WP:AN/I for administrative enforcement. -- ChrisO 07:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing bits of Kosovo history

There are few important facts missing from the chapter “Kosovo in the second Yugoslavia”. Namely, there is no mention about Balli Kombetar revolt in 1945.[6] Also, there is no mention of irredentist movement in Kosovo. You can read something about that in the research “Irredentism in Kosovo as Tirana's Policy Toward Belgrade Hardens”[7] by Louis Zanga written for Radio Free Europe in 1975. Although there was a strong peaceful Albanian separatist/independence movement, there was also strong military wing of the movement which used violent methods for fulfilling their cause.[8] Is there any consensus between users who edit this article that these historic facts should be left from it? If not, does that mean that these facts could be included in the article? --Marko M 11:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This article, is the most neutral comprehensive history of Kosovo. Read it. --PaxEquilibrium 21:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't read it. Full of mistakes and very pro Milosevic and supports Srebrenica. Neutral? This word could be used by Seselj and Niklic maybe but not by an objective, unbiased historian. --Noah30 20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. See my talk page. A Serb user told me that it's quite anti-Serb. So if Serbs think it's anti-Serb, and if Albanians think it's pro-Milosevic - and if it was written by 3rd party at the west and presented by me (who always keeps the middle), it's gotta be neutral, doesn't it? ;))) --PaxEquilibrium 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No it is not, is how you want things to be, Albanians are not like sebs, we respect different religion, your “orthodox stupidity” is putting the Balkan in extremism .Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.70.197 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dodona, please read Wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks carefully, because from now on I will assume that you're familiar with them and are willingly breaching them. - Regards, Ev 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

English?

Why is English an official language of Kosovo? Aaker 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's to make life simpler in a place with large numbers of UN, NATO and NGOs diplomats, personnel & staff from a myriad of different countries involved since 1999 in the government/administration (UNMIK), security (KFOR) & "nation-building in general". Thus, everything is done in triplicate: in Albanian & Serbo-Croatian for the locals, and in English for the multilingual foreigners running the place :-) Best regards, Ev 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think it's Serbo-Croatian. Serbian is more likely. Much more likely.--Velimir85 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian languages are in fact just one language — the plain old Serbo-Croatian language (the Radio Free Europe and ICTY also think that way, since they use respectively the terms “South Slavic” and “Bosnian-Serbian-Croatian” to describe the Serbo-Croatian language). Serbians, Bosnians and Croatians doesn’t need interpreters to talk with each other. All the rest is religious nationalism.--MaGioZal 12:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Most probably correct - but religious nationalism had little to do with that. --PaxEquilibrium 16:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty much true. But we need facts and actual official language, not linguistical tractates.--Velimir85 13:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, we definitely need a citation, what verifies English as being one of official languages. In fact, I was unable to find any local internet streaming radio stations what would broadcast in English. Claim that English is one of official languages, needs verification Tarmo Tanilsoo 18:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Constitutional Framework [9] (not quite an actual constitution but the rules governing how the administration of the province works and of the PISG) doesn't mandate formal 'official languages'. It does state that:

Languages of the Assembly

9.1.49 Meetings of the Assembly and its Committees shall be conducted in both the Albanian and Serbian languages. All official documents of the Assembly shall be printed in both the Albanian and Serbian languages. The Assembly shall endeavour to make official documents which concern a specific Community available in the language of that Community.

9.1.50 Assembly members from Communities other than the Kosovo Albanian and Kosovo Serb Communities shall be permitted to address the Assembly or its Committees in their own language and to submit documents for consideration by the Assembly in their own language. In such cases, interpretation or translation into the Albanian and Serbian languages shall be provided for the other members of the Assembly or Committee.

9.1.51 All promulgated laws shall be published in the Albanian, Bosniak, English, Serbian and Turkish languages.

This is not quite the same as saying that English and Serbian and Albanian are 'official' languages. The fuller source for all Kosovo rules are the UNMIK regulations [10], though you always have to bear in mind that UNMIK only have control over the administration of Kosovo and that constitutions and laws have not the same force or meaning that they might do in a sovereign state. The most important regulation is Regulation No.1 'ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERIM ADMINISTRATION IN KOSOVO' [11] which has since been amended [12] which bases all subsequent acts of UNMIK on the powers given it by UNSCR1244. Regulations 1999/24 [13], 2001/19 [14] and 2001/9 [15] are also important for obvious reasons. I can find no regulation relating specifically to 'official languages'; there might conceivably be a law passed by the provisional parliament which mandates an official language, but I'll leave those to someone else to trawl through! That first regulation states that 'UNMIK regulations shall be issued in Albanian, Serbian and English' but again that isn't explicitly making them 'official languages' (note that on the UK page English as listed as the de facto official language with a note explaining the background). We should probably note this in the infobox.

If you were being legalistic, as UNMIK hasn't formally mandated an official language (just noted what languages are to be used for regulations and in the provisional parliament), and as in the absence of any formal UNMIK regulation then Serbian law as of 1989 applies ([16]), you'd have to say that the official languages of Kosovo are those in force in 1989. Someone would need to check the Yugoslav constitution of 1989, though I suspect it will include all languages of the SFRY and therefore include 'Serbo-Croatian' (as it existed then), Slovenian, Macedonian, Albanian, Hungarian 'and languages of other nationalities'. Great.

Sometimes, better not to ask the question... DSuser 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

lead section speculation

I've updated heading to reflect that last year it was widely speculated that there would be independence although now, things are less "certain" due to Russia stance on the issue. I've also removed the Economist speculatory article from 2005, as well as the 'editorial' like article by abcnews/go.com. I think additional refs are not necessary to establish the speculation last year by the news media. // laughing man 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, LaughingMan, I disagree with your edit. I think that there is still near consensus among experts that Kosovo will be independent. Even as the diplomatic wrangling has heated up around Kosovo, I've seen no reliable sources suggest that independence is somehow in doubt or that Kosovo will be forced back with Serbia. To the contrary, the reliable sources are reporting that there is really only one question left undecided about Kosovo's status: will Kosovo become independent the easy way (i.e., through a UN-facilitated process and all the added legitimacy a UNSC resolution could provide) or the hard way (i.e., through a series of recognitions that are not tied to a new UNSC resolution). President Bush's remarks in Tirana reinforce the notion that independence -- one way or another -- is inevitable and will come soon. Of course, it would be better for all (obviously the U.S./EU, but also Serbia and Russia) for independence to come through a UNSC process. Either way, I think it is misleading to imply that independence is in doubt. It is not. Do other people have opinions on this matter? Envoy202 01:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some up-to-date reference then? We had references from 2005-2006. Let's get it at least current, especially if you want to continue with the crystal ball speculation in the lead section. // laughing man 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We have been here before :-) The mention of observers' expectations does not infringe the crystal ball clause. However, Laughing Man is right about the need for using newer & better references. I'll see what I can do in a little while.

In any case, as Envoy202 points out, the current discussions are not about whether Kosovo will become independent, but about the extent, degree of & conditions attached to that independence and the way in which it will be reached ("Kosovan independence", The Economist, June 1, 2007; "Bearish in the Balkans", Council on Foreign Relations, June 7, 2007).

Best regards, Ev 03:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should refrain from speculation. I think the BBC puts it quite NPOV in its profile of Kosovo:

"In February 2007 United Nations envoy Martti Ahtisaari unveiled a plan to set Kosovo on a path to independence, an outcome immediately welcomed by Kosovo Albanians and rejected by Serbia. US President George Bush has come out in favour of Kosovan independence, but Russia threatened to veto any UN resolution that endorses the Ahtisaari plan. "[17]

Basically, all you have to say is that there is a UN-sponsored process, that the UN negotiatior has proposed a plan for conditional independence but that at the moment it is not clear whether or not this plan will be accepted by the UNSC. CheersOsli73 13:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Serbian policy of settlement during interwar period

Dear all, User:Noah30 has recently proposed the following edit to the pre-WWII section. I have asked him to please propose and explain the edit on the Talk page before making the edit. Since he has refused I will take the initative to do so instead:

Prior to WWII various member of the intellectual community of Serbia and the Government of Serbia attempted to plan and implement the Serbian “final solution to the Albanian question”. These attempts are best reflected by two detailed memorandums proposed to the Government of Serbia by a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences Prof. Vasa Cubrilovic in 1937 and 1944. [18]
Among other more detailed proposals for harassing the Albanian population of Kosovo through terror and mass expulsion, Vasa Cubrilovic proposes the following in his 1937 and 1944 memorandums:
"As we have already stressed, the mass evacuation of the Albanians from their triangle is the only effective course we can take. In order to relocate a whole people, the first prerequisite is the creation of a suitable psychosis." [19]
"...the Albanians must be driven out of Metohija, Kosovo and Polog. Aside from ethnic cleansing during military operations, other methods must be applied to force the national minorities out." [20]
"The law must be enforced to the letter so as to make staying intolerable for the Albanians: fines, imprisonment, the ruthless application of all police regulations" [21]

Other than insisting on a controversial edit in a contested article while refusing to enter into a discussion on the Talk page I have a number issues with this proposed edit:

the reference is from the personal web page of a Canadian freelance writer and linguist specializing in Albanian language and culture. He is not affiliated with any university or history institution and can hardly be seen as a good reference.
much of the text is a direct quote from a supposed translation of a historical document. Per WP:OR "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." This would be relevant in this case.
WP:OR states that "when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority". In the edit proposed by Noah30 there is no attempt to attempt to provide any such context.
Using words such as "Final solution" is definately not WP:NPOV.

I suggest that reliable (expert) references be found on this topic and used accordinly. CheersOsli73 12:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have adjusted the text on the interwar period to include a description of the Serbian policy of settlement in Kosovo including updated sources. Please let me know what you think. Cheers Osli73 22:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

PHOTO: Bush blows kisses to Albanian

I wonder, can we include the photo of George W. Bush blowing kisses to Albanians? This is the photo (at the bottom)? It's interesting, but also relevant for Kosovo article. Bosniak 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's include a photo of him with the watch while we're at it. And then maybe without it. --Bolonium 03:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vozdra Bosniak. I think we should include the photo. --Noah30 06:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that it was in Albania to Albanians and not in Kosovo to Kosovars, means it's hardly relevant.Osli73 09:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Its totally relevent as he EXPLICITLY MENTIONED his continued support for the Kosovar Albanians, and obviously that is why Albanians love him Interestingly, for some reason, every other country on earth hates him as an ignorant, unjust cowboy. I wonder why ???? Include it !

article too long

Kosovo is a very important question. BUt the article is too long. Needs to be cut up into "history of Kosovo" etc etc.86.201.21.218 13:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Serbs state on Kosovo

We have a leteratur about the existenc of the serbian "national" and "state" meaning.

IDIOSYNCRASIES OF THE GRAND NARRATIVES ON SERBIAN NATIONAL IDENTITY

von Tatjana Marković (Belgrade) [22]

SELF-REPRESENTATION OF THE SERBIAN »CIVIL-CLASSEN« IN THE 19th CENTURY
Communicating through Dositej Obradović1; Wladimir Fischer (Wien)[23]

from Hipi--Hipi Zhdripi 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cutting down the History section

It's obviously far, far too long. Any volunteers to cut it down? I'll give it a try if I get the chance, assuming there are no objections! DSuser 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You will need to present a draft first before it is accepted, as people tende to try and colour the article to prove a point.

Illyrians

I made an edit in the 1st paragraph of the history section- ie anceint illyrians.

Obviously someone went in and added in brackets '(albanians)' next to anceint illyrians. Whilst i do not object to the theory that moderns albanians are descended from some illyrians, it is wrong to equate ancient illyrians and albanians as one in the same.

We have already covered this in the Ilyrians article. But to reiterate:

Illyrians were not a homogenous people, they were in fact many different tribes living in the area known as Illyricum, and were thus referred to as Illyrians due to the geographical fact that that's where they lived. Many had different languages and cultures

Many Illyrians on the adriatic coast were romanised, ie adopted roman way of life and a form of vulgar latin which was incorporated into their own language (eg the Dalmatae). Other romanised Illyrians that continued their shepherding in the mountainous are are the descendents of todays Vlachs/ Morlachs.

During the great migrations period, the area was subject to raids by many other tribes - celts, avars, goths, huns. Many illyrians would have been assimilated, killed, or fled into the mountainous areas out of the Kosovo valley.

The last 'migrating' tribe was the Slavs. When they settled the kosovo valley, they assimilated most of the illyrian tribes; a fact proven by modern DNA studies.

It is probable that modern day albanians are descended from some of these tribes the fled and/ or remained in the area of modern day Albania, and also derived their language from one of the languages that was spoken by one/ some of these Illyrian tribes.

So you see the fate of the Illyrian people is mixed. I am sure that fellow wikipedians would agree that it is a gross oversimplification to state that ancient Illyrians are the same as modern Albanians. Hxseeker 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that it would seem logical that the 'Illyrians' (I'm not even sure there was any coherent Illyrian culture) were absorbed/diluted with other groups moving into or through the region since Roman times. However, we really should stick to what the WP:V sources say. Until we have such a source, we really shouldn't say anything. CheersOsli73 06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I will endeavour, to find such sources, though Illyrian history is not the best documented.

In fact, instead, i challenge anyone to produce any verifiable source that prove that Illyrians are now modern Albanians (and ALbanian government websites do not qualify). The 'dilution and distribution' arguement is far more plausible than the latter. Anyway , the fate of Illyrains is, at best, only remotely relevant to KosovoHxseeker 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Transplanted response to Illyrians. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Certainly more interesting than arguing about the relative merits of the adjectives (or noun as adjective) Kosovo, Kosovan, and Kosovar. :-)

Errors in history

There are a few errors and bits of left out information from the history section. While it is obvious in the demographics link, it is not explained there, nor is it clear in the main article for the average reader.

I added:

after the Slav migration, the slavs were the most numerous 'ethnos' in Kosovo.

I changed:

during the ottoman times, the mass exodus of families was mostly that of the Serbs, not BOTH serbs and albanians;

With this goes onto

The incorrect statement that many Serbs converted to Islam. This is false, and in fact it was most Albanians that converted to Islam, not Serbs (a trend supported by the modern religious demographics of Albanians). Thus obviating the need for Albanians to emigtrate as they then recieved better treatment at the hands of the Turks. Furthermore, many serbs did not "assimilate" with Albanians. This is just a historical falsehood.

I added

in the modern era, the Albanians were the large majority in Kosovo. I agree. I added a sentence for the benefit of an unaquainted reader to clarify how this major demographic turn about occurred. (namely the exodus, plus a few modern sociological factors)

If any disagrees, think this is untrue or biased, please i welcome your feedback, but i think you will find it to be true

History too long

I agree that the history section is too long. Yes, its all very interesting, but i think it needs to be shortened because we can be there all day reading it.

Certain random facts can be cut out eg "Ilyrians are mentioned in the bible". Yes its an interesting piece of trivia, but has little overall relevance to today's situation in Kosovo.

I am happy to propose a draft. Of course i'll endeavour for it to be as unbiased as possible. Issues of contention should be noted and present BOTH the serbian and albanian POV, as there is no 100% correct answer.

Its overall thesis should be to highlight RELEVANT parts of the history that will be comprehensible and help acquaint the reader that otherwise knows little about the Balkans.

Overall I think the history packs a lot of useful information, just needs a well constructed, summarised version.

My knowledge is strongest in early to medieval times. For the modern sections, i will have to merely summarise what is already written unless someone else proposes additions. I am happy to do the overall synthesis given that i am a native english speaker with excellent linguistic capabilities. Hxseeker 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing history - part I

I propose the following change to the history section - the ancient times. I suggest it is shortened thus:

The region of Kosovo has been inhabited by Illyrian tribes since the Bronze Age, the area was known as Dardania. The south of Kosovo was ruled by Macedonia since Alexander the Great's reign in the 4th century BC. After long periods of conflict between Illyrian tribes and invading imperial powers, the region was eventually occupied by the Roman Empire under Emperor Augustus in 28 BC and became part of the Roman province of Moesia. When the Roman Empire split in A.D. 395, the area of Kosovo came under the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire.

Can you sign your comments, please? Four tildas (~) does it. Thanks, as well, for your contribution! DSuser 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure . Here : Hxseeker 19:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposal stems from ongoing calls to shorten the history section which is very very long. I think beginning is a good place to start. One can always read up on Illyria if they want to learn about it.

Go for it Hxseeker. If you can cut it down while keeping it neutral that's ideal. I say go ahead and we can argue about any finer points later. Perhaps make sure that anything you cut does exist in the History of Kosovo article? DSuser 12:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Old History

Right. I've just cut the history section down by perhaps a half or two-thirds. Nothing has been deleted. I've moved evertyhing into either the History of Kosovo page, or to either the History of Medieval Kosovo or History of Modern Kosovo pages. Those three pages now reflect everything written about the history of Kosovo here, good, bad or indifferent. Those pages are now in some chronological order, and are in better shape than they were before. They still need a lot of work, so if you have the energy and will adibe by Wikipedia standards, please do go ahead and work on them.

The section on history in this main article is still too long. After some reflection we might cut down or remove the ancient section and reduce the medieval/ottoman sections. Summaries are all we require as the detail is in these other pages. The article now has much better balance. There are still some potentially NPOV statements: it's not perfect but needs working on.

Anyone who tries to get POV statements back in there, or add reams of text about bloody Illyrians or Slavs, will get reverted. DSuser 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK Suser. Nice edit i think. I have read , so far, to end of Ottomans. Only 1 problem: ther appears to be a discrepency in the Ottoman section. One sentence states - during ottoman times many slavs converted to islam. then later it says many Albanians converted to Islam, but only a minority of Serbs did.

From my knoledge the latter is correct, and not the former, as obviously the majority of Serbs remained christian. Hxseek 16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite correct, according to a source from the 18th century, there were AFAIK more Moslem Serbs than Christians. This, parallel with constant emigration and frequent expulsions, is why Orthodox Serbs have become a minority. A part of them culturally assimilated into modern-day Albanians, while others survived to this very day identifying as Muslims by nationality, and a significant part of them adopted the Bosnian naturalized term Bosniacs. An interesting thing to note as well is that out of some of those Islamized Slavs, a whole indigenous people survived - the "Hillmen". --PaxEquilibrium 12:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No doubt you're right Hxseek. My goal was to get thing to a manageable size first, then we can improve what we have (preferably without expanding it!). There may be internal inconsistencies and NPOV statements, but they were all present in the original, so hopefully we can now identify them and remove them. Please, do go ahead and improve this thing. And make sure to check back often to catch vandals and NPOVs? DSuser 19:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, great if we can source as much as possible, esp. in the history section... DSuser 11:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I know I probably did a bad thing, but the new version of History is horrifying - it's not POV (neither Albanian- nor Serb-). It's horrifying. --PaxEquilibrium 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo: terminology

I'm having a very long and drawn out debate on the Template talk:Serbian local elections on what the international standard is for terminology on Kosovo. As we seem to have established here, the most stable option is to use 'Kosovo' when we need an adjective (as in 'Kosovo Assembly' or 'Kosovo status process') as Kosovan or Kosovar could be seen as POV and might be seen as prejudging, or making a political statement on, Final Status. If and when Kosovo becomes independence, those two terms will no doubt be used as standard, but for now the UN and UNMIK have settled on avoiding the use of -an and -ar in favour of simply 'Kosovo' (as in Kosovo Serbs and Kosovo Albanians rather than Kosovan or Kosovar Serbs or plain Kosovars). There'll be no document which says, 'we avoid using Kosovan/Kosovar' and there are definitely some documents (esp. press releases which occassionally use those forms). I can't find any evidence of using those forms in any of the main documents and agreements (UNSCR1244; UNMIK Reg No1 [24]; the Constitutional Framework [25]).

The OED states that the first written use of the term Kosovar a noun is "1944 N. L. D. MCLEAN Intelligence Rep. 12 Jan. in O. Pearson Albania in Occupation & War (2005) 323 A declaration on the part of Tito that the future of Kosovo will be left to the Kosovars themselves to decide after the war." and as an adjective is 1981. First use of Kosovan as both noun and adjective in English are recorded as 1969 by the OED, so the use of Kosovar and Kosovan in English is well established and were in use long before the current dispute, so it follows that there can be no question of the use "prejudging, or making a political statement on, Final Status." --Philip Baird Shearer 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're using quotes from the 1960s and before to try and demonstrate that the present use of Kosovar in the political climate of the Kosovo status process does not suggest a POV on Final Status?! And Tito as a neutral source! It may well have had less resonance then, but at the point where status hangs in the balance, and after not just the Kosovo Conflict but the whole range of Balkan wars, let me assure you that language has become politicised. The United Nations does it's best to remain neutral in Kosovo: the BBC and tabloid newspapers might not have to uphold those standards, but we should. See my notes below on present avoidance of Kosovan and Kosovar by the United Nations. Let's keep the discussion tight, and below wherever possible. DSuser 20:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The source is not Tito, the source is a 1944 British intelligence report, it is not quoting Tito but reporting to a higher authority what he said. It seems to me from reading between the lines here that some people object to the words because of their etymology not their usage. It is a very strange idea to think that a monoglot English speaker considers the etymology of such words to convey a bias when using worlds like "Kosovan". BTW The OED etymology "Albanian kosovar < Kosovë (definite form Kosova), the name of the region (< Serbian Kosovo, use as noun of neuter possessive adjective in Kosovo polje: see note below) + -ar, suffix denoting an inhabitant of a place." --Philip Baird Shearer 11:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, we seem to have settled on avoiding those terms here for obvious NPOV reasons. Sometimes the use of Kosovan or Kosovar might be appropriate. People have an absolute right to use them to describe themselves (e.g. our own User:Kosovar). Do people think that we're better to keep using Kosovo as an adjective? Or do people think we should opt for Kosovan and never Kosovo? Or do people want Kosovar? We'll keep this debate open for a few weeks as people seem to be away in August. DSuser 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, but we should set a deadline; I propose 19 August, should be sufficiently far away. —Nightstallion 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Agree. DSuser 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo It's neutral, stable and the UN standard. It causes no offence, can be changed if and when independence happens and we're not going to have endless edit wars. DSuser 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Kosovan. I have seen no evidence that the UN has a stated preference for "Kosovo" (see also the evidence at the template talk page linked to above), and I have also seen no evidence to suggest that "Kosovar" or "Kosovan" is not neutral in any way. —Nightstallion 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Kosovan The standard adjective used in English by reputable sources such as the BBC. DSuser is wrong (and has been repeatedly proved so) when he says the UN do not use Kosovan. Both the UN and UNMIK use the phrase Kosovan in many documents (white papers, this implementation plan). More importantly, the use of Kosovo as an adjective is not recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the pillars of the English language. Number 5 7 14:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see using the word "Kosovan", as the BBC is known to insist on very proper use of English. Having said that, I also acknowledge that British English isn't the only form of English. I think we might be better off using "Kosovo" in general, and then use "Kosovan" only rarely and when it is clearly not appropriate to use the word "Kosovo" itself. John Carter 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd be fine with that; a compromise might be to usually avoid having to use the adjective form of Kosovo (using "Kosovo's" or "of Kosovo" instead where applicable), but using "Kosovan" when we must use an adjective (as in the title of Kosovan parliamentary election, 2007). —Nightstallion 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Agree there's a definitely a compromise position somewhere. My argument would be that we should avoid Kosovan for precisely those institutions which are relevant to political status, so Kosovo assembly and Kosovo elections. DSuser 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I'd consider it a possible compromise to avoid the use of Kosovan/Kosovar in a context where it may be misunderstood, but to use "Kosovan" as the adjective when we *have* to use an adjective. As it would likely be the only location which I see right now where adjectives are impossible to avoid, using "Kosovan" for the "Kosovan parliamentary election, YEAR" articles won't be such a big problem, I suppose? —Nightstallion 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Kosovo: frankly, as a wannabe linguist, I find the adjective "Kosovan" plain ugly, and overly pedantic and prescriptivist grammar; maybe I'm just not used to it. Even if BBC pushes for it, we shouldn't be the ones to lead the world in using the term; I didn't check the assertions of usage in UN/UNMIK documents so I wouldn't comment; I take that piece of evidence as inconclusive. I don't think that "Kosovan" has POV-connotations ("Kosovar" certainly could), just... I don't find it a natural word. I could live with John Carter's suggestion. Perhaps some pre-debate on WP:RDL might be called for, or at least a notice there. Duja► 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Kosovan as per Number 57. Cloudz679 17:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Kosovo: I agree that "Kosovan" is an awkward and ugly term. UNMIK has indeed used "Kosovan" extensively and I recall for that for some time UN HQ (DPKO) was studiously employing it in all their reports as a preferred, ethnically-neutral adjective. Common practice among the internationals in Pristina was to use "Kosovo" and "Kosovar" far more than "Kosovan" (now that I think about it, I think I've only ever seen "Kosovan" in writing, never heard it actaully used in speech by UN officials). "Kosovar" is reasonably suspect as POV since it is an Albanian language word -- that being said, I've often heard people say things like "Kosovar Serb" (potentially a contradictory term!). Considering all this loopiness, I think the preferred construction should simply be Kosovo. The grammatical purists may argue, but it just sounds better, is less controversial and more versatile. "Kosovo Assembly," "Kosovo elections," "Kosovo Serbs," etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Envoy202 (talk • contribs)
Kosovo. I've been asked to comment on this issue and although I don't want to meddle in politics here let me just say that from a linguistic standpoint this is like mixing apples and oranges. Adjective "Kosovo" relates to things from Kosovo, in Kosovo or about Kosovo, like "Kosovo apples" or "Kosovo population" or "Kosovo independence". On the other hand "Kosovar" and "Kosovan" implies that these things are somehow related to people from Kosovo (whichever nationality they may be, although the term "Kosovar" has Albanian overtones). For example - "Kosovar army", "Kosovan women", "Kosovar culture". --Dr.Gonzo 18:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Kosovan assembly mets in Kosovo or the "Kosovar assembly mets in Kosovo" (Both supported by the OED based on sources, Kosovo as an adjective is not supported by the OED). "+ -ar, suffix denoting an inhabitant of a place" as in "1999 Toronto Star (Electronic ed.) 10 Apr., Because the Macedonian government is afraid of upsetting the delicate ethnic balance in the country, they are anxious to see the 200,000 Kosovars living in several camps resettled elsewhere as quickly as possible." Kosovar can also be used as an adjective as in "1999 Mirror (Electronic ed.) 10 Apr., Most of the Kosovar Albanians have already been driven out of the city. Pristina is practically evacuated." But so can Kosovan "1999 Mirror (Electronic ed.) 27 Mar., Britain cannot leave Kosovans to their fate without betraying all this country stands for, Tony Blair declared last night." and "2001 Independent on Sunday (Electronic ed.) 14 Jan., Kosovan Albanians, who have had to live with the debris of some of the 31,000 rounds of DU ammunition fired by US warplanes during the conflict." What are the reliable sources that use Kosovo as an adjective? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sources: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 [26]: 'Kosovo Albanians', absence of Kosovan. UN Security Council report[27]: 'Kosovo political leaders', absence of Kosovan. Contact Group statement of principles[28]: tortuous 'Serbs of Kosovo' formulation to avoid the adjective, absence of Kosovan. UNMIK/PISG Constitutional Framework[29]: absence of Kosovan, use of grammar to avoid needing an adjective; 'Kosovo Serb'. Entire registry of UNMIK regulations[30]: absence of Kosovan (occasional Kosovar for Kosovo Albanians). International press frequently use Kosovar and Kosovan, but they are not the standard and they do not have to provide for a stable, NPOV consensus. We should be following UN standards, which is to avoid Kosovan and Kosovar (though the latter used rarely), mostly by using 'of Kosovo' and 'in Kosovo' but also by use of 'Kosovo' as in 'Kosovo Serbs', 'Kosovo Albanians' and 'Kosovo politicians' to avoid using Kosovan. DSuser 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo. Well for the most part I agree with Dr.Gonzo, There seems to be a few arguments to supports the terms of "Kosovars" which is fine and all but the fact of the matter is this is not official in any sense and besides perhaps a local use of the word it really has no meaning. Although this term seems to be used exclusively for Albanians in Kosovo, majority still refer to them selves as simply Albanians and not Kosovars. Besides that it in a sense can be offensive to Serbs, and (most likely) is used today as a political pawn in resolving Kosovo status. For example by using the term "Kosovar" it can interperated that "Kosovar's" (Albanians) are original inhabitants or that "Kosovar's" are a ethnic people with their own country or at least "fighting" to gain their statehood in the settlement process. In which both cases are false, Kosovars are not a people and Kosovo is not a country. ...And BTW, "BBC" is no credible source to use in defining the Kosovo status or simply using them as a reference, My personal opinion on BBC is very low, and besides they are not given any right to determine whats right and wrong, or in this case who's who... Regards Bluewings 3:28, July 31 2007 (UTC)
- I have to disagree there -- the fact that the BBC is a reliable and neutral source is well-established. —Nightstallion 19:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Without wanting to cut into the discussion, and despite being a Brit, I wouldn't at all rate the BBC on Kosovo. See my comment immediately above, it's the United Nations standards we need to follow. In Kosovo, they have the same requirement of neutrality that we seek here. DSuser 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo It's the UN standard. Making it into and using it in either adjective form constructs ethnic and political implications and presumptions which only obfuscate: adjective strongly implies the existence of a distinct geopolitical/ethnic/etc. entity and identity. Kosovo is not at that point. As to newspaper/media usage of terms, it merely a matter of style--not substance--someone might decide to write about United Statesians someday. Using the non-adjective form, as is, keeps the scope of discussion clear and observes the official standard. When and if that changes, we can change our usage. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo Vecrumba is correct...the UN Mission in Kosovo uses "Kosovo" as the adjective (see headline [31]). User:RideABicycle/Signature 20:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision to Kosovan Oxford English Dictionary uses Kosovan. Wikipedia isn't the UN...it doesn't exist to mediate international disputes. As such, it should be less concerned with political correctness and more concerned with dictional correctness. (Oxford definition [32]) User:RideABicycle/Signature 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment In my two volume shorter Oxford English Dictionary, none of Kosovo, Kosovar, or Kosovan appear. Be that as it may, reverting to the "dictionary" for either pro or con is, to my mind, engaging in WP:OR. It's not political correctness or grammatical correctness, it's geopolitical correctness and accuracy that's at issue. There's no grammatical impediment to using Kosovo in the sense of an adjective without making it an explicit adjective--once you do that, who/what exactly are you then talking about? New York cheescake. New York Council. Kosovo cheescake. Kosovo Council. The directly preceding is WP:OR as well. What the U.N. uses, we use. And why? Because we're not interpreting what news stories and dictionaries imply about usage when we do so. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment It appears in OED Compact Edition online (askoxford.com). Using Kosovan is not in violation of WP:OR, it is using the undispited authority on the English language for a word choice. Articles pertaining to Kosovo are not always going to be present...they could be historical. As such, geopolitcal correctness is not a factor. User:RideABicycle/Signature 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo, Kosovar and Kosovan All are correct and valid adjectives. Any editor should be able to edit with the form he/she prefers, we need not immediately imply any POV on it (that's just unnecessary nitpicking in my opinion). Personally I always use "kosovar", but see absolutely no problem with the other forms which refer to the region, regardless of eventual independence. All forms should be admitted, and edits whose only purpose is not to add content but to simply alter the present forms be reverted as, that yes, POV enforcement.--Hús ö nd 01:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo . I agree that to use Kosovar is slightly POV, as if to predict that Kosovo will surely become an independent, Albanianised country. In fact I'm sure this will happen. However, in the mean time the status quo should be kept. When and if the status of Kosovo is resolved, then by all means we shall refer to it in the manner the people of Kosovo want it to be called. Hxseek 01:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo - That is the name of it and thats, that. There is no point in arguing about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euro.Serb (talk • contribs)

Kosovan - Largely per Number57's rationale. There's no appreciable difference in POV relative to "Kosovo," IMHO (while, yes, I think "Kosovar" is problematic) and as UN usage is demonstrably split, this boils down to English-language analness. The OED and styleguides of various media outlets are to my eye pretty convincingly on the side of "Kosovan." Indeed, conventional English-language practice is to substitute -an for -o when adjectifying placenames: "Mexican" for "Mexico," "Morrocan" for "Morroco", "Bornean" for "Borneo," "Sarajevan" for "Sarajevo," "Puerto Rican" for "Puerto Rico", "Costa Rican" for "Costa Rica" and so on. (The only significant exception is "Congolese" for "Congo.") One theory I'd float for why there's some disagreement is that using placename nouns directly as adjectives is fairly commonplace within the United States (ie "New York cheesecake", "Iowa election", "California raisins") but considerably rarer elsewhere. The Tom 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

...and Togolese like Congolese. Švitrigaila 12:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo - I support the neutral version that is used most commonly. I am against using neologisms on Wikipedia. // laughing man 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, something in the OED is, by definition, not a neologism. The Tom 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo - Kosovo, It's the UN standard. I don't see why we have to argue about it? Semberac

Comment Kosovo is not the UN standard; they also use Kosovan. Number 5 7 08:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

One reason I am very leery of these types of discussion is that people with less of a grasp of the English language than their mother tongue, contribute what they think is correct English, and that leads to Wikipedia sounding like a manual put together by the US Pentagon who are well known for mangling the English language. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo, Kosovar and Kosovan: Same reasons as Húsönd. If we can't agree on a single term, let's forge a new one. For example Kosogasque (like Monégasque) or Kosovobé (like Burkinabé). Or let's translate it: Crowfielder! (I clearly agree with Philip Baird Shearer on one thing: my English is not good enough to allow me to have a serious opinion about it.)Švitrigaila 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm really liking "Crowfielder" The Tom 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo- more neutral version. --Αεκος 13:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet gracious mother! "A rose is a rose!" Why does this happen on Wikipedia? All the time, too. The proper thing to do is to use both of them equally. But of course good manners prohibit that, which is the most sensible answer and also the least offensive. --VKokielov 14:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: in this case, the only weight on either name is by association. If we must demonstrate that we are impartial, then we use both of the names in equal proportion. --VKokielov 04:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That would imply that both names have the same weight associated with.

This happens on Wikipedia and other places because of people who try to sell cauliflower by the price of roses, by means of printing "rose" on the packaging and counting on most customers not noticing the difference. A cauliflower is not a rose and some people do notice the difference. Nikola 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovar and Kosovan: the best explenation was given by Philip Baird Shearer. Zenanarh 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo is my oppinion. Alexzr88 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo, Kosovar, and Kosovan: I feel that when addressing the nation itself one could use Kosovo, while addressing the people of Kosovo as Kosovars or Kosovan. However, on the basis of neutrality, I agree that Kosovo could be used for now. Regards. Wiki Raja 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Question: What is the [so far uncited] rationale on Kosov-ar/an being prejudging on Kosovo becoming independent? Does the same thing apply to Athenian, Thracian, Smyrniot, Texan? NikoSilver 07:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- While noone has explicitly stated that up to now (I asked often enough... ;)), I *believe* "Kosovar" is considered non-neutral because it's ultimately an Albanian word. Why "Kosovan" is not neutral, I don't know -- it doesn't appear any different from e.g. Vojvodinian to me. —Nightstallion 09:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  - ...a side remark: somewhat paradoxically, there is no "proper" single word for inhabitant of Kosovo in Serbian language (while there is for almost every place on Earth). "Kosovac" is archaic and little used; "Kosovljanin" is disputable or just wrong. The one with greatest prominence in colloquial speech is, paradoxically, "Kosovar"; it can be used neutrally, or in derogatory manner for Serb refugees from Kosovo (at least, that's how it's used in Smederevo); not that you will hear it in any media or politically correct context; "stanovnik Kosova" is kind of standard. Those who know Serbian might find this xenofobic rant interesting. Duja► 09:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Out of curiosity, is there any kind of adjectival form of Kosovo in Serbian, Duja? (I have little by way of knowledge of Slavic languages, though a fuzzy recollection is going off somewhere that the grammatical rules concerning adjectives are quite different than in Germanic and Romance languages.) The Tom 14:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      - Yes, it "kosovski" (-a, -o for feminine and neuter). I'm not sure which particular "gramatical rules" you refer to; the only principal difference is that Slavic adjectives are declinable both by cases and by gender. Duja►
        Thanks for that. And, at least in the Serbian context, the very existence of the adjectival form "kosovski" presumably doesn't carry with it any kind of connotations linked to political separateness from Serbia? The Tom 18:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        
        Side remark for Greek: The adjective in Greek is Κοσοβάρος/Κοσοβάρα (m.Kosovaros/f.Kosovara) and is not loaded with any kind of nationalistic/separatist sentiments at all, given that Greece is notoriously pro-Serbian. The sound of it resembles other familiar Slavic endings (to the ears of the Greeks), such as "Tsaros" (Czar) etc. Given the considerations above, I wouldn't mind if we used instead Kosovan in WP. It is a fair compromise, and an adjective doesn't necessarily create a border for heaven's sake! Niko Silver 08:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Kosovar and Kosovan: In German, the term kosovare was not used until the international community tried to give citizens of Kosovo a new identity, while the use of the term kosovo remains problematic (Germanistisch-linguistische Betrachtung). --Gego 15:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Kosovo is a Serbian word, and in Serbian, it is already an adjective, meaning "one who belongs to Kos (a kind of bird)". So, Kosovan or Kosovar would be a double-adjective form, thus incorect. Vanjagenije 12:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not what is correct in Serbian, it is what is correct in English. Do you, Vanjagenije, have any source that states that to use of Kosovan and Kosovar as adjectives in English are in any way incorrect either grammatically or politically in English? If not why are you expressing an opinion based on Serbian on how English words should be used in English? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  - And it's not correct in Serbian, either. See my post above and the longer explanation at WP:RDL#Kosovo/Kosovar/Kosovan. Duja► 13:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I would keep it simple and pick Kosovo. Kosovar has become too semantically loaded to imply Albanian ethnicity only, I would say. --Asterion^talk 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for your assertion?--Philip Baird Shearer 09:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  - It is my very own perception. We must also consider the fact that Kosovar is an Albanian language word used by Kosovo Albanian to identify themselves, only generalised in the Western media after 1997-98 escalation of the conflict. Before that it was only applied to ethnic Albanians. You would need access to Lexis-Nexis to verify these references. Regards, Asterion^talk 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Christian Science Monitor, December 15, 1981, Pg. B2: "It is Yugoslavia's own north-south problem in microcosm. And it can lead to ominous political consequences, as shown by last spring's nationalist demonstrations by the Kosovars (ethnic Albanians) that left eight protesters and one policeman dead."
    - New York Times, April 19, 1981, Section 4; Pg. 4: "The Kosovars are even allowed to fly the Albanian flag, a black eagle on a red field."

I agree with Asterion: first, for simplicity, second, Kosovo is probably the less loaded of the terms in question.--Aldux 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best to pick "Kosovan". Apart from sounding fair to me, I think it refers to everybody living within Kosovo, and not only to ethnic Albanian people as the adjective "Kosovar" may do.--Spectrum_X —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Observation

With a dozen or however many votes cast thus far, one pattern that I personally find somewhat instructive as to the nature of this debate seems to be emerging. If you'll forgive me for the somewhat undiplomatic nature of this statement, but there does seem to be a strong correlation between those users who have voted in favour of exclusively using "Kosovo" as an adjective and those users who self-identify as Serb or Serbophone. Let me be clear: this is not in any way supposed to mean their votes are any less important or valuable or that they are somehow groupthinking crazed chest-thumping nationalists :). But perhaps it might be useful to ask ourselves why, exactly, there seems to be an ethnic dimension emerging in this nomenclature debate?

And to forestall the inevitable question, I am myself an Anglophone, whose ancestors probably last scooted around the Balkans sometime before at least the Bronze Age, who personally sees myself as being on the fence on the independence issue. It doesn't make my opinions any more right or wrong or even necessarily any more neutral than anyone else's, IMHO, just thought I'd self-declare. The Tom 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

With you Tom, there's definitely an ethnic element here. Let me also declare being a Brit, and one who has worked in the Balkans. Internationals there avoid the use of terms which imply statehood where it is disputed or which confuse ethnicity with nationality. In the real world, ambiguity (as in the use of 'Kosovo' for Kosovo Albanians or Kosovo elections) avoids giving offence to either side in a debate. Those ethnic and linguistic debates spill over into Wikipedia as there are many and dedicated contributors from various ethnicities in the Balkans. We could choose to mimic the international usage for simple NPOV. We should also consider the stability of the articles here: this article in particular has been the source of edit wars and arbitration, and an excess of neutrality might not be out of place. DSuser 15:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Up to now, it appears there are about as many people who think Kosovo should be used exclusively as there are people who think we should either generally use Kosovan or use Kosovan in some cases. As far as I can see (and if the pattern persists, which I'm fairly certain it will), this seems to be leading to a compromise solution; while voting is of course not over yet, I'll start drafting one which I would consider fair at Talk:Kosovo/proposed solution. —Nightstallion 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia:Consensus is not built on a vote and issues such as this should definitely not be part of a set of rules on the use of English. Further your use of the expression "official or commonly used neutral constructions" implies that the use of Kosovan and Kosovar are not neutral, but to date no one has produced an authoritative source that states this to be the case, yet sources have been produced that show the terms have been in use for many years by many sources that are not biased on the current issue over independence of Kosovo. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

shrugs I know that a consensus need not be built on a vote, but I tried to make a first draft which I thought would likely be accepted by most of the people who have thus far participated in this opinion-gathering. —Nightstallion 11:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any authoritative reliable source that confirms your own POV that the use of kosovan and kosovar as adjectives in English are not neutral terms? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that's not my POV -- I'm quite certain "Kosovan" is neutral. It appears, though, that some ethnic Serbians find "Kosovar" offensive because of the Albanian -ar ending -- but that is only me deduction and WP:OR based on what some users stated in the debate; I haven't been able to verify that with independent sources. —Nightstallion 12:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Nightstallion, if I had read all that you had written above I would have realised that it is not you who has claimed that the use of Kosovo as an adjective was an "official or commonly used neutral constructions". My mistake and I apologise. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. —Nightstallion 15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The wise observation above that the votes either way, above, largely split along ethnic lines is a clear indication of the depth of feeling on the neutral use of language both in the real world and here. We need stable articles. Let's not reopen that debate. Good of Nightstatllion to frame a potential compromise. I for one support it, having started this debate along with Nightstallion elsewhere. I think the discussion above supports that compromise, taken on balance. I do remain of the opinion that questions of nationality are most closely connected to political institutions, and that the neutral form should be applied there if anywhere. Without wanting to prolong the discussion further, perhaps we can settle on Nightstallion's compromise but aim for a fudged title for election articles? 'Kosovo Assembly elections 2007', or some such? DSuser 15:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mh... Well, we could use the precedent from Scottish Parliament election, 2007 to make it Assembly of Kosovo election, 2007... —Nightstallion 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a compromise because to date no scholarly evidence has been provided to refute the view of the OED. There had been no scholarly evidence presented that Kosovan or Kosovar are not neutral terms in English and that they are not in common usage among parties who are disinterested in the political solution that is finally implemented for Kosovo. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That fact remains, yeah. —Nightstallion 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wount the scolary poit of wiev both serbs from Serbia and Albanian from Albania call all peopel from Kosova Kosovar (in serbien L. they juse the form Kosovcani, Kosovaci, Kosovaren und so one but never Kosovan becos this term is a political term and has nothing to do with scolary). The albanians from nord albania the last part of Kosov -ar (this part ar) spoke like the amerikans from Washington english, this ar is hard and is karakteistik for Malcia region of Albanian teritorys. The word Kosovan is High Serbian Languege and hase nothing to do with the serbs withc hase kontakt with the Kosovars. Is artificial word.

It seems to me it's been established that "Kosovar" indicated ethnicity. The use of "Kosovan" opens up all sorts of cans of worms. I could see agreeing (and annotating with first use) to "Kosovan" = "generic (not along ethnic lines) inhabitant of the Kosovo territory." So, we could describe the ethnic composition of "Kosovans" for example. But not use Kosovan as an adjective. I really don't see any impediment to just continuing to use Kosovo. It's quite clear, and it implies nothing that should not be inferred. The only objection to Kosovo as an adjective has been a desire to improve conformance to common English grammar--nice, but certainly not required, nouns are used unmodified as adjectives all the time. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what you evidence is that "it's been established that "Kosovar" indicated ethnicity". --Philip Baird Shearer 11:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just referring to the most recent discussions around the strong association of "Kosovar" with "Albanian" as well as what has been described as the origin of "Kosovar" meaning Albanian inhabitant of that area. It still seems to me that we're looking for an alternate where the current usage (Kosovo as noun and adjective) works perfectly well. Neither Kosovan nor Kosovar add any more precision or accuracy, and both are rife with the potential for misintepretation. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why change the name of the article ? THis is about the area 'Kosovo". Not an article about the people "Kosovans' or Albanian people of Kosovo "Kosovars". Hxseek 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this brings me on to compare Kosovo to Bosnia. I think we could use Kosovan for any person that lives in Kosovo, regardless of ethnicity, religion or any other criteria, leaving Kosovar for the ethnic albanian people. What do you think ? Spectrum_X

I don't think that's established use. The term is sometimes used for all residents of Kosovo, and that might create confusion. What's wrong with "Kosovo Albanians"? Nikola 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Or Kosovan Albanians. User:RideABicycle/Signature 16:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Either is fine with me at least. Nikola 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Spectrum X makes a good point, which certainly at face value makes sense, although I am not a linguistics expert Hxseek 02:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont know wery well english languige.But in english for the first time it was iused the word kosvar with meening the peopel from Kosovo. After this the sebian govermant labor hase lanchut the word in english Kosovan. This it was somthing thate howe the uper iuser said doubel word. So, in english dont exist the word kosovan, and dont exist the word kosovar, but the word kosovar was putit from english, europiaen peopel (jurnalist, politicans ect.) and the word kosovan from serbian propagander. Now you can take witch you wount.

Kosovan

This is a jock. How it kann be Kosovan. Kosovan is a serbian way to call some pepeol from Kosovo. This term vas createt becose of the sipaty about the outseiders for the albanian wort Kosovar. (They have hirt from peopels i capms in Macedonia and Albania). In fact the term Kosovan dont exist becose in Serbian Kosovo als souch dont exist. In sebian languege is Kosovo i Metohia. -- Hipi

So, if you say Kosovan then is meaing only the peopel from the Rrafshi i Kosoves (Kosovo) and the peopel from Metohia, how we shoull call they????

Also the international name for all peopel of Kosovo is Kosovar or Kosmeten (Kosovo-Metohia)

Upsss!!! For the sebian propagana. Kosovan is "autogoal" beacose with this term you are acepting Kosovan als Nation. hahahah

From serbian propagan point of view correkt it most be Kosovcanci or Kosovarci.

Archiving?

Can we please archive some old threads? There are entries dated March 2007 and the page is considerably long as it stands. It is costing me a fortune in mobile GPRS fees! Thanks, --Asterion^talk 21:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly Wikipedian! :-) Don't you know that following any talk page requires the "unlimited data" plan? That said, I share your pain if none is available for your service, having (first month of service) experienced a non-unlimited data usage GPRS bill myself! — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved to a flat-rate now but unfortunately I still have to pay last bill! ;) --Asterion^talk 08:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The oficial name

This articel is about Kosovo (under UN-Administraton) and not about Kosovo i Metohia (Serbian administration). If somebody wount to make the article Kosovo i Metohia he cann make it like Kosovo Vilajet. The otomans diden accept thate they have lose this terytory in year 1912, but the rest of the World well. It is the same situation. Of corse thate Serbia dont wount to accept. But, we need the facts. Kosovo is administratet from UNMIK, and the oficial languege is not anymore only serbian languege. It is the same in year 1912 in Kosovo oficial languege it was Ottoman languege and not the serbian languege from Ottoman poit of view. But, from the rest of the world was acceptyt like Serbian administration. If Kosovo today is part of Serbia then Kosovo it was part of Ottoman emparire till 1924. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.70.165.153 (talk)

Hipi zhdripi, shouldn't you be using your account rather than an anonymous IP address (per the requirements of the previous arbitration in which you were sanctioned?). -- ChrisO 08:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna nominate Hipi Zhdripi for adminship. --PaxEquilibrium 12:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi is banned from editing Kosovo and related articles anyway. If things continue as badly, I may well request semiprotection. --Asterion^talk 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I will contribute to this discussion in a positive way but..

Being from Serbia I'll try to present Serbian view on it. For quite few Serbs and especially those living in Kosovo term Kosovar causes some offence and it has implication solution of the status issue. In my view Albanias from Kosovo feel the same as they tend to insist on using this term. UN administration is aware of this issue so in their documents one will see that in most cases people there are referred to as Kosovo Albanians or Kosovo Serbs for institutions one will find as well that term Kosovo is prefered. In a way using term Kosovo as a noun and ajective is a compromise being that officially Serbian government refers to province as Kosovo and Metohija as someone has pointed out so if it would be according to Serbian government it would be elections for parliament of Kosovo And Metohija.

Hm In a way insisiting on use of Kosovar/Kosova in English is like insisting that Serbia be called Srbija, Serbs - Srbi and Belgrade Beograd since Serbs call it like that.

So if one does not want to cause offence to Serbs use Kosovo and wait till Kosovo gets independence for Kosovar and the similar terms.

I mean it's still not a nation and people living there are Albanians.

Having said that I can understand way Albanians want to use term Kosovar. Ah I hope the province will be soon independent or at least just official part of Serbia so Europe can waste money on it and we get rid of that trouble as we have enough of our own. --Nbumbic 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that "Kosova" is not so used in the English-language Western press, but "Kosovar" to describe the inhabitants of Kosovo is. And, as far as recent polls show, the majority of the Kosovar popluation don’t want to be part of Albania, but to be part of a new independent nation of Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.173.142 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hipi Zdripi what'sapi???

Can somebody please help me? Can someone please say what Hipi wants from me at User_talk:PaxEquilibrium? He's clodding my talk page as an anon with messages I simply cannot translate... --PaxEquilibrium 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrative map

Is it me or has the blue administrative map been modified? There are some darker blue traces on it, the font is no good as well and the overall looks like an amateur's job... Besides, I don't understand why there should be Albanian names on it, if the region is a part of Serbia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.57.165 (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Official languages

May these now include Turkish? Even at some regional level? I've noticed roadsignes include the Turkish name for the town. Given that the Albanian comes first, followed by a Latinic-only version of the Serbian (which might just be for the benefit of English speakers since English still uses Serbian names), and then Turkish; I am curious to know if the Turkish language has currently acquired greater importance. Evlekis 13:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo in the Middle-Ages

No respect abot the histor from serbian propagander. Lekë Dukagjini dont exist for the serbs propagander. The sebs are presenting here the Battel of Kosovo Feld as History of Kosovo. This secion how it is now it mos be called the hitory of Battel IN Kosovo and this is a WAR ARENA even 3% of Kosovo and the rest it was under Lekë Dukagjini. Kosovo today is not Kosovo area feeld from metel age. Your self hase maked propagander thate this Dardania shold be called Kosovo now the history of area from 3% of today Kosovo you are callen History of Kosovo. This area it was defendet from all chrits in thate time in Dardania. Today the Serbian Church hase the administrativ right over Kosovo and so every chricht of thate time is callen Serb Hero --Hipi Zhdripi 00:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The history of Kosovo stardet with Agron continuin to Dardania to Lekë Dukagjini with during the Ottoman invasion his centrum from Prishtina hase let to Lezh. The serb history of Kosovo Polje started als winner in Kosovo Beatel like the History of Kosovo Metohija from Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo War (in Kosovo Polje): Without crosing the Rive they say I didet this Rive belongs to me. After 100 years we are going to see Kosovo at Kosovo War was domineted from sebian population with 6% of Albanians.!!!!. NO, NO it was only a 40-50 years of military administration, 40-50 years of blood shet, wars with albanians --Hipi Zhdripi 01:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Revoking autonomy

On 23 March 1989 the Assembly of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo met in Pristina. The majority decided to revoke autonomy back to that which it was before 1971/4. However, only a part of ethnic Albanian MPs voted, the greatest part abstained as an act of protest and complete boycott of the movement. Despite not securing a two-third majority, Slobodan Milosevic used a simple majority and thus, unconstitutionally proclaimed the amendments to the Constitution of SAP Kosovo. On 28 March 1989 the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Serbia voted constitutional amendments of its own to promote the provincial act.

I don't have the will to include this into the article. Somebody should. --PaxEquilibrium 20:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo War Section

I would like to know more about the involvement of the western security forces and Al Qaeda in the KLA. How were they involved? Did the Western Security forces cooperate with Al Qaeda in dealing with the KLA? Or did they fight with Al Qaeda over the KLA? The source of this information is a book that I don't have. Could the editor of that section explain please? Thank You Shqarthi 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)shqarthi

It refers to alleged supply of arms and 'political encouragement' of the KLA terrorists/seperatists/'liberators'. This involves both Al-Qaeda (and other such Islamic terrorist) groups and western governkents supporting the KLA (ironic, yes). The western involvement mostly points to Germany (who has always, some may argue, pushed for the breaking of Yugoslavia) as well as the CIA Hxseek 02:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo's flag

the infobox misses a flag, or isn't there anyone defined yet, I want to be clarified in one possible option that is the one that looks totally similar as Albani'as one.--Andersmusician VOTE 18:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As the article on the Flag of Kosovo states, "there is no historical or current national or provincial flag that represents Kosovo's territory." Ethnic-Albanians use the Albanian flag and Serbs the Serbian one. For official purposes, the United Nations flag is used. — See also the section on the flag of Kosovo of this talk page :-) Best regards, Ev 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the link to upper section of this page--Andersmusician VOTE 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Improving the Ancient history section

I'd like to improve the Ancient history section of the article. It's quite good, however, presently there are no sources/references. The History of Kosovo article only contains one source, rastko.org. I'm not sure how reliable this source is, but given the sensitivity of the topice, it would be better to have another source/reference without such a clear link to either 'side'. Can anyone help me with good on-line sources? CheersOsli73 13:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, people. Rastko.org is clearly pro-Serb nationalist-expansionist website. Just see some texts posted there. I think we should trust more sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica, or something alike.

big disputes coming

You better prepare this article as a dispute, otherwise we'll be facing a lot of small yet obtrusive changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.99.226 (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive talks on article appearance ahead of predictable declaration of independence

Kosovo might well be declaring independence in the coming weeks. In order to prepare ourselves for the edit wars and disruption that will start on this article immediately after such declaration, perhaps we should start talking about the transformations this article will require once Kosovo has declared itself independent. For starters, should the article begin with "Kosovo is a province of Serbia" as it does now, or should it be changed to "Kosovo is a de facto independent republic"? And what should we do when countries start to recognize the Kosovar independence, while others don't? Should we adopt e.g. a Republic of China model in order to maintain some neutrality on the article? Hús ö nd 07:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Until the UN accepts Kosovo as an independent country and a member of the UN, we can't say it's a country. It does not matter who recognizes it, the UN has the final word. However, we could use several examples, such as Abkhazia and say that Kosovo is a "region in South Eastern Europe", and then mention it as being "de facto independent" (not using words such as "state" or "republic", which might be controversial). Then we should mention that, according to UN Resolution 1244 (and I doubt that it will be changed, because of Russian opposition), Kosovo is "still a province of Serbia, despite recognition by several countries such as _____"... I think that would please everyone. Husond, thanks for starting this topic ahead of time, it will give us chance to prepare for the possible declaration of independence of Kosovo. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the UN has nothing to do with it, Wikipedia is completely independent of UN official positions or decisions on any matter. Basically, as long as Kosovo declares its independence, there will be grounds for having this article written pretty much like others articles of sovereign nations. Especially if other countries recognize its independence, which is most likely. Hús ö nd 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article already looks a lot like articles of sovreign nations, and I was never against this. I helped with the infobox and still think that Kosovo's position in Europe should be shown. There are lots of territories that have proclaimed independence, some of them recognized by some countries, but that doesn't make a country independent. What makes a country independent is it's recognition as a full member of the UN. --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. What makes a country independent is its ability to govern itself and relate with other countries like a sovereign state. A political recognition is, above all, symbolical, as countries may even conduct political and commercial relations without recognizing the other's independence. Of course, the recognition of Kosovo's independence by the UN would bring complete recognition, but anyway the same will happen if only Russia and Serbia refuse to do so. Hús ö nd 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My, my.. someone hasn't read the Charter of the United Nations. I suggest you do so. Husond, according to you, Kosovo has been independent since 1999, when Yugoslavia lost governance over Kosovo. Only Russia and Serbia are against independence? Wrong again. 3/4 of the world are not ready to recognize Kosovo and are against it. You can't even find 14 countries in the EU in order to establish a unity within the EU concerning the Kosovo issue. America, Britain, France and Germany don't make up the world, but of course I agree to mention them and other countries who might recognize Kosovo (which are a minority - less than 1/4 of the world). --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think I read the entire charter but I'm not sure in what way should it contradict what I said. No, Kosovo hasn't been independent since 1999, not even de facto, because it hasn't been able to conduct its domestic and international matters all by itself. But, one thing is undeniable, Kosovo has been de facto independent from Serbia since 1999. A declaration of independence will initiate a de jure independence because the own country will start seeing itself as independent and other countries will be able to recognize it as so, and the creation of sovereign symbols and institutions in Kosovo will gradually create a de facto independence. The entire EU is likely to recognize Kosovo, with some mild concerns from Cyprus and a handful of other EU countries. Muslim countries are also going to recognize Kosovo. Then other will follow suit. In the end, I think that only Serbia will last, as even Russia is prone to drop its persistence in backing Serbia in a lost cause. Hús ö nd 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think using the Republic of China model is a great idea -- there are a number of usueful parallels.. Obviously Kosovo's status will be rejected by some countries in the world. That fact will have to be explained clearly and the historical context given. I would note that UN membership (or, for that matter, a UN Security Council decision) is *not* the standard that defines an independent country under international law. For example, Switzerland and the two Germanies (East and West) were clearly independent states, but not UN members for many years. Furthermore, UNSCR 1244 does not say that Kosovo is a "province of Serbia" or anything similar, although I can imagine that we would want to note that opinion since it is what Serbia and Russia will be saying. I think an appropriate formulation would be, "Kosovo is a state in southeastern Europe that is widely recognized as independent, but is considered by Serbia and some other countries (mostly notably Russai) to be under Serbian sovereignty." Envoy202 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Obviously Kosovo's status will be rejected by some countries in the world." - just to make this clearm Kosovo's possible independence will be rejected by a majority of the world (about 3/4 according to some sources). And actually I think you're right about the "province" thing, we can just say "part of Serbia" (the resolution uses FR Yugoslavia, but we can change that). "widely recognized as independent"? Thats going to cause trouble, with less than 1/4 of the world recognizing it, I don't see how it will be seen as "widely" recognized. Widely seen as a part of Serbia (according to the UN, Russia, Serbia, 3/4 of the world) would be more fair, no? Then add how some countries recognized it as independent. --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that the word "widely" would be used before widespread recognition of Kosovo's independence. When the first countries start recognizing it, the first paragraph should probably read something like "Kosovo is a country in southern Europe that is recognized as independent by some countries, while recognized as a province of Serbia by other countries". Hús ö nd 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Husond's language is reasonable. Considering the inevitable controversy, the safest course here is just to report the controversy. The reality is that there is no single definining criteria for independence. I've surfed some of the other Wikipedia pages that deal with disputed territories and found this issue to be quite vexing in other parts of the world. I seriously doubt that "a majority of the world" will reject Kosovo's independence. What is far more likely is that the United States and European Union will recognize, Russia/Serbia will loudly reject and most countries will simply not weigh in on the matter. The UN Security Council will remain deadlocked, suggesting that Kosovo will not join that international organizations any time soon (a UNSC referral to the General Assembly is needed for membership -- Russia would veto), although it might join other international organizations with different rules for membership. Envoy202 (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Envoy202 - we should simply state that "Kosovo is a state in SE Europe... although not recognized by the UN it is recognized by the United States and xxx. According to the Serbian constitution, Kosovo is still a province of Serbia" or something like that. How about it? No need to say things like "widely", "most" or "the majority of the world". What will be the position of China, might be worthwhile to note since it is a permanent member of the UNSC.Osli73 (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Osli makes some excellent points. First, I agree we should not use words like "widely," "most," "a few," "a minority," etc. Let's just state facts rather than make subjective judgments. Second, I think his "According to the Serbian constitution..." formulation is fantastic and should be used. Regarding the UN's role, however, the United Nations does not "recognize" countries (recognition a prerogative of states, not international organizations). If we want to discuss the UN's role, the right formulation would be "Kosovo is not a member state of the United Nations." Later in the articule we can describe the circumstances of its non-membership in the UN and other international organizations in which Russia is able to block its membership. Envoy202 (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Envoy202, of course you are right about the UN not "recognizing" countries. My mistake. I also support giving a more detailed description of the status of Kosovo in a separate section. As I see it, we still have to agree on wether to call Kosovo a "state", a "territory" or something else. I support calling it a "state" (just one that isn't a member of the UN or recognized by all countries). Much as Taiwan is a state.Osli73 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own definition of terms such as state, country, territory, etc, I think that "state" would be the most neutral one, as it implies some kind of self rule but not specifically independence. "Country" on the other hand does seem to imply independence or at least some type of sovereignty, whereas "territory" implies that it belongs to another entity. Hús ö nd 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"recognition [is] a prerogative of states, not international organizations" - would this mean that if one country recognizes a certain province or territory, it becomes a state? I believe Kosovo already declared independence in the early 1990s and Albania recognized it, despite the fact that the then Yugoslav government anulled the declaration, just like the Serbian government will anull any decision by Kosovo leaders today. The difference being that more countries will recognize it today, which begs the question, how many are necessary to make a province recognized as a country or state? If all it takes is for the US and some other countries to recognize it, I don't think it would be fair for us to recognize it on Wikipedia, we do not represent the views of Western governments, but present facts. We already say that Kosovo is de facto independent, which we all agree to. We can say that they declared independence, which, by the way, is in direct violation of UNSC Resolution 1244, UN Charter and the Final Helsinki Act of 1975. Therefore, the term "territory" would be most accurate and neutral. The first sentence is always the most tricky one. We can easily then explain what the fuss is about, mention how it is not recognized by the UN (according to which it is still within sovereign Serbia), despite declaration of independence in (insert date here) and the subsequent recognition of several Western countries, such as the United States, and so on. Then explain the whole Russia thing and how 3/4 of the world don't see it as independent. Then explain the whole status talks mumbo jumbo and how they failed to reach a compromise. In the end, say that it's still a controversial issue and a hot topic in the Balkans, something along those lines... That SHOULD do it, but I'm open to other ideas. :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, a country is independent (at least de facto) as long as it is not ruled by another state and is able to conduct its domestic and international affairs by itself. Which means that even if no country recognized the Republic of China, it would still be de facto independent because Taiwan (R.O.C.) would still run its business all by itself. Same with other states such as Transnistria, Nagorno Karabakh, etc, whose independence isn't recognized by any other country. they are de facto independent, although widely regarded as de jure being a part of other independent countries (in these cases Moldova and Azerbaijan, respectively). There is no number of countries "necessary to make a province recognized as a country or state". A country is seen as independent by those countries that have recognized it as such, case by case. Have my country Portugal for example. As soon as Portugal recognizes Kosovo, we may have an embassy there and Kosovo may have one here, we can make deals directly with the government of Kosovo, road maps of Europe published here will show Kosovo as a separate nation, and kids will learn at school that Kosovo is an independent country. Same will happen with all other countries that recognize the independence, regardless of whether the UN, Russia or Serbia recognize it or not. As for Wikipedia, acknowledging the independence of Kosovo has nothing to do with "representing the views of Western governments". We, like you said, describe facts, and it shall be a fact that Kosovo will be seen as independent to a series of countries. By the way, the whole thing about "Western governments" should really be dropped from serious discussions, that's just typical Russian rhetoric to refer to governments that do not agree with its views, not necessarily governments of the so-called western countries. The Cold War's over, the world changed a lot, so separating countries by West and East just makes no sense these days. Hús ö nd 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Husond. As for the question of "what makes a state independent?", the reality is that there is no simple answer to this. Entire books have been written about this question! There are multiple and competing theories (consider the "declarative theory" versus the "constitutive" theory) that try to answer this. I think the best suggestion I've seen so far on here is to follow the example of the Republic of China. That article uses the word "state," which I like. As Husond points out, there are other "states" that are not fully recognized or even recognized by anyone (namely, the frozen conflicts in the former Soviet space). Another option is to follow the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus precedent of "de facto independent republic." I don't like that as much, but it's another option. The TRNC article does a decent job of explaining its status in the first paragraph. Finally, I would only note on the side that the assertion that Kosovo independence is contrary to international law or UNSCR 1244 is not a universally shared interpretation (even if certain parties are screaming it the loudest!). :) Envoy202 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is not a "universal interpretation", it is the interpretation of the countries who signed and ratified it, which includes the United States, Italy, both the DDR and BRD, France, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia, to which Serbia is the unfortunate "heir". Considering the fact that these countries, except the lattermost; have been pushing independence the greatest, it is clearly in violation of laws that have been signed in and passed into affect. Countries who signed the agreement shall under Provision 1. a) II of Helsinki Final Act of 1975:

...refrain in their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations in general, from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State...Accordingly, the participating States will refrain from any acts constituting a threat of force or direct or indirect use of force against another participating State. Likewise they will refrain from any manifestation of force for the purpose of inducing another participating State to renounce the full exercise of its sovereign rights...No such threat or use of force will be employed as a means of settling disputes, or questions likely to give rise to disputes, between them.

Provision 1. a) III: Accordingly, they will also refrain from any demand for, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State.

Provision 1. a) IV: The participating States will likewise refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or other direct or indirect measures of force in contravention of international law, or the object of acquisition by means of such measures or the threat of them. No such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal.

Provision 1. a) V: For this purpose they will use such means as negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or other peaceful means of their own choice including any settlement procedure agreed to in advance of disputes to which they are parties.In the event of failure to reach a solution by any of the above peaceful means, the parties to a dispute will continue to seek a mutually agreed way to settle the dispute peacefully.

Provision 1. a) VI: The participating States will refrain from any intervention, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the internal or external affairs falling within the domestic jurisdiction of another participating State, regardless of their mutual relations. They will accordingly refrain from any form of armed intervention or threat of such intervention against another participating State. They will likewise in all circumstances refrain from any other act of military, or of political, economic or other coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by another participating State of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

Obviously, under these laws, the countries who signed are not complying with their declaration of "determination to respect and put into practice, each of them in its relations with all other participating States, irrespective of their political, economic or social systems as well as of their size, geographical location or level of economic development".

It should neither be classified as a state or country. Once Kosovo declares independence it will be the EU that will be in charge, for at least 120 days. It is "supervised" independence, so obviously all the characteristic of a state do not apply, as it literally says there is something that can supersede Kosovo's own government. "Region", at the moment of independence, is the most viable option. "Territory" would be the Serbian position, since currently that is what it is, and under their laws and international, remains so. Therefore, I propose the following: "Kosovo is a region in southeastern Europe that declared independence on xxx from Serbia with support from yyy, but in opposition to zzz." Anything further is to speculate at the moment. Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, well said. I would put the "that declared independence on...." in the next sentence, but I agree about the "region" part. --GOD OF JUSTICE 06:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So indeed. As far as I've read, only Serbia and Russia believe that a proclamation of independence by Kosovo goes straight against resolution 1244. We could mention that as well in a future section about the disputed independence. Now, I was just thinking about something quite important that needs to be discussed and decided upon as soon as possible: what are we going to do with world maps on Wikipedia after Kosovo declares independence? When should we carve a new country and basically redraw all maps? Probably not immediately after Kosovo declares independence, but as countries start to recognize it one by one, this will become a divisive issue. Should I start a request for comment and ask the community when should Kosovo start appearing as a separate country in our maps? Options could include 1)right after proclamation of independence; 2)after at least one recognition; 3)after X number of countries have recognized; 4)after the UN recognizes it; 5)after the US, where Wikipedia is hosted, recognizes it; 6)other option. Hús ö nd 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how where Wikipedia is hosted (the US) has any affect on the decision making of the content of Wikipedia, it is not here to satisfy, impress or further the goals of the American government or its people. This would be blatantly biased by any standards. Recognizing Kosovo the moment it declares independence and is accepted by at least one state, should have already occured, as Albania recognized an independent Kosovo. Turkey recognizes an independent Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, obviously double standards should not be at play. What does UN "recognition" mean, membership? Taiwan or the Republic of China, whichever you prefer, does not have the same problem as Kosovo because it is an island, therefore non-specific maps of the world deal with it easily because there is no border with anyone else. "X number of countries" will not solve the situation entirely, the Republic of China is internatinally recognized by very few countries, but governs itself, and is not a UN member. But, the Republic of China actually has a viable economy, and is "independent" of foreign financial support to run its government, while Kosovo obviously cannot be fend for itself without outside help. Québec is nearly independent of Canada when it comes to governing itself, but is not a state. Self governance alone does not decide whether something is a state or not. Neither do diplomatic institutions in foreign countries necessarily qualify as statehood. Just go to Berlin, the Brandenburger Tor and see what the first building to the right of it has waving above it, a Quebec flag. On the same street you have the Hungarian, Russian, and Canadian embassies to name a few. Further on you have the American one, but really the area around is just barricaded with concrete pillars. Even the Ferrari and Bentley dealerships around the corner do not have that much security. I suppose it would be aesthetically unpleasing for them. Anyways, in many ways Quebec is much closer on the path to being called a state than Kosovo will be.

There must at least be some sort of unanimous formal recognition with self governance, the latter which Kosovo will not be getting any time soon with the EU still running the show. So right now, maps should not be changing. If something like half the world states recognizes it, they achieve UN membership, and then actual self governance occurs, then you can definitively call it a state and make it appear so on Wikipedia maps. Otherwise, one is just making assumptions into whether it is a state based on the influence of the US or other select few countries. Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, regarding the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognized by Turkey, I've noticed that it does not appear in any political map as a separate entity in the articles Europe and Asia. Additionally, it also does not appear on the list of countries/regions in Asia, where only the Republic of Cyprus is listed. Hús ö nd 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A new Map! Ack...that will be a pain in the ass. I don't know how to find a compromise on that one. Perhaps you could do what the UN and I think even National Geographic do: where there is a territorial dispute, they clearly make a notation on the map that advertises the fact that this border is not 100% agreed. As for the TRNC, the analogy is not perfect: its statehood is only recognized by one country, Turkey, which happens to be the same country that invaded Cyprus in the 1970s. If we were having this debate on the Cyprus or TRNC pages, I think I'd come down on the side of *not* showing it on a map with equal status to other states. With Kosovo, it's a much trickier situation. Husond, I'm not quite sure how to answer your question about when to start showing Kosovo separately. My understanding is that initial recognitions from the big countries (France, Germany, UK, Italy, US) will happen very, very soon after a Coordinated Declaration of Independence (CDI) from Pristina. So we may have a critical mass relatively early -- that should help our Wiki deliberations! Envoy202 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether is it Germany, Liechtenstein, or even Cyprus that recognizes Kosovo, that is not the matter, there is no "big country", as Envoy202 likes to put it. The foreign negotiating parties are: the EU, Russia and the United States. Since all states, as people, are "legally" equal, it should not matter whether it is the group Germany, France, Italy, UK or the group Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Sudan, and Malaysia that recognizes, but instead the quantity of states that accept it. If the European Fantastic Four (Germany, Italy, France, UK), alone recognize, the EU's final position does not (should not) change, as the position is not held by the majority of EU member states. Assuming the moment that the Fantastic Four alone recognize it with the US, will result in a "...help [to] our wiki deliberations" is to assume those four have some sort of supremacy over the other EU states, and other states in general. This is also to assume these few states can by themselves solely dictate what is written within Wikipedia. Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that the "Fantastic Four" (as you name them) and the US would dictate what we write, but those countries are likely to be the first in a succession of countries that will recognize Kosovo. And the more countries recognizing its independence, the greater grounds we have for shifting the article from a Serbian province theme to a sovereign state theme. By the way, I agree that our content is and should remain free of the decisions/positions of those countries, but it should also be noted that our content is even freer of the decisions/positions of Serbia and Russia. Call it bad reputation for providing free, neutral information. Hús ö nd 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Husond, I'm surprised you're exhibiting such personal bias in this discussion, saying that the content should be free of the positions of Western countries (and I don't use it in the way you would define it - as countries that don't agree with Russia, but rather those who want to recognize Kosovo, which don't include Spain, Canada, Ireland and many other countries considered as the West by the world, just so we're clear on that) but even freer "of the decisions/positions of Serbia and Russia". So, positions of certain countries are more important than others, that is what you mean. As far as free, neutral information is concerned, I'd personally say that the United States uses much more propaganda than any other country in the world (one musn't go further from the Fox News scandal during the 2000 presidential election - example of media "accuracy", or the many "weapons of mass destruction" never found in Iraq - example of government sources "accuracy"). In my personal opinion, that is how I see it, but I also respect your opinion that the West provides more free, neutral information. However, Husond, these are OUR PERSONAL OPINIONS, we can't use them as facts in discussion, or else we could debate this thing forever. This means that everything I wrote above is useless to the discussion, just like your "bad reputation" point.

As far as "And the more countries recognizing its independence, the greater grounds we have for shifting the article from a Serbian province theme to a sovereign state theme" is concerned, Palestine is recognized by 108 countries in the world and the article on Wikipedia does not call it a sovereign country, but rather a region (some instances a "proposed country" which is not a country). Even the State of Palestine now redirects to Proposals for a Palestinian state which means that it's not a state either. I think you guys are running out of arguments, especially now that your bias has been revealed. Thucydides of Thrace: very good arguments, I agree with most of them. --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't start shooting accusations. Of course I am biased in this matter, everyone else is. I do support an independent Kosovo. No big deal, and I can't see why should that discredit my participation in this discussion. I think you misinterpreted what I said about the whole content free of this or that country. I just added to your argument about the content not being dictated by the positions of powerful countries that recognize Kosovo's independence, that the content is also not dictated by the positions of countries that will not recognize Kosovo's independence (which you apparently forgot or didn't care to mention). You are now embarking on a high trip of analysis of my views or my bias. Please don't, focusing on users instead of arguments never brings any productive feedback to a discussion. Now I should agree with you that information provided by many sources from the United States are far from reliable. For instance, Fox News you mentioned is likely tainted for eternity. But sources from Serbia are rarely free of a strong nationalistic POV. Well, except B92 I must say. It's also good that you brought the state of Palestine into the discussion. But again, we should analyze the differences/similarities between the State of Palestine and Kosovo instead of making an immediate critical approach sounding too much like "well if the article about Palestine doesn't resemble the one of a sovereign state, so the same should happen with Kosovo's". We should compare the two, compare with other similar situations, and find common ground. Preferably without ranting. Hús ö nd 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I originally supported calling an independent Kosovo a "state" I have to agree with Boze that the Palestine prescedent might have some bearing here. However,

could one argue that there is a difference in the amount of de facto control which Kosovo might be expected to have over its territory compared to Palestine be reason enough to still call it a "state"? Presumably a territory could be called a "state" if it exerts control over its borders, has a formal government, collects taxes etc, and is recognized by at least a large number of states?
maybe Palestine should be called a "state"
How about calling it a "state" or, if it raises less opposition, "country", but immediately saying that the international community has put limits on its sovereignty and that "a number of countries, including Russia and Serbia" (and maybe China) do not recognize it and that "Kosovo is not a member of the UN."

CheersOsli73 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the difference probably lies in the level of control each of them has to conduct its affairs. But I do agree with Thucydides of Thrace above that while this "supervised independence" lasts, we should refer to Kosovo as a "region" in the first paragraph. Hús ö nd 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Region" sounds good to me as well. Why, I do believe we've come to a compromise :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add, the EU is on the verge of a unitary decision to support a delayed independence of Kosovo. Cyprus is an exception, but it will probably never ever recognize it. And most of the talk here isn't "preemtive", but simply whether independence of Kosovo is legal - thus, it's off-topic. That we shall find out after 19 December 2007, when the United Nations Security Council discusses about Kosovo, possibly for the last time. Ahtisaari's proposal (or similar) will be perhaps brought about, and if so, Russia will veto it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we went off-topic sometimes here. But at least we came to some conclusions that will be essential to avoid a first paragraph edit war right after Kosovo proclaims its independence. Not bad. Hús ö nd 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo After The War

What is the importance of the information about stipends for Kosovar Serbs working for the government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.113.209 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] ttp://africanpress.wordpress.com/2007/02/02/norwegian-minister-in-support-of-un-plan/

[2] ttp://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.361011962&par=

[1]

[2]