Talk:Kosovo/Archive 21

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Flag

The earlier version of the flag with a yellow map of Kosovo must be restored. This is only an alternative version, which I have never seen in use by the institutions or the people themselves. We must restore the coat of arms and all other images using the Kosovar flag.--Getoar (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Can you be more specific as to exactly what the correct flag looks like? The flag I see on the page right now is dark blue, with a dark gold (almost light brown or tan) map of Kosovo, and an arc of six equal-sized white stars above the map. This is the same flag as that shown on the "Flag of Kosovo" page as being the current flag. Is this not the correct flag? If not, what flag is in fact being used in Kosovo today? Richwales (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not the color GOLD. It looks brownish to me. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ari and Geo, have this addressed at the Flag of Kosovo article, and then we'll follow suit here. Beam 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against the incorrect flag. It has something to do with colors (CKY vs non). My digital screen is showing a non-gold color, not that big of a difference. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't undertstand. Yellow is yellow no matter of screen. It seems like the institutions are using two different flags. One with yellow Kosovo map and another with golden Kosovo map. Take a look at the Swedish flag. They have the same colors but I don't see many versions of that flag --NOAH (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the correct flag, flag. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right --NOAH (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking around on ks-gov.net (I think/hope that's the governments website). And have probably found the solution. http://www.ks-gov.net/pm/Fillimi/tabid/36/EntryID/782/Default.aspx as you can see there they link to both the flag and emblem in .pdf form flag emblem. Same colour on both flag and emblem

Colour scheme	Gold		Blue		White
HTML		#d2ac67		#0c4da2		#ffffff

The current version of Image:Flag of Kosovo.svg has the right Gold (and white) but a bit of blue, #005bab should be #0c4da2. And by doing a simple overlay of the current flag and the one found on ks-gov.net I can see that it's a bit off, both the stars and Kosovo, it's also not as high. — chan dler — 15:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty to upload correct versions of both the flag and coat of arms. — chan dler — 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful for you contribution but I think the Kosovo map should be in yellow and not gold. Unfortunately different institutions in Kosovo are using different colors and I don't know why, but so far I have never seen any Kosovo flag with gold . Take a look at this picture with PM Thaci: 1 --NOAH (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ks-gov.net/ appears to be the official RoK government homepage, and if we cannot take their pdfs as authoritative as to the "correct" colour, I don't know whose word we should take instead. dab (𒁳) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

yes but they too uses two different flags, on the top of ks-gov.net you have blue with yellow and if you go into PM website they have blue and gold. As I said before I have never seen in real the flag with gold map on the middle. --NOAH (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If they do use two different colour version it might either suggest that there actually are "two" flags, one which would be like the civil flag, and the other state flag, similar to what Flag of Serbia and Flag of Poland and others i suppose, though I don't know if I've seen with colour differences. One explanation might just be that when they decided on the flag it was said, something like "this layout with a blue and yellow colour" or "blue and gold colour" and flags were produced, maybe not on a "official" colour scheme. Which might have been made some days or weeks later to be the official. But flags with the more normal colours #0000ff and #ffff00 maybe are out there and recognisable. Just on a side note, I think the gold colour flag is cooler ;) — chan dler — 04:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for everyone's knowledge, there exist a yellow version Image:Flag of Kosovo (yellow).svg & . There might (if its possible without OR) be reason to add that flag in Flag of Kosovo with something like this section Flag of Germany#Gold or yellow? and that it's the more common used flag by the population (at this time at least). — chan dler — 04:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth the effort to invest too much research in this at this point. The flag is just a couple of months old, and like everything connected to the RoK is still very much in flux. We'll just have to see how things turn out in a year or so. It's not a big deal either way. The authoritatively prescribed version appears to have "gold", while it is obvious that many flags in actual circulation have yellow. These flags are probably turned out by some factory in China and are hardly authoritative, but they of course affect the status quo by their being in actual use. dab (𒁳) 07:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it might or might not be worth, a Kosovo TV news show (from RTV 21) gets shown every evening on the SCOLA satellite station (which I get on my cable TV) — and I'm looking right now at a screen shot with somebody giving a speech in front of a "yellow" Kosovo flag and a "gold" coat of arms. If anyone cares, let me know and I'll see about doing a capture of this shot and putting it up for all to see. I'll understand, though, if the consensus is that it's not really that important and wouldn't resolve anything. Richwales (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As was widely reported on its declaration of independence, Kosovo adopted a flag intentionally using the colours of the EU flag. While some may call the colour of those stars 'gold' it is always rendered yellow. The current sludgy brown version of the Kosovo flag used on this article looks very wrong and it should be reverted to what was used in earlier versions of the article. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, ITS FROM THE PRIME MINISTER, there is no other more official source that exist. — chan dler — 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the flag used 17th February 2008 during the Declaration of Independance, you can see that the Kosovo map is yellow and not gold. Take a look at the video (the flag's showed after 2 hours and precisly one minute more) : mms://video.rtklive.com/speciale/seanca_plenare.wmv So, can somebody explain me why the map is gold when it should be yellow as it was showed you in this video by the Assembly of Kosovo !?--82.114.85.174 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, I believe the "somebody" speaking in the screen shot I mentioned last week (in front of a "yellow" Kosovo flag and a "gold" coat of arms) is Hashim Thaçi — a bit more than just a random "somebody". Take a look at ~~the accompanying image~~ Image:Thaci with Kosovo emblems.jpg. I don't think, though, that we can assume this translates into official approval of either colour scheme by the Kosovo government. Chances are the PM was going to make his speech anyway, and even if he didn't care for the shade of "gold" on the coat of arms, he wasn't about to waste his valuable time throwing a hissy-fit over it. ~~Richwales (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)~~ Richwales (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A Google image search for 'Kosovo flag' shows numerous pictures of the flag being used at demonstrations and official gatherings (involving the prime minister). It is nearly universally yellow not tan. 92.12.208.70 (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets not be stupid or go crazy, shall we? As the user who switched to this version an uploaded the yellow one in a different name, I must say that the "Flag of Kosovo.svg" was taken from the official website of the prime minister and both versions exist, so whoever has a problem with either one of them may use the other. There, I believe it's quite pointless to continue with this discussion -- C D 17:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Kosovo should be a disambig page. It should link to an article about the Republic and about the Serbian province. --Speed King (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Let the reader decide what he wants to read. Ari 0384 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This split was already discussed for many weeks with lot's of users participating and the community decided that should be a single article that covers everything. You can read the whole discussion in the archives. Hobartimus (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

.kv

I think Kosovo should have its own internet domain code: .kv. After all, it does have some international recognition. -- 20000 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 09:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You should probably talk to the the IANA [1]. Balkan Fever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

GA

So, guys, if you remember, we wanted to get this article to GA status some day. The article itself has been considerably stable recently. How far from the GA do you think we still are? --Tone 15:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

This article is under probation listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Any and all major changes to the article, as some of yall have tried earlier, have to be discussed on this very page before you put them into action. Any deviation will result in a block. Do I make myself clear? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Zscout370, it is under article probation so that it does not have to be fully-protected. You are to slap blocks on the offenders, not lock down the article. Can you reduce the protection level to sprotected please? --dab (𒁳) 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Change to 46 countries. Ari 0384 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hatnotes

{{editprotected}} Kosova is a redirect to this article, but Kosova (disambiguation) does not appear in a hatnote, which it should by definition. Similarly, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija redirects here, therefore Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (disambiguation) should appear in a hatnote. Neelix (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, there is a link to Kosova disambig in the Kosovo disambig already. We don't want to have a mess with links in the hatnote. --Tone 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tone. Changes aren't necessary. Request declined. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"2 billion €"

Several times in this article the Euro symbol is used with an (in my view) odd positioning.

"2 billion €"

This makes no sense to me, I had to stop to make sense of the sentence particularly as it was followed immediately by another numeric figure. Surely it should be formatted "€2 billion" or at very least "2€ billion". In my view it is confusing and should be changed. --86.111.162.127 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

From a British perspective that might be strange, but for a lot of other people it's very normal. See Linguistic issues concerning the euro. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks strange for me as well... I feel it should be €2,000,000,000 or 2 billion euro (or if billion and euro should be Billion and Euro) — chan dler — 08:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I just looked at the Linguistic issues concerning the euro link and it clearly sates €3.14 is used for English, and as this is the English WP, the € sign shall be first. — chan dler — 08:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is wikipedia written in english language, not for England. It is not England here, its wikipedia in english language. It should stay the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feta (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's great, but I'm not from England. I would be happy to view any examples you may have which show the pound (£) and dollar ($) signs used in this way within an English language document. I personally have never seen it written like this. --Delta-NC (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the English language wikipedia is in English, it should follow English grammatical conventions and I am not aware of any English speaking countries that typically reverse the position of the 'currency sign' in relation to the numerical amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menrunningpast (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the whole sentence "Until now EU pledged 2 billion €, $350 mil by USA. Serbia also pledged 120 million € to Serb's enclaves in Kosovo." it seems very poorly written. And it seems, without reference. — chan dler — 08:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is very poorly written (still). The section currently reads: "According to ECIKS[101] from 2001 to 2004 Kosovo received $3,2 billion of foreign aid. International donor conference is to be held in Switzerland in June or July 2008. Until now EU pledged €2 billion, $350 mil by USA. Serbia also pledged €120 million to Serb's enclaves in Kosovo." I would copyedit it thus (if only I could): "According to ECIKS,[101] from 2001 to 2004 Kosovo received $3.2 billion in foreign aid. An international donor conference was held in Switzerland in 2008. To date, EU has pledged €2 billion ($350 million US), and Serbia has also pledged €120 million to Serbian enclaves in Kosovo."

Editprotect

This artile should be semi-protected to prevent smears from some of our international users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sick injustice

This page has the same opeing as Abkhazia "de facto independent". What rubbish. Nobofy recognized Abkhazia whislt all democracies recognize Kosovo. Why do we still play into the hands of Serb nationalists and Russian communist bully boys. Kosovo is independent, Abkhazia is a rebel held territory belonging to Gerogia. Someone change it please. Sinbad Barron (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you define "belonging to Georgia"? Abkhazia has it's own language, was a separate SSR with the power to secede from the USSR until Stalin (himself ethnically georgian) incorporated it into Georgia in 1931, against the will of the people. If by belonging to Georgia, do you mean lying within it's borders as recognized by the UN, then the same goes for Kosovo, which lies within the borders of Serbia and not recognized by the UN. When I say recognised by the UN, I mean it could join the UN. If Kosovo wanted to join the UN, it would have to go before the security council, where it would get vetoed by Russia. If it wasn't vetoed by Russia, then they would need a two thirds majority of the general assembly's 192 members. Kosovo doesn't have this much recognition. Also, calling Abkhazia a "rebel held territory2, but saying Kosovo isn't, is missing the point. The same could be said of Kosovo prior to security council resolution 1244 being passed. This resolution still stands, until another one is passed, even if France, UK and US choose to act illegally against it. (It is up to the security council to take action against a country who acts against a resolution, if a permanent member chooses to do so, and act "above the law", there is nothing that can be done about it, but it is still illegal) How can you be so biased in favour of Kosovo, but so against Abkhazia? Abkhazia had a legal right to independence up until 1931, and Kosovo never had a legal right of independence. Serb nationalists and Russian communist bully boys are as bad as pro Americans on false moral high ground. ALL DEMOCRACIES RECOGNISE KOSOVO? How did you come about this conclusion? As far as I know, Spain and Cyprus are democracies that don't recognise Kosovo. 46 countries recognise Kosovo(according to wikipedia, dated 9/september 2008). Does this mean there are only 46 democracies in the world? How can you get your facts so wrong?Guitar3000 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the place for general discussions. I've included a (hopefully) balanced if brief account of recognition in the proposal for a new introduction above (in the 'It's dejure' section). Most seem to feel that de facto is correct until all parties to the dispute agree. PolScribe (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See new section below with proposal. PolScribe (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

kosovo's declaration of independence

when mentioning that kosovo declared it's independence, it should say "kosovo unilaterally declared it's independence" as opposed to "kosovo declared it's independence". It is important to mention this, it doesn't suggest a point of view, just states a clear fact. The statement "kosovo declared it's independence" doesn't state that it is not a bilateral declaration of independence, and this is quite importantGuitar3000 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this point in my proposal for a new introduction above (under the 'It's dejure' section...) but noted that the UDI was coordinated with other parties. PolScribe (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See new section below with proposal. PolScribe (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new introduction

Following the discussions above (mostly under 'It's de jure'), I would like to propose the following or something like it as a more appropriate introduction to the article:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Kosovë; Serbian: Kosovo, Косово) is a de facto independent, partially-recognised state in the Balkans, claimed by Serbia as the Autonomous Province of Serbia and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija). Kosovo is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's largely ethnic-Albanian population, stemming from the breakup of Yugoslavia at the end of the 20th century. In 1999, administration of the province was handed to the United Nations under the terms of Security Council resolution 1244 which ended the Kosovo conflict of that year. International talks on the status of Kosovo in 2006 and 2007 failed to reach a negotiated outcome, resulting in a 'coordinated' but unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008 as the Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës).

As of August 2008, Kosovo is recognised as independent by 46 member states of the United Nations (out of a total of 195), including by a majority of European Union, NATO and OSCE member states. Recognition has been witheld or opposed by a large number of other states, including by most other Balkan states, and significantly by both Russia and China (both of which hold veto powers in the UN Security Council). Some of these states have cited the possible precedent of Kosovo independence for other secessionist movements as grounds for opposition; Russia, China and India have called for new negotiations between the parties. Without consensus in the UN Security Council, UNSCR 1244 remains in force and the UN retains formal responsibility for the administration of Kosovo. Under the plan for 'conditional independence' laid out by Kosovo and it's international sponsors, a European Union mission (EULEX, to be headed by an International Civilian Representative) is intended as a continuation of the international civil presence in Kosovo.

Kosovo is landlocked and borders Albania to the west, Central Serbia to the north and east, the Republic of Macedonia to the south, and Montenegro to the northwest. The largest city and capital of Kosovo is Pristina (also Prishtina, Priština), whilst other cities include Peć (Peja), Prizren, and Mitrovica.

I haven't included here the various sources, but this text draws largely from the existing sub-articles, which are generally well-sourced. PolScribe (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly. Why all these "Kosovo"-names in the text? Why dont we use Kosovo only and then put all these other names in the box?--Ezzex (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, all of those variations of the name are already in the introduction. Unfortunately Kosovo is a disputed territory and various names are used; having them in the text allows us to give those names context, whereas having them all in the infobox would look bad and lack clarity as to who calls it Kosovo, who calls in Republic of Kosovo and who calls it Kosovo and Metohija. By all means suggest amendments: just trying to get things moving. 149.254.192.210 (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the intro is the way it is is that we didn't want to put too much stress on the current political situation in the intro, since it already is discusses in details later on. So therefore I object the proposed change, intro should not go in the details. --Tone 09:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't want to put too much stress on the current political situation? Possibly the only reason that the average reader will come to this page is to find out about the current political situation. This being an encyclopedia, it's pretty important that we do cover the status of Kosovo, this being the single most important subject (apologies to the nascent Kosovo tourist industry...). The level of detail in the intro here is minimal, gives context and balances key points from both 'sides' in the dispute. It is also consistent with our introductions to other contested or partially-recognised states such as Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus and Taiwan. A much fuller overview of historical and present status is needed in the main body of the article, for sure. But to deliberately exclude key information from the introduction could suggest an intention to present a particular point of view on the subject. You need a good reason to keep this information out. PolScribe (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that Kosovo has been inhabited since stone age and dedicating most of the intro to the events of past few months seems undue. Indeed, the political situation is complicated but that's why we provide a link in the intro and more info further on. I agree the lead can be improved. For example, some words about demography or geography would look nice. But not things like explicitly counting countries that support/object. By the way, don't you think that the intro is balanced at the moment? --Tone 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I say, the political situation is probably the most relevant information about Kosovo that this encyclopedia can provide. Take a look at my comment at the bottom (beginning 'The contributors above have mentioned'). I looked at a range of states comparable to Kosovo (i.e. which had a recent history of dispute) and compared the size of the intro and the number of lines given to coverage of the present political situation. Each of them had significant coverage of the situation, including references to processes, recognition by states and continued areas of dispute. A number of those country articles are top-rated. If we do the same for Kosovo, we improve the encyclopedia and meet established standards. If we exclude that information from the intro, we deliberately underrate information which is of central importance. So I think we need to give those questions appropriate coverage - at present the intro is not brilliantly drafted and is incomplete. I do agree we could add more on demographics or geography, though, at least a sentence each, and that would not make this any larger than other introductions for comparable states. PolScribe (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with adding a little more details about political situation but what is proposed above, is too much, too into details. What really is important is that there are some countries that recognize Kosovo and some that take whatever the position there is against it. UN resolution and declaration of independence and Serbia's view are already in the present intro, as well. EULEX is not active yet. The precedent is too tricky thing to have in the intro since it would need huge explanation. What else do you think would be appropriate to include? Indeed, we can make the intro and the whole article better, there was an iniciative to get it to a FA but I don't know how many people are still willing to work on it. --Tone 19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the amount of detail in the proposal is comparable with that in the Northern Cyprus and Western Sahara articles (12 and 10 lines respectively on the present political situation, against 11 lines in this proposal). And (with what has been happening recently in Georgia) the precedent question is of great interest to many. On the other hand, it could easily be covered in more depth in the main body of the article: I'd be happy we remove that middle sentence ('Some of these states...' etc.). I think the rest should stay, though, in some form: the form of international presence is very important to both UN and EU policy in the region, and to the future of Kosovo. The fact that EULEX (a key part of the 'settlement') is not yet active is important and allows us to then discuss Russian/Serbian obstructionism later. Perhaps we remove the reference to the International Civilian Representative if we want to cut it down a little further? PolScribe (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to suggest some more demographic/geographic content? PolScribe (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found an essay, WP:RECENT, that recommends not to focus on recent events only. Though this may not be fully applicable here... Honestly, I think that the intros in Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus could be trimmed down a bit because of the same reason. To include mentioning of precedent because of Georgia is quite off topic (many say that there is no such thing as this precedent anyway). I would like to have some feedback from the others in this discussion, it seems only two of us are discussing the details here... --Tone 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether or not Kosovo has provided a precedent for other secessionist groups is a central one for Kosovo and it's place in the world, whatever our personal opinions. It is bang on-topic, and probably the only reason anyone will visit this page in the near future. That said, it's not vital that it's covered in the intro. Assume we remove that sentence and cover the viewpoints more fully in the main text. That leaves six sentences covering the political situation, of which two cover past events, three cover the declaration of independence and recognition of it, and one covers the intended future international civilian presence. That seems very balanced to me, and is clearly not an excessive focus on 'recent' events. I understand your general point: that introductions (for whatever state) could avoid references to present political situations. However, with states where recent events are of such central importance, the standard seems to be to include significant coverage of those events in the introduction. Even articles on less contested states such as Croatia, Greece, or South Africa have whole paragraphs covering recent events or political controversies. No bias or insult can be given to Kosovo by covering recent events fairly and in line with Wikipedia standards. PolScribe (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the intro of Croatia to focus too much on NATO while missing history and demography (I will improve this when I find time). Greece is almost perfect, South Africa as well. We are now talking only about the eventual expansion of the second paragraph of the present intro. Could you write it now, taking the above discussion into account? Probably it will be fine. --Tone 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, so we're able to agree that we need a level of coverage of 'political' matters comparable with other Wikipedia articles (around 10-12 lines, balanced between past, 'present' and future, including coverage of diplomatic recognition). The proposed new intro meets that standard - though I'm content for us to remove the sentence on the 'precedent' controversy. The present intro is poorly-drafted and the proposal represents a much better standard, and much clearer flow. Perhaps we can move onto the main body of the article...! PolScribe (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that we can improve the article and notthat I am happy with the one proposed at the beginning. Before changing anything, I would prefer if you could write the new one, taking the above discussion into account. --Tone 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - per User:Tone, -- C D 11:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Having shown (see below) that Wikipedia standard for comparable states is to include significant coverage of the present political situation (Tone's objection), I assume you have no further objection? PolScribe (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask: Why are we using Cyrillic script in an English Language 'encyclopaedia'? Most people, (alright many people, since it seems that a fair number of the contributors here are from the Balkans,) who read this page have no knowledge whatsoever of Cyrillic. Isn't it just confusing and ultimately pointless? I'm not suggesting we should remove Serbian names altogether, but surely it would be simpler to print just the latin script? Davu.leon (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbian is an official language of Kosovo. Check out Georgia and China for use of scripts other than Latin. PolScribe (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I am aware that Serbian is an official language in Kosovo. That's why I suggested we keep it, albeit in Latin script. However it would seem to me that Cyrillic serves no purpose, and has no place, in an English Language encyclopaedia, whether other entries have compounded the error by its inclusion or not. Indeed, in the interest of consistency of style, I would applaud your efforts to remove the Cyrillic from those entries too. Davu.leon (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, those articles don't have Cyrillic, they have whatever are the non-Latin Georgian script and Chinese characters. Did you have chance to look at them? I should think that the contributors to those articles might not like us removing them. It seems standard to use non-Latin where that is relevant for the language. Use of Cyrillic is standard in these articles and has been for many years. PolScribe (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it now - Actually I looked at the Georgian article and my browser doesn't recognise the script. Just get blocks. Anyway if consensus is to include the non-latin script of a local language that's fine - I was just questioning its usefulness - particularly in this article where it will unavoidably be viewed by some as a provocation. For what it's worth I wouldn't use non-latin script in any articles, except those about non-latin script. Though I suppose I can see an advantage to having a sample right there on the country's main page... but perhaps under a subsection 'languages of region X'. Whatever. Davu.leon (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The contributors above have mentioned two points which were felt worth discussing: whether or not we should include information on the present political situation in Kosovo, and whether or not we should make use of Cyrillic as a script. To aid discussion I've carried out a quick review of how other similar articles treat these two questions. I've chosen states which have a salient political dispute, including a number of which are top-rated articles. I list here the total size of the intro in lines, the number of lines relating to the historical and present political situation and whether or not non-Latin scripts are used.

Afghanistan - intro 18 lines, political situation 10 lines, Pashto and Persian scripts used; Comoros - intro 19 lines, political situation 6 lines, Arabic script used; Lebanon - intro 18 lines, political situation 12 lines, Arabic script used; Northern Cyprus - intro 13 lines, political situation 12 lines, Latin script only; Taiwan - intro 14 lines, political situation 5 lines, Chinese characters used; Western Sahara - intro 14 lines, political situation 10 lines, Arabic script used.

And, in comparison, the above proposal for this article gives the following results, very much comparable with these other articles:

Kosovo - intro 14 lines, political situation 11 lines, Cyrillic script used.

This would seem to give us an introduction which is factual, useful and standard for Wikipedia, and possibly meeting the standards of highly-rated country articles. PolScribe (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is recognised by 47 - Samoa

[2] needs updating Ijanderson (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I confirm. --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Miss Universe

In this year's Miss Universe pagent, Kosovo had its own contestant. I suppose this solidifies its position as an independent country in the international community Hxseek (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Miss Universe is just a damn contest, like Eurovision. Now, when Kosovo actually sends people to the Olympic Games, that could be a cornerstone in the community of nation-states. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt the RoK will be internationally recognized eventually (and I don't have a problem with that). It just hasn't happened yet, give it a couple of years (WP:CRYSTAL). --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see

Here And discuss it there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One more

The International Recognition page, also blocked to the general public, states that there are now 47 countries which recognise Kosovo. On September 15th, 2008, Samoa recognised it. There are two sources, one in Albanian and that is all I saw. Someone might like to address this issue since the pages are closed to all. Evlekis (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please update, there are now 47 countries!

And with Taiwan even 48. That's fine with me. --Tubesship (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is recognized by nobody, not even by the Repiblic of China which it is a part of...and that is not recognized by many itself. Balkantropolis (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is recognized by at least 24 countries. You are not the owner of wikipedia to tell us who is what and where. The intro sentence reads about "46 countries" not 46 UN member STATES. Change it to 48 countries please. 68.187.140.5 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He's got a point. The paragraph makes no reference to UN member states, so Taiwan should be included. Hús ö nd 16:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I apollogize for not signing in (on my comment), it's this GOOGLE CHROME baby. CHANGE THE INTRO PLEASE!!! Ari 0384 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's dejure

Kosovo was independent defacto until 2/16

As of 2/17 kosovo is de Jure independent.

This is pure Serbia fabrication blackmailing this. Shameful. Once Shka always a shka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Kosovo (or Kosova as it is now) ought to be accepted as independent. I understand that it was a county in the former Yugoslavia which serbia wanted to annex with Croatia and Slovenia to make a so-called "Greater Serbia". Serbia maintained its invasion over Kosovo until 1999 when it was forced to withdraw. It held a referendum and declared legal independence and the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Holland, Canada, Australia and all of NATO recognize it, the UN recognizes it although it hasn't joint yet, but only Serbia (from remnants of Milosevic) still don't accept that their invasion days have gone. They are backed by Russia, who as we know, are trying to regain their Soviet prestige in this mock invasion of tiny Georgia, but for the English language Wikipedia, it is better to say "independent". Sinbad Barron (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because the US recognized doesn't mean everyone else has. Less than 50 states have recognized Kosovo, and the major players, like the United Nations, doesn't recognize Kosovo as a state. Just hold off the "de jure" stuff for now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo was never an independent state. It was a part of Serbia even before Yugoslavia was created (actually, since the Middle Ages). In SFRY it was an autonomous province within Serbia. Serbia couldn't invade itself. There wasn't an attempt of annexion of Croatia and Slovenia. Greece, Spain, NATO and UN never recognized the independence of Kosovo.--Andrija (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Technically it's not de jure until the current authority holding territorial sovereignty recognizes transfer of sovereignty to the new authority claiming territorial sovereignty. So, for example, the U.S. was not de jure independent until its treaty with England of September 1783 wherein England recognized its former territory as independent and sovereign. Who recognizes whom does not constitute de jure. —PētersV (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In WP the United Nations member-status constitutes as "de-jure", look at every disputed state and you will see that if that state is not a member STATE of the UN it is not "officially". Ari 0384 (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We can follow whatever conventions we want in WP to say XYZ has some form of "legal" status with ABC, but until and when the prior sovereign entity transfers sovereignty to the next, it's not de jure, it's still de facto. Sovereignty cannot be arbitrarily (re-)assigned by a third party. —PētersV (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

the point is not UN membership (Switzerland has been independent de iure since the Vienna Congress, but joined the UN only in 2002). An UN resolution would be sufficient. For this, Russia and the PRC need to forgo their veto right. It really boils down to this, Kosovo will be de iure independent as soon as Russia and China say it is, but not before. --dab (𒁳) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations does not grant sovereignty, nor does any other international body. Rather, sovereignty is a existential question whether a state's government can exert control over the territory and people of that state. Generally, other states "recognise" a state's sovereignty, but this is not a requirement. Switzerland was not recognised or even a member of the UN until 2002, however Switzerland has been recognised by most of the world from times immemorable. As Kosovo effectively IS a state, it should be treated here as such; however, a section MUST be devoted to nations which do not recognise Kosovo to keep the article free of bias and reflect the current situation. Especially , the opposition of Serbia, Russia and China should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.77.246 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The breakaway country of Biafra in Africa in the 1960s and the 1970s was recognized by multiple African countries and received military support and aid from major countries like France, Israel, Portugal, and South Africa. Biafra was not recognized by international law as an independent country then and remains defined as an internationally "unrecognized country". Kosovo is a de facto independent country, meaning that aside from not being recognized by international institutions as an independent country, Kosovo has all the other qualifications that makes it a country. Kosovo is not de jure independent, because this involves international recognition of independence which allows a country to be applicable to international legal, political, and economic institutions. As ironic as it is, it is a fact that there are a number of countries that have fallen apart which still remain internationally recognized, such as Somalia while the more peaceful and stable breakaway state of Somaliland is not recognized. Switzerland may be an exception because its independence was recognized by all or almost every country for many years prior to the creation of modern international law, in addition, the territory had no major outstanding territory disputes which meant that there were few complications in recognizing Switzerland, and I think Switzerland stayed out for economic reasons. It wasn't until the 1970s until the People's Republic of China was recognized as a legally independent country by the United Nations while the Republic of China was downgraded to observer status. The situation in Kosovo is is much similar to the People's Republic of China along with Abkhazia, Biafra, and South Ossetia in which it has political support and the institutions to be a country, but its independence is challenged (usually by major world powers). This doesn't mean that Kosovo isn't effectively a country, it just means that it's independence is disputed and thus it is not an internationally legal independent country, meaning that it is not recognized in international institutions as mentioned earlier. Thus it is a de facto country.--R-41 (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Switzerland was not recognised or even a member of the UN until 2002"... Yea right... ever heard of being a observer state since 1948 and thus being completely "recognized by the UN", gah. — chan dler — 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The UN has nothing to do with de-jure independence I don't know if you realize this but quite a few countries are a bit older than the UN like few hundred to a thousand years older. At this point Serbia has only one option of undoing the statehood of Kosovo and that is war. If Serbia does not declare war that is equal to recognition at this point. Imagine if there were no war around 1776 and England would simply say "no you are not independent" "yes we are" "no ..." etc. It's laughable. Without war it's equal to peaceful separation. Hobartimus (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please stop the incivility. "De jure" or "de facto" doesn't mean that Kosovo "is" or "is not" an actual country. The reason why we used terms like "de jure" and "de facto" to describe a legal status of a country is because there is an international legal system since 1945 that declares whether they are legal or not, otherwise there would be no use of the words "de jure" and "de facto". This legal system was designed to ensure that the sovereignty of any country could not be violated by another and that any territorial changes whether demanded by external or internal pressures would have to take place through diplomacy to allow such changes, in order to prevent wars. The system obviously has serious flaws, there are many countries that exist that don't have international legal recognition, and many wars have still gone on. There are differences from a de facto and a de jure state, a de jure state officially has access to all international economic, political, and legal institutions, provided it is not violating any international laws, while a de facto state cannot access these institutions. It's apparent that Kosovo is a country, but it is not a legally recognized country, due to the dispute held by Serbia and backed by other countries that Kosovo did not receive the legal permission to secede from Serbia due to Serbia's constitution not declaring the right of its autonomous provinces to separate. Of course the likelihood of Serbia ever allowing Kosovo to secede was slim due to the Serb cultural and historic links there, so Kosovo seceded without Serbia's permission, which Serbia and other countries claimed was violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia. These are not my words, these are roughly the words being used by those in the international legal system who have been debating the legality of Kosovo's separation since its government announced secession.--R-41 (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, not your words, but a fairly good description of the Serbian POV. Serbian POV states that so much is the greatness of Serbia that a mere declaration by them makes the difference in legality when in fact it is irrelevant. Empty rhetoric by the Serbs cannot change the de jure status of Kosovo at this point they need to declare war to mount a serious dispute as to the legal independence of Kosovo. Your logic implies that 1. The rules which Wikipedia regards states de-jure independent should change aroun 1945 or 2. No country should be viewed as independent before 1945. The facts are,1. the legal governing body of Kosovo as elected by the people in free and democratic elections convened and declared Kosovo's independence in 2008 february 2. Serbia did not dispute this declaration by declaring or waging war 3. This amounts to peaceful separation and Wikipedia is correct if it regards Kosovo as independent and incorrect if it regards it as anything else. end of story. Your POV that Kosovo can never be independent because empty rhetoric by Serbia is exactly matches the Serbian POV 100%. You seem to take the position that the US would not be de jure independent in case the same empty rhetoric came out of England? Hobartimus (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked that you not be uncivil. The United States was eventually recognized by the United Kingdom as an independent country. That's why they have an ambassador to the United States. You seem to think that I am somehow insulting Kosovo by noting that international institutions like the United Nations have not recognized its independence. You have mistaken what I've said and are putting words in my mouth, my logic says that prior to 1945 there was no firm international legal system and there were no firm legal views of countries' legal status, but after 1945, an international legal system was created to regulate international affairs such as with the United Nations' stance on sovereignty. Kosovo is a country, I know that a huge majority of Kosovo's population voted for independence, and that is why it is indeed a country. However according to the United Nations, it is not legally recognized as a country by the international legal system. It may indeed be recognized as a legally recognized country in the future, but as of now it is not. In addition, this is not "Serbian POV", as Serbians aren't the only ones who disagree with Kosovo's declaration of independence, so does Russia, the People's Republic of China, Spain while other countries such as India have serious concerns about the international legal implications of Kosovo's declaration of independence, claiming that Kosovo's declaration without consultation with Serbia was flawed as it may have violated Serbia's sovereignty.[3] These countries have their own reasons not to endorse Kosovo's independence, especially with the potential precedent in regard to pro-secessionists in territories within their countries such as Chechnya, Tibet, the Basque provinces, and Kashmir, as recognizing Kosovo's independence could legitimize these regions in demanding independence.--R-41 (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. What the "implications" of Kosovo are are whatever the implier wants them to be. Russia doesn't like it, for example, but don't think for two microseconds that their actions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't taking advantage of the recognition Kosovo has received. But that is all a red herring. It's very simple:

Kosovo has declared itself a country sovereign and independent of Serbia.
ABC have stated officially they recognize it as such.
DEF have stated officially they do NOT recognize it as such.
Serbia has stated officially it does NOT recognize it as such.

Until such time that Serbia changes its position and DOES state that it DOES recognize it as such (by treaty), Kosovo remains a de facto state, not de jure. Just as the U.S., which considers itself a country from its declaration of independence, was not a de jure state until its treaty of 1783 with England. You can't say Kosovo is, or isn't, a "country" without supplying the full context.

Arguing over whether Kosovo is or is not "a country" (no additional context provided) is nothing more than both sides advocating lying by omission.

WP does not grant diplomatic recognition. WP does not determine what non-de jure self-declared state is, or is not, a "country." Let's stop trying to make it into that. —PētersV (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is true, views of Kosovo's independence are various in position. And yes Wikipedia cannot determine whether a country is a de jure or de facto country, but the United Nations, the largest international political institution is debating whether to recognize Kosovo as a legal entity. Perhaps the intro should just say that Kosovo is a "partially recognized country", as this is not in dispute.--R-41 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

R-41 should stop making incivil accusations. the 1783 analogue demands that Serbia and Kosovo make a peace treaty to end the war that Serbia declared on Kosovo to stop it's independence. However Serbia chose not to declare any war to stop it's independence therby recognizing the fact that Kosovo is now independent. How would you make a peace treaty if you never declared or waged war? Also the UN continues to have no relevance here. Hobartimus (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you in anyway, Hobartimus. As for the point of this 1783 analogue which you speak of that the solution of independence must be solved by ending a war that is assumed to start against a region declaring independence from a country. The reason why Serbia did not declare war on Kosovo was because other powerful countries like the United States, western European countries and others supported Kosovo's independence movement, which could have resulted in large military action against Serbia if it fought against Kosovo's democratically-determined decision to separate from Serbia. The UN does have relevence because it makes a country an effective "international citizen" through recognition and thus it is a legal entity, as this "international citizenship" grants recognized countries the right to access international financial, political, judicial, and legal institutions. Therefore, "by law" or de jure, a country that its recognized as an international citizen by international institutions and law and is permitted to receive legal assistance is a de jure country. When a country has come to exist without international legal endorsement of its independence, it is "in fact" or de facto, a country which is internally independently structured but does not have the privilige of de jure countries of access or as equal of access to international political, judicial, and legal institutions. Some countries are effectivley "de jure" and "de facto" at the same time, a country that exists in law and in reality, while other countries are only "de jure" but do not exist in reality, such as Western Sahara. We on Wikipedia cannot decide on our own what legally qualifies an independent country because we don't decide what is a country "in law", the entity that determines what are "in law" or "in fact" countries is the United Nations. If the UN's legal views of various countries is not deemed useful for this issue, I believe that a widespread address of Wikipedia's stance on the use of indicating in articles on countries of the UN's political and legal decisions in defining the status of a country be debated by Wikipedians. People must be also be careful in using "de jure" to describe a country, because the term de jure to describe a country is usually used when the country does not exist in reality, indicating that a territory exists as a state only in law. Leaving out de jure and de facto indicates that there is no conflict between the country's legal and existance status, while mentioning de facto status indicates that the country exists in fact but not by law (international law, that is). --R-41 (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree to change into "de jure": Kosovo has been defacto independent since 1991 when Rugova proclaimed its first independence. Kosovo was having parallel institutions from Belgrade since then (hospitals, schools, radio and newspapers). Furthermore the currency used was not Belgrade's, but German DM. Kosovo had a government and social institutions. This was 17 years ago and the ties with Belgrade have not improved since then. If this was not independence defacto I don't know what it is.

In February 17 2008, Kosovo proclaimed independence, recognized by 46 countries so far, and many are to follow. This is dejure independence, meaning independence by legal means. Every student in political sciences that studies "History of Political Doctrines 101" knows that international law is based on a de facto situation and a country is already created when it is de facto. When there is recognition, that de facto situation becomes de jure. So Kosovo was created de facto in 1991 and de jure in 2007. The wording in the article needs to be changed into "de jure".--Sulmues 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

re: "When there is recognition, that de facto situation becomes de jure." No it does not. Only when there is recognition by the authority ceding sovereignty by treaty does the "situation" become de jure. Third parties are free to establish legal recognition and diplomatic relations with de facto states. That does not make those states de jure. A third party can declare that it recognizes an authority over a territory as legitimate, but a third party cannot grant another authority de jure status. "Recognize" does not equal "de jure". —PētersV (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. There was no authority with sovereignty in Kosovo since 1991 (exception made for the Albanian institutions). In that year Serbia did not exist. Jugoslavia existed in that year, but that country doesn't exist anymore. Kosovo was part of Jugoslavia and chose to be independent. Same thing was done by Croatia and Slovenia: They had a war with Jugoslavia and WON it. Jugoslavia doesn't exist now, so it is not up to Serbia to give sovereignty to Kosovo. The de jure concept cannot be extended to a dead state such as Jugoslavia (it's as if I were giving the responsibility of me going to school to my dead grandfather.--198.24.31.70 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)--Sulmues 20:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that changing the wording should stay for now. Removing the de facto would gather a lot of controversy and has a potential to create a major edit war. I am myself pro-Kosovo, but i still think that until Serbia, UN or majority of countries recognize it, or the situation stays stable for a few years, it is not properly recognized as an independent state. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 17:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that we should not describe it is as de jure or fully independent until that occurs, but the introduction still ignores some crucial points about the status of Kosovo. At present the intro reads (apart from 'de facto') as if Kosovo is as independent as any other UN member. On the other hand the section on the Constitutional Status of Kosovo is quite clear that UN civil administration remains in place and that the political structures are those authorised by the UN administration. Further, putting UN administration aside, we should still be describing Kosovo as 'conditionally independent' or some such, being the description applied by the various parties when the independence plan was laid out by Ahtisaari and others. Kosovo is only independent to the degree that the US, UK, EU and so on have agreed, subject to UN and eventually EU administration and hedged about by restrictions.

We need a better description for the introduction and more clarity (and expansion) in the section on status (and the separate page on status needs a complete overhaul). The intro should note de-facto and partially-recognised independence, civil administration by the UN still in place, the plan for EU oversight within a framework of 'conditional independence'. Missing those elements out does no justice to us or the readers. PolScribe (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To be clear 'The Assembly of Kosovo unanimously adopted the declaration of independence on 17 February 2008, however UN Resolution 1244 is still in force, which means that ultimate responsibility for the administration of Kosovo still falls on the Special Representative.' (UNMIK). PolScribe (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And so, thinking about it, we should really be describing Kosovo as a partially recognised, conditionally independent state under UN administration (with some administration devolved to Provisional Institutions of Self-Government), for which eventually EU oversight is planned, all disputed by Serbia. PolScribe (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should also be aware that the references to Illyria are generally used to make historical claims to an earlier and independent Kosovo which have not been widely accepted as correct (in the absence of much anthropological or archaelogical evidence). Given the history of the Balkans, the territory of Kosovo has been part of many distinct entities. We should probably limit the list in the intro to just the Ottoman and recent modern period (those being of most relevance to present identity and status). PolScribe (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed, in a new section below, a new introduction to the article which takes some of this into account. Further discussions on de jure/de facto might continue here, but grateful for (esp. administrator) views. PolScribe (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the difference between De Facto and De Jure is UN recognition. That's why Taiwan is De Facto independent, but not De Jure. Also why Abkhazia and South Ossetia are De Facto independent but not De Jure. If the UN does not determine De Jure recognition then who does? Is Transnistria then De Jure independent? Can I just start out my won country wherever I like it, get most of NATO to recognize it and call it De Jure? Also, if one believes that Kosovo's regions such as Mitrovica are part of Kosovo, then it's also not De Facto independent in that specific region. When US was a superpower, its voice was international law. After the US foolishly squandered its superpower status in Iraq, this was no longer the case as Kosovo is slowly learning. Although I do find the claims that Russia is taking adavantage of Kosovo's claim in Abkhazia and South Ossetia quite humorous, especially when the government that these people support barks about how there are no connections between Kosovo and Abkhazia/South Ossetia. Finally my dear Kosovars or Kosovors, if you don't think the UN is not the De Jure authority, why did you so strongly support the Hague Trial of Milosevic? You can call it De Jure all you want, but that won't make you Independent. "I'm the King of the World!" Nope still can't make edicts. Rats! 68.164.150.25 (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please replace

[[International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#States which 
 formally recognize Kosovo as independent|by 46 countries]]

with

by {{Template:Kosovorecognition}} UN member states

This is a technical edit that would yield

by 114 UN member states

There are now 47 of them as discussed and agreed on relevant pages, and this template would make it unnecessary to update the number in the future. Colchicum (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And As of August 2008 => Currently. Colchicum (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done on both counts, though I'm not entirely sure using the term "Currently" is the best idea, considering it is possible the template will not always be immediately updated upon the number changing. We'll see, however. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm retracting my edit on the last point. Given that this article (and any other) may at any time be placed into print form, using "currently" is never correct. While this will require editors to be diligent in updating, it will ensure future accuracy no matter the medium this article finds itself in. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised Economic Data

According to a report by the UN Secretary General (S-2008-458), the IMF has informed the Secretary General and the Government of Kosovo that it has revised upwards the economic data. It says, and I quote:

An International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission visited Kosovo in April to assess the macroeconomic framework and fiscal policies. The IMF recently revised upwards the Kosovo gross domestic product (GDP) figures, which are now estimated at €3,343 million (€1,573 per capita) in 2007, and forecast a real GDP growth of about 5 per cent per annum over a five-year period.

I would like to update the infobox to reflect this new information as the current infobox table is outdated. You can find the report here [4] --alchaemia (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Interesting that the CIA Factbook page says it was updated in August, but still shows the old figures. If anyone feels that the CIA source is better, please feel free to request this be changed back. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. However, I see that you left the $ sign when the amount of 3,343 million refers to Euros, which comes out to about $4,743 million using todays exchange rate, or $2,231 GDP per capita. I think CIA is quoting older IMF or World Bank sources so there's a discrepancy there. Thanks again. --alchaemia (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, sorry about that. Fixing now. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Thanks again. Fortunately :), I have more information that needs to be updated. I suggest we ditch the part about PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) as it is seriously outdated and in contradiction with the new information from IMF. Per the new IMF information, GDP per capita (in terms of USD) is $2,231, thus GDP PPP cannot logically be $1,800. Secondly, I think we should include a section in the infobox that talks about GDP growth year-to-year in percentages, as well as projected growth. I offer this (p. 5) IMF technical document as support for this request. [5] Significantly, IMF says that GDP growth in 2007 was 4.4%, while projecting that the GDP will grow by 6.7 this year, that is, 2008. I would be grateful if you would consider my request.

Nothing? --alchaemia (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, it's been at least a week since I've put in this legitimate and non-controversial request and no one has even bothered to do anything about it. Why is an article locked if even legitimate requests are not handled properly? --alchaemia (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on the request, but I note that the page is now only semi-protected. Accordingly, I'm clearing the editprotected template. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Map for the 2nd infobox

I propose this map for the second infobox, there is no point using the current one as the infobox map is supposed to be a locator map which is not what the current one is -- C D 13:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrative regions

According to Regulation No. 1999/14 On the Appointment of Regional and Municipal Administrators (21 October 1999) UNMIK divided Kosovo on 5 regions ( The Special Representative of the Secretary-General shall appoint, and may transfer or replace, a Regional Administrator for each of the five regions of Kosovo (Pristina, Pec, Mitrovica, Prizren and Gnjilane) to act on his behalf.), not for 7. So, you should change unsourced informotion about 7 regions in "Administrative regions" section. Aotearoa (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

I reduced the protection level to "permanent semiprotection". Keep in mind that this is under article probation. This is a reason not to protect the article: Editors may be blocked at the first sign of edit-warring against consensus. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Disintegration of Yugoslavia and Kosovo War

{{editprotected}} The second paragraph in this section begins:

Only after the Bosnian War, drawing considerable international attention, was ended with the Dayton Agreement in 1995, but the situation in Kosovo remained largely unaddressed by the international community, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an ethnic Albanian guerrilla group, by 1996 had started offering armed resistance to Serbian and Yugoslav security forces, resulting in early stages of the Kosovo War.

This sentence makes no sense as written and is very confusing in trying to determine what is trying to be said here. Might I suggest it be replaced with this sentence:

The situation in Kosovo drew little international attention during the Bosnian War. However, after the Dayton Agreement in 1995 settled the Bosnian conflict, the international community could once against turn its attentions on Kosovo. During this attention hiatus and by 1996, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an ethnic Albanian guerrilla group, had began offering armed resistance to Serbian and Yugoslav security forces, resulting in early stages of the Kosovo War.

The references remain the same, just reworded to a better understanding and clarification.--«JavierMC»|Talk 03:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

or

The situation in Kosovo drew little international attention during the Bosnian War. When the Dayton Agreement in 1995 settled the Bosnian conflict, but failed to make any mention of Kosovo, those Kosovars advocating peaceful resistance were discredited in the eyes of more hardline nationalists. By 1996, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an ethnic Albanian guerrilla group, had began offering armed resistance to Serbian and Yugoslav security forces, resulting in early stages of the Kosovo War.

?

At any rate I'm opposed to the term 'attention hiatus'. Not very encyclopaedic. Davu.leon (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't care how it is reworded, it just needs to be made clearer. As to "attention hiatus" not being very encyclopedic, is this just part of the meaningless objections of material added to this article that has plagued it for months? Read the definition of hiatus (an interruption in time or continuity) before objecting on a non-encyclopedic basis. One other point, was the Dayton Agreement expected to address Kosovo considering Kosovo was perceived as rather peaceful at the time? Anyway, do what you like or do nothing at all. The paragraph is just very confusing when read as it stands now.--JavierMC 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can rephrase. Attention Hiatus is grammatically incorrect. 'During this hiatus in attention' might be more acceptable, but frankly it's an awkward word to try to use in this context. Secondly, the Dayton conference was expected to deal with Kosovo, though largely only by Kosovo Albanians themselves - who had been led to this belief by Ibrahim Rugova, the leader of the LDK, (which played a major role in keeping Kosovo peaceful at the time). He had allowed the public to believe that they would be rewarded for their non-violence with international recognition of their declaration of independence. When this did not happen, it gave the KLA a major boost in credibility while simultaneously damaging his own. Davu.leon (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on the request, but the page has been reduced to semi-protection. Clearing the editprotected template. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Source

This could be another neutral Western source for the history section.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jLfX1q3kJzgC&pg=RA1-PA366&lpg=RA1-PA366&dq=census+Macedonia+1921+population&source=web&ots=tdUUE3rgbK&sig=8Q0lnAaOp3pOLe963RBDePjgPTA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PRA1-PA364,M1

"Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe

By Jan Piotr Eberhardt "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZvonimirIvanovic (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo vs. South Ossetia and Abkhazia

I believe the Kosovo page's infox should be organized similar to that of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They are all self-declared and partially recognized independent republics, and I see no difference in the status of the republics in question. - Realismadder (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also noticed some inconsistency between this page and the pages of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It should be one way or the other. Personally, I would prefer one infobox with all the state symbols, rather than two or three different infoboxes that look both ugly and confusing. BanRay 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Just do it. --80.152.236.156 (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kudzu1 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but why is it undone again? --84.56.234.35 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kudzu, could you do it again, please? --80.152.236.156 (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Or someone else? TIA! --84.56.239.116 (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody out there?--84.56.251.21 (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

They are all afraid of being blocked/banned by some pro Serbian administrators who are holding this article as a hostage. --Tubesship (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again it was undone without any discussion, although there is a consensus: Wikipedian Realismadder and Banray and Kudzu1 and myself and none gave any contrary opinion. So why is it undone again? --84.56.251.225 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? Really? A couple of "let's change it" is far from consensus. --Tone 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple? There are all for change and none against it as there is no good reasoon to be against it after the example given with Abchasia and South Ossetia. --84.56.251.225 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Central Serbia versus Serbia

Regarding this edit summary, I must remind the user in question that "Central Serbia" was the consensus for months until this edit just a few hours ago. Perhaps the suggestion to "pay attention to the comment in code", which in any case pertains to the names of cities, not neighbouring countries, should be redirected accordingly. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I placed that comment there months ago, and the comment reads: . I have no trouble comprehending "the exact sentence" part. Do you? Let's discuss it then, and offer consensus-grade persuasion, not forcibly revert away from the pristine :) form that was agreed upon once by consensus. --Mareklug ^talk 03:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So why did the user behind this edit not discuss it first on the talk page? As for the essence of the dispute, how can you seriously contend that the statement "Kosovo borders Serbia" represents anything even remotely approaching WP:NPOV? Serbia and most other countries in the world consider Kosovo to be part of Serbia. Why should Wikipedia endorse your minority POV? The only neutral geographical statement possible in this case is "Kosovo borders Central Serbia", which is agnostic on the question of whether it belongs to Serbia or not. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish to make a point of order, esp. to the admins overseeing this article. I asked ΚΕΚΡΩΨ to discuss, on two separate edit summary entries in 2 days, and yet he pretends to discuss, while continuing to, for lack of better word, edit war. That is, he forcibly returns the article to His Point of View, three times now, I beliewe. I will not risk another block of my editing by pursing this abuse, as I already got blocked for my good-faith efforts (my one an only block) when attempting to inject neutral content for Pristina spellings (that is, I tried to include all of them, without prejudice). I refuse to be used by someone who forces the issue. EOT for me. --Mareklug ^talk 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I, unlike you, am actually discussing and defending my edits with arguments. You still haven't explained why Wikipedia should endorse the minority POV that "Kosovo borders Serbia". I don't understand what the problem with "Central Serbia" is anyway. Even those who recognize Kosovo as a separate country agree that it borders the region of Central Serbia geographically. As for your charge that I am "injecting forcibly peculiar inexactnesses that represent a cherished POV", isn't that exactly what you're doing? "Serbia" is inexact and POV; "Central Serbia" is quite the opposite. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosova borders to South Serbia. North Serbia ist Voivodina. Central Serbia ceased to exist after the factual breakaway of Kosova. Get in touch with reality, please. --84.56.251.21 (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Serbians have not right to Kosova! Kosova it borders Serbia:

- *The only way and the only means to cope with them is the brute force of an organized state, in which we have always been superior to them....As we have already stressed, the mass removal of the Albanians from their triangle is the only effective coursefor us. To bring about the relocation of a whole population, then the first prerequisite is the creation of a suitable psychosis. It can be created in many ways.GREATER SERBIA from Ideology to Aggression Vaso Cubrilovic Expulsion of the Albanians (1937)http://www.hic.hr/books/greatserbia/cubrilovic.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.76 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am not removing the comment but in what way does it contribute to the article? Sourced or not. --Tone 16:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the sence that Kosova CAN NOT border central Serbia because it is in not part of Serbia at all , for the reasons that source indicates and many other we border Serbia as indepedent state.Thank you !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.76 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tone, what he wants to tell us is the reason why this region is (or better to say "was") included into Serbia: It was done by forcing the Albanians to leave like the source tells us. --84.56.251.21 (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. The whole debate was whether to say Kosovo borders Serbia or Central Serbia. The latter is used due to a consensus since Kosovo actually borders Central Serbia (region). Saying just Serbia is POV since Serbia considers Kosovo a part of the country. We want to stay neutral, remember. --Tone 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it is POV if we say that borders Central Serbia assuming that it is still part of that country.Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.76 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No assuming here. Central Serbia is a region that is next to Kosovo. This proved to be the best solution so far. --Tone 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosova as you said is not region and actualy the central Serbia is now South Serbia, so we may say that Kosova borders south Serbia without mention Serbia alone, would you agrea for a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.240.76 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you say Kosovo borders South Serbia without mentioning Serbia? Anyway, I am not the only one who can agree to a consensus, all the users who edit this article should. --Tone 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "South Serbia" is a fine compromise between "Serbia" and "Central Serbia", so change it from "Central Serbia" to "South Serbia", please. --84.56.251.225 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Anons, who are you to decide what is "South Serbia" and what isn't? The region is called "Central Serbia" and unless the most common English name used to refer to that region becomes "South Serbia", this is nothing more than original research. Balkan Fever 10:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer Serbia instead of South Serbia? That's even better to me! --84.56.251.225 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, POV would be "Kosovo doesn't border anything, it is a part of Serbia. Die, Albanians!!!!!11!!!!!111!one!!" THAT would be POV. Central Serbia was a perfect compromise - the region's name is Central Serbia. Saying Serbia is POV. Saying that it belongs to Serbia is POV. Saying South Serbia is idiotic. Okay?

UN 2/3 majority

Pardon my ignorance. From my brief glance through a few papers it looks like the UN General Assembly could grant Kosovo membership if 2/3 of the nations approve. Why then is this not stated anywhere in the sections relating to independence. My only explanation is that the 2/3 general assembly vote can be overturned by the UNSC which does not sound too reasonable to me. Can anyone offer insight on this in the event that I am wrong in my reasoning. If I am right, then why do we not add this info to the independence section. Thanks

From the wiki article on the general assembly: Voting in the General Assembly on important questions – recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; budgetary matters – is by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Other questions are decided by majority vote XJeanLuc (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Because a couple of editors here have a strong bias and want to make the situation look as pessimistic for Kosovo as possible. Good find! --alchaemia (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a couple of days, there seems to be a debate at the UN General Assembly soon. If there is any development there, the article should be updated. --Tone 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that its a matter of pessimism for not including this data. I still don't know if this is or is not how the general assembly vote works. Like Tone suggested I'll wait for the articles that come out after the 8 October session of the UN when they discuss the legality of the situation. XJeanLuc (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The big question to be answered is: can an eventual Kosovo accession approval voting process in the UN General Assembly be blocked or vetoed by Russia… or not?--BalkanWalker (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo's not even close to a 2/3rds majority. Not even halfway there. UN has 192 members, 2/3rds would be 128. It's 51 at the moment, not even halfway there. In addition, both Russian and China (due to Tibet/Taiwan) will veto Kosovo on the security council. Furthermore Russia/China can veto any proposition to which Kosovo won't abstain, thus making Kosovo a de-facto non-entity in the UN. There is no way that Northern Kosovo where most of the Serbs live will go with Kosovo, just like the Kosovars, they too can secede. In addition the International Court of Justice is still to vote on Kosovo. With the Global Economy declining, the US's popularity's declining, and Kosovo's doing so as well. All of the above are facts; and the answer to your question BalkanWalker - is yes. Russia/China can either block it at admittance, or veto any proposition that Kosovo votes on. Moral of the story: Unilateral Declarations - not a great idea. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

50, not 51. And northern Kosovo cannot secede. They live in Serbia, why would they secede from Serbia? I support your "moral", but not the argument that economy or Russia/China ... The reason is the 143 countries (=192+Vatican-50), including EU and NATO members. Moral: they (Serbia, Kosovo, EU, US) were tired of negociations, so they wanted to end them and throw the problem to somebody else. Dc76\^talk 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. However it is 51, United Arab Emirates just recognized Kosovo. Also 2/3rds of 192 would be 128. If Vatican gets to vote, it would be 129. And if you don't think the economy has anything to do with it, you might want to see the reasons that Costa Rica, Liberia, Belize, Nauru, Burkina Faso, etc. recognized Kosovo. I somehow doubt that getting a sweet deal from the World Bank due to free lobbying by US lawyers on their behalf, did not impact Costa Rica's UN vote on Kosovo. Also, has to be 2/3rds overall, there is no -50. However, the thing is that when new governments come to power in the European countries, such as party switches, they may 'unrecognize' Kosovo as well. Hasn't happened yet, but I predict that some of the ones I listed may just do that within a year. And 51 to 141 is still not too high of a score. And EU's never tired of negotiations. US - Bush wanted to be successful at something, he has yet to achieve that. Serbia and Kosovo - you're probably right. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many countried recognise Kosovo. If a country applies to join the UN, they must be approved by the Security council BEFORE the general assembly will even vote on it. So without Russia or China's approval, the general assmebly will never come into play. In theory, 191 UN member states could recognise Kosovo, but one veto is all that's needed to stop them joining the UN.Guitar3000 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo vs South Ossetia and Abkazia

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CORRECT THE KOSOVO PAGE TO LOOK LIKE THAT OF SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKAZIA ( ie REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO)

OR AT LEAST MAKE THE OTHERS LOOK LIKE THAT OF KOSOVO ( ie PARTIALLY RECOGNIZED REPUBLIC)

THESE CHANGES ARE NEEDED AS I THINK THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO PORTRAY KOSOVO LIKE THIS SEEING AS SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKAZIA ARE IN A WEAKER POSITION

IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF RECOGNITIONS THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED AND THEY ARE BOTH PORTRAYED AS SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin gj (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Caps lock is not cool. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of Order

Why is Kosovo described as being only "de facto" independent? Kosovo has been de jure independent since 17 February. It receives ambassadors and is sending representatives abroad, hosts embassies and exercises sovereignty over its territory. It is tendentious to only list it as being "de facto" independent. The article should be amended to read that Kosovo is an independent state. You can posture about Serbia's claim on another page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, "de jure" maybe according to the Government of Canada, but "de jure" according to international law (UN Security Council Resolution 1244, UN Charter, Final Helsinki Act of the OSCE) Kosovo is part of Serbia, under UN administration. Also, it's not "de facto" independent at all - Pristina has no freedom to do anything, the UN is in control (soon EULEX). --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN (soon EULEX) is helping Prishtina with administration and Kosova is a democracy and there is no UN dictatorship suppressing Kosova. Prishtina has the freedom to act like a democratic country does. Your saying "Prishtina has no freedom" sounds like the dreams of a racist slavo-orthodox dictator, but not the reality, just nightmarish. --84.56.253.128 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to posture your personal thoughts on the many forums on the internet. We're all about facts here :-) --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this for an intro:

'Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Kosovë; Serbian: Косово и Метохија; Kosovo i Metohija) is a landlocked, region in the Balkans bordering Albania to the west, Central Serbia to the north and east, the Republic of Macedonia to the south, and Montenegro to the northwest. The majority of the territory is de facto governed by the partially recognized Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës), (declared independence February 2008) currently recognized by 52 UN member states. The Republic of Serbia does not recognize the 'secession' of the region itself, and considers it a self-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija).

Kosovo was a part of the lands of Thraco-Illyrian tribes, then of the Roman, Byzantine, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Ottoman empires and for a period by the Germans during WW2. In the 20th century it was part of the Kingdom of Serbia and its successor state Yugoslavia. NATO bombed Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War in 1999 to halt the killing of civilians. The territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations (UNMIK).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.100.249 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Kosovo and South Ossetia articles

Why Kosovo article currently has two infoboxes, while South Ossetia article contains just one?
Why main Kosovo first infobox map in the article suggest that it is still part of Serbia, while the main South Ossetia first infobox map in the article suggest the it is completley separated from Georgia?

It seems like die-hard Slavorthodox-Nationalist POVs runs very high here in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.216.113 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well first off Kosovo does not have De Facto control of Northern Kosovo, whereas South Ossetia and Abkhazia have full De Facto control of their regions. That's facts and not POV. Secondly, as a person who saw what was happening earlier in the "International Response to the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo" article, or something like that, I can tell you that initially it was pure Albanian and NATO POV; when India said for instance that they won't recognize Kosovo until Russia does so, this was interepreted as India possibly recognizing Kosovo. Now when Wikipedia is moving more towards the center, the pro-Albanian/NATO editors whine about pro-Serbian POV. Quite hilarious to watch actually. For instance in the Russia article, one editor actually argued that Russia wasn't a nuclear super power, I mean they only have enough nukes to radiate to death over 90% of the World's Population, not a superpower, nothing to see here, moving on. Thank you for providing the entertainment. Also do remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Thank you! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Kosovar Government believes they are a special case unrelated to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Doesn't that warrant special treatment on Wikipedia? Where's your Patriotism? Listen to Thaci I tell ya! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Kosovo has two infoboxes because it is officially a province in Serbia. South Ossetia is not province in Georgia: Georgian government annulated South Ossetian authonomy and divided the region between other provinces.--Certh (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not biased either way, but this article has problems. Kosovo is a partially recognized sovereign nation which had de jure and de facto control of most of the country. I strongly suggest a Republic of Kosovo page and have another page for the region, as the historic region of Kosovo has different borders than the republic. What we should do on wikipedia is follow the lead of other encyclopedias, de facto countries from the 1970s like Rhodesia had articles which followed the same format as other countries. It will not take Serbia's consent for Kosovo to be an independent nation and this page should not be bogged down by that. It is silly to consider number of recognitions or UN recognition to be a factor. Did it matter who recognized North Vietnam versus South Vietnam or that they recognized each other in the 1970s? Look how the encyclopedias treated those two countries. Azalea pomp (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But northern Kosovo is not occupied or controlled by Serb armed forces, either. All of Kosovo, from north to south and from east to west, is occupied by NATO troops which impede the effective creation of a nini-“Republika Srpska in Kosovo” and separation of the territory or annexation into Serbia.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia nowadays are fully-occupied too, by Russian troops which impede the effective Georgian rule over these regions.

So there is no reason to show the maps of South Ossetia and Kosovo under different shades of grey (showing Kosovo vinculated to Serbia and South Ossetia non-vinculated with Georgia).

That current first map is 100% Serb pro POV and it does need to be changed. The only map which needs to be shown is the map of Kosovo. Why hasn't this map been changed already? Azalea pomp (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It’s because around 5 minutes later, a pro-Slavorthodox-Nationalist-POV editor reverses it, accusing the last editor of “vandal”, “Serbophobic”, “Albanian-POVer” and/or “uneducated who first need to discuss the change before make it” — even when the issue has already been widely discussed on the talk page.

Why does the simple fact that Kosovo's independence is completely disputed seem utterly incomprehensible? Around 75% (150/200) of the world's governments have failed to recognize its independence. De jure, the government of Kosovo does not have the support of either the UN or the majority of the world states, the Kosovar Albanian declaration does not secure its legitimacy, de facto, northern Kosovo is not under the control of the Kosovo government (though everything is under NATO protection). In recognition of these quite serious issues, Wikipedia does not choose to treat the Kosovar Albanian government as, for example, the United Kingdom, or France. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is that wikipedia needs to follow the example of other encyclopedias. The first map does not make any sense. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does not. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Direktor the question in the thread is, COMPARING Kosovo and South Ossetia. I see that you made no such comparsion above, do you believe that South Ossetia should be treated more like a country (with one infobox) in it's own article because it is more legitim, it is recognized by more states? Do you think that South Ossetia article should reflect it's statehood more so than the Kosovo article? The whole title of this thread is about comparsion between south ossetia article and the kosovo article. Hobartimus (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the thread, including the big black title above. Upon a closer examination, I'm sure you'll find I did indirectly refer to the issue by pointing out the fact that the Kosovar Albanian government does not control Kosovo (and Metohija) in its entirety, unlike South Ossetia. I also pointed out that circa 75% of the world's governments recognize Kosovo as represented by the second infobox, while no such infobox could be created for South Ossetia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Almost all countries of the world recognize South Ossetia as part of Georgia. How many countries recogize South Ossetia as an independent country? 1% of world governments? Do you claim that South Ossetia is recognized as independent by more countries than Kosovo? Hobartimus (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. What I meant was, with regard to the percentage, is that South Ossetia can't possibly have two infoboxes such as Kosovo, as the majority of the world (which does not recognize its independence) does not consider it as an autonomous political entity within Georgia. Therefore, the only "political entity infobox" that can be used for South Ossetia is that of it as an independent republic (even though it is even less internationally recognized than Kosovo). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If they do not consider it autonomous then be some type of Georgia infobox is still possible. In any case I think there is something to the idea that we should strive to establish some type of standard in these cases. I don't know if this should be done editing here or there but the two articles really could be closer in their methodology. Hobartimus (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

While I fully appreciate what you're trying to accomplish, one can't standardize things of a different type. Kosovo and South Ossetia present two entirely different cases altogether, and must be dealt with separately. Sensitive matters such as these must be dealt with on a case-to-case basis, otherwise we risk sacrificing the accurate representation of information for the sake of "standardization". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

All these talks about “north Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, so Kosovo is less independent than South Ossetia” are nonsense. Northern part of Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, but it is not controlled by Serbia either, and as far as I know Boris Tadic government even refuses to officially stablish official relations with the “Kosovo Serb Assembly”.

And we should note that South Ossetian independence is largely relative and many times rethorical, since all of its military is Russian, its main politicians are Russian, the Kokoity government talks about not true independence, but unification with Russia’s North Ossetia as a political goal. The Russian FSB border guards even control the Ossetian-Georgian border. And we cannot compare Russia with NATO or EU, since the first is a contry, and the secind are supra-national organizations with no centralized president or prime minister.

Abkhazia, also, had signed a treaty of friendship with Moscow which cedes a big part of the control of the control of the region, from the military to the currency — as the same way that South Ossetia, which also uses the Russian ruble.

Even Transnistria, which has its own currency but it is recognized by practically no one, has only a single infobox and is treated as more as an independent country than Kosovo. Why these different approaches? It seems like between Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Kosovo, only the last one is the big illegal, rogue, non-existent and illegitimate entity here.

Even Gagauzia has only a single infobox, too! It is really a shame how Kosova is treaten by serbian nationalists at Wikipedia! —Tubesship (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Um Gagauzia has the infobox of an autonomous province, like Vojvodina. Its really a shame you don't bother to read the article you're trying to present in support of your POV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Who do you try to fool? There is no difference, both are infoboxes with flag and coat of arms. Why not the same for Kosova? --84.56.212.2 (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd never dream of trying to "fool" you... The difference is quite simple, really, please read the following extremely carefully: The status of the Republic of Kosovo is completely disputed, the status of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia is not disputed anywhere in the world. The Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia has absolutely nothing to do with Kosovo or the current issue we are discussing here. Nothing at all. It's like saying "Wisconsin has only one infobox, why can't Kosovo!?" --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

All your talks are nonsense.
"All these talks about 'north Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, so Kosovo is less independent than South Ossetia' are nonsense."
Parts of northern Kosovo are undoubtedly not controlled by the Republic of Kosovo, both de facto and de jure (international law). Noone stated that "Kosovo is less independent than South Ossetia", that's your imagination. We are not here to "rate" the independence of Kosovo on some fictitious scale of yours. Furthermore, the eventual political goals of South Ossetia are completely irrelevant to these considerations, as are other meaningless facts you listed about several other partially recognized political entities.
"Northern part of Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, but it is not controlled by Serbia either"
Irrelevant, as it is de jure a part of Serbia (UN administration), and is not under the de facto control of the Albanian government of the Republic of Kosovo. The Republic of Kosovo exists "de facto", where it does not "de facto" rule, it does not exist. It does not exist in northern Kosovo. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, The northern part of Kosovo does not change anything about the status of Kosovo(just check out Cyprus). By looking at your comments and changes in the article (that you do without consulting us others), it is very clear that you are very pro-serbian. I think that makes you unfit to do any big changes in the article. Emto (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Emto, the changes I made were discussed above. I do indeed have a stance on many issues, including Kosovo. I doubt any of the users here involved have not formed their own opinions on the matter. The question that presents itself is: should I make that opinion clear or conceal it?, a question that is straightforwardly answered by the infobox on my userpage. HOWEVER, I strive to be as objective and "professional" as possible. This is Wikipedia, and the policies and conventions hereof are absolutely paramount. In short, I do not care whether or not you think I am "fit to edit this article", that borders on a personal attack: comment on content, not on the contributor. In any case, if having an opinion on this matter makes one "unfit to edit", that would rule out 99% of all involved users (including yourself, I deem).
"The northern part of Kosovo does not change anything about the status of Kosovo"
I was not talking about the "status of Kosovo" at all. I was talking about the infobox. The northern part of Kosovo is not under the de facto control of the Republic of Kosovo. Legally, i.e. by UN international law (UN Security Council Resolution 1244, UN Charter, Final Helsinki Act of the OSCE), all of Kosovo is part of Serbia. Therefore, the Republic of Kosovo does not encompass the entirety of th region/province of Kosovo. That part which it does not really control is not under the de facto control of either the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia, but it is de jure a part of Serbia. Naturally, this fact does not really effect the "status of the Republic of Kosovo", nor does it make it any more or less independent. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Principality_of_Sealand It is getting more and more ridiculous, even Sealand has an infobox on top, so why not Kosova? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, this incessant "listing" is getting ridiculous. Comment on the two very good reasons that have already explained "why not Kosova", a million "examples" add nothing to your argument as they do not have the same situation as Kosovo. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hell, where is the difference? Here claims Great Britain that this is his territory, there claims serbia the same, so where is the difference? And don't dare to say that Kosova has no influence over North Kosova, read this: http://www.imc-ko.org/index.php?id=358&l=e&p=7 --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OMFG, read the thread... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The link ist interesting, it says: "IMC takes action against illegal television station in Mitrovica", so how can you say that the northern part is NOT under control of Kosova? Maybe YOU should read the link!? --Tubesship (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as we know, the conutries recognizing the Republic of Kosovo are recognizing it with the exact same borders of the former Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo. And about international law… well, it is not so monolithic and independent of interpretations, since we must remember that Dmitry Medvedev — in the same way that Hashim Thaci also did before — mentioned the Helsinki Final Act when the Russian government recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.--BalkanWalker (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but the northern parts of Kosovo under ethnic Serbian control (accepting UN administration) are at least "as legal" as the Republic of Kosovo. We're all still forgetting the fact that the rest of the world recognizes Kosovo as a UN-administered province. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But differently from the Republic of Kosovo (or the Republika Srpska of Bosnia), no country and no international orgazination in the world recognizes the northern part of Kosovo as a separate ethnic Serb nation or even as a sub-national separate entity.--BalkanWalker (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that? The UN administration is not terminated, and is still in effect. The Serbs in northern Kosovo do not consider themselves a separate entity, but merely continue to consider themselves citizens of the Serbian UN-administered province of Kosovo. They certainly have no less legitimacy than the Kosovar Albanian government.

However, as I've said before, even if there were no Serbian enclaves in northern Kosovo, still the dual-infobox system would be necessary as circa 75% of the world's governments do not recognize Kosovo itself as the Republic of Kosovo, but as the UN administered Serbian province. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When South Ossetia and Abkhazia declared Independence, the Kosovo Government said that Kosovo was a special case, and it did not apply to Abkhazia/South Ossetia. Then certain editors here want it to apply to Abkhazia/South Ossetia. You cannot eat your cake and have it too. Are you a special case, or like Abkhazia/South Ossetia? Make up your minds please, because playing both sides, although rather hilarious, is silly. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ICJ case

Why not include it into the article? --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's do that. --GOD OF JUSTICE 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ thing certainly does not belong in the introduction of the article; it simply isn't that important. At best, it belongs in the "International reaction..." subheading. --alchaemia (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very important and must be included in the intro. --Litany (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it mustn't. Beam 03:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec - you are splitting recognition by UN Members vs. non-UN Members, at the same time trying to ignore the ICJ, a UN entity? Double Standards much? "The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Include what? So far the ICJ has said nothing about the declaration of independence, what are you talking about? Colchicum (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=28492&Cr=Kosovo&Cr1= "UN World Court to give opinion on legality of Kosovo’s independence" 8 October 2008 – The General Assembly voted today to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a non-binding advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia.

At UN Headquarters, 77 Member States voted in favour of the resolution – which was put forward by Serbia – and six voted against, with 74 abstentions. Today’s meeting heard from nearly two dozen speakers, including Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremić. Kosovo, which has been administered by the UN since Western forces drove out Yugoslav forces amid inter-ethnic fighting in 1999, declared its independence in February. At last month’s annual high-level General Debate, Serbian President Boris Tadić said that as a result of Kosovo’s “unilateral, illegal illegitimate” move, “the very nature of the international system has been called into question.” Cause if Serbia wins, Kosovo's cannot legally join the UN, period. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not an opinion on Kosovo's independence, it is merely an address to the ICJ, which doesn't merit inclusion in the intro. Wait a year or so, and then we will see. Colchicum (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Official UN Article Title (from UN News Centre):"UN World Court to give opinion on legality of Kosovo’s independence"

Colchium's response: "It is not an opinion on Kosovo's independence"

I'm confused! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well since no one wants to explain to me why the ICJ Case should not be included in the article - go ahead and include it. It's been well over 48 hours. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ has not yet produced any opinion. The ICJ has not yet produced any opinion. The ICJ has not yet produced any opinion. As of now there is nothing to write about. Wait a year or so. Colchicum (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ case is under review of the UN. The ICJ case is under review of the UN. The ICJ case is under review of the UN. 77 UN nations, more then recognized Kosovo, voted so. 77 UN nations, more then recognized Kosovo, voted so. 77 UN nations, more then recognized Kosovo, voted so. I don't see why that shouldn't be included. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in the introduction "Serbia, backed by..., has asked for an advisory opinion" is not factually correct. Serbia hasn't asked anything from ICJ. General Assembly of the United Nations has asked for an advisory opinion. True, this was adopted as a proposal from Serbia, but from the point of adoption, this is not Serbia's request, it is a request from the UN GA and Serbia has the same standing in this request as every other UN member. So I would suggest to change this to "Supporting a proposal from Serbia, the General Assembly of the United Nations has asked for an advisory opinion...", or something like that. --Dzordzm (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Posting it in the Article. Thank you for that helpful suggestion! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert that, and remove any mention of the ICJ from the intro. It does not belong there, an introduction is just that: an introduction to the article. Please further discuss any future placement of ICJ occurrences prior to inclusion. Thanks, I appreciate you being cool enough to discuss this prior to taking further action. Beam 04:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:

Likewise, Serbia, backed by over a third of the UN states,^[1] has asked the UN International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on "the legality of the declaration under international law".^[2]

Beam 04:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Beam how you took further action, prior to discussing this. And the vote was 77-6-74, which is a blowout, and you placing "backed by over a third of the UN" doesn't really show the gravity of the 77 to 6 situation. Furthermore, it should be in the intro, since it is Serbia's answer and UN's reaction to Kosovo's Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Or are pro-Kosovo editors now going to tell me it wasn't unilateral? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What blowout? What gravity? Listen, it is very simple. They haven't voted for or against Kosovo's independence, they decided whether they should ask the ICJ for an opinion on that matter. It is perfectly ok to recognize Kosovo and to ask the ICJ for an opinion at the same time, as Norway did. Note that even Norway hasn't revoked its recognition, let alone the abstaining states. Colchicum (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Colchium - stop edit-warring

If you have a problem with my edit discuss it here, don't type "not here" and undo it. We had an extended discussion on the edit that I did above, and you had a right to state your viewpoint, which you failed to do. Then you went in and undid my edit, which again everyone could have argued for or against here. You failed to do so, and undid my edit without warning. Please respond and state your actions and why you acted so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not true that I have ever reverted you. I moved your information down (see here), because it wasn't appropriate for the introduction for the reasons discussed above. I am afraid this is not your pet project, and you will need to gain a consensus first. Colchicum (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he's right. It's not going there. Please remove this talk section, and continue the discussion above. I have removed that "stuff" from the intro altogether. It doesn't belong there at all. Beam 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Beam, saying "he's right" and "that stuff doesn't belong there at all" isn't in any way, shape or form acceptable on Wikipedia. You have to explain why, which you have failed to do. Even some of your previous comments "No, it mustn't" are not acceptable for a Wikipedia editor. You must explain why, otherwise those comments will rightfully be ignored. You are not my sovereign, and I won't simply obey your orders. Nor are your statements facts of law. This talk section stays, until either Colchium explains himself or undoes his edit. And if you want to participate, I recommend that you start explaining too, instead of just giving orders. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I explained it above, perhaps you should read before you post? I'll repeat it though: It's the introduction to the article. It should introduce the article. What you would like to appear in the introduction, does not belong. Perhaps somewhere in the body of the article, but not in the introduction. I see as it blatantly obvious it doesn't go there, as I'm sure many others do, and have stated as much. Beam 07:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that since the introduction mentions Kosovo's Declaration of Independence, it should also mention the ICJ case. It's called a logical chain of events. So either Kosovo's Declaration of Independence should not be mentioned in the article, or the response of the International Community should. You may love Unilateral Declarations and Unilaterals Actions, but there are quite a few who do not. I am still waiting for Colchium to respond here. You cannot, Beam, simply put A in the intro, and not put B, becuase you like A more then B, you either put both, or don't put both. And if you noticed, I qouted your post from before, ergo I had to read it, - perhaps you should comprehend posts before answering. Anyways, Colchium - I await your response. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As explained above, as of now there is no ICJ case, there is only a petition to open such a case. I am sorry if you fail to comprehend this. Colchicum (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are no responses with decent explanations, I will view that as a green light to undo the edits after 24 hours, I think that's more then fair. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to pay much attention to your personal attacks, at least as long as you misspell my username. Read the disclaimer very carefully:

"Please be very careful in editing the introduction of this article. The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. While this occurred in 2006, it was never lifted; thus, this page is still under probation. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. See the talk page for more information.

Please also note that the current delicate (and controversial) political situation of Kosovo makes the terms of article probation all the more important. DO NOT ENGAGE IN EDIT-WARRING ON THIS ARTICLE or any related articles. Edit-warring on this article will result in immediate blocking and application of additional sanctions under the terms of probation as administrators and/or the community deem appropriate. Thank you.

Prior to a change (other than minor edits), discussion NEEDS to take place. PRIOR TO not afterwards. Please address such controversial edits within the Talk Page first."

And this:

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Colchicum (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to explain the reasoning and you respond with a threat. Intriguing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Any discussion prior to me making the change Colchicum or Beam? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

50 countries

50 countries recognized Kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

51, to be more precisely or do you consider Taiwan not a country? --80.152.236.156 (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is not an internationally recognized country, and not a member of UN. — Emil J. 10:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is a country. --80.152.236.156 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It simply a government that claims to represent China.--Certh (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan has nothing to do with it. The total is 51 UN Member States, not including Taiwan, which would make it 52 if included in that list (See International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo).--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I may correct you, the number is 52 (Malayisa) and with Taiwan it would be 53. --84.56.253.128 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, at the time this conversation took place Malaysia had not yet recognized, but you are right, the numbers have changed. The point, in response to the original comment, is that the "official" list of states used on the "International Reaction" page show UN-member states, and does not include Taiwan in the same category.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Recognition by Montenegro and Macedonia has demoralized Serbia or in other words, to Serbia it is like throwing the A Bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.205.64 (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

THis whole page needs to be updates because it has the whole history and status of Kosova (not Kosovo) under the point of view of Serbs. Also, i do not like the map of Kosova as a small reagionunder Serbia, as it is not it's historical map or present map. Please unlock this so that the 2008 updates get in place,a nd the History of Kosova is clarified and not "Serb"-nised. Also, please remove the double name on the cities. They are Albanian names and written and read in Albanian, and stay like that, they don't need translation in serbian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.74.170 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN calls it Kosovo. Is the UN a tool of Serbian Propaganda? If it is, why did Kosovo's leadership support Resolution 1244? Is Thaci a tool of Serbian Propaganda too? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Incostistency

In the Albanian people article, the 2007 estimate is around 2,100,000 Albanians in Kosovo. In the Kosovo article, the 2007 estimate is that around 2,100,000 people live in Kosovo altogether. Now, do people just write whatever they like as an "estimate" or does somebody really not like the fact that there are over 100,000 Serbs that were not cleansed from Kosovo yet? --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably the latter. Go ahead and make the changes on the "estimates". Also, I doubt there will be anymore ethnic clensing, it's too televised now, and NATO has screwed up the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, so now they have an actual crisis to worry about. Plus there's the financial collapse, so NATO's kinda screwed. BTW, and if you can find censuses on it, or something similar, it'd be great too! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro to the article is decieving and does not paint a true picture of the realities.

By international law, it is a province within the sovereign territory of the Republic of Serbia.

This statement should atleast be followed by the words of Mr.ahtisaari's which state that well over 65% of the world's wealth has eccepted Kosovo's independence in order to give a more balanced picture of the true realities on the ground - (http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=10&dd=19&nav_id=54336) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmadrid123 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/stats.php#passport shows that the number has rosen to 70.9 % of world's total nominal GDP. --Tubesship (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is percentage of GDP of any relevance here? Nikola (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Following the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations (UNMIK).

This should be followed by to halt the killings of civillians, which is a format many neutral news corps around the world employ, such as: (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36267120081101) http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Montenegro_deals_blow_to_Serbia_over_Kosovo.html?siteSect=143&sid=9828724&cKey=1223577452000&ty=ti (http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=198115) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmadrid123 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your sayings, so please feel free to correct the article. --Tubesship (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And how do I do that sir, it's locked(yes, i am a newbie)

That's a problem we have with some pro serbian administrators keeping this article locked. The best would be to ban this pro serbian administrators from this article, otherwise this article will be locked forever. --Tubesship (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. I had a lot of experience with the administrators who are looking at this article. Most of them are pro-Albanian. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That, sir, is complete nonsense. You have failed to acknowledge the neutral point of view that NATO airstrikes during the kosovo war were intended to halt the killings of civillians. I REPEAT this is a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW eccepted by everyone apart from (a minority of ignorant) Serbian nationalists who, may I add, still consider slobodan millosovic, Arkan, Ratko Mladic and Karadzic as 'heroes' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmadrid123 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I suppose NATO killed no one. Haven't people learned that the reasons for war that the US tells everyone are usually not the REAL reasons (hint: Iraq). Also, your little "nationalists" comment can be translated to any nation in the Balkans, lots of Croatian nationalists still see Ante Pavelic (Fascist leader), Ante Gotovina (accused war criminal), and many others as "heroes", I'm sure you'd agree that those who were declared by the CIA in 1997 as "terrorist", Albanian nationalists see as heroes. So what? Some nationalists are extreme. What's your point? There are extreme nationalists in the US, Russia, anywhere you go... --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The CIA did not designate the KLA as 'terrorists', find me evidence then state your claim, Sir. Everything else you just said was/is not relevant. NATO stopped the killing of civilians. The U.N. admitted this when it sent ground troops in to prevent further murders. My point is proven, I will edit this article accordingly and if any one has any further objections please feel free to voice your opinion. Realmadrid123 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You want to tell us earnestly that the term "region" instead of "state" or "country" is pro Albanian? You made my day. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You earnestly want to tell us that the term "country" would be neutral and not pro-Albanian considering the situation with the recognition and control over the region (or lack of it)? You guys are constantly trying to forget the simple, obvious, and undeniable fact that the "Republic" is miles from full recognition and sovereignty, even within its own supposed borders. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Country or state or republic, all of them would be fine, but not region or province or even "entitiy" (yes, this was indeed in the article!), because whoever you ask about Kosova, everybody will say "country", recognized or not, but none will say "region". Try it, if you don't believe me. And how can you say that the northern part is NOT under control of Kosova after reading this: http://www.imc-ko.org/index.php?id=358&l=e&p=7 --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Off Topic: How do I merge two accounts into one? I do not now why sometimes I am logged in with my German Wikipedia account "Schwarzschachtel" on English Wikipedia, but I would prefer to merge both, my English Wikipedia account "Tubesship" and my German Wikipedia account "Schwarzschachtel". I am not quite familiar with this kind of stuff, any help is appreciated. You may answer at my talk page. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fabulous. I read your "source" before, the IMC is an "independent broadcast regulator" not a branch of the Kosovar Albanian government. And even if it is, if you think that the confiscation of some broadcasting equipment suddenly proves the northern Kosovar Serbian enclaves are under the control of the Republic of Kosovo, you are as objective as I thought. That's about all I'm willing to discuss this "source".

"Autonomous Province" is pro-Serbian. "Country" ("state" or "republic") is pro-Albanian. "Region" is neutral and NPOV.

"...whoever you ask about Kosova, everybody will say 'country', recognized or not, but none will say 'region'."

I'm sure you and your buddies appear to be an excellent source to you, but you should probably understand that your own personal statements are not really very relevant here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not get personal. If you have a problem with me or my buddies try other sources, look in the newspapers, everybody says "country", recognized or not, none says "region", that is a fact. Some even say "state" or "republic", recognized or not. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting personal, I'm merely pointing out how irrelevant your statement that "everybody will say 'country'" is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant as it is a fact and we say in German "Die normative Kraft des Faktischen", meaning that norms follows facts and not the other way round. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you I do speak German a little, but I do not see what all this proves. The "facts" are that the status of the Albanian Republic of Kosovo is totally disputed... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you don't want to understand as everybody is speaking about a country named Kosovo, but they are all pro Albanians, and you are the only righteous one. Do you believe this earnestly? Again, no one says region, entity or territory except English Wikipedia. So the question may be allowed who is wrong? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Again more nonsense, address the actual arguments. Wikipedia is not a source, and if you think "everybody's doing it!" actually means anything in real discussion, that's an issue you'll have to deal with yourself. This page is not a forum, so I'll restrict my responses to serious posts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Direktor. First of all, it is not a fact that Kosovo is a country. To say that is like to say that it's a fact that George W. Bush was a bad President. Why? Well, because some are sure that he is, and some are sure that he isn't. Kosovo's status can't be defined as a fact, because it is perceived differently by different countries. Thus, we can choose 2 approaches: using the word that the majority of countries use when it comes to Kosovo (2/3 of UN states see it as "Province", together with UNSCR 1244, UN Charter and Final Helsinki Act), OR we can use a word that neither uses "Province", or "Country", and that is "Region" or "Territory" ("State" counts as "Country").. Of course, if you believe that this Wikipedia is the Wikipedia of the English-speaking people (and they probably mostly see Kosovo as a country) and not Wikipedia, an encyclopedia in English language, I can see how you'd not be too happy with "Region" or "Territory".. However, it's not up to you, Schwarz, to decide if Kosovo's secession was or wasn't OK (we'll see what the ICJ says) --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between an encyclopedia in the English language and an encyclopedia for the English-speaking nations. If one visits the German wikipedia (for example) one expects it to reflect the common consensus of knowledge in Germany, Austria, and other German speaking countries FIRST. Likewise, at the English wikipedia it would seem that the state of affairs in the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and other English speaking coutries to be primary. Information and views are allowed and encouraged from outside this, but in cases of opinion and policy (which this is) the opinions of the native English speaking population would be expected to be the mainstream.Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison really does not make sense. George Bush being a bad president is an opinion or a value judgment. Kosovo is a partially recognized country and it is a sovereign state. That is not an opinion or a value judgment; it is a fact. Kosovo is also claimed as a province by Serbia and that is a fact. The problem with the format of this page is that it does not follow the precedence which other encyclopedias and almanacs. The best example is Rhodesia. It declared its independence without the consent or approval of Great Britain. It was still treated as a country despite its status. This page needs to reflect this as well. Kosovo is a partially recognized sovereign state. The page should mention the conflict, but this page needs to follow the format of a sovereign state. Azalea pomp (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

< George Bush being a bad president isn't a value judgement, a good president's successor doesn't get creamed - paying attention to the news is a great thing, a truly wonderful thing. Over 7.5 million votes victory margin in an election calling a "referendum on George Bush" - yeah, clearly a value judgment by over 64 million Americans. Also - you cannot be a partially recognized Sovereign State. That's just hilarious. It's like a partially failing A+ paper. An oxymoron. Also, if Kosovo's a sovereign state, why doesn't Pristina government control Northern Kosovo? Do you fact check? Kosovo is NOT a sovereign state - calling Kosovo a sovereign state, now that's a value judgement, and a poor one at that. Kosovo is neither De Facto, nor De Jure Independent. Example: Serbia can invade Kosovo if NATO army leaves, and UN won't be able to do jack shit about it. Example #2: Russia can lose UN veto power if it invades Poland, regardless of what NATO does. See the difference? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Serbia not sovereign by your definition? It doesn't control Kosovo which it claims as its territory, therefore by your definition it is NOT sovereign. Just wanting clarification.199.90.28.194 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Azela, that's pro-Albanian POV pure and simple. Listen to yourself: "Kosovo is a partially recognized sovereign state." Sovereignty implies right, like that which one gets from international law and recognition. The comparison with Rhodesia is as off the marker as the one with old W. Could you please point out the South Rhodesian enclaves in Rhodesia? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, you need to look at the precedence set by encyclopedias when handling partially recognized countries like North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Everyone needs to leave their personal opinions to themselves. Direktor, what do you mean by enclaves of Rhodesia? Azalea pomp (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "need" to look at precedents". Kosovo is a particularly nasty, complicated and controversial case and thus requires a "custom" approach. What did I mean with Rhodesia? During the existence of the Republic of Rhodesia, exactly what part of its territory considered itself the British colony of South Rhodesia? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Northern Rhodesia became Zambia while Nyasaland became Malawi. The white minority which was more substantial in Southern Rhodesia than it was in the other two colonies. The white minority did not want black majority rule, so they declared themselves independent as Rhodesia. Rhodesia was not recognized by any state (not that I can think of), yet even Rhodesia was treated as a country by all of the encyclopedias and almanacs. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for that wonderful lesson in Rhodesian history. You did not answer my question, however: where are the South Rhodesian enclaves within the Republic of Rhodesia that correspond with the Serbian enclaves in Kosovo? My question is rhetorical, of course, and was meant to illustrate the inadequacy of Rhodesia as an example. (Btw, Rhodesia was recognized by a number of states, though no significant ones.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, find the source with a number of states (pacific island nations?). I am not sure if English is not your first language as your questions are not clear. Are you talking about White owned land enclaves in Southern Rhodesia? "Southern Rhodesian" enclaves in the Republic of Rhodesia does not make any sense... Southern Rhodesia did become the Republic of Rhodesia (a republic being declared a few years after UDI). Rhodesia declares its independence and the almanacs and encyclopedias have Rhodesia listed as a country. Kosovo declares its independence and this it should have a country listing like any other. Kosovo has many more recognitions than Rhodesia did. It needs to follow the format as other countries. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rhodesialand.png there you see the enclaves within Rhodesia as white spots. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless, they always seem to "find" an excuse not to list Kosovo as a country. Emto (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, that's sad but true and that's why this pro serbian administrators should get banned for the articles sake. --84.56.237.136 (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone need an excuse not to list Kosovo as a country? Nikola (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo's status

Typical. People don't agree to the pro-Albanian POV and suddenly they're pro-Serbian and should be banned. And all of this for the sake of the article.

When will people realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that tells it how it is, not only how one side sees it?

The Kosovo government declared independence. This has been supported and recognized by a number of countries in the world. May I also add, a majority of countries (around 2/3) have NOT recognized Kosovo as an independent country. Kosovo can not be treated as a country just because some states treat it as a country. Of course, this should be listed, we should list how some states see it, and how others see it.

We all know that the Kosovo government is not really independent. If it was, it wouldn't have NATO as it's Army and it wouldn't be under foreign administration. Also, if it was sovereign, it would have full control over all it's territory. It doesn't. Serbs mostly control the North and other enclaves in Kosovo. They have their own Assembly and are effectively independent from Kosovo.

This is why you have a real mess when it comes to summing up the situation and status in ONE WORD. It's impossible to please everyone, and people have to accept it. Both sides seem to feel very strongly about this topic. "Country" or "State" is NOT acceptable for those who DON'T see Kosovo as a country or state. I see "Province" is not acceptable to those who don't see it as a province. What's the problem? "Region" or "Territory", despite how you feel about it, IS neutral and doesn't suggest Kosovo to be a country or province.

I'm surprised at the people who support the Western view of Kosovo. Your Western countries claim that Kosovo is a unique case and should be treated as such, and yet you keep wanting to compare it to other "similar" regions. The truth is that every case is unique, not just one. It's logical.

Kosovo's status has become a matter of opinion, despite the UN being quite clear on it. It's like global warming, all the scientists agree that it's man-made, but politics and media still shape our opinion on it... Don't let politics and media interfere with facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo IS a country and not only a region, territory or entity. I live in Germany, a few hundred meters away from an US military base. There are a lot of American military forces in Germany. Does that make Germany a no-country? And as shown here before, Kosova government has indeed control over the northern parts of the country as it closed the one and only television station in Mitrovica: http://www.imc-ko.org/index.php?id=358&l=e&p=7 And about the UN administration, they are helping to build a Kosovar administration, that's the reason they are there, not as suppressors, but as nation builders. Kosova is a democracy and is treaten as such by the UN administration. --84.56.255.114 (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard since I came to Wikipedia a few years ago. Of course an American base in Germany doesn't make Germany a "no-country". GERMANY HAS IT'S OWN ARMY! :P

Also, the way you write Kosovo (you write Kosova, which is the Albanian version, and not the official English version) also suggests that you're either Albanian or very pro-Albanian. I understand that this is a sensitive topic for you, but try to keep your emotions and bias for yourself. Write it "Kosovo" on English Wikipedia, but feel free to write "Kosova" on Albanian Wikipedia.

The Kosovo government has NO control over North Mitrovica and the rest of the North. Have you even been there? I was there last summer and I didn't see a single registration plate with the "KS" sign. All of them had the Serbian version - "KM". What's more, if anyone dares to have the "KS" registration plate (the official Kosovo government approved one), he or she can say "bye bye" to his or her car. That doesn't sound like "full control" to me. Also, I didn't see any Kosovo election banners or anything. On the contrary, I saw banners for Serbian elections, and indeed they did vote in Serbian elections, just like they're in Serbia, even for their local municipal government. Also, have you heard that Serbs working in KPS (Kosovo Police Service) left their jobs when Kosovo declared independence? There is no Kosovo government police control over North Kosovo. So, lets recap: No government institutions, no elections, no police control. Even KFOR is not too fond of going into those areas, since Serbs do see them as occupators.

And nice try with the politically correct story of UNMIK being there to help Kosovars. There are no friends in politics, only interests. The US has their interest in doing this, not because they really really like Albanians and want to help their leaders (who have suspicious connections to the drug/people/human organs trade). And Kosovo is NOT a democracy. Go speak in Serbian in Pristina, and you'll see what I mean. --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

US army is in Germany with Germany's permission. If Germany would decide it doesn't want it anymore, US army would leave it. Would KFOR leave Kosovo if PISG would request it? No, because they have UN mandate to be there. Nikola (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Serbia not sovereign by your definition? It doesn't control Kosovo which it claims as its territory, therefore by your definition it is NOT sovereign. Just wanting clarification. Khajidha (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't control all of Kosovo, Serbs control only a small part of it. However, Serbia, unlike the Albanian government in Kosovo, has this document that says that even though Serbia doesn't have administrative control over Kosovo, Kosovo is a part of Serbia. That document is called United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. I hope I clarified that :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

But the Kosovars have a document that says that they are not part of Serbia in the first place.Khajidha (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's called their Constitution. The Serbian Constitution says that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia. What UN document does Kosovo have? --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations derives its existence from its constituent countries, therefore it really isn't important if Kosovo has a UN document. A population has the right to determine its own government, the Kosovars no longer want to live under Serbian rule and have founded a new nation. I fail to see how this is any different from any other country's founding.Khajidha (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Serbia is a member of the United Nations and as such can allow the United Nations to temporarily administer its province. Nikola (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, the UN is there because Serbia allowed the UN to administer its province. Honestly? --84.56.255.114 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Serbia (then FR Yugoslavia) did sign the Kumanovo agreement which allowed KFOR to run the province. Honestly. :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

They were forced to do so by military means, Belgrade was bombed and surrendered. Did you already forgot the war? This has nothing to do with "allowance". --84.56.255.114 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they did "allow" KFOR to enter Kosovo after being soundly beaten and their army destroyed. You know, just like Germany "allowed" the US and others to overtake after World War II by signing an "I surrender" document. It's laughable, GOD OF JUSTICE. Give it up. --alchaemia (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Serbian Army wasn't destroyed, that's why after 76 days of bombing NATO was considering a ground war, since they couldn't do much with bombing. Milosevic was ready to give administration before the bombing, but NATO wanted to occupy the entire territory of Yugoslavia (see Rambouillet Agreement) and when Milosevic refused, NATO bombed Serbia and Montenegro. In the end, Yugoslavia did NOT sign the R.A., but rather the Kumanovo Agreement. It's not a surrender if Yugoslavia got what it wanted - Kosovo a part of Serbia, the people of Kosovo under international protection. --GOD OF JUSTICE 22:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You may also note that German capitulation was signed with Allies in Berlin, but Kumanovo Agreement was signed before NATO entered Kosovo. Nikola (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

“partially recognised region”

Well, countries around the world haven’t been recognizing Kosovo as a region, but as an independent country. The term “region” is non-precise, since Serbia, Russia do also recognize Kosovo as a region — a region of of Serbia.

So I think country would be a more precise term for describing Kosovo… or, at least, something like a region partially recognized as an independent country.--BalkanWalker (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that 'region' does not apply at all. A better term would be 'state' or 'country', as those states recognizing Kosovo do as as a state/country, not a region. I would say '...a partially-recognized state.' --alchaemia (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. BalkanWalker's proposal is reasonable. --Tone 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, two. --84.56.251.225 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds logical--Lilonius (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I don't understand why it was changed in the first place... Emto (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and why does nobody change it now? What are we waiting for? --84.56.251.225 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is getting more and more POV, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are countries but not Kosovo? Emto (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is really a shame how some pro Serbian fanatics take this article for so long time as a hostage. Shame on them. Everybody trying to make this article more neutral is getting blocked/banned by this few pro Serbian administrators at Wikipedia. --Tubesship (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about: "region, partially recognized as a country". Sounds more precise and does not label the place one way or the other. Its best to be as clear as possible here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

sigh, can we just revert it back to the way it was? The thing is that Kosovo is a region, while the Republic of Kosovo is a partly-recognized recent institution. Using "Kosovo" as shorthand for "Republic of Kosovo" is misleading and implies the pro-recognition pov. Precisely because there is a dispute, it is imperative to consistently use "Republic of Kosovo" when the 2008 Republic is referred to. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out more clearly where "region, partially recognized as a country" is incorrect or POV towards either side of the dispute? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I will point it out clearly: it is incorrect and pov due to the fact that other "partially recognized countries," having far less recognition than Kosovo, are labelled as such, using the standard terminology, while Kosovo is singled out for special terminology. The simple fact is, the phrase "partially recognized" already implies that not everyone considers it a "country," it is only partial, so it is neutral and non-pov. It is not saying Kosovo IS a country, it is saying it is partially recognized as such by some countries, which is true, and Kosovo is in de facto control over its territory, not Serbia. That does not mean it is technically wrong to call it a region or a provice, or that it is technically wrong to call it a "region partially recognized as a country," only that it is wrong to mutilate the common, widely used terminology that applies to all partially-recognized states, simply because a faction of people are offended that the word "country" appear anywhere near Kosovo, even if this is the accepted way of saying it in the case of other entities with less international recognition.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

By that rationale, every country is first a region, and only then a country/state. We should then use "Germany is a region" for the article about Germany, and then have a section about the Federal Republic of Germany. Needless to say, it is pointless and a bad idea. --alchaemia (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is not Germany. While a country is a country and a region is a region, Kosovo is considered to be a region by half of the world and a country by the other half. It is only natural that we mention this "duality" in the lead. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And Germany is not South Africa. Your point? A country is a political project, not a final parameter of territory. Its size and shape can change, it can acquire or lose territory. It is, first and foremost, a region and only then a country, often times composed of several regions. The current definition is fine, for now. Should more recognitions follow, we can think about removing "partially-recognized" from the name completely. --alchaemia (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Germany is recognized as a country by 100% of the world's countries, while Kosovo is considered independent by circa 25% of the world's countries. Hence, the analogy with Germany, or South Africa for that matter, is incorrect. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't partially-recognized be there unless it is completely recognised? Nikola (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a decision based on consensus. I really can't figure out when it would be neutral enough to remove it. Is a majority of UN states recognizing enough ? Not all countries' recognitions have the same weight, say for instance that the number reaches 130, but Russia, China and India having not yet recognized. European countries play a more important role also i think, say if Europe becomes unanimous with the few states that don't recognize changing their position, it would not be a controversial issue anymore inside the EU and NATO, of course with Serbia still not recognizing problems will exist. These are just some factors, a more vague answer would be, when and if "partially recognized" becomes generally less notable. Meaning, the sources we use here to handle Kosovo's independence as something that doesn't raise so much controversy anymore, that will be the time...--Zakronian (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not until we have the same for the PRC, which is not recognized by 23 states. --alchaemia (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is childish. Please stop it, ok? You don't recognize a "region", you recognize a government as holding sovereignty over some specific region. It is idiotic to say a "region is partly recognized" as anything. Keep a clean difference between Kosovo the toponym (which doesn't need recognition by anyone, it simply sits there), and the Republic of Kosovo, the 2008 institution. There has been a huge debate on whether keep Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo separate to avoid exactly this sort of pointless debate, but the pro-independence crownd insisted the articles remain merged. I don't care if they do so, but as long as they do, be very sure to point out the difference between the two, right there in the lead. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The only childish thing here is your request to separate Kosovo, the region, from Kosovo, the country. They're one and all since Kosovo the country is exactly as big as Kosovo the region. You can make that request on something like Macedonia, for example, which is a region separated into three smaller regions with Macedonia, the state, claiming only a part of it. That's not the case with Kosovo, where Kosovo the country claims and has all of Kosovo under its direct or indirect control. --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

it is also blatantly incorrect that "Kosovo is de facto independent". This doesn't hold for all of Kosovo, since North Kosovo remains de facto part of Serbia (RoK has no real governance there). Ther rest of Kosovo also remains dependent on UN and EU presence to retain anything resembling rule of law. This is about as far from "de facto independence" as you can get. Kosovo has "partial de jure independence" to be sure, but that's hardly the same thing as "de facto independence". --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If anything, "North Kosovo" (there's no such thing, by the way) remains under the direct control of NATO (via their K-FOR force) and not Serbia. Serbia is laying a claim on it, but the territory is firmly under the control of K-FOR troops, who are, by invitation of the Kosovan authorities since 17.02.2008, the only security force authorized to maintain external and internal security for all of Kosovo. --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish you cared as much about the Abkhazia and South Ossetia articles. Colchicum (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Serbia not independent by your definition? It doesn't control Kosovo which it claims as its territory, therefore by your definition it is NOT independent. Dieter Bachmann, please stop it as you already hit rock bottom. --84.56.255.114 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

care to review my edit history? I cannot fix all of Wikipedia. But I could certainly try to chime in at the articles you mention. In return, may I interest you in helping fix the "Syriac/Assyrian/Aramaean ethnic mess? --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That reference to Dieter Bachmann was not in the original post. I should know, I made the original reference to Serbia's sovereignty. I forgot to log in the time I made it. I have no problems with anyone's edits as of yet.Khajidha (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And this rest of Kosovo also remains dependent on UN and EU presence to retain anything resembling rule of law is original research of course, as well as many other claims. You haven't provided a single source to substantiate your claims and consider yourself in a position to teach others what is childish and what they should stop, while you are just another participant of the discussion. Funny. Colchicum (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

oh, wait, you aren't serious? Strike the above then. Did you even care to click on the North Kosovo link I shoved right under your nose? And spend 20 seconds reading it? As in "functions largely autonomously from the remainder of the ethnic-Albanian-majority state, instead operating as a de facto part of Serbia [BBC, Could Balkan break-up continue?, 22.02.08]." Then what is your point? Cleary, you must be amenable to the argument that we cannot claim that "Kosovo is de facto independent" at the Kosovo article, and at the same time that "North Kosovo is de facto part of Serbia" in the North Kosovo article? (a thing known to us scientists as "{{contradict}}ion") If you aren't, I am afraid you shouldn't try to follow any of this. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I certainly agree with your point about North Kosovo, but not with the rest of your claims. Colchicum (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

such as what? That the above debate is childish? Feel free to disagree then. My point is one of English usage, not 'fact' -- "partially recognized region" simply isn't good English. I also pointed out why not, because it isn't the region that is recognized (unless you talk pattren recognition or biochemistry), it is the Republic. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Republic is the region, since it, the Republic, is comprised of the entirety of the region and not just parts of it. This is elementary geography. --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"is a region located in the Balkans, and is considered by Serbia to be an autonomous province within its sovereign territory." Can it be more POV than that? This article is getting hopeless. 85.226.152.141 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

@dab - You went ahead with your POV edit and got the article under semi-protection status. Bad, bad play. There was no consensus established, and your definition was entirely POV but also not very encyclopedic. Pretty bad behavior right there. Hope you're happy with your "result." --alchaemia (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless dab is banned or blocked there is no hope because this administrator does not care about consensus as you mentioned, therefore I ask to ban or block dab. --Tubesship (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

IF asking for dab to be banned wasn't all you did here, maybe everyone else would take you seriously. Balkan Fever 11:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the other way round as I cannot do anything without getting blocked or banned by dab. He prevents to correct this article as he is clearly pro serbian and against Kosovars as many users here will tell you, if you don't believe me. --Tubesship (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo Army

Kosovo Armed Forces on January of 2009

The Republic of Kosovo is expected to have its first Armed Forces battalions in the beginning of January of 2009, reveals the commander of Kosovo Protection Forces, and a possible candidate for Chief of Kosovo Army, General Lieutenant Sylejman Selimi.

While Kosovo begins to build its first army battalions, Kosovo Protection Forces will start to dismember in December and gradually cease its activities as Kosovo Armed Forces take over the current military bases and other strategically important tasks.

The members of Kosovo Protection Forces who will not qualify to join in Kosovo Armed Forces will retire, join special police forces such as Border Police Patrol or other law enforcement activities, which currently it is being negotiated between the Government of the Republic of Kosovo and leadership of Kosovo Protection Forces.

In a recent visit, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said he backs the creation of Kosovo Armed Forces, which are to be formed after the dismembering of Kosovo’s Protection Forces.

“Along with other NATO ambassadors, I am very pleased with the security in Kosovo which continues to be stable,” he said.

In June, NATO defense ministers agreed to train Kosovo's army. Most of NATO members have agreed to give appropriate amount of donations destined to support Kosovo Armed Forces.

Since, the Republic of Kosovo has 16,000 deployed NATO soldiers whose task is maintaining peace and defense of Kosovo's sovereign territory, initially Kosovo Armed Forces are expected to have a limited number of soldiers and activity, with an open door to build up in the future as a crucial requirement for the Republic of Kosovo to become a member of NATO.

According to the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, initially the Kosovo Armed Forces are expected to have 3000 active troops and 2000 reservists. The Kosovo Armed Forces will be professional, which will reflect ethnic diversity of the people of the Republic of Kosovo and will be recruited from among the citizens of the Republic of Kosovo. The Kosovo Armed Forces will serve as a national security force for the Republic of Kosovo and may send its members abroad in full conformity with its international responsibilities.

The President of the Republic of Kosovo is the Commander-in-Chief of the Kosovo Armed Forces. The Commander of the Kosovo Armed Forces will be appointed by the President of the Republic of Kosovo upon the recommendation of the Government. Internal organization of the Kosovo Armed Forces will be determined by law.

The Republic of Kosovo, a sovereign country located in Southeastern Europe, declared its independence on February 17, 2008, completing the chapter of dissolution of Yugoslavia.

http://www.newkosovareport.com/200811061374/Society/Kosovo-Armed-Forces-on-January-of-2009.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.253.252 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, and the New Kosova Report also said that Greece and Romania will recognize Kosovo :P How credible :P --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Greece and Romania will recognize Kosovo, maybe not tomorrow, but one day they will recognize, that's for sure. --84.56.225.79 (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How poetic... are we here to discuss the actual present or are you rehearsing for a science fiction novel? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, they never said they never recognize. They are not serbians with Инат behavior. --84.56.225.79 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I should not be ad hominen, but...

The fact is that it seems like this article — and its talk page — has been "controlled" by Bože pravde, Nikola Smolenski and DIREKTOR. Two of them Serbs, two of them Yugo-nostalgic, all of them openly against the independence of Kosovo... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.84.40 (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could say that we represent how the majority of the world's countries and population see Kosovo. But it's not about us, it's about the article. And I respect that some people see Kosovo as independent, it is their choice to choose how to see regions (and the ICJ's job to see if it was legal or not), but Wikipedia has a duty to represent all views and be NEUTRAL. I know that that some think that saying Kosovo isn't a country isn't neutral, but can pro-Albanian users accept that SOME COUNTRIES AND PEOPLE DON'T SEE KOSOVO AS A COUNTRY?! Can you accept that fact? If so, we can work on a compromise, but not Albanian style compromise (Albanians get everything, Serbs get nothing) ;) Also, I don't know which two you were referring to, but I'm not a Serb. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo has everything needed to be a country, so why not call it a country? Just because you don't like facts makes them not disappear. And no, the majority of the world is not against Kosovos independence but they are still indifferent. There are far less countries that expressed explicitly to refuse recognition even in the future than countries that already recognized Kosovo. That's fact and not what you want to make us believe. --84.56.225.79 (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo does not have anything needed to be a country. It does not have international recognition, it does not have sovereignity, it does not have territorial integrity. Nikola (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Its simple, to call Kosovo a "country" effectively settles the issue in favour of the Kosovar Albanian POV. Because it is in the lead, it makes all the detailed explanations that follow seem biased. To call the place a "country" is basically to pretend there is no dispute, and that is simply not neutral.
"Autonomous Province" is pro-Serbian, "Country" is pro-Albanian, "region" or "territory" is neutral. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats not true as "partially recognized country" already implies there is a dispute. May I remind you at the German expression "Die normative Kraft des Faktischen"? Norms follow facts and not the other way round and it is a fact that Kosovo has already everything needed to be called a country, recognized or not. There are countries that have less recognition like Taiwan, nevertheless Taiwan is a country. --84.56.225.79 (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the term "partially recognized country" implies the following two things which make it completely inappropriate, I'll be as detailed in explaining my point as is possible, and I'm hoping my arguments will be answered with more than empty phrases:
1) The term implies that the geographic entity does not have an alternate status, in other words it implies that the place is either a "partially recognized country" or nothing ("nothing" = an ordinary part of some state's territory).
2) While leaving room for the possibility of a dispute, the term is biased in its approach as it does not allow the reader to form his own opinion as to whether or not he will consider the place a "country". It implies that the dispute concerns exclusively recognition, and not the many other factors involved in this unusually complex issue.
Concerning "Die normative Kraft des Faktischen" (which I already answered above), it is an empty phrase as the "facts" part may be interpreted in any way, especially since "de facto" northern Kosovo is not in Kosovar Albanian hands and does not answer to the Kosovar government. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All I ask you is to accept the facts. And even if the Kosovar government (still) has limited control over the northern parts of the country that makes the country not a "no-country". Again, the factual reality on the ground does not care about "disputes", things are like they are. You know what Unmik means? "United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo", that implies already the transition of power to the Kosovar government. The times they are changing, face the new reality. Todays Kosova is not Kosova of the year 2000, they declared independence, because norms follow facts. To say Kosova is not a country means to deny the reality. And that is not what Wikipedia should do. --84.56.225.79 (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"...limited control over the northern parts..."? Hehe, wishful thinking. The Kosovo government has NO control over northern parts and Serb / Roma enclaves. "..the factual reality on the ground does not care about "disputes"" - that's ridiculous, how do you know the factual reality on the ground all the way from Mannheim, Germany? I was in Kosovo this summer, and there is nothing independent about Kosovo (except that the Albanians claim and advertise that it is). The recognition of Kosovo's Albanian government's unilateral decision is a political issue, not one based on "factual reality", because the factual reality isn't that Kosovo is a country. If you have a different reality in mind, that's your reality, this is mine. If 50 countries have one reality, 140 have a different one. Do you want to ignore that? --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The one and only TV-Station in Northern Kosova was closed, because Prishtina decided so, would you call this "no control"? http://www.imc-ko.org/index.php?id=358&l=e&p=7

The Kosovo government can affect Serb-controlled parts of Kosovo, but it doesn't control it. For example, people in North Mitrovica don't have water all the time, since they depend on the "kindness" of South Mitrovica to let them have tap water. That doesn't mean that the GOVERNMENT controls North Mitrovica, but they do control some facilities that affect North Mitrovica, and might I add, in a very mean and, considered anywhere in the West, illegal way towards Serbs and other minorities (rarely do people in North Mitrovica have drinking water). If your Mannheim mayor cut's off sugar supplies to a village in Hungary, that doesn't mean that Germany has control over Hungary ;) Too bad Wikipedia is full of ridiculous arguments. ;) --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what PISG means? Nikola (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what happend to PISG at February, the 17th this year? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing? Nikola (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're not asking me to "accept the facts". You're asking me to accept your own interpretation of the facts, though I must once again thank you for your helpfulness: I always thought they named it "UNMIK" because it sounds cool... Anyway, unless I am very much mistaken, the UN does NOT recognize the Kosovar Albanian government. That's all that matters, certainly not your own personal views on the UN mission's name. I also noticed that you did not actually respond to my post, but proceeded to preach your brand of "realism". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course the UN recognizes the Kosovar government, they even collaborate with them and the aim is to transfer the power to the Kosovar government. They already transferred for example police tasks and the organisation of elections. How could the UNMIK do so if they don't recognize, like you said? --84.56.225.79 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So the Republic of Kosovo is recognized by the United Nations..? Could you clarify that? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What more clarification do you need as the UNMIK represents the UN and the UNMIK collaborates with the Kosovar government as mentioned above? I cite a press release of UNMIK: "competencies previously carried out by UNMIK have been taken on by Kosovo authorities as, for example, in policing where the Kosovo Police Service has come to the forefront in serving the people of Kosovo, and in the management of elections, further solidifying democratic developments.", see here: http://www.unmikonline.org/DPI/PressRelease.nsf/0/5A1F17503E5BEB4CC12574C9003FB46C/$FILE/pr1738.pdf

I love how you ignored the real question and think like you got away with it ;) --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on, I gave you an official statement, read the PDF-File. What more do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwarzschachtel (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See below. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about diplomatic recognition. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you hint at the fact that Kosova is not an UN member please remember that Switzerland was also not an UN member until 2002! Was Switzerland not a country all the time before? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not "hinting" at anything. You shall find a complete explanation of my exact meaning in the blue link right above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I cite: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." and furthermore: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." This is known as the declarative theory of statehood, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And from the German Wiki about "diplomatic recognition": "Trotz fehlender diplomatischer Beziehungen kann ein Staat als solcher anerkannt sein. So hat die Bundesrepublik Deutschland bis Ende der 1960er Jahre diplomatische Beziehungen zu Ländern beendet oder nicht aufgenommen, die mit der früheren DDR diplomatische Beziehungen unterhielten (Ausnahme: Sowjetunion). Der Grund war die Hallstein-Doktrin." I try to translate: "Even if there is no diplomatic recognition a state can be recognized as such. West Germany had till the end of the sixties refused diplomatic recognition of countries that had diplomatically recognized East Germany. The reason was the Hallstein Doctrine". Same thing with China and Taiwan. There are 23 countries not recognizing China but Taiwan. Is China not a country? --84.56.225.79 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You appear unable to concentrate on the subject... this discussion is going in circles because of your inability to keep track of the issues presented. You said the UNMIK was formed to hand over the government to an independent Albanian state, I replied that that is your own personal interpretation and pointed out that the United Nations did not even recognize the Kosovar Albanian government. After a few hours, when you figured out that I was talking about diplomatic recognition, you switched the subject to the recognition itself and how it isn't really important... Now I'm supposed to once again point out that the Serbian enclaves do not answer to the Kosovar Albanians and that the "government" does not really control its declared territory. I'm also supposed to say that Wikipedia does not have a definition of what it considers a state and is completely "free" to determine whether or not it shall label it as such in the lead ("Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia"). If you would like to start an article called "Republic of Kosova" you may use the term "country" in the lead. However, unfortunately for you, the terms "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo" are NOT synonymous.
Finally, I'll have to say I'm sick of repeating myself. You appear so bent on perpetuating this pointless discussion you will post anything that comes to mind and disregard all rational arguments presented to you... The United Nations either recognize Kosovo as a country, or they do not. They do not. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent change

The recent edit is a blatant attempt at using text arrangement to "hide" the Kosovo dispute, particularly visible in the rendering of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija in ordinary text. Both sides and both views should be emphasized equally, while the Albanian Republic of Kosovo should come first, that is not grounds for the removal of the other side's view. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is alredy emphasized that the independence is not unanonimously. Everything else belongs to the paragraph that deals with foreign relations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Foreign_relations --Tubesship (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional status

See WP:UNDUE, only 2 lines about RoK that is supported by 95 % of the people and some 30 lines about the Serb villages. This is NOT what an independent editor and reader would call objective. --NOAH (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write objectively. --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits. I just added a NPOV tag and invited to discussion. I also added Kosovo as the Serbian name and respect even though you may wish every single people in Serbia called Kosovo, KiM. --NOAH (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Beside the point?

Just wanted to start a discussion on something. Since this is English Language Wikipedia, and since all (I think) countries who use English as their primary language have recognised Kosovo as independent, and since therefore, the majority of English language sources refer to it as such; i.e. an independent country, and since Wikipedia is supposed to reflect sources rather than original research, personal bias or whatever, shouldn't this article reflect the consensus of the body of English language references? All news media in English, all new Encyclopedias in English, etc, are now referring to Kosovo as an independent state - at least they are here in Ireland, and from what I can see, in England and America also.

Now I realise that it will not be possible to implement this fully in such a hotly contested article, but I just wondered about this and thought it might be food for thought. I may have misinterpreted the way Wikipedia is supposed to function, or it may be an overly-literal interpretation of a rule that's supposed to be more fluid, but I really do think it bears discussion, and from what I can see, people are getting too carried away with their own interpretations of International Law, (which is itself in a state of constant flux,) or whether the ICJ decision will have X or Y effect, or simply outright claims that Kosovo is Serbia or Kosova is independent. To my mind this would appear to be OR, motivated by (understandably) partisan sentiment on both sides.

There is enough raw information here to make a good article. As it stands it is a nightmare, a fragmentary hodgepodge of bits and pieces of sentences that have been ripped up and chewed over a thousand times. I don't know that my proposed solution is the best one, but given the fact that anyone searching for information on Kosovo is more likely than not to be directed to this page before anything else, it would be nice if it was at least readable. Davu.leon (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No. English Wikipedia does not care about majority of English language sources, or majority of sources overall, but about neutral point of view: what is the view of relevant sources, their language not being relevant.

To clarify a bit: if you would believe that English Wikipedia should use what "the majority of English language sources" claim, that would also mean that Russian or Serbian Wikipedia should not mention declaration of independence of Kosovo at all, given that Russian and Serbian speaking countries don't recognise it. Nikola (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But the Russian or Serbian Wikipedia WOULD take the position that Kosovo is a province of Serbia FIRST, giving the position that it is a separate country as the SECONDARY point of view. 97.82.155.14 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. If you go to the Serbian Wikipedia's Kosovo article, the name is written in both Albanian and Serbian, Kosovo is NOT described as a province (how the Serbian government sees it), but as a territory (NPOV) in the Balkans. First the Republic of Kosovo is mentioned (like in English Wikipedia) and then how Serbia and the majority of UN states see it. The declaration of independence is mentioned in the paragraph at the beginning. And all of this is not recognized by the Serbian government.

Russian Wikipedia's Kosovo article is similar, mentioning the declaration of independence in the first paragraph, and listing the name in both Serbian and Albanian. Kosovo is decrtibed as a region, not a country, not a province.

However, on Albanian Wikipedia's Kosovo article, Kosovo is a country, and history was completely re-written to suit the Albanian POV. In the first sentence, there is no mention of any dispute concerning Kosovo, the name is only written in Albanian, and Serbia is only mentioned as some country bordering Kosovo.

It's interesting to see which Wikipedia is more neutral and more tolerant. If English Wikipedia want's to be less tolerant than the Serbian and Russian Wikipedia's, that's up to the users of English Wikipedia. If you want to list Kosovo as a country, just because some (not all) English-speaking countries recognize it as such, despite countries that see Kosovo as a province not listing it as a province in their languages Wikipedias, that says a lot about the quality of English Wikipedia at this point in time. If Albanians want to turn English Wikipedia into an Albanian Wikipedia translated in English, I doubt they're working in good faith towards those that disagree and propose a more neutral view of Kosovo. Nobody can disagree with "territory" and "region", because Kosovo IS a "territory" and a "region", and that doesn't imply it being a country or a province. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, Kosovo is a COUNTRY. All the neighbours, except Serbia, look at Kosovo as a country. Even the Montenegrins, your brothers, disagree. About time to be realistic. --NOAH (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

History issues=

1. All the autochtones merged with Slavs? What are the Albanians? Please stop it with propaganda, Illyrian, Thracians or a mixture, Albanians are indegenous, not even serious Serb scientists dispute. See this for pointers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_people The borders of today's Albania were set much much late as you know leaving many Albanians out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 08:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Turko-Albanian is akin to me callign Serbs, Slaves or Servs. Just becuase a 200 year old encyclopedia called Muslims Turks, it doesn't make them so.

3. You forgot this:"Members of these two populations fought together as allies at the battle of Kosovo in 1389-indeed, they probably fought as allies on both sides, some of them under Prince Lazar and others under the Ottoman Sultan. Three hundred years later, when an Austrian army invaded Kosovo, both Serbs and Albanians rose up in sympathy to throw off Ottoman rule: modern historians have had great difficulty trying to distinguish between Serbs and Albanians when analysing the contemporary reports of these events. A later rebellion in support of another Austrian invasion in 1737 also involved a mixed Albanian-Slav group from the mountain areas of northern Albania and Montenegro: the Slav and Albanian mountain clans there had long traditions of cooperation and intermarriage and, in some cases, legends of common ancestry."

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=4173

4. "During the first fall of Serbia, Novo Brdo and Kosovo offered last resistance to the invading Ottomans in 1441; in 1455, it was finally and fully conquered by the Ottoman Empire."

With the Serbs fighting for the Turks, right? I am going to rephrase this, you make it seems as Serbs resisted, when instead they fought for the Turks.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 07:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reality check

1) A "state" cannot secede from another "state". After it secedes it may be considered a "state". Kosovo seceded from Serbia as a province.
2) Enclaves in the lead. The enclaves are a complex matter. They are effectively controlled by KFOR, yes, but they are de jure within UNMIK, i.e. Serbia. This must be fully explained or omitted from the lead, and I feel there is no need (or room!) to put all this in the second sentence of the article when it is covered much better in the remainder. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1. A state can secede from another state - the state of California can, for example, secede from the state known as the USA. Kosovo seceded from Serbia as an international protectorate - not as a province.

2. "de jure within UNMIK i.e. Serbia" ? What does that even mean? Now I know who wrote those illogical sentences in the intro ("self-governed territory", past tense for a current situation). There is no room? What is this, a paper encyclopedia? Ridiculous "arguments". --alchaemia (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Of course, I was not referring to a sub-national state. In any case, Kosovo did not secede from Serbia as a country, but as a Serbian province under UN administration. Word-play will get you nowhere.
2) "de jure within UNMIK i.e. Serbia" That means that ethnic Serbian enclaves do not acknowledge the Kosovar Albanian government, but are legally part of the UN administered Serbian province. The only thing "ridiculous" is your apparent suggestion to cram a full paragraph about the enclaves in the lead. The sentence you added cannot stand alone without a full explanation of the complex situation of the enclaves, something which I believe is covered quite sufficiently in the text below. (Also, the "History" page of the article is quite handy for finding out "who wrote those illogical sentences", for 'twas not me.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Kosovo seceded from Serbia as an international protectorate, and not as a province. A state can secede from a state if there is a union of states. The United States is a union of states, and not a union of sub-national states. This is basic political science, not to mention basic reading comprehension.

2. Whether they acknowledge it or not has no bearing on the situation; I may, for example, refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're a pro-Serbian editor with a strong POV (and a lame Kosovo infobox), but that doesn't mean that you're not one. A "full paragraph" requires more than a sentence, but that too may be something you need to work on. As for the History page, evidently you spend all day on Wikipedia as it is almost impossible to tell which is which among the 300 daily POV edits you make on this article. Say hello to Split for me. --alchaemia (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Abraham Lincoln would disagree, I'm afraid. The US is a union of sub-national states, perhaps you should rad the article (ever heard of the "Kentucky nation"?). You see, a state can be another word for a country, or it can mean "administrative division" (as is evident from Wikipedia articles). But no matter how you cut it, Kosovo was NOT a "state" when it seceded.
2) (I've just finished screaming "HELLO!" out my window.) Yes of course, you are right, the fact that they do not "acknowledge" it is irrelevant. However, the fact that the Republic of Kosovo is unable to exercise control over the entirety of its self-proclaimed territory is by no means irrelevant. Perhaps you should work on your powers of attention: I clearly pointed out that, while you did add a single sentence, it cannot stand alone because it is POV. It should be accompanied by many other sentences that explain the complex situation of the enclaves. In my humble opinion, the lead is no place for several sentences about the enclaves. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How typical, you remove "province" because of your POV, even when it is commonly accepted that Kosovo was a province of Serbia when the Kosovar Albanian government (unilaterally) proclaimed independence, albeit under UN administration. At that time it was a province of Serbia under UN protectorate. The UN did not (and does not) dispute the status of Kosovo as a Serbian PROVINCE. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"1) A "state" cannot secede from another "state". After it secedes it may be considered a "state". Kosovo seceded from Serbia as a province." --this seems like a circular argument. Obviously a political entity (province, region, department, or whatever) is not a sovereign state until after it secedes. Yes, and? What is your point?--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that Alchaemia insists on stating that "the state of Kosovo seceded from Serbia", in the lead no less... Obviously Serbia has no "states" and the sentence makes no sense, one can only secede, or try to secede, from Serbia as a province (autonomous or not). However, Alchamia wants to avoid that nasty word because he personally dislikes its use in any context when referring to Kosovo. Hence the word games...

Also Alchaemia, "territory" won't due either. While there is a dispute as to what Kosovo is today, before the unilateral declaration of independence Kosovo was undoubtedly a PROVINCE of Serbia. Not territory, state, country, region or canton, but PROVINCE. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, whatever one's opinion on Kosovo, it cannot be denied that the status of Kosovo within Serbia was/is that of Autonomous Province, so to insist on calling it a "state" within Serbia is pushing it.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But Kosovo did not declare independence as a "province within Serbia" but as an international protectorate. This article is POV and I've inserted a POV tag to deal with it. --alchaemia (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

According to UN Resolution 1244, Kosovo was Both an International Protectorate And an Autonomous Province. Simply put, Kosovo was (and according to others is) an International UN Protectorate, which had the name "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija," and was governed directly by the Provisional Institutions of Self Government under the protection of UNMIK, while simultaneously under the recognized sovereignty of Serbia. These are internationally undisputed facts. I'm not saying this to be anti-Kosovo, I support Kosovo independence, but the truth remains that neither the UN nor any individual country considered it to lie outside of Serbia's sovereignty, until its declaration of independence. It was administered by the UN in a manner superficially resembling its own state, but that is completely different from saying it was one, especially since the administrating authority, the UN, always explicitely considered its protectorate to still be a province of Serbia.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is just pure nonsense. Kosovo was a PROVINCE of Serbia under "international protectorate", you are playing cheap word games to avoid the usage of a term you personally dislike. There is no logical argument here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your answers. I disagree. Kosovo had no clearly defined status when it declared independence. Res. 1244 does not mention Serbia and in addition to that it says talks must be held to determine the future political status of Kosovo. The people of Kosovo did never choose to be a part of Serbia. They were forced into Serbia by massacres and left that country the same way. --NOAH (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(That was me above, lapsus calami.) Your proclamations are of no concern, neither is your utterly simplistic view of history. Just how were the people of Kosovo supposed to "choose" which country they became part of? Were they supposed to have themselves a referendum in the middle ages? The people of Dalmatia never voted on whether or not they want to be part of Croatia, the people of Provence never voted on their inclusion in France, etc... It all sounds very nice in your phrase, but when you think about it its just plain childish.
Anyway, disregarding the less significant parts of your post, let me ask you a single question (please answer YES or NO): Was Kosovo a legal (de jure) part of Serbia during the UN administration? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I have edited the introduction as it had obviously been vandalised by some one. I hope the edited intro is to every ones satisfaction. I have stated that Kosovo is a landlocked region should feature at the end of the article, as you can see it is more suited to that part as it is introducing Kosovo's geography.

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Kosovë; Serbian: Косово or Косово и Метохија; [Kosovo or Kosovo i Metohija] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a region in the Balkans. In February 2008, the Assembly of Kosovo declared independence for the territory. As of October 2008, its independence is recognised by 114 UN member states though not by others.The territory is governed by the Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës). The Republic of Serbia does not recognize the secession of the province and considers Kosovo a self-governing entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija ([Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)).

Kosovo is landlocked and borders Albania to the west, Central Serbia to the north and east, the Republic of Macedonia to the south, and Montenegro to the northwest. The largest city and the capital of Kosovo is Pristina (also Prishtina, Priština), while other cities include Peja (Peć), Prizren, and Mitrovica.

Kosovo was a part of the lands of Thraco-Illyrian tribes, then of the Roman, Byzantine, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Ottoman empires. In the 20th century it was part of the Kingdom of Serbia and its successor state Yugoslavia. Following the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia to halt the killings of civilians during the Kosovo War [6], the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations (UNMIK). There is an on going discussion regarding the EULEX deployment in the territory to take over this supervisory role.

Reverted. Remember to seek consensus prior to changes. --Tone 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry was not aware of this. Nevertheless, the introduction I have provided is more neutral. Kosovo is landlocked, yes that is apparent but why is it introduced that way rather then at the end of the introduction where geography and border is mentioned? I have also introduced Kosovo as a territory, not a country. Realmadrid123 (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have had no objections to the introduction above. Therefore, I will revert the one currently on display. Realmadrid123 (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

“Albanian Republic of Kosovo”

Sorry, but there is no such a thing like “Albanian Republic of Kosovo”. Officially, the Parliament of Kosovo and the recently-approved constitution stipulate the country not as an Albanian-supremacist state, but a state in which all Kosovar inhabitants, including Kosovar Serbians, have equal rights (i.e., right to vote for and participate in Kosovar institutions, for example). And the two official languages of the Republic of Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian.

So, people editing the article should be careful and avoid terms like “Albanian-dominated”, “Albanian institutions”, “Albanian-controlled” “Albanian-declared”, since Albania and Kosovo recognized each other as two independent nations with two different constitutions and government structures, and they don’t intend to be joined in one nation-state, and since Kosovar Albanians are not the *only* Kosovar ethnic group which favored the independence of Kosovo.--BalkanWalker (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Those people are giving such labels just because they want toe create the false impression that the Republic of Kosovo is only for Albanians. The Constitution says that Kosovo is a country of all its citizens no matter nationality. --NOAH (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The practice has shown that citizens who are not of Albanian nationality are persecuted and ethnically cleansed. Nikola (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

But where is (non-Serb, non-Russian) solid sources to this affirmation? As far as we know, is there other ethnic groups of Kosovo (i.e., non-Serb and non-Albanian) that are discriminated and persecuted in the region and don’t participate in the Kosovar parliament? Officially, Kosovo parliament even has seats reserved for Goranis and Turks.--14:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanWalker (talk • contribs)

The sources are in this very article. Nikola (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nikola but as much as you want that to be true (the ethnic discrimination part) there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that. Stick to facts, friend. 79.70.126.194 (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Recognition belongs to foreign relations paragraph

This sentence regarding recognition belongs to foreign relations paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Foreign_relations "The Republic of Serbia does not recognize the Republic of Kosovo nor the secession of the province itself. It considers Kosovo a self-governing entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija ([Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help))." And please no edit warring but discussing. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What an excellent, stupendous idea! You edit, and then when someone contests it you accuse him of edit warring! Positively ingenious! ;) Though I suppose the concept of "editing after consensus" must go out the window... Seriously, I must ask that you restore the text to the version prior to your contested edit and await the conclusion of discussions on that particular issue.

Now to business: By George you're right! the information on diplomatic recognition does belong to the foreign relations paragraph. We'll have to remove that (minute) part of the sentence, here we go

"The Republic of Serbia does not recognize the secession of the province, but considers Kosovo a self-governing entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija ([Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help))."

I'm glad we could clear that up, thank you :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you undid it again? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you read my post? I removed the reference to the diplomatic recognition of the Republic of Kosovo by Serbia. Recognition of secession, on the other hand, is a different matter. Please stop edit-warring until we've finished discussing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Governance in the introduction

From the introduction:

Its majority is governed by the partially-recognized Republic of Kosovo

Isn't its majority governed by UNMIK, with Albanian government claiming right to govern but not actually having it? As an example, UNMIK could order arrest of an Albanian government official, but Albanian government can't order arrest of an UNMIK official. Nikola (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not true. The words you use show that you know very little about Kosovo. First the Albanian government governs Albania, and the Kosovar govenment Kosovo. UNMIK has transfered its authority to Republic of Kosovo. Before the independnece when you entered Kosovo, a stamp with the word UNMIK was stamped in the passport. After the independence is is "Republika e Kosovës, Republika Kosovo, Republic of Kosovo". UNMIK are present only is Serb areas. --NOAH (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, RoK governance is dubious. UNMIK is ongoing. Rule of law is shaky in any case. Any claim of governance would need detailed discussion, and probably doesn't belong in the lead. What this sentence is trying to say is that the RoK government has no governance at all in Northern Kosovo. To what extent it has any de facto governance at all is difficult to say, and will change over the near future anyway. dab (𒁳) 14:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You favorite sport has become anti-RoK statements. You don't deserve to be an admin!. --NOAH (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well if it isn't NOAH with his "statements" again. I suggest you create an article called "Noah's Opinions" and post all your (irrelevant) reflections there. I for one, will be sure to frequent it, for the sake of entertainment if nothing else. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This childish comments says more about you than me. In your user page one can see that you are anti-Kosovo/Albanian so please stop pretending you are unbiased. Because you are NOT. No plans to go away but will continue to contribute to make this article NPOV, no matter what some of the hatemongers says. --NOAH (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you pretending to be unbiased? Please, no more childish jokes... At least I make my position on this issue completely clear. As I stated before, I'm not biased. Having an opinion on an issue does not mean you are "biased", I suggest you find out what that word actually means. I've formed my opinion based on objective rational arguments and not sentimentality, I'm not even Serbian. However, I do not choose to hide this opinion or transparently pretend to be "completely neutral", whatever that is. If you think anyone that reads your statements will think that you are neutral on this issue, you're living in a dream world. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am unbiased indeed. NOAH may want to see the section below where I blantantly endorse "anti-Serb sentiment". No wait, I am just being neutral. Which means that pov-pushers from both sides will be insulting me, I've come to take this for granted. If pov-warriors on either side of the fence would commend me as neutral, then I'd start to be worried. I frankly don't see why Wikipedia should let editors refusing to follow policy as blatantly as NOAH should be allowed to stick around and disrupt article talk, especially on this talkpage. If I wasn't the target of NOAH's attacks, I would consider blocking him for disruption in order to improve talkpage discipline and atmosphere. --dab (𒁳) 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat similar to this, "The Republic of Serbia [...] considers Kosovo a self-governing entity within its sovereign territory" - shouldn't that be "A UN-governed entity"? Nikola (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

article probation

Is anybody going to enforce probation here? this is not ok. Colchicum (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

the html comment right at the head of the article says

Please be very careful in editing the introduction of this article. The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. While this occurred in 2006, it was never lifted; thus, this page is still under probation. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. See the talk page for more information.

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and Mike Babic (talk · contribs) with their reverts have just disrespected this. It is fair enough to edit the lede in the sense of making a suggestion. Once you are reverted, you need to take it to talk to seek consensus. I am willing to issue blocks to either of the two editors just mentioned for any further reverts. On topic, the lede already gives "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" in bold. Adding yet another "Kosovo and Metohija" in boldface in my opinion is just further clutter to the lead without adding any substance. If you can find consensus for the addition, fine -- but you need to do that first. --dab (𒁳) 19:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead is NOT going to look like "Kosovo, also Kosovo and Metohija" for a number of very important reasons.

Kosovo and Metohija is already in the Name section, where it belongs. There is no need to duplicate the information.
This is English Wikipedia. In English the region as a whole is known as Kosovo. Of course the name Kosovo and Metohija enjoys some very limited currency in English texts, but so does Kosova. Therefore either both of them go there or none. I prefer the latter option as more compliant with the manual of style. Colchicum (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Colchicum. There can be discussion on this, or compromise suggestions, of course, but the point here is that this is to take place on talk. Any further revert-warring will need to be met by blocks. --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding Kosovo Metohija once more would be pure political propaganda since the English name of Kosovo is yes KOSOVO or sometimes Kosova. Kosovo and Metohija is something harde line nationalists use in Serbia. Apparently Wikipedia is ful of them but we who are trying to make and keep this article NPOV have to stand against them. This article does not belong to the Serbs or the Albanians but to the whole humanity. None of the groups should be given any exclusive right to present its version of historical happenings as it fits them. About time that people stop using Wikipedia to achieve their political goals. --NOAH (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not a political expert, but NOAH is wrong. Kosovo and Metohija is the real, full name of the Province. This is not a term used by fringe Serb nationalists. Yes, Serbs like to use the term because it underlines the fact that the province was originally Serbian. Hxseek (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Kosovo and Metohija is not the real name, but the name used by hard line nationalists in Serbia. Many news outlets in Serbia that are indepedent do not use KiM, since it is a name used by those Serbs who supported genocide against Albanians during the 20 Century. The only name used in English is Kosovo. This may be disappointing for some Albanian-haters and even some Albanians, but this is name used in the English language. Maybe in the future this will change but right now you have to learn to live with it. --NOAH (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is not exclusively about the province. It is about Kosovo in general, be it a province, a soveregn state or just an uninhabited spot on the Earth's stateless surface. The question whether Kosovo and Metohija is the true name of the Serbian province in English is entirely irrelevant for the lead, and the talk page is not a forum for general duscussion of the subject. So Hxseek and Noah, please kindly bring your dispute elsewhere. Colchicum (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hxseek is right: "Kosovo and Metohija" is the name of the Serbian "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", which is why the full name, "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", appears in boldface in the lead. "Kosovo and Metohija" is not used for the region, but only for the province, qua province. That's why the lead is fine as it stands. --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK Noah, so using your reasoning, the only people that use Kosova are Jihadist murderers Hxseek (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And on that note this discussion is over. Please don't take it any further. You both have talk pages. Balkan Fever 02:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Both the Serb Orthodox denomination Kosovo and Metohija and the Albanian language denomination Kosova should be avoided in general, and be used in just some specific cases. The best name for this English-language article is simply Kosovo, which is the denomination most commonly used around the world.

Hypocrisy to the max

There is no information on destruction of Serbian churches. No information on bulldozing Serbian schools. borders stoppage of medical supplies for hospitals. Organ trafficking, drug trafficking, explosive trafficking in Kosovo. we need to live in a fair and free society. G-d know that Serbian side was not heard in 1991 in Croatia, in 1995 in Bosnia, in 1999 in Kosovo, right now on Wikipedia. stop edit warring and look at the Serbian side of this issue.Mike Babic (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Provide your sources and your proposed text right here, and we'll discuss this. Mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a venue for any "sides" to be heard, it is an encyclopedia. Colchicum (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of days ago a new terrorist organization was formed.
http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=208581
A civilian buys Semtex bombs in Kosovo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJSqvP8WZyE
Destruction of churches
http://www.sv-luka.org/Kosovo2000Part1.pdf
The Guardian writes that 40% of heroin in Europe comes from Kosovo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/balkans
This article on Kosovo doesn't tell any of these things. I would like to know, what percentage of horrible things that will happen in Kosovo tomorrow are going to be hidden from me? 5%, 10%, 90%? I want to contribute to the society, my gift is foresight, but I am not a great writer. Mike Babic (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian article is very outdated (March 2000, less than a year after the fighting in war-torn Kosovo), though if there are recent data and they are reliable, they should be discussed. Note that this article is about Kosovo in general, it cannot include every minor fact. The fact that several Kosovo Albanians have done this and that is not notable enough, there are some criminals in almost every spot, in Serbia or the U.S. as well. The information about the destruction of churches should be included, but some more reliable and impartial sources are needed (it shouldn't be difficult to find them). Also note that there is much to add about the other side's horrible actions ([7], [8], [9], [10] and so on). Ok, let's find sources and discuss the wording here. Colchicum (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out this website http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/20/sbm.bosnia.holbrooke/ Its funny how noone mentions that the Serb army arranged buses for woman and children out of Srebrenica. Also, what was the reason for the attack of Srebrenica? Wasnt it Naser Oric who was attacking from there? I'm pointing out the crap that I, as a Serb, have to put up with every single day. All my edits on this article get revesed no matter what the source or content.Mike Babic (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Seriously? Your argument is that the Serbian army should be applauded for ethnically cleansing an area of women and children before brutally murdering every male over the age of 16? Seriously?

Srebrenica happened. It doesn't mean every Serb is evil, or that all Serbs are in some way responsible, but it happened. It doesn't matter why it happened, or how you try to excuse it, the fact is that there is simply no justification for the massacre of 6-7 thousand civilians. You really need to think carefully about what you're saying here. Davu.leon (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That information is stupid. NO! People should start writing from the Serbian side as well. Bosnian men were killed it is true but this still doesnt negate the fact the Serbs arranged transportation for woman and children. Should that not also be incuded on wikiepedia? Why dont we include Jihad flags that are flown in Bosnia today? How about we include the "Fort Dix terrorist story" where 3 Islamic terrorists were Kosovo Albanians? My point is that I know something that you might not know. You dont know it because the powerful dont want you to know it. There is a reason why they are trying to hide this information. So, yes, continue to impede contributions that present a different side. Great job.24.36.52.249 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Serious, dont you think about why they openly bash Jesus on TV? Jesus symbolizes a morality that is not favorable to them anymore.24.36.52.249 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Kosovo page on other languages

The flag and coat of arms needs to be at the top of the page as it is in the German, French, Catalan, Spanish, Albanian, Hungarian, Macedonian, Russian, Japanese, and Chinese pages. Azalea pomp (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets concentrate on making this article more NPOV and not trying to inflame Serbs even more with unnecessary editions.Mike Babic (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

i would agree if the "Republic of Kosovo" was a separate article to "Kosovo (region)", but it isn't, therefore we should try and maintain NPOV Ijanderson (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally by now, the infoboxes are beggining to make more sense.--BalkanWalker (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

These info boxes are neutral now and the article is better for it. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Introduction

"Following the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia with its stated goal to halt killing of civilians".

Stating that point alone does not show the whole picture. A point should be added that these killings were exaggerated in order to remain NPOV. Here is the source behind this claim. PBS states the following, "Opponents to NATO's intervention in Kosovo have claimed that the number of casualties was exaggerated in order to justify the bombing of Serbia. In October, 1999, the Texas-based analytical group Stratfor issued a report called Where are Kosovo's Killing Fields? which claimed that casualty figures were manipulated to serve political ends. Their argument was based on early results of the International Criminal Tribunal investigation which turned up fewer bodies than initially predicted". This is the website where the information came from. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/cleansing/. I propose that the following sentence is added. "Opponents have claimed that the number of casualties was exaggerated in order to justify the bombing of Serbia". Thanks for your time.Mike Babic (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence seems adequate and the proposal sounds reasonable. The numbers were certainly disputed, and the dispute should at least be noted on Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But no numbers are mentioned in the introduction, therefore the dispute should also be noted somewhere else in the article, not in the introduction. Colchicum (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, not in the introduction... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed both sentences from the intro. The reasons why something happened are to be discussed in the history section. Intro is supposed to be brief. --Tone 19:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm happy as long as both sides get heard.Mike Babic (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Information is the most dangerous weapon of all", yet I see kids playing with it. I think many people don't understand how much background knowledge is required to understand the conflict in the Balkan peninsula. Reading books and citing sources is the knowledge of the past. In the modern world, media is as polluted as a word from either side of the conflict. It's like advertising, every ad promotes that which benefits the source, no matter what the cost to the surrounding. Think about your sources, and think well; don't claim accuracy as if you wrote them from direct experience. Just think on your own, and sometimes look at an issue fresh, without being influences by any ones' work. Look at everything, geography, culture, religion and behavior...it will tell you more about the people than any book will, that's why experience will remain the only true accurate source. IF you still choose to go with the scholarly choice, try to prove yourself wrong, look from perspectives of both sides. I don't blame the people, particularly in the West, for their perspectives,as Western media is a great weapon maintaining acceptable perspective locally and dominance throughout the world. But remember, every time you associate an event with a group of people (nationality, religion etc), you ARE offending/supporting a good and a bad person, and if the good to bad ratio was small...this world wouldn't exist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RATNIK1987 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my… when the absolute majority of evidences, studies and information about the Yugoslav Wars in general and Kosovo War in particular show the realities behind these wars, some apologists begin to say what we see is not what we see and begin to cling to that old babble of “you never been there…” or yet “remember the culture, the religion…”

Come on. Slavs are not superior to non-Slavs, Albanians are not less civilized than Serbs, Christianity is not superior to Islam, Orthodoxy is not superior to Catholicism and objectively the preservation of the life of Kosovars are far more important than the preservation of inanimated, old stone Serb Orthodox temples, monasteries, etc. And, according to UN, ICTY, Human Rights Watch and other serious institutions, most of the war crimes were commited by Serbia, the Serbian Army, the Army of Republika Srpska, the Army of Republika Srpska Krajina, and other paramilitary units like Seselj’s White Eagles, Arkan’s Tigers and Legija’s Red Berets.

I know this is not a forum, but in terms of references, to disqualify them en masse just because they don’t fit your perspective and turbofolkish tales is pure nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.97.173 (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that this month this happened ^[3] No-one can write about it because we have racist Serb haters who will not premit facts to make it into the article. The worst part is that by censoring information your are creating a possibility of future wars.24.36.52.249 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Those racist Serbs need to be rounded up one by one and ejected from Wikipedia editing. They caused enough trouble in the Balkans and now they spread their propoganda here too. Fuquit (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a stupid comment.Mike Babic (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To say that most of the war crimes of Yugoslav wars were commited by Serbia, the Serbian Army, the Army of Republika Srpska, the Army of Republika Srpska Krajina, and other paramilitary units like Seselj’s White Eagles, Arkan’s Tigers and Legija’s Red Berets is not equal to “racism against Serbs” — or else, the ICTY would be considered a “racist against Serbs” court. And to say that Serbia should conform itself to the territories of Central Serbia, Vojvodina and no square inch beyond that is not “racism against Serbs”, too — or else all the governments of the countries of the world that recognized Kosovo would be “anti-Serb people governments”. When we remember that even majority Slav-Orthodox countries like Bulgaria, Macedonia and even Montenegro recognized Kosovo as an independent nation, we see the size of the political madness behind the Greater Serbian ideology nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.96.212 (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And about the declaration “The worst part is that by censoring information your are creating a possibility of future wars”, well, according to the tested and proved Democratic Peace Theory, if all the governments of the Balkan nations are democratic (ie, fair elections, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of/from religion and civilian control of the military), there is no possibility of new wars there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.96.212 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That theory assumes that people generally don't want wars. When Albanians bomb to ground a 13th century church I'm sure that Serbs are going to be pissed off. Given that Albanians from Kosovo are continuing to go against common sense I'm not sure how long the theory will last. G-d willing Albanians will stop being destructive. However, if they dont I'm sure the International Community, or the people of the West, will go to Kosovo and actually fight for Serbs.24.36.52.249 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Albanians should learn from the past. The Americans supported the Afghanis and after a few decades we all know what happened. The Americans supported Saddam Hussein, and after a few decades hung him. The Americans don't choose their interests according to their friends, they choose their friends according to their interests. An independent Kosovo is currently in the interest of the Americans and that's why they're allowing the Albanians to destroy Christian churches in Kosovo, kidnap and kill innocent civilians, burn down Serbian homes, etc... The documentation is there, it's just being ignored for the reasons I have mentioned. Eventually the balance in power will change and then we'll see what happens... What goes around comes around... --JUSTICE 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Any major event regarding vandalism against Serb Orthodox churches, monasteries, etc. in Kosovo hasn’t been happening since the clashes of 2004. The same cannot be said about mosques destroyed in that eastern entity of Bosnia. And sincerely, from a religion-neutral point of view, ancient mosques are as important historically as ancient churches could be.

The current political structures of the Kosovar state are much more closer to the democratic, multi-party parliamentary democracies of Europe than the tyrannies of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan or Baath-ruled Iraq. Kosovo is not a radical Muslim one-party or no-party dictatorship like Egypt or Saudi Arabia, too. The only thing in common between these countries is that the majority of their populations believe in Mohammed instead of Jesus — but Islam and dictatorship aren’t sinonyms, since the biggest Muslim-majority nation of the world — Indonesia — is a democracy.

To put Hashim Tchaci (or Agim Ceku) in the same plate that Mullah Omar (or Saddam Hussein) is clear anti-Islamic nonsense. And to the situation of Kosovo to revert to the non-autonomous era under the boot of Belgrade of 1988-1999, it would be “de-recognized” not only by the USA, but by Britain, Germany, France, Croatia and the more than 50 nation that had recognized its independence from Serbia, which is highly improbable to say the least.

So, as long as Serbia and Kosove keep their parliamentary systems, the possibility of Kosovo returning to Serbia is the same as the possibility of Istanbul becoming Constantinople again and returning to Greek command — zero.

This isnt about Bosnia its about Kosovo. Churches are still being destroyed. Last week there were breakin in a 13th century monastery. So even in 2008 it is still happening. Mosques are just as important as churches but i dont have a concern for Mosques because they arent being destroyed in Kosovo.Mike Babic (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What to expect from a nationalist Croatian Serb who considers the Srebrenica Massacre (the worst massacre of civillians in Europe since World War II) mere CNN propaganda?

[1] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/world/europe/09nations.html?ref=world

[2] ttp://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE49780C20081008

[3] ttp://glassrbije.org/E/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5435&Itemid=26

[1]

[2]

[3]