Talk:Kosovo/Archive 23

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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Is North Kosovo still “out” of the republic of Kosovo government?

People editing this article should find out if there are Pristina-commanded customs control and/or Kosovo Protection Service people north of the Ibar river nowadays. If this is the case, we should alter the first paragraph description of Kosovo.--BalkanWalker (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo was admitted to IMF

I don’t know if this info could be put on the article somehow, but anyway, here’s the link of the news.--BalkanWalker (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

IMF officials declined to comment Tuesday, because the results hadn't yet been made public. -- at least wait for the IMF to actually issue some sort of statement. --dab (𒁳) 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It already did, on Friday: [1]. — Emil J. 10:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then it should definitely be noted in the article. I agree this is a further step towards international recognition. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Kosovo

I propose the name of the article should be changed to the Republic of Kosovo. This is not to suggest that Kosovo is a 'state' or has been recognized as one. It does however, represent the name of the country which the majority of people in the territory wish it to called. Moreover, the state proclaimed by Kosovo's authorities in 1991 had only Albania recognize it, but there is a Wikipedia article which refers to it as The Republic of Kosovo. This is very confusing for readers and not very clear. Changing the name of the article will also free up some of the space at the top of the 'Kosovo' page which makes the article look congested and highly fragmented. What do people think about this? Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Kosovo is an unrecognised unliterall state,unless it is fully recognised by at least half of the World,it cannot be independent!UN Resolution 1244 confirms it,or otherwise why not allow the Serb Republic,N Cyprus,South Ossetia etc to be independent.Kosovo and Metohia will remain an integral part of the Republic of Serbia,and as soon as you face that,it will be better.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by СРПСКИЦАР (talk • contribs) 20:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think renaming the article would solve much, the redirects would still be needed and the disambiguation at the top of the article sums up pretty well how controversial and confused the situation still is. P.S. Is it not fair practice to add new queries to the bottom of the page?Brutaldeluxe (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about that etiquette, but I'll continue here for now

I have two points of contention, one is regarding the name of the article and the other is how the article is structered: the situation surrounding Kosovo's independence is not as controversial and confused in reality. It has now technically gained entry in to the IMF: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db5f737a-39d6-11de-b82d-00144feabdc0.html. Even countries that refuse to accept Kosovo as independent, such as Greece, have voted in favor of it at the IMF. The article states: [joining the IMF is]...'a benchmark of economic credibility that would reassure investors and unlock hundreds of millions of euros more in economic aid...[to Kosovo]' If kosovo's status was as confused, or if Kosovo was as 'unstable' as the introduction to the article suggests, then the IMF would not risk its reputation and admit Kosovo as a member. The article needs to be more orientated towards the realities of Kosovo's independence, in the sense that Kosovo's affairs, whether foreign or domestic, are now directed from Pristina and not from Belgrade. Therefore, in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view, the article should have the name Kosovo uses to apply for international organisations such as the IMF which has 180+ members. Furthermore, the people of Kosovo are no longer under the control of Belgrade, neither de jure nor de facto as entry to the IMF and the fact that Kosovo is a potential candidate for entry in to the EU - the same status granted to Serbia - shows. However, having said all of this, offcourse there should be some reference to the Serbian side of the argument, but this does not have to be with regards to what the country is actually called in reality.

Furthermore, if we look at the article on Israel, we see that the state is introduced in a positive light, despite being constantly at war with the Palestinians, besides the fact that Israel goes against aspects of international law and despite the FACT that some of its neighbors do not have full diplomatic relations with it, Saudi Arabia comes to mind first. On the other hand, ALL of Kosovo's neighbors have recognized its independence and have FULL diplomatic relations with it - apart from Serbia that is. Again, the article should reflect this from the outset and not ramble on about its non recognition from Belgrade.

The article on Kosovo should undoubtedly make reference to the ongoing dispute between Kosovo and Serbia, but this should be done later on in the introduction to the article as is the case with the article on Israel, not immediately as is the case with the Kosovo article.

What do people think of this proposal to re-structure the article? Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your point on restructuring the article is valid and would make a positive change to it. Go for it, you have my 100% support for it. However, I still feel that "Republic of Kosovo" is at the moment a name used by Kosovars to remind people of their indipendent status, and it will probably remain as such. For example, and I aknowledge that it a different case, although the name for the Italian state is "Republic of Italy", the article about the country is called "Italy" and that's the name you see on the plaque during UN and EU meetings.

The reason that the Israel article gives such a rosey view of the country is that, like a lot of wiki articles, it is maintained by fans, plus the fact that Israel (and the countries that support it) has a large proportion of English speakers with internet access, things that its main detractors do not have. It's just a focus problem that exists in much of the English speaking world. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is protected, how do I gain access to edit? Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to make a certain number of edits on other articles first, to show that you are a genuine contributor. You'll find more info here: Wikipedia:Protect.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the article in acordance to the discussions I have had with Brutaldeluxe. I would now like to discuss removing the redirect links on top of the page to make it look more presentable, esspecially the one linking Yugoslavia, none of the ex-Yugoslav regions have this link. In fact, it would be better to remove all of the redirect links, as they cluster the article and makes it look too fragmented. I propose outlining all of Kosovo's various names and statuses in the history of Kosovo section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedinfairness (talk • contribs)

what "discussions"? Your lead reads:

Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës) ... is a self declared state in Europe ... Kosovo is a constitutional republic located at the heart of the Balkans

blatantly ignoring anything that has been discussed on this page over the past year. There is no way you had a consensus for such an edit, and your revert back to it obviously violates article probation. Republika e Kosovës is obviously the Albanian for "Republic of Kosovo", not for "Kosovo". "Kosovo" is a region. The "Republic of Kosovo" is a self-declared state. I have myself proposed to create an article on the Republic of Kosovo in the past, but I did not find consensus, and consequently the article wasn't created. WP:CONSENSUS isn't some nice optional extra. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

History

I will revise the history bit as soon as I have enough time, it is lacking in proper evidence and has some dubious claims. I will have in hand my Noel Malcolm, George Gawlrych, Isa Blumi and other books in hand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedinfairness (talk • contribs) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wanna fess up to deleting my edits on the article yesterday???

The edit was:

the Albanian government of the Republic of Kosovo has de facto control over the territory (apart from Kosovska Mitrovica) (------------ (you see I also used the Serbian spelling of the city!!!! and it still gets deleted.) Apart from Serbia, Kosovo is recognized by all the former states that emerged from the collapse of Yugoslavia. What is wrong with that edit? Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete your edit; instead I merely attempted to better integrate it into the more-or-less stable lead section (and explained so in my edit summary - diff.). - Best, Ev (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for that, but you did deleted the bit about all the former Yugoslav countries recognizing Kosovo (apart from Serbia). This is important since it is the disintegration of Yugoslavia which has led to the current situation and also informs the audience about some of the background issues regarding this issue. And since you do not explain the reason for this I will add that statement again. Thanks for your help. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict: I had realized I had not given a full answer, and was expanding my previous comment into the following :-)

I did not delete all your edit:

The first sentence (on territorial control) was merely moved by me in an attempt to better integrate it into the more-or-less stable lead section (and explained so in my edit summary - diff.).
The second sentence (on ex-Yugoslav recognition) was first corrected by EmilJ (diff.) because it was inaccurate, and then removed altoghether by me (diff.), because I considered it repetitive & unnecessary for the lead section. Serbia's position was already mentioned in the lead, while the details about the other former Yugoslav countries do not, in my opinion, merit mention there. Those details are given in the "2008 declaration of independence" section & related articles (I explained so in my edit summary - diff.).

Best, Ev (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified the lead section as to the role of EULEX and the now defunct role of UNMIK. Secondly, as I said earlier, all of the former Yugoslav states recognize Kosovo and provides a useful link to how the current situation has unfolded. I regret that you do not see the significance of all of Kosovo's neighbors recognizing it. Also you removed Kosovo's admittance into the IMF, pleas refrain from removing relevant material from the article - IMF membership strengthens Kosovos desire for statehood. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The three points:

EULEX: discussed below, at the EULEX section of this talk page.
Former Yugoslav states: in my opinion, for the lead's summary, the sentence mentioning that "[Kosovo's] independence is recognised by [X] UN member states [& Taiwan]" is enough. All the rest, including such details as the reactions by their neighbours, are better presented in the article's body (more precisely, in the "2008 declaration of independence" section, which currently dedicates a paragraph to the issue, stating that "all of Kosovo's immediate neighbour states except Serbia have recognised..."). I think that this organization constitutes the current consensus on the issue, but we can ask other editors if they prefer to add those details to the lead. In any case, the blanked statement is not accurate: neither Serbia nor Bosnia recognize Kosovo's independence.
IMF mention: I did not remove the mention of the IMF; I moved it to the "2008 declaration of independence" section (as my edit summary explains - diff.).

Best, Ev (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article is in an absolutely shambolic state. I propose not taking any Serbian and to appease those Serbs, no Albanian sources either, with regards to the sourcing of topics. The Great Serb Migration is a myth, if it was not so, there would be more than a Serbian author sourced, check out the article. Furthermore, I will edit this in detail very soon, and I will only use NON BALKAN authors to ensure a neutral point of view. Again this article is in a ridiculous state and if any one can help sort it out in the meantime, feel free. I suggest Noel Malcolm (Oxford scholar and not from the Balkans!). Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have edited, Economy, Rule of Law and Military sections of the article with proper links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedinfairness (talk • contribs) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Interestedinfairness, I was gonna keep out of this, but you called for my opinion, I've been away and not able to follow the discussion and since I feel that when I said:

Your point on restructuring the article is valid and would make a positive change to it. Go for it, you have my 100% support for it I did not explain myself properly, here's a few points:

disagree with splitting the article, in any shape or form: people have heard of Kosovo, let the article explain what Kosovo is about.
agree that the article is a mess. It should be eradicated of all [dispute] notes, or anything of the sort, that's what I meant with restructuring.
agree that no authors or sources from the Balkans should be used, but this also makes it hard to be completely inclusive about the subject, so if something cannot be verified, it should be deleted.
disagree with bashing a new user who hasn't been following ongoing disputes.

Brutaldeluxe (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Cinema is edit warring as he reverted twice without discussion!

Cinema is edit warring as he undid tiwce without discussion! Please block him! Thank you. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR. And you aren't discussing why you're reverting my edits. I explained about Noel Malcolm earlier. So please STOP REVERTING. Thanks, --Cinéma C 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you did not. And saying he is ranting is nonsense, he is a well known historian! --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people are well-known and biased at the same time. Does this surprise you? And me saying that he is 'ranting' was not my argument, so look harder. --Cinéma C 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that asking for me being blocked after removing a heavily POV piece of text, and then having to undo your revert is quite extreme for Wikipedia. I suggest you assume good faith next time before you attack an editor who thinks differently than you do. All the best, --Cinéma C 22:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Masu shut up, we don't block like that--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't shut up but cite: "your edit... was reverted. You then reverted back. This usually wouldn't be a big deal, but on Kosovo, which is under article probation, it is enough to buy you a block.": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Interestedinfairness&diff=290311598&oldid=290305603 so if you do not want to apply double standard you have to block him alike. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you consult Cinema before starting a topic on him in the discussion? It makes it seem as though your real intentions lie in removing/barring the user from editing, rather than looking for an acceptable solution. --Bolonium (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If people talk about Kosovo they mean the Republic of Kosovo, not the "Region"

By the way, the region "Kosovo" is not the same as it was about 100 years ago, compare Vilayet of Kosovo. But when people talk nowadays about Kosovo they mean the new state, see all other Wikipedias, dear Dieter Bachmann from Switzerland. So stop your pro serbian POV and look at all the other Wikipedias, please! --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

yes? I have no idea why you are addressing me personally, "Mustafa", but I will be happy to support the creation of a separate Republic of Kosovo article.

I don't suppose it is open to doubt that Kosovo is a disputed territory. The territory is disputed between two Republics, the self-declared and partially recognized "Republic of Kosovo" on one hand, and the "Republic of Serbia" on the other. I don't see why you need this pointed out to you personally, you could just read the article. May I suggest that maybe you have an opinion on this dispute? Maybe you think one side is "right"? Then you should refrain from editing the article until you have understood WP:TRUTH, and any edit you make must be from a position detached from your personal opinion. In fact, it will be easiest if you try and collect material on the position you do not support (known as "Wikipedia:writing for the enemy").

If you take your own advice and "check all Wikipedias", you will find that many of these articles mirror our lead exactly. Of course you need some language skills to verify this.

Ко́сово (сербск. Косово, алб. Kosova; согласно юрисдикции властей, фактически контролирующих большую часть региона — Респу́блика Ко́сово (алб. Republika e Kosovës, сербск. Република Косово), согласно юрисдикции Сербии — Автоно́мный кра́й Ко́сово и Мето́хия (сербск. Аутономна покрајина Косово и Метохија, сокр. сербск. Космет)) — регион на Балканском полуострове.
Kosovo o Kósovo ... es un territorio ubicado en la península de los Balcanes ... El estatus de Kosovo es motivo de disputa. Serbia considera que Kosovo es una provincia autónoma dentro de su propio territorio, en cumplimiento de la Resolución 1244 de Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas. ... El gobierno provisional de Kosovo declaró unilateralmente su independencia de Serbia el 17 de febrero de 2008 con el apoyo de Estados Unidos y parte de la Unión Europea, instaurando la República de Kosovo. Serbia, Rusia, España y otros países no aceptaron este hecho unilateral ni reconocen a la República de Kosovo como Estado soberano.
Kosovo ... är ett omstritt territorium och en delvis internationellt erkänd republik i Sydosteuropa, vilken dock Serbien anser vara en del av sitt suveräna territorium i form av en autonom provins. Den 17 februari 2008 förklarade sig Kosovo självständigt från Serbien. Reaktionen från omvärlden har varit blandad.
Το Κοσσυφοπέδιο ή Κόσοβο ... είναι μια περιοχή των Βαλκανίων (πρώην επαρχία της Σερβίας), η οποία από το 1999 βρίσκεται υπό την προσωρινή διοίκηση του ΟΗΕ και την στρατιωτική προστασία του ΝΑΤΟ.

and so on, and so forth.

Of course arguing that we need to violate NPOV because you found some other article on some other wiki project that violates NPOV is a non-starter, known as the WP:OTHERCRAP fallacy. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But no language skills needed to see that in all this articles the country box is on top, suggesting this is about the country and not about a "region". --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

oh, you are here for infobox edit-wars? Then I apologize I took this seriously for a minute there. I like to maintain the illusion that the actual text matters, but I realize some people think "read the article" means "lookie at the pictures". --dab (𒁳) 13:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First step to improve the article would be to put county box on top like in all other wikipedias, then we can talk about the more difficult and less obvious things. --84.56.239.92 (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just give it up? Since the beginning you are trying to fool us by telling us that "Kosovo" means the region. But nowadays region is the state, there is no differece. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah, as in Ко́сово — регион на Балканском полуострове or Το Κοσσυφοπέδιο ... είναι μια περιοχή των Βαλκανίων , or ''Kosovo o Kósovo ... es un territorio ubicado en la península de los Balcanes. Also, stop breaking up my comments. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, they all show the Flag of the Republic of Kosovo on top, making clear what the topic is about. We should do the same. --84.56.239.92 (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

so you complain about the order of infoboxes, or the article layout and its image selection, and not about any of the actual content of the article? Then I would ask you, if the article text makes clear that this is the article about a region in the Balkans, why, according to WP:IMG or MOS:IMAGES, would you argue the uppermost image needs to be a flag designed in 2008? Republic of Kosovo redirects here. This article has a "Republic of Kosovo" section. As long as we do not create a dedicated Republic of Kosovo article, our layout guidelines state clearly that images relevant to the 2008 Republic of Kosovo specifically should be placed in the section dedicated to the 2008 Republic of Kosovo.

this is my take on the situation. Needless to say, if you have convincing arguments, you may conduct a strawpoll, and if you find a clear majority ("consensus") of editors agreeing with you, your edit will be implemented no matter what I think. So, if you have any argument beyond WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERCRAP, now would be a good time to present it. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You say: "Then I would ask you, if the article text makes clear that this is the article about a region in the Balkans, why, according to WP:IMG or MOS:IMAGES, would you argue the uppermost image needs to be a flag designed in 2008?" I say again and again and again that this article is not about the region but about the country. How often do I need to repeat this? It is even written on top of this section: "If people talk about Kosovo they mean the Republic of Kosovo, not the "Region"". What exactly you do not understand? --84.56.239.92 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to repeat it, you need to read the lead, which states unambiguously that you are wrong. If you want to rewrite the lead, the burden lies on you to find consensus first. One you have consensus to rewrite the lead, we can of course also change image layout to reflect the changes.

Tubesship, I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me, ok? So why don't you present a clean proposal and see if you get consensus. I will vote oppose, but if you get four people to support you, and nobody else to support me, you'll have an impeccable 80% consensus and you'll be free to do your changes anyway. This isn't an invitation to sock or meatpuppetry. By "people" I mean "Wikipedia editors in good standing". --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

When people talk about "Kosovo", it all depends on context to whether they are talking about the region or the country. This article is about both the region and the country. So I see no problem. Obviously when some Serbian politicians refer to Kosovo as KiM or Kosmet they are obviously refer to the region Kosovo, not the country. Ijanderson (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose a separate Republic of Kosovo article. Dab seems to be in favor, Bruteldelux I seek your opinion on this too, as well as anybody else interested in this discussion. Interestedinfairness (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Like Anderson said, if you want to separate into "Republic of Kosovo" and the region, you should name the region article accordingly, maybe Kosmet or Vilayet of Kosovo or Region of Kosovo and leave the article Kosovo about the Republic of Kosovo. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

see China, which is neither a redirect to People's Republic of China nor to Republic of China. If there is no consensus at all, Kosovo will just need to redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation). Nobody will be able to claim that this would support any sort of "pov". --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

These are two different entities, Kosovo is the same spot on earth. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough DAB, I think the article on China is a great example of how it should be separated. With your consent, I will begin work on the Republic of Kosovo article now. I understand your point mustamann but lets not bicker about it, the republic of kosovo article will work Interestedinfairness (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, you need to understand that the current state of the article has a long history of debate. While I would agree to a separate Republic of Kosovo article, others have disagreed, even if we're discounting Tubesship-Mustamann as disingenious. You will need to make the proposal here, and then wait for a couple of days for others to comment. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. --dab (𒁳) 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been proposals for three separate articles before:

Republic of Kosovo
Kosmet/ KiH article with UNMIK/ EULEX
Kosovo region with geography ect

We could reopen this discussion I suppose. But if we do create these three articles, I strongly suggest that the article page "Kosovo" should be a disambiguation, this will help maintain NPOV and not be biased, plus readers can easily find the correct the article they are looking for.

We should start a poll to see if there is enough to support to go along with this proposal for. But this should not be the grounds for creating the three articles, just to see if there is enough interest for doing so. Ijanderson (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think that the current state with three boxes is the most neutral and the most reflective of the situation on the ground. It's not simple but the status of Kosovo is far from simple as well.--Avala (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

dab, you live in Switzerland and so do I. Do you read newspapers? I think you do. Do you hear what newspapers, politicians and people write or say? I think you do. And what do they think when they say 'Kosovo'? Do they think about the region or the country? To me, it's obvious, maybe it's not your point of view and it could only make more difference between Swiss French like me and Swiss German like you (joke =] ). To me, the best thing to do is to change the begining of the article by saying that Kosovo is a partially-recognised Republic AND is considered as a province of Serbia by Serbia and other countries. It's obvious that when we talk about Kosovo we talk about a country OR a province of Serbia ; and that clearly shows that nobody continues to only consider Kosovo as a region but as a country or a province. Best greetings dab :) !--89.217.72.16 (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. This whole "region" argument is pure distraction, nothing else. --84.56.239.92 (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well since there seems to be no consensus in splitting the article, and so much consensus that Kosovo should in fact be renamed to the Republic of Kosovo, then why don't we just change the name? Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and would do so but doing this would say that the article is 'Albanian-POV', I bet everything people would come and say that ... --89.217.72.16 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No such rename will take place. Naming this article Republic of Kosovo would be just as biased as naming it Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. - Ev (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why not SPLIT off articles on EACH of those two entities, leaving this article for the region and to serve as a central guidepost to the more detailed articles? Khajidha (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I think that our readers would find it easier to understand Kosovo's convoluted realities by being presented with one single, comprehensive article. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Split article

My aim here is to reach a consensus, as per Wikipedia's policy of consensus, see: Wikipedia:consensus. Firstly, after having read numerous pages of the talkpage, and understanding that this article has a long history of debate, I have come to the conclusion that this article should be split (actually Dab suggested it but I am proposing it). According to this proposition, Kosovo will redirect to disambiguation - much like the article on China. Kosovo the region will remain in its current state which is in a constant state of confusion and semi-protection to underscore the "confused state" of Kosovo's independence - a view held by some.

Another article - the Repulic of Kosovo - will be created to enlighten readers to the de facto control the Kosovar-Albanian authorities have in the running of the region and the support it has recieved from most Western, English speaking countries and so forth.

What do people think, as has been mentioned above, dab is an agreement, so am I (off course), who else? Interestedinfairness (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree I would support that, please see my three way proposal above though first. Ijanderson (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Disagree, Kosovo is the newborn state, everything else should have another article name. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to POV biased users such as Mustafa Mustamann, we will never get things resolved. We must be willing to compromise. Ijanderson (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Anderson, look at all the other wikipedias and dare to say again I am the povish one. All other Wikipedias have no disambiguation but the country box on top and an article named plainly Kosovo for the newborn state. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

therefore all other wikipedia's most not be as neutral and be biased. I edit the German wikipedia and yes they have the info box at the top ect, I find that not to be as neutral. Also there are many pro Serbian editors on English wikipedia, therefore think they are going to be happy if we make POV pro Kosovo edits, thats why we should compromise. Ijanderson (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I find focussing this article on the Republic would be very neutral as it would reflect that people talking about Kosovo usually refer to the newborn state and so should this article. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I would agree with Mustafa in principle, but I think we definitely need some sort of consensus, therefore I suggest you reconsider your vote. Nevertheless, this is constructive so lets see how many more opinions we can get. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - I think it's good the way it is.--Avala (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Avala, the Kosovo page has numerous inaccuracies,

---the neutrality of the article is disputed

---the article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text

Can you please eloborate on why you think 'it's good the way it is'. Thanks. Any more views from people? Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite clearly we have no consensus already, so its best to end the discussion here in my opinion. Ijanderson (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One Serb and one Albanian not willing to budge shouldn't stop this process. We should keep it going for a while and see how it goes. Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you consider my reasoning that people talking about Kosovo usually refer to the newborn state and therefore this article should be about the Republic?! --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Because pro Serbian editors would NEVER agree to it Ijanderson (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also it can not only be about the Republic of Kosovo, it must include that it is a disputed territory, it must include UNMIK & EULEX too, and we must include that Serbia still claims it. Also not everyone who talks about Kosovo talks about the the country Rep of Kosovo. We need to be NPOV. Ijanderson (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - Nowadays, nobody thinks of Kosovo as a region, but as a country (for the ones who recognise the independance) or as a province of Serbia. I ask Wikipedia users to respect my point of view as I respected theirs and not to try to persuade me in any way. Please, accept the fact that we can agree (as Ijanderson did for example) but that we can also disagree. --89.217.72.16 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with a split. I think that our readers would find it easier to understand Kosovo's convoluted realities by being presented with one single, comprehensive article. - In any case, infobox fetishism should never be allowed to dictate how we organize content. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - the comparison with China does not make sense as the PRC and the ROC occupy different territories (even though they claim each other's territory too). In the case of Kosovo, we're speaking of one geographic territory which is disputed between the Republic of Kosovo (which controls most of it) and Serbia. If you split the article, you'll end up with two totally biased articles - the Republic of Kosovo article showing the Kosovar POV and a Province of Kosovo with the Serbian POV. The only way to try to achieve a neutral POV is by only having one article. If the current one is not up to it, then try to improve the article. Khuft (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And that is exactly the same as in the China situation, both are territory disputes between two countries one which controls most of it. chan dler ··· 20:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The Republic of Kosovo does not claim the full territory of Serbia. In the case of China, two states calling themselves "China" on two separate territories claim the sum of both territories and pretend to be the sole representatives of "China". The Kosovo situation is rather more like the situation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Somaliland or Western Sahara - with the difference that it is by now recognised by many more countries. Creating two or more articles on Kosovo would be like creating two or more articles on Abkhazia. Khuft (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - If we wanted to be neutral we would have kosovo be about the region and two articles for the country and province of kosovo. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - per Khuft's logic. No need to create duplicate, POV-clashing articles about the same region. --Tocino 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with splitting the article, in fact I've mentioned this idea before. We need a central article that would give an overview of the fluctuations in area and control over the past several centuries and then link to larger articles covering each period/government. Khajidha (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (forgot to log in, coming back to fix)

Khajidha, we already do that. Check the current "History" section, and see all the "Main article" & "Further information" links provided after each sub-section heading. - Ev (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I was including the current Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo under "each period/government", which IS NOT done in those links. Those two are BOTH subsumed in this article and it suffers for it. Khajidha (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

EULEX

Why oh Why has the edit that clarifies the now defunct operation of UNMIK and introduces EULEX been deleted. I do nopt want to enter into an editwaring situation but I am forced to because of POV elemetents on here. Will an admin with some sense come and sort this out. P.S. thank you for your opinion Brutelex. Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This deletion is an act of vandalism as it is done without discussion and against the will of another user. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Mustafa, that description does not fit our definition of vandalism (which is amongst the most misused words in Wikipedia anyway). Please, use the word carefully. — Also, be mindful of our copyrights policy. The text you re-introduced (lifted verbatim from http://www.eulex-kosovo.eu/?id=2) is under copyright. As mentioned below, I have replaced it with a single brief mention (diff.). - Best, Ev (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, that is too much detail for the lead section's summary. I have reduced it to a single sentence: "came under the interim administration of the United Nations (UNMIK), whose role was partially assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in 2008." (diff.) — Details should be given in the "2008 declaration of independence" and "Rule of law" sections, but always briefly, reserving the detailed descriptions for the article on EULEX itself. — Also, be mindful of our copyrights policy. The text you introduced (lifted verbatim from http://www.eulex-kosovo.eu/?id=2) is under copyright. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I thank you, but if you check the disclaimer, you will see that...EULEX Kosovo shall be credited as source when using content from its website. it was credited before, but thanks for your vigilance, I wasn't all that aware of copyright rules. I will reinstate this and add a little extra to your edit, namely removing the partially assumed bit because as you know its more then partially taken over from UNMIK. Furthermore, I will add IMF membership to the article. Thanks for your help, and just as a side-note, you might wanna check out Serbia Talk. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, three points:

Copyright: as my edit summary indicated, I did check the Copyright and Disclaimer of Liability. That permission would be enough for most publications, but to include text in Wikipedia it has to be from websites with a GFDL-compatible license (there's a big bolded warning to this effect below the editing window :-). So, that permission does not allow for the incorporation of that text into our articles.
UNMIK/EULEX: the word partially was an understatment, yes, and I didn't feel comfortable with it. I just didn't stop to think of something better. Notice however that some qualification is needed, because EULEX did not replaced UNMIK in all roles. - What would you use intead of "partially" ? I propose "most of whose roles were assumed" (diff.).
IMF: the IMF issue is already mentioned in the article, at the "2008 declaration of independence" section (I moved it there from the lead - diff.). - Furthermore, that IMF Press Release (No. 09/158, of 8 May 2009) says that Kosovo has been offered membership, not that it is already a member. - I have thus removed that inaccurate mention from the lead (diff.).

Best, Ev (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Kosovo applied for membership, the IMF offered it membership...I think its fair to assume it is a member of the IMF? Furthermore, I will agree with your rewording of the sentence regarding EULEX but I insist on the word 'de facto' being in bold as it highlights a very important point. Nevertheless, I thank you for your continued presence on this page. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo seems not yet to be a member of the IMF. The above-mentioned press release says the following: "The Republic of Kosovo will become a member of the IMF when its authorized representative signs the IMF’s Articles of Agreement in Washington D.C. Before signing the Articles, the Republic of Kosovo must formally accept, in accordance with its own laws, the IMF’s Articles of Agreement and all the terms and conditions prescribed in the Board of Governors’ resolution, and confirm that it has taken all steps necessary to enable it to carry out all its obligations under those two documents." I have no idea where the formal process currently stands, but the IMF website gives no indication that it has finished yet. Khuft (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, when you ask for a car & are offered one by the vendor, it is not fair to assume that you already own that car; for that to happen further steps are required. Applying for IMF membership and being offered it is not all it takes to actually being a member (of the IMF or of any other organisation). As Khuft mentions above, the very IMF press release indicates what further steps are required, the final one being "[Kosovo's] authorized representative sign[ing] the IMF’s Articles of Agreement in Washington D.C."

For anyone who doesn't understand how this process works, and when membership becomes effective, the simplest answer is to check the list of IMF's members and wait for Kosovo to be included there.

Regarding the need to highlight "de facto", Wikipedia uses italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text (as explained in our Manual of Style guideline for text formatting). - Best, Ev (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't de facto be italicized anyway as it is a Latin phrase used in English? At least I was always told that foreign words should be italicized unless they have become fully assimilated (example: no one would italicize burrito, even though it is a Spanish word). De facto seems to still maintain the sense of foreignness that requires italics, therefore it would be emphasized by using bold and italics (de facto). Or am I missing something? Khajidha (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be italicized anyway. :-) But that fact doesn't diminish the emphasis the italics convey to that particular wording. In any case, as our Manual of Style mentions, Wikipedia does not use boldface to emphasize such information, but for other purposes. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Place names

I have seen the talk on here but I refer you all to the british foreign office website, which, besides the fact that the U.K. has recognized Kosovo as an independent state, still maintains a neutral stance. I think we should adopt a similar style when naming the cities of Kosovo. I.E. - Prishtina/Pristina (can't do the Serbian one) Peja/Pec, Mitrovica/Kosovoska Mitrovica, Gjakova/Dakova

What do people think, its more mature then this childish, one albanian one serb one, don't you think? Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified some of the innacurate statements of the introduction, namely regarding Kosovo's status within Yugoslavia, hopefully this will go some way in removing that non-neutral tag on top of the page. By the way, the source is Noel Malcolm, the only neutral author on Kosovo's history we have available to us, in English. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Or we could use the English spellings of the native language version. If the native language is Serbian, we shall use English Alphabet translations of the Serbian. IT is simpler just to use Albanian. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Some one is hijacking my edits, this is unacceptable, the sources are being messed around with to make the article look non-neutral. What is going on??? This is the source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/26/kosovo.serbia Any admins around? Interestedinfairness Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And yes Jakezing I would agree with you. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, if Noel Malcolm is the only neutral author when it comes to Kosovo, then one really has to question how some people on this talk page define "neutral". Also, I'd stand clear of such statements as "the ONLY neutral one" as that by itself is not an argument of any kind.

Secondly, the place names should be in Serbian - not just because Kosovo is, according to UN Security Council Resolution 1244 a part of Serbia, and only a minority of countries in the world are ignoring that and going ahead with their geopolitical policies, but because the place names are largely Serbian in origin. The Albanian versions are the same words written differently, in the spirit of their language. --Cinéma C 21:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is just the other way round, the names are from Albanian origins and the Serbs try to slavify them. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't really make an argument. But every one can see that, so I'll disregard your comment about the source. Your argument about Serbian place names is also weak. But I'm not here to discuss history, I'm here to ask for some sort of consistency, and Albanian first, Serbian second seems consistent with the article. Thanks

Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Or we could use the language of the governing body of the territory, which is kosovo. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The governing body in Kosovo is the UN. In case some of you forgot. --Cinéma C 22:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the United Nations hold political power? Does it hold legislative or judicial power? The governing body on kosovo territory is current a mix of some of the european thing, whatevers left of the UN group, and the majority being the republic. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For the specific purposes of our naming conventions, who holds power is mostly irrelevant. In any case, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Thank you, Jake! --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. Most of the place names are of Serbian / Slavic origin, while some are of Roman origin.

Priština - derived from a Slavic form Prišьčь, a possessive adjective from the personal name Prišьkъ

Kosovska Mitrovica - means "Mitrovica of Kosovo", while "Mitrovica" itself stems from the name "Saint Demetrius" or "Sveti Dimitrije" in Serbian

Suva Reka - means "dry river" in Serbian

Podujevo - derives from founder of city Poduj which was an old Serbian name

Peć - known as Pescium during the Roman era, means "furnace" in Serbian

Orahovac - from the Serbian word orah (орах), meaning "walnut"

Kosovska Kamenica - based on the Serbian word kamen (a stone or a rock)

Kosovo Polje - literally "Kosovo Field"or "blackbird field" in Serbian

Istok - from the archaic version of the Serbian word istok (modern version istek), meaning "well, water source" referring to the springs of the Istočka river

Dragaš - named after Constantine Dragaš, a regional semi-independent lord in the fragmenting Serbian realm centered at Velbăžd

Đakovica - either derives from the Serbian word đak (pupil) from earlier d(i)jak or it is named after one of the large land-owners of the area, Jak Vula

Lipljan - in Roman times known as Ulpiana from which the name Lipljan is derived

Srbica - I'll let you guess this one on your own

Uroševac - derives its name from the medieval Stefan Uroš V of Serbia, Saint Uroš, who is commemorated by a cathedral in the town.. the Albanians called it Ferizaj because of some Albanian hotel in the area, owned by Feriz Shashivari

Novo Brdo - means "New Hill" in Serbian

Vučitrn - means "wolf's thorn", the name of the spiny restharrow plant in Serbian, known as Vicianum during the Roman era.

Obilić - refers to Miloš Obilić who is regarded as a Serbian hero of the 1389 Battle of Kosovo

And so on... If you look at the Albanian names "Prishtinë", "Mitrovicë", "Suharekë", "Podujevë", "Peja", "Rahovec", "Kamenica", "Fushë Kosovë", "Istog", "Dragash", "Gjakova", "Lipjan", "Novobërdë", "Vushtrria" or "Obiliq", you'll see that they're all mostly Serbian words "with an Albanian twist". --Cinéma C 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear: for the specific purpose of using names in the articles of the English-language Wikipedia, etymology is absolutely irrelevant. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Long explanation:
The place names used in our articles are decided in accoradence to our general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names. Their main criterion is that we "should prefer [the names] the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize".

Political or diplomatic considerations have no bearing on what names we use. Our Neutral point of view policy is clear on this: it's "Article naming" section currently states that "[w]here proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources."

In this case, double or "segmented" names in the form of Peć/Peja or Peć (Peja) are cumbersome complications that reduce readability. Remember: Wikipedia aims to be an English-language encyclopedia, not an excercise in diplomatic lingo (as the UN, EU and the British Foreign Office website are by their very nature).

Furthermore, the 3rd general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names currently state: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article."

In the specific case of Kosovo, for a number of historical reasons, the English language has usually adopted or used the Serbo-Croatian place names of the region (see English usage related to Kosovo). This usage may change in the future, and Albanian names may become the norm in English texts, but this isn't the case yet. Only when/if that happens should Wikipedia reflect the change, instead of spearheading it.

In short: this article should use the names the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (our main criterion), the names used as title of their respective articles (internal consistecy). In this case, those names happen to coincide with the Serbo-Croatian ones (with the sole exception of the capital, whose article is currently titled "Pristina" instead of "Priština"). - Best, Ev (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, and here is my longer explanation.

In the English language, Prishtina is neither written in Albanian or Serbian, it's actually written as Pristina, (try for example, booking a flight to Kosovo). This solves the issue of the spelling of the word Pristina and also for places like Prizren.

For towns such as Mitrovica it is obvious that Kosovska Mitrovica is not the most recognizable name for the city (our main criterion). EV says in his talk, (see English usage related to Kosovo), This fact should be evident to anyone who has read English-language books, newspaper articles & publications on the Balkans in general or Kosovo in particular. EV uses the example of the Tim Judah book; Kosovo: War and Revenge, however, this book uses Mitrovica, not the Serbian spelling. (see: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0300097255/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-page The other example used is; The Serbs: History, Myth, and the Destruction of Yugoslavia but this also uses the Albanian spelling of the same word (see: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0300076568/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link as do more recent books such as, Contested Statehood: Kosovo's Struggle for Independence (see: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contested-Statehood-Kosovos-Struggle-Independence/dp/019956616X/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242849413&sr=1-7

EV also uses the Human rights watch website as an example for Serbian place naming, yet more Organizations use the Albanian spelling:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3650 ===

http://www.osce.org/documents/mik/2008/04/1191_en.pdf ===

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7520.doc.htm ===

here is a list of contemporary references to Mitrovica in the English language press or other materials most likely to be viewed in English:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7525916.stm ===

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1721389_1547061,00.html ===

http://www.sofiaecho.com/2009/05/15/719174_the-fortunes-of-kosovo ===

Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, what is and what isn't "English" is a matter of opinion. There are many different opinions on when a word or name is English and when not, on when it has entered the English language or remains "foreign". – English usage, on the other hand, is something entirely different and relatively easy to determine: what words or names are commonly used by English-language publications, irrespective of the word's or name's "Englishness" :-) Our naming conventions rely on English usage, not "Englishness".

You're right that Kosovska Mitrovica may well be more commonly referred to as "Mitrovica" alone (but not as "Mitrovicë"), just as our article on Kosovska Kamenica is currently under "Kamenica (Kosovo)" (but not "Kamenicë")... I had forgotten about that one.

In any case, I'm not using any of those books or organization as examples of usage, but as sources directly addressing the naming question, in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers; as sources mentioning that the Serbo-Croatian forms are the ones the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. - Best, Ev (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have shown the sources which use the spellings I pointed out, and not the Serbo-Croat names you mention. Your source's are only from 3 authors who address the naming question, I'm not interested in that. My point is that Mitrovica is the generally used name for the city, in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers as the numerous sources above show. But lets see how the Wikipedia community feels, they can see our arguments and check out the sources. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That point doesn't change the general picture: "Mitrovica" is the Serbo-Croatian name without the disambiguator "Kosovska" ('of Kosovo'). - Best, Ev (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll change it to Mitrovica. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: this is article about the UNMIK district in Kosovo. For the former district of the Serbian government, see Kosovska Mitrovica District article.

I have provided numerous links to UN organizations in English which use the name Mitrovica. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As is the case of any potentially controversial move of an article placed under probation by the Arbitration Committee, you may want to raise the issue at Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica first, and see what other editors think about it. - Ev (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, you said: Your source's are only from 3 authors who address the naming question, I'm not interested in that.

Our naming conventions for geographic names currently mention that a name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". So, you should be interested in that. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop prolonging the inevetable, first you ask me to start a new talk page then you come back with another argument on here: The sources you provided were just opinions on usage for that particular book- an opinion. The name most recognizable should be used. And that is Mitrovica - neither Albanian nor Serbian. The name Kosovska Mitrovica is obviously a Serbian POV. Thanks, and don't forget; we should avoid conflicts on here wherever possible; Mitrovica is the most neutral and recognizable name for the City. if you can just change the name of the article (I don't know how), that would be much appreciated. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just google for "kosovska mitrovica" and you will get 568,000 hits and googeling for "mitrovica -kosovska" gives you over 3 million hits, almost 6 times as much! Therefore please change into Mitrovica. TIA. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

googling "mitrovica -kosovska" is completely pointless, since the town is called "Kosovska" precisely to disambiguate it from other Mitrovicas such as Sremska Mitrovica or Mačvanska Mitrovica. --dab (𒁳) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Even with "mitrovica -sremska -mačvanska -kosovska" you get over 1,5 million hits, almost 3x as much as for "kosovska mitrovica"! --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the place to discuss the title of that specific entry is Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica. – And everyone, please, before discussing take the time to read our general naming conventions & the specific ones for geographic names. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

EV, you clearly lost the debate, so you tell everyone to go and repeat the same conversation on Kosovska Mitrovica talk, why didn't you talk there when you were writing a long response. Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we please just stop this childish "you lost, I won" discussion? Ev does make a valid point: there should be an internal consistency in wikipedia, where the standards used in one article are also the standards used in other articles - so taking this question up to the Kosovska Mitrovica page is not at all foolish. Indeed, if all wikipedians agree that Mitrovica is the most common English name for Mitrovice/Kosovska Mitrovica, then this should also be reflected in the page of the city itself, and not just here. So this whole discussion shouldn't take place only here, but also on the Discussion page of the city. Khuft (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Then stop spamming and go on the Mitrovica page and discuss. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, my responses were addressing the original topic of this thread, the issue of Kosovo place names in general, not the specific case of a single city. - When it became clear to me that the topic had shifted to exclusively the name of Kosovska Mitrovica, I mentiond that "you may want to raise the issue at Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica". - Best, Ev (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

conflict

I propose removing this article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies tag. I have cleaned up the article substantially, and think it is now in a presentable shape. Bare in mind, just because Kosovo's status is disputed, this does not mean the article should be. Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed by who?? Serbia? and Russia? And backward dictatorships. Check their records they probably don't recognize half the world's states, I doubt they even recognize Israel, most Al-aeda countries don't. The US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Belgium, Holland, all the rest of eastern Europe and others recognize it, so it is not disputed. Metrospex (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Check your facts. Spain, Greece, and most of eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova) do not recognize Kosovo. — Emil J. 13:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, Serbia and Russia both recognise Israel, and have a full undamaged relationship with the state. Evlekis (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you look at the Ottoman period of the article, you will see it has been substaintily improved and made more accurate. Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it was butchered. I had to go back days to find a version not entirely comprised of fragmentary sentences and bizarre syntax. Please, review your edits in preview, making sure you've got actual sentences, before posting them. ThuranX (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

the unilateral editing has got to stop. "Substantial cleanups" are a no-go. The only way this article will proceed is step by step. You do a single edit addressing a single point, with a clean edit-summary of what you did, and then you check if your edit has consensus.

If people cannot follow this very simple procedure, we'll just revert to a stable version from March or April and your efforts will result in zero effect to article content. It's either the tedious way or nothing.

Also stop trying to stuff more material in the "history" section. Edits to the history section need to tighten things, resulting in a shorter summary, not lenghtening. If you want to add detail, edit the {{main}} articles linked. This isn't the only article dealing with Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides, there are some {{disputed}} tags in the article. It may be a good idea to point out what exactly is disputed since the article has changed considerably since they had been placed. Otherwise, I agree with dab, the history section is too long and edits should be made in a clearer way. --Tone 12:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is unclear what the "disputed" tags are for. So Kosovo is disputed. That doesn't automatically make our article on Kosovo "disputed". It isn't even clear which side is complaining about "bias" here. Probably both. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with dab. I tried to make some sense of the history section last night but gave up (and I admit I didn't do a very good job of it).Brutaldeluxe (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ottoman period requires more information because it is the period that besides lasting 500 years, also provides the most documents, thus more sources for us to use. With regards to the article being butchered I would concentrate more on constructive criticism and less trying to offend. Thanks, Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, finally, no more personal attacks from you :) Good, I forgive you. --Cinéma C 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ottoman period section does not need "more information" because there is a full dedicated article, at History of Ottoman Kosovo. Anyone wishing to learn more, or add more detail, should go there. Now please stop trying to further inflate the history section and start helping cut back the enormous "20th century" section. Details on that belong on 20th century history of Kosovo. Only the bare essentials should remain here, ideally just a copy of the WP:LEAD of the main article. --dab (𒁳) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The name Kosova

It has come to my attention that since going independent, the country has an Albanian majority. Albanians call the land by it's proper name "Kosova", not "Kosovo-Metohia" or "Kosovo" which were terms invented by that serial killer Milosevic when he was wooing Serbs with his ideas about nationalizm. Can someone move the page because I cannot do it. We can't go on giving it old oboslete names and I don't have the "Move page" option, even if I log out I still don't have it. Thanx. Metrospex (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

There is already a redirect from Kosova to Kosovo, so both work. No renaming, moving, splitting, please as this is exactly what the Serbian POV-pushers try constantly to do. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article is Kosovo not because that is what the Serbs call it, but because that is the form of the name used most often IN ENGLISH. Just as we have an article on Germany and not Deutschland, we have an article on Kosovo and not Kosova. IF the majority of English sources changes to using Kosova, THEN Wikipedia should change to Kosova. Unless and until that happens, the name is Kosovo. Notice that this has nothing to do with pro-Serb, pro-Albanian, or pro-anything positions. Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Metrospex, let me show you why your post is completely unreliable.

"since going independent, the country has an Albanian majority" - wrong, Kosovo has had a clear Albanian majority since after World War II, during which over 10,000 Serbs were killed and between 80,000 and 100,000 Serbs were expelled, while roughly the same number of Albanians from Albania were brought to settle in these Serbian lands. (Krizman, Serge. Massacre of the innocent Serbian population, committed in Yugoslavia by the Axis and its Satellite from April 1941 to August 1941. Map. Maps of Yugoslavia at War, Washington, 1943) Mustafa Kruja, the Prime Minister of Albania, was in Kosovo in June 1942, and at a meeting with the Albanian leaders of Kosovo, he said: "We should endeavor to ensure that the Serb population of Kosovo be – the area be cleansed of them and all Serbs who had been living there for centuries should be termed colonialists and sent to concentration camps in Albania. The Serb settlers should be killed." (Bogdanovic, Dimitrije. The Book on Kosovo. 1990. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1985. page 2428.)(Genfer, Der Kosovo-Konflikt, Munich: Wieser, 2000. page 158.) With stating this, I propose that these facts be added to the article, with the references given.
"Albanians call the land by it's proper name "Kosova"" - it's proper name is Kosovo, a Serbian word that means a land that is of a blackbird. The word kos means blackbird in Serbian.
"""Kosovo-Metohia" or "Kosovo" which were terms invented by that serial killer Milosevic when he was wooing Serbs with his ideas about nationalizm." Actually, the word Kosovo, as well as Metohija, existed about 7 - 8 centuries before Milosevic was born. Nice try though.
"Can someone move the page because I cannot do it." - No, nobody is going to move it and please learn some history first.

Thanks, --Cinéma C 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cinema please stay on topic, your rants about how many Serbs were expelled and so forth besides having no historical basis, are absolutely off topic. Thanks. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're calling my well referenced text "rants", after you yourself used quotes from one of the most biased English historians out there... Also, was I off the topic of Kosovo? Or is it just not so convenient for you that I mentioned Serbs being expelled from Kosovo during World War II? I love when people use opinion to try to disprove facts... it's cute :) --Cinéma C 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Cinema, but you don't know your facts. Kosovoa WAS KOSOVA and existed in "Yugoslavia" beside Serbia - not IN IT. Are you blind or can you not read? There is a source from the English GUARDIAN written by a neutral (not an Albanian) journalist by the name of Noel Malcolm who is an HISTORIAN, not a politician. He knows his Balkans history better than you, and better than me. He clearly says that Kosova was 75% Albanian and that the Serbs CONQUERED the land, and other Kosovans (real Kosovans) have told me personally that Metohia (or Methodia) was never part of the land's name, Milosevic added it when he visited Kosovo to rally support from his few supporters by promising them a "Greater Serbia" and Kosova was to be the first front. Like Hitler's Third Reich going into Poland. Eventually, and as we saw, Milosevic invaded all the Yugoslav republics but one by one, they defeated him: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Macedonia. Montenegro, horrified by Serb expansionaizm in the other republics, toed the line for a few more years to avoid bloodshed but this is most probably down to Montenegro only having a population of half a million or so. I know that the language is Kosova was Albanian and that Metohia was not a part of the name, and the article by Noel Malcolm agrees with it. And it was conquest, because Kosova NEVER LEGALLY WENT TO SERBIA, Serbs occupied it, and held it until all were forced into the new borders drawn by the west called "Republic of Yugoslavia" from when Kosova resumed it's self-governing and Serbia was outside it. You wanna learn your facts first, read neutral history, not your shitty "Serb" fascist publications. Metrospex (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Metrospex, I apologise in advance if my humble words do not meet your unique "neutrality" criteria, but in light of the soaring number of enemies you have made, it probably won't matter. Kosovo was legally incorporated into Serbia, this was one of the activities at the 1913 Treaty of London. But you know what they say, "legal issues are open to interpretation" and perhaps Mr.Malcolm and you have detected legal anomalies which were practised in London, if so, I'm sure you could apply the same tactics to announce that the state of Kansas is not legally a US entity!! In addition, there was no "Republic of Yugoslavia" in 1918, it was a kingdom until after the end of World War II, and during that time, there was no Kosovan entity. Even from 1946 onward, Kosovo's powers were limited until they reached their apex in 1974, some years after 1918. In addition, Metohija is a historical name for part of the region which had long formed a part of the local name. In 1990, it was simply reintroduced, not "created". Montenegro was a partner of Serbia until 2006, not a conquered land, and there was no war in - or occupation of - Macedonia. I appreciate that you may have got all this information from the credulous Mr.Malcolm but how can I put this politely? He gets things wrong!! Evlekis (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Look man, it's full of shit what your telling me, means nothing. I don't know what your bringing Kansas into it for but this so-called "Treaty of London" is just another one of your pro-Serb fabrications, it never happened!! Because if it did, it would have said so in the source. You say Noel Malcolm is wrong, where is your evidence?? He writes and earns and you criticize him on Wikipedia, everyone's easiest stadium for "free speech". You talk off the top of your head and make POV statements and I get all my informatio from sources printed by neutral independents. Your story is yours but it's the Noel Malcolm one which is valid, and his is the one which stays. Goodbye. Metrospex (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Metrospex, the level of bias and ignorance displayed in your comments is such that if you don't change your attitude drastically, I will ask you to stay away from this topic. - Ev (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, please remember that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. At the same time, further breaches of our civility policy will lead to blocks.

In compliance with Wikipedia's general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names, this article will use "[the name] the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", Kosovo. – The form Kosova could conceivably be used if at some point in the future it replaces Kosovo as he common English name for this place, or if our naming conventions are changed to prioritize "local names" over common English usage (you'll notice that this is the case the day our article on Germany is renamed Deutschland). - Best, Ev (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I always thought this was English Wikipedia therefore we should have the English name, which is "KosovO", on Albanian Wikipedia you can call it "Kosova". Go on the Republic of Kosovo's website English language page and they spell it "KosovO", no A. Ijanderson (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

History

Propose combing the Balkan wars, WW1, WW2 sections of the article, similar to how it is done here
Also, combining the sections, Kosovo in Communist Yugoslavia and the Disintegration of Yugoslavia

By combining those sections it will hopefully lead to a shortening of the history section all together, as suggested here Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, the 20th century section needs to be drastically shortened. I support any edit collapsing these h3 sections as long as no bias is introduced. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Remodeled

I have changed the order of items on the page. I want it to emulate [this] article as much as possible, since it is one we consider good on here. A problem of unreliable sources continues to haunt this article however, especially for the early period. Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"neutrality" banner appears twice

That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.106.132 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mining

Have added information and sources for the Mining section from here. Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that really the most neutral source for info? ThuranX (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you care to read the homepage, you will realize it is so. Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I had. I was hoping it would induce you to clean up the plagarisms added. You didn't. I did. ThuranX (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting sections. Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Copying verbatim text from another web page is copyright violation. It is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia, and the offending text should be deleted immediately. — Emil J. 13:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations were already mentioned at the "EULEX" section above. - Ev (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks EmilJ. I'll fix it. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Trade and investment

I have removed from the "Trade and investment" section of the article a copyright violation, which was introduced by Interestedinfairness on 27 May 2009. The text was copied verbatim from www.eciks.org (cf. their Terms of Use). – This issue of copyright violations was mentioned before, on 19 & 28 May 2009. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian boys

Like I told you, Christian boys were taken from the Balkans. Mainly Albanian, Bosniaks and Greeks. The source I used was Ira Lapidus - considered a standard university text. Why is the edit reversed? Isn't it more accurate what Ira lapidus says when compared to "Sima Cirkovic" ?

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

Because you erase big chunks of the article, 5k+ in fact, for one change. You need to bring each and every change here from now on, so that neutral editors can review it and make sure it's neutral, since you seem incapable of neutral editing on your own. Your source may be valid, but changing one thing doesn't require the blanking of massive chunks of the article which have citation already. ThuranX (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not deleted huge chunks, I have, for example, shortened the bit about the persecution of the serbs in the WW2 section. We don't need 5 paragraphs for it, 2 are way more than sufficient, since it is a claim (some say myth) that is not supported either by evidence or renowned scholars. The 20th century bit was far too long, at the request of some editors I have also shortened it. I have not touched the early period (history) because that is too contentious, maybe you would like to edit that bit and provide some decent sources...Thanks (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

Stop the madness

OK, I'm really getting tired of this POV pushing... Wikipedia is not the place to "defend your country" or "promote your views". Frankly, when I look at the Kosovo article, there seems to be too much POV pushing, both towards the Serbian and Albanian sides. I would have nothing against constructive debate concerning certain disputed issues, but when you have unreasonable arguments between editors who don't trust each other or assume good faith, any debate is really pointless. If I say anything that goes against Albanian views, I am automatically a "disgrace" and should be removed from the discussion. On the other hand, those who attack me for that are pushing their own views and simply can't accept that others think differently from them and just because they believe something to be true, doesn't make it true. The same goes for all other editors, Serbs included (though I haven't seen any in a while now), most of which aren't flexible either.

So I propose the following (and please don't read this part before reading the preceding paragraph) - just lock the article and leave it to the administrators to make edits based on consensus on the talk page. And I don't mean for, like, a week or two. I mean until we get only flexible editors willing to make an effort in understanding the other side - something that, right now, can't be achieved in real life, let alone Wikipedia.

Thanks for reading, --Cinéma C 19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a week and if the situation doesn't improve I would definitely support a move towards full protection. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cinema, the problem is that you do not discuss and you blatantly defend your pov. This is precisely what you want, to keep this article in a constant state on confusion. Hopefully the admin can see past this and see which editors are actually responsible for the state of the article. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you're calling yourself one of those editors? You have been accused of POV pushing by several editors, including ThuranX (here), Brutaldeluxe (here), etc. Also, you were warned for this personal attack on myself. I guess you've just shown that you didn't take the warning seriously: "It's better to discuss article content, instead of contributors.". So, stop attacking users and focus on the topic at hand. Thanks, --Cinéma C 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

23 archives for this talk page... I think it is about time to put away the bias, and start controlling this article through edits collaborated by all users. I definitely agree with you, Cinema. --Bolonium (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Work by Sima M. Cirkovic (the great Serb migration) cannot be used instead of work by Noel Malcolm, a respected author. If you check here; [2], you will realize that all I have been doing is removing unreliable material and making the page more neutral. On the other hand, I have been accused by people who seek to keep the page in a constant state of dispute and unreliable. Thank you. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

full protection isn't necessary thanks to "article probation". Uncontroversial edits are welcome, and people making controversial edits get blocked for their first revert without any further warning or decorum. This gives all the advantages of full protection without the disadvantages. The article as it stands isn't so bad. It needs some tightening and copyediting, but there aren't any huge problems. It would be nice if further work could focus on discussing on actual Kosovo, i.e. geography, climate, demographics,, economy, society etc. instead of the obsessing over the Kosovo dispute. This isn't the "Kosovo dispute" article, ok? --dab (𒁳) 20:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed,look I am a Serb,and i DO NOT RECOGNISE the illegal republic,but Wikipedia is neutral,on the English Wikipedia everything is supose to be neutral,on the Serbian site it should be written as the Serbs recognise,and on the Albanian as the Albanians recognise it.Now both you Albanians shut up already and stop the God damn provocations for fights,it is childish and anoying,and Serbs don't be stupid and fight with them,there is no use,ONCE IDIOTS ALWAYS IDIOTS. I propose that nationalist arguments should be banned and removed from Wikipedia entriely!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.29.142 (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoever made the comment before me is the stupidest person on the face of the earth. Your views are not only racist but completely biased toward your own view. Let me tell you something. Any race that considers itself better and not only that but has tried to DESTROY another race is horrible and despicable. What the serbs did to the albanians can be compared to what the germans did to the jews. Hey the president of Iran says Israel is not a country why dont we say Israel is a disputed region. You know why? Because Wikipedia is filled with racists and false patriots who just want to make there own country look good. Kosova is not a disputed region it is a country recognized by the complete western world and alot of the east. And anyone that says kosovo is doing an ilegial thing for succeding out of serbia of course it would. I mean america suceeded with out britians aproval what do you expect. The whole point of succeding is that you dont want to have anything to do with the the land you were once united in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.117.211 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is far worse to be realistic.You say you provide the truth,well the truth is that it is a disputed territory,and I don't get,recognised by the west,so what?So are you saying the east is less important,and the rest of the world?Speak what you want,reality is that it is disputed,and for now less countries recognise Kosovo and Metohia than those that do,but Wikipedia is neutral,so the info should be neutral.Your information are completely wrong.I am not saying that a nation should be destroyed,I just well want to provide some justice,and to be real,Albanians are more racist towards Serbs in Kosovo than naywhere else.Deny it all you want,that is the truth,and nothing but the truth. And them ore truth is that our talk won't change anything in the world or Wikipedia.

This type of discussion is not helpful, and needs to stop immediately. Prodego ^talk 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Seriously, we don't need name-calling and irrelevant accusations here. Can't we just focus on working on the article?Aleksei (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the facts: conquest/annexed into so-called "Serbia"

Why has everyone got a problem with a damn good well written neutral source from a neutral country (UK) free to edit newspaper??? Kosova was conquered, right? It was 75% Albanian, right? It was never legally drafted into Serbia, we know because if there was a real "treaty in London" then Noel Maclom would have added it to his "Is Kosova Serbia?" article. I prefer to use the term "annexed" because it was a completely illegal incorporation into the territory. And as Malcolm said (if you read the source), after 1918, it went back to being a self-governing (by it's Albanians) land within a "Yugoslavia" NOT part of Serbia. I believe Serbia's first ever involvement with Kosova after 1912 was when in 1989 Milosevic made his famous "Greater Serbia" speech in Kosova, started to move Serbs into the county and then send his Serb troops to invade the land and expand Serbia's territory, followed by the ethnic cleansing of Albanians/non-Serbs, and genocide of the rest. It was also then that "Metohia" was added to the name and I know this because as I said before, I have Kosovan friends. BBC/Sky all adhere too. Or are they not reliably neutral? Metrospex (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

~~Well my friend, the problem seems to be that if Kosovo was indeed annexed, or conquered, which it was- then it smacks the claim that Kosovo has always been Serbia in the face.~~ But the trouble is that that is exactly what the source says. OK maybe Kosova was part of an ancient Serbia a few hundred years back, but in recent times, it has never been a part of Serbia, as Noel Malcolm says in the source: Serbia occupied it, never liberated it because the majority were Albanian and they supported the Ottoman Empire, they never legally got the land, and after 1918 it went to YUGOSLAVIA as one of it's counties, like Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia and the rest of them. I can't be doing with these people who talkk off the top of their heads because they hear their friends saying things which they heard from someone else...Serbs deny the Srebrenica Massacre and the Holocaust which are well documented in reliable neutral sources around the whole world. Serbia is a rogue state, or it was with Milosevic, it destoryed Yugoslavia by invading all the other counties/regions: Slovenia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Croatia, Kosova; they comited countless atrocities and one by one, they were beaten by brave locals, and an international community of civilized states' armies. Metrospex (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Apparently, we're not ready to accept that fact and apparently, our claims are more reliable than the worlds experts/historians...(Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

Citations/references

Just to let you all know, I'm gonna start looking at all the bits that need a citation, if I can't find it, I'll leave the text as it is (for someone else to argue over).Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The following statements are in need of attention.

Since (I think) it has been suggested that the history section be slimmed down, I'm wondering if they could be deleted without impacting on the accuracy of the article. Perhaps they could be rewritten to include information that is verifiable. After these statements are taken care of, I don't see a reason why the tags at the head of the article should be kept.

Fully absorbed into the Serbian Kingdom until the end of the 12th, it became the secular and spiritual centre of the Serbian medieval state of the Nemanjić dynasty in the 13th century, with the Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Peć, while Prizren was the secular centre.
In 1402, a Serbian Despotate was raised and Kosovo became its richest territory, famous for mines.
The local House of Branković came to prominence as the local lords of Kosovo, under Vuk Branković, with the temporary fall of the Serbian Despotate in 1439.
In 1871, a Serbian meeting was held in Prizren at which the possible retaking and reintegration of Kosovo and the rest of "Old Serbia" was discussed, as the Principality of Serbia itself had already made plans for expansions towards Ottoman territory.
In 1878, a Peace Accord was drawn that left the cities of Pristina and Kosovska Mitrovica under civil Serbian control, and outside Ottoman jurisdiction, while the rest of Kosovo remained under Ottoman control.
The Assembly has strongly criticised what it calls "the secessionist movements of the Albanian-dominated PISG Assembly of Kosovo".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutaldeluxe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking into finding the references. I can't help but wonder, though, how come you picked all the sentences that lean towards the Serbian point of view. The article is already fiercely pro-Albanian... --Cinéma C 18:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't pick them, someone else did when they added the [citation needed] tag. I'm only doing what I did for the Montenegro article, but in that case I was able to find citations for the disputed paragraphs. I don't really want to see these sentences gone as I suspect that they are true, but since the history section is so long, they should be the first things to go; of course, I'm quite happy to wait a while, and as I said, perhaps they could be rewritten to include information that is verifiable.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this point; "Fully absorbed into the Serbian Kingdom until the end of the 12th, it became the secular and spiritual centre of the Serbian medieval state of the Nemanjić dynasty in the 13th century, with the Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Peć, while Prizren was the secular centre."

Noel Malcolm has proven this to be false. Noel claims that the actual center of the Serbian Kingdom was not in present day Kosovo, but in Raška. For this reason, I think the statement needs to be taken out completely. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

Welcome back. Well, if you could submit Noel Malcolm's text regarding the issue, or provide a link, I'll get rid of this statement immediately, failing that, it's going soon anyway. Unless someone else can provide evidence to support it, that is. I don't want to set an ultimatum, but let's say that I will delete the disputed sentences after midnight of the 12th June.

For more information, see WP:PROVEIT, thanks to :bloodofox: for providing the link. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Brutaldeluxe, I appreciate your good intentions, but "reviewing" articles on topics on which you do not have any background knowledge will result in your "asking for citations" for undisputed basic stuff. We don't want an article where every sentence and every phrase is graced with some random footnote. The section on medieval history should summarize a topic given detailed coverage elsewhere, and it should cite a single encyclopedic reference at most. This article isn't the place for footnotes detailing how "Kosovo became the hereditary land of the House of Branković and Vučitrn". If you are interested in that, please focus your attention on History of Medieval Kosovo. Developments in that article will be reflected in the "early history" section in this article once they have become fully incorporated there, in best WP:SS manner. Edits like this are a joke and are not helping. Comments like "plus the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is a dead entity." are not really shining examples of a neutral approach to editing here. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice heeded. I recognise that I cannot use other articles on wikipedia but when I wrote "plus the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is a dead entity." I got it wrong, I meant Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946-1974) and its later incarnation(1990–1999). I can assure you that I am neutral on this subject, I've witnessed the chaos on this talk page (and archives), I'm just trying to set the article in a way that will render it stable and immune from future attack (utopia). It's to do with the article as a whole, not just the history section. The thing is, the sentences I've earmarked for deletion were selected by others, and as they are disputed, they could go at any time. If you think they are correct, and as I believe that you are an expert on the subject, go ahead and delete those tags. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All disputed sentences have now been removed, as it has been ten days since I raised the issue.

I still feel that the history section is too long, I suggest that any further expansion of it should be opposed and the editor making the change should be directed to enter it into the History of Kosovo article.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

“Its majority is governed”…

It seems like nowadays this information is not true anymore, since beside Kosovo Serb population protests, even North Kosovo today is occupied by the Kosovo Police Service, which is an institution under the control of the Pristina’s government, not Belgrade’s. And the checkpoints in the North are not controlled by Belgrade anymore, too.

So it seems like today the entire territory of the former Yugoslav Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo is under the control of the Pristina’s Republic of Kosovo. I will change the first paragraph to reflect this.--BalkanWalker (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

EULEX does not recognize the Republic of Kosovo, it is status neutral. The international community has control over Kosovo. The North is not governed by the Kosovo government, not even de facto. --Cinéma C 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But the point is that not only EULEX operates in the north of Kosovo; the Kosovo Police is there, too, and the Kosovo Police is an organ of the government of the Republic of Kosovo in Pristina. We should also remember that EULEX doesn’t operate only in the north, but in all of Kosovar territory; so the claims that north Kosovo is outside any Kosovar government control does not reflect the facts on the ground today. We should remember also that north Kosovo is completely outside of control of the military, police and judiciary of Serbia. And the same happen in the Serb-populated enclaves, too.--BalkanWalker (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BalkanWalker, the latest OSCE report shows that North Kosovo is not under the control of EULEX, as the 6 point plan gives Serbs the right to communicate and cooperate with the UN directly, and not the Kosovo gov't. Go to North Kosovska Mitrovica and call the police. See what'll happen. --Cinéma C 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The latest UN report suggests otherwise. The role of the UN is to mediate between EULEX and the Kosovo govt. EULEX sums up its mission as thus:

"The mission is not in Kosovo to govern or rule. It is a technical mission which will monitor, mentor and advise whilst retaining a number of limited executive powers. EULEX works under the general framework of United Nations Security Resolution 1244 and has a unified chain of command to Brussels".

Therefore, if the UN was in control of the whole of Kosovo under res.1244, we must logically conclude that EUELEX has now assumed control over the whole of Kosovo. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).

Areas where Serbs live do not have anything to do with EULEX or the Kosovo Albanian gov't. They have their own municipal leaders, courts, hospitals, and are protected from extremist attacks by KFOR. Legally, Kosovo is governed by the United Nations. Serbia never accepted EULEX in areas where Serbs live, and the 6 point plan, accepted by Ban Ki Moon but rejected by Kosovo's Albanian leaders, assure that Serbs will continue to communicate only with the UN, not EULEX, not the Kosovo gov't. Thaci has no control over any area where Serbs live. --Cinéma C 20:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no Kosovo Albanian government in Kosovo, but only a Kosovar government with Albanian, Serb, Bosnjak and Turkish ministers. Read first and then come and edit Wikipedia.--NOAH (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Needless argument removed. Please discuss the topic at hand, and only the topic at hand, and refrain from attacking other editors. Prodego ^talk 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

EULEX does run the North "The Head of Mission next visited EULEX judges, prosecutors and legal officers working in the District Court in North Mitrovica"; here (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)).

The question remains: who controls, in general terms, the Kosovar northern territory? As far as we know, Belgrade’s government does not control it, and there are no Serbian police or army forces in the area or in the checkpoints between Kosovo and Central Serbia.--BalkanWalker (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Secession?

The use of the term "secession" in the first paragraph is not neutral. Serbia hold that the independence of Kosovo is illegal, whereas Kosovo holds that its independence is a result of the dismemberment of the Yugoslav federation, not an act of secession. Therefore, it should be changed to a more neutral term such as "independence." Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.194.52.114 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo as the autonomous province of Serbia, under constitution of former Yugoslavia, does not have right to secede from Serbia. Only republics had that right. Because of that term "secession" is appropriate.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 11:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not entirely true:

According to Noel Malcolm; Kosovo had a dual status. It was called a part of Serbia but was also called a unit of the federation. In all practical ways, the latter sense prevailed; Kosovo had its own parliament and government, and was directly represented at the federal level, alongside Serbia. It was, in fact, one of the eight units of the federal system.

Another article, gives a more detailed analysts of the legal framework of Yugoslavia and Kosovo's case for independence.

It would be good if we all knew the facts, so the article could be improved substantially. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)).

a province declaring independence is pretty much the textbook definition of "secession. I don't see the point of this section. The question is whether the secession is legal, not whether the secession is a secession. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue surrounding Kosovo's independence bid is very contested and fought with neutrality issues. Serbia posed the question to the ICJ on "whether the Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo is in Accordance with International Law”. Note, the word "secession" was not used. The point here is that the court case at the ICJ is going to decide if, as the first user commented "its independence is a result of the dismemberment of the Yugoslav federation, not an act of secession". The word sucession is too harsh in this case and it should be changed to something more neutral;

"Serbia does not recognise the declaration of independence by the Kosovo government and considers it a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of..."

Any better? Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

League of Prizren

The following statement: The League of Prizren ruled Kosovo until 1881, when it was quashed by Ottoman troops is misleading and is not supported by the facts.

Firstly, at the time of Ottoman suzerainty, Kosovo was actually the Viyalet of Kosova, with much larger borders. The League of Prizren acted more like a pressure group or think tank, born out of Albanian grievances towards the Ottoman state, at a particular time in history. It did not control the territory known today as '"Kosovo". It certainly did not control Novi Pazar.

There was some armed resistance, but this was sporadic, with only a few important towns and cities seized by the League.

I would be glad to reconstruct the sentence. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

As a gesture of good faith, I'll be more than glad to take a look at your revised sentence. Just don't push your own POV, like you did before... better not to provoke a 3rd block. --Cinéma C 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked for edit-waring. POV-pushing is reserved for other elements on here.

Thanks for your suggestion, but I would be happier to have a non-Serb and native-English speaker construct the sentence to ensure Neutrality. Thanks, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).

Are you suggesting that I'm a Serb? How can you be sure I'm not Czech, hmmm? And English is my first language. Besides, are you discriminating me because of my ethnicity? --Cinéma C 19:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he/she and I suggest you are not neutral in this and other Kosovo articles because of your extreme pro-Serb bias. You can be Serb and have English as first language since bilingual children are common these days and I am suspecting you are a sock puppet for a Serb that was blocked some years ago...I think his name was Bojan. I recommend you as I did to many others, don't act as if Wikipedia was your since it isn't. --NOAH (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please save your ramblings for here. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).

People's nationalities do not matter. I will not tolerate argument over who has a POV, everyone has their own POV, it is human. So stop arguing about who is more wrong, and start discussion of what should be done to the article. Prodego ^talk 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In a perfect world nationality would not matter but unfortunately it does, little we can do about that, maybe support globalization, but when discussing Balkans nationality it is alpha and omega. If it hadn't been for nationality you would not have had the wars during the 90's. When it is relevant, as in this case, it is objective to mention it. When an editor continuesly supports clearly pro-Serb edits in contrversial articles related to Kosovo it is very relevant to mention nationality and bias. The talk pages are to adress these things.--NOAH (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about a "perfect world", just about a "perfect Wikipedia". The world is in a mess, but that shouldn't be an excuse for allowing Wikipedia to be in a mess. The point here is that your nationality is irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia. If your behaviour suggests that you put your nationality ahead of the project goals, you will lose your status as an editor under WP:DISRUPT. Problems are solved much more easily in an online community than in the real world, because you get to decide who's in it. --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Adress the issue please dab; The following statement: The League of Prizren ruled Kosovo until 1881, when it was quashed by Ottoman troops is misleading and is not supported by the facts.

Firstly, at the time of Ottoman suzerainty, Kosovo was actually the Viyalet of Kosova, with much larger borders. The League of Prizren acted more like a pressure group or think tank, born out of Albanian grievances towards the Ottoman state, at a particular time in history. It did not control the territory known today as '"Kosovo". It certainly did not control Novi Pazar.

There was some armed resistance, but this was sporadic, with only a few important towns and cities seized by the League. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)).

Kosova was NEVER Serbia

Look, if Kosova was in Serbia, Serbia would have never invaded it, and the west would not have driven them out would they. Noel Malcolm's article is precise that in 1912, Serbia occupied Kosova. It was not a liberattion because the 75% then-Albanian majority never welcomes them. It stayed occupied until it joined Yugoslavia in which it and Serbia were federal counties. This is sourced everywhere, so why do Serbo-nationaliosts continuously revert these edits??? Metrospex (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

WP:FORUM topic. Some more talkpage discipline please. It is completely undisputed that Kosovo was part of the Serbian kingdom prior to 1455. It is also undisputed that it had a majority Serb population prior to 1850 or so. But this isn't 1455, or 1850, this is 2009. You should justbe careful with throwing around terms ike "NEVER". --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources for your claims dab?

Even if we get passed your lack of knowledge on the subject and your blatant regurgitation of national myths, I would like to present Noel Malcolm as a source who clearly identifys the problem at hand;

"Kosovo remained Ottoman territory until it was conquered by Serbian forces in 1912. Serbs would say "liberated"; but even their own estimates put the Orthodox Serb population at less than 25%. The majority population was Albanian, and did not welcome Serb rule, so "conquered" seems the right word." found here

Its besides the point what the population of Kosovo was prior to 1850 or whatever, what is important is that in 1912, its majority was Albanian in composition. Therefore, it was conquered? Or am I missing something

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)).

Alas, you are missing something. In 1912, the Vilayet of Kosovo was significantly larger than the territory called Kosovo in 2009: the present borders were demarcated in 1946 only after Albania had been recognised (30 years earlier), and federal republics of both Macedonia and Montenegro had been created. When you look at the territory of Kosovo prior to 1912, you see that it includes areas deep within today's Macedonia, central Serbia and Montenegro. These lands are far beyond the reaches of traditional Albanian settlement. An example is the city of Štip: perhaps its population of over 45,000 may have been significantly smaller in 1912, but this appears to be the case for all settlements. I believe that of today's Kosovan cities, Pristina was not infact the largest city then because Prizren was bigger. Be that as it may, the largest city in the vilayet was Skopje; like Pristina, Prizren and Štip, it too has grown and has now reached the half a million mark. The majority population of Skopje declared themselves either Serb, or Bulgarian, reflecting a certain Slavic atmosphere among citizens. Naturally today, for reasons of national awakening among large parts of the population, people no longer identify as Serb: most of Skopje and Štip have chosen Macedonian over Serb/Bulgarian, with many within Montenegro choosing Montenegrin. Either way, there can be no question raised that some of these may have been Albanian. Štip, for example, has over 45,000 inhabitants yet the entire municipality recorded only twelve ethnic Albanians in 2002. Now if we take the region today of the pre-1912 Kosovo, we must include Skopje and Kumanovo (large towns with Albanian minorities), Štip, Novi Pazar (which despite having a Bosniak majority, still makes the municipality predominantly Slavic) and other parts of the former Sanjak of Novi Pazar. Within this map [3] of Kosovo from 1881 to 1912, you see the inclusion of Kočani (hardly any Albanians then nor now), Veles (the same), Berane, Prijepolje etc. To look at the actual map, you could also identify other major settlements not listed, such as the Montenegrin towns of Bijelo Polje, Pljevlja and Rožaje, none of which have had a major Albanian population within them. Assuming it is accuracte, I believe that the territory will also include larger towns such as Priboj, Sjenica and Nova Varoš. If we draw an imaginary line around this zone today, I doubt Albanians will constitute a 75% majority within it, so I find it hard to believe that this was the case then either. Sadly, no accurate information exists to give us full census details. Neither does any information exist to inform us what percentage of ethnic Albanians may have welcomed Serb rule; we do know however, that there was a growing Albanian resistence to the Ottoman Empire. So some must have been glad to see the back of the former overlord. But what was liberation for an unknown percentage of Slavic inhabitants may have certainly been conquest for a great many Albanians, I don't dispute that. Such terms as "conquest" and "liberation" are relative, and apply entirely to members of the population despite being used by the victor in reference to the lands gained. I don't honestly believe that the article needs to be changed from the current revision, but one thing must be made perfectly clear: whatever percentage was Orthodox Christian bares no relation to what was ethnically Serb. A great many Muslims declared Serb then, as they do now. There has always been a great many non-Orthodox Serbs, the problem is that the Orthodox Church is a symbol of nationalism and people often assume that all Serbs are Orthodox and all Croats Catholic. This is not the case though. Evlekis (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The author presented here specifically addresses the issue at hand. We are not here to conduct out own research but to collect sources that are acceptable as per WP:V and WP:NPOV. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)).

I totally agree that one should not conduct personal research. The "issue at hand" however is clear. Wikipedia has about a dozen pages about Kosovo throughout its various stages, every one of which packed with sources and external references. The map to which I provided a link on my previous message sits on the Vilayet of Kosovo article. If erroneous, it would have been removed long ago. The Guardian article, however nicely and tactfully written, is not a reliable source because it contains factual errors and POV on the part of the editor. The link here - the Guardian - may very well be a reliable source, but the section itself isn't. This wasn't a report, neither was it an analysis on a current affairs issue; it was merely an interview. Journalists, ministers, historians, experts, biographers, colonels, "eye-witnesses", actors etc. give interviews all the time on news porgrammes, to newspapers, mazagines etc. but this does not mean that the information they provide is permanently correct, and the Guardian article is swamped with inaccuracte detail and incorrect information. The most obvious example is the reference to the occupation of Kosovo, because Kosovo was "not legally incorporated into Serbia." Either the editor has no knowledge of the Treaty of London in 1913, or he is deliberately making false statements. Be that as it may, the Treaty of London did happen, it did divide Kosovo among new entities, and it is as well known publicly as any other treaty. Then there is the mention of Kosovo's self-governing status. If the historian had known the country which Kosovo was entering, he'd also have known that in the Kingdom (during the interwar period), no entity baring the name of Kosovo was in existence, and even from 1946 onwards, the status of the territory only improved in gradual stages with each new constitution, never reaching its zenith until 1974, and not even then was it "outside Serbia's republic". I'm not opening wounds here concerning Serbian/Yugoslav-Albanian issues, I'm simply pointing out that references containing incorrect information should not be used just because the initial source has been certified "reliable". Evlekis (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ev. Balkan Fever 12:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your missing the point EV and you have not read any of his works, hence your confusion regarding Kosovo.

Lets have a look at the reviews of Noel Malcolm's book "Kosovo: A Short History:

"An excellent scholarly contribution to the study of the province. . . . Seriously differs from the biased interpretations published by Serbian and Albanian historians, or trendy but shallow Western "Kosovology experts."

—Canadian Slavonic Papers

"A thrilling detective story."

--New York Times Book Review

"Excellent."

--New York Review of Books

"A book every policy expert, journalist and lay person must read."

--Wall Street Journal

"Malcolm's narrative is gripping, even brilliant at times ... He takes to his task with the vigor of a detective driven by true passion. At times his claims are, in terms of Balkan history, quite revolutionary."

--Economist

"Cover(s) the whole history of Kosovo, with an authority that is often breathtaking and never oppressive."

--Sunday Times

"Brilliantly researched and argued ... a magisterial work of history ... Kosovo will inevitably be received immediately as an immensely valuable contribution to our understanding and knowledge of a contemporary crisis. But to see the book as merely a contribution to the present-day debate is to do it a disservice. This is a profound and pioneering work which will endure for generations."

--Times Literary Supplement

In this awe-inspiring work, Malcolm has created a vital successor to his Bosnia: A Short History and an essential aid to anyone who wishes to understand this tragic region today...His book is exceptional not only for his unimpeachable rearch, but also for his equitable examination of the conflicting ethnic views of what really happened ... One can't help speculating on how a clear understanding of the information contained here might have affected the Dayton Accord and history.

--Publisher's Weekly, 4/20/98

By far the best available guide to the fatal steps to catastrophe.

--The New York Review of Books

". . .elaborately researched . . ."

--Book World

Noel Malcolm, as per WP:V and WP:NPOV is the most reliable and neutral source we have at our disposal, and the link here is consistent with his views also found here

More importantly, he clearly addresses the issue at hand, so we do not need pseudo-scholarly work conducted by you. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).

First of all, I am User:Evlekis. User:Ev is someone else entirely, but a fine editor if ever I may say so. Secondly, you have found some positive feedback to the works of Malcolm, congratulations. However, search the web and you will find countless reviews in which he is criticised. I somehow doubt that the Wall Street Journal, Sunday Times, Economist etc. critics will have been familiar with the content they were reading, and as such, Malcolm could have written absolutely anything in his books and it would have been taken as gospel. They are clearly praising his mannerism, tact, and "general appearance" of one who is knowledgeable in Balkan affairs. Others who know more tend to have something different to say about Malcolm. See for yourself: plenty about Malcolm in this Orthodox article and "Kosovo: A Short History" is dealt with in the second paragraph [4]; then there is this verbal response in the aftermath of his Guardian article, [5]. So he is not as "respected" as he is given to appear. Finally, whilst Malcolm claims that "Kosovo never legally became part of Serbia", are you insinuating that it is "pseudo-scholarly" work on my part when I disagree with him on the following grounds? [6], [7]. I don't know how you could equate comments by Malcolm with veritable instances such as those in the last two links. But if I am wrong Interestedinfairness, if my findings are "personal research" and "pseudo-scholarly" then perhaps you could assert yourself on Treaty of London, 1913 and recommend that the article be deleted, because according to Noel Malcolm (and naturally, you have the Guardian source), that treaty never happened! Evlekis (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the phrase "Kosovo is in Serbia" means, we can state that Kosovo happened to be part of Serbia from about 1200 to 1455, and again briefly from 1912-1918. It was part of Turkey (the Ottoman Empire) from 1455 to 1912. This isn't disputed by anyone. We do not need Malcolm as a reference for this, because our articles are already fully aware of the facts. Malcolm's facts are all correct, they are just selected facts. He correctly states that the Serbs were a minority by 1912. He "forgets" to meniton that they were in the majority 50 years earlier. If you wanted to give the question the opposite spin, you'd just put it the opposite way, say they were a majority in 1850 and "forget" to mention they weren't any more in 1912. This isn't serious. We aren't interested in opinion pieces.

Whether you derive from any of this that Kosovo "should be" part of Serbia (or, for that matter, part of Turkey), today is a question of subjective opinion, not one of fact.

As usual, Interestedinfairness isn't making any useful point. This is a waste of talkpage space. I suggest WP:DENY. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Dab. Does anyone honestly suggest that any part of the opening lines need to be changed from the current revision? Fairness has influenced a part of it by introducing the reference to the "importance of Islam" during the Ottoman period so he shouldn't be too downhearted if we close the discussion. Anything else? Evlekis (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Interestedinfairness is trying to back up Metrospex, who was responsible for this edit yesterday. Balkan Fever 14:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"full self-ruling status when it became a part of a united Yugoslavia" -- I can only imagine this was intended as a joke. I repeat that it is plain as day that nothing of this has any merit. This is just about some users who decide to keep nagging even after it has become crystal clear that they have no point to make. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

for good measure we could add that "Kosovo" was ruled by the kingdom of Illyria 200 BC to 167 BC, by the Roman Empire from 167 BC to AD 839 and by Bulgaria about 840 to 1200. So, if the quesion is, who has historically the greatest claim of governance over Kosovo, the answer would be the Italians (1000 years) followed by the Turks (450 years). Of course this would be a silly question to ask, and the point here is to illustrate that this entire discussion is silly, but if the nationalists insist on having it, could they please just ask the Italians to take over and be done. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

One difference though, Metrospex permanently refers to "Kosova", which in Talk is fine, but on articles??? Surely everyone knew that it wouldn't last. Evlekis (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Romans, not Italians. Evlekis (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rome is in Italy, no? We can hardly ask the mayor of Rome to rule Kosovo in his free time. --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Italy???? Rome???? What the fuck has this got to do with anything we are talking about? You serbo-nationalists wanna go on your Italy page and discuss that. Evlekis, are you able to read??? Look at the following:

"An excellent scholarly contribution to the study of the province. . . . Seriously differs from the biased interpretations published by Serbian and Albanian historians, or trendy but shallow Western "Kosovology experts."

—Canadian Slavonic Papers

"A thrilling detective story."

--New York Times Book Review

"Excellent."

--New York Review of Books

"A book every policy expert, journalist and lay person must read."

--Wall Street Journal

"Malcolm's narrative is gripping, even brilliant at times ... He takes to his task with the vigor of a detective driven by true passion. At times his claims are, in terms of Balkan history, quite revolutionary."

--Economist

"Cover(s) the whole history of Kosovo, with an authority that is often breathtaking and never oppressive."

--Sunday Times

"Brilliantly researched and argued ... a magisterial work of history ... Kosovo will inevitably be received immediately as an immensely valuable contribution to our understanding and knowledge of a contemporary crisis. But to see the book as merely a contribution to the present-day debate is to do it a disservice. This is a profound and pioneering work which will endure for generations."

--Times Literary Supplement

In this awe-inspiring work, Malcolm has created a vital successor to his Bosnia: A Short History and an essential aid to anyone who wishes to understand this tragic region today...His book is exceptional not only for his unimpeachable rearch, but also for his equitable examination of the conflicting ethnic views of what really happened ... One can't help speculating on how a clear understanding of the information contained here might have affected the Dayton Accord and history.

--Publisher's Weekly, 4/20/98

By far the best available guide to the fatal steps to catastrophe.

--The New York Review of Books

". . .elaborately researched . . ."

--Book World

There you have it. Noel Malcolm is revered and aknowledged as a neutral and impartial historian. But just because he isn't on of your Serbo-bloggers, you come up with all this shit about his works. When he says "conquered", that is exactly what the term means. Your map is shit. Because Serbs ONLY MADE UP 25% of that land whether it was a bigger or smaller Kosova than today. And I call it KOSOVA because KOSOVA is it's name. It's Serbo-nationalists like you, Dab, and Balkanfever who keep it in it's Milosevic devized name. And you keep going on about the Treaty in London 1913. Well???? What happened???? Certainly nothing to do with Kosova joining Serbia because I said before and I'll say again - if it did, Malcolm would have said it. If he gets things wrong, why is he so well respected by all those reporters in the newspapers listed by Interestedinfairness. Answer that one. Dab, don't confuse the issue. It doesn't matter if Kosova was once it Italy, I tell you that it has never been in Serbia, it only had the bad luck to be in the same "genocide state" as Serbia when a part of Yugoslavia. The end. Metrospex (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm not even going to bother with a moronic troll like you. Hopefully you'll be indef-blocked sometime soon. Balkan Fever 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point I suggest that we all turn the page on this argument, stop discussing controversies and start discussing improvements to the article, because it's just turning into a forum. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

indeed. As I point out at the very top of this section, Metrospex has no point. In between his personal attacks, it is just possible to make out that he would like to cite Malcolm. Let him do that, within WP:BRD, and see where this leads. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of WP:BRD? Can't we just agree that Noel is the most neutral and trusted sources related to Kosovo. I read once that the lead should use -- ideally -- only one source. Why can't that source be Noel Malcolm? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)).

no we cannot agree that Noel Malcolm is "most neutral and trusted". Malcolm clearly defends the Albanian point of view, as should be already obvious from the fact that you are so desperate to quote him. Malcolm is a good source, and we can quote him, but without cherry-picking or editorializing, and without claims that his is the definite and ultimately neutral account. It is pathetic how Metrospex can quote blurbs that advocate the book as brilliant and conclude from this that it is neutral and impartial. Classic. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that: no, we can't agree on Malcolm being the most neutral and trusted source related to Kosovo (this short piece at The Guardian is a fine example of a simplistic and selective description sacrificing accuracy to support the Albanian side). - Ev (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

KosovA lol was never Serbia???KOSOVO AND METOHIA WAS NEVER ALBANIAN AND ALWAYS SERBIAN since the Slavic arrival to the Balkans.That is a fact,your facts are completely wrong and without any truth in them. You need to rethink your "truth: there. PS:Wikipedia is neutral and not pro-Serbian or pro-Albanian.Kosovo and Metohia is a disputed territory,and that is how Wikipedia should provide it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.29.142 (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

indeed. neither "never" nor "always". Kosovo was "intermittently" Serbian, and its current status is disputed. --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dab, why can't we use him? I'm so "desperate" to use him because he is the most neutral and reliable source. Just check out the reviews, I challenge you to find me one other source related to Kosovo as acknowledged and renowned.

But nevertheless, this is besides the point.

The issue at hand here is whether the lead reads "back to Serbia" or was "conquered by Serbia".

Malcolm clearly discusses this problem and offers his reputable insight. Problem solved, or am I missing something?

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)).

how about "reconquered by Serbia", because that's what it was, a reconquest. --dab (𒁳) 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to enter into the "conquered/reconquered" ("occupied/liberated") dichotomies, especially in the lead section. The English language offers more neutral alternatives that don't dwell in the perceptions of legitimacy: "In 1912, the Ottoman province was divided between Montenegro and Serbia" (or similar). - Best, Ev (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a sentence;

"In 1912, the Viyalet of Kosova was invaded by a joint coalition comprising of Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Serbia in order to defeat the Ottomans. A large part of the territory became apart of Yugoslavia in 1918". (Note: Kosova* is an accurate representation of the name at the time and has no bearing on the current name of the article, Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Kosova" is accurate when referring to the region as Ottoman, but only in Turkish. Now I think (I could be wrong here) that the English name for the territory was Kossovo (double S). That is how it is written in the 1911 encyclopaedia in English. Saying that, often there are numerous ways of producing an English name for a place (eg. Thessaloniki, Thessalonika, Salonika? you get them all). The rest of your proposal is all right. But do consider mentioning the Treaty of London, after all, it was a relevant chapter. Evlekis (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME issues of Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire are to be discussed at Talk:Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire. --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness' sentence simultaneoulsy provides too much detail for the lead section, while failing to mention what happened to Kosovo between 1912 and 1918. - Ev (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that we dismiss all talk of conquest and reconquest (the latter simply implies that is was conquered the first time too). The entire source which would be used (The Guardian) is based on inconclusive evidence with no references to censa or other reliable information. "Conquest" is not an antonym for "liberation", but the source does use it to villify the Serbian position. That means that if "conquered/reconquered" should be mentioned, we may as well recount the rest of the cartoon and announce that Kosovo was not legally incorporated in to Serbia - thus playing into the hands of Metrospex and other Malcolm apologists - which is a factual error because the Treaty of London disproves it. "Took" the land is good enough, that is what happens when you win a battle; the population within it becomes a subject of the new regime, for better or for worse, they don't have a choice at that stage. The problem with any reference to "conquest" is not only absent figures as to what part of the population supported the overturn of the Ottomans (eg. Orthodox Serbs were less that 25%, but what about non-Orthodox Serbs such as Serb Muslims, Catholics or athiests? How about other non-Albanians such as Bulgarians who also fought against the Ottomans in the pronominal war?), but who is Noel Malcolm to constitute "what is conquest" in the first place??? Other people, other perceptions. Evlekis (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And this is almost boring, but not quite. I'm thinking of delving back into this article. What was that? I think I just heard dab applaud and mentally make note of the happiness he is feeling regarding my future participation in editing this wondrous and neutral article. Beam 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dab, would you like to provide a source for your "reconquered" point? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)).

Dear Interestedinfairness, please go away, or at least change your username to something more realistic like "interested in playing silly bugger". --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Vilayet of Kosovo

Too much detail? Considering Kosovo's "status dispute" I think we should not shy away from introducting as much information as possible to maintain neutrality.

But nonetheless, the current sentence; "In 1912, the Ottoman province was divided between Montenegro and Serbia, both of which became part of Yugoslavia in 1918" is false.

The Viyalet was also divided between "Macedonia" (hence the relevance of the Bulgarian element in 1912) and also "Albania".

This needs to be addressed. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)).

Except it wasn't. The Principality of Albania, I believe, took a chunk of the former Ottoman province. But modern Macedonian identity was in its infancy and the territory of today's republic was a source of dispute which led to the outbreak of the second Balkan war in which Bulgaria (with Ottoman support) fought against Greece and Serbia. The result split the territory among three countries, Greece getting the largest part. However, it had been Serbia - not an independent Macedonia - which was awarded its modern-day territory. This as you know, included a part of the Vilayet of Kosovo (ie. Skopje, Kumanovo, Kočani, Štip, Veles etc). Macedonia was first awarded a recognised status in 1943. Yugoslavia: did not bare its name as early as 1918. First it was the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and then it became Kingdom of Yugoslavia in December 1929. During this time, not only was there no Macedonian or Kosovan entity, but Montenegro had been abolished too upon its lands joining the kingdom. It too was only reintroduced after WWII. Evlekis (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, try and keep them concise. I think you've been advised to once before as well. Your argument has no basis however, whether Macedonia was in infancy or Albania was a principality is besides the point;

The Viyalet was also divided between what is now known as "Macedonia" and what is now known as "Albania". (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)).

I didn't know that you were discussing the present period, I thought you were establishing the immediate successor states which took their share of the vilayet in 1912. If you are talking about today then yes, four countries outside of Kosovo occupy the lands of the former Ottoman province, and Macedonia is one of them along with Albania, Serbia and Montenegro. So my apologies. Evlekis (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

But stating what was taken in terms of "modern day" countries doesn't necessarily work in all instances. It will have to match the context of the paragraph/section and what countries/states it is currently referring to, time-wise. Beam 00:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"In 1912, the Viyalet was split with parts of it becoming incorporated into either an Albanian or what became known as an Yugoslavian state. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)).

Almost. But again, it skips six entire years whilst the territories were recorded as having been within independent Montenegrin and Serbian entities. We're getting there. Evlekis (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Or how about: keep the introductory history paragraph brief, but towards the bottom of the page create a timeline giving an accurate description as to what Kosovo was, when; just remembering to mention barren periods such as the interwar period. Evlekis (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the solution to me. Beam 21:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about: "In 1912, the Viyalet was partitioned by various Balkan entities, with the current territory becoming incorporated into Yugoslavian after WW2. I feel this is a simplified version of an other wise very complicated period of events.

I don't think we should name every single "entity" which controlled Kosovo from 1912 - 1945. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)).

Well if we are to keep the paragraph simple then, as Beam suggests, mentioning all countries is not essential. If we are to mention Yugoslavia then it is as well give the year 1918. The reformation period (1943-46) is bang in the middle of its lifeline, so largely meaningless. The only relevance concerning Kosovo is that in 1946, it reapparead on the map and took its present form for the first time. But that is mentioned in countless areas across WP, especially on Kosovo-related articles. So: the vilayet was partitioned etc. incorporated into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1918. This way we leave out Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and we omit referring to the post-war Republic because it is remote from this historical period. Hope that sounds simple. Evlekis (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to assure user:dab that the talks are progressing. User:Evlekis, does that mean you would agree with this as a sentence?

"In 1912, the Viyalet was partitioned by various Balkan entities, with the current territory becoming incorporated into Yugoslavian after WW2".

Seems to offer the most generalized, yet comprehensive version of events without being factually incorrect. Or are there any other suggestions... (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)).

Yes that's fine. Does User:Beam agree? Evlekis (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've restored my edits on Vilayet of Kosovo. They now include two extra sources regarding the Treaty of London. If you are going to return to that article - presuming you haven't seen it yet - then maybe it is a good idea to change the information to whatever the outcome will be here. After all, this is the same chapter and subject but simply on a different page. Evlekis (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

IMF & WB

dab since the old days has been the biggest opponent against the [Republic of Kosova] or [Kosovo], even more than Tadiq himself. I personally blame dab for completely dragging down the quality of this page. The page should look at least like Rep of China, but of course that is not allowed. Even though by dab's POV Kosova isn't a state, the IMF and WB need to be in the main paragraph. Of course he won't allow it bc this article is about the region or some other bs. So let's start a Rep of Kosova page, and have a link in the "related articles" but he won't allow that either bc that's "biased". FRANKLY it is a FACT that Kosova is a member of IMF & WB and this needs to be presented in the intro, either "Kosovo is a member of IMF & WB" or "Republic of Kosovo is a member of IMF & WB"

EXAMPLEs of other medias:

ASK.com

A republic of the western Balkan Peninsula. Settled by Slavs around 600, the area was under Turkish rule from 1389 to 1913 and became part of Yugoslavia after World War I. An autonomous region of Serbia after 1946, Kosovo lost much of its autonomy in 1990, leading to ethnic violence between Kosovo's Albanian and Serb populations. Intervention by NATO and the United Nations reestablished peace in 1999. In 2008, Kosovo declared independence; however, its sovereignty was not universally recognized at that time. Population: 2,200,000. Kosovar Ko'so·var' (-vär') adj. & n.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Kosovo Top Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Self-declared independent country (pop., 2008 est.: 2,143,000), formerly a province of Serbia. It occupies an area of 4,212 sq mi (10,908 sq km). The capital and administrative centre is Pristina. Before 1999, ethnic Albanians (most of them Muslim) made up about four-fifths of the population, with Serbs (mostly Christian) accounting for the bulk of the remainder. Kosovo was an autonomous region until 1989, when Serbia took control of Kosovo's administration, prompting protests from the region's Albanian population, which in 1990 voted to secede from Yugoslavia. Serbia responded by tightening its control of Kosovo, which led to the Kosovo conflict. The region was administered by the UN beginning in 1999. Kosovo declared independence in 2008. That December the UN transferred most of its powers of oversight to the European Union.

Columbia Encyclopedia: Kosovo Top Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Columbia Encyclopedia Kosovo (kô'sôvô) , Albanian Kosova, Serbian Kosovo i Metohija and Kosmet, officially Republic of Kosovo, republic (2002 est. pop. 1,900,000), 4,126 sq mi (10,686 sq km), SE Europe, a former province of Serbia that unilaterally declared its independence in 2008. Located on the Balkan Peninsula, it is bordered on the north and east by Serbia, on the south by Macedonia, and on the west by Albania and Montenegro. Prishtinë (Priština) is the capital and chief city.

^^^ Do you see how these other informative media aren't cluttering their intro's with a bogus titles in Sr, Al, and Eng like WP does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.240.183 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the page should at least look Rep of China, in the sense that the Kosovo article suggests a more complicated status than Taiwan's, even tho Taiwan is only recognized by a very small amount of nations.

Even the official name of Kosovo is not put in the lead sentence. I don't feel this is in the interest of maintaining neutrality. The 60 countries in the world who have recognized Kosovo, including the overwhelmingly English-speaking nations are clearly not deluding themselves when they refer to Kosovo a country/state and not a "region".

As regards user dabs stance in this article, I too would identify with some of the criticisms put forward. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)).

You say "dab since the old days has been the biggest opponent against the [Republic of Kosova] or [Kosovo], even more than Tadiq himself." which pretty much makes you appear retarded, and invalidates the rest of your opinion. Beam 14:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember Interestedinfairness being there in the old days in order to know. Do you, Beam? Unless... Balkan Fever 16:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In the past 2 months then, doesn't make a difference. By the way, no, I am not user:Metrospex --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

As per the discussions above, I wish to suggest a new opening paragraph;

Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës, but also referred to as Kosova or Kosovë), is a country in the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The Kosovo authorities declared independence in 2008, after a decade of UN administration and several years of final status talks. Independence is not recognized by Serbia (from whom it split), and which considers the territory a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija ([Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help))

I sincerely believe this is the most neutral lead which should appease the two apposing views regarding this article. The current lead also features the same Serbian spelling of the country twice.

Kosovo's status dispute is also mentioned twice in the current lead; I don't believe that viewers are ignorant enough to need to read "disputed region" and "partially recognized" in the opening two sentences to get the point.

As always, comments welcome --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fruitless attempts of someone not really interested in fairness

Myself and other users are really getting tired of this. Interestedinfairness, we get it, you think Kosovo is independent, that it's a country, that it belongs to Albanians and not Serbs, that only Serbia doesn't accept that and that Serb editors (where you even included me although I am not of Serb ethnicity) have no say in this. All of these claims are quite evident to anyone who looks at your edit history (or your block log for that matter). Several users have attempted to explain to you why you should give up your POV pushing because it's not going to work.

Kosovo is NOT a country according to the majority of UN states, the UN Charter, UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the Final Helsinki Act of the OSCE of 1975, and many more. Kosovo IS a country according to the Kosovo government and those who recognize it. Why in the world do you think calling Kosovo a country can be perceived as neutral by any gentlemen or lady on Wikipedia, hmm?

Furthermore, since you ignored international law and decided to present your view of the "reality on the ground", would you care to explain why you didn't mention how the status talks really went? You had the US and most EU states promising Kosovo full independence no matter the outcome of the talks. Only an idiot would settle for less if they are promised more, and doesn't that make sense? In reality, these were nothing more than a show, to present the situation as if all other options short of independence have failed.

You then continue with your blatant POV pushing by suggesting that only Serbia has not recognized Kosovo's move and that only Serbia considers it a UN-run province. Hello? Have you looked at the map of which countries do and don't recognize Kosovo? Reality check - 132 UN states see Kosovo as a part of Serbia, 60 don't. Plus you have Russia assuring everyone that Kosovo will never be a UN Member.

Now I know there's a lot of hatred between Albanians and Serbs (pointless if you ask me, both peoples have so much in common that it's impossible to tell the difference to an outsider - similar food, similar drinks, similar music, etc., but they can't see it because they're so blinded by hatred), and I have yet to find a political party in Albania that is against the independence of Kosovo (while you have LDP in Serbia, which is for it), so I think it's time for Albanians to cool down a bit and just accept that, even though they've received enormous help from the West by them demonizing Serbs in the media and shifting public opinion in favor of age old irredentist dreams / myths, there are still lots of people who have a rational outlook on what's happening in Kosovo, how Kosovo is perceived in the world, etc. Anyone can push their own POV, not everyone can see through the eyes of another person's POV. That's the only way to find a neutral stance.

Interestedinfairness, as you see, Kosovo is not described as a province in the first sentence of this article. Even though my personal opinion is that it is one (as I respect international law), I would never push for something like that, because this isn't Cinema C's little encyclopedia, it's a worldwide free encyclopedia which has to take into account what other people think too. Listing Kosovo as a region or territory doesn't offend anyone (as, you know, Kosovo really is a region and really is a territory.. can't be a food or fruit, can it? :P) and let's just accept that things don't always go the way we want them. If the world was perfect for you, Kosovo's independence wouldn't be disputed at all, and if it was perfect for most Serbs, Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo wouldn't be disputed. What can you do, so is life. Accept it and stop pushing these little "small victories" for you and your people. Work on something more important, write about your people's poets, scientists, culture, tourism (Berat's probably one of the most amazing cities in the Balkans, but the Wikipedia article is relatively short), whatever... The first few sentences of this article is not something anyone should be spending this much time writing about, and I hope that this is the last time I'll have to comment on it. Thanks for reading, --Cinéma C 00:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinema, you should read the Is Kosovo now a country discussion.Interestedinfairness made the proposal after taking part in and reading that discussion. I argue that since this is English Wikipedia the article should reflect the view of the English speaking world and that is that Kosovo is a country (see recent news items about accession to the IMF, they all refer to Kosovo as a country). All English speaking countries recognise Kosovo's indipendence, with the exception of New Zealand, which is staying neutral but recognises Kosovar passports, and Trinidad and Tobago, which is moving towards recognition. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that assumption is that you can't prove that the majority of the English speaking population does recognize Kosovo as a country. Most English speaking governments assured their population that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Should Wikipedia have blindly claimed this was true, instead of offering different points of view? Wikipedia is not a medium for English-speaking governments to push their views on the world. If you take a look at Serbian Wikipedia, it does not call Kosovo a province, which is the official position of the Serbian government. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, neutral, and almost all English-speaking countries saw protests by their citizens against Kosovo's independence - governments and media aren't always right just because they speak your language. --Cinéma C 03:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I just have a simple question referring to the (current) lead... How is it not neutral?

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Kosovë; Serbian: Косово or Косово и Метохија, Kosovo or Kosovo i Metohija) is a disputed region in the Balkans. Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës), which has de facto control over the territory; the exceptions are some Serb enclaves.

This is something we all agree on. It is,

a disputed region,
a province that had declared independence, but was not recognized by the majority of the countries constituting the General Assembly of the United Nations,
governed by the Republic of Kosovo (majority),
not recognized by Serbia.

--Bolonium (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The current lead points to a Serb user who tried (and succeeded), in getting his biased point of view across when there wasn't an articulate enough Albanian presence on here to lobby the Albanian version. This needs to be addressed.

But let me pick some users up on certain points; 132 countries "don't recognize Kosovo" --- This is not entirely true, I think New Zealend sums it up when it says; "It's never been the New Zealand Government's position to recognise in such circumstances...We will neither recognise nor not recognise" --- they have remained neutral. The only countries who are vehemently apposed to its independence is Spain, Russia, China and a few other repressive NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING countries. This is the English Wikipedia, might I reaffirm.

Secondly, (to use the organizations you care about), for matters relating to initiating new members into the UN, a majority is required, not a permanent members authority --- any standard international politics text book will tell you this.

Thirdly, have a look at the English speaking press, all of which refer to Kosovo as a country (arguements about Saddam are irrelevent here, might I add that Serbia was projecting its war in Yugoslavia as a war againsts terrorists, whilst countless people were being slaughtered). lets address my proposition again;

Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës, but also referred to as Kosova or Kosovë), is a country in the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The Kosovo authorities declared independence in 2008, after a decade of UN administration and several years of final status talks. Independence is not recognized by Serbia (from whom it split), and which considers the territory a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija ([Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help))

What is not neutral about that? Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

By no means the fact that this is English-language WP leads to conclusion that is should reflect the opinion of the English-speaking world. This is an extreme POV and please refrain from this argument in the future. Each WP, regardless of the language, should be neutral, this is one of the pillars. What is not neutral about your proposed lead is the first sentence, that is one-sided. The rest is quite ok. --Tone 10:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This must reflect the consensus amongst the English speaking world. But I'll accept your argument.

Let me move on, what is wrong with stating that "Kosovo" is officially known as the "Republic of Kosovo" to Albanians and Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија to Serbians? --- OR --- the fact that it is a country in S.Eastern Europe, the Balkans? I'm glad you like the rest of the paragraph. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)).

I agree with Tone about the argument concerning the POV of English-speaking people, it's really scary what people won't come up with as an argument to push their POV. Notreallyinterestedinfairness, read Wikipedia:Five pillars, especially where it says:

|| Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

I don't think it's possible to not understand that calling Kosovo a country is one-sided - there is obvious POV pushing involved. As for Notreallyinterestedinfairness' argument that some countries declared themselves as neutral and not specifically opposed to Kosovo's independence, I agree, they have not taken a firm stand against it. But they also do not see Kosovo as a country. You mentioned New Zealand - on their government's website, a map of Europe shows Kosovo within Serbia (link from here to map..)

What's wrong with calling Kosovo officially the Republic of Kosovo is that you use weasel words to discretely push your POV. Nobody is going to read that as ""Kosovo" is officially known as the "Republic of Kosovo" to Albanians", but as "Kosovo is officially the Republic of Kosovo (and here's the translation of that in Albanian)", and I'm sure you're well aware of this. This is the same thing over and over again. I really don't understand how you don't get tired of repeating the same argument when you see that people just don't agree with it! And there's nothing wrong with saying Kosovo is in South Eastern Europe, in the Balkans, because it is! But it's NOT a country, so stop pushing your POV!!! Thanks, --Cinéma C 17:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So the answer is just to shove our heads in the sand and defer the presentation of Kosovo's status to the Serbian point of view? Some of you here seem to be very enamored of this idea that numbers make everything ok. If I could get enough people to say the sun is solely green, I'm sure you'd all go along with it since then it would be "controversial" and "we have to present every point of view." Just imagine the drama there'd be if we could get the UN to say it. You see slippery slope you're all setting up with this attitude, right? If we can find one person or country that disagrees with something, we'd have to change everything to suit their position. Asking people to separate themselves from a POV is futile. You're essentially asking us to be robots, which is untenable. I am not pushing a POV, as such, by insisting that Kosovo is a country. I'm insisting upon a little reality. The on-the-ground reality in Kosovo is that it's a country. There's a government, police, security forces, immigration requirements, a president, prime minister, passports, 17 resident embassies, the whole bit. Individual countries can choose whether to recognize it or not, but it doesn't change the on-the-ground reality. There is a double standard at work on the Kosovo page.

If you want to talk about pushing a point of view, you should look at South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus' articles. They present them visually as countries, with the flags and seals without any counter-presentation of the claiming states. Only their official names are in bold, whereas Kosovo also has its Serbian designation in bold. Those two statelets are only recognized by two countries and Northern Cyprus by one and by reading the articles you'd gather the impression that Georgia was simply a noisy neighbor for the first two. There are three infoboxes for Kosovo, which is just ridiculous. There's only one for Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus, all of which present them as independent countries. Coming in to lecture us on how evil we are for trying to get Kosovo called a country is hypocritical in the extreme when these other examples abound. The approach you're advocating of defering to Belgrade on this question is unacceptable and is, dare I say, pushing a POV. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you've got it wrong. Calling Kosovo a territory or region is not the Serbian point of view. In fact, calling Kosovo a province would be the Serbian point of view. Did anyone here suggest calling Kosovo a province? --Cinéma C 21:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You may not explicitly refer to it as a province, but you allow the maps to do the talking for you - they show Kosovo as part of Serbia. By leaving the page exactly the way it is, you're serving Belgrade's purpose. Kosovo is independent, de facto and de jure and to pretend otherwise is a fallacy. As I stated previously, I'd very much like to see some of you attempt your arguments in Kosovo as immigration denies you entry and deports you.

You've failed to address the disparities I've pointed out with the other disputed territories pages. I want you to explain away why Kosovo, recognized by 60 countries and belonging to UN specialized agencies, is held to such strict scrutiny by you and your fellows in the pro-Serbian delegation here while Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus are not. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally, a rational argument. You would think that after 23 archived discussions, a consensus would be reached between both sides... And after being repeatedly protected, a lead was created to satisfy both sides. This lead states that Kosovo is a disputed region - because it is. "Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo, which has de facto control over the territory; the exceptions are some Serb enclaves. Serbia does not recognise the secession of Kosovo and considers it a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija." The fact that the majority is governed by the Republic of Kosovo is already mentioned - and bolded. The fact that Serbia and not all countries of the United Nations General Assembly do not agree with independence is also made evident. This describes where Kosovo stands, in a few sentences. Never let your personal opinions distort certain facts, as a bias will be evident. This includes throwing away the fact that Kosovo is actually a disputed region, and calling it a country in the initial sentence. --Bolonium (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not even other language wikipedias can agree on the status of Kosovo: German: country, French: republic, Italian: province, Spanish and Portuguese: territory, Dutch: state, Croatian: state, Afrikaans: political entity, Finnish:area. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to agree on the status of Kosovo! The status of Kosovo is disputed, some consider it a province, some consider it a country. What is NOT disputed that Kosovo really is a geographic region, and that it is a territory, regardless of who claims sovereignty over it, Belgrade or Pristina. So let's just keep it neutral, OK? --Cinéma C 22:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that the Kosovar Albanian govt. has authority and control over Kosovo. From a logical point of view, we should make this point clear and not present Kosovo's direction and movement as dependent on Serbia.

60 countries have recognized it and its institutions with many others, (including countries who have not "recognized" it), also recognizing the Kosovar Albanian authority over the territory (an example would be the acceptance of Kosovo passports). This article gives undue weight to the Serbian point of view and concentrates too much on the theory's of Kosovo independence as apposed to the reality on the ground.

The double standards applied to this article that are mentioned above are also valid to this argument.

What some users are trying to do is push their point of view unto the article so it reads how they want. Have a look at other encyclopedias and reference points, even news bulletins if you like, and witness how neutrality really should be. It's a shame this place provides a vehicle for many stupefied comments.

By the way, user:Bolonium, it doesn't matter about the 23 archives of discussions; the article should be updated to include relevant developments; the fact that the IMF and World Bank have admitted Kosovo as a fully fledged and equal member country of the 180+ group is one example of a development which strengthens Kosovo's independence bid and should be reflected in the article (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)).

Yes Cinema, it's not up to us to decide on Kosovo's status, but I'm really curious to know how the Germans and Croatians justify calling it a country. I like the Afrikaners' view, political entity couldn't get any more neutral. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Notreallyinterestedinfairness, you don't get it. If there were 10 users on this talk page who really wanted Kosovo described as a province because the majority of the world hasn't recognized the so-called Republic of Kosovo, that would be POV pushing. Saying that we neither want province, nor country or state, is neutral, can't you see that? Or maybe you just don't want to.

Brutaldeluxe, the term "political entity" sounds intriguing. Tell me more. :) --Cinéma C 01:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/political+entity Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It has become very clear that Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) has no interest in any bona fide debate within the project givens. This user is here for one purpose only, pushing their own view of the Kosovo dispute. Such behaviour isn't acceptable, and should have been acted upon administratively under the arbcom probation of the topic some time ago. If this pointless bickering goes on any further, I will seek administrative means of dealing with it, as it is perfectly obvious that the debate is going nowhere. We are not here to solve the assorted Balkans conflicts. We are here to cover them encyclopedically and neutrally. Anyone not happy with that proposition should find some other activity online. Wikipeda isn't here for mediating or resolving real life geopolitical disputes. --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't threaten me just because your an administrator, or just because I have always made you look ignorant of Balkan related articles, (see up).

What do you mean this debate is going nowhere? Have you even read the debate? At least 4 users agree with calling Kosovo a country and only Cinema and one other user disgaree? Why do you immediatly side with the Serbian side huh? How comes you only target me and not other users, users who go around editing Eurovision song contest articles in order to push a Serb POV against Kosovo?? (Cinema knows what I'm talking about). Please do seek your "administrative" solutions. The talk pages speak for them selves and so do many users who have witnessed your blatant abuse of admin privileges to belittle and intimidate other users into accepting your version of what is neutrality and encyclopedic.

Back to the debate however. What is a country/State;

   * Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
   * Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
   * Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
   * Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
   * Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
   * Has a government which provides public services and police power.
   * Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory. 
   * Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

WP:FORUM please. It is undisputed that the Republic of Kosovo is a state with partial international recognition. Further nitpicking over semantics of nouns like "country" or "state" doesn't in any way contribute to the development of this article.

your claim that I am abusing my admin privileges is a very serious allegation, and if you cannot back it up with specific diffs, you may find yourself in trouble just for that. I daresay that you are abusing your editing privileges, and you should be aware that these can be revoked very easily. Your edit history has been the classic one of a single-topic pov-pusher, and I have no doubt that if I was to go to the trouble to collect a number of diffs on your past behaviour, it would be very easy to find an uninvolved administrator to pronounce a ban. --dab (𒁳) 13:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, you go down the blockin route for me and then I'll defend my accusations against you. But I'm very careful with what I type you see, I haven't edited this page in weeks as a matter of fact, only the talk page.

Lets not get sidetracked and give pov pushers an excuse to talk;

As regards this discussion, I would agree with you that it is undisputed that the Republic of Kosovo is a state with partial international recognition.

At least 4 users, (5 including dab) are in favor of this. Only 2 users are against any reference to Kosovo as a state. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

Point 1. Kosova IS a country, it has it's own government, it depends on no one and is nw a member of the world bank and other world institutions. It is on it's way to the UN and it will become a NATO/EU member in due course. Second, what is the occupation of a land in 1912 by the Serbs if not illegal? What is the rule over 75% Albanians and non-Serbs if not conquest? And what is neutral and impartial if not Noel Malcolm who writes in the Guardian and not "Fascist Serbia Weekly", and someone who is neither Albanian or Serb. Point 2. Dab is clearly a Serbo-nationalist, no different to Brutaldeluxe, Ev and Balkanfever. Each one should be blocked for defending Serbian principle keeping the page a joke "disputed territory". Disputed by who? Serbia & Russia & Zimbabwe, other dicatorships. But look at who recognizes it, UK, USA, France, Albania, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Israel, Australia, New Zealand? What are you waiting for? Mugabi to recognize it? The likes of Dab and Ev should be blocked indefinately. Metrospex (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Now that this nationalist @%*&^%$##%$ is blocked, the users here who actually possess a fully developed brain should come up with a consensus in the next 48 hours. Balkan Fever 14:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs), enough. Just.. please.. enough. dab has a point and it really is more than evident that you just keep repeating the same thing over and over again, without the slightest consideration for anything that is said which may go against your own POV. This is no longer a debate, this is just a waste of time now.

Metrospex, since you're blocked and won't get a chance to respond, I won't comment much on what you wrote. But know that it's easy to call everyone who doesn't agree with you a Serbo-nationalist, but it's much harder to try to understand each and every POV and accept to view things in a more global, neutral way, instead of blatantly pushing your own POV. This goes for Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) too. You think that just because Kosovo declared independence, it's a country, even though not fully recognized. Others view that it's a part of Serbia, even though it declared independence and didn't get full recognition. Is the glass half full or half empty? Let's just say there's liquids in the glass - that way, everybody's happy. So, refrain from calling Kosovo a country or a province, and call it what we can ALL agree on - a region or territory. And stop repeating the same thing over and over again. --Cinéma C 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL THIS IS WHERE THE REAL WIKIPEDIA IS. I'd like give my two cents because it seems pretty messed up atm. Mr.Cinema, calling Kosovo a region or territory implies that there is not set border or internationaly defined area...This is not the case as even Serbia recognized the definitive territory of Kosovo. Calling it a state does not imply it is legitimate or undisputed, so relax. Furtheremore, the word Serbia or Serbian is mentioned a lot in the lead, we should take some things the Kosovan users say on board.

Please don't bite my head off for this comment. Thanks and best wishes, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.49.245 (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is Serbia called a "region" in the article? Maybe because it alludes to the fact that a "complete" Serbia would include Kosovo? But no, we don't all agree that Kosovo is a region or territory. The fact, and forget the neutrality policy for a moment, is that it is a state, whilst Serbia considers it a province. Neutrality does not mean we --(as one user put it)-- "put our head in the sand" and go for a term which doesn't suit the Albanian side, but is perfectly acceptable to the other side. Belgrade has no influence over Kosovo. To do this, it needs to be made clear that Kosovo is run by the majority Albanian people in all aspects of its affairs; the IMF and World Bank membership can be used to highlight this. One example of where Belgrade is influential and should be included in the article is with regards to N.Kosovo. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

You do not agree that Kosovo is a region or territory? That's like saying the Alps aren't a mountain range. :P I see you didn't even try to understand comments by me or anyone else with a different opinion than yourself, so I'm not going to repeat the arguments. We went over this over and over again, but there is just no compromise with you. It's either your way or the highway. This is not a discussion anymore, this is you pushing your POV without any good faith. I've had enough. --Cinéma C 05:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I 'love' where you said "and forget the neutrality policy for a moment"... No, never. Sorry. --Cinéma C 05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to chime in here and point out that I agree with Cinema that calling it a "disputed territory" is the most neutral option. Calling it a country is an endorsement of the Albanian POV. I have been observing this article for a long time now, and I can say that the "disputed territory" wording represents a longstanding consensus on this article. Which is not surprising, since it is the most neutral wording. I also agree with dab in that interestedinfairness' incredible tenacity and WP:IDHT crossed into tendentious editing territori long ago and it is time for this to stop. --Athenean (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a shame you guys just won't budge. Calling it a region is Serbian POV. Calling it a country is no ones POV, it is a fact (IMF membership, 180+ country members). The "long standing consensus" on this article about calling Kosovo a region was articulated before Kosovo declared independence. Things have changed now and the article must represent the this and not be stuck in the past. I'm willing to go to arbitration because you guys just will not read posts from me and the other users on top who agree with this approach. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

you will be the one who gets hurt in arbitration, as the arbcom supposedly doesn't judge on content, just on user conduct. The matter may be disputed in real life, and the dispute is obviously reflected in our article, but in terms of user conduct you are so far out of line that you probably won't last long enough to even sit through an arbcom case before you're community-banned over WP:DISRUPT. This has long ceased being about Kosovo, and has for some time been exclusively about users Interestedinfairness and Metrospex throwing temper tantrums and generally making asses of themselves and their nation. --dab (𒁳) 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding content disputes and personal attacks

I am posting this to let everyone know that I have blocked User:Metrospex for engaging in personal attacks in a content dispute. This edit specifically.

A content dispute can only be productive if it is free from abusive commentary. Such comments poison the well and drive off other points of view. I am not familiar with this dispute, nor am I involved in it in any way. If I notice people using abuse or intimidation to make their point I will prevent it. I see a lot of progress on this talk page and I sincerely hope that those with Wikipedia's best interests at heart will find this to be helpful.

I am always available at my talk page for any concerns one might have regarding my actions or the actions of another. I prefer not to engage in extended discussion on this page. Chillum 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Metrospex (talk · contribs) account has already been blocked for 48 hours. There are only so many blocks we tend to issue over disruption before permabanning a user who clearly isn't here to write an encyclopedia, and unless they return with vastly improved behaviour, Metrospex is pushing that limit. The more difficult a topic already is by its nature, the more important user conduct becomes. Once again, a note at WP:ANI may be needed as a reminder to keep an eye on this article (and its related sub-articles). "The plague" will not go away, we will always have ethnic trolling on Wikipedia, but we need to take a streamlined approach to dealing with it and it won't be a problem. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree here, we should be stricter rbegarding the code of conduct. Some things can not be tolerated if we want to keep a constructive discussion. --Tone 16:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but please do not take the moral high ground dab. You have displayed callous concern for the Serbian pov and little concern for the Albanian one. You must remember that the Albanian side must also be presented, not just the Serbian one. If you present both then you will have neutrality. But by presenting only a suppressed Albanian POV and a full Serbian one, then you will always have problems. Take the "region" or "country" debate. Check AFP or REUTERS to see what a neutral stance means. None call it a region or territory, rather "it is a country which is disputed by Serbia". Simple. Yet you keep referring to past talks related to this discussion which took place before the declaration of independence as evidence for maintaining the status quo.(Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

This section is about enforcing civility. Balkan Fever 12:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Fever, User:Interstedinunfairness is upset because he has lost his only friend Metrospex; you know, the only "neutral non-Serbian" editor here who shared the same pro-Noel Malcolm sentiments as him, not like the rest of us so-called "Serbo-nationalists". See for yourself with this apologetic remark[8], and this act of panic in Metrospex's absence[9]. Evlekis (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As Noel Malcolm put it;
"Bit is a simple fact that Serbs have invested much more symbolic and ideological capital in their version of the history of Kosovo, and I cannot help it if, in the end, there are more Serb myths to be dealt with than Albanian ones."

"Pro-Malcolm sentiment" as you put it, is better for Wikipedia than Serbian nationalist ideology. Find me one author as neutral or highly regarded for neutrality than him and I'll be more than glad to listen.

However, Isn't it funny how only the Serb nationalists do not like using Noel. Why? -- because it tells them that everything they have ever been taught is propaganda and lies. Why don't you guys read Noel and learn something from a person who's last name doesn't begin, or end with, an "ic"? Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinunfairness, I've told you before and I'll tell you again. Malcolm is regarded but not noted for neutrality. They who publish good reviews about him are not experts on Balkan related issues and have no way of scrutinising him; he can write anything he likes and they will believe it. How neutral an editor is boils down to how he/she is perceived by the conflicting parties. With all due respect, if one person could please everyone, conflict would not have arisen in the first place. The closest one can come to being neutral is to be highly critical of all belligerents. In this case, you wouldn't only have resentment coming from the Serbs, but also some people praising parts of the reports; likewise you wouldn't have 100% of Kosovar Albanians appreciating him either. Noel Malcolm is a certified persona non grata in Serbia along with Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Javier Solana and Nataša Kandić. Diana Johnstone, whose name does not end in "-ić" is not, however she has the same status in Bosnia among Muslims for the comments and publications concerning the Srebrenica massacres. She too has had plenty of good reviews from outsiders; why? Because she writes tactfully and the outsiders know nothing. There you have it. Another reason we cannot use Noel Malcolm - again, I don't know quite how well you know him - is because he is proven wrong in everything he utters, his comments have been rebuffed, refuted, a million times over. Analysts of his two apologetic and pathetic books Bosnia and Kosovo have observed that his theories of nations do not go hand in hand from one to the next. He is also seen to be shadowing other known Albanian propagandists to the point that he is merely translating what they are saying rather than producing conclusions based on his own investigations. In his beautiful Guardian speech, if he'd wanted to be objective, all he had to do was print something to the effect of the following: "Kosova is Serbia. Ask Any historian...bla bla bla with the introduction; it is a stupid question to ask a historian because a land is what it is and what it is today is not based on what it was yesterday....and so on." As for his rendition of the history, he mentioned the original Serbian Empire which ended with Ottoman victory, so what more does anyone want? Is Malcolm now claiming that Serbs deny the Ottoman Empire? Either way, all they ever said was that the territory was once controlled by a Serbian entity. He talks about "Serb myths" in other passages. Well, even a myth has a grain of truth if you know in which direction to look; as for these so-called "myths", the man is exaggerating because no Serb has ever said anything beyond the land having been a part of the first empire, and then retaken by them in 1912 and held until 2008. That was all. Malcolm makes irrelevant statements about continuity. Actual historians who know about the history of Serbs in the Ottoman Empire know that the nation had attempted many uprisings, atleast one with every generation during those years; the relevance of 1912 was that this one was successful. It is not, how Malcolm puts it, that Kosovo lay within the Ottoman Empire and Serbs blindly accepted it and forgot about it. If he is right that the continuity was as relevant as Greece to Byzantia then someone should alter the Serbia page to remove all references to the pre- 14th century empire. According to Malcolm, they are separate states. Malcolm makes pathetic remarks about Serbs having no right to take credit for their role in the early battles with the Ottomans in which they lost their lands, why? Because of the multi-ethnic army which fought the Ottomans; it consisted of Hungarian knights, Albanians, Vlachs, other Slavs. What Malcolm is failing to realise is that this early alliance fought for an already existing Serb state. Malcolm also points out that Serbs fought on the side of the Turks. So according to Malcolm, the Serbs fought alongside the Turks to bring down the empire against various non-Serbs who were fighting to keep the Serbian kingdom. The man is a comedian. Back to the Guardian: what was stopping him saying that after 1912, Serbia retook Kosovo? He didn't want to mention the treaty which inaugurated the new borders which the Ottomans themselves recognised but he produced nonsense about an occupation and the incorporation not being legal. The status that Kosovo had was not from its inception in Yugoslavia until the break-up as Malcolm put it, but at its finest it was de jure from 1974 to 1990 but de facto from 1974 until shortly after Tito died in 1980. Once he died, the central authorities became weaker and weaker and by 1986 the country was completely rump and Kosovo's power - although to last a while longer - was no longer in the hands of its locals because the central protection had been dissolved. This was a natural occurence, no fault of anyones; not atleast as early as 1985. During the time of Kosovo's golden period in the SFRY, they still had time for riots and anti-government demonstrations such as in 1981. Next: conquest. Never was it proved that Serbs were such a small percentage as Malcolm claimed and as everyone knows by now, he spoke in reference to the current territory and not the entire vilayet. Be that as it may, the Albanians were neither among the allies who were victorious nor the Ottomans who defended; not atleast representing themselves. As such, how much they welcomed Serb rule was irrelevant. They didn't fight for the Ottomans. The antonym for "liberated" is not "conquered", but "subjugated." So, if one were to press for a "black vs white" scenario, it raises just one question: were the Albanians of Kosovo subjugated by the Ottomans after 1912? The answer is no. Therefore, they were liberated from it. They never fought for themselves to complain about the change in rule. Your shill, and so-called historian Noel Malcolm, is wrong in everything he says in all his statements. He did however agree that Kosovo was once in Serbia and that was the only answer required of what was asked of him. It was legally in Serbia when Serbia opened her own borders - by choice - to become the kingdom which eventually became Yugoslavia. At that time, there was no Kosovar authority; and if Serbia were not the lawful overlord of Kosovo then, surely today it is not the legal land to control Šumadija, Srem, Bačka, Banat, Pčinja, Braničevo, Raška, Jablanica, Zlatibor and other lands today. These joined Serbia only in the way that Kosovo did. Perhaps in Malcolm's next apology, he can deny Serbia's existence as a legal entity and how it shouldn't even be in the UN. I'm not pro-Serb, nor Serb for that matter; I'm not anti-Albanians, I'm just anti-Neol Malcolm. Evlekis (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Cease the attacks, this section isn't contributing to the article. Prodego ^talk 22:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Kosovo now a country?

Now that Kosovo has joined the IMF (and World Bank), do we have to change references to Kosovo being a region into Kosovo being a country? According to the Wiki on the IMF, "Any country may apply for membership to the IMF", the whole article refers to countries and states, and there is no mention of regions, let alone disputed ones, being allowed to enter. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So you think Kosovo ceases to be disputed territory because it joined the IMF? Well, after you convince the Serbs of this I am sure we'll be able to state the dispute has been resolved and that Serbs and Albanians are hugging in the streets of Pri$tina. Let us know once you've managed that. You'll probably also get the Nobel Peace Prize into the bargain. --dab (𒁳) 14:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest with you, Serbs will never get convinced, even when Kosovo will be part of the UN, they will still say that it is part of Serbia, but anyway who cares. About the hugging part, is that what Croats did with Serbs in Zagreb, to become an independent state?--kedadi (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

yes. We all know it's a matter of UN recognition. We have been over this only ten dozen times. My reply above is really saying, you know this section is pointless, so why bring it up. Serbia cannot veto a UN resolution, but Russia can. So, as we all know, Kosovo will become "a country" without qualification as soon as the Russians decide they would like it to be one. Of course the Russians don't care two hoots about Kosovo, but they really like to be able to show the world that they are still calling the shots. --dab (𒁳) 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not suggesting that Kosovo is not a disputed entity any more, dab, maybe I should rephrase and expand my question. When will be the point where we stop pandering to the vociferous minority (and I'm talking about considering the public opinion of the whole of the world) that maintains that Kosovo is still part of Serbia by referring to it as a region? When the vast majority of world countries have recognised it as a country? When it joins the EU? When it officially becomes a member of the Eurozone? When?

Allow me to draw an analogy with the Holocaust (sorry but it's the first example I could think of). The wikipedia article does not say that it is a disputed, unlikely event, yet there are more people around the world (including some governments) that deny it ever happened than there are Serbs alive. These people do not get a say in the article, and, other than a mention of their existance, their view is ignored as the Holocaust's occural is irrefutable, just as it is irrefutable that international news agencies and newspaper articles refer to Kosovo as the country that has newly become a member of the IMF and World Bank. So, I'm not saying that it is now, but looking at recent developments one day we will have to say NO! Kosovo is indipendent and it is a country even if its status is disputed, just as happened to other new countries in the past. Just saying that we will quite likely have to consider this in the future, It's not a POV, I'm just pointing out that according to the overwhelming majority of sources on this new development, Kosovo is a country and is referred as such. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

@dab and Brutaldeluxe, what do you think if we would model the article about Kosovo from Republic of China (which is also not a UN member and disputed by People's Republic of China)?--kedadi (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:dab, I must pick you up on something. Its very puzzling how the discussion evolved from when user:Brutaldeluxe quizzed about the reference to Kosovo as a country (linking it to the wiki IMF page), and you responded by initiating a new dialogue with regards to Kosovo's status dispute.

What is the criteria for being called a "country"? It has been discussed before but I find your argumentation very inconsistent. In this discussion, you referred to Kosovo as a "state", whilst over here, you argued for it to be referred to as a "region".

I would also like to remind users that Wikipedia is not affiliated with either the UN, nor the Serbian government; inasmuch as it is not affiliated with the Kosovo authorities, the USA or NATO.

Having said this, I certainly think there is merit for Kosovo to be referred to as a nation/state/country, even with its disputed status. The words "state" or "country" are more appropriate for the article and I don't feel the use of the word(s) would violate our NPOV policy --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kedadi, although not exactly what I meant, I think bringing the Kosovo article into line with that of the Republic of China would be an improvement.

I would like to bring to attention article one of the Montevideo Convention, the criteria of which are used by the European Union to determine statehood and I'd like individual users to answer if Kosovo's situation fulfills the following criteria. The full text can be found here: http://www.taiwandocuments.org/montevideo01.htm

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

So, does Kosovo have:

a permanent population?
a defined territory?
a government?
capacity to enter into relations with other states?

Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The question was, "Is Kosovo 'a country' for having now joined the IMF". The answer is, this doesn't change anything immediately, altough it may come to be seen as a first step towards full recognition in retrospect.

Kosovo doesn't 'have' a defined territory, it is that territory. This territory does have a permanent population, and it also has at least three governments, viz. the Republic of Kosovo, the Republic of Serbia and the UNMIK ad interim administration. This is the entire point of a "territorial dispute": one territory, several would-be governments. The state isn't the territory, ok? The state is the état, i.e. the status , the human construct of a "fixed establisment" by which this territory is being administrated.

People keep confusing "territory" and "state". This is an easy mistake to made, but it is becoming somewhat exasperating if people keep refusing to admit a differencce between the two even after they have been patiently reminded to do so, under WP:IDHT. This is the article about a territory, its history, and the various administrations relevant to it. It is still not the article about the Republic of Kosovo, an entity or state declared in 2008, named after and laying claim to this territory, just like the Republic of Serbia, an entity declared in 2006, and named for a larger territory taken comprise Kosovo, which is also laying claim to this same territory.

Can we please set aside these semantic games now? They have long ceased to hold any kind of interest. People have refused to create a Republic of Kosovo article dedicated to the entity declared in 2008, precisely in order to create the appearance that this entity is equivalent to the territory. Well, it isn't, even if we do keep the redirect, which is properly just a {{R to section}}. Redirection does not imply synonymity. It's ok, Republic of Serbia also redirets to Serbia even though Serbia has a scope greater than the period 2006 to present, and nobody would claim that "Republic of Serbia" is synonymous to "Serbia" as the article clearly establishes that the territory known as "Serbia" has existed before 2006.

--dab (𒁳) 06:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo does not have a permanent population? I wasn't aware it is a Serbian scientific base that studies penguins. Ok, so if I'm quoting from a source that calls Kosovo a country what am I to do? Change it to territory or region? Is that allowed? If the IMF lists Kosovo in its member states list am I to deny that and say: no, it's not a list of states it's a list of regions. Are we here to doctor sources so they please the rules of Wikipedia? Brutaldeluxe (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems a lot like a forum discussion to me, please note WP:NOTAFORUM. I just want to say that I don't believe Somalia to be a real-and-full country, even though it has its own language, territory (which is disputed), culture, government (poor attempt at a government) and membership in International Organisations. Kosovo has more characteristics of been a country than Somalia in my opinion. But who am I to so say if Kosovo or Somalia is a country or not even though I do personally support Kosovo's independence. It's our job as editors to state the facts, which is that Kosovo is a disputed territory with several countries and Organisations recognising it's independence, whilst other countries and organisations don't; we should reflect this in the article and at all times try our hardest to maintain a neutral point of view. Ijanderson (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

a permanent population? Yes, however many are displaced
a defined territory? no, the north is disputed, also parts east of Kosovo in Serbia-Proper want to be in Kosovo
a government? about 5 Govts (Rep of Kosovo, Rep of Serbia, UNMIK, EULEX and North Kosovo Serb Parliament)
capacity to enter into relations with other states? Yes but only with those which recognise it.

That is how I would personally answer them questions Ijanderson (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting points being addressed, here is my two cents on the issue as regards the "criteria" put forward;

Defined territory? -- Yes, as guaranteed by the UN, Kosovo authorities and Serbia (who is always banging on about international law and res.1244) the region in S.E Serbia has no relevance to this debate as that relates to broader discussions which encompasses all the Balkan states.

Government? -- Yes, the Kosovo authorities led by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, aided by EULEX and mediates with the Serbs with the help of UNMIK. The Rep of Serbia has a role in events in N.Kosovo, undoubtedly, but this is denied in public and therefore should have no bearing in this discussion.Kosovo Many elections have taken place in Kosovo, with over 90% of the population voting for a government to rule - are we supposed to neglect this point? The Kosovo govt has full responsibility as regards all aspects of Kosovo's existence, from the the economy to the military to education.

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)).

- Agree***Kosovo is a country. Majority of English-native speakers recognize Kosovo as a country. We cannot compromise this fact because some non-English natives dispute it. If Serbia and Russia and my lovely country Spain do not recognize Kosovo, that's fine. We can keep that as disputed in their respective languages. We can't deny the fact that as far English Language goes, Kosovo is a country, sovereign and independent. Spanishboy (talk)13:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)).

There is the saying about, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck." Kosovo is a country. It functions as one, has recognition - limited though it maybe - and has joined two UN agencies, which is something we can't say for Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus et al. Pretending that Kosovo is in some diplomatic twilight zone only serves to further the interests of those who would like to stick their fingers in their ears and 'lalalala' away anything that doesn't fit the Serb point of view. In essence, whether you intend to or not, many of you are implicitly backing and supporting the maintenance of Serbia's point of view being the official point of view on Wikipedia by refusing to allow Kosovo to be presented as a country, which is what it is de facto and de jure. Serbia does not exercise sovereignty over Kosovo and visits by Serbian officials are routinely refused and they are turned away at the Kosovar border. Further, this is the English Wikipedia and the major English-speaking countries have recognized Kosovo. We've had enough of this semantic hairsplitting nonsense; it's played itself out. Grow up and get with reality. Those of you who insist its status is still disputed should save these arguments for the Kosovar customs authorities when they refuse you entry and deport you as you loudly explain to them that their jobs are fantasies and that Kosovo is a Serbian province - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said Canadian Bobby, I was going to use the walks like a duck, quacks like a duck analogy but didn't for fear of being ridiculed by the usual suspect. As of this week, all news items on Kosovo in English refer to it as a country, a fledgeling country, or as a republic, and, although some of them mention that its indipendence is disputed there is no mention of it being a region or a territory, therefore it seems rational to assume the position of the English speaking world and reflect this in en.wikipidia, furthermore, the majority of countries that do not recognise Kosovo's indipendence are doing so in view of their own internal conflicts, trying not to set a precedent that could affect their own territorial disputes, see Spain and Russia, to give two quick examples.

OK, going back to the question Is Kosovo now a country?, so far we have a definite NO from dab, a not so definite NO from Ijanderson, what I assume to be a YES from Interestedinfairness and Kedadi, and a definite YES from Canadian Bobby and Spanishboy, so if a consensus hasn't been reached, at least the majority of users who have pronounced themselves so far agree that Kosovo is a country. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic Lists Kosovo as a country

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/places/countries/country_kosovo.html

Biggest Daily Newspaper that supports our Spaniard Socialists El Pais lists Kosovo as a country - Republic of Kosovo in the list of the countries. Also, Serbia is listed w/o Kosovo. http://www.elpais.com/buscar/kosovo

Time to move on with this Wikipedia pro-serb stance. I am a Spaniard and I may have my somewhat support and doubts regarding Kosovo's independence, but I cannot deny the fact that Kosovo is an independent and sovereign state in Europe, considered by majority English-speaking states, including our daily newspapers in Spanish. If countries like Spain, Russia or Serbia want to keep Kosovo as a disputed territory in their respective languages - I am okay with that. But these countries to not have English as their de facto official language. I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE CHANGE. KOSOVO IS A COUNTRY! Spanishboy (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2009(UTC)

I have continued this discussion here. Bear in mind that this is not English Wikipedia, but an international Wikipedia in the English language, thus it's supposed to represent an international, neutral point of view, and not that of English-speaking governments. Daily newspapers don't recognize sovereignty, and the UN still considers Kosovo a province within FR Yugoslavia (to which Serbia is the recognized successor). This is not something to be ignored and this Wikipedia can not be biased towards one side. --Cinéma C 03:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't saw the discussion is here, so I copy and paste my question: How comes I cannot find any encyclopedia denying that Kosovo is a country but English wikipedia (together with Serbian wikipedia) does? An administrator managed that under his protection many Serbian pov pushers made this article unique compared not only to all other wikipedias (except the Serbian one) but also unique compared to all other encyclopedias and I think it is time to bring English wikipedia into line with the rest of the encyclopedic world when it comes to Kosovo: http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=kosovo --Tibetian (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

Kosovo listed as fulfilling the criteria of the Montevideo convention at List of sovereign states.

Lead

New lead paragraph. Removed Serbian source for name of Kosovo in Serbian and also removed the same spelling of Kosovo in Serbian further down in the first paragraph in order to avoid repetition. Generally paragraph more coherent and readable. I included the Western World's recognition -- as this is the Western, English speaking encyclopedia; although Serbia's none recognition also noted. Kosovo is a country according to World Bankhere, but again, it is stated that Serbia disputes this.

Hopefully this won't just be blindly reverted. I generally believe this is neutral and does not violate any neutrality rule ---- (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)).

I cannot believe this. After it became obvious you wouldn't get a consensus for your proposed edits on this talkpage, you just went ahead and implemented the changes you wanted anyway. Which shows you are not really interested in discussion (or fairness, but we already knew that), only in pushing your POV. As this talkpage shows, there is absolutely zero consensus for your edits. Kindly undo yourself and restore the previous consensus version before I report you for disruption. --Athenean (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Athenean and propose further actions below, at the sub-header. --Cinéma C 02:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I used the World bank as a source, just go ahead and report me for disruption. I also cleaned up the repetition in the article as it gave Serbian spelling twice in the same paragraph. Your comment suggests you have not even read the edit properly, but rather ust assumed bad faith. By the way, don't threaten me either. Cheers, --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But the World Bank is, well... Not exactly proof of independence. Kosovo remains a disputed territory. Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Urgent: Interestedinfairness has violated the ArbCom ruling on Kosovo

As this edit shows, Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) has changed the description of Kosovo to a country, despite the fact that there was NO consensus about it in previous discussions and that people were already getting tired of his continuous POV pushing. Since there is zero tolerance on this article and Interestedinfairness' POV pushing has been going on for quite a while now, despite several blocks, warnings, bans, etc, I propose a permanent Kosovo-related topic ban to the above mentioned user. There is just no use discussing with someone who refuses to take all different POVs into account and, in the end, just edits how he wants on this article that is under probation. --Cinéma C 02:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way he's been blocked for 72 hours for an unrelated dispute. Balkan Fever 03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No wonder things have been calm lately :P Still, my proposal stands - permanent Kosovo-related topic ban. --Cinéma C 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should file a request at WP:AE, with specific diffs of his problematic behaviour (edit warring, incivility, refusal to get the point etc.) Balkan Fever 03:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Cinema, your edit here is just the same as interestedinfairness did, yet at least he provided a link, you did not and also lied in your edit summary on a very contentious topic, so I wouln not be claiming superiority in any way shape or form.

As regards the edit lets look at the ROC page;

"The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan since the 1970s, is a state in East Asia that has evolved from a single-party state with full global. Just look at the way that is written, why can't Kosovo mirror this even though it has more recognitions that ROC?"

Why is it that you two users above are so interested keeping this page in a wrong version? Kosovo has declared independence, shouldn't the page reflect this reality? (albeit disputed by Serbia and others) Why are there two Serbian spellings for Kosovo on the same paragraph? why shouldn't the said user try and edit the page to at least mirror the ROC one? -- I'm in favor, and judging by the comments above, so are a few people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.94.99 (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I should not reply to banned users, but the obvious reply to this is, of course that there is a difference between the Republic of China (a partially recognized state) and Taiwan (the island under its governance), just like there is a difference between the Republic of Kosovo (a partly recognized state) and Kosovo (the territory under its prospective or partial governance).

Saying that "Kosovo has claimed independence" is inaccurate. The declaration of independence was issued by the Assembly of Kosovo, an organ of the provisional institutions of government set up by the UN, and not by the hills and dales of Kosovo. Since this is a dispute, it is imporrtant to phrase things accurately. The accurate phrasing is that the "Assembly of Kosovo" has unilaterally declared an independent "Republic of Kosovo" laying claim to the territory of Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with dab here. I also must stress that it is very important to mention in the lead that Kosovo is also considered to be a 'country' and is partially recognised. We need to make sure that somewhere in the lead it says Kosovo is claimed to be a "country" by some to maintain a NPOV. The word 'country' is very important to this article as that what some believe Kosovo to be and what others don't, I can't believe it is not mentioned in the lead, that is not NPOV!!! Ijanderson (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be mentioned in the first sentence, as it is already explained later on. If the fact that some consider Kosovo a country is mentioned in the first sentence, it has to be mentioned that some consider Kosovo a province in the first sentence too, and that would just create too much congestion. In my opinion. --Cinéma C 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't specifically referring to the first sentence, I meant first paragraph, sorry for any confusion Ijanderson (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The English noun country is polysemous, and basically refers to any territory, landscape or region that isn't built up by urban development. You are using "a country" in the sense "the territory of a sovereign state". This point of view is, of course, already given ample weight in the article, and it is better to use the unambiguous phrasing than the shorthand "a country". --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course Kosovo is a sovereign state. What else does it take to be one? What are you missing? There is no law saying that a UN seat is necessary to be a sovereign state. BTW: Switzerland had also not a UN seat a few years ago. So please stop your distraction. --Tibetian (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

hey dab you must feel like you are all that. Kosovo proclaimed independence from Serbia. Obviously, the Assembly of Kosovo did, but in English speaking language you state the COUNTRY 1 DOI Country 2. It's not as if Assembly of Kosovo declared independence from Parliament of Serbia. From over year of reading this discussion I have noticed that you are fiercely biased. Kosovo is a state, it's sovereignty is disputed...NOT THE TERRITORY. Again I must reiterate to you something so SIMPLE. Kosovo is/has borders dated pre-1974 when Socialist Republik of Jugoslavia gave Kosovo autonomy under current borders and/or territory. Again, Kosovo is a state with a disputed SOVEREIGNTY not TERRITORY. Do you get it now? SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN 216.106.61.194 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. And Interestedinfairness, I'd suggest you stop with this little game you're playing here. Already exposed for one sockpuppet, soon to be exposed for many others. As for the Kosovo as a state argument, Wikipedia consensus is against calling Kosovo a country or state as it is one-sided. We have all agreed on territory, because that's what it is. You can't disagree that it's a territory, just like you can't disagree that the Alps are a mountain range. Anything else is POV pushing. --Cinéma C 05:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To you, dear dab, sorry cinema, the same question: What else does it take to be called a sovereign country? What else are you missing? And no, the "okay" from Serbia it not what is needed to be an sovereign country. Please read the Convention of Montevideo: "The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee,[6] follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood." --Tibetian (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC) BTW: I am not User:Interestedinfairness, although of course I am also interested in fairness, like everybody should.

Hehe, you're using a legal document as an argument? SWEET :) This is what I was waiting for. Now's my turn: In Chapter I, Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, it is stated that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The Charter also mentions that “the [UN] is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Note that Serbia is one of the 192 Members of the UN, while the so-called state of Kosovo is not. Also, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 guarantees the “principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” In the preamble of the 1975 Final Helsinki Act of the CSCE, the declaration in the preamble guarantees “Sovereign equality”, “respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty”, “inviolability of frontiers” and “territorial integrity of States”. This is all just off the top of my head - legal documents that affirm Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo. But it is disputed, as some countries do recognize Kosovo's secession. This, however, does not make it right to simply accept their view and ignore the view of others. --Cinéma C 17:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dominated by nationalists

So why couldn't anyone answer Interestedinfairness's question? What is wrong with using Noel Malcolm? He is a highly regarded neutral writer with only Serbs having no respect for him (can't think why?? um???) and he rightly says in his books that serbs have so overplayed the whole Kosova claim that it is not his fault that there are so many myths about the place rightfully being theirs. Kosova - and that is it's name, is a country not a territory, not a disputed region and certainly not no "Resolution 1244 part of Serbia under UN". It was this until 2008, and then it declared independence. That independence was followed by recognition from the USA, from the UK, from France and from all other respectable democracies. If anyone wants to go slagging off illegal countries, I'll give you all two: South Ossetia and Abkazia, they are leggaly parts of Georgia. But leave Kosova alone, and for the last time -"Kosova" is the country's name. It is not governed by the Serbs any more. Socalled "Kosovo" was a name devized by Slobodan Milosevic to distinguish it from it's true Albania character. For those of you who don't know history, Milosevic went to Kosova when it was still Yugoslavia and had his infamous Martin Luther King style speech "I have a dream", which in his case was "I have a dream - of Greater Serbia", and within a short time, he cancelled Kosova's autonomy and government, moved in his Serbs and sent in his Serb army to invade the land and cleanse it of non-Serbs. And this is not the voice of Interestedinfairness, this is not the voice of Metrospex, this is not even me speaking, this is REUTERS and it is also BBC, SKY, CNN and other impartial neutral news networks. As Interestedinfairness said, this land cannot be disputed - Reuters themselves call it a country. Since noone has answered back to the neutral/fair points made by Metrospex and Interestedinfairness, I now conclude that the "pro-serb" arguments have run out and they have lost yet anothe rone of their wars. So as a neutral editor myself with no interest in Serbo-Albanian affairs, I can safely say that "Kosova is a country" and that the Guardian article aswell as all other works by the respected Noel Malcolm can be taken as fact. Mr.Neutral (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

this, "Mr.Neutral", is exactly why: the dishonesty. We are trying to write an encyclopedia and we should not be expected to play hide-and-seek with people who do not even have the respect and good faith to forego the fundamentally puerile option of sockpuppetry. --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The only possible response to this section header is "Said the kettle to the pot". Nationalism works both ways; before you try to clean the speck out of your friend's eye, it may be wise to remove the log from your own. If it were up to me, I would probably ban the lot of you from this page. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

no, it doesn't work both ways, symmetrically, in this case. As it happens, this page is plagued by Albanian nationalists vs. the wider Wikipedia community. There is the occasional Serbian patriot, but for some reason these show considerably less activity than their Albanian counterparts. This isn't about "the Albanians vs. the Serbs". This is about "the nationalists (any flavour) vs. Wikipedia policy". --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Please do not confuse Albanians with Kosovars. Albania has nothing to do with this. --NeutralStandpoint (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)~~ (sock of User:Tibetian --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was saying that "Mr Neutral"'s statement about how nationalists are taking over the page is ridiculously hypocritical. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Because of your (mis)indentation, it appears to the casual observer that your reply was directed to Dab, not to "Mr.Neutral". No such user (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The "country" vs. "region" hubbub is a semantic red herring. Kosovo is a disputed territory. Anything else is a matter of stylistics. The OED definition of "country" is 1. "A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district" and 2. "A tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation", and only 3. "The territory or land of a nation". The patriots try to impose usage in sense 3., which is obviously the subject matter of the international dispute. Obviously, Resolution 1244 isn't in any way affected by the declaration of independence. As in the case of Palestine, Wikipedia will have to take the standing UN resolutions as a guideline for the de iure situation. Kosovo will remain disputed until either (a) the UN passes another resolution, superseding 1244, to the effect of recognition of the RoK or (b) the RoK collapses and Kosovo passes back under Serbian governance. Which of these scenarios will in fact come to pass lies in the future, and it is absolutely pointless to keep arguing about them. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if anyone feels that I have been POV pushing, then I'd like to declare my position in that I have no strong opinion over the country vs disputed region dispute. Jordan became Number 61 on 7th July, as Canadian said. The recent admissions regarding Kosovo bring it closer to being recognised as an all out country, no question. Though as I say, I have no firm views and I intend to keep out of any edit warring over this issue. Evlekis (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

indeed. Chances are that Kosovo will be fully recognized a couple of years from now. I don't have a problem with that either, except that we are writing this article from the perspective of now, not 2015. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Biafra has a countrybox on top but not Kosova

How comes that a failed state like Biafra has a country box on top but not Kosova, which is recognized by the majority of the democratic world? --Tibetian (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

it has a "former country" infobox, just like Republic of Kosova (1990-2000). Also, WP:OTHERCRAP. If you have a problem with the Biafra article, you want to post to Talk:Biafra, not Talk:Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 11:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I also note that Tibetian (talk · contribs) is almost certainly a sock of a banned user. --dab (𒁳) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You try to distract, don't you? --Tibetian (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Certainly quacking like one. I'll leave it to you to file the report though. ThuranX (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I filed a sock iverstigation more than 24 hours ago here [10], but incredibly it is still awaiting initial clerk review. Is this normal? --Athenean (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For dab? Sorry, I just saw the link, it is for interestedinfairnes. Not good as he is only trying to get the balance right as this article could easily be on Serbian Wikipedia, just compare it to other Wikipedias. All have the country box on top except the Serbian Wikipedia and this one, thanks to dab and his poodles, sorry, puppets. Nevertheless if I would know the details about how to file such a checkuser investigation I would do this for dab just because I cannot imagine that there are really so many Serbian pov pushers out there. --Tibetian (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, WP:DUCK. This is obviously a returning troll using a throwaway account. If his personal attacks weren't directed at me personally, I wouldn't think twice about blocking such accounts on sight. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You try again to distract, dear "administrator". --Tibetian (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

like most of this talkpage, this section was indeed a pointless distraction on the part of disruptive "patriots". Case closed. --dab (𒁳) 19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Neuatrality tags

Admin:dab sees no "bona fide" issue with the article. Removing the tags to hide admin inefficiencies in resolving disputes or neutrality is not necessary. Instead, lets work to resolve these issues.

The first sentence mentions Kosovo as a "disputed region", followed by the line "self-declared independent state". Are both sentences really necessary in maintaining NPOV? It looks like both sentences are saying the same thing actually. Moreover, the Serbian spelling of Kosovo is given twice in the openning paragraph. Will the editing users please explain why no attempt to rectify this has been made? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)).

The local name is primarily given in Albanian and Serbian as is to be expected. Within the first paragraph, a secondary translation appears for both languages reflecting how the respective nations recognise the region: fittingly it is presented as Republic of in Albanian with no true requirement for a Serbian translation; and Autonomous Province of in Serbian without need for the Albanian equivalent. Is that what you meant? Evlekis (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The only ones strongly disputing the whole "region" or "territory" vs. "country" or "state" issue are Interestedinfairness and his sockpuppets. Now that they've realized that they can't push through calling Kosovo a country against Wikipedia consensus (like Interestedinfairness did here), notice the next step in the strategy:

"The first sentence mentions Kosovo as a "disputed region", followed by the line "self-declared independent state". Are both sentences really necessary in maintaining NPOV? It looks like both sentences are saying the same thing actually."

No, they're not saying the same thing, but I'm sure you'd like to remove the "disputed region" one instead of the "self-declared independent state" one. Or am I wrong perhaps?

There is nothing wrong with the Serbian spelling. However, I would like to suggest adding a translation of the Republic of Kosovo in Serbian, as Serbian IS an official language there too according to Priština, as well as adding an Albanian translation to the Serbian name for the province since Belgrade accepts Albanian as an official language in Kosovo and Metohija too. --Cinéma C 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a nice thought. It might just get a bit cumbersome if we go ahead with it; painful for the eyes and obscuring proper reading content. I would stress that any more translations on top of those already there should be moved directly to the bottom of the page in the footnotes section. This is the practice at the moment with Albanians born in Kosovo. Ad for Interestedinfairness, I haven't been following events these past two days and have no idea as to whether checkusers took place and if any of the accounts supporting him were confirmed to be puppets. It's not my place to accuse anyone at this stage; he is back, and he probably realises more than ever what is expected of an editor. Let's give him a chance. Evlekis (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic at hand cinema and stop accusing me of sock puppetry or I will be forced to report you for miss informing the Wikipedia community. Also, I didn't mention anything about the "country" - "region" dispute. Stop regurgitating the same things over and over again. My contention lies with the two sentences: "disputed region", followed by the line "self-declared independent state". Are both sentences really necessary in maintaining NPOV? Can't we construct one sentence to state the same thing? Also, since we're articulating our selves in English, I'll have you know the correct spelling of the Capital city of the Republic is "Pristina". (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)).

"Pristina" is the spelling for Wikipedia, not so much the correct form. This is a single compromise for some strange reason which was largely decided by outsiders (non-Albanians/Serbs). As you can see, it conforms to nothing; is neither Albanian nor Serbian though it slightly favours the latter. The policy does not stretch to any other settlement name in Kosovo nor anywhere else in Albania or the former Yugoslavia. In my eyes it is pathetic, I'd much rather use Prishtina than Pristina; I have no problem with splitting 50% of the names in Albanian, the other in Serbian but a committee has decided that Pristina will take priority on WP. Evlekis (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But I fail to see why both phrases shouldn't exist. Infact I believe it's more neutral to use them both. As it is 'disputed' and it is of 'self declared independance'. Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Île_flottant~Floating island. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Interestedinfairness", the term "dispute" would imply that there is some point you want to make. Instead, you have just used this page for incoherent nagging for weeks now. If your only occupation here on Wikipedia is poisoning the well at Talk:Kosovo, I would ask you to just stay away. If you have any real interest in building an encyclopedia, how about you show some productivity in other areas.

Evlekis, "splitting 50% of the names in Albanian, the other in Serbian" is not what we are doing here. See WP:UE. The Albanian vs. Serbian toponymy question is supremely irrelevant. We just use whichever form is most commonly used in English. --dab (𒁳) 10:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dab, I respect your neutrality and you are a great editor. However, your information (wherever you got it from) about Pristina being the most commonly used spelling in English is totally incorrect. I have had this discussion with people time and time again and it all boils down to one thing. Now I accept that I was wrong in assuming that Pristina was a compromise, I really thought it had been; but then if it were, so would everything else be. The crucial marker to determin whether Pristina really is the most common English spelling is whether or not the source in question observes diacritics. If the answer is yes and the article continues to use Pristina then indeed that is the true English form. But it would also make it an exonym(eg. Belgrade instead of Beograd, Bosnia instead of Bosna, and Herzegovina in place of Hercegovina). The fact is that all sources which refer to Pristina systematically abstain from using diacritics anywhere. As such, they will not use the diacritics on Malmö or Iaşi either. The general view here is that subjects may have their diacritics if they are not such major subjects to the English speaking world. I argue, why bother to include subjects of no improtance to the English speaking world if that be the case? As the opponents of diacritics like to argue, their inclusion can cause confusion to persons upon spotting it. I then remind them that WP contains thousands of articles which contain diacritics and are relatively well known in the English speaking world and there has been no confusion. Take the two cities I mentioned in this example. We had this discussion regarding tennis players over a year ago; I presented the Anti-Diacritic squad with a challenge and none of them responded. If anyone wishes to see whether Pristina is the English spelling then I present them with the ultimate challenge. I would very much doubt that Pristina has been mentioned more times than Slobodan Milošević. His name includes the diacritics, yet the type of article in English to mention one of my examples is likely at some stage to mention the other. If one person can find me an English article to use Pristina whilst using diacritics anywhere else, I'll retire from Wikipedia and announce myself an idiot. So, in an article concerning Pristina, we can also have UÇK, Slobodan Milošević, Peć or even Pejë, Hashim Thaçi, Agim Çeku, Vojislav Šešelj, Račak, Ðakovica or Gërmia. There is bound to be mention of one topic on a Pristina-based article which would include a diacritic if Pristina doesn't. So who will find one? Evlekis (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Evlekis, you are missing the point. English DOESN'T use diacritics. Therefore, the most common English form of any name will not have diacritics. English language sources that preserve the diacritics are the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Such sources are not using an English form with diacritics, but are instead using the foreign form.Khajidha (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, English has a descriptive teaching tradition. It therefore has no rules which leads to the second point that some sources do use diacritics and they are no less English for doing so. The question is not whether English uses diacritics but whether English has adopted Pristina the same as it has Belgrade, Bucharest and Munich. If it has, fair enough: but show me that they would otherwise use diacritics; if not, then why include diacritics on other other well-known cities (eg. in Kosovo, Uroševac, Peć; outside, Malmö). Anyone writing about a Kosova Airlines flight to the last city with either display Pristina-Malmo or Priština-Malmö. End of discussion. Evlekis (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The "no diacritics" comes from the English form of the Roman alphabet, which has no diacritics. I never said that English SOURCES that used diacritics were less English, only that the WORDS in which they are used are not fully English. The use of diacritics in an English text is just as odd as the use of non-Roman lettering. Also, I think you misunderstood the "exception/rule" statement. It is an expression stating that something is a rarity as opposed to a commonplace occurence, not a reference to an actual codified guideline. Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

All right Khajidha, I mistook your point. For that you have my apologies. Evlekis (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dab, please stop telling me what to do. Please engage in the discussion. Your making me wonder if your abusing your administrative privileges which the Wikipedia community has vested in you.

Sorry for the distraction guys, back to the discussion. My proposal to clean up the lead and make it easier for readers to understand not just Kosovo, but also its status:

Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës, Kosova) or ([Kosovo i Metohija] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), is a self-declared independent state in the Balkans. Its independence is a matter of international dispute initiated by Serbia who does not recognize its independence, (see: International_recognition_of_Kosovo).

Taking into account the Albanian POV and the fact that it has de facto control over the territory is necessary for this article to move forward. Giving undue weight to the Serbian pov only excites those pov pushers and gives them legitimacy to propagate their nonsense and keep the page "crap". What you guys think? -- Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).

I agree with the above statements. It is officially Republic of Kosova, I say it is more than a "self-declared" independent state but an actual independent country. That much must surely be enough to appease the Serbian nationalists who are trying to control the look of the page. Obviously Kosova is as legally a country as they come because as we've said many times before, the western democracies recognize the state. America would never recognize such rogue states as Abkhazia or South Ossetia or Turkish Northern Cyrpus or rebel areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan! The Serbs are not in Kosova and if they were, it would constitute an occupation, rather like the one they did in the 1990s after Milosevic invaded it and "joined it" to Serbia in his Greater Serbia plan. It is crazy to use the word "dispute" just to please a minority (limited Serbs and some apalling allies). Metrospex (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Nevertheless, for the purpose of this encyclopedia it is disputed. Thanks. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).

Having thought long and hard about the status quo. I agree with the top proposal. It is officially the Republic of Kosova. It is independent and it is recognized as such by the western world. It is just a "matter of dispute" by Serbia, but let's face it, Serbia promised to change it's ways when it got rid of Milosevic. They promised to obide by international law, hand their criminals over to the Hague and obey the west. Now they are going back on their word, they keep their war criminals and they don't recognize Kosova which the west does. Looks like they need another uprising because the Milosevic clan is still in power even if he's not. A Balanced View (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

WOW, I'm changing my user name NOW. "A balanced view", who's this account run by now. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).

Yeah this is getting weird. Either there's some Albanian nationalist socking around, or someone else really wants it to look like there's an Albanian nationalist socking around.......Balkan Fever 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All this commotion distracts from the discussion. I've been over the same argumentation again and again, and every time a "controversy" that conveniently means the discussion dies down and no consensus can be reached is formed. Thus the page is left in the same crap state. Arbcom it is then. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).

It is true that you have been "over the same argumentation again and again". It would be about time for you to stop, since all you are doing is preaching your own opinion, which is irrelevant to the article. You completely and consistently fail to point out what, with respect to our content guideline, is supposed to be the problem with the article. Yet you insist on tagging it for neutrality. It doesn't work this way. Until you can present an actual case, you have no business spaming talkpages or tagging articles. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Hands off the tags or you will be stopped, no matter if you are an administrator. --NeutralStandpoint (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)~~ (sock of User:Tibetian --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, another one. Balkan Fever 15:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup. There's no point in any discussion until the sockpuppetry is sorted out. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For the on-wiki record, Confirmed NeutralStandpoint (talk · contribs) = Tibetian (talk · contribs). Confirmed Metrospex (talk · contribs) = Mr.Neutral (talk · contribs) = A Balanced View (talk · contribs) = Little XQ (talk · contribs). The master behind Metrospex et al. is Sinbad Barron (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All socks blocked indefinitely. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I stroke the sock edits so editors reading the conversation can appreciate what parts were written by socks and what parts weren't. This should prevent new editors from being deceived by the, ah, "multiple editors" supporting a certain position. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. Back to the article now. Dab, I did not add the tag, I found it here (dated February). I have been here for about two months now and no substantial improvements have been made to the article since.

Thus, can you tell us why you removed the tag?(Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).

TAGS NEED TO BE PUT BACK. This article is no near neutral. If there was a "worst wikipedia article" this one would win hands down. Special thanks to dabach. SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the only ones disputing this article the way it is are Interestedinfairness and all the sockpuppets that J.delanoy listed above (who are, as J.delanoy stated, blocked indefinitely) + a few disruptive users hiding behind their IP addresses. Is that why we need the tags? One user adding them out of spite because he didn't get his way in his POV pushing to make the article incredibly one-sided and a bunch of sockpuppets supporting him, that's why we need the tags? Please.. the article is quite neutral as it is right now, despite Albanians preferring to call Kosovo a country, and Serbs preferring to call it a province - the point is to call it neither, but rather what it geographically is - a region, and then giving both POVs, which is what we have now. Nice, clean, neutral. Everyone is tired of repeating this just because Interestedinfairness won't ever stop pushing his POV. --Cinéma C 01:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. WP:DENY and WP:DNFTT at this point. Seriously. --Athenean (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Athenean and Cinema. The topic has raged for weeks now and is going nowehere. The article is very long and it is time we concentrated on sections outside the first two paragraphs. The status is not likely to be changed at this stage even though Dominican Republic is No.62 to recognise Kosovo. No new information has been presented by anybody since the case was opened: "I say Kosovo is a country because it is recognised by A, B and C" and "I say it isn't because it is not recognised by X, Y and Z!" That is all we have had for a long time. Let's all move on. Evlekis (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been done to the article for it to merit the tags removal since February and December. You three colluding together does not change that fact. And I wouldn't speak of sock puppets if I were you guys --- Regards, Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the consensus. That makes four to one. ninety:one 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We should do well to remind our selves that these discussions are never a vote, but rather; an exchange of opinions on how our policy applies to a specific case. In that sense, the number of editors opposing something is of little significance. Policy-based arguments are best. Moreover, users: Cinema C and Athenean are colluding in discussions regardless of our policy. That's partly why we don't rely on votes in Wikipedia. -- Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because one or more people hold an opinion different from your own does not mean that those people are "colluding". And when you find me a better way of measuring consensus than numbers, I'll be happy to use it... ninety:one 20:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not a democracy and we do not vote. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).

Consensus is attained by weight of numbers. So within reason, it is. Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, 2 users working in conjunction in bad faith; one user with seemingly no prior knowledge of the discussions; and an administrator acting in a cavalier way, against my opinion, is not really a fair "vote". (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).

Interestedinfairness, you can't exaclty say you're neutral on the subject of Kosovo. Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the opposition, I'm 100% more neutral. Nevertheless, no consensus = fine. I've tagged the bit which is unacceptable according to Wiki rules anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedinfairness (talk • contribs)

Interestedinfairness hasn't shown any point that is actually objectionable under WP:NPOV. He is just saying "I want that tag". It doesn't work this way. Unless and until he can present some actual point of content, I suggest we consider this discussion closed. --dab (𒁳) 19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is coming from you? nnamhcabD? SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)