Talk:Kosovo/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Untitled

Previous discussion have been archived. Editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to see also Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (especially the last few)
Please also see this subpage which contains a list of descriptions of Kosovo's status from other sources:

• /Sources

Introduction proposal

First, excuse me for repeating what our goal should be. And please, if you haven't done so yet, take a look at Wikipedia policies:

• "Reliable sources": As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic.
• "Verifiability": The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
• "No original research": Wikipedia only reflects the current majority view of the situation, as represented by reputable and verifiable sources. Editor's interpretations of sources (especially primary sources) have no place here.

The article should provide basic facts for readers ("users") with little or no knowledge on the subject and the diplomatic subtleties surrounding it. This is especially true for first paragraphs and introductions.

Per WP:V, those facts must be a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. It doesn't matter whether they offend someone or not. In fact, a good article should offend those who dislike the current consensus: as Don Quixote said, If dogs bark, Sancho, it's a signal that we're on the right track. A diplomatic article may leave all editors happy, but it won't be of much help to readers/users unfamiliar with the subject. The goal is to provide facts to over a billion English-speaking readers from the whole world, and not presenting a carefully worded diplomatic paper for 11 million Serbs and 7 million Albanians already familiar with the topic.

So, we shouldn't spend more than a few seconds thinking about how someone in the Balkans will react to the vocabulary, and focus instead on how to describe the situation best to an ignorant 15-years-old Philippine trying to impress his first girlfriend with his mastery on world affairs.

In most countries (and in most people's minds), a country is simply divided into states/provinces/Länder/départements/whatever, and naming one of them as a Brazilian/German/French/Serbian province would suffice. But Serbia is different, being not composed of three normal provinces but one "central part" and two "autonomous provinces", both created at the same time (1974) and for the same reason (to mitigate Serbia's influence in the Yugoslav federation), which makes the mention of Vojvodina unavoidable for a clear understanding of the issue (and of the map).

Now, how about this introduction ?

1st paragraph, de jure & de facto:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of the two autonomous provinces of Serbia, and is located in the south of the country (the other is Vojvodina, in the north of the country). However, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War, with Serbia's involvement being restricted chiefly to the areas inhabited by Serbs.

this have you call "restricted chiefly" it was ilegal involment with "serbian dinar" witch was uset in "Black Market" beacose UN hase never agree thate this valute too oficcel value. And the intro most bee Kosovo it was (you dont have a document that Kosovo is part of Serbia beacose Rez 1244 dont accept this terminology) Please respect the Wiki ruls based in documment not in somme paper but UN resulution. You dont have to intepret the document in witch the neutrality is very importen.

2nd paragraph, brief geographical description:

Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia. The mountainous province's capital and largest city is Pristina. Kosovo has a population of around two million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks and other ethnic groups.

Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia and Serbia this terminogy is usedt from the oficcel powers (see UN, UNMIK and OSCE documents)

3rd paragraph, "long-running dispute":

The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's majority Albanian population. It has been under Serbian sovereignty since 1912 but since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations. Security is provided by the NATO-led peacekeeping force, Kosovo Force (KFOR). International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo; it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence or substantial autonomy.

Kosovo was gived to Serbia from powes of thete time to be administredet. 1999 was taket beacose of bad administration. More thane 60% time Serbian goverment hase called emergency state in Province.

End of introduction.

All detailed explanations and postures (both diplomatic and sentimental) would then be treated in their corresponding sections of the article. Best regards :-) --Evv 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We're getting closer. I would make two suggestions. One, on the contentious line about Serbia's involvement. I don't like the use of the passive voice ("being restricted"), which is imprecise (begs the question: "Who is restricting it?"). How about this variation: "...with Serbia continuing to exercise some indirect influence, chiefly in the areas inhabited by Serbs."

Also, I'd change the line on future status to state simply "the talks will lead to either some form of independence or substantial autonomy." I feel comfortable noting the widely-reported developing international consensus about independence being the only viable outcome. But, if that is too contentious, then let's just state the two options under consideration: independence (Kosovo's platform) or substantial autonomy (Belgrade's platform). No other options are under discussion. If you use the term "widely expected" then I think you have to note the fact -- repeated in virtually every news article about Kosovo from the last six months -- that independence is seen as the most likely outcome by virtually every independent observer/scholar. I think you can state that fact without expressing an opinion about it. --Envoy202 01:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good observations: you're right on both points. :-)

1). Avoiding the passive voice. However, may your

• ...with Serbia continuing to exercise some indirect influence, chiefly in... become ...
• ...with little Serbian involvement, chiefly in the areas inhabited by Serbs. ?

Then, the article's main body explains the concrete fact of how much Serbian direct (if any) or indirect involvement is allowed, agreed to and/or illegally exercised but tolerated.

2). My inexcusable mistake, sorry. I added the or substantial autonomy to the sourced sentence currently in the introduction, with which I have no problem:

• it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence.

(referenced to Kosovo's status - the wheels grind on, The Economist, October 6, 2005).

I'm happy both with leaving it as it is now, or with Envoy202's the talks will lead to either some form of independence or substantial autonomy.

Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure being corrected in ways that improve the text. :-) --Evv 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction you propose is very close to the previous introduction which attracted a lot of vandalism (which has significantly declined after we changed it). Although I agree that repeated vandalism is a not reason to change the article, we might want to find a version that is both correct/encyclopedic/NPOV etc.. and will not attract vandalism.

I disagree with you that the mentioning of Vodvjina is so crucial to understanding the current status of Kosovo that it has to be mentioned in the first paragraph. Ofcourse the provinces were created at the same time, but Vodvjina does not have anything to do with the current problems in Kosovo. I suggest we do not mention Vodvjina until a geography/political section like we do now.

If we start comparing to other encyclopedias (to which you added 2 other ones I noted), you will see that they hardly ever state that Kosovo is one of two provinces, so also in that respect I think we should follow the other encyclopedias.

And finally, I think that stating it is widely expected... sounds rather unencyclopedic. I prefer the sentence that is currently in the politics section: Most international observers believe these negotiations will will lead to some form of independence., but that is just because I think it sounds better. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been an active editor of this article previusly I would just like to add my two öre and say that I think the last version ammended with the comments of Reinoutr is very good. I agree that there really isn't any need to mention Vojvodina as it (a) doesn't really increase the reader's understanding of what Kosovo is, (b) no encyclopedias seem to use the wording to describe Kosovo and (c) it will draw unnecessary attention from Kosovar Albanians who disagree with Kosovo's current official status. Cheers Osli73 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

lol As I mentioned above at the start of "First paragraph, again", I'm actually proposing to use the previous introduction again. I just forgot to mention it in this new section. :-)

I'm ok with dropping Vojvodina, but I really believe that mentioning it enhances clarity. (See details 6 posts below, or here).

I'm ok with both "it's widely expected..." (because it's sourced) and Reinoutr's wording (which sounds better for me too). Evv 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of Serbia's two autonomous provinces, though since 1999 has been administered by the United Nations with little direct involvement by Serbia.

Located in the Balkans in the south east of the European continent, Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia. The mountainous province's capital and largest city is Pristina. Kosovo has a population of around two million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks and other ethnic groups.

The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian state and Kosovo's majority ethnic-Albanian population, who seek independence from Serbia. Long the subject of conflict, the Kosovo crisis of 1999 led to the intervention of NATO against the regime of then-Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic and the imposition of a UN administration. With the support of NATO-led 'KFOR' peacekeeping force, the United Nations United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has supported the development of provisional institutions of self-government in advance of a decision on the final status of the territory. International negotiations began in 2006 and it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence or substantial autonomy.

(JD)

I like it very much. :-) Three comments:

• Of course, I would love to add "(the other is Vojvodina)" for clarity (reasons already exposed at the start of this section and again here). But I'm fine without it.
• I'm ok with "little direct involvement", but i guess that those three words would require more debate.
• Maybe removing the "widely expected", using Reinoutr's "Most international observers believe these negotiations will lead to some form of independence." or Envoy202's "the talks will lead to some form of independence or substantial autonomy." ?

Regards. Evv 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Kosovo in the same breath as Vojvodina is politically provocative and I categorically disagree with it. I do not want to repeat the reasons given earlier, but I will highlight the main points again:

1. Kosovo is administered by an international community, Vojvodina is administered by Serbia. 2. It has its own constitution, and it is widely accepted that it would gain some sort of independence. 3. Even Serbia is prepared to give it a much higher degree of autonomy than to Vojvodina, thus they can not be the same.

I propose we use the Foreign Office version. If anybody wants to change it so that it sounds more suited to an encyclopedia then be it, but the substance should remain the same. I believe JD had nothing against it (he graced us with this proposal originally), so I don't see him complaining:

"Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia and Montenegro (SaM) but has been under interim UN administration pending a settlement of its status in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 since 1999."

and here's the link:

[1]

--Tonycdp 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is a province of Serbia administered by the UN. Vojvodina is a province of Serbia administered by Serbia. Both are provinces of Serbia. Serbia has two provinces. It has two provinces even if they have different degress of autonomy. It has two provinces <now> even if one or more of them are no longer provinces at some point in the future.

Kosovo does not have a constitution in the sense that the United States has a constitution. It is not primary over all other laws and the source of their legitimacy; it is provided for by one of many UNMIK regulations [2]. Vojvodina also has a document describing it's governance. They both remain provinces of Serbia, though the final status of Kosovo has yet to be decided.

It may well be politically provocative to describe the constitutional status of Kosovo correctly, and, in like manner to other subsidiary entities in Wikipedia (such as England or Republika Srpska), mention that other subsidiary entities exist. Such a statement is potentially provocative because the present situation is politically unacceptable to one side. It is clear that the Kosovo Albanian community are seeking to change this reality. It is not our role to support one side or the other but to present the facts. Stating the facts does not imply that we support the status quo personally or corporately.

Whether or not we mention the other province of Serbia is a matter of clarity, style and Wikipedia best practice. I'm in facour of mentioning that another province exists precisely becuase it puts the position of Kosovo into context, a context which we clarify by noting administration by the UN. It's not vital that we mention other provinces, but you need to present a better reason than political favouritism. (JD)

"I'm in facour of mentioning that another province exists precisely becuase it puts the position of Kosovo into context"

Yes it puts it into a wrong context (it tries to put them on equal ground which is false), open to even wilder interpretations. If you look at Missouri and Bavaria for example, they never mention all the other constituent parts of US and Germany. So your argument can easilly be nullified by this counter-argument.

It is unnecessarily political, and it will provoke vigilante attacks on the article, I beleive what the admins are trying to achieve here is a version that is closest to the facts and at the same time avoid defacements. And your version seems set to provoke just that.

--Tonycdp 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is not 'my version' but that which seems to generate greatest support and significantly from editors with NPOV. Wikipedia articles on US States and German Lander are clearly not likely to mention all the other constituent parts of those states because they are numerous and including them all would look messy and read badly. The counter-argument fails.

It seems that after all this discussion we've fallen back on the argument that we should not mention that Kosovo is one of two Serbian provinces because doing so would provoke vigilante attacks. This is an important question and I'm glad we've settled the facts and revealed the real concern here. Should we distort our reporting beyond good drafting and Wikipedia norms because of the threat of vigilante attacks? Perhaps a poll is in order? (JD)

I'm ok with dropping Vojvodina, but I really believe that mentioning it enhances clarity.

I gave my reasons to include Vojvodina at the start of this section, just before the proposed introduction's text (see here): to help a reader not familiar with the topic (our 15-years-old Philippine) understand the counter-intuitive administrative organization of the Serbian state. US and German states/Länder are the norm, Serbia's autonomous provinces are an exception.

Other encyclopedias don't mention Vojvodina. I saw its inclusion as an improvement for clarity on the lines of "unpaperness".

For my part, years ago, I only understood what Kosovo is since 1974 (but not for much longer) when I could contextualize it after finding out about Vojvodina: that was the moment when the light-bulb went on above my head. :-) The same happened often when I explained Kosovo to some friends who didn't know anything about it (except what TV said: "a remote place where evil Serbs like to harm innocent Albanians").

So, forget for a moment the sensitivities of 18 millions people in the Balkans already familiar with the topic and think about how to make more than a billion English-speaking readers understand Kosovo best as they read about it for the first time.

However, given the nature of Wikipedia, if the idea is to sacrifice what I personally perceive as "clarity" (of course, i may be wrong on this) in order to avoid vandalism... well, i really hate it, but it's a valid point. :-) I wouldn't support it, but I would understand such a decision. (Wouldn't the possible vansalism issue be better dealt with by semi-protecting the article, thus keeping anonymous IPs from editing it ?).

Regards. :-) Evv 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

EW, what a fine example of a mature attitude. It is something which there has often been a deficit of on these Talk pages. Thanks. Cheers Osli73 10:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent reaction Evv, I do understand your opinion about including Vodvjina better now, but for me personally, Vodvjina never was the light bulb, so to speak, which is why I do not consider mentioning it very early in the article to be essential. With regard to vandalism, even semi-protection is only a very temporary measure and any protection is a bit contrary to the idea behind Wikipedia that anyone must be able to add information. Apart from that, the sole fact that it attracts vandalism and objections by other, registered, editors is already an indication that the wording can be better. The ideal article is neutral in facts and is neutral in text to almost everyone who reads it (people with very extreme opinions excluded). Naming Kosovo and Vodvjina as similar entities is something that more then just the people with very extreme opinions objected to, so I would consider that wording not competely neutral. Nevertheless, Vodvjina is mentioned later on so everyone reading the article will found out about it and it is also included in the info box on the right side of the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't resist revisiting the debate over the word "province" after reading today's New York Times. The NYT editorial had this opening sentence: "The 1999 war over Kosovo left the former Serbian province in political limbo, postponing the question of possible independence for another day" (Italics mine). I like that formulation of "former Serbian province," which reflects that Kosovo's legal status as a Serbian administrative province was suspended by UNSCR 1244. I don't have any desire to reopen the whole discussion, but just thought it was interesting to note journalistic usage from an important newspaper. Envoy202 20:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately most people in here are too rigid and do not understand the reality on the ground which I was trying to stress in my many earlier posts. I'm trying to find a good parallel to describe this stupidity of clinging on to something that is defunct.

Serbian province (implying some sort of serbian control), as opposed to "UN administered and only legally a province of serbia" is at best misleading. Mentioning it in the same breath as Vojvodina and sticking a map of Serbia in the info box is ... well, lets not go there. Tonycdp 10:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

lol The moment I saw those words I knew that they would appear here. :-) But keep in mind that editorial pieces, free from the constraints of "journalistic objectivity", often emphasize their opinion with the initial definition given to the subject.

In friday's NYT, the article Uphill All the Way on Kosovo, Says U.N. Envoy (by Reuters) starts with a very clear: PRISTINA, Serbia (Reuters) - U.N. mediator Martti Ahtisaari said on Friday...

Regards. Evv 03:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A VIEW FROM lONG TERM INTERNATIONAL ADVISOR, AN OPINION

After two years in Kosovo working on the ground in a secondary city in eastern Kosovo I have a few observations. The KLA was one of the most successful irregular armies in recent decades, run largely by former professional military officers from the Yugoslav National Army. The KLA had a great air force (NATO's) without which it's victory would have been impossible. UNMIK, the PISG and other elements of the international community have established facts on the ground that will lead to some kind of independence. And face it, Serbia lost the war. But nobody can say this. Effectively the damage done to Serbs in Kosovo is the result of the policies of the Serbian State under the leadership of Milosovic. One reason senior Serbian Officials have not been handed up to the Hague is that their legal defense will be "I was only following orders" And their defense team will seek evidence to support this - if they secure evidence it will be an indicment of Serbian state and people still in political power. I believe the three northern municipalities which are close to 100% Serb will be a defacto autonomous region of Kosovo and effectively under Belgrade's control. The current decentralization plan to create automonous Serb municipalites will be a cost that Kosovars will need to bear to secure independence, but the main question may be "Will it be enough for the Serbs living in those municipalities and the ultra-nationalists pulling the strings in Belgrade?" Also I believe that over time the smaller Serb villages will be depopulated as young Serbs seek their future in Serbia, parents age and land is sold to Albanians to secure capital for a flat in Nis or Belgrade. A fifteen year process, but the trend is already clear. Grove1 19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Religon

Why hide fact Albanian ARE MUSLIMS and SERBS ARE CHRISTIAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.69.196 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 August 2006

Lots of Albanians are Muslims, but lots of them are Catholics. And in the modern world, plenty of them are atheist, like any other group of people; the same applies with Serbian people. It's a common generalisation, but it's not a "fact" as you claim in your edit summary. If you want to make this point, how about gathering some real statistics and improving the article with some well-researched demographics. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In light of Islamist terorist we need to inform about the majority Albanians that are MUSLIMS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.69.196 (talk • contribs) 9:55, 9 August 2006

Please go away if you're not going to contribute anything useful... -- ChrisO 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. That the majority of Kosovar Albanians are Muslims does not have anything to do with terrorist activities or the 1999 war. Look at the 1991-95 Bosnian conflict, do Serb war crimes have anything to do with Christianity? Although religious symbols are certainly used and targeted in Kosovo I've never seen anyone say that Islam plays any role in the conflict. In my opinion, it is purely a nationalist conflict. Osli73 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We have to tell the world this is part of islamists extremism that is going on around the world. According to the government Al qaeda is present in Kosovo. They have Camps.Mujahadin helped the KLA during the war. It's a clear prof,but Albanians do everything to hide. Iran supports them too.

If you provide adequate sources for it, I'm ok with stating that KLA-members are actually Reptilian aliens. But we can't add your claims without proper backing, anonymous. Evv 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso5.html http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/nov01/hed4304.shtml

Playing with yourself. It was Milosheviq who sall wapens to Iraqien terrorist. The municion and bunkers from Albania you cannt finde in Iraq and Izrael but from "Made in Yugoslavia" in the name of Serbia. In the name of Serbia (for me is not importen, but for the Serbian Racisem) it was Milosheviq who gives to Chinez peopel the "Yugoslavian" Pass, they dont have Kosovo or Albanian Pass. - Hipi

Osli

A word - the Serb War crimes in Bosnia DO have to do with Christianity. Ratko Mladic stated the executions of the Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks as a revenge for the Battle of Kosovo - the turning point of Islams breaching into Europe. Generally, Muslims were seen by the Christians (Serbs and Croats) as occupators of Bosnia that weren't eradicated in time - a gruesome truth. --HRE

I am slightly opposed to intro's prediction of Kosovo's gradual independence.

I think the sole reason for this many Albanian POV-pushers - and the appearent rush for Kosovo's independence is the fact that all mediaters were/are Albanian-POV. The previous one fell in love with an Albanian girl and even married her - while the current, Marty Ahtisari, litterally claimed this: that the Serb nation and people and generally and wholesomely fault for everything wrong on Kosovo. --HRE

Edit-warring anonymous editors

Please don't start edit wars over this article (it's had enough already). If you have a disagreement over the form of the article, please discuss it here and reach agreement, rather than fighting over it. -- ChrisO 13:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Serbians terrorists mass

August 26, 2006 Crazy Serbians send it from Serbian government in Mitrovica kill (injure) two Albanians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.178.137.9 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 August 2006

Hipi, you're getting tiresome - when will understand that we're all writing a BOOK here... --HolyRomanEmperor 10:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman rule

I think this sentence is POV: The Ottomans brought Islamisation with them, particularly in towns, and later also created the Viyalet of Kosovo as one of the Ottoman territorial entities. This brought a great shift, as the Orthodox Serb population began to lose its majority when masses of Turks and Albanians moved to Kosovo.

Many historians says that it can not be proved Serbs had majority in Kosovo before the Turks came. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 August 2006

Could you point them out? Actually, I've only seen quasi-historians' claims that support what you hold. Are you now going to say that the Great Migrations of the peoples to Europe (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Avars, Huns, Slavs, Franks,...) never occured? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The list is long, but what about Noel Malcolm, Alain Ducellier.--Noah30 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Ducellier, but Malcolm certainly used to speak at pro-Albanian (or anti-Serb) rallies during the 1999 war. Personally, I have never heard anyone refer to him as a historian in an academic meaning of the word. According to Wikipedia, he has a doctorate, being an expert on Hobbes. I have heard some historians compare him to David Iriving, though -- not because he's an anti-Semite (as far as I know), but because they claim he's a revisionist. Alas, no references, though... But I guess the Wikipedia article says it all. Asav 22:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Great Migrations of the peoples to Europe never occurred, because I know they did, but I am saying that the Albanians in Kosovo had the majority in Kosovo before the Serbs came in the 13 century, and also before the Ottoman occupation.--Noah30 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree (partially) with Noah on this one; although I will admit that my reading on the subject has not been exhaustive, I have yet to come across an assertion that Serbs ever had a majority population that has not appeared in, or been directly quoted from, a Serb historian. Surely we can agree that in this context, neither Serbian nor Albanian historians can be relied upon as unbiased sources. What's wrong with simply admitting that we don't know, and will never know, who arrived first, and who had majority population, at least up until the time that we can draw upon a reasonably reliable and verifiable census? Davu.leon 15:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's lots of info at the Demographic History of Kosovo article - are you saying that all those Ottoman population censuses; researches of many a traveler (mostly Austrian, Jewish, British and French) that clearly state in Serb favour can be dismissed? That's the issue. In addition, Noel Malcom is not a historian and is widely known for his weird researches on dinosaurs; not to mention his short history of Bosnia, which is also essentially biased. HolyRomanEmperor 17:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmpror, Noel Malcolm’s book is the most cited book on Kosovo. Serbs like you do not like him or his books because he tells the truth, but someone has to do it. I am tired of Serbian revisionism, supported in one or another way by people like you.

Many censuses during the ottoman occupation of Kosovo show Albanian majority.

You, Serbs, have built many beautiful churches in USA, does that mean that these places after 100 years should be Serbian?--Noah30 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorrow for the Serbs

I can nothing but feel sorry at how Serb nationalists are behaving in Wikipedia. They have captured almost everything related to Albanians and try to portray them in light of their propaganda. I have been observing the fight between Albanians and Serbs this year and I came to conclude that the reason why Albanians don't seem to care is because they are winning on real life and they seem to have decided to let the Serbs to have their go. The Serb approach in Wikipedia is a continuation of the general 'Serba approach'. I honestly feel sorry for them. I just wonder whether getting them join the EU will bring any good to them? ChrisO: are you a Serb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 August 2006

This is a little... well, biased. It appears that you shear are stereotypic opinion about Serbs as a nation - which doesn't smell good at all. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just read the Kosovo entry. It is full of Serian crappy propaganda. Look at the history section. It is so full of BS that the Albanians seem to have decided to just ignore it completely. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Spreading nationalistic BS. You Serbs with your primitive nationalism have destroyed one of the best countries of Europe. My father has visited Yugoslavia in 1980s and he still talks about how beautiful the whole country was and how sick someone must be to destroy it. Now none wants to live with you in the same state. You must recognize and stop with your crappy XIXth century nationalism. Serbia is simply a European country and now it's the XXIth century. When are you serbs going to wake up and realize this??? I have never met a Serb or Albanian, but it is easy to see who has probolems. (Of course this is directed to Serb nationalists be they 'working' on Wikipedia or trying to destroy something else in real life, not to the all Serbs).Vezaso 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Although your comment is understandable and you are certainly not the first to note these potential problems with the article, you should remember to always assume good faith. The problem here is that it is not a matter of what is true, but on the view people have on what has happened in Kosovo in the past. Both "views" (Serb vs. Albanian) are correct in the opinion of the people supporting that view and both opinions combined might give us a neutral article. Rather than reverting relatively minor sentences in the introduction (which has been the subject of a lot of debate recently), I suggest you adjust the history section to make it more neutral. Nobody will object to good faith, neutral edits, especially if you explain your rationale behind the edits here on the talk page and in your edit summaries. Good luck editing! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso, thanks for your just comments. It is true that the Serbian wikipedians have captured every article where the word Albanian and Kosovo is mentioned. I have said earlier that it is sad that the Wikipedia is being abused by Serbs for their political purposes. And do you know what? When an Albanian makes a comment which is not documented, the administrators answer with blocking him, while when a Serb makes such comment they call it good faith. Most of the administrators responsible for the Kosovo article are pro-Serb, and not only pro-Serb, but they support the Serbian nationalist versions of different historical events. Some of them think that they own those articles. --Noah30 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Noah30, please keep in mind that not every edit that does not fit with the Albanian view on Kosovo necessarily comes from a pro-Serbian editor. Both sides in this disputes (Serbs and Albanian) tend to see neutral, NPOV edits as coming from the opposite side rather than from neutral editors. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anything be done? I realized ChrisO is either a Serb nationalist or a pro-Serbs. Who are the other editors? It is sad that a good project such as Wikipedia falls in the hands of corrupt, nationalist people. Reinoutr, I don't think you can make it relative. We have all seen what the crafted Serbs can do in the Balkans. What makes us believe that their nationalism has faded away? They destroyed Yugoslavia, which could have now been one of the most important countries of the EU. They destroyed the image of the whole region. They will surely continue it here. Serbian expansionist nationalism is vile. It is sad to see people who work here, speak english - so you can guess they have are in touch with the real world outside of nationalism-corruted Serbia. Sad, sad, sad! Vezaso 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure anything has to be done. If you specify here on the talk page what exactly your problems with the current article are, I am sure there are enough neutral editors who are willing to let you know how they feel about the changes you propose. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm neither pro-Serb or pro-Albanian; I'm pro-reliable and verifiable facts. Unfortunately some users, including you, are trying to edit Wikipedia articles to reflect their aspirations or prejudices. Please don't do that. -- ChrisO 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is my strong impression that you are very pro-Serb, ChrisO. I am absolutely certain that had Milosevic read this entry on Kosovo, he would have not removed a single comma. It is simply pure Serb propaganda. The entry is pro-Serb (Kosovo's status is undecided, some want it part of Serbia, but the people there believe they are not since 1990, when they declared independence), the map portraying Kosovo as part of Serbia is pro-Serb (Kosovo is a UN protectorate, it should be a blue map, the color of the UN). It should be neither a territory of Serbia, nor a state. It should be a UN run territory, as it actually is. The history section is simply Serb nationalistic BS. The article on Serbia has 200 words of history, why should the Kosovo entry entail all the Serbian History, which all belongs in "History of Serbia". This is all for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 August 2006

I discussed the changes, Reinoutr. What's wrong now????Vezaso 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. If it is about mentioning the 3RR rule on your talk page, I honestly am only trying to prevent that you will get blocked. With regard to this article, please understand that there is a difference between discussing changes and telling people on the talk page the article is nationalistic BS (your words above) and changing it anyway. Discussing changes means that you try to explain your problem with the article in civil words and wait for someone to reply before just going ahead and changing things anyway. However, I think your main problem is whether or not Kosovo is a part of Serbia. This has been discussed quite some times already, and in a few minutes I'll make a new section below listing links to the reasons why many neutral editors here feel Kosovo still is a part of Serbia. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso you are right when you say that the Kosovo article displays a pro-Serbian bias. DO you know what? The map is taken from the Serbian wikipedia. The intro when I checked it was identically with the Serbian. I think Wikipedia should not be a tool for Serbian nationalists. I think some of them are paid to spread propaganda here. Nationalism is what the Balkans need least.--Noah30 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure which map you are referring to, but the only map that is identical is the green one and that was recently created especially for the english Wikipedia and apparently is also in use in the serbian wikipedia. Also, please do not make unsourced accusations towards other editors who are all trying to contribute to wikipedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

hello Reinoutr. I did not write about you, and I can see that you are trying to be objective, but not the other ones. Wish you a nice evening.--Noah30 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons why we have the current introduction

• It is mentioned that way by virtually all other encyclopedias: What other encyclopedias say
• Even most Albanians agree Kosovo was a province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), which was succeeded by Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) and now by Serbia, according to CNN, BBC, EU and the UN [3].
• Wikipedia is not about "truth" (for what ever that means anyway), but about verifiability, see WP:VER for more information.

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I further explain - ALL Encyclopedias state that (Britannica, LaRousse, Brockhaus') and even the nationalist Albanian freedom movement of Kosova, the Self-determination! movement (Ventevendosje! - Jo negotiata!) which considers the UN Peacekeepers invaders/occupiers and supports Ahtisaari's claims that the Serbian nation is guilty of a crime as a whole - considers Kosovo a part of Serbia... --HolyRomanEmperor 20:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is usually defined as a "UN protectorate", rather then "a province of Serbia". I believe both should be included, but the UN protectorate is more important in describing it.

The Albanian point of view would be:

Kosovo is a state in Central Balkans. It declared its independence in 1990, which has still not been internationally recognized. Presently, Kosovo is run in tandem by the UN Mission in Kosovo and the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment with the former expected to leave soon.

The present form is Serbian biased!

I suggest the following un-biased entry:

Kosovo is a UN run territory in Central Balkans. While still legaly part of Serbia (foremerly Yugoslavia), Kosovo is run in tandem by the UN Mission in Kosovo and the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 August 2006

With regard to Kosovo is usually defined as a UN protectorate, that is simply not true, see all evidence above and below. If you claim that, you will have to supply (many, since you claim usually) independent, reliable sources that talk about Kosovo as a UN protectorate and not a province of Serbia. With regard to the current introduction, it DOES state both that it legally a part of Serbia AND is under UN administration. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples of other resources:

• TIME Magazine: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, the core of the former Yugoslavia. [4]
• CNN: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, but it has been an international protectorate since 1999. [5]
• BBC: Kosovo, a landlocked province within Serbia [6]
• FOX: Serbia's southern, ethnic Albanian-dominated province of Kosovo.. [7]
• CIA: Kosovo as a part of Serbia [8]

Slight correction here - the S&M article has been replaced by this one on Serbia alone. Please note the map, Vezaso! -- ChrisO 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Encarta: Kosovo, province in southwestern Serbia. [9]
• Brittanica: ..region within the republic of Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia, 1929–2003),... [10]

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, Reinoutr - I think it makes the point very well that our sources agree on Kosovo's status. Vezaso, we have to describe what our sources say about Kosovo, not what we think is "right" or "wrong". This is required by two of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies, WP:V and WP:RS. Please go and read them if you haven't already. -- ChrisO 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To be slightly more specific, WP:V is policy, one of the three policies, the core one being WP:NPOV from which WP:V springs. V stands for Verifiability which, stated simply means that any information within Wikipedia must have been previously published by a reliable source for the information to be included in Wikipedia. Then the guideline, WP:RS gives specific examples of sources of information which fulfil WP:V. All of the listed sources of information fulfil WP:RS, and thus fulfil WP:V. If there is another source of information which says otherwise, then that might be included. Terryeo 23:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To be even more specific (and accurate), the "tripod" of fundamental policies on which Wikipedia stands are: WP:NPOV (neutral point of view); WP:V (verifiability); and WP:NOR (no original research). In other words, you can't assert something based solely on your personal belief - it needs to be verifiable, i.e. a reliable third party source has to say it. This is the real issue here: the reliable, verifiable sources that we have (see list above) all say the same thing. -- ChrisO 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, going back to the earlier post where you claim you are neither pro-Serb nor pro-Albanian. Would you like me to compile a list of evidence proving the opposite. Now I will only go through this hassle if you agree to step down from your self-assumed Kosovo related duties should I successfuly manage to expose your pro-serbian tendencies. Or perhaps anti-albanian tendencies would be more correct, because you have had your fingers in many other articles related to Albanians and all you did is to introduce Greek and Serbian names to towns and cities (and enforced them you way by just reverting anyone who dared to remove your so-called contributions). Which was really unnecessary (and inflammatory), since you never once bothered to put albanian names to the places such as for example Skopje.

You hide very well behind the Wikipedia rules, and you are indeed a master in the field, no doubt, also the diplomatic language you employ is first class (forgiving a few mishaps). Perhaps I am a little cynical (I can't help it) but despite all your brilliant arguments which should, by the rules of diplomacy, give you Neutrality kudos, the 'ChrisO influenced' end result always leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and probably in many peoples mouths in here too.

Also would you be kind enough to modify the InfoBox and remove Turkish from the list of official language because it isn't. No official document (nor the framework) recognises it as such. It is a de-facto official language in Prizren only, but still not official.

Official languages in Kosovo are Albanian/Serbian/English as it stands.Tonycdp 11:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone says the truth about ChrisO. He thinks he owns the articles about Kosovo and Albania. Asterion is also very pro-Serbian. I call this what is happening with the Kosovo articles: systematic falsification of history.--Noah30 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, but it makes me sad. I assume ChrisO is a Serb or a Macedonian and it makes me sad to see how anti-Albanian he is. It makes me sad to see that the cycle is still developing and new fighters for the cause of Milosevic are using other alternative means to continue the destrucitive path. Vezaso 12:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well considering Asterion went far beyond anything needed to get User: Ferick unblocked, who by the way, is a very large (albeit very poorly educated and rather bad at spelling) Albanian nationalist, I think it's unjust to call him "pro Serb". Of course what else does one expect. Americans help out Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets, and then Bin Laden screws them over. They're the same everywhere. Oh and what can I saw about this German here, "Markus Schott". I guess we need to point out the crimes his grandparents and relatives committed during World War I and World War II. Of course, you're not entirely to blame for World War I, but you know since the Versailles Treaty is official and all, then yeah, you are. Life must suck, I hear the Dutch still hate your guts.

Anyways Markus, if you and your "Kamaraden" ever get bored, take a long walk, it should do you good. I'll warn the Poles before hand in case you get too far. PerfectStorm ^{(Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!)} 12:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that because the Germans had Hitler, we have the right to our own Hitler too? Because Germany went mad during the WWII, we the Serbs have the right to gat mad in our own Balkans? If so, you should be ashamed! We are talking about Serbia here not Germany, Germany is a whole different and long story that we can discuss, but not in here.

Vezaso 12:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's got nothing to do with that, I just like bugging Schwabs about Hitler and they're Aryan "obsession". You know, you make me laugh, you make edits saying "Kosovo is a region in the Balkans (but definitely not part of Serbia)", but then you go on saying about how we're talking about Serbia. Well this is the Kosovo article, but please, if you insist, we'll call it Serbia, the rest of the world seems to do so. Anyways one can't blame poor Hitler for everything you guys did, he was democratically elected by you guys, shame, there go all your excuses. It was bad enough when we had homicidal Albanians here, now we've got genocidal Schwabs too. I really need to warn the Wiki Poles. PerfectStorm ^{(Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!)} 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be needing a doctor. What you say here is simply crazy stereotypical. I am complainging that some editors are heavily prejudiced and pro-serbian. Unfortunately you seem to be one of them. That is not helpful to WIkipedia. I am kindly asking you to rething your position. I am informing you, that Serb exremism has destroyed Yugoslavia, which was one of the best European countries. Nobody wants to live with you in one state anymore, as your leaders wanted to kill them. It is high time to wake up and see the world we are living and look towards the future. Vezaso 13:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso do not care about PerfectStorm. He had the nick : CCCC(according to his talk page), but was banned. Now he is back. Vezaso if you have time, write to a administrator and ask them to block PerfectStom again. --Noah30 17:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Info Box

Can we please change the InfoBox so that it doesn't show the map of Serbia.

Cpt Morgan, there were alot of people who objected to this when it was being introduced but their concerns were simply ignored (which I remember prompted me to get involved with Kosovo). Why were their concerns dismissed?

I earlier suggested that this map as a basis for the info box: http://www.axisglobe.com/Image/2005/11/16/Kosovo/2-Kosovo-map.gif

It is a map of Kosovo and the border with Serbia is a broken line which suggests that it is an internal state border (nothing political about it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonycdp (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 August 2006

Dear Tony, I do not agree with you that the concerns of people were ignored when this map was introduced. There was a lot of discussion about it at the time indeed. Without going into the pro-albanian/pro-serbian debate, at the time the map was introduced most NEUTRAL editors agreed that a map of Kosovo together with Serbia would be more informative. The relation of Kosovo with Serbia is still very tight (especially de-jure) and complicated (de-facto), so simply ignoring Serbia when showing a map of Kosovo is definately not a good idea. The map you show as an example, however, could be a reasonable alternative, because it shows both Kosovo and (part of) Serbia and makes clear that there is a relation between the two. I'll give it a try later to fit something like that into the infobox, hopefully without too many people edit-warring over such a change. Give me a few hours and I'll see what I can do. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Reinoutr, your openness to this controversial article is highly appreciated. Tonycdp 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo still is an autonomous province of Serbia (all our sources tell us so), and there's no better way to show it's location than in a map of Serbia, like in the current map. This is especially true for readers/users not familiar with the topic.

When/if that changes, the map should be changed accordingly. But not now, not for "diplomacy", not to keep a tiny minority happy. If facts hurt some people's sensibilities, so be it. As I stated previously, a good article should be offensive to people who dislike the current consensus of scholars or experts.

It's not about being pro- or against-something, about being paid "propagandists" (LOL !!!!) or anything similar. It's just about stating facts in an informative manner. Happy tuesday everyone :-) Evv 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that we shouldn't keep a tiny minority happy. And only the minority of people would find the version you support any more informative than the version I propose. Like this we will avoid vandalism by deliberately insulting Albanians and at the same time provide a very informative and CORRECT version that displays Kosovo but with a broken border towards Serbia, which is just as factual as the current version, but less inflammatory.

There's a a much better way to show Kosovo's location than sticking it in Serbia. As if a map of Serbia would make any sense to an average reader, who can barely keep up with all the border changes in the recent years. Kosovo in 'western Balkans' is an acceptable secondary solution but only after the primary map of Kosovo alone.Tonycdp 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the current map, showing Kosovo's ubication within Serbia, much more informative than one of Kosovo alone, which would force readers to go to the Serbia article to see the context.

It's true, mine may be a minority view. But that's the way in which administrative divisions are shown in the maps of most (if not all) other cases: first the location of the province within the country, and only then a more detaild map. Examples: Plovdiv Province, Thessaloniki Prefecture, Sibiu County, Baranya (county), Bavaria, Tennessee, Haute-Corse, Basque Country.

Now, if the idea is to change the map to "avoid vandalism", I really really don't like it. I very much prefer to "promote vandalism" than change the maps to suit those who dislike being (currently, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned) part of Serbia, Germany (Bavaria Party), France (Corsica nazione, FLNC) or Spain (Basque nationalism). Regards. Evv 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are talking as if Kosovo was really part of Serbia. Now we all know that it isn't. Although, legaly it is so until its status is resolved. And we all knwo that Kosovo is going to be independent by the end of the year. In light of this, pushing for the 'legalistic' approach makes us mislead the viewers. So, I suggest that we go for the factic approach and mention the legalistic approach. As I'm sure, these Serb nationalists will continue to vandalize the Kosovo article even after November, when most likely Kosovo will be granted independence. Vezaso 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

lol Right now, for the purposes of Wikipedia, Kosovo really is part of Serbia. :-) All our sources tell us so (see also those given by Reinoutr at the start of the previous section, here), and Wikipedia's articles should merely reflect what our sources say.

When our reliable sources begin stating something different this article should be changed. Not before. If "these Serb nationalists" want to change the article in ways contrary to what our sources state, I will try to avoid it. Regards. :-) Evv 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Vezaso will be complaining to the CIA about its map of Serbia, on which our infobox map is based? Bottom line: we reflect what our sources say - it's as simple as that! -- ChrisO 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm sure if there was an article on Kosovo in CIA, it would not include Serbia. The article on Serbia of course will have Kosovo in it, until Kosovo becomes independent, somwhere in November. But this is the article on Kosovo, which is in the process of becoming independent. Of course we need to state that Kosovo is still legaly part of Serbia. But this is not like Catalonia. + the Logo of the PISG should be placed above the map. The flag that late President Rugova used for Kosovo should also be put somewhere in the article. The UN Flag and the PISG flag should be put on the top. I am insisting that Serbs, pro-Serbs and Albanians and pro-Albanians should stop propaganda. This should be an informative article. Presently, it is a Serbian propaganda pamphlet! ChrisO, honestly I expect a bit more from you. You seem extremely biased, convince me otherwise. Vezaso 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a bit bold, but please realise that we are not trying to offend each other here, but rather finding a compromise that fits both with NPOV and is acceptable to as many editors as possible. I changed the map in the infobox to the image below here (in case someone reverts the infobox). Please do not revert right away, but take some time to think it over whether this or a variation on it might be acceptable. Please bear in mind that we are all editing in good faith here.

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cpt Morgan, thank you for your design. It looks better although it would be a million times better if Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia were included in the map too, that would put the region into a factual context. Broken line suggests it is a part of Serbia, bold solid lines represent the internationally recognised entities.

I'm glad you've taken all the concerns on board, I really appreciate it. Now I'm looking forward to some productive debating rather than patronising comments.

To Evv: You LOL all the time :) (one happy-go-lucky bunny, aren't you) . Please read my reasoning behind the request to remove map of Serbia, so that I don't repeat myself again, and I certainly wouldn't want your time wasted on LOL-ing either. I would appreciate it if you could tell me how my suggestion breaks any of your oh so cherished rules of Wikipedia you and ChrisO like to use to your advantage all the time.

I am somewhat intrigued by your statement that you would prefer to "promote vandalism". Let me think about it before I reply.... In fact I'll let you think about it before you reply :-) lol lol lol Tonycdp 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added the additional border as you can see. Adding also the names of those countries would make the image cluttered in my opinion, so I did just the borders. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

lol I do laugh easily and it's a wonderfull sunny day. Cheers :-)

I object to the new map because it's less informative, less clear, less intuitive than the previous map, not because it contradicts any rule I know of. My point is that your proposal sacrificies clarity for diplomacy.

As for the use of Wikipedia rules to "my advantage" (in my pursue of a NPOV article), well, that's in part what the rules are for. :-) See WP:NOR#Why original research is excluded.

Finally, the "promote vandalism" statement. :-) Very simple really: in an encyclopedic article, I would much rather offend some people with a clear description (thus possibly promoting vandalism) than keep everybody happy with a less informative, watered-down version (thus avoiding vandalism). Regards. Evv 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you prefer the old map, because you stated so also before I changed it. Still, I would like to ask you not to revert until some other editors have given their opinion. The map is NPOV and it is not added because of diplomacy, but because of Wikipedia:Consensus. If a majority of the editors show their preference for the old map, I have no objections to changing it back. I just want to show people this alternative, which might allow us to achieve a broader consensus than with the old map. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

lol Don't worry. And, answering to Tonycdp, I should have placed my last message above -and not below- yours. Regards. Evv 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... I can't say I particularly dislike the new map, but as Evv says, it's less intuitive than the other one. Also, WP:NPOV trumps WP:CON; let's face it, the only reason why we are even having this debate in the first place is because some nationalist editors want to present Kosovo in a way that none of our sources support. The next step will be replacing your map with one that shows Kosovo as an independent state. The editors in question know what Wikipedia policies require but refuse to play by the same rules as everybody else. If the problem is people repeatedly violating WP:V, WP:NPOV etc (and it is), the way to deal with that is to either persuade them to play by the rules or, failing that, to block them. Please don't try to negotiate on policies that are non-negotiable. -- ChrisO 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns, but in this case I think just calling on NPOV is not completely fair, because the main discussion is on what exactly the NPOV view on Kosovo is. Therefore, looking for CONsensus is a way to solve edit-warring over these matters. The reason I created this map is because it now shows 1) that Kosovo is part of Serbia while it 2) places an emphasizes on Kosovo rather than on the whole of Serbia and 3) the map of Serbia/Kosovo in Europe still shows the whole of Serbia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely the NPOV view on Kosovo is whatever the consensus of our sources say it is? I honestly can't see how it's going to be possible to reach a consensus if one side wants to depart from verifiable reality. Having said that, I see that the BBC are using a map very similar to yours in its profile of Kosovo - see [11]. On that basis, I think I'll support your map, as long as it's on the understanding that it's "thus far and no further." I certainly wouldn't support any effort to portray Kosovo as a separate state in the map. -- ChrisO 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As I assume you know by now, it definately is not my intention to have a map just showing Kosovo here. This map is merely meant as a compromise between the 'entire Serbia' map and the 'just Kosovo' map. Personally, I favor the first and not the second of those two, but this compromise hopefully abolishes those discussions. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone is biased in this discussion, it is you ChrisO. I don't want to sound dramatic, but your threat to 'block them' reminds me of Milosevic: 'They either play by the rules or we kill them. The Serbian law on such and such says this and that.' Come on! Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. It is not an encyclopedia as Serb nationalists see it. Please be more civil. Not to repeat myself: I believe the UNMIK flag and the PISG Coat of Arms should be placed above the map. Vezaso 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Quit the silly comparisons, please. When you signed up for a Wikipedia account you agreed to abide by Wikipedia's rules. Every time you see the edit window you'll see a statement immediately below that says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Do you accept this rule - yes or no? -- ChrisO 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to introduce the UNMIK flag (which is just the UN flag) and the PISG coat of arms, I suggest that you find a source that states that they're the official symbols of Kosovo rather than of just the PISG institutions and UNMIK. I was under the impression that Kosovo doesn't actually have any official symbols yet - which is why you see the Albanian flag everywhere in the Albanian-populated areas and the Serbian flag elsewhere. There's an UNMIK press release at http://www.unmikonline.org/press/2001/press-r/pr656.html which sheds some light on what seems a very murky situation. -- ChrisO 22:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vezaso, this really is the time for you to understand and see that we ARE trying to reach a compromise rather than ignoring the remarks by you and Tonydcp. The UNMIK flag, nor the PISG Coat of Arms are currently official symbols of Kosovo and therefore it would not be suitable to include them here. Naturally, they CAN be included (and probably are) on the UNMIK and PISG pages. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Both are official symbols of Kosovo under the UN Resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework. At the borders of Kosovo you will see the UN flag and the flag of the PISG. Both are UN made, they are not made by Albanians. They are the provisional symbols of Kosovo until the status of Kosovo is reached. They are ethnically/nationally unbiased. While the UNMIK flag is the UN flag, the PISG Coat of Arms has elements of UN logo and the map of Kosovo in the middle in colors that are neither Albanian nor Serb. They are unbiased provisional symbols of Kosovo.

This is my proposal:

Kosovo
Kosovë/Kosova
Косово и Метохија

UN Flag PISG Logo

[[]]

Vezaso 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide an actual reference so that we can verify where UNSCR 1244 and the CF say that. (And please remember to sign your comments!) -- ChrisO 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for discussing it here first rather than making the edits right away. Unfortunately, I am not in favor of adding this flag and coat of arms, for the reasons I stated above. They are NOT official symbols of Kosovo (per UN or framework) and therefore it would not be suitable to add them so prominently. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you check the entry on Vojvodina it has its symbols. Every entity has its symbols. I will be researching to find the appropriate UNMIK resolution and put the link here. But this is all ethnicity-nationally free. I think we should not put national flags, although I think somewhere down the article we should put the flag that Mr. Rugova propsoed and state in a box that, that is a disputed flag. We also need to say something on the parallel structures and there we could put the Serbian flag. The UN flag and the PISG coat of arms are the provisional, legal symbols of Kosovo under UN protectorate.Vezaso 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you check the official UNMIK webpage at http://www.unmikonline.org/ and the official webpage of the Assembly of Kosovo: http://www.assemblyofkosovo.org/ you will notice the logo and the flag.Vezaso 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vojvodina has its own symbols because its assembly passed a law establishing an official flag for the entire province. See http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/cs-vojvo.html for details. There is no equivalent law or official flag for Kosovo (see http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/cs-kosov.html for background). -- ChrisO 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a UNMIK Regulation. I am trying to find it, they wouldn't be used otherwise. I am suggesting that apart from the PISG Coat of Arms the UNMIK flag should be put too, for as long as the status of Kosovo is not resolved. I will provide the link to the UNMIK regulation as soon as I find it. Vezaso 23:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And here you are: ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 2003/15 at http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/admdirect/2003/ADE2003_15.pdf#search=%22%22Pisg%20logo%22%22

Hmm. This doesn't say what you seem to think it says. To quote: "For the purpose of providing the required authorization for the use of an approved logo by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government" (my emphasis). In other words, the coat of arms is only that of the PISG, not of Kosovo as a whole. It represents the institution, not the province. This seems to differ fundamentally from the coat of arms of Vojvodina, which was adopted to represent the province as a whole, according to http://flagspot.net/flags/cs-vojvo.html . -- ChrisO 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's just a logo used by a specific institution, and not a Coat of arms or something similar. Regards. Evv 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point Evv, I'd missed that. You're quite right. A coat of arms has a specific heraldric significance, representing an entity in a particularly formal way. A logo is just a logo. -- ChrisO 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is governed by UN Resolution 1244, which recognises Kosovo as a terrotory of Yugoslavia under UN protectorate. UNSC1244 establishes UNMIK, under the UN flag and gives it the mission to provide Kosovo with self-government. To fulfil this goal, UNMIK established the PISG, which is the whole institutional settiong in Kosovo. UNMIK established the PISG logo as the only symbol for the PISG, which is to be used in tandem with the UNMIK flag. These are UN symbols, the only legal valid symbols for Kosovo until status. They are used in all institutions, all Kosovo publications, all websites, bordercrossings etc. Vezaso 23:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as symbols of the institutions, not as symbols of the province. The UNMIK document you quoted is explicit on that point. -- ChrisO 23:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Evv 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The map looks a bit empty, I suggest adding a bit of color to the other countries of the region as below. The UN flag and the PISG logo are the only two official symbols of Kosovo, under UNSC1244. I don't expect you to agree, ChrisO. You will not agree to anything that dosn't have the word Serbia in it. just for your pleasure we can put a word Serbia over the UN flag and the PISG logo? Will that make you happy? Or we can write 'Srbija do Tokija' above both of them. I am talking to unbiased people. Vezaso 00:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait to see what other editors think. Evv 01:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Evv:

"As for the use of Wikipedia rules to "my advantage" (in my pursue of a NPOV article), well, that's in part what the rules are for. :-) See WP:NOR#Why original research is excluded."

Ahhh Evv, thanks for admitting it, you save me a lot of hassle. Your belief that you'd much rather offend people by offering an "informative" version over the version that is still factually correct but promotes neutrality simply doesn't wash. It is somewhat ridiculous because the very fact that you're managing to upset as you call it "the minority" (i.e. a whole ethnic group and many more outsiders here, who do not agree with you) should be enough proof that there's is something seriously wrong with your version of reality. Now you can use all the Wiki rules to your advantage, but that doesn't mean that you're presenting a factual and a fair version.

I don't want to present my version, my opinion or the truth, nor do I want to be fair. I just want the article to reflect what our reliable sources state (regardless of whether I personally agree with that statement or not).

What our sources state (Kosovo is a Serbian province under UN administration) is offensive to most (if not all) Albanians, to some (or many) Serbs and to many more other people. However, it's informative and not offensive to over a billion English-speaking readers/users. In this sense, whole ethnic groups are tiny minorities.

I find the 'Kosovo only map' less informative than the 'all Serbia map', but it's factual and prettier. I wouldn't like using it in the infobox, but if a consensus is reached for using it I will have a beer and abide by it. Cheers :-) Evv 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cpt Morgan: The map looks brilliant. There's nothing to suggest that Kosovo is not in some sort of way linked to Serbia (broken border line) which should please the pro-Serbian lobbyists ChrisO & Co. And at the same time gives Kosovo and its people the respect they deserve. Putting a map of Serbia (a country that tried to wipe out Kosovo of its population not so long ago) was very insulting, and very few people seem to understand that in here.

I do not agree with ChrisO that the map looks cluttered, I think it looks fine, although you could colour the rest of the region in bright green, so that we have a two-tone map. And again, thank you for taking this up.Tonycdp 10:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New Infobox

This is the new suggested infobox. I added the UN flag, the PISG Logo which direct you to the UNMIK and PISG entries. I dropped the lines, but I'm not sure about that. The cyrilic needs to be bold. And I am not sure as to what color looks better on the surrounding states, gray or light green. Of course if we go for green. I would suggest light blue, the UN color. Opinions? Vezaso 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to drop the UN flag and PISG logo - they aren't symbols of Kosovo as an entity, so including them is extremely misleading. The standard in infoboxes is to include the entity's flag and coat of arms, neither of which Kosovo possesses at the moment. I would leave the surrounding states in the top map as white. Kosovo itself should remain in a different shade of the same colour as Serbia (i.e. dark green / lighter green) as at present, to indicate its relationship with Serbia. -- ChrisO 00:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the previous infobox: no symbols and the 'entire Serbia' map (because it's more clear, informative, intuitive). Regards. Evv 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, Kosovo is presently governed by UNMIK, under the resolution 1244. Kosovo has Albanian and Serbian state symbols that are not considered by UNMIK as legitimate. The only legitimate symbols accepted by the UN are the PISG logo accompanied by the UN flag. You can check all the official websites of Kosovo, they all have the same pattern in symbols. We are trying to make a clear unbiased, representative article. Vezaso 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source that states that the PISG logo and UN flag are symbols of Kosovo, rather than just symbols of the PISG and UNMIK. -- ChrisO 01:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I explained the reasoning. The arguments are as follows:

1. Kosovo i governed by Resolution 1244 which establishes UNMIK;

2. UNMIK does not recognise any symbols but the PISG Logo in tandem with the UN flag (read the directive above);

3. The PISG Logo is used in all official kosovo documents etc. (Official gazette, official websites, border crossings etc.);

4. As such, the PISG Logo in tandem with the UN flag are the provisional symbols of Kosovo, until the status of Kosovo is decided;

5. The PISG logo entails the combination of symbols from the UN flag, EU flag and the map of Kosovo in colors that are neither Albanian nor Serb.

6. The Logo has been designed and approved by the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

7. In the following picture it is seen the former President of Kosovo Rugova, in front of the Kosovo flag which is not accepted by UNMIK (right) as the official flag of Kosovo as UNMIK insists that the only official symbol of Kosovo is the PISG Logo in tandem with the UN flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ibrahim_Rugova_portrait.jpg Vezaso 01:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait to see what other editors think. Evv 01:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo Kosovë/Kosova Косово и Метохија
UNMIK Flag PISG Logo
Location in Europe.
Official languages	Albanian, Serbian, English
Capital	Prishtinë / Priština
President of Kosovo	Fatmir Sejdiu
Prime Minister of Kosovo	Agim Çeku
Area  – Total  – % water	10,912 km²  4,213 sq. mi  n/a
Population  – Total (2003)  – Density	2.1 million (est.)  220/km² (approx)  570/sq. mi
Ethnic groups (2003)	Albanians: 87% Serbs: 8% Turks: 1% Others: 4%
Time zone	UTC+1
Currency	Euro (Official) and Serbian dinar (the latter is used exclusively in Serbian-populated areas)

I am not in favor of this version of the infobox. I agree the map could use some improvement, I'll have a look a that this evening, but the flag and coat of arms/logo are NOT official symbols representing the entity of Kosovo. They are official symbols representing UNMIK and PISG and are used as such. Currently, Kosovo does NOT have any official symbols and we should not be adding a flag and a coat of arms just because other countries have a flag and a coat of arms. National flags and related symbols have very special meanings in international politics, legislation and laws and are surrounded with extenstive protocols. These symbols are different from that and thus should not be used as such. I have no objections to adding the symbols at other places in the article dealing with UNMIK and PISG in more detail (as the PISG logo already is). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This new map is better. In the interest of clarity, I think it's clear that a map showing Kosovo should have Kosovo as the major focal point. One does not feel it necessary to include the whole of Britain when depicting Northern Ireland for example. As far as the UN flag etc, while it does go some way towards establishing the reality on the ground, which is that Serbia has no real influence in governing, it is probably true that it is not factually accurate to include them, in terms of the stated international stance on the region. I think Kosovo can survive without its flag on Wikipedia for the year or so it will take before final staus. Davu.leon 09:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This article as a whole is a Serb propaganda pamphlet. As for the flag, these are the neutral symbols of Kosovo, UN made. I am against of including the Albanian symbols, for as long as the status is undecided. But these symbols are used throughout Kosovo, as the provisional neutral symbols of Kosovo. You can check all the official websites of Kosovo. In the meanwhile, I put back the previously agreed version, which presents Kosovo a bit more neutral, then the current Serb nationalist pamphlet. Vezaso 09:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We do not agree with the addition of a flag, so you revert to different version of map (whereas you include the map I suggested in your proposed infobox)? That does not make any sense and such edits are certainly frowned upon here. Please understand that we ARE trying to accomodate your suggestions (this version of the map was a COMPROMISE, remember?) and we have no objections to including the UNMIK flag and PISG logo in other locations in the article. Those are all compromises, which is an essential part of Wikipedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise between neutrality and Serb propaganda brings us somewhere in the realm of moderate Serb propaganda. This article should be neutral. It has obviously been captured by Serb propgagandists, but it shouldn't remain in that way. Vezaso 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso, I have worked for a long time on this aricle but it's pointelss. I invite you to come and work on the Serbia article. Dardan 09:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso, if that was true, I would agree with you. But currently, the difference here is that we read your arguments and reply to them, whereas you read our arguments and revert the article, complain how pro-Serb it is and refuse to discuss any further. That will never lead to any improvement of this article. Please explain why this all is pro-Serb, because I do not get it:

• We change the map to focus on Kosovo rather than Serbia
• We agree to including the PISG logo, but just not in the infobox because it is not an official national symbol.
• We agree to including the UNMIK flag, but just not in the infobox because it is not an official national symbol.
• We moved any reference to Vodvjina to the geography section
• The 2ND sentence of the article explains that Kosovo is UN administered

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is horrible, I cant belive serb nationalists still countinue their attacks on everything albanian. Why does Wikipedia allows such things?????

kushtxh 09:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We would get a neutral article if we have a person holding extreme pro-Albanian point of view, as does ChrisO and you to some extent hold pro-Serbian point of view.

• A neutral article should only show Kosovo withouth any relationship to other parts of the region, as the staut of Kosovo remains a limbo.
• A neutral article will call Kosovo a 'landlocked territory in central balkans' as do so many sources call it, including UNMIK.

Kosovo is a small and landlocked territory in the center of the Balkan Peninsula. http://www.sok-kosovo.org/pdf/agriculture/Chapter_01.pdf#search='%27kosovo%2C%20a%20landlocked%20territory%27'

...landlocked territory of two million inhabitants has been under U.N. control since 1999, when sustained NATO... http://voanews.com/english/archive/2005-07/2005-07-19-voa84.cfm?renderforprint=1&textonly=1&&CFID=1126916&CFTOKEN=33491888

Kosovo is a landlocked territory under United Nations interim administration and centrally located in the Balkans. http://www.kosovo-mining.org/kosovoweb/en/kosovo.html

Kosovo is a territory in the centre of the Balkans. http://www.iflry.org/libel/libel_942e.html

These are sources, if you so much insist on. But this is not a trial to talk like lawyers. We all know what the status of Kosovo is and what it will be. I believe we should put it what we know in actuality is, an independent state waiting to be recognized by the international community. Dardan 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo indeed does not have any symbols. The UN symbols should be included in the article but probably not in the InfoBox, because it's too damn complicated as it is.

Someone mentioned Northern Ireland [[12]]. Having just looked at the article I really don't see why my proposal is considered one-sided.Tonycdp 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia infobox on Northern Ireland simply does not have a "NI in UK" (an equivalent of the "Catalonia in Spain" or "Bavaria in Germany" maps), relying instead on the "NI in Europe map" alone. The same thing happens in "England", "Scotland" and "Wales". But the UK is a special case, a kingdom and not a country: see British Isles (terminology). Regards. Evv 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dardan, I resent the accusation of being pro-Serb. I am of dutch nationality, have never been in the region and have no personal interest in either point of view. The sources you supplied are all Kosovar sources, that inherentely have a Kosovo point of view. We like to rely on more neutral sources, like other encyclopedias and news agencies. I'll repeat here what I also posted above:

• TIME Magazine: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, the core of the former Yugoslavia. [13]
• CNN: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, but it has been an international protectorate since 1999. [14]
• BBC: Kosovo, a landlocked province within Serbia [15]
• FOX: Serbia's southern, ethnic Albanian-dominated province of Kosovo.. [16]
• CIA: Kosovo as a part of Serbia [17]
• Encarta: Kosovo, province in southwestern Serbia. [18]
• Brittanica: ..region within the republic of Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia, 1929–2003),... [19]

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dardan, I was wrong I see, one of your sources was not Kosovar in origin. But now let ME quote from that source:

• Kosovo, the United Nations-administered south Serbian province.. (1st sentence) [20]

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Reinoutr, I see your point. But Kosovo became a UN protectorate in 1999 with the aim of giving kosovars self-government. Thus, the sovereignty of Serbia was frozen until the future status will be decided. The international community (the Contact Group) has agreed last year to resolve the status issue this year based on these principlas:

1. There is no going back to before 1999 (which means no more province of Serbia);

2. There is no seperation (which means Kosovo will remain an entity, the north will not be separated;

3. There is no unification of Kosovo with any other territory (which means Kosovo will not be allowed do join with Albania or parts of Macedonia). In sum this may mean from a Republic status within Yugoslavia to independence. Now that Montenegro has left Serbia it is sensless to expect that Albanians will re-establish Yugoslavia, so we can only expect full independence.

Numerous states have already declared their support (the UK, the US, Switzerland, Germany, Albania, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Finland etc.). Some states have said that they would accept independence (Macedonia, Bulgaria, Italy, Turkey, Austria, etc.) and some states have said they do not agree (Russia, Romania). As seen, the states that finance mostly the UN Mission in Kosovo are for, or would accept it. So logically we can anticipated that Kosovo will be independent by the end of the year. We need to reflect this view on the article. Please check the entry on Northern Ireland. Dardan 11:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dardan, I agree that the article should also reflect the most likely outcome of the negotiations, but not by stating that Kosovo is an independent country when this is not true (yet). The last sentence of the second paragraph reads: International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo; it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence., and more information on that can currently be found in the Kosovo Future Status Process section (which you are invited to expand if you feel that is necessary), so I think the article already addresses those issues (at least to some extend). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A minor point, I know, but why not 'The location of Kosovo in Europe'? Or just 'Location of Kosovo'? The inclusion of Serbia is inconsistent with Wikipedia norms. Davu.leon 11:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Consistency between articles is not a goal or requirement on Wikipedia.
2. Can you elaborate which Wikipedia norms you are referring to?
3. The Europe map perfectly matches the Kosovo (and part of Serbia) map this way.
4. It is now the only map that places Kosovo in the broader perspective (of Serbia), which many neutral editors (including me) feel is a requirement to include in this article.

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a small adjustment to make the description fit better with the maps. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Davu, Serbia is put there to annoy Albanian and neutral users. It is offensive, as Saying Poland is Part of Germany, or Serbia is part of the Ottoman Empire. Although it is a historical truth, it doesn't portray the reality. It is not informative, it simply pushes a Serb nationalistic agenda. Dardan 11:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dardan, that is not true as you must know. Serbia is put here because it is still is very tightly related to Kosovo and vice versa. Their relationship is not (yet) a part of history, but a part of currently ongoing negotiations. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm new, I didn't know consistency was desirable. By norms I simply meant what I have observed on other pages, such as the NI page. I like the Europe map, just not the Serbia reference. The first map shows Kosovo's place in relation to Serbia, the second its postion in Europe. If you feel that's essential, fine... it was just that I don't feel the text below the picture comes across as neutral. (I am not claiming to be totally neutral. I think it's obvious that I lean slightly towards the Kosovar Albanian position, so maybe I'm not the best person to judge.) Davu.leon 11:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And as an unrelated point, Thaci was never prime minister of Kosovo. I don't know how that got in there. Davu.leon 11:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Much better text, now comes across as neutral. Davu.leon 11:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are more then welcome to correct such mistakes if you find them. Some issues here are quite controversial, but it is safe to edit things like that I suppose. I am not familiar with Kosovar politics, so I cannot tell if something like that is correct or not. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't make changes cause I'm new. But it's correct alright. I'll try to find a reference. Davu.leon 11:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The infobox should not try to predict the status of Kosova. Therefore it should not make Kosovo look as a part of any other state, be that in color, or be included in the map of any such state. I encourage you to refrain from edits which do not comply with these elementary rules. Regards, ilir_pz 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Serbia... has a warrant out for Çeku's arrest on charges of war crimes against Serbs. He denies the charges [1] and according to the UNMIK, the warrant is considered to be null because Serbia has no jurisdiction over Kosovo[2]." - From Agim Ceku's page. Just found it interesting. What exactly is the nature of Serbia's legal relationship to Kosovo? Davu.leon 12:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop Revert Wars

We are trying to reach a compromise. Please refrain from taking matters into your own hands. Although I greatly sympathise with the Kosovar grievances I don't think that the reverts by Dardan are the right thing to do.

Lots of people here have come to your support by laying down well-informed arguments such as Envoy202 (who I thank greatly for his contributions). And we have managed to convince some Neutral Editors that the article was not Neutral in its previous state. We have made progress and the article now looks a lot less provocative, and it has been achieved without denting the truth.Tonycdp 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely here, this revert warring is useless, disruptive and shows a lack of respect for the people trying to reach compromises. If it doesn't end any time soon, I will take put this article and ALL editors involved (and yes that includes myself) up for arbitration by the arbitration committee. This sillyness has gone far enough now. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of you who claim to be trying to reach compromise, (maybe unaware of that) are supporting one side in the dispute and are causing the other side to revert your edits. And in the end what? Dardan or some other Albanian editor becomes the "black sheep" here, just because they are not as neutral as you (claim to be). Reconsider your actions, and only that way you would truly be reaching compromise. Unfortunately, I do not see any change here, eversince I left, still some "neutral" editors seem to be strong-headedly taking sides here, and abusing even admin rights. Unbelievable. I would propose blocking and erasing the whole article, until the status is resolved. Solution? ilir_pz 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I explanied my point very clearly. We cannot have a Serb nationalist pamphlet representing Kosovo. Not only it is innacurate, but it is offensive. I can accept Kosovo to be in a limbo, as it is, as a compromise. But I can never accept Kosovo to be put as part of Serbia, in the same manner that Bavaria is part of Germany. That is nonsense, for anyone who knows a little bit of what is happening in and around Kosovo. Kosovo is a landlocked territory in central Balkans under UN protrectorate. It is claimed by Serbia and by Kosovar Albanians. We need to portray both sides, as the situation is not set. But I will never agree to this article being a Serbian pamphlet. Vezaso 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ilir_pz: That's not true. Read my earlier posts, and you'll find that I supported most of your positions all along. It was the way most editors dismissed your concerns about the map that prompted me to join the Kosovo club, because i felt like you were being patronised by the anti-albanian Admins who were ever so effectively using their knowledge of Wikipedia rules to dismiss your valid arguments as bullshit. So please matey, state your concerns here, but don't revert to a version that has not passed through this bureaucracy. Tonycdp 14:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with exactly how the arbitration committee works (I'll check that in a few moments), but from what I have seen so far it sounds like a good idea: these constant revert wars on issues contradicting WP:V are silly indeed. Evv 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration is a rather drastic thing to do, since it is not aimed at resolving content disputes, but at preventing abuse of the wiki-system by vandalism, POV pushing etc. More information can be found at: Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. I really hate to go this way, but we've gone through all other options and this is becoming crazy. I am currently preparing a submission to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links :-) Evv 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Turkish

Is Turkish an official language? I know it is used in some govt. documents but I was under the impression that the official languages were Albanian, Serbian and English. Anyone know for sure? Davu.leon 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Albanian, Serbian and English are for sure the official languages. All the official documents issued by UNMIK contain these three. Turkish IS NOT an official language. It is a de-facto official language in Prizren because of the city's liberal attitude towards the turkish minority, but that's all.Tonycdp 14:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The recent law passed has allowed Turkish language to be used in Prizren. And I know that because I live here :). But it is not official in other places in Kosovo, nor are official govt documents released in Turkish, like they are in Serbian and English..and of course Albanian. ilir_pz 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso

First thing's first - to User:Vezaso. How can you expect receive respect if you don't give some. I am assuming good faith, but I still ask an explaination. You accused me of ruining Yugoslavia. Either that, or you're extreemly nationalistic, refering to the guilt of an entire nation (to which, yet again, you misaccused me of belonging to). I think that Vezaso's will is highly questionable, as actions themselves explain. I also ask for an apologee (nicely). HolyRomanEmperor 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote: We have all seen what the crafted Serbs can do in the Balkans. What makes us believe that their nationalism has faded away? They destroyed Yugoslavia, which could have now been one of the most important countries of the EU. They destroyed the image of the whole region. They will surely continue it here. Serbian expansionist nationalism is vile. It is sad to see people who work here, speak english - so you can guess they have are in touch with the real world outside of nationalism-corruted Serbia. Sad, sad, sad! Vezaso 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Call me weird, but I consider this extreemly biased. Isn't Yugoslavia itself percisely what Serbs crafted? Vile? Not worse than any other expansionist nationalism (AFAIC, others are worse). Did you ever hear of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union? Or how about America's errors? Or how about Greater Albania, Greater Bulgaria or Greater Croatia? Unlike Greater Serbia, they were all realized and created. Essentially, no nation's expansionist nationalism is vile - everyone's is and nations should never be remembered by the bad things - but good. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote Vezeso: The Albanian point of view would be: Kosovo is a state in Central Balkans. It declared its independence in 1990, which has still not been internationally recognized. Presently, Kosovo is run in tandem by the UN Mission in Kosovo and the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment with the former expected to leave soon. The present form is Serbian biased! I suggest the following un-biased entry: Kosovo is a UN run territory in Central Balkans. While still legaly part of Serbia (foremerly Yugoslavia), Kosovo is run in tandem by the UN Mission in Kosovo and the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment.

Well, first of all - Kosovo is not a state. Second of all, it didn't declare independence then - but in 1991. The first one was not expressing the actual will of the people. Next, that declaration of independence was of course, unconstitutional and thereby - "illegal" to call it. Additionally, the 1999 resolution abolished the declaration of independence - meaning that it's not independent from Serbia at all. Your un-biased entry is OK, except that it doesn't state "Autonomous Province of Serbia". --HolyRomanEmperor 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso has also made offendive remarks against Serbs and Macedonians - I AM assuming good faith - but those are the characteristics of an Albanian nationalist or a heavy pro-Albanian nationalist (Albanians had bad times with all their neighbours). I wonder what does he think about Greeks? HolyRomanEmperor 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

All in all - I just read the entire talk page (and the archives) and it's making me dizzy. :X HolyRomanEmperor 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(Albanians had bad times with all their neighbours)

Let me correct you on this one (whithout being drawn further into it) Serbs have had bad times with all their neighbours too. In fact the recent times with their neighbours have been catastrophic. I'm I wrong, please correct me as I am actually feeling dizzy too.Tonycdp 09:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that as well explains why there are so many touchy Serbs (as much as Albanians). And no, you are incorrect over there. Serbs never had bad times with the Romanians (a. k. a. Vlachs). And unlike Albania (which is at bad relations with all of its neighbours), it has good relations with Hungary, Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria. But that's not even the point of what I was trying to say. --HRE

Albanians happen to be touchy because about 12000 of them died during the Serbian campaign of 1999. Bosnians are touchy too because of Srebrenica, Sarajevo and Zepa. Serbia is touchy because it is losing territory and does not understand why.

It seems as if you don't consider the Serbs as victims as well... HolyRomanEmperor 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbia has managed to keep good relations with Bulgaria and Romania because it would never dare to start a war against them, both Romania and Bulgaria don't particularly like Serbia, don't be fooled. Macedonia has disputes with Serbia too over the Macedonian Orthodox Church.

Serbia never deared open war against any of its neighbours (in the recent past). It was just drawn (expectedly) into numerious conflicts - accross former Yugoslavia - and in Kosovo. Don't be fooled. Now what kind of conversation are you leading? Romania is generally, the greatest neighbour of Serbia. And Macedonia is Serbia's traditional newborn ally. Ask any Macedonian user on wiki - they'll all respond what they told me: they see it as a problem of Greece, not Serbia. HolyRomanEmperor 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of countries that have disputes with their neighbours. Greece with Turkey, Greece with Macedonia, Greece with Albania. But these cannot be compared to the the image Serbia has internationally and its relations with Croatia, Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo are catastrophic. Even Montenegro couldn't bare the embarrassment of being associated with it.Tonycdp 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you completly turn from my subject's point? I was merely discussing Vezeso's level of objectivity. And now I think that yours is slightly sided as well - you seem to portray Albanians and Bosnians (what? don't you mean Bosniaks?) as victims - however not the Serbs. The Western world was overpossessed by "victim numbering", so they supported whoever had more victims - however, if you see it that way, also note that 40,000-50,000 Serbs have died in the Yugoslav wars and that almost 1,000,000 of them suffered exiles or had to abandon their homes in unnormal circumbstances. That is a lot more than any other Yugoslav nation. However, that viewing is archaic, wrong and utterly false. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any of the pro-independence Montenegrin leaders using being embarrassed of being in a joint state with Serbia as a campaigning point in the recent referendum. Then again they are some in Montenegro trying to declare a separate language. All the countries and province you mention that Serbia has "catastrophic" relations with (except for Albania) is just as much due to how the Serbian population of said area has been treated. Phildav76 17:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp, do you call touchy the fact that that many thousands of innocents were murdered during the war in Kosovo? I have no further comments to your sympathies about lives of innocents. Very well put, and stated your real position in the dispute. Dont be embarrased to keep repeating that you are neutral :))). ilir_pz 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ilir_pz I don't understand what you're trying to sayTonycdp 14:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Previously agreed neutral option

I do not understand why people are pushing nationalist agendas here instead of being professional and improvint the neutral version that we agreed on previously. Dardan 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dardanv, your preferred version has not been agreed upon. Please refrain from reverting to it untill such an agreement is reached. Thanks already. Evv 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree that it's neutral. Whatever version we agree on must reflect our sources. They don't describe Kosovo in the way that you want to describe it. There's no "nationalist agenda" being pushed here - all we're insisting on is that WP:V and WP:RS be followed. -- ChrisO 00:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, you and plenty here, are ignoring the Constitutional Framework of Kosovo, when making your (preferred) statements. Stop doing that, and refer to the most important document ruling in Kosovo, and not instead INDEED push your nationalistic agenda which can be seen from the airplane. Greetings,ilir_pz 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, the Kosovo Constitutional Framework is a primary source (see WP:RS): In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Evv 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To: the folks that never knew about Internet, Communication, Neutrality, Kosovo before Wikipedia got launched in January 2001, Why you are afraid of accepting the truth and raising debates on facts that currently are. You keep refering articles on Kosovo that was written in 1989 today is 2006, tomorrow is the first day of September there is no August 2006 after tomorrow, same as there is no Serbia in Kosovo after 1999. I'm wondering how many of you have been in Kosovo at all, or lets say once. What will happen to Wikipedia Users who edit Kosovo soon after Kosovo gets its independence, will u continue to put still that Kosovo is part of Serbia just to have daydreaming or satisfy your self?kushtxh 09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO. What are our sources? This is a genuine question, I am new to Wikipedia, and have missed (clearly,) a lot of the goings on on this, a particularly busy topic. I ask because if these sources are originating from Serbian OR Albanian outlets, they will be largely unreliable. Also, for clarification, and I realise this is a personal question and one which you are free to ignore, I do wonder after several days of reading your posts whether you have some personal connection to Serbia, or particular Serbs. I myself work with several Albanians, and thus find myself naturally giving their side the benefit of the doubt more often than not. It appears to me that you, whether consciously or not, do the opposite. Now this may be simply my perception, but I would also venture to guess that the Pro-Serbian posters here would see you as 'on their side.' What I am saying, essentially, is that you do not appear to be as neutral as, for example, Cpt. Morgan, even if you truly are trying to be. This is not meant to be an attack on you, and it is not something that was immediately apparent, rather it is an apparent pattern that I have seen to emerge over the past few days, and is something I thought you should be aware of. Davu.leon 10:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor's sympathies (if they have any) are irrelevant as long as they follow Wikipedia policies. As fas as I know, ChrisO does so, and it's only because he tries to enforce WP:V that he antagonizes other editors who disregard WP:V. Regards :-) Evv 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples of sources we consider reliable (but I must note that I posted this list already twice on this page, so please read back also a little to see what already has been discussed):

• TIME Magazine: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, the core of the former Yugoslavia. [21]
• CNN: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, but it has been an international protectorate since 1999. [22]
• BBC: Kosovo, a landlocked province within Serbia [23]
• FOX: Serbia's southern, ethnic Albanian-dominated province of Kosovo.. [24]
• CIA: Kosovo as a part of Serbia [25]
• Encarta: Kosovo, province in southwestern Serbia. [26]
• Brittanica: ..region within the republic of Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia, 1929–2003),... [27]

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(See also Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10#What other encyclopedias say. Evv 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cpt. Morgan, and sorry for making you post that list again, however.

1. TIME Magazine article. -Written during the war, and as such, hardly a reliable source as to the current status of Kosovo. This needs to be removed as a reference.

2. CNN article. -Comes from AP, just to clarify. However no problems with this formulation of Kosovos current status.

3. BBC article. - Again, no problems with this formulation. In fact, the map in this article is one of the best I've seen, and far better and more intuituve than the one that includes all of Serbia, which ChrisO continually and incomprehensibly espouses.

4. FOX article. - A bit clunky, and no mention of UNMIK. And personally, I've never found FOX's foreign correspondence to be particularly reliable - thier policy being dictated as it is by Rupert Murdochs political views. I would at least like to see discussion as to whether they are reliable in this instance to report accurately and without bias.

5. CIA. - Come on now, this is clearly a page about Serbia. Wikipedia also has a page about Serbia, and that's where this information is relevant. When the CIA has a page about Kosovo, quote that. Some of this info is relevant, but it is even admitted on the page that statistics reflect Serbia and Montenegro, and is therefore not current. Use of this map on a page about Kosovo is nonsensical.

6. Encarta. - No real problems here, but some mention of UNMIK is desirable, I believe, in the interest of reflecting current status.

7. Brittanica. - Again, fine, but the lack of UNMIK - I know they don't always mention it elsewhere, but aren't we trying to create a better, more definitive description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davu.leon (talk • contribs) 12:04, 31 August 2006

I agree that not all sources are perfect. Yet that still leaves us with Encarta, Brittanica, BBC and CNN/AP as reliable sources that present Kosovo as a part of Serbia. And the last map I generated (which is also the current map) is very similar in idea to the BBC map, so that is allright with you then? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Davu, see also Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10#What other encyclopedias say. Evv 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only blind person here, or people are considering BBC, Encarta, CNN, etc as more reliable sources that reflect the truth, than does the Constitutional Framework of Kosovo (read: the most important document, that is designed by the International Community and the Local Government)? Don't be ridiculous people. Call your senses! ilir_pz 17:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ilip pz, please understand that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, the Kosovo Constitutional Framework is a primary source (see WP:RS): In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Evv 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this seems to be something of a frequently asked question, please see Talk:Kosovo/Sources for a compilation of these sources (and more). -- ChrisO 01:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

hahahhahahahhahahah ignore primary sources? and find reliable sources??? OH MY GODNESS!!! have no further comment to these weasel words. ilir_pz 09:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

by the way, this is what I found out in (see WP:RS): "A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about." Aren't we trying to describe the state of affairs, which is VERY CLOSE to the reality here? :)))) still we come back to my statement being the correct one, and your interpretations? wrong! 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cpt. Morgan, as I stated before, the current map is the best I've seen here. I had a minor problem with the script which you immediately changed. I'm not against anything that shows the truth of the current situation, only things that are misleading or outright false. 217.24.246.96 11:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is not administrated from UNMIK

The time in witch Kosovo was administrated from UNMIK is over. There are 5% for UNMIK and 95% for the Kosovars. Only army and some part of the Police are administratet from UNMIK the rest is in out of the UNMIK control. - Hipi

Upsss!!!! About the map see this : http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1243&l=1 and dont forget the right of Serbia about the Milosheviq historicel politic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.177.106.124 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 August 2006

Hehe, Kosovo IS administered by UNMIK, Hipi, at least for another less than a year, until all the competences are passed to the local govt. Not sure I udnerstood this point you wanted to make here. ilir_pz 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... how does Ilir know that this was Hipi... Very strange... --Serb ^talk 02:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How dumb can a Serb be??? Ilir knows that it is Hipi, cos Ilir can read!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.133.162 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 4 September 2006

Requested edit in Future Status section

There is a sentence in the "future status" section that says:

Belgrade frequently cites international law provisions about the integrity of sovereign states to justify its claim to Belgrade

I believe that should say "to justify its claim to Kosovo". Mike Dillon 19:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. That was a really dumb typo! -- ChrisO 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki - io:Kosovo (Ido); oc:Kosovo (Occitan)
Thank you oc:User:Joao Xavier

Done. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO

ChrisO. Once more, as you declined to reply to my post on the Kosovo article, I wish to question your neutrality. For the record, I am assuming you are unaware of the manner in which your posts on this particular article appear to the informed. So simply from your statement on the arbitration, I wish to point out the following.

1. "The uninitiated may wish to have a look at the BBC's profile of Kosovo."

- The link clearly displays a map that you have consitently argued against as being counter-intuitive and inferior to a map which depicts all of Serbia with Kosovo as a small portion in the bottom. Have you now changed your opinion on this matter? Have you forgotten your previous stance or are you deliberately misleading the arbitration committee?

Not at all - I noted the similarities between the BBC map and Reinoutr's version on 29 August and said I'd support it ([28]). Perhaps you missed that? -- ChrisO 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed miss that. My apologies Davu.leon 10:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

2. "...myself, User:Asterion, User:Litany, User:Osli73 and User:Reinoutr... For the record, we have no ethnic or political affiliations with the region; we are respectively English, Spanish, Swedish, and Dutch.

- Five users, four nationalities. Where are you yourself from? Again, it raises questions about your credibility and truthfulness. As a moderator you need to be more careful.

There is such a thing as multiple users coming from the same country, you know. :-) I'm English, Asterion is Spanish, Litany and Osli73 are Swedish and Reinoutr are Dutch. -- ChrisO 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that some of the users were doubling up on Nationality. My point was that careless writing can lead others to believe things about you that are not necessarily true. This was merely an example of a situation where a statment of yours is amiguous, and open to interpretation. Correctly, you should have said English, Spanish, Swedish, Swedish and Dutch. Davu.leon 10:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

3. "...the most active parties in this dispute are Albanian nationalists and neutral internationals."

- Simply untrue. Perhaps you perceive it as such because they are arguing against your position, which to them, and this (almost) neutral International, (from Ireland, by the way,) is definitely Pro-Serbian. As a side note here, I would regard User:Reinoutr as truly neutral, and extremely courteous based on my interactions with him. Again, you should be aware, whether by intention or not, you are not coming across in the same manner.

Well, looking at the two week's worth of edits to this talk page, 119 are from internationals (including you), 88 are from Albanian nationalists and only 15 are from Serbs, with about another 16 from one-off editors. So there's good reason to describe it as a dispute between internationals and Albanian nationalists. You're right that Reinoutr is indeed truly neutral and extremely courteous (and one of the most patient editors that I know) - so it says something that even he's at the end of his tether with the policy violations that have been going on here. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo.) -- ChrisO 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, many of the people that you would refer to as Albanian Nationalists appear to me to be moderates, whereas your use of the term implies some sort of fanatacism. I do not see, for example, why there cannot be a map of Kosovo on its own, subordinate to the European map, as appears on the Northern Ireland page. It's your refusal to even consider such suggestions, and your obvious reluctance to give any ground towards what is essentially a more realistic description of Kosovo's current status, (Serbia has NO jurisdiction or authority, as evidenced by the fact that the Prime Minister has been accused by them of war crimes and the international community has repeatedly dismissed the claims as null and void,) that calls your own neutraliy into question. Davu.leon 10:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason for presenting Kosovo as a part of Serbia in the map is that this is how it is presented internationally - ie that Kosovo is still, de jure, a part of Serbia. Therefore I think it is correct to present Kosovo as being within the internationally accepted borders of Serbia (which it still is) but as being a separate administrative entity. Using a map of Kosovo with no mention of Serbia (or equating it to bordering countries such as Albania, CG or Macedonia) might give the impression that Kosovo is independent. My only comment to the current map is that it might be better to use a larger map to more clearly show where in Europe Kosovo is. Regards Osli73 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

4. "These violations are not confined solely to the Albanian nationalist editors."

- Oh why thank you for throwing a bone to those pesky Albanians. Your wording betrays a clear bias. Think, for example, of a recent advert for "x" brand painkiller. - Some may find that (X brand) can get to work up to twice as fast as regular (painkiller). Do you see the amount of qualifications in that sentence? While you may think you are being most gracious in your statement that 'these violations are not confined solely to the Albanian nationalist editors,' a truly non biased way to say it would have been, for example, 'editors from all camps have been involved in the aforementioned violations,' or some other such phrasing. Once again, while it may be unintentional, you are projecting an attitude which smells suspiciously similar to Serbian nationalism. Or perhaps it's simply anti-Albanianism, brought on by the fact that they (Albanians,) consistently disagree with you.

• sigh* No, this simply isn't the case. I've been engaged with this article for a long time and I've seen a good many edit wars involving Serbian users as well. User:Bormalagurski and User:Perfectstorm certainly didn't regard me as pro-Serbian this time last year. I've been called pro-Serbian by Croats and Albanians, pro-Albanian by Serbs, Macedonians and Greeks and pro-Croatian by Serbs. If every side thinks I'm on the opposite side I must be doing something right! But seriously, this is exactly what you would expect if you have users with strong POVs; anyone who doesn't share their POV is automatically deemed "the enemy". Personally I've never been a fan of the whole "if you're not with us, you're against us" idea. -- ChrisO 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* Yes it is. I'm telling you how you are percieved, and possibly one reason why you are attracting such vitriolic edit-warring to this article, and you are telling me that it is not the case. You are (apparently) not capable of discerning why others see you as biased. I am trying to offer you illustrative examples. Again, I have not been here for long, and I cannot speak for a time when you were viewed as Pro-Albanian, but from my time here, I have formed an opinion of you based upon the way you contribute. Think about this, please. I am not levelling accusations at Cpt Morgan, or any of the others who legitimatley claim to be neutral. At least ask yourself why this is? It's not because I don't like your face - We've never met. Isn't it possible that there's something unreasonable in your approach that's antagonising people? Davu.leon 10:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So you see, while I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, I think you really should be aware of the image you are projecting, and I feel I really have to call into question your suitability to administrate this particular article. 'According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example.' I will copy this post to the Kosovo page. Thanks for taking the time to read it. Davu.leon 15:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He did indeed say that, and he also said just last month at Wikimania that "We have a really serious responsibility to get things right" and that "We should continue to turn our attention away from growth and towards quality" ([29]). NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable, but so is verifiability and no original research. I make no apologies for insisting that all three policies should be applied on this article. It's regrettable that several editors apparently disagree. -- ChrisO 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hell yes, we need verifiability. (Yet you consistently quote sources that are outdated, or questionable.) And I'm fine with NOR as well. But that's not the point. What I'm saying is that in the last week or so, you have more often than not come down on the side of NOT "getting things right." But I know it's pretty much useless to you for me to simply say these things withoiut backing them up. So I will try to find time over the next few days to find reliable, verifiable sources that will give you a clearer picture of how things stand in Kosovo at the present time. Hopefully by the time I'm done, the dispute will be settled, and we can go on with the business of sorting this article out.

Thanks again for reading, and responding. Davu.leon 10:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There certainly is a difference between what people actually do and how they are perceived. And the latter can cause distractions and arguments.

Chris, might I make a proposal, in the spirit of moving things along? I personally am delighted to assume that you are striving to be completely fair and neutral, and I really hope you won't see this as any sort of attack or criticism of you. But would you be up for offering to avoid using your admin priviledges on this article for a little while, so people could leave you alone and be happy that you were an equal player in the consensus-building? I think if we removed the "He did this! He did that!" stuff it would remove some of the mud from these waters. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kieran, you seem to be under a misapprehension. The only use of admin privileges that I've made in relation to this article has been to unprotect it (twice) following lengthy periods of protection, to allow people to edit the article. I've not blocked any of the participants in this dispute, however much they may have deserved it. What the complaints really boil down to is "nasty administrator won't let me post what I want." I'll happily plead guilty to that - we're trying to build an encyclopedia here based on reliable, verifiable sources, not based on someone's personal views. -- ChrisO 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for taking the suggestion well, and in the spirit it's intended. But I don't think I'm under a misapprehension because it doesn't matter whether you've used any privileges or not – I suggest that making the offer/promise would be enough to placate those people who're engaged in rational debate at all. (Sadly of course there's nothing we can do to placate simple trolls.) I just think it would be a demonstration of good faith and a nice way of avoiding conflict-of-interest claims, of which there have been several, as you are no doubt painfully aware. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you look at the complaints, they really are on the level of "nasty administrator won't let me post what I want." What the complainants are after is for me to not edit this article at all, which is of course totally unacceptable. The complainants haven't provided a single example of so-called "admin abuse" despite all the noise they've made about it. Until they do, I don't propose to take their complaints seriously. -- ChrisO 23:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Chris if you look at my complaints, I think you'll see none of them have been about you not letting me post things. Rather, they're based on the nature of your alleigances and bias, peceived or actual. Wouldn't you even consider the option of reducing your profile on this article, even if only for a week or two? Couldn't you trust someone like Cpt. Morgan to act as your unofficial proxy for a little while? It may be that it simply wouldn't work, but surely it's difficult to find out without trying, no? Davu.leon 09:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I may be naive, but I really don't see how the intro. can be all that difficult to agree on - Kosovo is legally still a part of Serbia and is administered by the UN since 1999. How can stating this be POV, pro-Serb or in any way controversial? Regards Osli73 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is a contested autonomous province of the Former Yugoslavia. Although it remains technically a part of Serbia, that country has no administrative or legal jurisdiction within Kosovo proper, and the region has been administered by the UN since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999. Negotiations on the future status of Kosovo are currently underway, and it is expected that independence will be attained within a year. Davu.leon 09:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What you write is completely devoid of any sense. Kosovo was never an autonomous province of Yugoslavia, but of Serbia. Serbia has both administrative and legal jurisdiction within Kosovo, through UNMIK (Serbia is a UN member). Independence of Kosovo can not be attained without permission of Serbia, and there is no reason to believe that it will give one. Nikola 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nikola. --Serb ^talk 21:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Davu, there are three problems with your proposal. Kosovo was never a province of Yugoslavia, as Nikola says - it was only ever a province of Serbia (and prior to 1945 wasn't even that). Second, Serbia has delegated its administrative and legal jurisdiction to UNMIK. Third and most importantly, Serbia still holds sovereignty over Kosovo, even though it can't actually exercise that sovereignty on the ground - there's no "technically" about it. That's why independence talks are being held in the first place, to settle the question of sovereignty. -- ChrisO 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Chris.

1. Kosovo was an autonomous province within Yugoslavia. It was not a federal republic, as were Serbia, Bosnia et al, which is where I think you're getting confused. My wording was factually accurate, and may be the type of compromise necessary to end this continuous edit warring, although I admit it's perhaps not as concise as we would desire.

No, in SFR of Yugoslavia there were 6 Federal Republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, CG and Montenegro). Vojvodina and Kosovo were autonomous provinces within the federal republic of Serbia. It was this autonomy that Milosevic ended, imposing direct rule from Belgrade. This was also the case in the state union of Serbia and Montenegro and in the 'new' state of Serbia. Here's a link to the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro which might be useful. Regards Osli73 12:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Osli, but the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro doesn't help so much. Do you know if there's an English translation of the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution anywhere on the Internet? Also in the wikipedia SFRY article it says 'Internally, the state was divided into six Socialist Republics, and two Socialist Autonomous Provinces..." which were part of SR of Serbia. My suggestion was that you leave reference to Serbia out of the first sentence, resulting in a version more palatable to Albanians, and which contributes a more accurate sense of the current standing. It's not factually innacurate, it's just... diplomatic wording. As far as Milosevic revoking autonomy - that was illegal, and has no bearing on current status.Davu.leon 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Leon, I'm not able to find an english version of the 1974 Constitution (Wikipedia only has a version in Slovenian). However, in its background paper on the conflict in Kosovo the UNHCR provides a very good review of the effects of the 1974 Constitutition with regards to Kosovo (the whole document is actually pretty informative reading):

"The text of the 1974 Constitution defined Autonomous provinces (including Kosovo), together with the Republics as constituent parts of the Yugoslav Federation, but only a Republic had the right to secede from the Federation. Kosovo was given a seat in the Federal Presidency and on the Federal Constitutional Court, as well as the right to send its own representatives to the National Assembly (The Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1974, 79, Articles 1, 291, 292, 321, 381). The powers and responsibilities of the Autonomous Provinces within their own territory were not specified, and were defined by the Constitution of Serbia. Nevertheless, "Kosovo enjoyed virtually the same rights as federal republics and could to a large extent decide independently about local affairs" (Poulton, 1991, 60). The danger was that this Constitution provided for "the effective disintegration of Serbia. Serbia was divided into three constitutional units, allowing Vojvodina and Kosovo to become de facto republics. In addition, the Constitution, which now left Serbia largely undefined, allowed Kosovo and Vojvodina a say in Serbian affairs but ensured that Serbia had no say in the affairs of its former provinces" (Griffiths, 1993, 41). The other caveat was the fact that the powers of the Provinces were defined by the Constitution of Serbia. This provided Serbia with a formal legal justification for attempting in 1989 to change the constitutional status of Kosovo by amendment of the Serbian Constitution, without the prior consent of the other Republics of Yugoslavia (The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, January 1991, 19), setting the scene for the subsequent conflictual state of affairs. Yet the situation in Kosovo was deteriorating even prior to these changes." (from section 2.3 of UNHCR CDR Background Paper on Refugees and Asylum Seekers from Kosovo)

Similarly, The Guardian writes in its background info on the conflict in Bosnia that:

"In 1974, a new SFRY Constitution had provided for a devolution of power from the central government to the six constituent republics of the country. Within Serbia, Kosovo and Vojvodina were given considerable autonomy including control of their educational systems, judiciary, and police. They were also given their own provincial assemblies, and were represented in the Assembly, the Constitutional Court, and the Presidency of the SFRY." (see section 3 in The Guardian's background to the Milosevic indictment)

So, while Kosovo was indeed an autonomous province virtually on-par with the Republics, they remained so within the Republic of Serbia.

As for Milosevic revoking Kosovo's autonomy in 1990, I'm not sure whether it was constitutionally illegal. I've never seen any mention of it. It was endorsed by the Yugoslav Federal government, which also called the 1991 Kosovar Albanian referendum for independence "illegal".

Regards Osli73 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I found some more constitutional sources! Here's a translation of the 2003 Constitutional Charter ([30]). To quote the first paragraph (the bolding is mine): "Proceeding from the equality of the two member states, the state of Montenegro and the state of Serbia which includes the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, the latter currently under international administration in accordance with UN SC resolution 1244, and on the basis of the Proceeding Points for the Restructuring of Relations between Serbia and Montenegro of 14 March 2002..."

There's a copy of the 1992 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia constitution here ([31]). Note the lack of any mention of the autonomous provinces!

The 1990 Serbian constitution is here ([32]). Chapter 6 deals with Kosovo.

The 1963 Yugoslav constitution is here ([ http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yugoslavia_1963.doc]); it states (Article 111): "In the Socialist Republic of Serbia there are the autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija, established in 1945 by decision of the People's Assembly of the People's Republic of Serbia in accordance with the express will of the population of these areas."

The 1945 Yugoslav constitution is here ([33]); it states (Article 2): "The Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia is composed of the People's Republic of Serbia, the People's Republic of Croatia, the People's Republic of Slovenia, the People's Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the People's Republic of Macedonia and the People's Republic of Montenegro. The People's Republic of Serbia includes the autonomous province of Vojvodina and the autonomous Kosovo-Metohijan region."

I think I could probably find an (offline) English translation of the 1974 constitution, but it seems like overkill at this point! -- ChrisO 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Osli. But doesn't the fact that they were 'constituent parts of the Yugoslav federation' mean that my initial wording is not factually innacurate? As I said, it was an attempt at compromise. By not mentioning Serbia in the same breath, so to speak, as Kosovo, while still retaining reference to the fact that Kosovo remains, for the time being, part of that country couldn't we try to satisfy both sides? Or would any similar formulation be unnaceptable to Boris, Nikola et al? Davu.leon 15:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as much as it pains me to write this ;), I guess I could be temporarily satisfied with the introduction of the word 'contested'. Then we would have: "Kosovo is a contested province in southern Serbia," which would at least indicate that the actual status is open for intepretation. I think part of the problem here is that Kosovo is in a unique situation, and is very difficult to describe with simple language or the stock phrases we would use for a normal country. Davu.leon 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Davu, a simple question for you: if all of our sources call Kosovo a province of Serbia (and they do - see Talk:Kosovo/Sources) why should we take a different line? The unanimity among the sources indicates that Kosovo's actual status is not open for interpretation... -- ChrisO 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Two reasons. 1. In the interest of reflecting more accurately the reality of the situation. 2. In the interest of attempting to reach a compromise that will see an end to this stupid revert warring. I'm sure some of the more extreme pro-Albanian editors won't be satisfied with my suggestion, but I think it may at least be an indication to us moderates that you're not just against us, and using Wikipedia rules in a cynical manner. Davu.leon 07:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Davu, regarding your comments above. (1) I was of the understanding that Wikipedia should reflect secondary sources, not original research. So, the article shouldn't make judgmenets which run counter to what the vast majority of sources say. (2) though I agree that the text should refrain from using wording that unnecessarily enrages a certain group of editors, it can't/shouldn't be held hostage to them on major issues, such as, e.g. the official status of Kosovo. Regards Osli73 08:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Osli, (1) What if the vast majority of sources are wrong? Imagine writing an article on the third reich using only Nazi propaganda as source material. Obviously, an extreme example, but the simple fact of the matter is that Serbian Government propaganda has been, in the past, very powerful, and many media sources have regurgitated it verbatim. Don't you feel we have any moral responsibility to get this damn thing right? (2) Inserting the word 'contested' is a major issue? And damages the integrity of the article? Are you seriously claiming that this is an unreasonable offer of compromise? Davu.leon 08:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Davu, this debate has become so long that it's getting to be hard to remember what it was about to begin with. Can we just settle on that Kosovo is still considered to be a part of Serbia (otherwise, what would the talks be about) but it's administered by the UN? To me, that's both correct and straight forward. Kosovo sure isn't independent and the UN doesn't have sovereignty over it (the UN is just an organization, it can't have sovereignty over a territory, it can just administer it in lieu of a country). Regards Osli73 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. You know, I'm not really that unhappy with the wording the way it stands, I just thought that maybe there would be room for a compromise that would cool some tempers without sacrificing factual accuracy... and anyway, there are far more important issues to debate.... :)Davu.leon 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Davu, I understand your point and how you must feel about this issue, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you haven't done so yet, please read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, where the rationale for this is explained.

In other words, even if our reliable sources state something that is actually wrong, we are forced to reflect that "erroneous" fact in the article. Wikipedia is not the place to "get things right", no matter how much we may want to correct what we know or percieve to be wrong.

We can't compromise on these policies. However, you can propose to change those policies, in order to allow for such rectifications of mistakes in the sources. Regards :-) Evv 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"We have a really serious responsibility to get things right" - Jimmy Wales. Nuff said. ;) Davu.leon 12:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

lol From what I see in Toward a Better Wikipedia, by that he meant "to archieve quality by using verifiable sources", and not "to tell the truth, correcting the mistakes of reliable sources". Happy wednesday :-) Evv 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it doesn't seem very difficult (and shouldn't be): Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia while it in practice is governed by the UN. The majority Albanian population of the province demand full independence. This is what the sources say and also, in my opinion, what the article should say. Historically, Kosovo did have quite extensive autonomy within SFR Yugoslavia (though still technically a province of Serbia). This is no longer the case (which is accepted by the UN, all intl. organizations and almost all countries of the world). In this case, whether the 1989 (or was it 1990) change in constitution was illegal or not is beside the point. Regards Osli73 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

2. "He was indicted on war crimes charges by the Serbian government in 2002, though Serbia's jurisdiction in the matter is not recognised by the United Nations or the international community." -from the Agim Ceku page on Wikipedia - sorry, don't know how to put in a link-thingy. If you want to say that Serbia has 'delegated' their authority, fine. I'm certainly not going to insist that you put 'the international community has concluded that Serbia has permanently lost all authority over Kosovo after yet another campaign of indiscriminate slaughter and destruction.' Even if this authority has been delegated, the fact is that it no longer rests in the hands of the Serbian state. So qualify the statement if you wish. 'Although it remains technically a part of Serbia, that country has no administrative or legal jurisdiction within Kosovo proper (The aforementioned jurisdiction having been "delegated" to UNMIK.)'

I wrote that line. ;-) Serbia delegated legal jurisdiction to UNMIK in UNSCR 1244. Ceku's alleged offences happened within Kosovo, and therefore fall within UNMIK's authority. UNMIK has declined to prosecute Ceku on its own account and doesn't recognise Serbia's attempt to assert legal jurisdiction in Kosovo, and Serbia doesn't have the means to enforce its claimed jurisdiction anyway. -- ChrisO 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

i.e. Serbia has no legal jurisdiction in Kosovo. Thanks for clearing that up. Davu.leon 07:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't read too much into that! It simply means that Serbian judges and police can't enforce Serbian laws in Kosovo. If you want to be really pedantic, Serbia does have legal jurisdiction in Kosovo, but only through UNMIK (to which it delegated that jurisdiction in UNSCR 1244). It's just that it can't enforce that jurisdiction itself. -- ChrisO 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3. The fact that Serbia has, on paper, authority over Kosovo IS a technicality. Really, for an Englishman, your command of the finer points of the language is a little shaky. ;) In all practical terms, both politically and legally, Serbia has no influence. Technically, she retains sovereignty, but for how long is a matter open to debate. However, such terminology is liable to enrage the Serbian Nationalist community here, and as such, I suppose it's a bridge too far. Davu.leon 09:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Legally it has no influence. Politically it has a great deal, simply by virtue of the fact that it's the sovereign power. If it wanted to declare Kosovo independent tomorrow, it could (wouldn't that save everyone a lot of trouble!). The fact that it doesn't want an independent Kosovo is why the current negotiations are going on.

I'd also caution against assuming how the negotiations will turn out. Word is that they're not going very well. There's a fair chance, particularly if the Radicals come to power in Serbia, that the negotiations will end in deadlock or, worse, could break down completely. Even if they do succeed, Kosovo's future status would then be dependent on a UN Security Council resolution which Russia or China may oppose because of the precedent for their own disputed regions (think Chechnya and Tibet). Kosovo may become independent, which I think would be the best solution all round, but unfortunately there's no guarantee that it won't remain stuck in limbo. -- ChrisO 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Internally, Serbia has no political influence, as evidenced by their ineffectual rage when first Ramush Haradinaj, and then Agim Ceku was elected prime minister. 'Although it remains technically a part of Serbia, that country has no administrative or legal jurisdiction within Kosovo proper.' Within, get it? Davu.leon 07:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, internally it has no political influence (except perhaps in the Kosovo Serb enclaves). Externally, though, because Serbia still holds sovereignty it can effectively hold hostage Kosovo's future. -- ChrisO 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And who told you the talks weren't going well? That's some interesting inside information, Chris. From everything I know, I think it's actually pretty safe to assume that talks will go in Kosovo's favour. I admit there is a chance that they won't, in much the same way as there's a chance the Irish Government will decide tomorrow that they want to be a part of the British Commonwealth after all. Davu.leon 08:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Serbs won't accept independence for Kosovo, the Albanians won't accept anything less, and now the Russians are saying publicly that they may veto an agreement on Kosovo if they don't like what they see. (See [34]). They've been hinting as much for months now. Unresolvable deadlock is, unfortunately, a real possibility. That's why we shouldn't say in the article that Kosovo will become independent, because it's anything but a done deal. -- ChrisO 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this when the original survey for the intro text was being debated. This is the reason I opposed to any futurology at the time. I do still think the article should not engage on any predictions. I know I will get criticised for this by some editors. Nonetheless I believe it is the right thing. Once the final outcome has been made public, we would update the article accordingly. Otherwise, this would be seem as trying to push a particular agenda through. Regards, Asterion^talk 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Weird...

Well, according to the Russian Federation and several other factors strengthening accross the world (Slovackia, Australia, Spain, France), it appears that they will not allow Kosovo's independence. President Putin consulted with the Federal government for a national decision on that matter - and it was adopted. What I find weird is that there is a strong necessity that the article contains info how Kosovo will become independent by the end of this year - however, according to the current situation - there is zilch chance that that will occur (at least this year, if the political scene doesn't change). --HolyRomanEmperor 20:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that the BBC is reporting that the UN is now proposing greater autonomy within Serbia, not full independence. [35] -- ChrisO 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they're referring to the original resolution that's been around since the end of the war, actually. And apropos our arguement over the word 'techincally,' "Although it technically remains part of Serbia, Kosovo has been administered by the UN since 1999," Davu.leon 13:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your source says "Diplomats say talks on the province's future, currently under way, are likely to bring some form of independence for Kosovo - as desired by the Albanians but opposed by the Serbs". Nice one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.69.196 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 September 2006

In the Security Council Meeting, most states said they support the solution of the status issue by the end of the year, with the exception of Russia. It seems there will be a resolution and then states will be allowed to recognize the independence one by one. The US, the UK, Slovenia and Switzerland will be the first and then it will be up to Kosovo to convince Russia and a few other opponent states. Palmucha 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you use will? How can you know that for certain? I may now say Kosovo will vansih from the face of the earth and will be replaced by an Anglican Theocratic state - however, it would be far from the truth. The UK (mostly under the influence of the people, "brainwashed" ) by the BBC) is changing its thouts on Kosovo's independence. The number of opposing countries is larger than that of those who support (where in truth only USA is firmly present). Now, if Russia's vero right is present there, how can you even consider such a thing? The only sufficient thing is to say VETO in the Roman traditions and that which is considered will be dismissed. All in all, we could discuss the future of Kosovo for dhours, even days - and whatever we say, it almost certainly won't be that way. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask why is it even believed that the UN Security Council can proclaim independence of a part of a UN member country? Nikola 20:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is weird to see here that some people did not read the recommendations of the Contact Group in which are included countries such as Russia, France, for which you claim to be against independence for Kosovo. Just to refresh your memory, they recommended that the status of Kosovo has to be acceptable to the people of Kosovo. And now a difficult question for you: what do more than 90% of Kosovo's population want to see as a future status of Kosovo? I will say 10000 times thanks and bravo to the one who answers correct. Greetings, ilir_pz 10:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Violations of injunction

For the record, Palmucha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been identified and indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See [36] for details. -- ChrisO 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Evv and Nikola Smolenski, and YOU yourself violating the injunction???ilir_pz 10:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I new something was strange regarding Vezaso. To my personal opinion, he is in fact another sockpuppet alone him/herself. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Hipi Zhdripi

New fenomen - Intro - For arabas Israel dont exist - Top ten.

Original discussion is here. Evv 11:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Takt from my talk page

How to use talk pages

Hipi, please be aware that talk pages are meant to be used for improving the related article. Wikipedia is not a chat room - please don't post lengthy off-topic messages like you just did on Talk:Kosovo. If it's getting longer than Talk:Muhammad, that's because people aren't using the talk page properly. See WP:TALK for guidelines on using talk pages. Thank you for your cooperation! :-) -- ChrisO 07:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this:

He did indeed say that, and he also said .... (ChrisO posting in Kosovo Talk page)

• What the hell hase to do with article? How you see I hawe postit the opinion like you and the other members there.

What is this:

OK, internally it has no political influence (except perhaps in the Kosovo Serb enclaves). Externally, though, because Serbia still holds sovereignty it can effectively hold hostage Kosovo's future. (ChrisO posting in Kosovo Talk page)

This hase nothing to do with the article, this is cleare propagander.

and so one...

The Serbs won't accept independence for Kosovo, the Albanians won't accept anything less, and now the Russians are saying publicly that they may veto an agreement on Kosovo if they don't like what they see. (See [34]). They've been hinting as much for months now. Unresolvable deadlock is, unfortunately, a real possibility. That's why we shouldn't say in the article that Kosovo will become independent, because it's anything but a done deal. - (ChrisO posting in Kosovo Talk page)

You are discusting about somthing what hase nothing to do with article. My posting was clear thate you must stop discussin the future of Kosovo beacose the article name is Kosovo and the article must be the image of the Kosovo (from today, from the break ewen point this time it was 1999-2000. For this time is Kosovo article before thate you have Kosovo War and History of Kosovo ) not the image of the history (hehe Serbian mytologi) the futer (serbian aspiration). In Kosovo articel is more history (serbian mytologi) als in History of Kosovo, History of Serbia, in Serbia articel. Is this a articel?

Hipi, I've added the "off topic warning" template to the top of this talk page to explain things. To quote, "Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Please do not use them as a discussion forum." If your comments are related to improving the article then you're very welcome to add them, but please don't add fill up the talk page with random personal commentary. -- ChrisO 10:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes we know thate the serbs think thate they cann kill and then "please" without "sorry". Cold you say to yourself "please" stop with this ... propagander- Hipi

Reverts by Dardanv & Kushtrimxh

Dardanv & Kushtrimxh, could you please provide one single reliable source backing the fact that Kosovo is not a Serbian province under UN-administration (as affirmed in Talk:Kosovo/Sources), but instead only an entity under interim international administration ?

You back that description using only the Kosovo Constitutional Framework, but this is a legal document that, especially on the issue of Kosovo's current status, requires training to be used correctly (if it can be used at all). Wikipedia articles should depend on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of such legal material, like some of the sources listed in "Talk:Kosovo/Sources".

Furthermore, ALL reliable secondary sources provided in this discussion define Kosovo as a Serbian province under UN-administration. Therefore, to change this affirmation you have to use something more than just your personal interpretation of the Kosovo Constitutional Framework: you have to mention reliable secondary sources that support that interpretation.

Besides, your reverts eliminated many additions by many users, unrelated to Kosovo's current status, inluding references to Serbian presence in the "History" section, many paragraphs in the "Kosovo Politics and Governance" section, the whole "Kosovo Future Status Process" section, photographs in the "Gallery", and even interwiki links. Check diff & diff.

I sincerely hope that we can discuss this issue and reach an agreement before you revert to your preferred version of the article. Regards, - Evv 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Now it's 85.94.126.187 (talk · contribs) who reverts to "that unsourced version", with the same side effects: diff. - Evv 14:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Now it's Lenberisha (talk · contribs) who reverts to "that unsourced version", with the same side effects: diff. - Evv 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Consitutional Framework is the most reliable source, both legaly and factually. It is accepted by the international community, Kosovars and Serbia as a provisional document. As it seems, the status of Kosovo will be decided this year to some form of independence. Just google "Kosovo is" and you will find sufficient secondary sources that point to Kosovo as a UN administered territory. The fact that there is a dispute with Serbia is secondary, both in legal and practical terms. As far as the history section is concerned, I think it is important to stick to maximum 200 words of Serb history. You can add a link to 'History of Serbia' but not include the whole history of Serbia in this article. If you check the article on Serbia itself, it has some 200 words of medeival history. As far as other sections are concerned, you can add them. Again, this version is the version agreed upon after a lot of rv and edit warring. This is the compromised neutral article, on which we can work. Some pople have called your version 'a serb propaganda pamphlet', with which I fully agree. The same cannot be said about the present version, which I think is very neutral. If you continue to push for a serb-nationalist point of view, then some Albanians will start pushing for an Albanian POV, which I think is not beneficial. The UN point of view, is a neutral point of view. Dardan 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dardanv, we have already talked about this before (see "Previously agreed neutral option" and "Reasons why we have the current introduction").

I must say that it's at least impolite to simply revert and then leave to other editors the work of correcting all the "collateral damage".

As you point out, if what you say is true, there will be plenty of secondary sources backing that "neutral point of view". Could you please help us all here by providing links or references to those sources, so that we can check them out ? Thanks already. - Evv 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right as regards the problem with missing out the changes by some users. I would appreciate it if you add it to the neutral version. This is a neutral version! The Albanian version would not accept the term 'Kosovo' but 'Kosova'. As for the links, Here are some:

You are right as regards http://www.zhaba.cz/index.php?id=62&placeID=56 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GEO108A.html http://www.csdr.org/2004book/Novotny.htm http://www.bluelink.net/upload/d3af5d21e4aa76775d211986f4936435/ICT_report_survey_draft_4.doc http://www.policy.hu/skrabalo/pdf/2.pdf#search=%22%22kosovo%2C%20a%20territory%22%22 http://www.cullen-international.com/documents/cullen/cipublic/studies/balkan/report1comparative.pdf#search=%22%22kosovo%2C%20a%20territory%22%22 http://www.ekomrezabih.net/new/index.php?id=209&backPID=18&begin_at=75&tt_news=128 http://www.unmikonline.org/press/2003/wire/feb/imm250203AM.htm http://www.politikforum.de/forum/archive/22/2003/02/3/25734 Semarforikuq 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Semarforikuq, thanks for providing sources. I will however mention three things:

1. You could help us a lot by giving a brief description of what to look for in some of those long texts, just as ChrisO did in Talk:Kosovo/Sources and Reinoutr in Talk:Kosovo#Reasons why we have the current introduction.
2. It's actually much easier for someone to change just a few things in the article than for another editor to reintroduce all the "collateral damage". It's also the polite thing to do.
3. Kosovo is the English name of this place, Kosova is the Albanian one :-) - Regards, Evv 19:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Semarforikuq sources on Kosovo's status

• UNMIK's Media Monitoring: includes a cable by AP from Camp Bondsteel, Serbia and Montenegro... a U.S. military base in the U.N.-administered province of Kosovo. Ok, Kosovo is a Serbian province under UN-administration :-)

These are sources whose objective is NOT to describe Kosovo's current status, but who merely deal with Kosovo and mention it, but without aiming for an accurate definition.

• A 2001 letter from Ljubco Georgievski to Kofi Annan, regarding the armed violence by the regional Albanian paramilitary army, the aggression from the Kosovo territory, asking to stop the export of violence and terrorism from Kosovo.
• A 2004 speech by Jaromir Novotny, Czech ambassador to India: We have created two international protectorates (BiH and Kosovo)... Kosovo is actually governed by local mafia organizations, and the society there is one of the most corrupts in the world.

Most (if not all) organizations and NGOs avoid entering into the details of Kosovo's status for diplomatic reasons: they work with Kosovars, would gain nothing from antagonizing them and lose nothing from dropping the Serbian province part :-) These are not reliable sources to determine Kosovo's current status, especially when compared with Talk:Kosovo/Sources.

• Zhaba, an NGO active in Kosovo/a Territory Currently Under UN Administration.
• EkoMrezaBiH: An enviromentalist group dealing with enviromental law, active in Kosovo/a (territory under interim UN administration).

Regards. Evv 19:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is the serbian version for the name Kosova. As soon as Kosova will be independent, the international name will be 'Kosova'. In the same manner Moldavia decided to be called Moldova in English. As for the links, I decided to present some that are against Kosovo as well. I used links from the neighbouring states, from UNMIK and from other international sources. I assume you are not assuming good faith? Semarforikuq 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are not assuming good faith? -- The irony -- Apart from that, its still Moldavia in English... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually semaforikuq is completely right. I checked now Moldova and republika srpska, in both cases the enlgicised version is the local. So, from now on, I suggest refering to Kosovo as Kosova. I also suggest moving the page to that name as the first official language in Kosova is Albanian. Why should the English version derive from Serbian? And the story of Kosova being important for Serbia is nothing but nationalistic propaganda to justify Serbian claims. Late Prime Minister Djindjic has said that the reason why the myth of Kosova was created is because Serbia had the collapsing Ottoman Empire in the south and the strong Austo-Hungarian empire towards the north. Serbia had no population in these Ottoman territories, so the only way they could justify overtaking it, was by portraying it as an important historical heartland and other mythical BS. Medeival Serbia does not have much in common with today Serbia. The Serb stock today is composed of multiethnic people who speak Serbian. The descendants of the Nemanja family are Albanians and live in the villages near Decan. They say that Nemanja was Albanian too. Neither is important!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanv (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 September 2006

Ack...not "Kosova"! After independence, they can call the place anything they want. In the meantime, I tell everybody that "Kosovo" is extremely well-established English usage, which is included in lots and lots of official documents. Whenever K-Albs complain about this, I often respond by saying, "Hey, I don't call it Kosovo i Metohija either!" Envoy202 23:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

self diskussios

For the peopel who dont know "self diskussios" or discussions from a person with himself are not alowed in Wikipedia--Hipi Zhdripi 06:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Upss!! Before one year I have told to all of you thate the Serbia is a artificial state. I sayedt that with other worlds "Ex-Yougoslavia" is a acont in the UN and the key (magic wort) to ths acount is in Belgrade, prishtina and Podgurica. Serbia and Kosovo must regednese there self als state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) 06:53, 19 September 2006

Sockpuppetry by Dardanv

Editors may wish to note that Dardanv has been conclusively identified as the puppetmaster of the Palmucha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Semarforikuq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accounts. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#Log of blocks and bans. It has been proposed that he be banned indefinitely from all editing on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 08:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think a ban is too harsh - better make it a month-block. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes to intro, new article

I've modified the introduction and added a new article, Constitutional status of Kosovo. Please add any comments on the latter to Talk:Constitutional status of Kosovo! -- ChrisO 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Consider adding a see also section for the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the Constitutional Framework for the Provisional Self-Government of Kosovo if you think it is worth it. The latter needs a lot of work, the former is mainly a stub I put together from primary sources. Also, not sure whether it is appropriate to add the {{current event}} tag to the last entry. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good work indeed :-) Evv 21:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not bad. I'll go through it in some more detail later. I've wondered if the Kosovo future status process deserves its own article. It probably does, but I'm too lazy to get it in good shape. I made a little change -- I thought it was odd to quote Jackie Sanders on behalf of the CG (she's a deputy U.S. permrep to the UN, not a super-authoritative source). It's better to go through the established body of CG statements.

By the way, I hope everybody saw the statement that was issued from the CG Ministerial yesterday. The mere fact that this meeting happened -- and was chaired by Secretary Rice -- was a big deal. Definitely a turning point in the process. The next few months will be really interesting. Let the fireworks begin! Envoy202 23:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement is here [37] and there's an informative story here [38] . I quoted Sanders simply because her statement was about the most succinct summary of the CG's position that I've come across. (You know how convoluted diplospeak gets! ;-) Thanks for the comments - I'm looking forward to seeing your more detailed comments. -- ChrisO 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the new intro a lot more than the previous version. Although I do not like the sound of:

Serbian governance in the province is virtually non-existent

because I think that the following sentence is sufficient enough:

The province is governed by the United Nations Mission ...

If the objective here is to suggest that Serbia has some sort of control over the Serbian enclaves, than that should be mentioned-cum-clarified. Legally, Serbian governance is non-existant.Tonycdp 09:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

SOLUTION

OK after somany years talk, and talk. The soluion is easy:

1. The serbs say Kosovo was part of Serbia History . (OK)
2. Kosovars say thate they wont independent. (OK)

---

• We must late how they wont let as make a deal:

1. Kosovo late as the History of Serbia (they must be happy with thate becose all the time they are maken souch noice "History, Hixtory ...").
2. And for the Kosovars let they take a independent state withing Serbian history. (they must be happy with thate becose all the time they are maken souch noice "Inependent-Indpenden...").

---

I think this is a big compromise:

1. The kosovars accept the serbian mytologie als history and
2. the serbs accept the Kosovo state als independent

---

For als in Wiki let it bee in this way.--Hipi Zhdripi 04:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

CONTACT GROUP MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

I dont know so well English but I cann read this "Serbia" and I dident findet in this page this kombination of the strings see here : http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/de/Aussenpolitik/RegionaleSchwerpunkte/Suedosteuropa/KosovoStatement060921.pdf --Hipi Zhdripi 04:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have sayed so many time thate Serbai and Kosova are seperet objec of diplomatie and for both is only one argument they are still part of Yougoslavia wicth is a accont withot user. The term Serbian State and Kosovo Protectoriat are only temporale accounts in UN. If Rusia is blocen the Kosovo independence, USA is going to block the Serbian independenc. Becose of the argument not becaouse of me let the page article Yougoslavia als las tpart in witch Kosovo and Serbia are presantet together. my argument is comming from this CG statement:

...As this process enters a crucial stage, Ministers look forward to a durable solution to the last major issue related to the breakup of Yugoslavia ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) 05:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Language Official

Kosovar parliamentarians have finally balked under international pressure to make Turkish official.

I'm going to slightly change the description to clarify that Turkish is only official in the Prizren District and not in the whole of Kosovo as it currently implies.Tonycdp 11:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is not the same thing like Second Yugoslavia (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) even if they iusse the name Yugoslavia the was not like ex. Rusian Federation and Sovjet Union. The Rusian Federation was automaaticle the member of the UN. -- 172.181.62.61, 05:52, 26 September 2006

Hipi, please read Constitutional status of Kosovo. It's unambiguously clear that Kosovo was, is, and has only ever been a province of Serbia, NOT of Yugoslavia. Every Yugoslav and Serbian constitution since 1946 has defined it as such. Your claim that it's a province of Yugoslavia is not only unsourced, it's contrary to what all the constitutions have said. -- ChrisO 07:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

See how the EU sees Kosovo at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/serbia/kosovo/political_profile_en.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.165.195 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but that merely says that Kosovo had autonomy within Yugoslavia (which is true if misleadingly phrased), not that Kosovo was a province of Yugoslavia rather than Serbia. Yugoslavia was a federal republic; the next unit down was the republics, then the provinces were below that. -- ChrisO 08:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO this is your problem and you are my best argument. We have "de facto" and "de juro" the position of Kosovo in UN, but you dont wount to accept. You are doing a same thing like a kosovar is writing thate Kosovo is a UN member. You are not objectiv. You are intepreting some irrelevante documents. The fact thate is comming from Contact Group Statemante is puting all your documentation in black list. I diden sayed thate Kosovo is Independent only I sayed thate the statute of Kosovo is not defineted since the Yougoslavian bracket. After this point Kosovo is Protectoriat "de facto" and "de juro" and the status "Protectoriat" is meanng thate the statut of this area is going to be diseded. In thate time when you write thate Kosovo is part of Serbia you have disedet for the status. You can do thate in Serbia but thate dont accept no body like no body till now dont accept thate Kosovo is a member of UN. The logical is thate Kosovos status is PROTECTET from anybody till UN dont diseade if Kosovo is ging to be part of Serbia or Kosovo is going to be a member of UN. For me you can make more and more propagnder but you are doing so in Serbia and you are a fried from the uN soulution. Why? When the Serbs hase maked so much propagander to stop Millosheviq we diden t haved so many killed peopel. Sommebody most pay a bout thate. What the hell you are thinking you can destroyed and kill in eyes of UN. You are thinging thate we have forget what Serbia hase don to nightbours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.194.116 (talk · contribs)- 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional status of Kosovo is a part of your propagander like many pages in internet. I dont wont to read your propagander. Only think I know is 1244 and the last statemant of CG both documents dont have this kombination of strings "Serbia" and you are imageneden thate. This is not supprise for my beacose I know the fantasy of the serbians, we have see in Balkan (so many killed peopel). Thanks got thate the serbs dont have power anymore. And for my opinion the Belgrad Pashaluk is to much, beacose the dont kno to manege in civil way, they know only mytologie and killing under the drog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.194.116 (talk · contribs)- 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's an interesting statement from that linked profile:

The European Union supports the implementation of the Standards through its European Partnership (Council Decision 2004/520/EC of 14 June 2004 on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the European Partnership with Serbia and Montenegro including Kosovo as defined by UNSCR 1244) adopted in June 2004 ...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Int19h (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Mixing the name

ChrisO is not the wounder thate we can not make a gut aricle beacose you are maken troubels and mixen the names. Serbia is Serbia this is correct name. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and SFR of Yugoslavia is SFR of Yugoslavia. Are they stupied (in UN) thate they iusse this terms and you are so intelegent thate you know better then they wicth hase this as profesion? Miloshevq was intelegent to, he wountit to know better solution then UN and now you cant accept thate Kosovo for Serbia is lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.194.116 (talk · contribs)- 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbia will lose Kosovo when Kosovo stops being a part of it. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes pretty soon HipiTonycdp 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is happen see there we dont have the name "Serbia" in Rez. 1244 and we dont have in last statment, but is your problem thate you can not accept. I am not a doctor to help you. You must go and protest to Millosheviq. If you wount Kosovo back you must lerne to live without kalashnikow unter your bett and start to discuse with aruments not with mytologie.--172.174.165.94 (IP of Hipi Zhdripi (talk · contribs)) 07:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dardanv and North Kosovo

North Kosovo maintains a seperate government, institutions, etc. It's a seperate entity from the rest of Kosovo. Just as Kosovo is "free" of the Serbian rule from Belgrade - so is North Kosovo "free" of the Albanian rule from Pristina since 1999. I wonder why this article doesn't mention anything about North Kosovo. It is only officially a part of Kosovo (just as is Kosovo a part of Serbia) - but in reality it's independent. Hmm... this reminds me of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (Serbian Republic of North Kosovo?) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Intresting because I saw a Swedish documentary (broadcasted on the Swedish channel SVT24) about how the life in Kosovo is today, 7 years after NATO-bombings. Some Serbs stated that they will declear there own "free state" (Republika Srpska Kosovo???) if they were going to be some sort of disconnection to Serbia. They said that all land north of Kosovska Mitrovica would belong to this "country". Have anyone heard this before? Litany 18:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about it - I'm just wondered why this article doesn't mention anythin' 'bout it - so I have decided to make North Kosovo article.

What happened with the movement to ban User:Dardanv? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Only one

Before you start to intepret the documents give us a document from UN in witch is standen: Kosovo is part of Serbia. All your intepretation are propagander. Only one document please. Stop with the Serbian constutution beacose the Republika e Kosovës hase one to. But both are irelevane for UN. Only beacose Kosovaren are cooperatin with UN, you dont have to think thate they are agree with UN and for this they dont have to make propagander. They protect there country. Is cleare everybody hase right to protect his country. Serbs have right to protect Serbia like Kosovars have right to protect Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.165.94 (talk · contribs)- 08:07-08:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, its an UNMIK map of Kosovo of August 2006: [39], (and if you want more UN documents, please see: /Sources) regards --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, here you go - not one, but four UN documents which say just that:

• http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8640.doc.htm

UN Security Council, 5373rd Meeting, 14/02/2006

When the Security Council met this morning to consider the situation in Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro), it had before it a report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), dated 25 January and covering the Mission's activities, as well as developments in Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro, from 23 May to 31 December 2005.

• http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/2005/335&Lang=E

Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, 23 May 2005

It covers the activities of UNMIK and developments in Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro ...

• http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/cis/milutinovic/cis-milutinovic.htm

MILUTINOVIC ET AL. (IT-05-87) Case Information Sheet, 9 August 2006

Kosovo is located in the southern part of the Republic of Serbia, and was part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY).

• http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19523&Cr=kosovo&Cr1=

UN News Centre, 15 August 2006

New head of UN Kosovo mission optimistic about a status settlement

The UN has run Kosovo, an Albanian-majority Serbian province, since international forces drove out Yugoslav troops in 1999 amid ethnic fighting. Independence and autonomy are among options that have been mentioned for its final status.

Is that enough for you? -- ChrisO 18:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No ne of theme is a document there are oly storys preparet from irelevant peopel. Here you have preasen no agreement betwen the conflict partys or from UN members. Souch document you have a billion in Kosovo. In witch UN is traing to mimisade sitution dow there. See the document not press briefing in the daily police. I am traveling everywehr in Word without Serbian pass and I am a Kosovar this is doument even thate this is saying nothing. CG hase stardet this proces at the breack of Yougoslavia and the proces is going one. See last statment and let daily politic beacose at firs from Serbian counstitution Law Kosovo was taket a way for more thane twis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 00:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget the gest for politic is someting else and the document is something else. If you diden understande thate till now then sorry. I gon a tell you souch gest. Wenn you cross Kosovo border you cane read only Wikcommen to Kosovo. By —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 01:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this enough for you? Wilcommen Kosovo Yugoslavia or Serbia Enyway you are wilcommen too. Even if you dont accept Kosovo as state you are realy wilcommen, we have democraty in Kosovo. If you diden make a crime you can fiel free and you dont wount to bee a fried if you have maked then sorry for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 01:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo needs serbien mytologie, beacose this is meeaning for a new state mony (turisem). You are willcommen in Graqanica in Brezovica (dont forget to take mony with you) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars

How I can see you wount Edit wars. Im not interesed in souch thinks. Beacose at first the future of Kosovo will not be disaidet here in Wiki but in UN. You are thinkin thate I wount to make propagander. Thate is not true. If I wount to make propagander like the sebs here in Wiki, then I will make a propagander for Kosovo as part of Albania like it wase in History. Why the germans have right to live together in one state and albanians not? Albanians have a kompakt territorys in balkan and they live there since the history know thete ther live the humen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.165.94 (talk · contribs)- 08:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Never part of Serbia? But how? It has been a part of it since 1945 and remains to this very present day. North Kosovo was before and after 1999 a part of Serbia and it even was in the Axis puppet Kingdom of Serbia in 1941-1944. Before that, it has continually been a part of Serbia since 1912. Before that, it was a part of the short-lived liverated Serbia in the 16th century. Before that, it was a part of the Serb state from the 12th century to the 15th century, while Metohija itself was a part since the 7th century. What's this never than? Also, you're mentioning the Germans, a united Albanian state? Are you aware that you're talking about Neo-Nazism and Greater Albania? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

All the time how long you are working in Wikipedia you are traing to presant Greater Serbia and you are thinking thate a take your opinion seriosly. - hipi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.95.77 (talk · contribs)- 13:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never in my wiki-life tried to present a "Greater Serbia" - nor do I mention those words. What percisely are you incinuating? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Way the albanians?

Way the albanians cooperet with USA. Beacose there is a member of a large family of the slav in History witch hase traing to elimined this folk from the Earth. Ofcours thate since the Rusia was the big power this member of the slaw family Serbia hase present his propaganda easy to the west. Till this century there was a number of the westen "historians" witch beleved thate the Albanians dont exist! This is happend with some historians thate work only in Tabel and dont se what is hapend in Ground. Kosovo was never as part of Serbia but it was presentet als souch. Like they wount to present now. They don have nothing in Kosovo and they wount here to presante here Kosovo als part of Serbia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.165.94 (talk · contribs)- 08:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What's your WP:Point? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbian Kosovo

I have read this bullshit here above my text but i can't understand it. On this page these discussions are unlogical and stupid till the judgement about the future of Kosovo comes. Everbody knows, that Kosovo is still an part of Serbia, and it always will be. Discussions about who came first in Kosovo are not objective enough. So illiers came first but that does'nt mean its their land. Who fought 600 jears ago in the Ottoman Empire against the Ottoman Army? Yes the SERBS and MONTENEGRINS. What did albania to protect Kosovo nothing. Serbs and Montenegrin people gived her lives for this land and now claimes some %^&%* people Kosovo. Albania was before Tito selfs not recognised by the world as an county. Albanians came all in Kosovo for an better live. Serbs gave them that and what gave the Albanians the Serbs for thank? Nothing other than shit!!! In Kosovo Serbs had schools, markets, everything that a county needs to be succesfully. Albanians had the chance to join Serbs schools, to learn Serbian language, everything but they did it not. And why not? Because they would to destabilize Kosovo and set it to their hand. And now they have it.

Many of Serbian curchs are destroyed, fired and whatever. They build them now again up, but the tower may not be longer than musquees. WTF ? And Albanians say they would like to create an democration when Kosovo come independace? Yeah right. The premier of Kosovo is an former KLA officer. All these things are organized to provocate and discrime the Serbian people in teur own land!! Its not fair and they human rights are not strong enough there.

Everbody says yeah Serbia must shut up they would like to have Kosovo because they want to create an greater Serbia. Kosovo is Serbia there is no great Serbia with Kosovo only if Serbia would get Republic of Srpska and Republic of Srpska Krajina.

And let me ask you all why Albanians would like to get Kosovo? Not because they luiver the with 90 %. No but because they would like to have an greater Albania! They are nothing better than te Serbs.

Just my 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.152.198 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 September 2006

You have right, everybody in Serbia know thate Kosovo is part of Serbia but the "stuped" UN diden writet thate in Rez 1244 and the "stupied" CG in there statemant diden findet this combination of the strings "Serbia" - hipi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.95.77 (talk · contribs)- 13:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Northern Kosovo

There - North Kosovo - anyone who thinks he can contribute should try their best. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok Let's also have Southern North Kosovo, ok how about West Kosovo, and this is also a must Corn Fields of North Kosovo. I can sense progress on the Kosovo Issue. It is about to become the best described region in the world. It already has a history section longer than that of the USA.Tonycdp 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahem - North Kosovo is to Kosovo what Kosovo is to Serbia. If Kosovo becomes independent, so will North Kosovo. There is no such thing as "West Kosovo" or "Southern North Kosovo" as an independent entity. The Pristina rule has absolutely no authority in North Kosovo - but it does have some (or most) in the rest of Kosovo. Your comparation is silly. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily so, HRE. The Contact Group has been adamant about keeping Kosovo united and the Kosovo Albanians have rejected any possibility of partition. Unfortunately Belgrade has been playing silly games by encouraging the Kosovo Serbs to boycott the PISG. They've been strongly criticised for this by pretty much the whole international community - see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8827.doc.htm for Joachim Rücker's briefing of the UN Security Council on 13 September. There's an interesting article at the IWPR's website, published last week, which explores some of the dilemmas that this poses - see http://www.iwpr.net/?p=brn&s=f&o=324126&apc_state=henpbrn . -- ChrisO 18:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking through it right now. Seems very interesting. I noticed something weird though - the Kosovar leadership is strictly for unity and no partitionism - but strictly for the independence of Kosovo; saying "we can live together" and "we cannot live together, but we can live next to each other" at the same time. This clearly incinuates at the actual POV of the Kosovar government. Also, North Kosovo is out of juristiction from the Kosovar government - but Serbian, rather. Just as Kosovo is factually independent from Serbia since 1999 - so is North Kosovo factually independent from Kosovo since 1999. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A section on nothern Kosovo seems fine to me. It might be a good way to describe the unique situation up there. There has been more attention placed on the north in the last three months than I've seen in the last three years -- this is good. Lots of new development assistance is pouring in (especially quick-impact projects) and KFOR's presence has been ramped up. I was there two weeks ago and could tell a noticeable easing of the mood. That being said, this is still a very unstable situation. Arguably, this is the most unstable part of Europe, a zone where violence, provoked by either side, could break out tomorrow. And, of course, there will be a reaction in northern Kosovo to independence. This reaction could be through extreme political means or even violence, but there will surely be a reaction. If I get some free time in the next week I'll try to add to the page. In the meantime, it would be great for some people to dig up recent public statements about the north, including the Contact Group's recent declaration issued last summer about the situation there. Envoy202 21:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo hase event 100,000 sebs and wikipedia hase more article about Kosovo thane serbs in Kosovo. Do you realy wount to make a artice about every "serbian stone" and sebr in Kosovo? Is only a quesen. - hipi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.95.77 (talk · contribs)- 13:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo has more than 100,000 ethnic Serbs - and before the war it had more than 200,000 (and in one period over 300,000) - what are you trying to say, anyway? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For political reasons I would disagree with the article on Northern Kosovo, because it does in some way promote the idea of separation, and its not worthy of a separate article. However the prospect of more information on that region is quite exciting and is something I'll be looking forward to. I can see the focus shifting to that region for many more years to come. Perhaps it would be better if there is a section "Northern Kosovo Issue" or something similar within the Kosovo article itself.Tonycdp 14:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Politics has nothing to do with writing an Encyclopedia. As far as I recall, you and this article promoted the idea of seperation of Kosovo of Serbia - so why do you object? Also, what makes it unworthy? I did suggest a section at first. Anyway - Kosovo's independence will almost definately result in North Kosovo seccession as well. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp makes a good point. I agree it would make better sense to say "Northern Kosovo Issue" -- instead of subtly promoting a certain POV that "Northern Kosovo" (in capital letters) is a separate territory somehow distinct (think: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). Envoy202 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is North Kosovo is a seperate territory somehow distinct. ;)) --HolyRomanEmperor 23:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp

I have been looking through the contributions of User:Tonycdp, and I am almost 100% certain that he is yet another sockpuppet. Of Dardanv, perhaps (he's the sockpuppet master here - no offence intended). --HolyRomanEmperor 14:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn you're so clever I can't keep up with you. You could even challenge ChrisO and his poodle Asterion for the title "Sherlock Holmes of Wikipedia". Drum RolllllllTonycdp 15:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or confirmation... --HolyRomanEmperor 17:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp definitely isn't a sockpuppet of Dardanv. In the course of putting together the evidence for this arbitration, I was able to find a considerable amount of personal information about Tonycdp which clearly indicates that he and Dardanv are two different people. (Out of respect for his privacy, I obviously won't be posting the detailed evidence.) It's worth noting that although he isn't a sockpuppet, he has used false identities for disruptive purposes, as the Arbitration Committee has already provisionally found - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed decision#Tonycdp is disruptive. -- ChrisO 18:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mr Sherlock Holmes (ChrisO), my email is qcpass@gmail.com. Would you be kind enough to tell me who I really am. I hope its not the owner of www.kajtazi.com (as you skillfully discovered) cuz I am not even going to entertain it. By the way I have replied to your allegations on a page that seems to have disappeared. P.S. Thanks for respecting my privacy, I really appreciate it, you're a star, I love you.Tonycdp 19:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed_decision#Topical_Probation_for_parties: For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits. This has been enacted since 14 September 2006.

According to WP:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and noted at the bottom of User_talk:Tonycdp#WP:POINT, Tonycdp has conducted disruptive edits - and he is an involved party. As such, he is to be banned - no?

It has been suggested that Tonycdp be put on a one-year probation period at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed_decision#Probations and that he will be banned for disruptive edits - unfortunately, this hasn't been concluded yet. The same can be noted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed_decision#Probations.

I wonder why has the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo halted... --HolyRomanEmperor 12:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes of Mytologie

Can you explen us, from witch planet cames Albaners? I think this is mnore importen beacose we know now thate in Serbian mytologie Kosovo is part of Serbia, From serbian mytologie I know thate Albaners camme to Kosovo with some ships, but I diden undertandet from witch planet?- hipi—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.208.136.241 (talk · contribs)- 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia:POINT? Funny that you mention it, there's a rather interesting building in Serbia called Planet Albania. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Eho: Funny that you mention it, there's a rather interesting building in Serbia called Planet Albania.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.105.244 (talk · contribs)- 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

...yes? --PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Go and look counsttution of Serbia

Go and look counsttution of Serbia there is no Kosovo at all????—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.105.244 (talk · contribs)- 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

lisent to your ekspert http://www.bbc.co.uk/serbian/news/2006/10/061001_djokicustavi.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.105.244 (talk · contribs)- 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont remove without argument see ez 1244 and last CG statmant there is no terms "Serbia" they iusse only Yougoslavia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.105.244 (talk · contribs)- 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, again - your WP:POINT? --PaxEquilibrium 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh are you happy. I am happy to beacose I dont spend so mauch time to profe to the rest of user thate I am Wikipedian and I wount to be Administrator, Till for one month you wontit to be Administrator and now you have forgoit thate to provaced a vandal how you call me is not a gut face for a kanditad for Administrator.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.105.244 (talk · contribs)- 23:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am wayting ChristO (perhaps you are thate) to "place" here his real face to the rest of comunity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.105.244 (talk · contribs)- 23:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I perfectly understand your words (can read them, despite your low-level English) - what I meant is I SIMPLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT DO YOU WANT (TO SAY). --PaxEquilibrium 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The terms in Kosovo article

The terms n Kosovo article must be used like in UN LAW not like in Serbia LAW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.105.244 (talk · contribs)- 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - International Law - which is on Serbia's side. --PaxEquilibrium 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There's actually no such thing as "UN law". You might want to read Sources of international law, which gives a good primer on where international law comes from. Sovereignty is a somewhat different legal issue - to quote the linked article, "Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so." In this particular case, the Serbian constitution defines Kosovo as part of Serbia, and no foreign country disputes that definition.

As a counter-example, Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland used to claim Northern Ireland to be part of the territory of the Republic of Ireland. These articles were removed in 1999, but they were moot anyway, as no country anywhere recognised NI as part of the ROI. The mere existence of a constitutional claim doesn't grant sovereignty - only recognition by foreign powers can do this. It looks likely that the new Serbian constitution will again claim Kosovo as part of the country even if it becomes independent - however, this will become moot if foreign powers don't recognise Serbian sovereignty. -- ChrisO 00:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Chriso, you just used word "primer" in your post instead of the word "example" and I wonder how that can happen to you? :))) PANONIAN (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Not sure what you mean. "Primer" just means an introductory text, like a basic textbook. It's something that "primes" you for a subject. -- ChrisO 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for that. "Primer" is Serbian word that means "example" and you wrote "primer" exactly where word "example" could stand instead. But I saw vocabulary now, and since there is word "primer" in English too, I obviously was wrong about this. PANONIAN (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence, I had no idea that the two languages had the same word. Maybe it's a common root in Latin? -- ChrisO 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, I just noticed that some Albanian users here accusing you that you are Serb, and when I saw the word, I thought that you are one indeed. But no matter that Wikipedia clock say that I posted my comment in 01:18, it was in fact 03:18 in Serbia, so I was too tired to remember that I could check my vocabulary to see is there a same word in English. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've slightly modified the text of the intro to read "While it is regarded internationally as being under Serbian sovereignty..." This is intended to highlight the definition of sovereignty that I cited above, i.e. that "Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so." Hopefully this will make Kosovo's de jure status a bit clearer. Serbia's constitutional claim to Kosovo is only operative in domestic law - it's the international recognition that gives Serbian sovereignty force in international law. -- ChrisO 00:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what wiki call sovereignty: "Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself." How can you say with straight face that UN say that Serbia have that right??? You know that Serbia do not have power over Kosovo. But you edit something into intro that you know is not true. 1244 say that UN take "into account" sovereignty of Yugoslavia and that in "interim" Kosovo have autonomoy in Yugoslavia but power that come with sovereignty now is with UN and 1244 leave possibility for decision to make Kosovo independent. What I say now is not true??? What ChrisO? Bosna 02:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Christ from Timishwara has problem with terminoly (He dont have problem with termilogie but ismaken propagander and PANONIA after one month is going to make it history of Kosovo). O ChristO wher do you wount to go. Falsifikeding argument ring you in souch position like it is Serbia today without head. (Ew please make yor notice Hipi bla, bla, Aterion come said to me you are tierd with me go together the ChrisO clique) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.174.62 (talk · contribs)- 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Serbia hase mytologie soverenty over Kosovo. hhihihhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.174.62 (talk · contribs)- 05:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I will make what after one month? I do not understand what you want to say, Hipi. PANONIAN (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bosna, read that sentence again: "Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme ... authority". It's not conditional upon a government's ability to exercise that authority. For example: the government of the Republic of Cyprus is recognised by every country in the world except Turkey as being sovereign over the whole of Cyprus, even though it only controls half the island; the government of the Republic of China was regarded for a long time as being sovereign over mainland China, even though it only controlled Taiwan; the government of Kuwait was regarded as sovereign over its country even when it didn't control a single square kilometer of it during the 1990-1991 Iraqi occupation. In the case of Serbia, it agreed to delegate its authority to the UN. The UN itself doesn't possess sovereignty, and UNSCR 1244 specifically reaffirms "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region" [40]. -- ChrisO 08:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, be very clear. Is this your argument? First you define sovereignty as not supreme authority over a territory but the "exlusive right to exercise supreme authority over a territory". Correct? Then you say that Serbia has sovereignty over Kosovo because the international community recognize Serbia's exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over Kosovo. Is that correct? Be very clear. Is that your argument? I agree that your argument is more precise than saying Kosovo is legally in Serbia. Your argument is logical and coherent. Let us see if we agree on some facts. Who right now has supreme authority in Kosovo? Can you answer that question in clear way? Who decides what can and can not happen? Who decides what future will be? Is there any doubt? The answer is the UN Security Council. Yes? Do we agree? Please answer. Then question is does international community right now recognize Serbia as having the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over Kosovo? What is answer to that question? For you to be right, you must answer that the international community today recognizes that Serbia have exlusive right to supreme authority to Kosovo. Who today say this? Solana? Kofi Annan? US State Department? International Crisis Group? They do not say that. You say so, but what leader from intenational community today say that Serbia have today exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over Kosovo? Today? Who? No one. Am I right? Answer my question. If you ignore my question or give half answer and continue to force your interpretation, then administrator Fred Bauder is right that you only tolerate your interpretation of things. If international community does not today recognize Serbia's exclusive right to supreme authority over Kosovo, then your interpretation is precise, logical, coherent, and wrong. I will change article to "legally in Serbia". You try to ignore that 1244 was intentionally vague and then try to enforce your interpretation as only legitimate one. But truth is that international community make 1244 vague on purpose. You do not know that??? Bosna 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"For almost a decade, the Serbian nationalist movement held power over the territory and, more importantly, showed its readiness to inflict death and human suffering in demonstrating that power. The Serbian national consciousness still has problems in linking cause to effect in the wars in Croatia and Bosnia. It will therefore not be surprising if some time is needed before it is reconciled to the fact that Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo no longer exists. It can be reclaimed only by the use of force, but - given the current economic and military power of Serbia on the one hand and the strength of the KFOR ground troops in the province on the other - this scenario is the least likely."

http://www.unu.edu/p&g/kosovo_full.htm

Bosna 04:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's keep this simple:

1) Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a territory. It's like virginity - you either have it or you don't.

Response: just google "meaning of sovereignty" Kosovo and Serbia. You will see that people far more educated than you and me know that sovereignty is not simple absolute concept like you show it. This author like many more say your position is a "conceptual fiction of sovereignty as an absolute and indivisible condition" http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1079-1760.2003.00503001.x?cookieSet=1 It is not that simple. Bosna 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

2) A state can make any claims it likes about its "rights" to a particular piece of territory. However, it won't be recognised as sovereign over that territory unless the international community accepts its claims.

Yes, we agree in principle but then you make false claim that international community state the Serbia have exclusive right to supreme authority over Kosovo when that is not true. Everybody know that UN Security Council claim right to decide Kosovo future. Bosna 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

3) Sovereign powers can be delegated to the UN. This is the basis of peacekeeping operations where the sovereign government grants permission to the UN to exercise governmental authority for a limited period, e.g. running the police, administering the civilian population, etc. East Timor was a good example of this. However, the UN itself isn't a sovereign body. It has none of the powers of a sovereign state (it doesn't have its own currency or armed forces, for instance) and it doesn't have any territory - the UN Building in New York is regarded as "international territory" belonging to "all countries that have joined the Organization", rather than to the UN specifically.[41] So the UN itself can't exercise sovereignty, but it can administer a territory on behalf of a sovereign state.

Yes, but, if Serbia had kept its exclusive rights then it could take Kosovo back and tell UN to get out and UN would go because UN think Serbia have right to say that. BUT UN does not believe Serbia have that exclusive right. In reality, Serbia lost supreme authority and in eyes of international community Serbia lost exclusive right to that authority. Who in international community say "Serbia today has exclusive rights to exercise supreme authority over Kosovo? Who ChrisO? Today. Can you name one rank leader of international community who say that???

4) The Belgrade Agreement of 2 June 1999 was an example of just such a delegation of authority. It permitted the "Deployment in Kosovo under United Nations auspices of effective international civil and security presences, acting as may be decided under Chapter VII of the Charter, capable of guaranteeing the achievement of common objectives." However, it explicitly recognised "the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region."

But it was vague about Kosovo. It never said "sovereignty over Kosovo". It was vague on purpose. Why you never admit that?

5) UNSCR 1244 of 10 June 1999 also reaffirmed "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2 [the Belgrade Agreement]". This followed UNSCR 1160 of 31 March 1998 "affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

You just repeat yourself but never find statement today that international community say Serbia has full sovereignty over Kosovo. Where is example from today? Even this example do not explicitly say over Kosovo.

6) No country in the world has recognised Kosovo as sovereign. UNSCR 1244 was passed on the basis of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia being recognised as sovereign, and the current negotiations are taking place on the same basis (with Serbia rather than the defunct FRY, of course). Serbia still has the exclusive right to exercise sovereignty, but its powers have been transferred to the UN - which is why the article describes Serbian sovereignty as nominal. -- ChrisO 07:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, you have stubborn head. You must be from Balkans too. If international community believe that Serbia still have right to exercise supreme authority over Kosovo then there is no reason for negotiations. We can all go home and forget it. Hello? Sovereignty is unresolved. That means that Serbia does not have it if we talk in terms of full sovereignty if we talk about sovereignty in absolute terms like virginity.

But now I end with big surprise. We agree on the way article reads now. "While Serbia's nominal sovereignty is recognised by the international community". If someone change it, I will edit it back to this. Serbia have nominal sovereignty... in name only. Actual substance of sovereignty -- the right to decide future, supreme authority -- is with UN Security Council. Bosna 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Protect the page

Can anybody from administrators protect this page till we dont have the document from UN thate Kosovo is part of Serbia. Dont intepret the term the UN is iusen today the name Yougosllavia wha we shold use Serbia??? We have ther links witch explene the use the REALTY de facto and de juro. We dont need to meake here discusions. We dont nede to work with serbian or UÇK Law. Serbia is saying thate Kosovo is part of Serbia, UÇK is aying thate Kosovo is independent UN is sayint that part of Yougoslavia. You can bloc me but belev me is beter to protect the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.178.105.244 (talk · contribs)- 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hipi, go and read #Only one above. And please stop violating the injunction. The Arbitration Committee has already voted to ban you from editing Kosovo-related articles - you're on the right course to earn a ban from editing Wikipedia, period. -- ChrisO 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

wery fine. At all your presantet "document" is not this combination o strings "Serbia" nevermeter they are not documents but daili brifing in witch is standing (Serbia and Montenegro) from some protocoll writers who from serbian propagander think realy thate "Serbia and Montenegro" is a same think like Yugoslavia. hahahah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.174.62 (talk · contribs)- 05:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi

...violated the ArbCom decision again (and he wasn't blocked yet) - when is someone going to block him for this? --PaxEquilibrium 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but not ChristO. He is not neutrale. You are coopereting. This is agnins Wiki roul. Calle another administrator and I am going to stop, - HIPI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 00:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Other admins did come. They all agreed. AFAIC< i don't know a single admin that didn't block you at least once... :) --PaxEquilibrium 09:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you thing thate

If all Wiki administrators are protecting your metologie like ChrisO then "hallal". -- HIPI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What mythology???--PaxEquilibrium 09:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

When you from a object imagened another wountit form, fantasy object and make it in history a figur is Mitologie. Now UN is talking about Kosovo part of Yugoslavia and your fantasy is maken part of Serbia. Before a week I was thinking thate Im wrong, from so much sebian mitology here in Wiki but thanks Got the statment of the CG told to me no you are OK but the HRE is in telling you fantasy. What cann I do before 7 jahrs UN said Kosovo part of Yugoslavia and now is saing the same thing and you are saying a same thing with imagenedet fantasy Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.174.62 (talk · contribs)- 06:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: WHAT MYTHOLOGY, WHAT FANTASY - show me where I said such things... --PaxEquilibrium 10:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So is better

So is better, beacose everybodie know thate Kosovo is not part of Serbia but is Protectet (protectoriat) with all the serbian mytologie inseide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 00:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is officially a part of Serbia that is under UN protection - the article relfects that. Why are you opposing? --PaxEquilibrium 09:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok, but you and ChristO clique must be intelegent als Contact Gruop. For thate you cann explen me Why UN diden say before the start of the proces "Kosovo is province in Serbia" and in the last statment too. They know everything what you know about Kosovo and Serbia and Yugosllavia too, but they iusse Kosovo province in Yugoslavia. UN is talking about Kosovo als province in Yougoslavia. This article is named Kosovo als province in Yugosllavia (at the start of this article your clique has told to me I shold make a article named Kosovo (UNMIK) and now?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.174.62 (talk · contribs)- 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are refering to that one single UN resolution - then because it was in 1999 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; it changed name to "State Union of Serbia and Montenegro" in 2003 and it dissolved in Serbia, both times receiving instructions from the UN, recognizing Serbia's sovereignity over Kosovo. If you are saying that they should change a whole resolution just because a country slightly changed! - ofcourse they won't do that. Aside from that; ofcourse, the UN considers Kosovo a part of Serbia, under its protectorate. Heck, even the Albanian nationalist Self-determination movement of Kosovo says that its a part of Serbia. Tell me, if it's not a part of Serbia - why is it seeking independence? Koovo isn't seeking recognition of independence, it's seeking independence. --PaxEquilibrium 10:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please bloc the page for everybody

I dont wount to play a games with many user accounts. I have only one account you dont have to forget thate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 00:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. If you have an account, edit from the account; unless you have been banned from the article, in which case you shouldn't be editing it from an IP address either. Thatcher131 06:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

He has got an account. Refer to template:Hipi Zhdripi and check "What links here". This is simply and clearly an attempt to evade the arbitration injunction. Thanks, Asterion^talk 06:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That was me being nice. Check out the related user talk pages. Thatcher131 06:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, cheers :o) Asterion^talk 06:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hipi also had tens of sockpuppets - Kurac, Kanuni, User:Zhdripi Hipi, Henonan, etc. --PaxEquilibrium 09:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hipi hase only one sockerppuper this is Zhdripi Hipi (and this was maked after PANONIA sayid to me thate he hase a problem wit my posting, I have tell thate the administrators) and AOL. - Hipi Zhdripi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.174.62 (talk · contribs)- 06:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Serbs attac in SQ:Wikipedia

Hej loser SQ:Wiki is not UN, is not Ahtisari even NATO. Go and vandalized the UN, kill Ahtisari but dont forget NATO and Hagge before you are death in Moskua

Ups!ChristO is losen control http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Recentchanges —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 02:47-02:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Hipi, what I do not understand is this map: http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figura:000_Kosova_pa_Sanxhakun_e_Novi_Pazarit_e_Toplicën1.PNG I mean, Kosovo is coloured with different colour but the map still show entire Serbia besides Kosovo. Why Serbia? Why not show entire Albania or Macedonia instead? I did not expected this from you. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I can explen you. Ther are natyral and historical parts of ekonomy. Nothing else. And this region it was not since the Ottomans but since the Ilirians. Reade the antice greece books about the Dardanien-macdonian Wars and execle the time in witch the roman empire winns agains the Molos Bund (Epirot bund) and Athens (Strabo Books 1‑7, 15‑17 Books 6‑14 or see here in my work place [42]. Only beacose the serbian mytologie hase make thate some serbse fil they thate they are God in balkan thate is meaning nothig. The rest of the Word know wery well thate this part (Novi Pazar and Nish Sandjak) like Kosovo was gived to Serbia to be administreted beacose they have aliiert with Rusia. I am realy sorry thate the serbs think in each place wer is the serbian churh is Serbian land. this is not our problem they most select betwen the church and state. How many serbs know sice when is Serbian state. (Dont forget they are talking here in wiki since 1000)

Ups! Till today the peopel of the Nish sandjak are mixed race. There are Gorans, serba, albanian, bugarians

I am realy creazy the gorans in english wiki are presant als Serbs. hahahah like to presant an amerikan Indian als Briton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 03:25-03:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In one way the stupied (I know thate the serbs have intelegent peopel) serbs are presanting here the muslis from all Yougoslavia (exep Albanias) als Serbs in the other way they make propaganda thate albanias ate muslim???? If all Yugosllavians muslims are serbs then the serbian volk hase more proent muslims like albanian (more serbian muslims als albanians muslims). Please this is to mutch mytologie. We dont need to discuss many thinks here beacose we know thate all this is daily propagander and Wiki is a god pleace for souch peopel. And if the Administrator team dont do somthing agains this we must look the serbian fantysie here witch in the first place is not gut for serbs themelf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 03:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look "Northen Kosovo" the stupied man dont know thate "Northen Kosovo" is the part of Mitrovica till to the border with Novi Pazar. In this pat of Kosvo villayet hase live most populler albanian familys like Rexhepagiq (border to Novi Pazar [New Markt old mark it was Mitrovica]), Qena ect. (The mine s of Boletini). The stupid man dont know thate this area was colonisadied after 1914 from Solunci (like the terytor of Nish Sandjak). The children of the peopel witch was deportet from here are a live. In Bursa (Turki) live more thane 200 000 albanians from the are of Nish and Novi Pazar. This is not mytologie they are comming back in Kosovo and mared with Kosovars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 03:47-03:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

At last have a loke of this three-for maps http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardan%C3%ABt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.174.215.184 (talk · contribs)- 04:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Nish Sanjak" doesn't exist since 1878. It has always been populated by Serbs (although there was a Bulgarian minority till recently - there still is, actually - and, ofcourse, the ancestral Romanized/Greek population that existed in the middle ages). Gorans themselves (many) say they are Serbs. Why do you think its crazy? They're all of Orthodox Serb origin. Serbia conquered liberated this region; its true that atrocities against Muslims were committed - but domestic Muslims.

It is true that many Serbs converted to Islam - AFAIC, considering that every single family gave Janissaries (and others) because of the blood tax, logic says that currently there would be more Moslem than Orthodox Serbs - however, there is only an insignificant minority of Moslem Serbs today.

According to historians' demographic mapping, Serbs lived in North Kosovo since... well, forever. There was also a large "island" between Prizren and Pec - but no more. Perhaps its true that there were Albanians in North Kosovo in Ottoman times - but those Serbs were there for certain. Anyway, even if this colonization is the main reason - what does that; give you the right to expel all Serbs from there? Do you know that Albanians are the dominant people of Kosovo since the late 19th century and that there were practicly no Albanians there up to the 17th century (or a little before)? Does that give you right to epell all Albanians from there? --PaxEquilibrium 10:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You have right with your mytologie. The provice of Kosovo dont exist since 1999. by - Hipi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.28.216 (talk · contribs)- 18:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

After the serbs

After the serbs have lerne thate the World is moven on we must move now. See the HRE now know thate Sendjak of Nish it was and is not enymore. Now he know thate Kosovo Provinc it was is not enymore. Becose the article is named Kosovo and not Provinc of Kosovo.

This articel is named Kosovo and must reflect Kosovo. For the article Kosovo provinc, Kosova State go to the adekuat article and presant your propaganda there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.75.110 (talk · contribs)- 18:55-19:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hipi, please, this is not a chat room. On top of that, you are editing while blocked, which will simply make things worse. Be reasonable. Regards, Asterion^talk 19:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To discuss with your clique is a same as to discuss with Miloshevq clique. Here can help only the administrators team (like in real life UN)

Yes I m edit bloced. I dont wount to spend all my time in your games. If you dont wount to see thate I am editin bloces thane accept thate this articel is about Kosovo and Kosovo is UN protectoriat and nothing else. For Kosovo province go to Kosovo provice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.75.110 (talk · contribs)- 19:04-19:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Hipi. You win. Do whatever you want. No point on trying to reason with you, I guess. Good night. Asterion^talk 19:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO

ChrisO is protecten this page in Serbian propagander version. He wins agains me not beacose he have a argument but beacose he hase usen te title witch was givet to him from comunity. He has a clique and his clique was gived up but he hase the title. The administrato team must take him this titel beacose hi is usen for his national interes agains Wiki interes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.75.110 (talk · contribs)- 19:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying, Hipi? PaxEquilibrium 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

HRE is maken a joke. For how longer he is going to smile in his way I dont know. But we are going to wayt litel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.174.62 (talk · contribs)- 05:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Hipi, after careful consideration, I have to tell you that I don't believe Chris O is pro Serbian. He merely suffers occasionally from a flaw that seems to be inherent in the Wikipedia system. That is, he has no first hand knowledge of Kosovo with which to temper his reading of the sources. (Chris, I may be wrong, if you have in fact spent time in Kosovo I apologise.) That said, after reading some of the stuff that has been going on in the past week or so, I can see that he really is trying to be neutral, and holding people to reliable sources. (My only criticism here CHris, if you're listening, is that you tend to assume that your reading of what is reliable is the correct one, and it's a little difficult to change your mind. But hey, we're all a little opinionated around here anyway.) It is my firm belief that in a few months, when Kosovo is independent, ChrisO will be the first to welcome such changes as changing the title to Kosova, and stating that Kosovo is an independent state, or whatever best reflects the actual status. But at the moment, the fact is that Kosovo is a province of Serbia. Of course we should qualify this by saying that Belgrade has no authority within Kosovo, but that's what the article said, last time I checked. As I said, we only have a few months to wait now, so why argue? You're simply arming the Serb Nationalists with material to use against you when the time comes to change this page to reflect the truth. Davu.leon 09:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to reply for ChrisO, but I wanted to make a few points. First of all, due to the very nature of WP and its policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:No Original Research, there is no need to have any first hand knowledge of Kosovo. If you have any such, it should not go into the article anyway. As you have correctly noticed, what we do here is gather what the reliable sources have to say on the subject at hand. Going any further would be original research. -- int19h 09:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the issue with article names is not linked to Kosovo independence. It is simply a matter of whichever spelling is more commongly used in English. -- int19h 09:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I still doubt it, but I must admit that the introduction now reflects the reality a lot better than it initially did, and yes thanks to additional changes made by him (ChrisO) replacing the "legally" with a realistic description has made this article a whole lot more acceptable. Describing the situation on the ground was always bound to be more important than emphasising on a now defunct legal status.

As for the names Int19h, I still believe that there are double-standards. Pristina has a well established international name, but the Serbian spelling is still used.Tonycdp 09:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of said policies, Int19h, hence my contention that this is a flaw inherent in the Wikipedia system. I'm not suggesting that original research be included, merely that it is a problem to rely solely on secondary sources, the selection of which is at the discretion of people who have little means of ascertaining how reliable they are. What I'm saying is that it is an imperfect system, and one shouldn't be angry with Chris for operating within it. Secondly, on the matter of spelling, Kosova will become the official, and commonly used, designation when independence is granted, which is when I suggested that the article would be changed to reflect such. I would ask you to read my posts more carefully before you quote regulations at me, but I see that English is not your first language, and as such, you are doing a far better job than I ever could on Russian wikipedia. Thanks Davu.leon 09:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let we see the problem. Kosovars wount independent. Serbia wount as part of Serbia. UN is saing thate Prishtina and Belgrad must talk about the future status beacose Kosovo is a last part of breacken Yugoslavia. And ChristO is sayig Kosovo is province in Serbia. And you call this neutralty? gut job? Whay they should talk if Kosovo is province in Serbia? Wher is here your Locig.

My friend this is not wiki locige but mytologie. Go and get arguments about ChrisO witch is putin the serbian flag in a Kosovos citys wher the serbs hase masakred unter this flage taused of peopel and he is working in this way only to keep a way the albanians familys to presant the masakers. He know wery well thate this peopel dont wount to see the Flag of masaker. This is logic for the humane I dont know about the barbarians how it is. Everybody must stated for thate what he has done. And serbs if they wount to be a part of UN then must stand for thate what they have don in Kosovo. Otherway they are souch primitiv comunty thate we cann not let to manege any territory at last they are going to kill themself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.194.191 (talk · contribs)- 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On the name: Kosovo, Kosova or Dardania

The name of the place may not even be Kosova in the end, there is talk of adopting an earlier name for the region: Dardania. I have been told that this option is gaining momentum and both names (Kosova and Dardania) are used in equal amounts (does anybody know more on this talk). Remains to be seen, but can you imagine the confusion. Tonycdp 10:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of this notion, and there is a case for it, but the formulation will most likely be The Republic of Kosova, or something along those lines. I haven't heard anyone on the streets here referring to the place as Dardania. (Other than in a purely historical sense.) Davu.leon 10:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh well I suppose it is hearsay then.Tonycdp 10:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, it has been put forward by some people in the political sphere, but my understanding is that there's less support for it than for Kosova. Davu.leon 11:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When/if The Economist, Newsweek, The New York Times and the National Geographic Society drop "Kosovo" and start to use any other name for this place, I'll be happy to help do the necessary changes all across Wikipedia :-) Regards, Evv 14:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is going to be the name of Kosovo are going to disaid Kosovars. But this is for the moment irelevan. We have here a historical article witch is presentet like a present article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.194.191 (talk · contribs)- 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that. ;) -- int19h 17:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh bleedin' great, I'll hold you to that Evv. Lots of pages will need changing and lots of Serb "Historians" containing. I can't wait to see you sweat (figuratively of course not literally)Tonycdp 15:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

lol A name-changing frenzy could be real fun :-) My only fear is seeing Kiev/Kyiv all over again.

Regards, Evv 16:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Don't forget Kyyiv! ;-> – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that 'Dardania' was most associated with the LDK and Rugova. I'm thinking of Rugova's 'Dardania' flag -- instead of becoming a symbol of national unity, it only seems to have pissed off the PDK and other non-LDK types. I had heard somewhere that the PISG was going to get a committee together to work on national symbols. It's a shame they have gotten this work started so late. Their use of the red Albanian double-headed eagle flag has always made internationals wince and smacks of pan-Albanian nationalism. Envoy202 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The most proper thing to do would be to make a neutral flag that all people in Kosovo could relate to without any Albanian and Serbian symbols. I'm thinking of the flag of Bosnia and Hercegovina for exampel. Maybe the UN could make this an issue and direct the work. Don't you all agree? Litany 14:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the proper thing to do would be to hold a referendum and let the people vote. The international community should be looking for ways to phase out UN involvement. The original timetable of three years has long since passed, and for economic reasons, if for nothing else, Kosovo can no longer afford to remain an international protectorate in political limbo. The institutions of democracy are now functioning in Kosovo. Dont you think it's time to let her people use them? Davu.leon 08:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that Dardania was never name of the region. Dardania was ancient region which encompassed some parts of today's province and also had parts outside of it. Similar relation to, say, Assyria and Syria. Nikola 09:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What is "Ura e Fshejte"?

The image gallery have a picture named "Ura e Fshejte on the White Drini river". I fouded this image on wikimedia commons, but since this is English Wikipedia, can somebody translate words "Ura e Fshejte" into English? PANONIAN (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Other side

Serbia/Yugoslavia is often misinterpreted as the loser of the war. It's often that Serbia's "loss" of Kosovo allegedly comes from the results of the Kosovo war. However, considering that the government fought the separatists; Miloshevich himself anf the majority of the public saw this as a victory and Kosovo (Pristina)'s defeat. "UN forces are comming to finally ease-down the tense situation on Kosovo; guarranteeing compromise between both sides and Serbia's sovereighnity over Kosovo". It was actually seen as a "victory" - with those who fought for the independence of a part of a country, losing. I wonder how everyone missed/misses this? --PaxEquilibrium 16:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, Pax. This is about as cynical an argument as Serbia "celebrating" her "independence" after Montenegro voted to secede. You're not fooling anyone, you know. Davu.leon 10:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh - it has nothing to do with me; you misunderstood. It's true that Milosevic turned every defeat into a victory, but I was just presenting another point of view; another observation's edge - that does not mean that I share the view or have anything whatsoever to do with it. Actually, the greater part (majority?) of the Serbian population is celebrating the final end of the state union with Montenegro, seeing it as a final resolving of a 16-year old torture. I myself witnessed a party in honor of Serbia's independence from Montenegro held by a mediocre townsman in New Belgrade. :) Cheers, and please don't get me wrong. ;D --PaxEquilibrium 13:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally was pretty unhappy about it, but many Serbs saw it as the end of Montenegro taking advantage of Serbia. In the same way, if Scotland became independent, English people might celebrate the end of the the "Scottish raj". --estavisti 16:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand that in the 1990s it wasn't as many claim Montenegro controlled by Serbia, but more likely vice-versa. Under Milosevic (himself a Montenegrin), the majority of the political leadership (as well as the leadership of Republika Srbska, including Radovan Karadzic himself) was Montenegrin (1989-2000). Afterwards, Svetozar Marovic - a member of Milosevic's own "gang" became the sole Head of State of the Serbia-Montenegro Union in 2003-2006. Actually, many blame Serbia and ask it to fullfill this & that solely because of its alleged role in the Yugoslav wars & similiar - but it appears that there is more reason to apply such harsh & rude generalization to Montenegro, rather. --PaxEquilibrium 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro again

This article is about Kosovo and the term "Serbia" is mentioned 4 times in the first paragraph of the introduction. Pardon me for being cynical, but the wording is beginning to stink again.

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë / Kosova , Serbian: Косово и Метохија / Kosovo i Metohija) is a province in southern Serbia which has been under United Nations administration since 1999. While it is regarded by the international community as being a part of Serbia, under Serbian sovereignty, in practice Serbian governance in the province is virtually non-existent (see also Constitutional status of Kosovo).Tonycdp 09:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed the intro slighty, to include the adjective 'nominal', a statement we all seem to agree on (as per earlier discussion). Tonycdp 09:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time i am getting into this debate but I was wondering why we wouldn't say "...is a province in southern Serbia which has been under United Nations administration since 1999. Nevertheless, since it has not been recognized (yet?) as a an independent state according to international law, a contrario it is considered as being under Serbian sovereignty pending the outcome of negotiations on Kosovo's future. In practice, however, Serbian governance in the province is virtually non-existent (see also Constitutional status of Kosovo)... I am just throwing it out there, i tend to speak legalese a bit, but this could be a good compromise since it describes it rather factually and without taking positions.. I would have put it up there myself but didnt want to find myself in the middle of an edit war :)) cheers! Baristarim 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The short answer: some people feel that Kosovo is already more detached from Serbia than that sentence would imply. After many edit wars and now an arbitration, we have ended up with an introduction describing the situtation in more detail, to prevent inclarity or improper interpretation (and still that is happening, see current history). The long answer: during Talk:Kosovo, Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10, Talk:Kosovo/Archive 9, Talk:Kosovo/Archive 8 and Talk:Kosovo/Archive 7 this is pretty much all we talked about. Happy reading! :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i will try to go through all that, bedtime reading, eh? :)) Just wanted to add my two cents in.. cheers! Baristarim 09:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim, your introduction is spot-on. In fact there's isn't a single grain of lie in that statement, and personally I don't believe anybody here could argue with the factual interpretation you have provided. The current introduction is just as factual don't get me wrong (albeit a little one sided), but written differently.

The problem however in this case, sits with the 'Emphasis'. And there's a lot of emphasis on the nominal/legal status, which in reality is irrelevant and terminally ill. Tonycdp 10:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To second that, the proposal certainly is not wrong, but its more that stating it as simple (but elegant) as that will certainly lead to opposition from several other editors, as we have seen in the past. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The "legalese" proposed doesn't quite work -- in addition to being awkward, it seems to raise more questions than it answers.

That being said, I still feel as if the tone of the original introduction just smacks a bit too much of a pro-Serbian POV. For example, the repitition of the word "province" -- a term that invokes a certain viewpoint -- just makes it sound as if it tilts towards the Belgrade perspective. Yeah, I know that there have been endless debates on here about the accuracy of the word "province." My conclusion from that long debate was this: some sources use it, some don't, and many smart people (and sources) disagree about whether it is an accurate and neutral term to use. Given this genuine diversity of opinion, I find it odd that it is repeated over and over again in the intro. I guess I could live with the use of the word in the first sentence -- I wouldn't use it, but I recognize the fact that some journalists and other sources do use it. But after that first usage, I think that repeating it in the intro goes to far. It calls attention to the word in a way that only someone with a Serbian perspective would do.

I know this is splitting hairs and I certainly don't want to reopen the debate. Nevertheless, in recent months I've found myself paying very close attention to what sources (current -- not old stuff) use the word "province." For example, the New York Times correspondent Nick Woods still uses it occasionally. But I've noted that The Economist avoided it in several of their recent articles about the issue. As have been noted before, the term is generally avoided in diplomatic usage and in the UN administration.

I've also done straw polls of people I know who work on Kosovo on a daily basis. The results were not unanimous. Some people said, "Absolutely it's a province." Some said, "No, it's a territory under UN administration," while others said, "it's not clear." In general, I'd say about 2/3 of the people I spoke with said that the word "province" was inaccurate and carried too much baggage, especially after how Serbian leaders have employed that term in recent months. Yet there was still about 1/3 who insisted that "province" was the right technical term and that to not use it was being intellectually dishonest. Bottom line: there is no consensus.

Something to think about... Envoy202 00:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... My own experience, having been in a similar situation to you, is that the term people use depends quite a bit on who one is speaking to: the Serbs don't like it if you call it anything other than a province, and the Albanians don't like it if you do. The "internationals" tend to use either term pretty much interchangeably. But I think the thing to bear in mind is that Kosovo's status as a "province" or "territory" is essentially a political question decided by international lawyers and politicians, not by the likes of us! Kosovo may have been decoupled administratively from Serbia, but it's still very much seen as part of the country politically. No country in the world (as far as I'm aware) has recognised it as being anything other than a part of Serbia and the UN has explicitly stated in two SCRs that the territorial status quo still applies. If the relevant experts - i.e. the UN and the governments of the world - agree unanimously that Kosovo is X and not Y, then I think it would indeed be unsatisfactory for us as encyclopedists to substitute our own judgement for that of the experts. -- ChrisO 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have followed the press very closely in the recent months and I noticed too how little the word 'province' props up. The latest editorial in The Times goes as far as to suggest explicitly the contrary i.e."province of Serbia until 1999" & "now an international protectorate". [43].

With regards to the Intro, I think it is a lot better than it used to be, but yes, still leans towards the pro-serbian view. And as for the history section, well, too long, and to complicated.Tonycdp 10:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The negotiations are closing to an end (although they're still far from it). Why can't you wait for a little months, when the final status of Kosovo is decided. My head is dizzy to read 10 ARCHIVED TALK PAGES dully talking about this, instead of just simply waiting for the situation to be decided. Many users in the past have used this to lobby Kosovo's independence amongst the populace that reads Wikipedia, thinking that they're the Albanian government. ;D --PaxEquilibrium 11:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I also noted that Times reference to "a province of Serbia until 1999." My general point is not that the term "province" is inaccurate to describe Kosovo's current legal status -- my point is that there is obviously no consensus among trusted sources on the point. Therefore, I've always found it odd that people have argued so tenaciously to include it in such an in-your-face way in the introduction. Usually, their argument is "well, a majority of trusted sources use it." Even if that assertion is true (and it may be true), I still don't think that argument meets the Wikipedia standard for verifiable truth, especially when we have evidence of sources disagreeing with each other on this question. Of course, I have always insisted that the fact that Kosovo is legally a part of Serbia is a key point and needs to be mentioned clearly in the first two sentences. I just doubt whether the term "province" -- with all the administrative connotations it entails, as well as its POV baggage -- is the right word to use. Envoy202 14:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we cannot indeed reliably claim that Kosovo is a province anymore (given the sources above). How about "territory" then? -- int19h 07:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If Kosovo is not a province anymore, then what kind of territory it is? Banovina? Nikola 08:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another story [44] that describes the growing unease in the West at Kosovo being referred to as "an integral part of Serbia" (in reference to the new constitution of Serbia). It seems that you cannot indeed reliably claim that Kosovo is a part of serbia any longer either. Which again lends support to my original argument I made months ago: The presently recognised status is completely irrelevant at this point in time, so much so that even the International community that recognises it does not believe in it.

I'm not trying to argue the removal of the word "Province" altogether here, but wouldn't you agree that "International Protectorate" sounds more realistic.Tonycdp 12:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can reliably claim that Kosovo is a part of Serbia. Legally this is pretty clear-cut: the territory of Kosovo lies within the borders of the state now known as Serbia. Whether it is an "integral part" (whatever that means") may be more debatable. The Kosovars implicitly (and, in private, explicitly) acknowledge this: they seek independence FROM Serbia, not from the international community (note: after independence the international community will still exercise in Kosovo many functions associated with sovereignty, such as the right to nullify laws and employ police officers with the power of arrest). I guess I'm fine with the term international protectorate, provided that it states clearly: "international protectorate in Serbia" or "on the territory of Serbia" or something like that.

Here is the bottom line, as I see it: many smart, unbiased folks feel as if something doesn't smell right with the introduction. The tone tilts towards a Serbian POV. It's not awful, it's not ridiculously biased, but it's not as good as it could be. I may try to propose some alternate language. Envoy202 13:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I have a total side note that will amuse readers of this page. This morning I came across a briefing memo for the next U.S. KFOR rotation and as I was going through the text I thought, "wow, this language looks familiar." After doing some comparing, I realized the entire memo was taken from the Kosovo Wikipedia article! Not a word had been changed. To be fair, there was one footnote that said "this information was taken from online sources." Envoy202 13:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes I was being a little sarcastic there, unfortunately script does not relay facial expressions nor sarcasm well in my case. I still, however, believe that most Observers believe that Kosovo is only a part of Serbia on paper, but if it has to be mentioned, then so be it. I have seen many sources using Wikipedia as a reference, hence the immense importance of making this article neutral and truly factual as opposed to it just doing.... well...what it does now, describe the legal status in a manner that makes people wrongly assume things.

Given the ever-growing influence Wikipedia has on general public, majority of whom, don't know terribly much on the subject and its intricacies (Nicole Kidman for one [45]), during this sensitive period for the region, one has to be careful not to "mis-shape" public opinion.Tonycdp 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could still theoretize what a part of the Globe thinks about a distant territory - but we would be reopening the 10 Archived talk pages. That still doesn't change that much, nor does it change the other Encyclopediae; which are the very first & primary sources of Wikipedia.

Besides that, I don't know why the likely possibility of the talks' result in Kosovo not being independent is disregarded. I know that Kosovo will most probably be something like the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus for sure, but even with very strong elements supporting the fact that the International Community might not recognize the existence of such a state - this is ignored. --PaxEquilibrium 19:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)