Talk:Kosovo/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

"Majority is Ruled by"

I have a big problem with "Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo". This is inaccurate statement in addition to being a POV to give an impression that the Government of Kosovo does not have legitimacy. Not a single government questions the legitimacy of the Kosovo government. Some countries, such as Serbia, question the legitimacy of Independence but not the legitimacy of the government. Unless strong evidence is provided to back up this, I plan to remove it.Ferick —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Not sure if Serbia recognizes the government of republic of Kosovo. It's a fair statement since a lot of countries recognize only the UN authority.Mike Babic (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't really see the problem here. The majority of Kosovo is governed by the Republic of Kosovo. Said republic is partially recognized. The sentence conveys both pieces of information clearly and succinctly. Khajidha (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to show that countries do not recognize the legitimacy of the Kosovo government? Again, its different from Independence. You can't really challenge the legitimacy of the government that was democratically elected. If they are legitimate for the majority they are legitimate for the minority as well, but that sentence suggests otherwise. Ferick (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

interesting law question. if A doesn't recognize C, does it recognize B which declared to govern C. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ferick, what is your point? There is no "pov" in pointing out that the territory is different from the institutions of government. This is completely distinct from the question of legitimacy of the institutions of government. Institutinos may or may not be legitimate, but a territory is just a territory. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How is the territory different from the institutions of the government? How is this even a relevant statement?

Simple put, this is the only "encyclopedia" which gets into these ridiculous debates. Simply put, it should not even be mentioned who controls the territory, as it is very obvious to normal people that the Kosovo government is in control of the territory. Even in the North the Kosovo police and EULEX have control over the borders, court houses etc.

But since the statement exists in the article, and some users feel the need to defend it, I would like to point out that the whole territory is controlled by the Kosovo govt. The UN mediates (latest UN meeting concluded that this is all the UN will do from now on), EULEX controls the court houses and borders in the North, and it reports directly to the Kosovo govt, who it is advising on these matters of rule of law.

In conclusion, the statement that "its majority is governed" is misleading. This needs to be changed, or removed. Good day, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)).

how many encyclopedias do you edit? Talkpages are editorial discussions, not articles. You have no idea of the "ridiculous debates" that take place within the editorial team of, say, Britannica, unless you are a member.

The point isn't moot. Governments come and go. For reasons of human territorial behavior, governments are usually tied to territory, although there are exceptions to this. The territory remains, the governing institutions change. Thus, "Italy" primarily refers to the Italian peninsula. Depending on historical context, this refers to the territory of the Italian Republic (since 1946), the Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946), a number of kingdoms before that, or yet another set of kingdoms even earlier.

This is a crucial distinction if you are at all looking at historical issues. It is irrelevant in the statement "I'm going on holiday in Italy" because the assumption is naturally that you go to current Italy, not to Late Medieval Italy. Any discussion of statehood, sovereignty and history must take into account the relation of government to governed territory.

Kosovo is de iure governed by the UN. It is de facto governed by the UNMIK and EULEX forces. Both UN and EULEX tolerate the government of the Republic of Kosovo to have a say, apparently in the expectation of a transition to a de facto sovereign government of the RoK over the next few years. I am not sure how you can claim that any government has de facto control over their territory if the country is actually run by international organisations. I fully expect the RoK to take over in the course of the next few years, and I personally don't mind if they do, but that's in the future. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir, you have no clue what you are talking about. Seriously. Very few people dispute the fact that Kosovo is de facto ruled by the government lead by Hashim Thaci. Only de jure par is disputed. Check your facts.24.185.39.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

Dab, why do you always try to punch above your weight? Check out the EULEX website; "we are not there to govern or rule". Thus your statement about Kosovo being "de facto" governed by the EULEX is false. I'm surprised that as an administrator you can just say these things without checking sources.

You clearly do not follow current events, but if you did, then you would know that the UN has re-configured its mission in Kosovo to less than 500 personnel.

is this a "historical issue", its very much a present issue; i.e. presently "Kosovo" is governed de facto by the govt. of the "RoK", helped along by EULEX and mediating with Serbs in Kosovo through UNMIK.

Why do you always have to be right, can't you just take it that some people know more about a topic than you do.

Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If the United States recognizes Kosovo as a sov. state, who else are we waiting for to approve the state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.159.182 (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispite what many Americans may believe; they are not the supreme, head, top, leader (which ever adjective you wish to use) country on this planet.--Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Ottoman period

This part of the article relies heavily on the work of Sima Cirkovic, a historian of no standing when compared to others, namely Malcolm and Judah, who both dispute her revisionist theories. The author is not reliable as per WP:V. Noel and Judah are a 100 times more verifiable and accurate sources to use.

I could rewrite this part of the article since I've worked quite a bit on the Viyalet of Kosova page and have a lot of background knowledge. Firstly, lets clarify two bits in the article which are incorrect:

The Great Serb Migration is a myth, conjured up in the 19th century to arouse nationalistic fervor (just have a look at the Wiki page, for an event so "profound" in Serbian history, you would expect a lot more written in the article). Secondly, the "slave boys" taken by the sultan were nearly all Albanian and not Serbian as the article and source make out. (source: Bernard Lewis).

This article gives a negative portrayal of the Ottoman period when in fact the citizens of "Kosovo" (Serb and Albanian alike), benefited greatly from their arrival. This is because of a Serb disdain for Turks formulated about 500 years ago but should nevertheless have no bearing on this article. We're not hear to feed ultra-nationalist lies. Comments welcome, as always --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, your efforts are wasted here. Articles History of Kosovo, History of Medieval Kosovo, History of Medieval Serbia, Battle of Kosovo, History of Ottoman Kosovo, First Bulgarian Empire and many more need to be changed to conform to your POV, so good luck. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brutaldeluxe. Interestedinfairness, just give up, everyone is tired of your POV pushing. --Cinéma C 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to the comments and cease the personal attacks. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).

I have reverted "Interestedinfairness"' edits, shoving Cite needed tags inside of some references and after other references. It's clearly disruptive behavior, and shows yet again, his agenda. I think it may be time to push for a topic ban, applied broadly. ThuranX (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:V the sources are unreliable. That is the point I am making. Stop threatening me, no rules at all are being broken. You prove to me that Sima Cirkovic is a reliable source and then the Cite needed tags will not be necessary. Do not come on here like your the boss of Wikipedia. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).

Second the motion for a topic ban. The time is long past. --Athenean (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC

You've already tried that approach and as I recall it didn't go to well. Please stay on topic and stop messing around. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).

Will somebody really discuss the point on Ottoman period here, Wiki rules WP:V WP:RS etc do mean anything to you guys. Don't turn the topic into personal discussion. Just stick to the topic, references and scholars. Thanks Aigest (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether Ćirković is a reliable source depends on the topic in question and the origin of the articles (eg. her article published in a certified journal readily considered reliable would be adequate, but if drawn from a blog/forum where she has left remarks, then obviously not). But again, it depends on what it is that one is trying to prove. Take Holocaust denial: if one were to state that the holocaust was a hoax and then present an article published by Stormfront, it would be dismissed instantly and laughed off. If however one were to state on the Stormfront page that the organisation itself doubts the holocaust and then uses that same article, it would be acceptable because it does stand as evidence to support the presented statement. The anti-Serb propaganist, shill and apologist Noel Malcolm not only has a catalogue of bad coverage to add to his positive portfolio but he is also renouned for producing erroneous information. He would cause greater controversy than those who deny the holocaust if only Balkan affairs were as sensitive among the architects of New World Order, but they are not so he can get away with publishing books stating how the "Serbs are not a real nation, their southerners are all corrupted Albanians and their northerners Hungarians; brainwashed into a new identity by Bulgarians and Croats"; people would believe him if they don't know any better. And as for neutrality, well, I'd like to see Malcolm ciriticised by an Albanian faction. Only then can we start to consider him being "neutral". His works are a joke, he comments are in ignorance of centuries of codified documentation. Evlekis (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't rush in conclusions about his work without reading other scholars opinion first

while Serb historians cite a document issued by the Emperor on 6 April 1690 as an "invitation" to come to the Hungary, Malcolm, referring to the original Latin text, shows than the letter urged the Serbs to rise up against the Ottomans, and specifically "not to desert" their ancestral lands - rather than the opposite of an invitation.(page 206) Thinking about Yugoslavia: scholarly debates about the Yugoslav breakup and the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo by Sabrina P. Ramet Publisher Cambridge University Press, 2005 ISBN 0521851513, 9780521851510 link [1]

You should also know that Malcolm (1998) was not the first of scholars discovering this myth (invitation letter) here you have another since 1970:

A latter day myth of some influence was to insist, mistakenly, that the Serbs were invited by the emperor to leave their homesteads and settle in Habsburg land on the promise of his favor. In fact, they cam north as a consequence of his defeat.(page 580) The New Cambridge Modern History: The Rise of Great Britain & Russia, 1688-1715/25 by J. S. Bromley Editor J. S. Bromley Publisher CUP Archive, 1970 ISBN 0521075246, 9780521075244 link [2]

So things are not so clear as you think here. The fact remains that the "invitation" letter has been misinterpreted (POV pushing myth) by Serb historians and this seriously influence their credibility here. Aigest (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from Noel Malcolm being a certified propagandist, his work is not original either. His writing invariably shadows that already published by other authors. Those authors, where Balkan affairs are the issue, are often Albanian. I have rushed into no conclusion; I have simply read his verses in which I have known the information to be incorrect. If the US-led war in Iraq in 2003 hadn't been so well known but you personally did know about it, how would you respond to a shill purporting to be a historian when he tries to convince you that the war didn't happen, that Saddam was never hanged and that he still controls Iraq? To my knowledge, the Serbian migrations to Hungarian controlled territory had dated as far back as the 14th century. These are recorded as being the result of an invitation. The events of 1690 probably do suggest that locals were encouraged to uprise, but then I have never read of Serbs describing the opposite. No nation which speaks of its history is flawless and 100% truthful, and it is often easy to point out dubious claims. That however doesn't make Malcolm & co. 100% truthful, because there are multiple ways of "exposing" your less agreeable race by fiddling with facts and producing accounts based on selective evidence. Malcolm is renouned for this. Furthermore, Malcolm likes to dabble with the international "legal" system. The word "legal" opens a can of worms at first mention. So shady is the topic of international law that nobody can dictate pure straightforward facts. He states that Kosovo never legally entered the Serb kingdom after the First Balkan War. He forgets however that the aftermath of the battles also resulted in an independent Albania. The borders of Albania were recognised as a result of the same treaty which recognised Serbia's inclusion of Kosovo after Serbs (and Greeks) were instructed to withdraw from present-day Albania. So either Malcolm is suggesting that the inception of present-day Albania was also not legal, or that whilst Albania was legal, it bordered territory which was still a part of the Ottoman Empire. Which of the previous two pathetic suggestions that imbecile actually believes to be the case in his fairy-tale world, I don't know. I do know however that the Ottoman Empire recognised all lost territory to new countries in 1914; only Noel Malcolm disagrees. Today, it is like saying that "Eritea is still a part of Ethiopia legally even though Ethiopia recognises its independence!"

As for Interestedinfairness, he has claimed that Malcolm is "100 times more verifiable" than other sources. Now this user does live up to his name: interesting! Sure we can find a few half-asleep journalists to praise Malcolm when they don't know any better, but Malcolm is suddenly verifiable? That means we can find evidence to suggest that what he says is true. Well, find me evidence to suggest Malcolm's comments to Macedonian reporters in Skopje during the 1999 NATO bombing that had NATO not acted, Milošević was planning to take Macedonia; and that the whole campaign was "to protect Macedonia's national interests." Macedonians just want to know from which lunatic assylum did this inmate Malcolm escape? Evlekis (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is another failed attempt to quote Noel Malcolm by "friend" of Interestedinfairness: [3] Evlekis (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Evlekis, what did you mean by this statement, "He would cause greater controversy than those who deny the holocaust if only Balkan affairs were as sensitive among the architects of New World Order..." ? Who are these "architects" who determine the sensitivity/importance of certain topics? Hobartimus (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer is: they who yield most influence in the world, the top governments; their officials, the wealthy etc. It was only an example. Personally I have no opinion on the events of WWII, I don't get involved because I haven't had enough time to read into it. My point was that if someone denied the September 11th attacks, you'd think he'd gone round the bend. Mr.N.M denies other known events. Evlekis (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot take seriously any allegations about citation and reliable sources when the counter to the use of a source is that the author is part of a vast hidden 'new world order' conspiracy. As such, since that's the primary objection to the use of Malcolm as a source, I see no further reason to continue discussing the source. Malcolm's info comes from his well reviewed articles on the topic, As quoted above, other serious scholars refer to his work in constructive ways. Therefore, he meets my expectations of a reliable scholarly source. ThuranX (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The references to "new world order" were off-topic and in reference to something else. I hadn't been accusing anyone of conspiring to protect their interests. Noel Malcolm's publications can be used as an external source. His "good reviews" come from sources with no knowledge of his topics, not from those with knowledge of their own. Their views of him depend on which side of the conflict they sit, and that must surely rule out neutrality. The "scholarly sources" may quote him but many sources also quote the conventional statistics which refute Malcolm. May I also warn about the dangers of using him: we would have to rewrite dozens of articles, that means everything Serbia related because as far as this man is concerned, their entire history is a "myth"; he has denied their involvement in the 1389 war in Kosovo, and exaggerated all cases aginst that nation. According to Malcolm in his books: Serbs are perpetually the party at fault, and always wrong; whether morally in their aspirations, or casually if discussing their historical adventures. To use Malcolm, you might as well restore the following edits: [4], [5], [6]. All are tributes to the propagandist. Evlekis (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I take from your comments. Malcolm's supporters are ignorant, his critics are all geniuses, and perfectly accurate, and only you, and other pro-serb editors, are qualified to judge what makes reliable scholarship as regards this article. You compound that with 'Using his sources would be a lot of work.' You decry him as opposing an entire version of history, but we have an outsider with no particular agenda using facts and evidence, against an insider's cultural version of history. Few cultures actively embrace the parts of their history where they were in the wrong, and so build up a version that justifies their actions. I'm more inclined to believe an outsider's compiled evidence, especially when well regarded after review, than an insider's stamping foot and insistence that 'that's how it was.' ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding of how to use the sources here. If an author (Malcolm in this case) claims one thing (example...the original latin text translation) than the others who oppose him must say that his clam is not true since..(example...the original latin text is translated in different way from that of Malcolm) otherwise if you accuse the author for POV that is a personal attack, (attack the sources not the author is the moto here). So in this case if Evlekis thinks that Malcolm translation of the letter and its contribution to myth is not false than he should find other scholars who claim that things against Malcolm work, and bring them here. In any case just as ThuranX pointed out, other scholars refer to his work in a constructive ways,(eg if you take the time to read Sabrina P. Ramet above book, you would see that Malcolm uses more sources and is more scientific in treating them than some other scholars and we must remember that the book is about scholar debates in Bosnia and Kosovo) so even in my opinion he is a WP:RS secondary source. Aigest (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What a ridiculously convoluted, incomprehensible WP:LAWYER-type argument ("If an author claims...then the others...). Noel Malcolm is anything but a neutral source. He should only be used in Kosovo related articles with extreme caution. --Athenean (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If a source is respected by experts, then it's a good source is a WP:LAWYER argument? It's common sense, good research, and so on. Are we really going to endure these annoying drive-by policy shots in lieu of serious discourse? Yet another editor I feel comfortable ignoring in this matter. ThuranX (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the first part of Aigest's argument ("If an author claims...then the others...), not the latter part. --Athenean (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just as stupid. 'Refute a good source with equally good sources' is a solid principle of good, balanced, objective writing on a topic. Mocking it as WP:LAWYER tells me that for you, there's a 'right' source, and then there's liars, and anyone who doesn't support your POV, and thus, your sources, is also a liar. I reiterate. not worth any more attention. POV warring isn't going to improve this article. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. If a crank writes a bunch of nonsense, no one "has" to refute him. Noel Malcolm is a highly partisan source. Thus, if Noel Malcolm claims something that no one bothers to refute, that doesn't mean it's true (which is what Aigest is claiming). That said, I don't care for your tone, and since I'm not really interested in your opinion, this conversation ends here. Goodbye. --Athenean (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Who's analysis of Balkan historiography are you basing this opinion on? Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To:Interestedin I say this with respect, get a consensus on your edits before editing major parts, your past edits are POV, disgusting and racist, however i hope that this will change. Save us a lot of energy and be mindful of conflicting views, or you might be blocked. This doesnt mean that you shouldnt edit on wikipedia, it just means that people are noticing a large number of pov edits coming from your account and this could lead you to be blocked. I welcome the Albanian editors yet you need to be mindful.Rex Dominator (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A question to all contributors here. Are travel guide books to be considered as WP:RS? I see some of them used on Ottoman period, while in my opinion they don't meet the criteria of RS for an encyclopedia. Other books or sources for this period should be used instead of them confirming or not the claims backed by travel guide references. Aigest (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion other subtopics not represented in Ottoman period are:

• Timar system in Kosovo, effects
• Devşirme system in Kosovo, effects
• Islamization process in Kosovo, effects
• Economy of Kosovo in that period, main cities, production, export import etc.

Just a short sentence for each of this subtopics would improve this section. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding all that stuff about Islam "Section:Ottoman Kosovo (1455 to 1912)" yet the "Section:Early history (before 1455)" in which the Serbs controlled Kosovo is relatively small. The whole history section is baised since it under-represents Serbs. For example Serbs controlled Kosovo from the 700 AD to 1540 (Raška,Serbian Empire,Moravian Serbia,Serbian Despotate)yet the history section doesnt talk about that much and is biased.Rex Dominator (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on the topic Ottoman Kosovo here. My idea is not to add stuff about Islam but to show the effects of the Ottoman administration in Kosovo area. Timar Devşirme Islamization happened throughout Ottoman period (in all Ottoman Empire) they were the essence of Ottoman state and administration, and they greatly influenced Kosovo region, also as I see from the article the economy (main cities, what kind of production, trade, taxes etc) is not represented at all in any section of the article (except the actual economy section) while in my opinion they are to be mentioned, not in detailed way but within a sentence in each period. Aigest (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All of those (other subtopics not represented in Ottoman period) are great addictions to the article. However.. we have a huge problem with a bias in the history section since 800 years of Serb history (700 AD to 1540) are under-represented (in two poorly worded sentences). This topic has a lot of bias since its controversial. Every progressive edit helps reach our goal, to have a NPOV article. So by all means add facts in the Ottoman section however please try to keep the article balanced since a huge Ottoman section will skew the article towards a pro islamic bias which is not reflective of history. It would better the article, and free it from bias in the history section, if some, simple, additions were make about the 800 years of Serbian history. Rex Dominator (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sections should not be so long. I will try to cut off repetitive or useless info. Longer edits could be made in the main articles not in this summary. Aigest (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am stopping for the moment. Does everybody agree with my edits? Plz give feedback Aigest (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX
I haven't visited this talk page since yesterday evening (local time) and there has been a lot of development and I see that Noel Malcolm hasn't been mentioned in the latest few edits. However I feel it necessary to defend myself from your attack.
Firstly, I accept that you are a neutral editor whose own background is clearly outside the area in question. In other words, you are very welcome here and your views are highly valued. At the same time, nobody is expecting you to personally know the ins and outs of the disputes. Now I will not challenge you with issues regarding Noel Malcolm because to do so would be harassment on my part in interrogating a user who is clearly not expected to produce the answers. But you have severely mistaken me in every way imaginable. I do originate from these parts, atleast by background if not birth, so many issues are everyday phenomena for me; however I do not identify as Serb, and I am certainly not Pro-Serb. My position in all conflicts is between me and my conscience and I have never discriminated another individual who has disclosed his position. The problem is when this person starts to base his views on scanty and one-sided evidence. You don't have to be an expert on Kosovo or a doctor in nuclear physics to deduce that Noel Malcolm is totally favourable to every Albanian and disagreeable to all Serbs. But it takes an absolute sucker not to put his finger on his head and ask "why is this?" Perhaps if there had been items of blatant Serb propaganda which itself quoted Noel Malcolm to enhance the campaign, things may have been different. Maybe, if natural Albanian propagandists had at one point been critical of Malcolm - accusing him of representing the Serb angle - surely then he could have been taken as objective. Conflict is precipitated by opposing sentiment among parties. As such, it is impossible for any commentator to produce a report which is favourable to every faction. Therefore, the only way to be objective (and to subsequently appear neutral) is to be hated by the heavyweights of all opposing factions.
Experts: these do not need to praise each other across the board. If I know the conventional order the Roman alphabet from A to Z, I do not need to consult David Crystal to see if his sequence is the same as mine. Malcolm is a fellow at Oxford and they in turn form a part of the same professional elite as that in Cambridge. Now the prupose of a historian is to investigate historical activitity and to explain the findings to your generation. So if a "scholar" has consulted the works of Malcolm then how could he/she have been an expert in the first place? And if Malcolm has recounted a version of events already uncovered by another historian, then how does he come to be an "expert"? In the end of the day, he is one man with one opinion.
Comment by ThuranX: Malcolm's supporters are ignorant, his critics are all geniuses, and perfectly accurate, and only you, and other pro-serb editors, are qualified to judge what makes reliable scholarship as regards this article.
Answer: Nobody claimed that a critic of Malcolm is a genius. However with regards to his supporters not being ignorant, I am afraid that this would be difficult for me to explain to you without giving examples. So to put it simply, Malcolm has never uttered a sentence which does not contain a factual error of some kind; and for being in the Balkans, these errors are obvious. Of course his Balkan-based supporters will not cite these errors because it is harmful to their defence to do so. His words tickle their ears and they love the sound of them. Most of these errors are not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Malcolm, when it suits him, likes to question these facts. However, that then becomes a matter of his own personal opinion which is worth the same as every other person's. In his Guardian article last year, he was presented with high regard. But if they knew better, then why did they need to consult him? And how can they be classed as "experts" when praising him? His "good words" have come from newspapers/magazines/journals. Other positive feedback has come from professionals at the same level who either liked the fact that he agreed with them, or had to consult him in the first place because they never knew the information he was producing. Either way, it rules out expert and neutrality.
In my own defence: I am not Pro-Serb and have never put forward an article favourable to Serbs and said "Let's use this!" The areas where I have challenged Malcolm have been on obvious cases: Malcolm denies the legality of Serbia's inclusion of Kosovo in 1912; I respond not by producing Serbian Radical Party booklets telling of Kosovo perpetually belonging to Serbia, but with a reference to the treaty which demarcated Serbia's new borders and with a citation confirming the Ottoman recognition of it. It is as easy as that. I gave no firm views, offered no opinion, and stepped into no dispute. I am not anti-Albanian, just anti-Noel Malcolm. But if he is so good, then use him, but as another user said: use him with caution. Evlekis (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wall of text which basically reinforces exactly what I said - You think you're right and everyone else is wrong, and you object to Malcolm's material because you see it as anti-serb, which violates your POV. You continue to ignore that other scholars cite him and have been demonstrated here to take his work seriously and respectfully, which says to me that despite your loud protests, you do have a POV to push - Malcolm and Albanians bad, Serbs good. ThuranX (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wall of text? A great place for you to hide. I'll take a bet; either you never read it or you scanned it. I have answered every one of your queries if full detail. Three times now you have proven to completely miscomprehend me. You accuse me of loud protest and POV pushing. What POV pushing would this be? I explicitly declared my position as not being Serbian and you will find no evidence among my 10,000 edits since 2005 where I have advocated using Serbian blogs; where I have amended text to conform to Serb rhetoric; or where I have sided in a content dispute with the Pro-Serb POV. You just revise this section and show me where I took part in the "disputed territory" vs "country" row to push for the former. I have explained the implications of using Malcolm. I have refuted the "expert" factor, as well as the alleged NPOV of the subject. I have only criticised his "opinion over fact" prose, and have not recommended pro-Serb POV alternatives. I have never disclosed my own POVs. Once again, a user tries to be objective and is accused of Serb POV-pushing for opposing the use of a biased commentator, not just any biased one but one noted for his notoriety. There have been countless non-Serbs whose position has been sympathetic with the Serbian angle and they too have had positive feedback; they too are academics with their works appreciated and cited by highly educated. Heard of Noam Chomsky? Yet do you see me countering Noel Malcolm with pro-Serb literature? I suggested we use Malcolm with caution. Now is that POV pushing? Evlekis (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do others find me edits ok? My proposal for the rest is:

Adiministration (but not a new topic it is for the sake of grouping here no new section)

• Timar system in Kosovo, effects in the Kosovo administration 1-2 sentences

Demographic

• Devşirme system in Kosovo, effects in the Kosovo population 1 sentence
• Islamization process in Kosovo, effects in the Kosovo population 1 sentence
• Population migrations in area my proposal is to mention it with 1-2 sentences "According to some....while according to others ..." type. If readers want a more detailed view there is Great Serb Migration article in which we can further specify it. So we can get rid of long section and remain NPOV

Economic

• Main cities, local production, 1 sentence
• Trade etc 1 sentence

Political

• Local uprisings(1689-90, others) 1 sentence
• League of Prizren 1-2 sentences
• Uprising of 1912(which ended Ottoman rule) up to 1rst Balkan war 1-2 sentences

The last one ends the section (Ottoman rule), while the background of Balkan War and war itself are explained in more detailed way in the next section. No need to put them in this section. It will make it much larger and it makes no sense to the topic title. Aigest (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this sentence regarding the islamization in Kosovo.

Although few Turks actually settled in Kosovo during Ottoman rule, many Albanians converted from Christianity to Islam, in contrast most Serbs remained faithful to the Serbian Orthodox church. (page 124) Peacemakers in action: profiles of religion in conflict resolution by David Little, Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, Richard C. Holbrooke Editors David Little, Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding Contributor Richard C. Holbrooke Edition illustrated Publisher Cambridge University Press, 2007 ISBN 0521853583, 9780521853583 link here [7]

While in the reference below the article we can put part of the text ... Such conversions were technically voluntary, but strong economic incentives existed...etc what do you guys think?

Another more detailed source would be Religion and the politics of identity in Kosovo by Gerlachlus Duijzings Edition illustrated Publisher C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000 ISBN 1850653925, 9781850653929 here the link [8] Aigest (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, your edits are fine, except for the phrase "it was internally expanded" which left me a bit baffled. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks;). Yep I agree on that, I left it because I wasn't sure of what the author meant with that. I'll make some further edits today hope they are fine too:) Aigest (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition to to See Also section

International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence and Kosovo independence precedent, are well developed articles that i enjoyed reading. Please let me know if you agree with adding them to the See Also section. Please respond with, Agree or Disagree and or a reason.Rex Dominator (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree: These are neither published by Noel Malcolm nor Tim Judah and therefore they must be items of Serb propaganda (joking, seriously, if it involves ICJ I Agree) ----Evlekis (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Won't do any harm, International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence will probably enter Wiki history as the most convoluted article title ever. Except "Harry Potter and the extremely convoluted and contrived film title involving made up names of fictitious magical creatures", perhaps. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree and might I add a LOL at Evlekis' comment.. funny :) Of course, it won't do any harm. And might I compliment Rex Dominator's way of proposing changes to the article, unlike Interestedinfairness' method - changing it unilaterally, then pushing his POV on the talk page... --Cinéma C 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree --- Pointless to include the two proposed articles when others of more relevance and prominence to Kosovo exist. The Dardani, Battle of Kosovo and Kosovo Province articles would be more appropriate candidates for inclusion. Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Fully relevant. --Athenean (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's include those as well then. --Cinéma C 02:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, you have my backing. Interestedinfairness (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, propose those in a separate tab and I'll agree, but do you now change your vote for the ones proposed here? --Cinéma C 04:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, Disagree with IiF's proposals. ThuranX (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I added links to articles as proposed by RD. I think further comment is probably needed on IIF's proposed additions to the See Also section. BalkanFever 06:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree On second thoughts, this article should follow the example of others here on Wikipedia and have the Outline of Kosovo link only. Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

History

Although we all agree that history is what makes Kosovo unique, the history section of the article does not appear to be in line with well-written articles about other countries, such as the United States, Germany, France, etc. I would suggest that the history section be rewritten or edited thoroughly, not to represent nationalist point of views, but to offer a concise approach of what happened in Kosovo throughout centuries. The whole history section must not exceed 2,500 words and it should focus on the Kosovo and its people, rather than the sensitive ethnic divide between the Albanians and the Serbs.--Getoar TX (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And who do you think the Kosovo people are, if they're not Albanians and Serbs? Are they Martians maybe? :P --Cinéma C 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, of course they are either Albanian, Serbs, or something else. But the point here is that we should focus on the history of Kosovo and not nationalist POV. How could you omit Pjeter Bogdani and call this neutral?--Getoar TX (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Restructering

The article needs to be restructured from after the history section in order to meet Wikipedia quality standards. Its current state is highly fragmented and convoluted. For example, the UN administration period; Administration by the United Nations; and Provisional Institutions of Self-Government can be combined to convey the same message in a less tangled way. After the history section, the article would follow this structure;

• United Nations administration Period
• Declaration of independence and the Republic of Kosovo
• EULEX and Rule of Law
• Government and Politics

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)).

Kosovo is still under UN administration, according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which is in effect. Therefore, the UN administration section should include the "Declaration of independence" (covering info concerning the self-proclaimed "Republic of Kosovo") and "EULEX" sections beneath it. --Cinéma C 04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets be realistic here. The current parliament of the "Republic of Kosovo" was operating under UN 1244 when they proclaimed independence. Serbia claims they had no legal basis for that and is getting an advisory opinion in the international court of law. We will have to wait until the legal verdict is reached.Rex Dominator (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So we need to wait for the ICJ opinion until we can construct a less fragmented and convoluted article? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)).

What you are proposing is to ignore international law and present the situation as if just because Kosovo's government declared independence, UNSCR1244 is no longer relevant, even though it's still in effect. Restructuring the article in such a way would suggest that the UN administration period ended the moment Kosovo declared independence. --Cinéma C 03:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect, and your deliberately holding up discussion, as per usual. I will repeat it again for you; what I am proposing is to make the article less fragmented and convoluted, by following a logical chain of events; the UN administration period, followed by provincial institutions of self governance. Kosovo's proclamation of independence does not suggest that UN resolution 1244 is nullified, your the only one making that paranoid assumption. What is in fact relevant is the significance of the event. This is about restructuring the article, not about accommodating your nationalistic preconceptions. Any serious users want to discuss? Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Alleged bias

This is bizarre.

Kosovo is not a region. Kosovo is a country, recognized by and rejected by Serbia which still claims as its territory. This is the most neutral stance. The current description is a clear Serbia POV. Cinema's arguments are not valid since cinema is very biased. Most of its contribution in the wikipedia are pro-serb and quoting proserb media! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • 17:05, 17 July 2009

(Redirected from User:Reinoutr) is abusing wikipedia. Edit warring policy is clearly stated on this article.

Changing Kosovo from a disputed region, to an autonomous province. Please, this abuse is unacceptable. Spanishboy2006 (talk • 17:10, 17 July 2009

Dude, I explained myself on your talk page and apparently you revert me so fast you did not even bother to read what I actually wrote. I changed it from "disputed region" to "disputed autonomous region", specifically to emphasize that it is autonomous and thus largely independent. Instead of discussing, you just complain, which truly is getting us nowhere. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense, whatsoever. I am tagging this article as disputed.--Getoar TX (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

great, another revert warrior. What happened to article probation? We have discussed this, and consensus is clear. If you take it upon yourself to revert against consensus, you may be blocked without further warning. --dab (𒁳) 19:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest the usage of the phrase 'diputed region of partial self government"? As this reflects the serb controled areas to the north, and the kosovar controled areas to the south and also gives the reader the knowledge that the area is disputed. --Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I assumed good faith when the word "autonomous" was added, and am in favor of using it. However, "Partial self-governance" would imply that there is a force outside of the Kosovo parliament which also governs the entity. This is weasel-wording and creates more problems, I feel. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)).

Not really, as northern kosovo is de facto governed by serbia. --Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not strictly true. North Kosovo is left alone by Priština as if to function as an autonomous region. Its Serb majority population in turn observe Belgrade's authority by continuing the use Serbian currency, keeping Serbian number plates on their vehicles, voting in Serbian elections whilst bocotting anything initiated from Priština and other similar activities. The Serbs of North Kosovo are a majority but not the exclusive population, Albanians also live in those municipalities all be it in smaller numbers and they adhere to the rule as laid down in the Kosovan capital. Even though the Kosovan government leaves the region alone, it is still impenetrable by Belgrade's security forces; the region is within the borders of an entity recognised by 62 countries at present. That also means that for anyone in Central Serbia to gain access to North Kosovo or vice versa, they are compelled to cross a checkpoint. Like all border crossings, the checkpoint has two sections (one for each entity); and the Kosovan checkpoint is manned by EULEX/KFOR staff. North Kosovo if anything is a free territory left to be administered by its locals, but the only external entity with the power (if no legal ground) to cancel or amend this privilege is the rest of Kosovo. So it isn't de facto governed by Serbia, but by itself. Evlekis (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

DISPUTED!

The "disputed" tag should be restored as long as this article omits important parts of Kosovar history and does not mention Pjeter Bogdani, one the most important Albanian figures in Kosovo. Now the status of Kosovo is presented with extremely biased language.--Getoar TX (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

before you present a suggestion of including mention of Pjeter Bogdani, how do you know it's going to be disputed? Why cry for a "disputed" tag before even raising the points that bother you? But why, do you argue, should this article go off on a tangent on some 17th century author (let me guess... not because he is relevant, but because, as you say, he is Albanian).

The status is phrased extremely neutral language, which will irk anyone with either opinion on the Kosovo question. Which is the hallmark of NPOV. If you have an opinion, you will find neutrality grating. Why is this so difficult to grant for people here? I haven't seen anyone complaining about neutrality who did not very obviously have a strong personal opinion on the question. --dab (𒁳) 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The status is phrased extremely biased like written from Serbian foreign ministry. This is the most disturbing article being utterly dominated by dab and a few nationalists who do not respect tne NPOV rules and policies of Wikipedia. There is a large number of people who complain about the neutrality of this article. This is not a strong personal opinion but a strickly professional, based on articles published worldwide in the media which refer Kosovo as either, a republic, former province, disputed region. With exception of Serb media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Many people complain, but that doesn't mean those complaining people aren't also possessed of a POV, does it? In what ways could this article be changed, in your opinion, to reduce the Serbian POV? Please, no screaming about how it's really a fully recognized independent country, or other stuff that cannot be suported by citation. ThuranX (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanishboy2006, could you please not spread false information here? How would you know what the Serbian foreign ministry would write? If it were up to them to write the status, it would look something like this: "Kosovo and Metohija is an autonomous province of Serbia under UN administration." But it's not like that, so calm down. And also calm down with your bashing of Serb ministries and media outlets - every media outlet in Serbia is independent and has it's own "spin" on events, just like every media outlet in the world. The media often take sides (for example, Fox News), and that's why it's important to present both sides of the story, not just blindly following the ones that sound good to us or that we personally agree with. --Cinéma C 22:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If these kind of people aren't trolling, then they clearly believe what they are saying, despite it being factually wrong. Just ask them to be bold, whilst respecting policy and guidlines. I fear that too many people may be coming here just to air their opinions - with little or no reasonable suggestions for actually improving the article. ninety:one 22:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only are your fears fully justified, but that has been taking place for quite a while now and very little is done to stop it. Anything you could think of as a solution for all these unconstructive comments on the Kosovo talk page? --Cinéma C 00:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the latest squabble appears to be whether or not to include "autonomous". The word was chosen to reflect good faith, it literally means self-rule or self-govern. That actually means independence in theory. The trouble with using autonomous is that it definitely implies that the region forms a part of another country. No country has ever included the word autonomous as part of its title. Russia is full of autonomous units, so when a region admits its autonomous status then it naturally accepts its position within a larger sovereign entity. So whilst I don't have a problem with its inclusion, the term is anti-Albanian regarding its placement. Evlekis (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ev, I think the point your referring to was actually raised above. In response to a users query about how can the article can be improved however, I would like to point to my suggestion above about restructuring the article. It appears as if some editors only want to discuss contentious topics and not suggestions which actually make the article better. Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so. It's just that the autonomous dispute had been the source of the last few edits on the article when I wrote. All right IiF, can you produce a brief list of topics/statments on the article as they are now which need either revision or total amendment, and what else do you feel needs mention? Evlekis (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

discuss topics in one place, please, or it gets very difficult to follow for others. Interestedinfairness already made a list at Talk:Kosovo#Restructering so please discuss it there. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The UN administration period is covered in three separate places in the article; #2.4, #4.1 and #5.2. This should be condensed into one section. In its current state, the article is highly fragmented and disjointed. I propose restructuring along these lines: United Nations administration Period, (covering institutions of self governance) Declaration of independence and the Republic of Kosovo EULEX and the Rule of Law Government and Politics --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Jesus, Interestedinfairness... Didn't you propose that JUST TWO TABS above?! Discuss it there and stop pushing things over and over again, we can't keep repeating ourselves like you. --Cinéma C 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Stop with your distracting comments. Users have asked for suggestions, I have provided one. I do not care for your opinion on the matter as you have already *enlightened* me once regarding it. Interestedinfairness (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinema, you truly defend the Serbian POV without any clear arguments, violating policies of Wikipedia by making edits without consensus. You're recent contribution have been mainly on enhancing the Serbian nationalist, xenophobic work. About 62 nations and 2 UN institutions, IMF and World Bank recognize Kosovo as a country. And about 14 on the list signaling to recognize. Adding autonomous is not a consensus because 62 countries and 2 UN institutions disput a such claim.

Leopold invitation?

In the reference it is stated as an invitation, but if we read the text we see nothing of an invitation but only "The same idea of the obligations of the Serbs towards the Imperial benefactor figured importantly in Diploma Leopoldianum of 1690, the set of documents that explained the rights and obligations of the Orthodox in the months following the arrival of Serbs in the Empire. In addition to liberties and benefices given to Patriarch Arsenije III and his people, it clearly explains what the Empire expected in return:

The Emperor announces that he considered and accepted all the Serbian pleas and he declares that Serbs have every right to practice their faith and laws and that no member of the Hungarian or Austrian aristocracy has the power over them; that they can appoint their own prelates … Also they need to stay lawful and obedient and must serve the Empire to the last drop of their blood…32

Now where do we see a reference for an invitation here? This is a legal document after the Serbs arrived in Hungary, giving them a legal status and that's all. Aigest (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

split

Done. You can edit to your heart's content at Independent Republic of Kosovo.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the region and the state cover the same territory. The dispute is what it is and what to call it, not that they are two separate things. I don't think this split will be allowed per Wikipedia policy if the goal is to create two separate versions of the same topic. Also, independent and republic are kinda redundant. How about just Republic of Kosovo, if you still decide to go with it. Arianit (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

there is indeed no dispute that the region of Kosovo and the 2008 Republic of Kosovo are two separate items. They clearly are. The question is whether it makes sense to have two articles about them. Since these articles will have a large topical overlap, it may be better to merge them, but it must then be made very clear that the RoK is only a subtopic of this article. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

guys, you can't just create articles at random titles like Independent Republic of Kosovo. There is a reason and a history behind the protection of Republic of Kosovo. If there is a bona fide move to recreating the Republic of Kosovo article I can lift protection, but can you please take it a bit more slowly and see if there is consensus for this? --dab (𒁳) 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the mess made by Brutaldeluxe over the split. I do not endorse or disendorse the split, but if there is significant resistance to this, the whole thing will have to be reverted. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I oppose the split, under whatever title, as I always have. It's a single geographical entity, all the splitting and forking only represents competing political views on it and is thus little more than POV-forking. Thanks to Dab for the technical fixes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • well then let's merge it back. I think the split is arguable, but not really necessary. The point is that people keep whining about the Republic of China article being more sympathetic to the partially-recognized state. The split is the "China" solution, viz. two articles, one at China and one at Republic of China. But the situation is not, of course, parallel, the RoC governing like 0.5% of its claimed territory, and the RoK at least partially (with the help of UNMIK and EULEX) governing most of its claimed territory.
  • please feel free to revert this split pending a more solid consensus on how to tackle this. Just be sure that if the split is reverted, any Albanian patriot complaining about the Republic of China article is told to try and seek consensus for this split or go away. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Two quick points. I explained in my last edit why state does not fit the bill; it implies country anyway and misleads as to what type of country it is. I know that state is a general term but the first sentence is far too early to generalise. So I went one step further and replaced the word with republic, I don't see how this should offend Albanians. Meanwhile any non-Albanians who oppose "republic" should also consider the implications of reverting back to "state". Secondly, there are advantages of starting a new article on the independent body. It is not against WP to split articles. We already have Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999) and Republic of Kosova (1990-2000) which pertain to the very same region at the same time. An article is about a subject, and the subjects here are separate entities; any entity entire of itself warrants an article if there is enough to write about. After all, the PROC and the ROC both claim to be the legal authorities of a single vast territory. Both have individual articles. Land and people are not everything! Evlekis (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, this sounds as if the whole dispute hinges on a single phrase in the definition statement in the lead, again? Good lord, I'm strongly opposed to splitting articles just because people can't agree on a lead sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Me too, I'm in agreement with you. It is a waste of internet space splitting articles for the sake of a few words. The problem here is that the supporters of Kosovan independence wish to use their new article to talk about the country itself, its goals, its achievements, its superb employment, its fantastic human rights, its image of the way forward in Balkan democracy, its tourism and its spectacular seaside resorts (joking here) and its life outside of the ugly dispute! Seriously, that is not the key problem with splitting the article. The trouble here - unlike with the two Kosovo articles for 1990-1999 - is that it is a partial split. If a page exists to reflect an independent Kosovo, its counterpart would not so much be this page but rather a third article to explain the region according to its "authority in exile" Belgrade: how Belgrade recognises it as an integral part of Serbia, how the voting in the region has been (among its Serbs) in Belgrade-initiated elections, how things are where it still has influence (if not power) and the like. Such a creation would be zealous to say the least! This article is treated as a Kosovo in general, the land, the people and some history whilst Republic of Kosovo focuses on the "state" itself. So I don't know where I stand on this one either. Evlekis (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that Republic of Kosovo should become a place for Albanian POV to vent its spleen. It should become, if it is given time, nothing more than the five Ws of the Republic of Kosovo, the entity (or state or whatever you want to call it) that has embassies, relations with other countries, and so on: the one that acts as if it has legitimacy. It would be interesting to see if anyone is willing to take the effort to do this, but of course, with deletion looming that isn't likely to happen. As Evlekis said, "This article is treated as a Kosovo in general, the land, the people and some history whilst Republic of Kosovo focuses on the "state" itself" and I too don't know where I stand on this. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the Republic of Kosova page. _LOVE_ SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.143.184 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened to WP:CFORK? Ijanderson (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CFORK has nothing to do with it, just like Republic of China is not a "content fork" of China. Of course, the content of Republic of Kosovo will need to remain strictly focused on the 2008 Republic proper. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've opened up a Pandora's box. If this Republic of Kosovo page is not deleted, I can't see a single reason why we shouldn't create Province of Kosovo and you know what? Then we'll finally have two sides writing completely diferent stuff in their own articles and there goes Wikipedia's policy of consensus building. Great. Nice work. --Cinéma C 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FORKing is bad. This split just gives each side the chance to fuck up MORE articles, and should be reversed immediately. ThuranX (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinema, Do not revert without consensus, Evklakis, brutaldelux, Tone, clearly asked to keep it as a disputed state in the Balkans until we have a clear consensus. These changes w/o consensus are a clear violation of policy. Serbia does not recognize Kosovo, however, Serbia does not control an inch of Kosovo. Serbia is establishing a clear border and customs control with Kosovo just like it has with other states like Bulgaria, Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia, etc. Kosovo is a sovereign state, disputed by Serbia, however, Serbia does not control an inch of Kosovo. Again, Cinema, Brutaldelux, Dbachman, violated the Wikipedia POV policy, attempting to dominate with Serbian POV. Reported to admins.--SpanishBoy2006 22:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Not only do you ignore everyone else here, you try to get them in trouble. I think that it may be time to seek out a topic ban for you. ThuranX (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One small thing Spanish amigo, you said that Serbia is establishing a clear border and customs control with Kosovo etc and that is true. In fact, these transit checks were installed many years before Kosovo's declaration, I'd say as far back as the handover to the UN in 1999 but I don't know exactly what level of FRY authority was present in the buffer zone in its initial stages. I know that once the Conflict in Southern Serbia ended in 2001, the buffer zone was lifted. So no later than 2001 did you have checks on the Central Serbian side of the boundry. Montenegro did something similar with Serbia. Once their current leader Milo Đukanović - who turned against the Belgrade authorities - emerged victorious in Montenegrin elections, he reversed the direction of Montenegro and sought independence. From the beginning of the campaign in 1996, Montenegro grew defiant towards the FRY as it established its own borders to monitor all activity coming from Serbia. Now at that time, it meant that Montenegro had sealed its border with Kosovo. This was years before Kosovo could reciprocate; after all, Montenegro adjoins Kosovo. Even so, the rest of Serbia - whether nominally within a federation or independent - is compelled to establish these checkpoints; it doesn't have a choice. Serbia's governmental position in both the FRY and Serbia and Montenegro did not wish to break ties with Montenegro. But as Montenegro took the liberty of managing its own immigration and transit movement, it would have been foolish of Serbia to ignore this. For instance, I myself needed a visa to officially enter FRY whilst it existed (I hold a UK passport). Montenegro was deliberately acting in defiance of this order, and I had been able to enter Montenegro with just a plain passport untouched by FRY embassy staff; so if Serbia did not install checkpoints, one only needed to go to Montenegro to gain nice free easy access to Serbia! Serbia accepts the provisions of 1244 which devolves all authority over Kosovo to the UN; as such, Belgrade has not on one occasion after 1999 attempted to implement its policy in Kosovo. To that end, it is within Serbia's own interest to supervise all activity along transit points. This is regardless of whether it considers the onward territory to form a part of its legal integrity. Evlekis (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about a clear border and customs policy being implemented in due course as Serbia, not Kosovo, receives visa liberalizations. Serbia has agreed to establish clear border and customs just like it does with FYR Macedonia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Montengro, Croatia, etc. It's not what Serbia considers, it's what states border and custom controls means. Facts and interpretation are two different things. Kosovo is a fledgling state, sovereign and independent, Serbia disputes in interpretation, but defacto recognizes Kosovo, and that's a fact.(SpanishBoy2006)

What do you mean but defacto recognizes Kosovo. Does Serbia recognise it or not? If it defacto recognises it, it will open an embassy in Priština and receive an ambassador in Belgrade. An embassy with the Kosovan flag will fly above the consulate in Belgrade. Serbia will publish maps marking Kosovo, or to be more precise, it will sketch itself as the territory minus Kosovo, and Kosovo will be removed from news bulletins' weather reports. A new constitution will be written revising the internal structure of Serbia and gone will be the reference to Central Serbia. It will turn its back on ethnic Serbs in Kosovo on the pretext that they are subjects of a foreign land. It will participate in sporting activity against a Kosovan team. It will display roadsigns leading to Kosovan settlements with a Kosovan domain symbol as it does with Hungary, Romania etc. And last of all, it will not recognise Kosovo formally because that is what it means to de jure establish diplomatic relations. Does this make sense or does it sound stupid? I'll leave that one to you, but whatever you decide: that is how a Serbian de-facto recognition of Kosovo would appear. Serbia does not refer to the Central Serbia/Kosovo boundry as a border. It considers the isolated territory its sovereignty bound by 1244. What you call a border, everyone else calls a transit/checkpoint. The installments are the same absolutely everywhere, there is no alternative arrangement. They comprise two sections: Passport Control, supervised by state police; Customs, which deals with luggage and goods (more significant when entering than leaving). How can Serbia possibly abandon this when one has been established against its will by authorities controlling a section of what it deems to be its own land? Do you think Croatia didn't establish control checks along borders of the former RSK? Do you think that it allowed anyone to enter Croatia freely from the RSK because "RSK authorities will have already checked the documentation of the individual once already when entering RSK?" and all just because Croatia believed the lands to be a part of their territorial integrity? The same applied with Bosnia for the 1992-95 period. It didn't mean that Bosnia de-facto recognised the Serb republic, it didn't even accept the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosnoa and that didn't even declare itself independent!!! Evlekis (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

look, if you object to the split, why don't you revert it already? We have now seen what the split would look like, but if it is reverted, we are back to the "consensus" version we had so far, prior to the split. Since this topic will come up again and again, we will at least have the diffs demonstrating what the split version would look like. --dab (𒁳) 13:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this discussion about a split occured a while back, maybe over a year ago, and I believe the consensus was that such a split would be a violation of WP:FORK. I also think FP's point that Kosovo is a single geographical entity makes a lot of sense, and that the split doesn't. --Athenean (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Evlekis..you are joking. Again with interpretations, not facts. Serbia is establishing full border, customs with Kosovo and the deadline is by the end of October if it wants visa liberalization. Your comparison of something that does not exist, and has no whatsoever link to Kosovo is just push for your own POV. Your statement is interpretation lacking facts. Serbia defacto recognizes Kosovo. Serbia tacitly recognizes Kosovo, said the former prime minister of Serbia, Vojislav Kostunica. From the horses mouth. [9] Statements and facts are different.SpanishBoy2006 03:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not joking. I am not POV pushing either, I was not suggesting a change on the article, just correcting your erroneous statements. There is no such thing as "de facto recognition": one state either recognises another, or it doesn't. Travellers from Kosovo to Central Serbia have not been able to travel into Serbia without passing Serbian police and customs since they withdrew from Kosovo. During the time of Slobodan Milošević when FRY policy was wholly in defiance of the ICTY, what force existed to ensure "KFOR agents" did not try to sneak into the rest of Serbia to "arrest" and "smuggle back into Kosovo" indictees? Before the signing of the Kumanovo Treaty, NATO demanded that they be free to roam Serbia and Montenegro, armed, and with no subordination to FRY authorities. This was something they surrendered before FRY officials provided signatures. What force existed to ensure that this would not be in breach? They may now be building some fancy buildings but Serbia does not de facto recognise an independent Kosovo. You'll know when it does when you see a Kosovan embassy in Belgrade. Serbia de jure recognises Resolution 1244 which devolves power in Kosovo to UMNIK whilst the region nominally forms a part of Serbia. It is by the title of UNMIK that Kosovo joined CEFTA as a partner of Serbia, not as Kosovo. So the relationship between the two entities is not a token of Serbian recognition of Kosovo. Evlekis (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The source you provided has an effect quotation on the introductory paragraph, which is an infinity away from your claim of Serbia recognising Kosovo. The rest of the article says nothing of the sort. If B92 is such a trusted source, then perhaps you would like to examine these column inches, and read very carefully what Đelić and Svilanović say. They actually address the lethal area of recognition here. Evlekis (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

SpanishboyAlbanianboy, please stop making silly edits, the article is on probation, I'm surprised you haven't been blocked yet. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised you haven't been blocked BrutaldeluxeBrutalserb. Autonomous is Serbia POV. Vojvodina is autonomous because Serbia controls it. Serbia does not control an inch of Kosovo. Moreover, Kosovo is declared an independent republic, not autonomous. Majority of Serbs who live in Kosovo are applying for the Republic of Kosovo documents, passports, birth certificates, ids. Serbia establishing full control of border with Kosovo. Does Serbia have a full control with Vojvodina? Serbia does not control Kosovo administratively, politically or legally. Kosovo, indeed is a disputed state in the Balkans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not Albanian!!

Several people have been making changes without consensus here, clearly representing the Serbian POV. Brutadeluxe and a few have made contentious disruptive changes on the subject.

I've just blocked Spanishboy2006 for 24 hours for edit warring and violating the 3RR rule. Regarding autonomous/disputed, can someone clearly write what is the present consensus and what is the reason for it so that we don't spend any more time on it? --Tone 11:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The concept of Kosovo as an autonomous region gained tacit consensus a few days ago, my way of looking at it is that no matter what the POV~, saying that it is autonomous is accepted by both sides. Serbians maintain it is their autonomous region, others think autonomy as equivalent to independence. Spanishboy also disregarded the hidden note on the consensus on place names. I'm looking into the possibility of him being a sock of a banned user, I have traced him to an IP address that has only made edits on Albanian/Kosovo related articles, his edits have only been on these subjects too. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Brutaldeluxe, I'm afraid autonomy is not the same as independence. As you may know, Kosovo does not have any sort of legal dependence on Serbia, hence the word independence. Only a couple of countries actually positively respect Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo. The rest have either accepted the new state or are watching the situation.

Kosovo is "autonomous" only from the Serbian POV. To the Kosovars in Kosovo and to the 62 countries that have recognised its independence, it is an independent Republic of Kosovo. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Forget all that, we've been over it. Since we can't say that it is an independent country, autonomous region comes a close second, since at least it implies self-governance. Does anyone still disagree on that? (Yes, I bet)Brutaldeluxe (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I disagree. It sounds like you decided to bunt instead of actually, you know, coming up with something that reflects reality. Your statement above is rather astounding - "Since we can't call it the letter A, let's just call it letter B. Letter A does resemble letter B, you know." Autonomy implies dependence. Kosovo is NOT dependent on Serbia. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As you just placed a bet, there are people who disagree. Kosovo is an independent sovereign state that isn't a UN member yet, just like Republic of China on that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedadi (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm happy with calling it a state, but the consensus just hasn't been reached. All I'm saying is that, disregarding everything else, I thought everyone agreed on the fact that it is self-governed.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is one dispute in which I haven't interfered, but there is one issue to be addressed. Until recently, we used the word region (disputed region), but now however, state seems to have materialised. This is misleading and wholly incorrect. I am not arguing against those wishing for Kosovo to be presented as an all out country because I really have no opinion on this. But we are talking about a republic. We cannot use this term if maintaining a balanced position because Kosovo was never deemed a republic within Yugoslavia whilst Serbia was. However, when representing the entity which declared independence, a republic is precisely how it is purported to be by its architects. The point is that state and republic are antonyms, they have opposite meanings. It is only acceptable to refer to any sovereign body as a state if generalising (eg. state pension, the law of the state etc). In the opening sentences, it is important not to generalise but to be precise. Precision on the topic is itself the subject of debate. State is the term currently being used to represent the Albanian angle; so if anything, would those representing this particular pro-independence view atleast accept an amendment to the word state; even if only to use republic. I know there is no convenient terminology to please everyone, but state really strikes at the heart of accuracy. Evlekis (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to mess the past and the present, the current political status doesn't have to do anything with the past status within Yugoslavia. If Kosovo cannot be called a state, then why can Republic of China?, their political status is about the same by not being a UN member (Republic of China is recognized by 23 states and Kosovo recognized by 62 states).--kedadi (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already reverted twice today, so I can't rollback to the last stable version (the one with disputed region, apparently). I think that's what should be done until more editors can join in and Spanishboy's block runs out. I posted this already, but Kosovo is listed as fulfilling the criteria of the Montevideo convention at List of sovereign states.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct, Brutaldeluxe, Kosovo fulfills Montevideo convention, so it's a state. And it is this that is being disputed now by Serbia. Also, Kosovo has always had clearly defined administrative borders which are not being disputed by Serbia. Arianit (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

sigh, the Republic of Kosovo is a state, albeit a disputed one. Kosovo (the subject of this article) isn't a state, it is the territory claimed by both the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia. If people could agree to already create a Republic of Kosovo article, that article could be treated on the same basis as Republic of China. Until we do that, the Republic of Kosovo will just remain a sub-topic of "post-2008 history" to this article. Consequently, Kedadi, what you want to do is support a {{split}} of a standalone Republic of Kosovo off this article. After all, we don't merge Republic of China into China, do we. --dab (𒁳) 18:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Kosovo article should be split between Kosovo the region and Kosovo the state. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried a couple times to put the constant childish edit warring from Spanishboy and others to rest, but he's so caught up in his nationalistic agenda that facts are merely a speed bump in his mind. I have now tried to match the article (in dispute) to the hatnote, which is not in dispute. This should eliminate any more childish warring. Wikipedia is not your battlefield; it is supposed to be objective, so unless spanishboy really thinks there's NO dispute at all, the word disputed should be incorporated, as it's accurate. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So, I take it the split failed to find consensus and we are now back to the version of 24 July before Brutaldeluxe's edit. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You should change Kosovo from country to state (or region), right after you have done so with Scotland. If Scotland (not recognized by any country in the world) is a country, so should be Kosovo, recognized almost by the entire Western World.sulmues 02:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Locking the page

Good to see administrators protected the page from disruptive edits. Bad to see that Kosovo is now described as a "disputed republic". This is against the consensus, change it back to "disputed territory". --Cinéma C 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Either way, no one has so far noticed that the correct wording should be "a ...(insert preferred word) whose independence is disputed". We should clearly state what the dispute is about, and I'm not talking about editor's disputes. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure that's more important, but so is our consensus. --Cinéma C 19:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version. Prodego ^talk 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The page should be reverted back to a couple of days ago Ijanderson (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Prodego, what are you trying to do here? This is not my personal opinion, I'm talking about Wikipedia consensus. --Cinéma C 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, roll it back to at least before the Sinbad Barron/Spanishboy edits (who ignored consensus and changed Kosovar place names at will). Brutaldeluxe (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes back to the original status quo Ijanderson (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

When pages are protected, the administrator who does so simply locks the page, without regard to which version is on it. Except in the case of simple vandalism or libelous content, a protected page will not be reverted. Being right or wrong has no bearing on this, since people differ on what is right and wrong. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinema C, I think you might want to take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=303775694&oldid=303711264, and stop crying out for the consensus that has been reached because you don't care at all about it, trying to push your own POV.--84.22.62.66 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus that Kosovo is a sovereign state but disputed, until Cinema changes things without consensus, without discussing anything.SpanishBoy2006 02:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the clear consensus was the wording "disputed region". That has been the consensus for over a year now. The solution is not to lock the page, but topic-banning disruptive POV-pushers such as you. The current "disputed republic" is ridiculous and shows what happens when people with an agenda are allowed to edit. --Athenean (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Athenean. It is of no relevance for Wikipedia what is right or what is wrong. Only thing relevant is that there is consenus about some statement and that that statement is verifiable. The consensus was "disupted region". Until tides change that should remain, and any attempt to change what was reached through many many pages of conversation and hard work from all people involved and administrators to me is no more than a vandal and POV pusher. Let's try to be cooperative here. "Disupted region" is something that is correct, verifiable and is not insulting to any side. --RockyMM (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Cinéma C Well Kosovo is a disputed Republic, we are hardly going to refer to Kosovo as a disputed Kingdom ;) Ijanderson (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're using jokes as an argument. Wikipedia consensus is that Kosovo is a disputed region, writing "republic" or "province" is leaning towards the Albanian and Serbian sides respectively. --Cinéma C 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=303775694&oldid=303711264 clearly tells on which side you are leaning. In the summary you made it look like you were reverting SpanishBoy while in fact you reached your own goal.--kedadi (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

@Cinema C, disputed region would be if let's say Albania and Serbia were fighting over it. This is not so. Kosovo has declared independence. "Partially disputed sovereign state" or republic is a factual statement of the situation on the ground. Arianit (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Russia,China,Brazil abstain from further participation at ICJ

Russia, China, Brazil and several other states decided to abstain from further participation at ICJ. [10]..From ICJ website [11] --SpanishBoy2006 11:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinama C making again disruptive editing

Cinema C is again making disrupting editing without consensus, without discussing on the subject.

Kosovo is a state, a sovereign and independent. Not even disputed.

1) Serbia defacto recognizes Kosovo

2) Serbia tacitly recognizes Kosovo

3) Serbia establishes border and custom control with Kosovo

4) Serbia does not control Kosovo, defacto nor dejure

5) Serbia recognizes the international subjectivity of Kosovo as an independent sovereign body.

6) Most Serb media, like Beta and Fonet, clearly use Nis (Naissus) as a southern town.

7) Serbia president needs permission of the Republic of Kosovo to visit

8) Serb leaders are now allowed to enter through customs and borders.

9) Regions are geographic names, if we use region that definitely, Nis, Novi Pazar should be included because they are both part of Kosovo region, not Serbia.

10) Territory is when controls, but the inhabitants refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the ruler. Palestine.

11) Kosovo fulfills all the criteria of a sovereign state, with several UN bodies recognizes it, such as IMF, World Bank and other world institutions.

12) Serbia willing to establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo if some territory is swapped, obviously, Serbia cares about territory, because it already recognizes Kosovo.

13) Invalidity of Serb passports to Kosovar citizens. Not even, Kosovar Serbs can travel to EU. So much, about the dispute.

--SpanishBoy2006 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We all agreed that Kosovo is a disputed state, until Cinema made disruptive changes, without consensus, leading warrants and locking. --SpanishBoy2006 20:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is not disputed at all because Kosovo was never part of serbia it was part of Yugoslavia but Yugoslavia dont exist anymore

Cinema stop making those edits and start to accept reality--Lontech (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BAN CINEMA, he never listen to reason!!! Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that Cinema should be banned from Wikipedia. He doesn't read the reasoning behind the necessary changes and never cooperates in a constructive manner sulmues (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

MMM. No. Why don't we ban all the Pro-Kosovo extremists above, dogpiling on an editor who regularly works against the POV pushes. I can just about guess where this assault's coming from. ThuranX (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, keep guessing. You're saying that mine is POV, I'm saying yours is POV. If for Cinema Scotland (not recognized by any country in the world) is a country and Kosovo (recognized by almost all the western world) is merely a region, then you guys should not be speaking a Western language at all. Actually you should not even speak English, so you can give me the answer in an oriental language.sulmues (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss about me. Talk to me directly or report me through the proper channels if you feel that me going against Albanian POV pushing is breaking Wikipedia rules. --Cinéma C 02:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Now I think everyone has calmed down. The heat has worn off. I Believe it is time to unblock this page. I think Spanishboy2006's and Cinéma C's POV-ness has ended too and thus we can get back to normal. Who agrees? Ijanderson (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.--SpanishBoy2006 11:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You're being disruptive an uncooperative for entire time you have edited this article. You should not be editing Wikipedia until you show that your conduct here Wikipedia-worthy.--RockyMM (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Spanishboy: You have posted sources/ new stories on this talk page, but we can't even do anything with them because you won't allow the page to be unblocked. So why bother posting them in the first place? Ijanderson (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? How in the world do I have POV-ness? I'd be POV pushing if I started asking for "disputed province" or "disputed republic" in the lead. You tell me Kosovo is a Republic and then accuse me of POV pushing? Please.. don't play these games. We're trying to make an encyclopedia here. --Cinéma C 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are not asking for "disputed province" or "disputed republic", but is this NPOV?--kedadi (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. It's neither POV nor NPOV but does not push an opinion of any kind at all. The term suggests that the territory is ruled from within whilst to leave it out implies that the dispute is based on who exactly is running it. As the Spanish Boy likes to say wherever he can "Serbia doesn't control an inch of Kosovo!".

Evlekis (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then neither is "disputed republic" POV pushing, as it is just suggesting that it is a republic (which it is, I think that we all agree on this) but is being disputed by Serbia. Regarding "Serbia doesn't control an inch of Kosovo!", I'm afraid but that's true.--kedadi (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"suggesting that it is a republic (which it is, I think that we all agree on this" - No, we do not agree. What are you going to do now? Change the mind of the majority of the countries in the world who do not recognize Kosovo as a republic all by yourself? How do you not see that what you're claiming is the same as if someone claimed Kosovo to be a province (which it, actually, according to UNSCR 1244, is) but is disputed by the Albanian majority and a minority of UN member states. Can't you see how one-sided that is? --Cinéma C 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"disputed republic" is first of all nonsense. Does that mean that it is disputed between two countries or that it is disputed that is a republic (as opposed to say, another form of government)? There was a longstanding consensus on this article that "disputed region" was NPOV, until this recent rash of nationalist Albanian editors appeared, and here we are. --Athenean (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the correct wording should be "a ...(insert preferred word) whose independence is disputed". Let's make clear what the dispute is about. Second, we cannot deny that a "Republic of Kosovo" exists occupying the territory of Kosovo, look at micronations, however ridiculous you might think they are, you cannot deny their existance.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

@Cinema C:

• I mean, it is a Republic with all institutions and it functions like one (this is what I meant on my previous post), but the problem is that it's independence is not fully internationally recognized (a matter of time).
• Not just UNSCR 1244 but also Serbia does say that, but the facts in the terrain say that none of these two things have control over it (UN is present with a minimized staff and has zero control, it has become JAIO or Just Another International Organization present in Kosovo; UNSCR 1244 is completely ignored by Kosovo institutions), while on the other hand the Republic of Kosovo (with the help of EULEX) does have control over the territory of Kosovo.

@Athenean: I don't know if you have ever heard this quote from Charles de Gaulle: Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.. If you were referring to me as a nationalist Albanian editor, then I don't care about other people than mine when it comes to patriotism/nationalism, but in general I must express my love for all those western nations with their beautiful flags (US, UK, 22 nations of EU, etc.). You may see that I'm not active on any article regarding Greece or Serbia.

@Brutaldeluxe: That would be, a country whose independence is disputed, that's what it is in fact.

--kedadi (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

@kedadi:

"the problem is that it's independence is not fully internationally recognized"

You can't use such one-sided language like this as an argument on an encyclopedia. There is no "problem", there are only facts.

"the facts in the terrain say that none of these two things have control over it"

In fact, not only does the Kosovo government not have control over 100% of the territory it claims, but even the "independence" over the territories they control is supervised, i.e. not fully independent. The international community still has most of the control over Kosovo.

"UNSCR 1244 is completely ignored by Kosovo institutions"

Just like Kosovo's institutions are completely ignored by Serbia's and the majority of UN states' institutions. What's your point?

"the Republic of Kosovo (with the help of EULEX) does have control over the territory of Kosovo"

It was also explicitly made clear that EULEX will not implement the Ahtisaari plan - independence. EULEX is not helping the "Republic", it is status neutral.

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

Have you ever heard of quotes on patriotism by George Bernard Shaw ("Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it."), Goethe ("Patriotism ruins history."), Barbara Ehrenreich ("No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots."). Anybody can take quotes, but you can't use that as an argument. What's your point?

"You may see that I'm not active on any article regarding Greece or Serbia."

Well thats really nice. Take it to the user's talk page, it has nothing to do with Kosovo. --Cinéma C 04:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

@Cinema

Wow, take it easy man, not everything was for you and if you would have been following the discussion you would get my point. Let me make it clearer to you.

"The international community still has most of the control over Kosovo."

• Which international community? You mean UN? Did you know that the territory of Kosovo is controlled by the Republic of Kosovo, around 85% of it, and with the help of EULEX the remaining 15%? I don't know if you know it but UN is present with a minimized staff in Kosovo. They don't have not a single thing under their authority anymore, unlike the time before the independence.

"Just like Kosovo's institutions are completely ignored by Serbia's and the majority of UN states' institutions."

• Absolutely irrelevant, as long as the Republic of Kosovo has a defacto control over the territory. It doesn't really matter if Serbia accepts or ignores that fact. That would be as dumb as saying: The Republic of Kosovo ignores Serbia's institutions and claims Serbia's territory to be part of Republic of Kosovo, and you know why?, because Republic of Kosovo has 0% control on Serbia's territory.

"It was also explicitly made clear that EULEX will not implement the Ahtisaari plan - independence. EULEX is not helping the "Republic", it is status neutral."

• Did you know that EULEX came in Kosovo exactly from the Ahtisaari Plan? Maybe you didn't. EULEX is a rule of law mission, it is not a political mission like UNMIK used to be. Sad but true, it is helping Kosovo a lot, with customs on the north, rule of law in general, controlling places where the Republic of Kosovo cannot reach for the moment, and much much more.

--kedadi (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This arguing can go on forever. I don't know why we speak of rule of law when that if anything is the one element which cannot exist at such a high level. Kosovo declared independence, correct. Serbia and other countries reject it, correct. Kosovo is ruled from within, also correct. Serb majority enclaves are left alone by Kosovo, that too is correct. UNHCR1244 is ineffective, correct. EULEX is neutral, that is "officially" correct. The UN has no control over Kosovo, correct? Perhaps one needs to examine this view. The UN is present. All KFOR/NATO units are UN subjects. Most pre-1999 NATO states bombed Yugoslav authorities into submission in 1999 and established the status quo in Kosovo today. The KLA on the other hand – whilst being fantastic killing machines – needed NATO to act as their airforce to oust Belgrade influence in Kosovo. From 1999-2008, Kosovo permanently needed the presence of international forces to police the provisions of the Kumanovo Treaty within the region. Today, there are no campaigns from any section of Kosovan Albanian society which demands that the international forces leave the region. Suffice it to say, Kosovo's authority is heavily dependent on the international presence, the region feels insecure. So how ridiculous to suggest that the UN has no authority over Kosovo. The UN is purported to exist as an authority over the world. It doesn't have an army as such but as we see atleast once every 10-20 years, a group of nations declare war on an "unfavourable" state, and they do this on a "UN Mandate". The Serbs in the enclaves know that there is nothing that they can do if Priština wishes to expand its influence over 100% of the region. Priština also knows that if the global elite (the so-called "international community") tries to impose a policy contary to a Priština implementation, then it will be the former which prevails. Kosovo cannot be in defiance of the hand that feeds it. As for controlling its institutions, Nagorno-Karabagh also controls its institutions and has done so since 1988 with no threat from any wordly power to remedy this. It doesn't make it a country. And as for 1244 being ignored by Kosovo's authorities, that doesn't change the fact that Serbia continues to recognise the resolution. If a new resolution be drafted tomorrow replacing 1244, as happened in 1908 to accept violations of the Berlin Congress 1878 (allowing Bulgarian independence and Austro-Hungarian sovereignty over Bosnia and Herzegovina), then everything will be fine for Kosovo. However, if this can happen then it would be a travesty of the international legal system, "never mind what we said yesterday, just follow the force of gravity!". However, the fact that neither of these two things have happened and yet the "international community" flaunts 1244, is a shocking indictment of the real international authority (jungle law, the strongest survive) whilst it exposes the UN/"Rule of law" as wholly symbolic, a mask with a civilised appearance for powerful rogues to hide behind. Evlekis (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am impressed. --Cinéma C 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually that's what sophisms are supposed to do: impress impressionable people. Kosovo CANNOT have an army because of a UN resolution and therefore Kosovo CANNOT defend itself. If UN leaves then Kosovo will it will be possible for Kosovo to have an army and to defend itself against Serbia. If the UN does not allow Kosovo to have an army, that doesn't make Kosovo less of a country. A country can be weaponless, and it's still a country.sulmues (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

U people are u blinded or illiterate if CIA say that Kosovo is Republic then it is

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kv.html

CIA is smarter than u kids and i bet that most of you are underage under 18 thats why i think you should be banned from posting here

kids trying to change the FACTS but fact is fact u cant change it.............. LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial.

Fact is sometimes used as synonymous with truth or REALITY

Country name:

Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order. conventional long form: Republic of Kosovo conventional short form: Kosovo local long form: Republika e Kosoves (Republika Kosovo) local short form: Kosova (Kosovo)

other terms, words should be removed immediately LIKE Serbia Constitution etc --Lontech (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take your POV pushing elsewhere. --Cinéma C 04:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

the fact is that the USA recognizes the RoK's independence. This fact is reported on Wikipedia with perfect accuracy. I don't see the problem. --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Serbia doesn't rule out recognition of Kosovo's independence

Serbia FM stated the he does not rule out the recognition of Kosovo's independence by Serbia. From the horses mouth: Asked explicitly if he might recognise Kosovo's independence, perhaps in return for some of its land being returned to Serbia, Mr Jeremic once again refused to rule anything out. "We don't want to exclude any options," he said. "We need to come to the table and see what happens."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8172537.stm --SpanishBoy2006 14:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC) ->

So you've yielded your position slightly I see! From Serbia de facto recognises to Serbia "might" recognise. We'll all find out in due course. In the meantime, can I request that someone who has the permission to edit please remove the link to [Republic of Kosovo] on the opening paragraph. It was wikified some weeks ago when we experimented with "forking" two parallel entities on different dimensions. Now it is just misleading, it redirects you to the page you are already reading. Thanks. Evlekis (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I add, Kosovo can not be referred to as a "disputed republic", but a "disputed region" which is Wikipedia consensus. Thanks, --Cinéma C 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, it is astounding how people can fail in grasping very elementary circumstances simply because they decide they do not WANT to understand them. The situation is crystal clear: Kosovo is a disputed region, and the Republic of Kosovo is a partially-recognized state in dispute over the region. A simple matter of agens vs. patiens.

Fwiiw, it looks like Kosovo's independence will be finalized comparatively soon. If Russia and China lose interest, and Serbia is making conciliatory noises, this probably means that Serbia is hoping to strike a deal, such as chipping off a bit of North Kosovo, in exchange for fully recognizing the seccession. I must say I really look forward to this because it will hopefully mean the end of the childish nonsense we put up on this page since February 2008. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is not a disputed region because Serbia does not control an inch of it. Kosovo is a sovereign state, disputed by Serbia. It fulls the whole criteria of a sovereign state. Cinema C has been attempting to push his POV, ignoring and violating the rules of NPOV. There was no consensus on disputed region, but there was a broad consensus on disputed state until Cinema C changed without consensus. Serbia defacto recognizes Kosovo. 1) Border and custom control, invalidity of Serb passports to Kosovo citizens, Jeremic even said himself that Serbia will not rule out recognition of Kosovo if some territory is swapped. It shows that Serbia accepts the reality on the ground, that Kosovo is an international independent and sovereign subjectivity. The reality on the ground is that Kosovo controls its territory, acting as a sovereign body, which fulfills the criteria of a state. Recognitions which are abundant, are only matter of satisfaction, not definition of a state. Moreover, Serbia silently agreed to have Kosovo take over the responsibility to pay its debt World Bank and IMF. That's a recognition of the reality that Kosovo is a sovereign state, which Cinema C refuses to accept. Remember the statement of Serbia President refusing to give up the debt because that means a recognition of the Kosovo's independence according to Serbia point of view. Serbia tacitly recognizes Kosovo, said Serbia's former PM, Vojislav Kostunica. Kosovo is a state. Even adding disputed is not correct anymore because even Serbia does not disputed it but rather wants territories to swap, presevo valley with northern of Kosovo, excluding Mitrovica perhaps. --SpanishBoy2006 09:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We already have a sentence that clearly emphasizes Serbia's dispute.[[ ""Serbia does not recognise the secession of Kosovo and considers it a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija), according to the Constitution of Serbia (2006).[7]""]]-- Spanishboy2006 (talk 10:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

thank you for illustrating my point. "Kosovo is a sovereign state, which Cinema C refuses to accept" is priceless. Cinema C is, I take it, heading a bunch of other losers such as China, Russia, Spain, India, Greece, Brazil, and a hobo who hangs out in my neighborhood. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Serbia does not dispute Kosovo's statehood anymore, Serbia FM clearly emphasized on his interview the swapping of territories. It shows that Serbia recognizes Kosovo's independence and sovereignty, but refuses to establish diplomatic relations before swapping territories. --SpanishBoy2006 10:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanish chico, there you go again with your misguided observations "Serbia defacto recognizes Kosovo". Cinema C has not "changed without concensus", he has worked very hard to present this article as accurately as possible. So, to you, if controlling your territory meets the criteria to classify it as sovereign, then Transdniester must also be a sovereign country because it is completely self-governing and Moldova doesn't control any part of it. And what about Gerogia? South Osettia and Abkhazia declared their independence in 1991 and Georgian troops were even a part of the protection force which policed the provisions of the three-way agreements involving themselves, their breakaway states and the Russian Federation. Did that mean that Georgia "de facto" recognised Abkhazia and South Osettia? Nobody can ignore it when a part of its territory is occupied, or if it falls to home-grown lunatics; when a force is driven out, it does not mean that it "recognises" the independence of the lost land. Likewise, as time goes by and it realises that this is not likely to change and life has to go on for the sake of its citizens if nothing else - it still does not mean that it "de facto" recognises it. Kosovo's authority may not be disputed, but its status certainly is. Evlekis (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is a sovereign state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states --SpanishBoy2006 10:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanishboy2006 is trolling. I recommend WP:DENY. If this continues, we might consider admin action, but at this point just not feeding him would seem sufficient. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential future recognition by Serbia should be definitely added to the article. I don't think anyone disputes this now that Serb FM himself has said it. It should be something like this: "Although Serbia currently does not recognise the independence of Kosovo and considers it a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory, it does not rule out doing so in the future either." Can we agree on this? Arianit (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning that is fine as long as the source is included. One more point to Spanish Boy, the list on which Kosovo appears as "sovereign" also includes the following: Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Somaliland. Evlekis (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some recently vandalized so to speak. --SpanishBoy2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On that I cannot comment. Perhaps "Vandalism" is a strong accusation given that it is at the centre of a major dispute. Nobody called you a vandal for reshaping the opening lines to indicate Kosovo borders the Serbian territory, which makes an obvious point!!! But if the page you gave on sovereign states had been manipulated to represent the POVs on Serbian Kosovo, shouldn't someone have reverted? It looked to me like a suitable spot, alongside partially recognised lands; it even contained a detailed explanation. Evlekis (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

@ elvekis Dont do stupid comparisonsat Osetia and Abkahzia is recognized only by Russia and Nikaragua --Lontech (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

the problem is that wiki is open source and even 8 years old kids can modify articles --Lontech (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also ISRAEL is not recognized by most of Arab World ( arab countries ) exept Turkey being state doesnt mean all states to regognize you Israel is not disputed that egypt siria lebanon iran and other countries dont regognize ISRAEL

who gives f if serbia recognize kosovo or not or russia . KOSOVO can be state even without those recognitions like ISRAEL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontech (talk • contribs) 13:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You think Turkey is an Arab country? BalkanFever 13:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL arab world = Muslim world (or Islamic world)--Lontech (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ISRAEL is STILL a STATE even its neighbors dont recognize israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world --Lontech (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

@Balkanfever depend for example on geographical view ISRAEL is also ARAB Country that in Fact isnt because they are not muslims u cant say ISRAEL is arab country

and no Turkey in geographical view is not Arab country but it is Islamic country Is Israel ARAB country?--Lontech (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many Arabs who are non-Muslim. Many non-Arab states in turn are Muslim by faith. I mentioned South Ossetia and Abkhazia as a response to Spanishboy who claimed that a nation is sovereign when it is in control of itself. The number of countries which recognise it is not relevant to Spanishboy's point. And just as you say, who does care if Serbia doesn't recognise Abkhazia either? It can still be a sovereign state according to the "Pro-Kosovo theory of national criteria". Israel does not occupy territory which is unredeemed by another sovereign state. Since Egypt denounced its claim on Gaza, and Jordan on the West Bank, it just leaves Palestine which currently does not exist as a state. Israel's sour relationship with most Muslim countries is for a multitude of other reasons, not a territorial claim by them. Evlekis (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Get your facts straight, Egypt and Jordan have diplomatic and economical relations with Israel and so do Tunissia, Morocco, Mauritania and some othe Arab countries, including the palestinian Authority. 77.127.176.28 (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Get what facts straight. Did I say that Jordan and Egypt don't have relations with Israel? I simply said that they have relinquished their own claims on two of the occupied territories leaving them to a potentially new Palestinian state. It had been the other user who drew attention to the fact that some other countries do not recognise Israel (eg. Pakistan, Iran) but it doesn't make Israel disputed. I argued by stating that no internationally recognised nation claims all of Israel's lands unlike Kosovo which is claimed by Serbia. Israel's non-recognition by some UN members is for different reasons. As for your list: I'd check twice on Mauritania, its decision to form ties with Israel was one factor which got the administration ousted by the military. The recognition may have been withdrawn because it was never popular with Mauritanians either. Evlekis (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

these are facts from wiki :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel

No recognition or diplomatic relations

Israel has no diplomatic relations with 36 countries, 20 of them members of the 22-member Arab League. Some of the countries, with which Israel has no diplomatic relations, accept Israeli passports and acknowledge other Israeli marks of sovereignty; however, most of these countries refuse to recognize the State of Israel at all.

   * Africa: Algeria, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Libya, Mali, Mauritania,[2] Morocco, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia.
   * Americas: Bolivia,[3] Cuba,[4] Venezuela[5]
   * East Asia: (Republic of China)[6] North Korea[7]
   * Middle East: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,[2] Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, United Arab Emirates.
   * South, Central Asia: Afghanistan ,Bangladesh, Bhutan,[8] Maldives, Pakistan.
   * Southeast Asia: Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia

some states recognized israel after 30 years of state creation sorry but Tunisia Morocco Muritania are not on the list--Lontech (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Mauritania was on the list for a short time. Be that as it may new user, Israel is not disputed. It simply isn't recognised by the list members. Evlekis (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Israel is not recognized by the whole world and it is disputed by most Arab world, they simply don't accept the fact that it even exists. If you have an Israeli visa or stamp on your passport, you are a no no to enter those countries, which is pretty bad IMHO.--kedadi (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that Kedadi. I wasn't commenting as to how good or bad it is. The non-recognition of Israel by the other countries is caused by the fact that the enemies of Israel have not established any tie with the state. Israel was given its land by the former overlord which had at that time been Great Britain. Its creation was rejected by the countries in question, and its position denied the Palestinian Arabs a state of their own. As things are now, Palestine does not have a sovereign territory to call its own; and no other country lays claim to land which Israel occupies through its entirety. Even the Palestinian powers are divided, whilst Hamas holds the conservative position that Israel should not exist, its rival al-Fatah (Mahmoud Abbas) is in favour of the two-state solution. So there is no relationship between Israel and Kosovo (or should that be Kosova). Evlekis (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that there is any connection between Kosovo and Israel regarding their political issues. What they have in common, is that they are not recognized by the whole world.--kedadi (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

City names

Why are cities in Kosovo being called in Serbian language, in the first place?

There is an official regulation on this issue from the UN Special Representative Bernard Kouchner, dating back from July 2000:

• OSCE
• UNMIK Online (Albanian language)
• UNMIK Online (Serbian language)

As you can see, everywhere the name is written in Albanian language in the first place, then followed by the Serbian language. Almost all Kosovo-related articles are biased from this disruptive behavior, where cities and villages are written in the Serbian language in the first place.

I showed three links that document what I've just said. OSCE, UNMIK and also the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo say the exact very same thing. So I'm making a call to anybody who edits Kosovo-related articles, to be constructive and follow the regulation of writing names in this order: Albanian language, Serbian language.

Lets take for example Gjakova, if you click the link, you will get redirected to Đakovica. That's absolutely POV-ness if writing the title in Serbian language for a city in Kosovo that it's absolute majority of population is Albanian.

Thank you.--kedadi (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Read previous discussions regarding this matter that brought us to the consensus we have now. --Cinéma C 19:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding -- the city of Gjakova is a reflection of OPERATION SANU in full effect. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point in raising this issue, but this page is not the place to do it. We already have enough unresolved items and now a 1RR has been implemented by the administration. The name for the Serbian capital in Serbian (Latinic) is Beograd, and in Albanian it is Beogradi. Which do we use? Neither. We use Belgrade because it is the English name for it. I realise that at present, Kosovan town names may be written in English text using either the Albanian or Serbian form; I also notice that important bodies may be using the Albanian names. However, you'll know when it becomes acceptable to use these in primary positions when Ferizaj and Peja lead directly to the articles. The latter takes you to a disambiguation page and there is no point evading this by using Pejë instead of Peja, I know from Tirana and Gruja that either can be used primarily. For what it's worth, I don't mind using the Albanian names, and would dearly love to see the irrelevant Pristina switched to either Prishtina or Priština, but I'll have to wait for this one. For now, let us keep the names by their article titles. The discussion must take place on special naming projects. Evlekis (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

About This Topic

Several events have prompted me to write a summary of what I have realized concerning this article and, more generally, this area of interest.

• Kosovo is not a country just because the Kosovo government claims sovereignty and some other states recognize it. They say that Caligula tried to make his horse, Incitatus, a consul and a priest ([12]), but his horse, of course, was not those things. Still, everybody has the right to claim whatever they want, but that does not make it so. The Kosovo government, despite putting a map of Kosovo on their flag, does not control all of that territory, no matter how much they'd like to. The US and most EU states can declare that the Kosovo government has control over the land of Kosovo, but these are among the same countries that have the real control over the land of Kosovo. The international community has control over Kosovo. Therefore, let's come to the conclusion that the land is disputed.

• Of course you can say that Kosovo is a disputed country. Just like you can say it's a disputed province. In fact, since the majority of the world doesn't consider it a country, it would probably be more justifiable to call it a disputed province. But is there anyone here suggesting that? Are there any Serb nationalists who jump in and demand that Kosovo be called a province, which is how most of the world sees it? No. We only see Albanian nationalists demanding Kosovo be called a country. And this is a cycle that does not end, whenever one group gets tired of demanding and edit warring, another group comes in and continues with the same policies of POV pushing. If they're only purpose on Wikipedia is to change the article so that Kosovo is a country, I suggest to them to read the five pillars of Wikipedia. Just calm down and think about what this website is - it's a free encyclopedia, not a PR firm, or the CIA Factbook. If you call Kosovo a country, that's fine by me, but you have to accept that others don't. Therefore, let's come to the conclusion that the land can not be called a country or a province.

• There was one user before, I can't remember his name, who claimed that Kosovo is not a region. I then replied that a statement like that would be comparable to claiming the Alps weren't a mountain range. Of course Kosovo is a region, a territory, a land, whatever you'd like to call it. This is not about anti-Albanianism, or pro-Serb propaganda, you can't just scream those words whenever you don't get your way. Also, banning me won't solve your problem, as the consensus is still there, with or without myself. I personally have very good relations with Albanians in my personal life, because I don't call Kosovo a province and they don't call it a country when we're around each other and therefore everything is fine. Let's keep it that way on Wikipedia too, because the discussion about who is right can go on forever, so it's pointless to even start it. Therefore, just call Kosovo a region, this is an absolute truth and can not be disputed in any possible way.

I'd also like to leave all those who will automatically reject everything I write with a message. It's perfectly fine to have your own personal opinions on Wikipedia and you're free to express them through your user page (even with the help of userboxes) and your user talk page. Whether I personally consider Kosovo a country or province is insignificant - no one cares. And no one cares whether you personally like the first or the second option. No one cares how awesome super cool your sources are that claim Kosovo to be a country, because there are always gonna be tons of sources that will claim otherwise, so don't turn a blind eye to the sources that don't agree with your POV and accept that the discussion will only continue going nowhere fast if it continues this way. Sure, hate me, report me, accuse me of being a Serb nationalist (even though I'm not even a Serb), but look inside yourselves first and think if you have been fair to this website and to all the users who are trying to contribute in a constructive way, but can't because there are always those who would be more than happy if Wikipedia was broadcasting only their views on the world. If you're dreaming about this, I'll leave you with the words of Lord Owen: "Don't, don't, don't live under this dream [...] Don't dream dreams". --Cinéma C 06:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather call it a territory. Geographic regions include the Alps, the Sahara, the Andes... all of which are politically controlled by multiple entities. Territory, however, connotes ownership and control of a delineated geographic locale; such is the case for Kosovo. It has clearly defined boundaries, but there is a fight for who controls the land within that border. Disputed Territory is far more accurate. ThuranX (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with that :) --Cinéma C 06:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I also welcome the suggestion by ThuranX, "territory" clearly defines the place in question with clear borders. Evlekis (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic, we can state it in the following way: Kosovo is a country whose territory is disputed. In fact I don't think Serbia is disputing Kosovo the country, it's rather disputing its territory. Serbia doesn't want Kosovo institutions which constitute Kosovo the country, but rather its territory. However, here we are defining Kosovo the country. What do you think? sulmues (talk66.65.213.82 (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

With this ugly issue, nothing is ideal. To use country almost hands it on a plate to supporters of Kosovan independence; to use region is more geographical than political, such as a mountain range (Dinaric Alps) or a plain (Pannonia); to use state is worse than country because it implies precisely the type of sovereignty which it claims not to be; republic is accuracte in terms of how the zone declares itself but is not accepted by opponents of independence; province equally implies a deeper ownership of the zone by the party which is disputing and so upsets the supporters of independence; entity is just too ambiguous as anything is an entity; land is ill-defining since Kosovo is itself composed of different non-geographically named lands. Whilst it was once a part of the wider Rumelia region, it has also come to be divided to include regions known to Slavic nations (such as Zvečan), whilst Metohia is factually a separate adjacent land (even to Albanians, they call it Rrafshi i Dukagjinit). Sometimes I think the only solution is to use absolute Simple English to introduce the article: Kosovo is the name of a place in Europe, it is in the Balkans, it has an Albanian majority who delcared independence in 2008; Serbia, the country from whom it declared independence, rejects the independence; Serbia does not control Kosovo because it relinquished its authority in 1999 to the UN after agreeing to UNHCR1244 so as to stop a horrible bombing campaign by NATO; meanwhile 62 countries recognise Kosovo and counting, ...but some have confirmed that they have no intention to do so; the UN is still present in Kosovo but whilst Serbia expects them to be preserving the land for them and implementing their laws, they are actually supervising the independence and allowing Kosovo to be administered from within. and so on. Nobody argues with these points but how can we make it sound more grown-up? Evlekis (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, degrading from "country" to "state" then to "region", then to "territory" than to "place" is what Serbian nationalists would like. Scotland doesn't have a seat in the UN, no country recognzises it as country, however in Wikipedia, Scotland is a country. Kosovo on the other hand is recognized by a growing number of countries (more than 60), and in Wikipedia is a "place"/"territory"??? I would say that "Kosovo is a country, however its territory is disputed by Serbia". This explains it all. If let's say I am a young Kosovan, Serb or an Albanian and I use very well Internet, I'd like to enter the word "Kosovo" in Wikipedia I will learn that I don't live in a country, but just in a "territory" or "place", honestly I'd feel that my parents have lied to me that they made this country independent sulmues (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am opposed to referring to Scotland as a country. I prefer the term Home Nation or the more defining Constituent Country, both of which may be used across Wikipedia and when discussing Scotland in general. The Scotland solution will not help Kosovo because it is based on using the word country to describe a wider context offered by the single term. In addition, a concensus on the page has established that country is suitable because it satisfies the description according to the persons involved. Apart from the fact that Scotland is not a breakaway region nor a land to have delcared independence, and is an integral part of the United Kingdom, the FAQ section of the description box at the top of the Scotland talk page is explicit in defining that country does not mean sovereign state. In addition, the four constituent nations which compose the United Kingdom have long been unofficially described as countries and this has been a mutual practice - it does not imply that they are outside of the United Kingdom as is the Republic of Ireland. Furthermore, a visit to Scotland from England does not mean that one has travelled abroad. As for your rant that "Kosovo is just a place" is how Serb nationalists would like to see the article, that couldn't be farther from the truth. There may be Serbs who have contributed to the article but certainly no nationalists whom I have encountered. You'd know if there were because they would be just as militant as you in their rejection of "disputed" and "territory" because as far as they are concerned, it is the Kosvan Albanian faction which is doing the disputing whilst the "territory" is a province of Serbia. That is what they would be saying. You are only dealing with editors who are trying to explain the facts as they are, and at the moment, Kosovo is neither a country in the sense of Scotland, nor is it a widely accepted sovereign state. So we're back to Square One. Evlekis (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"degrading from "country" to "state" then to "region", then to "territory" than to "place" is what Serbian nationalists would like" - sulmues

Sulmues, have you ever met a Serbian nationalist? A Serbian nationalist would not only want Kosovo to be presented as "province", but also "holy Serb land", "occupied Serb soil", etc. Is India a Serbian nationalist state for considering Kosovo a province? Or the other 129 countries that do not recognize Kosovo as a country? Please try to contribute in a rational way.

"let's say I am a young Kosovan, Serb or an Albanian and I use very well Internet, I'd like to enter the word "Kosovo" in Wikipedia I will learn that I don't live in a country, but just in a "territory" or "place", honestly I'd feel that my parents have lied to me that they made this country independent"

Let's say you signed the Kumanovo agreement and have a UN Security Council Resolution, in effect today, guaranteeing the sovereignty of your country, and then you suddenly find out that some Western countries lied about their promise. So what are you going to do? Nothing.

Please be aware that the Kosovo article is not supposed to make the majority of the Kosovo population feel good about what's written here. This is an encyclopedia, not the Kosovo government website. --Cinéma C 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinema and evlekis, your reasoning is so flawed and your arguments so poor that I feel like my intelligence ant that of a lot of people reading Wikipedia are offended. First evlekis says that he doesn't agree that Scotland should be called a country, then he says that calling Scotland a counry is OK, because it's explained in the Scotland discussion page (sigh! So why don't you write that Kosovo is a country and you explain it in the discussion page?). I don't want to argue any more. Besides, I think I'm waisting my time because I think you get paid by the Serbian government to make Milosevic's sons happy. Congratulations!(talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

Not exactly. I knew what I meant to say and I really am against the idea of calling Scotland a country. I was pointing out that the term country here is being used in a broader context, one in which Scotland does not declare itself to be a sovereign state. Kosovo by comparison does. The term "country" has been used for years to describe the units of the United Kingdom. But if I interfere on the Scotland page, I'll be reverted in no time because there is no strong argument against country. Evlekis (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm British and my father is Scottish, I believe that I'm fully aware of the political status of Scotland. I just want to say that Kosovo and Scotland are completely different cases. Scotland is a Home nation/ Constituent Country/ Nation/ Former Country/ Geographical Region/ Administrative region of the UK. Scotland stopped been an independent sovereign state when it joined in a union with England to form what is know as Great Britain, please see Acts of Union 1707 for more. Scotland does not claim to be a country or independent, sure some people do want it to be a country and there is an independence movement, but since 1 May 1707, Scotland stopped being a country whether you like it or not. FACT! Kosovo on the other hand is a Nation/ Geographical Area and either an Independent Country or an Autonomous Province, that is why it is disputed. Kosovo unlike Scotland claims to be an independent country as is de facto independent unlike Scotland. The Status of Kosovo is nothing like that of Scotland. Hopefully this will solve the confusion which some users seem to have. Ijanderson (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Ok, I have been banned for a month only for the comment above, and for these two sentences that I am writing I'll be completely banned. In 1707 Scotland gave their king to England, so you may say that England stopped being a country, because it was peacefully invaded by the Scots. However how come no one makes a fuss about Scotland being called a "country" in wikipedia, but there are thousand of pages for "independent" wikiwriters who have nothing better to do, than ban whomever wants to give something more to Kosovo than "place"/"territory"/"region"? sulmues (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

Queen Anne of Great Britain was of the Stuart royal family, who were of Scottish blood. She was the Queen of Scotland and Queen of England. After over 100 years of Scotland and England having the same monarch, but being different countries seemed a bit silly so under Queen Anne, England and Scotland were united, it was kind of like a marriage. Also England was not "peacefully invaded by the Scots", after Queen Elizabeth 1st died, she had no heir, so James 6th of Scotland was invited to be King of England as he was the closest living relative of Elizabeth 1st (her dead cousin's son). The term "country" is used for the Home nations, however it is not used is the same way as Croatia is a country or Iran or Australia etc. Officially Scotland is one of the countries of the UK aka a home nation. Read what number 10 has to say about them http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 . The home-nations are not sovereign independent states. However Kosovo claims to be a sovereign independent state. Ijanderson (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR for all editors

Per the discretionary sanctions highlighted by WP:ARBMAC, I am hereby placing Kosovo under 1RR sanctions for ALL users editing this article. This means that you are only allowed one revert per week to this article, except in cases of obvious vandalism. In addition, you will be required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. If you exceed violate the terms of this sanction, you will be blocked. The duration of these blocks will be determined based on the user's prior history, block log, and the severity of the violation. Note that if I find behavior on the article/article talk page to be disruptive, I will ban users outright from editing this article and/or its talk page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you, especially for your pledge to enforce WP:TALK. --dab (𒁳) 12:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinema C warned, Kedadi given the boot from the article and article talk page for 1 month. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean one revert per week PERIOD. Not one revert per week per issue. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify better, we revert once - and we may not make a revert to the same effect again for seven days from the time of the original. Evlekis (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. You may make one revert per week. Full stop. Obvious vandalism is of course exempted. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]No, that is not what it means. It means you can make one revert per week. You can not, for example, revert 2 different things 1 time in 1 week. Prodego ^talk 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't think I am getting this. WP:3RR means "three reverts to one specific revision within 24 hours". You would expect "1RR" to mean the same, just for one instead of three reverts. I fear it will be very easy for any good faith editor to not inadvertently violate a rule as outlined above, and I frankly have never seen anything like it before. --dab (𒁳) 18:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision 1 says "Kosovo is a disputed region". User X changes it to "Kosovo is a disputed state" (Revision 2). User Y now reverts User X's changes back to "Kosovo is a disputed region" (Revision 3). User Y is not allowed to revert back to his preferred version, or a version similar to his, in the one week period from the time of the first revert. If a separate edit war flares up on day 4, User Y is not allowed to revert another user's revision or else he will be in violation of 1RR. So, 1RR means one revert per week period. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to block an obviously oblivious user for violating a rule they did not know was in place. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the ruling, I thought it meant seven days from your first revert. It makes more sense. Otherwise we need a time frame (eg. from Thursday to Thursday) in which case you can revert on a Wednesday evening and then again a few hours later. It has got to mean seven days as of the edit. Either way, I've decided for the time being not to edit the Kosovo article... ...

........just as long as it says "disputed territory!" :) ----Evlekis (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It means seven days from your original revert. Going back to the example above, if User Y revert User X at 18:18 3 August 2009, they cannot make another revert to the article until 18:18 10 August 2009. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also created Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Kosovo, so there should be no excuse for editors to engage in disruptive behavior on the talk page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

KOSOVO Flag and Coat Of Arms

Kosovo Flag is missing its been there for about 2 years

so admins bring the flag back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontech (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes the flag should definitely be on the page. I would propose replacing the UN flag with it. Any objections to either that in particular, or adding it to the page in general? Prodego ^talk 02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well some admin has to fix what's been done, that is Republic of Kosovo seems to have been split out, but someone blanked it and redirected it back here. So now the info about the country is gone. chandler 02:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Brutaldeluxe made the change without consensus, he assumes that tacitly we agreed like Cinema who claims consensus while changes without consensus --(SpanishBoy2006 02:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

We need to restore the Republic of Kosovo info box which included the Flag and CoA and other information etc Ijanderson (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I am relatively unfamiliar with the situation here, I'm not going to make the change as requested at my talk page. However, I am adding an {{editprotected}} tag to the section to draw the attention of other administrators, since there appears to be agreement that the flag and coat of arms should appear somewhere (and in some form) on the page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to make the edit, but I need a more specific request. Which image exactly? Or which version should be restored? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In all its glory, the requested change is template {{Republic of Kosovo}}, I would like to note that part of the dispute stems from the fact that some users do not recognise the Republic of Kosovo (and the fact that its neighbouring countries do recognise it), and therefore are opposed to the existance of the template itself and al that follows. So there you go, nice template but nowhere for it to be, since the Republic of Kosovo does not exist. Brutaldeluxe 19:37, 28 July 2009

restore to this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&oldid=303915021 Facts are Facts there should be no discussion about facts cause they are facts. check CIA factbook --Lontech (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they the same facts that led you to modify my edit so as to make it conform to your agenda, Lontech? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry if i deleted only your last word but as you can see it there again also there was no name at that post

FACT is the sun we see it everyday u cant say sun dont exist unless you are blind--Lontech (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Brutaldeluxe and Cinema C why don't you go edit the page of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and remove THEIR flag and coat of arms that stay right on top? How come Kosovo with 2M people has no flag and coat of arms on top and Abkhazia with 170k people (less than one tenth) has them? --sulmues (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a problem that needs addressing, the flag and coat of arms are not shown at the top of this article, yet the coat of arms appears on the Politics of Kosovo template, so there obviously is a consensus that it is the CoA of Kosovo. How does this fit with the policy of neutrality? Should the CoA be removed from the template? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. CoA should stay on top, right like your Russian wikibrothers are doing with that of Abkhazia and South Ossetia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo, internationally was never part of Serbia

A fragment from Noel Malcolm book, A short history of Kosovo, Page 264-266

When Kosovo was conquered in 1912-12, Serbia was operating under its constitution of 1903. Article Four of that constitution clearly states that no change to the frontiers of Serbia can be valid unless it has been agreed by the Grand National Assembly - not the 'Ordinary Assembly' or parliament, but a special enlarged assembly summoned to deal with constitutional matters. No such Grand National Assembly was ever convened to discuss or ratify the extension of Serbia's borders to include Kosovo and Macedonia (1). Some might wish to argue that, the correct procedures were not followed so far as Serbia's internal constitution requirements were concerned. But the strange truth is that Kosovo was not legally incorporated into Serbia by the standards of the international law either.

When territory passes from one state to another by conquest in wartime, the transfer has to be recognized by a treaty between the two belligerents after the war. Such a treaty, the London Treaty of 1913, was drawn up between the Balkans allies (Serbia included) and the Ottoman state at the end of the war between them; but it was never ratified by Serbia, and therefore had no legal force where the new Serbian territories were concerned. Another treaty, the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913, was signed at the end of the Second Balkan War in that year ( a war which broke out among the victorious Balkan allies, pitting Bulgaria against the rest); this treaty did contain statements about territorial changes, at least in Macedonia, and it was both signed and ratified. But the Ottoman state was not a party to it; so its statements about recently conquered ex-Ottoman territory could not legally validate that conquest itself. In March 1914 Serbia and the Ottoman state drew up a new treaty, the Treaty of Istanbul, which said they would regard the non-ratified Treaty of London as ratified in those matters which concerned them. Unfortunately, this treaty could not do the trick because itself was never ratified, being overtaken by the declaration of war between the two states in October 1914. And the problem is not directly solved by later treaties between Yugoslavia and Turkey, such as the Treaty of Sevres of 1920, which became null and void, or the Treaty of Ankara of 1925, which, although it involved the mutual recognition of the two states, made no specific mention of the territories taken from the one by the other in 1912-13 (2).

Only in a rather roundabout and pragmatic way could a case for the new political ownership of Kosovo be made in legal theory. Both Yugoslavia and Turkey joined the League of Nations, and were committed under the Article Ten of the League of Nations Pact to guaranteeing each other's territorial integrity. This in itself, strictly speaking, would not prove anything, since the territorial integrity referred to was a matter of those territories that were legally possessed: if a state was illegally occupying some sort of another country when it joined the League, no other states would be thereby obliged to defend that illegal occupation. But if this point about the League of Nations Pact is combined with the pragmatic observation that Turkey did behave as if it regarded those conquered territories as belonging to Yugoslavia - non only did it lodge no formal objections, for example, but it did eventually opened a consulate in Skopje - then some kind of legal case can be made, and extend on the same basis, perhaps to the Treaty of Ankara of 1925. One point, however, it is quite clear. This legal case concerns Turkey's recognition that Kosovo was part, not of Serbia, but of Yugoslavia, the state which joined the League of Nations and signed the Treaty of Ankara.

Similarly, the Albanians in Kosovo had not become Serbian citizens, but they did eventually become Yugoslav ones. In fact the first law to regulate their citizenship was the Yugoslav Nationality Law of 1928, which did not claim that it was confirming some already existing national status, but clearly said that it was creating that status for the first time: the Albanians who lived in Kosovo between 1913 and the establishment of Yugoslavia in 1918 were described ( in paragraph 4 section 55 of the law) as 'the non-Slavs who have become nations of the Kingdom by virtue of the second paragraph of this section.'(3)

Bibliography: 1) For the 1903 text see Darest de la Chavanne, Les Constitutions, vol. p. 260 2) On all these points see Pop-Kosic, Etude juridique, pp.2304, 88-90. 3) Ibid., pp.105-15 --SpanishBoy2006 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm has his opinions and he is entitled to them. First of all, his reference to "conquest" is 100% subjective. He uses it as an antonym for "liberate" where-as the two terms are not direct opposites. He rejects the term "liberate" because he claims that Serbs said that they made up a maximum of 25% of Kosovo. Apart from there being no accurate census information for the time, the Kosovo of then was significantly larger than now and given that Albanians do not form a majority within that wider region today, how can Malcolm prove they formed a majority then? Kosovo ran from the north of the Sandžak of Novi Pazar to sections of eastern Macedonia. In so far as international law existed then, if there were any regulations which dealt specifically with "conquest" - as a legal term - then Malcolm would have to prove that the actions of Serbia were an "act of Conquest" first. Secondly, the act would have had to be deemed as conquest by bodies acting as international powers. Unless they questioned the events and consulted codified literature to prescribe a course of action on how now to deal with the scenario (ie. Serbs were a minority, Albanians were a majority, this is conquest, so would Serbs please withdraw from Kosovo and allow Ottomans to resume administration) or to be more precise (Serbs, you are a minority within the territory which our crystal ball tells us will outline Kosovo in 34 years time {1946} so would you please withdraw and allow the Ottomans who conquered the land some centuries back to resume control over the region where they too are a minority?). This neatly leads me to my third point, if anyone were to stage an outcry based on Malcolm's so-called "Laws of Conquest", shouldn't that have been the Ottomans? If the Great Powers were overlooking a legal issue, then it should have been the Ottomans to claim, "this is our land, they are gaining it by conquest", but they didn't. Perhaps they remembered how they originally came to rule it. But the final word against Malcolm's claim of "conquest" is that - so subjective is the term that it is not even universally accepted. If the term can be used pejoratively, it stands to reason that it is wholly relative and subject to opinion. As such, when have the Serbs ever referred to that period as a "conquest"? But surely if it is as clear cut as shill and quasi-historian Noel Malcolm claims then there could be no dispute over the term "conquest", though the term "conquest of Kosovo" is never used by non-Albanian sympathisers. And this is only on the grounds that "conquest" bore certain legal characteristics which were admitted by all parties. Malcolm's point was that the victorious party had to win a war to obtain the new territories against an internationally recognised country on its own soil. But he realises that to say this, Serbia would be in league with all other countries. But by leaving out that "war = conqeust", he doesn't have to say that Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Montenegro, even pre-1913 Serbia, and half of the world's nations all "conquered lands". This leaves one final point: Serbia's 1903 constitution. So what? Constitutions are nothing more than an ideological framework by which only a single body (ie. the state) is bound. There is no higher court of appeal within that sovereign state for an individual to appeal if he feels that an act of justice against him is "unconstitutional". Apart from the fact that pseudo-historian Neol Malcolm would have known - if he were half as clever as he makes out - that constitutions do not even have to be codified (his own country, the United Kingdom, being a well-known example of a country without a written constitution), his most pathetic and apologetic and may I say, desperate, remark is that Serbia's non-amendment to its constitution meant that its core reason for not being in Serbia is because somehow Serbia disputed it. He is obviously barmy. As for Albanians not becoming Serbian subjects, again we see the Albanian apologist taking things out of context. His argument began with "legal incorporation of land" which is something that only concerns governments: the new power, the old power, and other external powers. Once all ratifications are complete, there is no condition which implies "do this with your people or regocnition will be withdrawn and the former overlord will return". If Noel Malcolm were a real historian, he'd have known that some governments - upon gaining new land with a non-affiliated population - take certain other measures against that group. Some have attempted to eliminate the population by killing as many as possible (see African history in the 19th century), some have expelled their opponent groups or taken part in equal "population transfers" where they receive some of their own from another country; some have taken the liberty of cleansing the identities of the opponent race by dissimilating them. Yet never has their sovereignty over the pronominal lands been raised as a question concerning international law. During the Greek purge of its Slavs opting for a Macedonian identity on lands "fought for against the Ottomans", who argued that "Pelagonia was never incorportared legally into Greece"? I'm afraid Malcolm, whilst highly regarded in some quarters, is a man whose opinions carry no international weight.

His entire argument is based on the venture amounting to "conquest" and he tries to present his case by using the language of official conext, as though it is so obvious that nobody could dispute it including the Kingdom of Serbia. According to him, everyone - Serbia, the Ottoman Empire itself, the Great Powers - acted unlawfully. He is aware that the Ottomans recognised Kosovo in Serbia from 1914 but still insists that they were the legal authority in the region. But didn't the Ottomans revise their own constitution to outline their new borders? What makes one more internationally binding than the other? As for Malcolm's favourite "it wasn't Serbia, it was Yugolslavia" argument. This is another pathetic attempt by Malcolm to convince the ignorant and naïve that Serbia was subjected to another higher authority, as if to claim that Serbia in 1928 was rather like Serbia's Principality between 1831 and 1867 in the Ottoman Empire. First of all, the so-called "historian" Noel Malcolm should have known than no entity baring the name of Yugoslavia existed before December 1929. Prior to that, it had been the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Does that amount to the same thing as Ottoman Serbia? Well, Serbs and Serbia were represented in the Corfu declaration of 1917 which helped create the state, and they were also represented in national parliament. They were not however represented in the Porte in Istanbul. Serbia entering the wider Kingdom was also based on opening its internationally recognised border with a hitherto unrecognised entity - the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes which encompassed Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia (minus some pieces ceded to Italy). Legally this territory was nominally Austria-Hungary until the Treaty of Versailles inaugurated the new state, and other later treaties resolved some border disputes. Either way, nobody was disputing Serbia's inclusion of Novi Pazar and Skopje which were previously Kosovan in Ottoman administration. In addition, the Kingdom was ruled by the Serbian royal family and was even a source of dissidency throughout Croatia and Slovenia (and among Montenegrins, Muslims and Macedonians). This continued even after the state adopted the name of Yugoslavia and into World War II, so the subject of Kosovo being outside of a Serbian entity does not come into question. Serbia included Kosovo in 1913 and it entered the kingdom with the land. The Kosovo of today was first created in 1946 and it was 28 years before it reached its apex and managed to expel internal Serb influence. It never lasted long because Yugoslavia was rump and largely disfunctional from the mid 1980's. This is in bitter contrast to the "Noel Malcolm version of events". He likes to exert that Serb influence over the land ended with the fall of the Empire. Occupation or not, Serbs held it from 1912; he uses "occupation" to try to denounce a legal Serbian claim on the land which, as we have now explored, is not the case; it then went into a Pan-Slavic state of which Serbia including Kosovo was a part, not a subjugated land; after World War II it remained within Serbia in a Communist Yugoslavia where Serbia originally had full control, only to lose it in various stages until 1974. With much of the autonomy reduced from 1990, Kosovo's status forked. The Albanians declared independence and were recognised only by Albania (though presumably Malcolm was symapthetic here), whilst the rest of the world including the countries who helped Kosovan Albanians all recognised the territory to be a part of the FRY. If the claims made by Albanians on Belgrade's actions in the 1990's are true, then the Serbian (not the Albanian) influece was the greater in the 1990's, all be it agressive. Then from 1999 to 2008, the only amendment to FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) was the departure of Montenegro which did not claim Kosovo. So Malcolm is wrong in two of his most cherished theories: that Kosovo has had no continuous Serb influece, and that Serbia has no legal claim on Kosovo. For him to claim today that Kosovo had not been part of Serbia, but legally joined Yugoslavia in 1928 and has an Albanian majority so it should not be claimed by Serbia is no different than to suggest that some of the municipalities near Szeged should not have been a part of Hungary after World War I because they had Serb/Croat majorities and were previously in Austria-Hungary, not Hungary. As for the not signing of various teaties for so many years, well this is merely pussy-footing on the part of Malcolm; crying about technicalities which meant nothing and ignoring the reality. He knows that even after 1928 that there was no Kosovo authority within the kingdom, that Serbia was a unit of the kingdom, and that all former Kosovo lands were inside Serbia (as Serbia came to include today's Montenegro and Macedonia), and that Serbia had chosen to enter the wider kingdom; but he tries to make it appear as though Kosovo was in 1928 incorporated into a country in which it excercised self-rule and of which Serbia was a part and in which Kosovo was not within Serbia or controlled by any part of it. Completely false. Between 1913 and 1928, the status of no part of Kosovo was disputed by anybody in the world. Evlekis (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. All international maps published prior to WWI as well as those later sketched to reflect the period prior to WWI all include the lands of the former Ottoman province in Serbia (apart from what went to 1913-1918 Montenegro, such as Peć). So whilst Malcolm has nothing to prove that Serbia did not have most of Kosovo at the time, just how exactly does he describe the Kosovan territory taken by Serbia to exist between 1913 and 1928? As Ottoman? As some sort of free territory? Just where according to Noel Malcolm were Sjenica and Kumanovo during this time? And what is his evidence apart from his personal observational claim? Evlekis (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanishboy2006, we use English names on Wikipedia. Just click on your Peja link and see where it sends you, not to the city but to a disambiguation page. The only way to avoid it is to create a pipe [Peć|Peja] and what is the point of that? Why don't you use your "sources" to get the names changed on their articles too? Evlekis (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will start to change the names on all articles, hopefully with the help of others. We all know that that's a bias and has to fixed. You guys are trying to do whatever it takes just to keep the Slavic names for places where the vast majority of population is Albanian, with the argument that Slavic/Cyrillic names are more natural and are used in English literature, media etc. To prove you wrong, check these two links for example: Google Search for Gjakova and Google Search for Djakovica, and you will get an idea from the page hits.

I know what I've just said is not enough for you. Let me give you another example. OSCE, UNMIK and the Constitution of Kosovo say the very same thing:

• OSCE
• UNMIK Online (Albanian language)
• UNMIK Online (Serbian language)

You guys are POV pushing as it fits you better. When we talk about if Kosovo is a country or not, you're saying that it is not, because it is governed from UNMIK (not at all true but that's what you're saying) like it is a god, then when it comes to names for places, you are saying what UNMIK is saying is irrelevant (UNMIK is not a god in this part, because it doesn't fit you) because of something else.Thank you.--kedadi (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The international bodies use both forms and do so precisely for the purpose of projecting some kind of "neutrality". The entry on the OSCE page may place Albanian first, but only does this for literary purposes presenting a list. That is not the same as English having adopted the Albanian names. Try to move Đakovica to Gjakova and see what happens. Evlekis (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What's going to happen, WWIV? No there isn't a neutrality, as it wasn't one before the Kosovo War. What they are doing is simply respecting the official languages, which are: Albanian language and Serbian language. And as you can see everywhere, Serbian language is listed on the second place (I'm so sorry if you don't like it), which is natural because Serbs make up around 5% of population while on the other hand Albanians make up the vast majority with over 90%. For contrast, in Republic of Macedonia Albanians make up around 30-35% of the total population and the Albanian language is official on local level. Thank you.--kedadi (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides, you have provided no sources as to what UNMIK (not OSCE) is publishing in English. When you obtain your sources, please take them to the pages for the relevant discussion. Evlekis (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to tell me to use the relevant discussions which I already knew it. I understand that you don't want to discuss it anymore and neither I will try to force you do it. Thank you.--kedadi (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am only too happy to discuss it. And am I worried about OSCE placing Serbian second? They can put it 43rd between Norwegian and Hindi for all I care. I don't make the rules, and I have yet to see any of Wikipedia's so-called "reliable sources" which present Gjakova and Mitrovicë. They will be your first weapon in the battle in moving the articles to those names. When the arguments begin and the Albanians find themselves at war with the non-Albanian editors (not all Serb), believe me Kedadi when I tell you that I will not take part to argue for anyone. For the time being, I simply insist that we keep the names as according to their WP acticle titles. As I said, Pristina has already yielded and I am in 100% disagreement with it, but for now, all references to the Kosovan capital go to Pristina. And OSCE don't use that form do they? I believe that the first sign of Albanian names replacing Serbian in everyday English will come when the land becomes widely known as Kosova. Evlekis (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted a POV edit by Kosova2008, that changed "disupted territory" to "disputed state". It is my understanding that there is a consensus in this article to refer to Kosovo as a "disputed territoty" or "disputed region", and not as a "disputed state". To refer to it as a state would be an endorsement of the Albanian POV on this issue. With this in mind, I have reverted back to the neutral, consensus "disputed territory". --Athenean (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, Kosova2008 vandalized this article and then made a personal attack on myself[13] for which he has been warned by an administrator [14]. If such behavior continues, the admin suggested to report Kosova2008 to WP:AIV. --Cinéma C 03:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But Kosovo is a disputed State, you have one part of the world saying Kosovo is a state and the other half saying it isn't or that it is an illegal state, thus the dispute. I would like to see this consensus where it was agree to say it is either a disputed region or territory. Ijanderson (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is a disputed Province, as much as it is a disputed State. You have one part of the world (the majority) and UNSCR 1244 saying that Kosovo is a Province, as a part of Serbia, and the other part of the world (the minority) saying it isn't and that UNSCR 1244 can be ignored, thus the dispute. So, wanna flip a coin or you wanna keep it neutral, hmm? Also, you're free to browse the archives, like anyone else, or would you prefer we all serve everyone with this information whenever they wish? Please try to contribute in a constructive way. Oh, and I noticed you consider Hashim Thaci a "hero" [15]... Talk about NPOV ;) --Cinéma C 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, so much hate for Albanians. It's going to kill you man, not healthy.--kedadi (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick apology on my end, I shouldn't have commented on Ijanderson977, we're here to discuss the topic. I apologize. And Kedadi, please don't give me death threats, I do not hate Albanians. All the best, --Cinéma C 18:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This article pertains to the territory known as Kosovo, not the Albanian-ruled republic that was unilaterally proclaimed in February of 2008. There's a world of a difference there. To call it a "state" is an automatic endorsement of the Albanian POV, just like calling it "province" is an endoresement of the Serbian POV. As for the consensus, look for it in the talkpage history (but you might have to go pretty far back). This article was stable with the wording "disputed region" for about a year now, before the latest explosion of pro-Albanian accounts relentlessly challenging for the past few months now. --Athenean (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This page keeps getting mistaken for a dumping ground for nationalist revisionism. We need to enforce WP:TALK. We get it, the Albanian position is that Kosovo isn't part of Serbia. Sheesh. Understanding that this is what the Albanian side claims isn't the same as making this Wikipedia's position. Why is there no admin willing to enforce article probation? Perhaps because this would be unpopular? Are admins afraid they might be (gasp) reprimanded if they step on patriotic toes? It's much easier to hide behind agnosticism of the "please be nice everyone or we will lock the article" kind? --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have looked and looked and I can not find in the archives where there is an agreement on Kosovo been called "territory" on this article. Can someone please help me locate it. Ijanderson (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. There has never been a concensus taken to determin how we regular editors should refer to Kosovo's status. To answer one of your previous statements about mentioning "disputed state": you are right that Kosovo is disputed, but what is it that everyone agrees Kosovo is which is being disputed? We all agree it is a land, but land is ambiguous. State, country and republic are favourable to pro-Albanian editors, whilst region, province and territory (as well as any mention of autonomous) are preferred by the others. There is no neutral terminology from this list. I suggest now we either find something new, or each of us select one term which we all agree to use when it gets the highest number of votes. I'll try and set the ball rolling with my personal idea (followed by a brief summary).

• Disupted territory. Unquestionably disputed, but borders defined amounting to territory. Evlekis (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Kosovo is a de facto independent partially recognised Country which is de jure claimed as a UN administrated autonomous province of Serbia, with Serb enclaves still governed by Belgrade." That is what Kosovo is - FACT! That is not a POV sentence because that sentence is a pure fact! Ijanderson (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not simple to explain what Kosovo is, therefore it is unfair to describe Kosovo with one word such as "country, region, province, region or territory". Saying Kosovo is a territory or a region can be misleading to the reader and that will make this article seem poor. Ijanderson (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not simple to explain what Kosovo is because it is different things to different peoples, countries and institutions. Picking one side will always continue the heated debate about why the other side wasn't picked - and the arguing will never end. I do not see why calling Kosovo a territory makes an article seem poor - Kosovo really is a territory, so what's wrong with that? --Cinéma C 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Might I add, the BBC also listed Kosovo among its "Regions and territories": "Kosovo, an impoverished territory with a population of mainly ethnic Albanians", "The territory immediately won recognition from the United States and major European Union countries"... How about an Albanian source? Is New Kosova Report OK: "Every inch of Kosovo territory is protected and controlled"... So, even the Albanian side considers Kosovo a territory, but they claim sovereignty over it. So why is it so hard to make a compromise here, why does the Albanian side have to get it all in this article, or else they won't stop arguing.. Explain to me where's the neutrality in that. --Cinéma C 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cinema. How is it a fact that Kosovo is a country? It depends on who you ask, so it's not a fact. --Athenean (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't take the New Kosova Report article to the letter, it is simply written in broken English: "EU envoy in Kosovo, Peter Feith and Kosovo Prime Minister, , Hashim Thaçi, stated Friday in a meeting that country’s [referring to Kosovo, I presume] territorial integrity is protected, invulnerable, unique and indivisible.". Bad example. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Brutaldeluxe, you misunderstood my argument. Even a very very pro-Albanian source considers Kosovo a territory (a country as well, but a territory nonetheless).. a compromise isn't about accepting everything from one side, but the things we can all agree on. --Cinéma C 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your argument, I'm sure I can find a source saying that the US considers its territorial integrity protected, invulnerable, unique and indivisible and that very nationalistic Americans consider the US to be or to have a territory... what about the Australian Northern Territory? It's called a territory, but effectively it's a state. Anyway, answering to Evlekis, I think the apex of neutrality has been reached by Afrikaans Wikipedia, which calls Kosovo a political entity, as in Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, take a look at the Wikisearch results for political entity. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Australia is made up of six states and two major mainland territories, just like Canada is made up of ten provinces and three territories. However, a territory (from the word 'terra', meaning 'land') is a defined area (including land and waters), considered to be a possession of a person, organization, institution, animal, state or country subdivision. In the case of Kosovo, the difference is that the status of the territory is disputed, which is explained in the very next sentences. --Cinéma C 22:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So what if the BBC or NKR describes Kosovo as a territory? Balkan Insight which is based in Serbia describes Kosovo as a country. Please tell me what is wrong with this sentence "Kosovo is a de facto independent partially recognised Country which is de jure claimed as a UN administrated autonomous province of Serbia, with Serb enclaves still governed by Belgrade."? That sentence is not biased. Its not POV. It describes things as the way they are. Ijanderson (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The NKR doesn't call Kosovo a territory, Cinema just read what he wanted into the article.

I think your sentence is essentially right but a little convoluted. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that this can go both ways? You are suggesting:

"Kosovo is a de facto independent partially recognised Country which is de jure claimed as a UN administrated autonomous province of Serbia, with Serb enclaves still governed by Belgrade."

This is a pro-Albanian view on the issue. When neutrality is concerned, it is no different than:

"Kosovo is an autonomous Province of Serbia, as described by UNSCR 1244, but claimed by the government of Kosovo as an independent Country and is recognized as such by a minority of world states."

Remember, we are trying to avoid Country, Province, State or anything that leans towards one side. --Cinéma C 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure it could go either way, but I'm not really sure on the relevance of UNSCR 1244, it's a ten year old resolution, and as this interesting document by a law expert states: EULEX is also claiming to be operating under the general framework of the UNSCR 1244, which is explicitly mentioned in the Joint Action. One could argue that this is a rather broad interpretation of UNSCR 1244. UNSCR 1244 was clearly adopted in a different time (1999) and context (UNMIK as an international administration and KFOR as international security force entered Kosovo as the part of FRY/Serbia), i.e. in the situation which in no way anticipated the independence of Kosovo. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can not accept your argument "it's a ten year old resolution" as being enough to disregard this important resolution which is still in effect. If timing is relevant, Serbia adopted a resolution that nullifies Kosovo's declaration of independence and reaffirms Kosovo's status as a province within Serbia - that one is more recent than Kosovo's declaration. So, again, the question is which one you favour more, and Wikipedia shouldn't favour any, but rather be neutral. --Cinéma C 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no consensus has been reached. However, if Brutaledeluxe is suggesting we use political entity then I too am in favour of that description. Evlekis (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? I thought it was bit far fetched myself but then, seen as the Boers have agreed on it and the "struggle" over Kosovo is purely political these days, I think at least political entity would be as neutral as it comes. This gives the Holy Roman Empire and the Palestinian Authority as examples of a political entity, two cases that for various reasons I feel are more similar to the political status of Kosovo. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New header

Due to the huge number of templates at the top of this article, I fashioned a new header that I hope compresses all the boxes and avoids repetition:

For historical purposes, the suggest replacement was this.

To clarify, this would replace:

• {{calmtalk}}
• {{Article probation}}
• {{notaforum}}
• {{consensus}}
• {{oldpeerreview}}
• {{British English}}
• and the latest hardcoded warning {{tmbox}} about 1RR.

Obviously the cats that are included with those will have to duplicated, and I suggest moving it all to Talk:Kosovo/Header. Opinions? ninety:one 12:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeh seems good to me, am loving this new hardcore rule. It's reet' good I tell thee! Ijanderson (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like one thing clarified before I endorse this template. Does this mean that we're finally going to delete all requests to call Kosovo a country, state or province? Because if this is so, we've made huge progress and it will definitely contribute to the quality of the article. In that case, I give my full support. --Cinéma C 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would happily follow that path, but I'm not sure if we can really do that. We might just have to put them in an archive box. ninety:one 22:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That works too, as long as such requests are finally ignored. --Cinéma C 03:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The template looks good to me. At the same time, I'll also update Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Kosovo. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done ninety:one 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent :) --Cinéma C 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New tasks

New task proposition 1

So, it now seems that we have resolved the issues about the intro and infoboxes. I guess it's time to focus on the body of the article. The first two things I notice are:

• there is a "disputed" tag at the UN administration paragraph, why's that?
• the history section is way too long, if we take into account that separate articles on history of Kosovo exist already. Besides, Declaration of independence section can be merged to History, since it is a part of history.

So much for now. I await your comments. --Tone 20:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree on merging the Declaration of independence section to the History one. On the history section being too long, can I suggest that each section that has its own article be replaced by the lead of that article? It would be a quick and neutral solution for it, of course the leads would have to be amended to fit the style and avoid repetition. That would fix the reliability of info too, since hopefully citations would be provided at the pertinent article. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. I support the idea. Rex Dominator (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Tone's propositions. --Cinéma C 23:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from my edit, I've made a start on shortening the History section, I'm stopping at the one section for now to await feedback, more to come tomorrow if everyone is happy with the change. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

New task proposition 2

Maybe we could merge "UN administration period", "EULEX", "Constitutional Status and the Republic of Kosovo", and "Foreign relations" sections into a single section called "Government". I envision this new section being split between "UN administration" and the "Republic of K". Then under republic we would have "Foreign relations" and the "Constitutional Status and the Republic of Kosovo". While under "UN Administartion" we would keep it as it is. "EULEX" should be separate. What do you guys think? Rex Dominator (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is unbelievable how far some people's nationalism actually goes. Serbs just can't accept that they lost Kosova and lost it to it's rightfull people - the ones who inhabited it before the Serbs and the all-time majority Albanians. That UN administration which you talk about Rex Dominator is only a peacekeeping force to help protect Albanians from nationalist Serb aggression whilst the legal de-jure government runs the actual affairs. What is so wrong with that? Simply Neutral (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to be careful when dividing this part of the article as the UN is still the highest administrative body in Kosovo, while EULEX is officially status neutral. Not that I'm necessarily against the proposition, but I'd like a bit more detail about how the restructuring would look like. --Cinéma C 23:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

UNMIK is not "the highest administrative body in Kosovo" - that is the Assembly of Kosovo, as well as the President and Government. --alchaemia (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

True. UNMIK simply serves as an extra army to push back nationalist Serbs who may one day wish to "reconquer" Kosova. The assembly of Kosova makes the rules, UNMIK supports it, the rest of Serbia does as it is told. Simply Neutral (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being "neutral" as your name implies and "constructive". This helps a lot! --RockyMM (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Culture?

Why isn't there no sub or any reference concerning the culture in Kosovo. Like its fine arts,its cuisine and the folklore of Kosovo. Almost half of this article is focused around the political status of Kosovo.

I also think that the history section is too long and needs to be trimmed down. 91.179.159.212 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Feel free to add referenced text about Kosovo's culture. --Cinéma C 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to change things. I just noticed that something is wrong in the table on the right side of the article. If the population of Kosovo is 2,100,000 and the area is 10,908 square kilometers, I don't see how the population density can be 220 per square km.

2,100,000 divided by 10,908 makes 192,5.

Please correct me if I'm wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.219.134 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

2,100,000 is a rough estimate. The population estimates range from whom you ask between 1,800,000 to 2,100,000. At the time when that info was added (provided by me) the land area was also disputed between Kosova & Macedonia; land dispute was 10,882km2 to 10,908km. Hopefully this clarifies your question. SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Second Pillar of Wikipedia

When I joined Wikipedia I was told there are certain values we need to uphold. I see no neutrality in this article, it needs a complete lockdown and rewrite to emphasize neutrality, especially on a sensitive topic like this. It is far too pro-secession to be anywhere near impartial. Fix it or delete it, but it can't stay like this. Jenga3 (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD also good luck IJA (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Two more issues

I agree with what was raised earlier about History of Kosovo being very long. It should be trimmed down to really basic points. Furthermore, Pjetër Bogdani was a really important figure in Kosovo's struggle against Otoman Empire. So the claim that only Serbs fought against Otoman Rule is fallacious. AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has claimed that Serbs fought alone against the Ottomans. All of the sources concerning the handover of power from Ottomans to Serbs ratified at London in 1913 refer to the Balkan League alliance in which the Kingdom of Serbia fought alongside three allies. Kosovo so to speak did not struggle against anybody, Kosovo was simply the name of a region within which ethnic Albanians and Serbs lived. Quite naturally, each nation served its own interest and Albanians too certainly played their part in ousting the Turks through their period of uprising which I believe began in 1911 - prior to the First Balkan War. To mention Albanian heroes would certainly make interesting reading, but it does not sit well with your original suggestion in that the history section should be reduced: if you wish to add Bogdani's contributions you will have to expand it. Kosovo's history is so diverse that it is impossible to give an overview to every important chapter and keep it short at the same time. And since Ottoman Kosovo passed directly to Serbia/Montenegro, this too cannot be ignored. Evlekis (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what the text says: "The Serb population never accepted Ottoman rule and often rose against the foreign regimen" VS. "Albanians had little cause of unrest" ...you can read the whole thing, more focused on "Ottoman Kosovo (1455–1912)". Not considering Pjetër Bogdani who lead a rebellion against Otoman occupation, there was a really huge group of organised Albanians who fought against Turks ([Isa Boletini]], Bajram Curri, Hasan Prishtina). I could expand the text in this direction (especially for the period after 1878).

Also, in a number of occasions the term Kosovo and Metohija is used. It is agreed upon that it is not politically correct to use that term. AnnaFabiano (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the last thing. AnnaFabiano (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a standard on wikipedia

for all states that FLAG and Coat of Arms are in TOP the flag have to be in top then the map --Lontech (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

check

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany

same standard for flag --Lontech (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Those countries are formally recognized by practically every country in the world. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL check ISRAEL [16]

...--Lontech (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Israel is also recognized by nearly all countries in the world. Kosovo is not recognized by at least two permanent members of the UN Security Council, besides a good number of other countries. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Then check out TRNC, it has no UN-seat and it is only recognized by 1(ONE!) country, nevertheless it has it's countrybox on top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.24.97 (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Recognition is a mere satisfaction of the statehood, establishment of security, and active a more an ability to cohabit with with those you desire rather those you need to. In the case of Kosovo, which fulfills the criteria of a state, enjoys its sovereignity in its very definition. Switzerland did not care about what Security of Council of some organization did not join until 2002 really had to say or decide. One of the permanent members, PR China defacto recognizes Kosovo passports, their Vienna and other Embassies issue visas on diplomatic and citizens on the Passport of the Republic of Kosovo. China's liaison office in the Republic of Kosovo, suggests citizens that obtaining visa, they must go to Consulate of PRC Embassy in Vienna, Austria. [17]--SpanishBoy2006 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

@J.delanoy at Least are three USA, UK, and France that recognized KOSOVO also its only first year for Some of the Yugoslav republics took up to 4 years to get the first recognition Kosovo is very succesfull with recognitions only within a year took about 60 recognition

about 40 states dont recognize ISRAEL LOL is there a LIMIT to put STATES on wikipedia you will put limit for kosovo untill kosovo reaches for example that number LOL

being a state doesnt mean to be recognized by everyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontech (talk • contribs) 00:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If u dont put flag on top i think this would be PURE discrimination —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontech (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So, Kosova or Kosovo isn't a state because UN says so? What if the UN disbands tomorrow? Is UK a STATE, what about Italy, Spain or Mexico? The POV pushers seem to be pushing different "standards" to fit their interests. As a commenter stated Swiss was not a UN member until 1992. China isn't recognized by 21 countries. Taiwan, etc. Again, I thought WP had WP rules & guidelines not those of United Nations. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Check Scotland. It isn't recognized by ANY other country and it still 1) is a COUNTRY in Wikipedia; 2) has FLAG and Coat of Arms on TOP. Stop contraddicting Wiki rules at Serbian pleasure. --66.65.213.82 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed from "state" to "country". If Scotland is a country, so is Kosovo.sulmues (talk-- 01:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a forum! --Cinéma C 02:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't Kosovo just have a standard country flag,map, state page - If South Ossetia can have it i dont see why Kosovo can't. Also England, USA and many other english speaking countries (that use english wikipedia) recognise it ? (Neostinker (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't think Cinéma C or Nishkid64 will be able to answer that question as they are too busy banning who is not a Serbian nationalist.-- 13:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)

Anyone is against putting the Flag and Coat of Arms on top? Please let me know, I'm trying to build a consensus that Flag and Coat of Arms stay on top as Wikipedia standard requires. Agree or disagree?Sulmues (talk 18:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered the same thing. Why does Kosovo have all of these provisoes, stars and extra notes when South Ossetia and Abkhazia are treated like normal countries? I'm asking this in good faith and would like a straightforward answer. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Canadian Bobby here, there should be consistency between partially recognised countries on Wikipedia. It is unfair to represent Kosovo in one way and represent all other partially recognised states in another more superior ways IJA (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am summarizing the above agreement to put flag and COA on top of the infobox as follows:

Agree Lontech talk  DisagreeJ.delanoy^gabs Agree User:SpanishBoy2006 talk Agree Ari d'Kosova talk Agree sulmues talk Agree Neostinker talk Agree User talk:Canadian Bobby talk Agree IJA
It seems like a broad consensus to me 7-1 (seven to one). Any others who would agree or disagree? I'll wait for some days and then I'll make the change, however, if someone feels that there is already broad agreement, please feel free to put COA and flag of Kosovo on top of the first infobox. sulmues talk-- 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but, meh :P

Agree Île Flottante

Agree Me too! —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely Agree , as other editors stated, it's unfair to discriminate the article of Kosovo even though it has a much more advanced international position than Abkhazia and South Ossetia (62 vs. 2 recognitions), and still no country infobox on top. kedadial 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

um, we've only debated this like a dozen times. Why is this rehashed every two months? We can have a Republic of Kosovo flag at the top of an article the minute we have a Republic of Kosovo article. This isn't the Republic of Kosovo artile, it is the Kosovo article. The last time we tried this was in July, see here. Consensus was clearly against it, and it was reverted within three hours. Now fee free to revive this suggestion, but please make a minimal effort to keep track of the history of this debate. --dab (𒁳) 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice where it says "...or whether it is a 'country', 'state' or 'province'. Any such messages will be deleted...". Adding the flag would open a Pandora's box concerning the status of Kosovo discussion. Furthermore, this is not an article for the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo, but for the territory of Kosovo which is claimed by both Belgrade and Pristina - therefore, everyone should stop pushing their own POV as a "standard". --Cinéma C 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your arguement is essentially flawed, the precident is set by articles such as Germany, France, Denmark and so on. So the use of Kosovo could mean both the territory claimed by Serbia and the country claimed by the republic of Kosovo. Therefore, the only way to determine which to use is by consensus. The name of the article about Germany is Germany, not The Federal Republic of Germany, and I don't think anyone would seriously suggest such a change. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Often a concensus can resolve issues. But as we are dealing with a situation in which sentiments are divided down two radically opposed lines, a concensus is not adequate. All right, if everyone who has an interest in Kosovo takes a vote on this, you may have a result of something like 60%-40%, or maybe 74%-26% in either direction. However, this again depends entirely on which particular people voted. So the only way to present anything here - and I know it is a tall order - is by using extreme caution and taking both viewpoints into consideration, and this often means being repetative to explain the opposing position, or using two sets of symbols to acknowledge both parties claiming to be the legal authority over the land. Evlekis (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So far I have 9 people agreeing and 1 disagreeing and to me this is very broad consensus already. Someone can make the change. Cinéma C or Evlekis have not specifically said whether they agree or disagree, but I would like to remind you that if you disagree, I will use your vote to take the flags and COA out of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.sulmues (talk-- 19:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right about there being wide hypocricy where Kosovo and Abkhazia/South Ossetia are concerned. But it does not give anybody the green light to make false statements on other users across articles by claiming that "as he voted this way there, he votes this way here too". Each user has a right to transmit his thoughts, and votes usually always contain footnotes by the user to explain his angle. I wouldn't like you to add me to the majority list because I don't wish to be on the opposing list either. I do not believe in a concensus here for reasons explained in my earlier edit; however, I wish to stress that I have no personal objections to including the Coat of Arms. I won't remove it, nor will I revert the edits of one who takes it out. It makes no odds to me, so my position is now clear and you can take it as you wish. Evlekis (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I respect your abstention which will not count neither as an agreement nor as a disagreement.sulmues (talk-- 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Evlekis has stated he believes there is no consensus. I agree that there is no consensus. Getting a bunch of people to write {{agree}} --~~~~ does not create a consensus. Sorry --Cinéma C 20:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, double standards, "a bunch of people writing {{agree}} --~~~~" seems to have created a consensus on Template talk:Kosovo-note (even though canvassed and then changed to your suggestion which was not on vote), why can't be a consensus here? kedadial 21:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone forgetting that the flag and coat of arms are not widely accepted as symbols for Kosovo? Only the government which declared independence and those who recognize it, recognize declarations by that government, such as proclaiming the flag and coat of arms as being official symbols of Kosovo - Serbia disregards it, together with all countries that do not recognize Kosovo as a "state" and all the "state symbols". A country that does not recognize Kosovo's independence does not fly the Kosovo flag, but the flag of Serbia, and if Wikipedia adds the flag to the territory of Kosovo, instead of the Republic of Kosovo (where it belongs), Wikipedia has recognized Kosovo as a country and that is a discussion that is no longer allowed, as per the template and rule written above. --Cinéma C 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Serbia's province of Vojvodina has a flag and coat of arms in it's article and that article is about the Province of Vojvodina, but due to the complexity of this particular topic, this is not an article about the Republic of Kosovo or the Province of Kosovo, but about the Disputed Territory of Kosovo - which is claimed by those who apply the flag to it, and those who don't. This is why we have two templates, one for the Republic of Kosovo (flag and coat of arms included) and one for the Province of Kosovo (no flag or coat of arms) and it has worked so far, so please stop pushing your POV. Thanks, --Cinéma C 20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Above you wrote in big letters that Wikipedia is not a forum, so please take a vote and stop writing things that make no sense. You are making impertinent comparisons between Voivodina and Kosovo and that is enough for me to stop reading your long paragraphs. I have read a lot of nonsense. Just say if you agree or disagree. We are taking a vote. @dab: we are trying to make somthing similar to the articles of Abkhazia and South Ossetia: have one infobox only. sulmues (talk-- 20:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"We are taking a vote." ?!?! Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy:

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting."

"Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Wikipedia proper, such as when electing the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee."

See also: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Consensus.

Thank you. --Cinéma C 22:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what point of view is harmed by the article having a certain box before others? It represents a neutral point of view: it doesn't claim that Kosovo is a province of Serbia, not does it claim that it is an independent nation. And that is how it will have to stay for the foreseeable future. And seriously guys, quit the voting and {{agree}} tags, Afghanistan is more democratic than this place. ninety:one 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ninetyone, there already is a box for the Republic of Kosovo, the discussion here is that people want to add it to the territory box, which is on top because this is an article about the territory of Kosovo, which is claimed by Pristina as part of the Republic of Kosovo, and by Belgrade as part of the Republic of Serbia. If the flag and coat of arms, proclaimed by the Pristina government, are assigned to the territory of Kosovo instead of the Republic of Kosovo, it is incredibly one-sided --Cinéma C 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, I think I'm on your side ;) That's why I said "that is how it will have to stay for the foreseeable future"! ninety:one 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cinema C is correct, this article is not about the Republic of Kosovo (at least not entirely), as the lead says, this article is about "a disputed territory in the Balkans." That it is a disputed territory is why the government infobox is not on top. Prodego ^talk 22:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic Abkhazia's infobox should be at the bottom, or shouldn't exist at all, because it's even more disputed (187 UN nations haven't recognized).sulmues:sulmues-- 18:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Luckily Wikipedia doesn't do precedent. Just because we did one thing in one place doesn't mean we have to do it in all the other similar places. ninety:one 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think, should we put a template {{double-standards-for-partially-recognized-states|article=Kosovo|recognitions=62}} (html rendered: Kosovo article is under double-standards policy because it is recognized by more than 3 countries. Therefore, as a consequence for exceeding the limit of 3 recognitions, it will not receive the same treatment as others that are recognized by only 3 countries.) at the header of this page? kedadial 21:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish a territory from who claims it and as what. --Cinéma C 22:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what you should go and tell other editors on Abkhazia (Talk:Abkhazia) and South Ossetia (Talk:South Ossetia). kedadial 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We can't compare apples and oranges. Go to Ossetia and you'll see what I mean. --Cinéma C 00:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have run out of options, I understand, but you don't have to change the focus of the discussion. Forget about Ossetia, we're talking about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. kedadial 09:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Borders with...

I started a corresponding thread on Serbia's discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbia#Borders_with... Please chime in. July 2009 developments cited here [18]: Serbia has agreed to set up a full operational border and custom control with its southern neighbor, the Republic of Kosovo. Serbia's interior minister during a press conference emphasized that Serbia has agreed to set up a border and custom control with Kosovo as one of the requirements by the European Union commission. clearly suggest that claiming in our article that Kosovo borders with Central Serbia is POVization. If there is an international border agreed to here, clearly border control is taking place, and Kosovo borders on Serbia and Serbia on Kosovo. Thoughts? --Mareklug ^talk 11:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's completely POV pushing to say that it borders Central Serbia instead of Serbia. <sarcasm>It's unfair for other neighboring countries, when the article says: "Kosovo is landlocked and bordered by the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west, the region of Central Serbia to the north and east, and Montenegro to the Northwest.", it doesn't point out with which parts of these countries Kosovo borders.</sarcasm> I Agree that Serbia in this case should be treated as the other bordering countries. Thank you. kedadial 15:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would advise a concensus here before any alterations, otherwise we may have similar edit disputes like the ones recently witnessed. I fear that any reference to Serbia as a whole being outside of Kosovo - which is what is being implied - will result in further disturbances on Kosovo status related issues. The vast majority of articles which mention Kosovo contain an immediate footnote explaining the situation of Kosovo. To state that Kosovo borders Serbia would not require this message; therefore you could even amend the opening sentence to replace "disputed territory" with "country". I see a pattern emerging here. Supporters of Kosovan independence will rally behind "borders Serbia" and opponents will reject it. I think the problem here is too many people are getting carried away with the fact that Belgrade's parliament has commissioned border transits along the Kosovo frontier. Although pressured into taking such measure from outside, it doesn't change the fact that police and customs control had been in place on Kosovo's exits ever since the 1999 handover to the UN. Serbia however continues to recognise its central region as bordering one of its premises administered by UNMIK. So the recognition is of UNMIK - rather like the Ottoman Empire observing the Austro-Hungarian occupation and administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1878 and 1908 after which the Habsburgs decided to make it theirs. Either way, the Ottomans didn't recognise an independent Bosnia. Evlekis (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still refereed to as an administrative border. Recent changes towards that only reflect upon the upcoming visa liberation for citizens of Serbia starting 1st January 2010 and increased security measures and people control on the administrative line due to high crime/drug/human trafficking and other political problems in Kosovo. wexy (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

last time I checked it was disputed whether Kosovo was part of Serbia. If that's still the case, you can hardly logically claim that Kosovo borders on Serbia without the qualification that this is the view of one side in a dispute. We also do not claim in Wikipedia's voice that Kashmir borders on Pakistan, for example. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that for the moment, we stall on this topic. Try to avoid it, if we can. It may be unfair to suggest that Kosovo borders Central Serbia, so we can find a better way of rephrasing it. For instance: Kosovo is disupted by Serbia, the territory otherwise borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia - all of whom recognise Kosovo. This way you can avoid mention of Serbia bordering and cut out references to Central Serbia at the same time. Evlekis (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'v been observing this discussion for a while (without taking part) and this last idea from Evlekis seems pretty neutral! —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Evlekis and Anna. --Cinéma C 18:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I've made one attempt to rephrase the text at this stage. I must admit that giving the full picture using as few words as possible is difficult. In addition, nobody wishes to prolong all this discussion that Serbia disputes Kosovo yet it is equally misleading to disclude it on important issues. The whole situation is ugly to say the least. By stating that Kosovo forms a continuous land with Serbia, I am not suggesting that Kosovo is or is not part of Serbia. It is just to indicate that the land is attached. If this were an island group (such as the Comoros), the breakaway territory may have been an entire island (such as Anjouan); equally this island's independence was disputed by the Comoros (before retaking it) but it could never have been said that Anjouan bordered the Comoros - only through a maritime boundry. I accept that this revision of mine may need work, so feel free to poke at it. Evlekis (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, but I would like to note that the statement that Kosovo borders on Serbia proper is simply a geographic fact and holds true regardless of whether you accept Kosovo's independence. This is another instance of the perpetual confusion of the state with its territory. The status of the Republic of Kosovo is disputed by the Republic of Serbia. It is not "Kosovo, the territory" that is disputed by "Serbia, the territory". These are pieces of land that may be the object, but not the agent in a dispute. If you squat a room in my house, it is not the living room that disputes the attic, it is my claim to the attic vs. your claim to the attic. The attic will still be located above the living room no matter whose claim has more merit. --dab (𒁳) 06:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a very scientific example. Your point is clear. I suppose that Serbia minus Vojvodina and Kosovo had always been classed as Serbia-proper all be it unofficial. To be honest, even Central Serbia is wholly unofficial in any context. This is rather like England within the United Kingdom - the other home nations all having some form of self-rule but you have no purely English parliament or authority. But the question is, how do we present this scenario in such a way that we respect both the Serbian continued claim on the land as well as the opposing claim of independence? This is more about choosing careful words and avoiding the assertive attitudes upon which we acted on previous issues. Evlekis (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose "Serbia proper" is a bit like "England proper", but then Kosovo would be a bit like a hypothetical Cornwall with the Cornish-speaking population having risen to 90% claiming they are not part of England any longer but a separate Celtic nation. We would then have "England proper" being "England sans the Cornish-majority bits of Cornwall". --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

...and even more about ther exciting Infobox

I don't know why are you clinging on Ossetia. We are discussing about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. To remove your option to cling on Ossetia, lets forget about South Ossetia and talk about Abkhazia (there is no North Abkhazia).

You still have not answered the question: Why should the article of Abkhazia be treated that way while the article of Kosovo to be treated this way?

If you say that this article is about the territory of Kosovo and not the Republic of Kosovo then why the article of Abkhazia is about the Republic of Abkhazia and not the territory of Abkhazia?

If you say that we can't compare apples and oranges, then among all the differences that Kosovo and Abkhazia have; they do have something in common: Their sovereignty over the territories that they claim is disputed.

So, why does wikipedia keep treating these two articles in completely two different ways?

I propose a sync of the structure of this article with the structure of the article of Abkhazia.

Thank you. kedadial 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two articles for the current status of Abkhazia. The entity as is recognised by most of the world's countries is found on the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia article. I guess that on this principle, Abkhazia can be moved permanently to Republic of Abkhazia whilst the article can take on a more general content regarding the territory itself. But even if this doesn't go ahead, we cannot go accusing editors of Kosovo and Abkhazia of using double standards; with me not being an expert on Abkhazia nor watching the article as closely as Kosovo, there may be a multitude of reasons why that one occupies the nominal Abkazia page. Those reasons may go hand in hand with Cinema C's point that this page is devoted to the region on the whole. Before we raise the issue on Abkhazia, we can't establish this. In addition, WP has hundreds of thousands of pages and there cannot be one universal standard for everything. Each article has to be judged on its own merits. Where do we go from here? Evlekis (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"The entity as is recognised by most of the world's countries" This is false. "The entity recongised" by most of the world's countries is called Georgia. And that article starting with "Government of..." it's not a territory it's not an "entity" it's a government as the name states quite clearly. It's not even in the same class of articles as country and region articles. Hobartimus (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Serbia formally recognizes borders of independent Kosovo

Serbia formally recognizes borders of the Republic of Kosovo.

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200909171946/Politics/Serbia-formally-recognized-borders-of-independent-Kosovo.html

http://www.danas.rs/vesti/politika/srbija_formalno_priznala_granice_nezavisnog_kosova.56.html?news_id=172061 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs)

What you mean to say, "Spanishboy2006", is that "I have read somewhere on the internets that Serbia formally recognizes borders of the Republic of Kosovo." Please come back once you have a real source. See also WP:FORUM. --dab (𒁳) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes the source leaves something to be desired. The sentence might say "According to Kostunica agreement XZ means an implicit recognition of the borders of the Republic of Kosovo." Instead of you know. Serbia formally recognizes... Hobartimus (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is Kostunica to make these statements? He holds no functions in the Serbian government, so what he's saying is as important as any former official or politician in Serbia or anywhere else. Stop spamming and trolling, Spanishboy2006. --Nogrentain (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox dispute

Abkhazia not Republic of Abkhazia has an infobox of a republic on top. Abkhazia is recognized by less countries than Kosovo (so in a way it is more disputed than Kosovo), furthermore it is not recognized by mos Western countries (unlike Kosovo). What you are doing is clearly pushing POV. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We should have only one infobox. Kosovo is governed by the Republic of Kosovo that redirects to the region with the exception of some enclaves that represent just a little minority. There should be only one infobox (for the Republic of Kosovo, because it makes no sense to have three infoboxes). As it is, it's plain ugly. So Cinema C is NOT right. By the way, why should 10 people try to convince 1 or 2 just to make a change? First that person says that "Wikipedia is not a forum" so that everyone has to shut up. Then he says it's "not a democracy" because we're taking votes, and at the end he'll make his own changes reminding that in Wikipedia you have to "be bold". Do I also have to be a Serbian so that I can make a change without being banned? Are the russians making the rules in Wikipedia, just like they make them in Google because of Google's owner? You might know that Kosovo is not represented as a country in Google, even though the United States, country where Google is incorporated, recognizes Kosovo as a country. I'm seeing the same thing in Wikipedia, even though Google didn't purchase it. Yet. sulmues (talk-- 13:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We are trying to discuss a really important POV issue. Your sarcasm and trolling is not helping at all. "...Wikipedia is not an organisation along the lines of NATO or the IMF...". That might be true, but it is not along the lines of Russia and Arab countries (most of which, BTW, have not recognized Kosovo) either. Why aren't you suggesting to remove the infobox of, let's say Abkhazia, if you are such a righteous Wikipedian? —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

All right take it easy. I've deleted my last remark because for the very first time in the four years I have edited, I posted a message which was not meant to be serious. It was a joke to wind the masses up - something I enjoy doing. That is not the same as vandalism because another user could have easily made the suggestion for real. It was based on Sulmues's claim on three infoboxes being superfluous; I jokingly said "let's drop the one implying statehood". To that end, I have never claimed to be or tried to look like a "righteous" editor. On a serious note, I maintain that it is not the policy of Wikipedia to recognise entities. Wikipedia does not recognise France, the Dominican Republic or El Salvador. It is an encyclopaedia which has articles on them. It may refer to these as countries whilst not Kosovo or South Ossetia but there are reasons for this and nobody can pretend that Kosovo's level of status - whilst being ahead of Abkhazia - is equal to that of Namibia or Iceland. I don't wish to lose site of the discussion. The focus was not on whether to amend "disputed territory" with "country", but whether to elevate the infobox containing national symbols to the top of the page. There is no real problem with it, but just do not take liberties and pretend that the Belgrade angle on this is redundant. "Kosovo is a country - it is like Switzerland because it is landlocked - it is like Albania because of the language - it is like Portugal because they use the Euro - it is like the USA because it's got American soldiers in it - it is like Morocco because it is Muslim - it is like Slovenia because it broke away from Yugoslavia - it is like Greece because it was once Ottoman - it is like Cypurs because it has a flag baring its outline - it is like Italy because it is a republic - it is like Bangladesh because it has its own anthem" - and so on. Don't lose yourselves in the "country" cloud just because you are promoting the flag/COA. Evlekis (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is rather ironic that Wikipedia's recognition is as important as another country's. (I know this discussion was not about that). However it is a fact, that in a way Wikipedia recognizes Abkhazia and not Kosovo. You can say all day "...it is not the policy of Wikipedia to recognise entities..." when actually, in the case of Kosovo we see that it is not so. BTW, according to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments it is not polite to delete your own comments without discussing first. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. The comments were not meant to be serious. Restore them if you so wish. Again you and the other pro-Kosovo independence users are getting carried away with your own insecurity - sceptical of any single institution which casts the slightest doubt upon the statehood of Kosovo. This is an encyclopaedia, not an intergovernmental organisation; Wikipedia does not recognise Abkhazia, Kosovo or even Canada. There is no Wikipedian ambassador to Israel, or Wikipedia consulate in Cairo. And I fail to see what is so different regarding Abkhazia, the article clearly states "disputed territory". Evlekis (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

From the article of Abkhazia:

Abkhazia (Abkhaz: Аҧсны Apsny, Georgian: აფხაზეთი Apkhazeti, Russian: Абха́зия Abkhazia) is a newly created independent Republic (whose status is currently disputed by its neighbor, Georgia) on the eastern coast of the Black Sea. Since its declaration of independence from Georgia in 1991 during the Georgian–Abkhaz conflict, it is governed by the partially-recognized Republic of Abkhazia.

And from the artcile of Kosovo:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Kosovë; Serbian: Косово or Косово и Метохија, Kosovo or Kosovo i Metohija) is a disputed territory in the Balkans. Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state which has de facto control over the territory; the exceptions are some Serb enclaves. Serbia does not recognise the secession of Kosovo and considers it a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija), according to the Constitution of Serbia (2006).

As you can see, it doesn't quiet clearly state "disputed territory". For comparision, I gave you as an example the intro of Kosovo, and maybe you get the idea of "what is so different regarding Abkhazia". kedadial 09:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is quiet simple: If the article of Abkhazia (note: Abkhazia not Republic of Abkhazia) has a country infobox (also only one infobox) which is recognized by only 3 countries, why can't the article of Kosovo follow the same pattern?

Now, let's be frank, Kosovo is recognized by 62 countries and some important international organizations (in contrast with Abkhazia and South Ossetia which are recognized by only 3 countries), so is it fair to treat the article of Kosovo as a special (oops, I meant unprivileged and discriminated) case? <sarcasm>Maybe Hashim Thaçi should beg 59 countries to cancel their recognitions in order for wikipedia to treat the article of Kosovo as the one of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.</sarcasm>

Honestly, I believe that wikipedia is not the place for double standards. Thank you. kedadial 20:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The article already contains the information everyone has been screaming about these past days - the COA/flag infobox. So what now is the outrage? Do we wish to rearrange the boxes to place Republic of Kosovo on top? Are we campaigning to have the other infoboxes removed? Or is this a salvation attempt to keep alive the Republic of Kosovo infobox because somebody suggested delete it? Evlekis (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's make it plain simple. We want to make the article use only one infobox and that has to be the country box. And what we are requesting is a sync with the structure of these two other articles: Abkhazia and South Ossetia. kedadial 09:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Wikipedia is not the place for sarcasm, so please be civil. All the arguments concerning why every case is unique (as Hashim Thaçi and his supporters often state) are listed above. Thanks, --Cinéma C 00:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"...as Hashim Thaçi and his supporters often state..." this is sarcasm. Whenever you cannot deal with an issue you try to de-construct it through sarcasm. If you cannot answer the question that we made 8 times until now, please do not reply in this section. Why Abkhazia has its own 'republic infobox' and Kosovo doesn't? —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not sarcasm, Thaçi and his supporters really do state that Kosovo is a unique case. No sarcasm whatsoever. And I have already answered the question - the Abkhazia article is an article about the self-declared republic of Abkhazia, while this is an article about the territory of Kosovo. If you'd like to take out all the text concerning the "republic of Kosovo", create a separate Republic of Kosovo article (but discuss it first) and put the RofK infobox on top. If you look at the Serbia article, Kosovo is a lighter color than the rest of Serbia, while Georgia doesn't have these shades as the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are already covered in that article. This is not the case with Kosovo, as almost all of Serbia's statistics and information don't include Kosovo. --Cinéma C 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

More on infobox issue

The answer to all of these problems is simple and has been mentioned many times: SPLIT THE ARTICLE. Have one article that covers the history of the area ending with a statement that "the region of Kosovo is currently disputed between Serbia (Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija) and the Republic of Kosovo. Links in each name would then take you to the appropriate article. Everyone complains that the Kosovo supporters are trying to make this article into the Republic of Kosovo article and the Serbia supporters are trying to make it into the AP Kosovo and Metohija article. However, the instant anyone suggests having separate articles covering the separate ideas, everyone starts screaming that these are the same thing and should be kept in the same article. They AREN'T the same thing, they are 3 different things. There is a piece of land called Kosovo (Thing 1), there is an internationally recognized province of Serbia existing on that land (Thing 2) and there is an internationally recognized independent state existing on that land (Thing 3). These 3 things each deserve articles, but they are all shoehorned into this one article. Therefor this article fails at being about at least two of them. Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive approach. But this time we are only trying to solve the problem with the infobox. Your idea of splitting was discussed earlier, however if you want to re-actualize it, you are encouraged to start a new section. Thank you! —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just wondering, why does not anyone suggest modifying the infobox at Abkhazia article, since there are the same POV issues there? Why is everyone just using the argument "if there so, why not here"? Just to remind you of this option... --Tone 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you would see the discussion page on Talk:Abkhazia there are such suggestions. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are just fine: and to me they are already partially recognized countries. You don't need to be recognized by the UN to be a country. The problem is with Kosovo that has 3 infoboxes to please somebody and it is making an ugly article to watch. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article "looking ugly" is not a valid argument for making the article one-sided. --Cinéma C 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very valid argument. If an article doesn't follow Wikipedia standards, it looks ugly. For Kosovo we are not following best practices. I'm not trying to make the article one-sided, I'm just trying to standardize it. Try to understand that and do not make useless accusations.sulmues (talk)

"Looking ugly" and "not following Wikipedia standards" are two different things. There is one standard no one here can ignore and that is the NPOV standard. It would be inaccurate to make the Kosovo article look like the article about any other self-declared Republic on Wikipedia, as this is not an article about the self-declared republic of Kosovo (although a part of the article does concern that), but rather about the territory of Kosovo which is claimed by both Pristina and Belgrade. Instead of comparing Kosovo with Abkhazia / South Ossetia, it is much more accurate to compare Kosovo with Ossetia (a region whose North is a part of Russia, the rest claimed by both Tskhinvali and Tbilisi) or Macedonia (region). If there is such a strong determination to have the RofK infobox on top, I might support the creation of a Republic of Kosovo article (and the Province of Kosovo in that case as well) and each side would edit articles that reflect Pristina government activities and Belgrade government / UN administration activities in Kosovo, but never making it look like either territorial claims are widely accepted. If we look at the Serbia article, Kosovo is a lighter color than the rest of Serbia, while Georgia doesn't have these shades as the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are already covered in that article. This is not the case with Kosovo, as almost all of Serbia's statistics and information don't include Kosovo. Therefore, it may seem like the Kosovo article is comparable to the Abkhazia and South Ossetia articles, but that's simply not how Kosovo is covered on Wikipedia and it would be incredibly one sided to put that infobox on top. Provided that we have an understanding that this is an article about the territory of Kosovo, and not the self-declared republic of Kosovo, it would also open up the discussion about why the other infobox isn't on top considering that the majority of the world's countries do not recognize Kosovo. Yes, Abkhazia and S. Ossetia have much less recognitions, but once again, it's not the same type of article - nobody can compare apples and oranges. I hope everyone here understands that. --Cinéma C 18:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying Kosovo is a province (The Province of Kosovo), automatically is pushing POV. Kosovo is an internationally recognized country (this is not disputable). Slovakia is not recognized by Lichtenshtein, should we call Slovakia a province, how about Israel? Kosovo institutions and police (including Serbian policemen that serve under Kosovo institutions) together with EULEX are the only governing institutions. There is no Serbian institution, no Serbian police, no Serbian solider, no Serbian customs official in Kosovo. Your argument are clearly not well though. If we do not put the republic infobox on top, we are taking sides. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Calling Kosovo a country is no less POV than calling it a province, and please refrain from calling Kosovo either one of those here, as per template on top of the talk page. Kosovo is a territory that some claim as a province, some as an independent republic. In favor of the province status we have UN Resolution 1244, other international documents, and the majority of world states which do not recognize Kosovo; while Kosovo's independence declaration and a minority of countries in the world who recognized it are in favor of the country status. Every situation is unique and I personally think it shouldn't be like that - international laws on sovereignty and territorial integrity should apply to everyone, but some claim that they don't and that's why Kosovo declared independence. But it's not about what I think, and it's not about what any other user thinks. Nobody can jump to claim Kosovo as an internationally recognized country when it's not even recognized by a majority of world states, nor is it's independence accepted by the UN Security Council (whose resolutions, as far as I know, are binding) and is not a UN Member. Slovakia and Israel are all these things. This goes for the other side, and try to guess what would happen if a bunch of users here started jumping "Kosovo is Serbia" on the talk page. So let's just keep it NPOV, we are not taking sides if we put the territory of Kosovo on top, then having both RoK and PoK infoboxes below, and those two can be in which ever order you like (right now, the RoK is above the other one, and that's fine with me, even though it's representing the view of the minority above the view of the majority... but I don't think it's that big of a deal as long as the territory template is on top). --Cinéma C 20:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is due more to the number of users arguing for each side. The Abkazian and South Ossetia articles do not attract the number of people this article does. A possible reason for this is the difference in internet availability in Serbia as opposed to the Caucasus region. Also, those regions declared their independence many years ago; Kosovo only last year. Kosovo has increased in recognition steadily, they have not. This page is "news", those pages aren't. Ideally, there would be multiple articles for those areas that would separately cover each aspect. Until more traffic and more information is brought to those pages, they probably won't be split because of lack of data. 199.90.28.195 (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

--Sulmues 11:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)== Infobox ==

I find it POV that articles such as the unrecognized Somaliland have their infoboxes upfront, yet a country with substantial recognition does not. Fonda4ever (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the infobox is upfront. Jarkeld (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely on the note that Wikipedia is not a ballot box that my whole point yesterday was to promote further discussion. I accept also that if COAs are being used alongside flags on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it is as good a point as any to include these details. I admit that had the two breakaway regions of Georgia not been using their COAs and flags at the top of the articles that I would have been opposed to this suggestion. As they do have it, I don't see a problem; but do not take this as the first step in a journey to amend all text references across the site to imply a universally accepted independent Kosovo. All sides have to be represented. I am equally cautious not to over-represent the Serbian position. Evlekis (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This last sentence reminded me that Cinema C once said that when someone claims to be neutral, it's usually not the case. Both of you have serbian origins, and as such I do not expect you to be neutral, so I"m not going to buy your neutrality. The infobox needs to be changed because now we have 3-4 infoboxes. They are superfluous and make the article illegible. Procrastinating improvement of an article makes the article ugly and that's probably what some people want to achieve. We're having lots of philibusters and few editors who improve things. I propose that the infoboxes be merged in ONE INFOBOX ONLY!sulmues talk-- 18:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because you can't represent two points of view in one infobox. Now keep the discussion to one place please. ninety:one 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fonda4ever, please don't call Kosovo a country as per the banner on the top of the talk page. This isn't the "Republic of Kosovo" article, this is the article about the territory of Kosovo, which some claim as a Republic, and some as a Province. Please keep that in mind. Sulmues, I don't have Serbian origins, and I don't understand why you are trying to use anyone's ethnicity as an argument - discuss the content, not the users or their ethnicity. The infoboxes can't be merged as they show opposing views on the territory. --Cinéma C 00:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cinema C, I reminded Evlekis of your own words. We are having a double standard here: Abkhazia and South Ossetia have one infobox and Kosovo has 3. You might go to Abkhazia's page and focus on splitting their article in two between Abkhazia the region and Republic of Abkhazia, if you don't want double standards, but I believe that having 2-3 infoboxes in each region-partially recognized country is just confusing for an encyclopedia. Therefore I propose again that we merge the three infoboxes and have 1 infobox only with COA and Flag on top as Wikipedia standards require. Please make constructive contributions.

Have you read any of the above comments? This is getting tiring... I mean, explaining the same thing over and over again... You can't compare apples and oranges, this is not an article about the self-declared Republic of Kosovo (like the articles about the self-declared republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), but rather an article about the territory of Kosovo (like the articles about Ossetia or Macedonia (region)). If you'd like to create the Republic of Kosovo article, start a new discussion about that. --Cinéma C 18:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We cannot have one infobox (with the ROK insignia in), because that would imply that it referred solely to the ROK - and that would not present a neutral point of view. ninety:one 19:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but we could put the ROK infobox on top, ande leave other two boxes also. That way, everyone would be happy, or unhappy. Either way that is more neutral than this. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Anna, what you are proposing is that, in an article about the territory of Kosovo, the Republic of Kosovo should be before the territory of Kosovo template? It just makes no sense. Visit Ossetia and Macedonia (region), and once again, I urge everyone to understand the difference between articles about self-declared republics and territories / regions. --Cinéma C 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Either we make the article about the Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo redirects there, or we merge the two infoboxes into one only. Someone just reverted the boxes btw.user:sulmues--Sulmues 17:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to assume that Anna is trolling. How on this green earth is giving precedence to one perspective of the situation of Kosovo (by putting that infobox first) neutral? This discussion has run it's course. ninety:one 21:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We should bring back two other infoboxes. But keep ROK on top, as other independent or partially recognized countries have it. If we do not put it on top, we automatically imply that Kosovo is somehow different from other partially recognized countries. And that is what only one side of the ANTI-PRO debate on Kosovo is saying. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody said above, " The infobox needs to be changed because now we have 3-4 infoboxes. They are superfluous and make the article illegible. Procrastinating improvement of an article makes the article ugly and that's probably what some people want to achieve. We're having lots of philibusters and few editors who improve things." while I don't agree with that sentiment, Support proposal for a single infobox. we already have the text of the article to explain the situation and the number of infoboxes shouldn't be increased without limit. If the situation would be with 8-10 different POVs would we use 10 infoboxes? Let's stop the absurdity and explain the different POVs in the text. Hobartimus (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Having ONE INFOBOX ONLY WITH COA AND FLAG ON TOP will sensibly improve the article, simplify the overall comprehension of a "territory/country/you name it" from someone that hears of Kosovo for the first time and then the different POVs can be explained in the article.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am against having one infobox, as this would imply that there's no controversy over Kosovo's status. I know that some of you are really pushing this because you support Kosovo's independence, but one should not allow their personal opinions get in the way of building a neutral encyclopedia. Take, for example, User:Kedadi, who "supports the independence of Kosovo", "supports the reunification of Albania" (i.e. Greater Albania), "supports a NATOfied Kosovo", "thanks USA for their dominant alpha-male role on Kosovo" (all this taken from his user page) and presents himself as completely neutral when it comes to the most heated Albanian-related topic that is Kosovo. It's obvious what the agenda of some users here is, and quite frankly, I think that this is an insult to all the editors who have made substantial improvements to the article not because they have a POV to push, but because they sincerely want a better Kosovo article. Those hiding their interests under the banner of "improving the article" need to really stop what they're doing and either put their POV aside completely or find a different place to express their beliefs, because an encyclopedia does not and should not serve that purpose. This is the only way we will ever have a neutral Wikipedia, and the only progressive path to better articles. --Nogrentain (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You have no substantial backup for your claim. Having one infobox does not mean that an article is pushing the idea that there is no controversy. This is far from what we are trying to achieve: simplicity in stating facts. There is already plenty of information in the article to explain the various opinions. But if having controversy for an article means to make a confusing article, then you are right, we have to make the article as much confusing as possible. If there are 100 POVs then we will have 100 infoboxes. For example if I wake up with the idea that the eskimos should have Kosovo as part of their cultural inheritance, and I find some claims of the eskimos on the net, possibly from "The Onion", I will put it in a little infobox. And also if I wake up and believe that I saw in a dream that Kosovo was the place where the mongols or the serbians had their cradle of civilizations, I'll put another two infoboxes and so on. We can have an infobox supermarket, where every nation can claim they were formed in Kosovo. Focus on content not on users: you make plenty of accusations that are not called for. sulmues talk--Sulmues 13:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your rants wouldn’t pass as arguments even in kindergarten. Why in the world would any Eskimos or Mongols claim Kosovo? You’re equating some made-up bullshit with known facts – that the majority of the world does respect United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (which is binding) and does not recognize Kosovo’s declaration of independence, while some recognize Kosovo’s self-declared status. There are no 100 views on Kosovo’s status, either you respect Resolution 1244 which specifically reaffirms FR Yugoslavia’s (now Serbia’s) sovereignty over Kosovo, or you don’t and claim that Kosovo has it’s own sovereignty. That’s it, and you know it. But those who push for one infobox want to hide the fact that Kosovo doesn’t have the same status as other world countries, they want to hide it for one reason only – to push their agenda which is evident from their user pages and contributions. I’m not making any accusations, this is all obvious to anyone who clicks on their pages and contributions. It’s not about simplicity.

Kosovo has 4 infoboxes, 3 dealing with the most controversial issue which is it’s status, and 1 history infobox. How many infoboxes does Albania have? 4 as well. We can’t have “simplicity” and the expense of accuracy. When you have two completely conflicting views on something, you can’t put them together. How would that look? Having the independence declaration date, and right next to it “but that’s not valid”, or maybe having the government type listed as a “parliamentary republic”, and right next to it “province” – is that it? I’m sorry, but I have not heard a single good argument for this. The South Ossetia and Abkhazia comparations are ridiculous, as matters like this can not be compared – every case speaks for itself. Change in the article is always welcome, but change isn’t always necessarily positive. In this case, we should embrace the status quo, as it’s keeping the peace and you know you’re on the right track when the only ones opposing you are Albanian or Serbian nationalists ; ) --Nogrentain (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your keep throwing accusations left and right because your arguments are flawed: if they were correct, you wouldn't need to accuse people but would focus on content. But eventually you run out and then you start barking to editors. When the United States gained their independence from Great Britain, they didn't need to be recognized by the Ottoman Empire, did they? Or were they by any chance waiting for the first opportunity to be recognized by the Republic of Venice? Or were they not independent at all because the Kingdom of Denmark had not recognized them? Or is it "another case" and this one is specific? And if it is specific, why should it be specific to take into consideration only the Serbian POV? By this token the Albanian POV could be claimed in the Republic of Serbia article, where we should have two POVs, two infoboxes, two ideas: one that Kosovo is independent, and one that it is not. Is that want you want to do? Or is it again that Kosovo is specific and can be pushed left and right because it's a small country, while Serbia can't, because it's a bigger country? sulmues talk--Sulmues 12:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making any accusations, I'm merely pointing out relevant information concerning the agenda of those who are using Wikipedia to push their point of view. The Kosovo article does not push the Serbian point of view, because if it was, the Kosovo article would not differ from the format of the Vojvodina article. Kosovo would have the title "Kosovo and Metohija", it would be called an autonomous province of Serbia, and there would be only one infobox - showing Kosovo as a part of Serbia. We're lucky there are no Serbian nationalists pushing for this because it seems that they have given up. Albanian nationalists, on the other hand, are not giving up on thier P.O.V. pushing.

Kosovo cannot be compared to Voivodina. In Kosovo 95% of the population is Albanian, in Voivodina 15% of the population is Hungarian. This is just an impertinent comparison you are making.sulmues talk--Sulmues 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My arguments are not flawed, they make perfect sense to any unbiased editor on Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, are trying to compare US independence (perhaps in a vain attempt to show your love for the US and gain some support from American editors) with Kosovo independence, something that was declared in 1776 with something that was declared in 2008... What an absurd argument, as there are international laws and resolutions today that didn't exist in 1776, etc etc. Your arguments are flawed as I explained above. Again, you are making accusations on the content. I'm pointing out how independence is not gained on tables of the UN. There is no historical valid argumentation that independence is gained because five countries in UN say so. sulmues talk--Sulmues 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"if it is specific, why should it be specific to take into consideration only the Serbian POV" - What the hell are you talking about? Are you aware that this article is considered fiercly pro-Albanian by most Serbian editors, even the way it is now? The Serbian POV is that Kosovo is an AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE OF SERBIA, not a disputed territory, country, or whatever. Read the article, you'll find that the only thing pro-Serbian is the damn infobox, which is, btw, the last one in the row. The main map shows Kosovo in Europe, and Serbia is shaded to show how some see it as a part of Serbia (but there is a border between Kosovo and Central Serbia), while, in the Republic of Serbia article you mentioned, the Albanian POV is respected and presented as well - Kosovo is shaded on the map. But please realize that this is not the Republic of Kosovo article, this is an article about the territory of Kosovo - which is claimed as the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, depending on the world government or individual you're talking to. If you don't like that both views are covered in this article, feel free to take out everything concerning the Republic of Kosovo and create a separate Republic of Kosovo article, but make sure to create an Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article as well, in order for things to be fair. In that case, this article will only talk about Kosovo's early history, geography, natural resources, etc, etc, and the political stuff will be left for the two articles with the Albanian and Serbian points of view.

This article is not pro-Albanian, but pro-Serbian. I think we should not only change this article but also the Serbian article that considers Kosovo serbian, without considering the Albanian POV.sulmues talk--Sulmues 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And more on info box

Also, look at the sentence on top of this talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of Kosovo, or whether it is a 'country', 'state' or 'province'." - so everyone, please, stop debating what the status of Kosovo is. It's a disputed territory, and the article is about that territory, which is claimed by the Belgrade and Prishtina governments. No one side will have it's way in the Kosovo article. Deal with it. --Nogrentain (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The pathos with which you write handles me the impression that your arguments are weak. You write three big bubbles and you still don't answer my question. Since you did not have the time to read it I am going to repeat it again: Since we should have two POVs in this article (represented by two infoboxes), the Albanian POV could be claimed in the Republic of Serbia article, where we should have two POVs, two infoboxes, two ideas: one that Kosovo is independent, and one that it is not. Is that want you want to do? Please answer and we will know whether what you want is that we go to the Serbia articles and amend all of them so that we have the Albanian-Kosovar POV in ALL OF THEM! sulmues talk--Sulmues 13:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Two boxes would be fine! Furthermore, it is not POV to put ROK box on top, as that would conform to all other disputed countries. Not putting it, is a POV. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I repeat that this is not an article dedicated to the Republic of Kosovo exclusively. The only article that can reasonably have a "Republic of Kosovo infobox" at the top would be an article dedicated to the Republic of Kosovo. Please stop belabouring this point. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dab, The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. We are trying to discuss. We all agree that this page is NOT exclusively about Republic of Kosovo, in fact in its current form you can barely see any trace of ROK. We are discussing (as this is a discussion page) on the ways of de-complicating the article. Kosovo is de facto an independent country, it is the de jure independence that is disputed. But the current page somehow denotes that Kosovo is a province administered by both Serbian and Albanian government. In fact (de facto) and by law (de jure) it is only governed by an Albanian administration/government (monitored by EULEX). When someone reads this article - that reader should understand that. The current form is very complicated. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

well, if you are trying to discuss, you aren't doing a particularly good job, because I fail to see anything here that hasn't already been discussed repeatedly, in detail.

you are very welcome to rehash points of these discussions, in particular with a view towards article improvemet, but then it would be nice to be aware of what has been said before.

I don't see the problem with the current article, but the obvious "de-complication" would be the creation of a Republic of Kosovo article. This has been tried, but people have objected for reasons that did not strike me as entirely rational.

I frankly do not see any claim that Kosovo is in any way "administered by the Albanian government". Albania hasn't been involved in this at all.

please. If you want to make a useful contribution, either revive a past suggestion (such as an article split), or present some new suggestion that nobody has thought of yet. Just discussion for the sake of discussion isn't the puropse of this page. --dab (𒁳) 15:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not say THE Albanian Government, I said AN Albanian administration. Maybe we could treat semantics in another discussion. The creation of ROK as a separate article would totally imply that ROK is just a claim. When it (ROK) is a fact. What is disputed is the legality it has. And, I do not see how it matters if these issues have been discussed earlier, this page is still on probation all perspectives would be helpful if brought forward.

I had two suggestions, ONE: Leave all three boxes, ROK on top and TWO: Remove the first box, and leave only other two (As User:Sulmues stated: Kosovo is disputed as independent vs. province of Serbia). —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I do not think either of your suggestions is arguable.

As long as this is the Kosovo article, the only infobox that has any business at all to be at the top of this article is the "territory" infobox on Kosovo currently at the top. I fail to see how this is at all open to debate.

The second infobox is in fact just here because some people insist that Republic of Kosovo should redirect here, while others insist that there must be an RoK infobox somewhere.

As long as Republic of Kosovo redirects here, the most appropriate place for the RoK infobox will be under the section Kosovo#Constitutional_Status_and_the_Republic_of_Kosovo.

As for the third infobox, it is duplicated from United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. Since it is already shown there, there isn't any obvious need to keep it here, and I suppose its only role is to counterbalance the already dodgy presence of the RoK infobox.

The only arguable change in infoboxes I can see would be either removing both the RoK and UNMIK infoboxes, or moving the RoK infobox to the RoK section and removing the UNMIK one as duplicated from the UNMIK article.

This is, for as long as there is no Republic of Kosovo article. It is not clear at all why we have an article on UNMIK and none on RoK, as both are institutions claiming governance over Kosovo. As soon as we have a Republic of Kosovo article in parallel to the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, the three infoboxes can just be distributed on three articles, as is proper practice. The mere existence of three separate infoboxes strongly indicates that there are three entities, which can perfectly well be discussed in three dedicated articles. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two things I do not understand in all this. First - Who decided that Kosovo is only about the territory. Second - Kosovo is not a disputed territory, it is a disputed country. As there are NO two or more countries involved "A territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states". —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

sigh. This article is not "only" about the territory. It is about the territory and its history, including the history of 2008 to present, which makes the RoK a subtopic of this article.

how difficult can it be to distinguish a territory from a state? Kosovo is a disputed territory. The Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized state. No, Kosovo isn't a partially recognized state any more than the Republic of Kosovo is a disputed territory. Please try to pay attention and phrase things accurately, as you are only confusing yourself with your blurry terminology. --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, sorry for my insistence, but, I have to protest against this 'certainty' on such complex issues. It is an oxymoron to claim that Kosovo is a "disputed territory" - as a territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states. You have to recognize Kosovo as an independent country in order to call it a "disputed territory". Kosovo is de facto independent, but de jure it is disputed. —Anna Comnena (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anna, please try to read my lips or something: Kosovo is disputed between the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo. You have to accept the Republic of Kosovo as an entity to claim there is a dispute. This article plainly grants the existence of the self-declared Republic of Kosovo, an entity that happens to have unilaterally declared independece from Serbia. The only thing we need to accept in order to describe the dispute is that the Republic of Kosovo is an entity that claims independence. Please stop saying "Kosovo" when you really mean "Republic of Kosovo", as I have stated before, you are only confusing yourself. Please try to wrap your head around the fact that "RoK" is just a name. The self-declared Repubilc could have picked any name at all, including "The Merry Men of Sherwood", ok? If that was the name they had picked, we would now state that Kosovo is disputed between the Republic of Serbia and the Merry Men of Sherwood. As it happens, and not coincidentially, the picked a name that contains the string "Kosovo". It is still just the name of a self-declared entity, like any other state's name. The difference lies in international recognition, and the RoK's international recognition is partial. --dab (𒁳) 07:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But you've just contradicted yourself. Copying your text from two parts you see It is an oxymoron to claim that Kosovo is a "disputed territory" followed shortly by but 'de jure' it is disputed. So we're onto the intro again. The term disputed territory defines the situation as well as the language allows in such circumstances. Normally a territory is disuputed by two sovereign nations. Here the conflict is between a country who prior to 2008 was internationally recognised as including a certain land and that land itself which has declared independence. The territory (for there is no better word) is disputed by two authorities: the governments of Belgrade and Pristina. A "disputed country" is a contradiction in terms entire of itself. It first acknowledges the sovereignty of a specific state and it then implies that two rival organisations are at odds over which of the two is the legal authority. This situation exists today with China (PROC and ROC) as did for some time in Afghanistan (when the Taliban held only two thirds). But then given that in all scenarios the conflicting parties are agreed upon both the statehood of the land and that land's frontiers, it cannot be the country which is disputed. Many countries are otherwise de facto independent. The source of the dispute regarding Kosovo is the overwhelming number of countries who do and do not recognise its independence, as well as those in two minds (with mixed sentiment among politicians/parties). World opinion on this issue is clearly divided. Evlekis (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you got my point. Was afraid it was too complicated. Well I was trying to say that the disputed territory should be changed to a disputed country. As the territory is clearly administered by a certain Government, police and army. No one disputes that Kosovars should administer it. There is no dispute in that. What is disputed is the country of Kosovo (ROK). Since this page is still on probation a little change on the lead (though discussed earlier) could be welcome. The current version is still not "politically correct". Maybe that is more important than the infobox for the moment. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, you completely misinterpreted my statement. A "disputed country" is precisely what Kosovo is not. I was explaining how the phrasing disputed country is a contradiction in terms because if it were universally accepted that it were a country, it could not be the subject of dispute. The situation here is that you say it is a country and others do not. The subject of dispute is the territory. As for all being agreed that Kosovo should be run by Kosovans, that too is only partially correct. Kosovan Albanians say that the buck should stop with them whilst the Serbian nation (including those in Kosovo) say that the level of self-rule within Kosovo should be limited and should at all times observe its role within a wider Serbian entity, as is the case with other proposed districts such as Podunavlje. Something is disputed, correct, but whatever it is cannot follow "disputed" because such a remark is in direct conflict with itself. It is as POV as the term "disputed province". Naturally, I do not suggest that usage because asides "disputed", it would play straight into the hands of the Serb sympathisers. Either way, I hope you see that they could stand from the same position; easily arguing "it is a province which is de jure disputed". Evlekis (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anna, it appears that when you say "country of Kosovo" you mean "Republic of Kosovo". Why don't you just say "Republic of Kosovo" for clarity's sake? The RoK is a partially recognized state. Thank you. As for "the territory is clearly administered by a certain Government, police and army" this is, unfortunately, rather far from clear. The territory appears to be de facto administered by a mixture of organized crime, UN troops, EU police corps and outfits of former guerilla fighters. The exact situation may change monthly, and I do not claim to be up to date, but if you claim that as of September 2009 there is a clear and stable governance of Kosovo, you should present references to that effect. According to the article, "A 2,500-strong Kosovo Security Force (KSF) is to be trained by NATO and will be operational toward the end of 2009" -- we'll need to stay updated on how that goes, and what effect it will have on the overall mix of forces, but we'll need solid references on that. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So that is what is missing. References? Here is my case on what you said: Kosovo has a legitimate Government, voted by its people, that has control of 80% of the territory (except the enclaves). There is a high criminal rate, but only in northern Mitrovica enclave. That place is like an anarchist commune - but allot bigger. I will try and keep this page updated with references on my claims. Thanks! —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

the legitimacy of the RoK is disputed. Do you understand the word "dispute", Anna? It means that some people (like you) say it is legitimate, while others say it isn't. The question of de facto governance is unrelated to this, and yes, it would be useful to have more sources on the current status of the various forces policing Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What legitimacy is "disputed"? Dbachmann, how can you say that "de facto governance is unrelated" when it has everything to do with the whole thing. That so-called "de facto government" is recognized by many countries. Just because it hasn't reached half the world states or joined NATO and the UN does not mean the legitamacy is disputed. The fact remains simple. Serbia has a few friends on the world stage - ex-communists and countries with dictators, and they all agree that Serbia rightfully owns Kosova. Wrong. It doesn't. They never moaned about the so-called "legitamacy" of the independence. All countries have the right to break away and be independent as long as a majority votes for independence. If you hold onto a population who don't want to be part of your land, you are conquering them and suppressing them at that. Kosova is about 97% Albanian now and is traditionally 90% Albanian. Who can dispute that legitamacy? Ofcourse Lithuanians and Latvians all broke away from Russia because they formed majorities in their territories and so they held a referendum and chose to break out of Russia. Nobody says "what is legit?" and everyone recognizes Latvia and Lithuania, same as they recognize Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia who all split from Serbia (Yugoslavia). There is nothing at all different about Kosova. There should be one infobox, amalgamate all information from the UN one - get rid of the other and just use ROK on top with flag/COA. Lover Of Democracy (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

read the article please. If you are a "Lover Of Democracy", may I also recommend, speaking from a background of 150 years of constitutional direct democracy, that you should try and come to terms with the concept of "dispute" as soon as possible. Will also be useful for Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 15:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Dab, I can dispute France all I want, it won't make any difference. It is only on legal terms that a country can be disputed. But my point is (again), ROK is disputed as a country. Russia, Serbia, China (and so on) do not recognize it. But no one disputes it as a territory, 1244 gives a legitimate mandate to Kosovo's Government and 1244 is accepted by Serbia. Furthermore, as stated earlier, a territorial dispute can only be between two countries - that is, if Albania had claimed Kosovo. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

that's a question of WP:NOTE. You can dispute France all you want and nobody will care because you are Anna. If you were Dmitry Medvedev or Hu Jintao, we would be sure to read about it in the news.

your contorted interpretation of UN resolutions is just WP:POINT now. There is no UN resolution recognizing any "Republic of Kosovo".

please don't waste any more talkspace real estate with this sort of sophistry. --dab (𒁳) 15:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dab UN don't recognize states. Recognition of states is exclusive right of each country.-- LONTECH 16:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)