Talk:Kosovo/Archive 16

Sources

See this subpage which contains a list of descriptions of Kosovo's status from other sources /Sources

Request to add a Further Reading section

Please add a Further Reading section with the following entry: *Malcom, Noel. Kosovo: A Short History (Paperback)), 1999, University Pres New York, ISBN 0060977752

thanks. Evenfiel (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please format this reference in the {{cite book}} format and re-enable the request. Sandstein (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was such a format, because it seems that everybody cites books in Wikipedia the way they feel like it. I can edit the article myself now. Thanks anyway. Evenfiel (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo was bordering Serbia proper even during the Former Yugoslavia.

Are people aware that any administrative function during the SFRJ could not be done in Kosovo without the consent of Kosovo Authorities?

Kosovo borders with Presheva Valley in the East and that should be noted if we start to mention the provinces of Serbia.

To me regardless of what Serbian, Russian or other colleagues think Kosovo borders with Serbia, Macedonia (or is it FYROM), Montenegro and Albania.

Every day I see Wiki adds more states that have recognized Kosovo as a state. I don’t see any problem if Russia does not recognize Kosovo. The US does not recognize Cuba and Cuba is independent state. Why should Kosovo standard of recognition be different? Kosovar3 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Border with Serbia

"Kosovo borders on Serbia's Podunavlje and Podrinje regions to the north"

Why not just "Kosovo borders Serbia on the north"? Bardhylius (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not Kosovo, an integral part of Serbia, is included in Serbia, borders Albania to South? Косовска Митровица (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the formulation with the regions is best because it is the most neutral description of Kosovo's position, without any implication one way or another regarding the territory's statehood. TSO1D (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It doesn't stay in line with the description that the overview was given. The overview gives you an impression of the reality, which is an independent Kosovo. To oppose that in latter sentences by "trying to stay neutral" is a bit silly. You can't stay it's independent then it doesn't quite border Serbia. It's controversial. I call for the administrators to change the sentence to "borders with Serbia in the north" as soon as possible. Bardhylius (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

'Why not Kosovo, an integral part of Serbia, is included in Serbia, borders Albania to South?' I am sorry to say Косовска that that ship has now sailed, as we say. Having said that, I am not taking sides, and can imagine how a Serb must feel. But the reality is, Kosovo is becoming an internationally recognized nation. Even my own country, Canada, is not far from recognizing it.--RobNS 18:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Kosovo is Serbia! :) 89.216.135.2 (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

KOSOVA IS NOT PART OF SERBIA AS A MATTER OF FACT!--Getoar (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

YES IT IS AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE. КОСОВО ЈЕ СРЦЕ СРБИЈЕ.ДО КОНАЧНЕ ПОБЕДЕ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.89.32 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, should the sentence "Kosovo [...] is a partially recognized, landlocked republic in southeastern Europe" be changed into something else, since some countries don't recognise it as a republic? (How should partially unrecognised countries be dealt with?) (130.237.227.61 (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Can't we just leave it alone? Whether that sentence implies any recognition seems to be left to the imagination/illusion/beliefs of the reader >_> --BirdKr (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

• It is: "Kosovo borders on Serbia's Podunavlje and Podrinje regions to the north"
• Change to: "Kosovo borders on Serbia to the north"

Bardhylius (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Because Kosovo isn't recognized it should be written that kosovo as a part of serbia borders albania and macedoni to the south and montenegro to the east

• Please I just want to remind everybody to distinguish the word Nation. "Kosovo is an internationally recognized nation" is incorrect. Note that Kosovo is an internationally recognized state/country. Nation is a broder concept and ethnic albanian Kosovars belong to the Albanian Nation. Piasoft (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction kosovo iz not internationaly recognized country beacause UN did not recognize it

N Bardhylius's proposed edit is declined. This phrasing implies recognition, on the part of Wikipedia, that Kosovo is not part of Serbia. Given Kosovo's current contested status, that would violate WP:NPOV, as would recognition of the Serbian position. Sandstein (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think in the contrary. Generally there are many elements in the article that imply Wikipedia recognises Kosovo as independent, but in a more respectful way to those who don't. In this sense, I think it's wrong to follow that line and suddenly deviate it by saying it does not quite border with Serbia. In fact, the most WP:NPOV thing to do for Wiki here is to say that Kosovo is de-facto an independent state, excluding the North Kosovo which is de-facto under Serbian administration. Bardhylius (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

KOSOVO JE SERBIA!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P YEAH RIGHT ;) :) YOU SERBS ARE SO SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!! LOVE YOU! KAS ONE OF 2.5 MILION EAGELS LIVING IN REPUBLIC OF "SERBIAS HEAR'T" PUHAAAAAAAAAAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.97.146 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbs aught to stop being fascists and read up the truth: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/26/kosovo.serbia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.199.64 (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we need English historians to teach us our history... 89.216.135.2 (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

how many more wars does Serbia wish to start? surely a country with a majority that decides to become a nation state must be allowed the right of self determination?

How about making the description: "Kosovo... a region in southeast Europe, whose declaration of independence has been partially recognized by the international community. It borders ... and Serbia (which claims it as part of its sovereign territory) on the North..." I think something along these lines is very objective and does not bias the description in either direction. LatiDre (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive demonstrations

There are currently massive demonstrations in Belgrade, with a million people estimated, called: "Kosovo is Serbia". Can somebody put this in the article? 89.216.135.2 (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you create a proper account and do it then?--RobNS 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to mention the protests at 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence instead? (130.237.227.61 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

I have an account, I was just wondering where to mention them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.135.2 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I put it in the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Can someone please check for mistakes? Much obliged. Superfan 410 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just heard in the news that the protesters number about 200 thousand, not even close to a million. Húsönd 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah , I heard that on CNN from the editor of the VIP magazine in Belgrade , somewhere about 150-200 thousand--Cradel 20:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevant to Kosovo's independence, but not necessarily Kosovo in general. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

KOSOVO'S INDEPENDENCE

Shouldn't there be an article about the countries that recognise Kosovo as an own state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgcube111 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is, both the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and the countries that recognize it. The latter is known as International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. --BirdKr (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In the section "Declaration of Independence, 2008" the second sentences starts:

In a following day several countries (United States...

It should probably read:

The following day several countries (including the United States...

Henryhartley (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)  Done Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

KOSOVO'S SYMBOLS

Could someone update the colours of the Kosovo flag. Officialy the map of Kosovo on the flag and the coat of arms is gold in colour not yellow.

Here are the links from Kosovo's state/national broadcaster.

Flag: http://video2.rtklive.com/img/flamuri.pdf

Coat of Arms: http://video2.rtklive.com/img/stema.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech999 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded an edited version of the image at this location Image:521px-Coat of arms of Kosovo.svg.png. I am unable to copy this over the current version, if anyone can do this, please do so. Dn9ahx (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

New flag of Kosovo

Flag of Kosovo

Flag of Kosovo

The map on the current flag image seems too small. I made two new suggestions which seem to be closer to the truth:

• Image:Kosovo State Flag.png
• Image:Kosovo State Flag-1.png

--Camptown (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But the flag which the president and PM of Kosovo are holding has a bright yellow hue similar to the one used currently in the article.

see: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1zMRGritCtusBjGtSPaGxk1ef-wD8USBI2G0

also, there are other sources like this article on BBC or this, all of which use yellow. I suspect the version you have is a misinterpretation of the meaning of the colour Gold in heraldry. Gold (French or) simply means "yellow", not the actual colour of gold.

bogdan (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When it comes to the map/stars proportion, I guessed (are there any specific guidelines yet?) it should conform to the coat of arms. --Camptown (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and Serbia

I have put the following notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement:

The 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence a few days ago touched off (or reignited) a ferocious edit war on Kosovo that spilled over to Serbia, the reason being that some asserted that Kosovo was an independent state, while others said it wasn't. It is my understanding that Kosovo was already under Arbcom probation at the time (whatever that means), and that Serbia was likely under the same probation, because of earlier assertations along the same lines. Currently, both pages are protected for a week. I'm not at all sure that this was the right thing to do (I am NOT an admin, so don't ask me), and I'm not at all sure that a week's protection is enough (or too much, for that matter). What says Arbcom? — Rickyrab | Talk 06:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I did that out of concern that the Serb/Albanian/Kosovar edit war was getting out of hand again. Please stick to NPOV. Thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo will NEVER be part of Serbia

Can we include statement from Condoleza Rice and the U.S. administration that Kosovo will never be part of Serbia? 209.53.181.69 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a source for that statement, and find somewhere in the article where it fits, perhaps. Chandlertalk 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some sources for you. 123 Bardhylius (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, it was part of Serbia historically....204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Serbia occupied it in 1913 and from then up to the Kosovo war 1999, they committed various forms of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Bardhylius (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, it is true, 1913 - 1999 (86 year) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piasoft (talk • contribs) 11:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that’s not true. Kosovo was central part of Serbian medieval state. Here is an article about Serbian medieval state from Britannica. Britannica: Serbia The Golden Age--Marko M (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes?! I see you want to get to historical arguments. So what before that ? What about before your mediaval gold age. Well if you want to refer to that history than read this modern history of Balkans. here Albanians are in the balkans at least 1800-2000 years before the slavs. I dont see your argument standing with medieval age. If there is any population who can have history discussions with albanians are only the Greeks, but certanly not the serbs!!! Piasoft (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend, are you telling me that I should read Modern history of Balkans to learn that Illyrians are Albanian ancestors. First, at the end of every article on Wikipedia there are references and sources. I can’t find any at the end of this piece about modern Balkan history. Second, with all due respect to the author of the text, he is not university professor of history nor he is known in scientific circles by his work although he holds a Ph.D. in History from Indiana University with a thesis on Habsburg foreign policy in Macedonia in the period preceding the Balkan Wars. For reference, First Balkan war started in 1912.

Let’s get serious. In the book “The Oxford illustrated history of prehistoric Europe” by author Barry Cunliffe, ex Professor of European archeology at the University of Oxford, there is no mention of the origin of Albanians although there are a lot of historical facts about Illyrians. No serious historian or archeologist would risk his reputation by supporting such theories. Now, I will and this discussion since, according to you, I as a Serbian am not in titled to discus history with you, obviously an Albanian. Best regards, --Marko M (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Marko M, don't dig in a hole you've accidentally created. The proverb goes something like that. If you get further into history you will only disprove your claims. All the Slavs descended in Balkans in the 7th century. Albanian are descendants to the native Illyrians who were there since the Big Bang. And how come you never explain how there are 92% ethnic Albanians. Bardhylius (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is Revanchism.Its not proven anyways about the Illyrians.Megistias (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Bardhylius (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

camp bondsteel

Please add info about this military base [1]

Since it is largest US military base in Europe and beyond, it certainly deserves a mention in the UN Governance section. Lakinekaki (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Map status

What's the status on getting a two-shaded map? I can see how it would be useful here, and there's a furious edit war going on in Serbia over this issue. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please omit this remark in bold

"Several countries in the region (Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Romania, Greece) are undetermined on or will not recognize independence at this time either for internal reasons or in fear of damaging relations with Serbia."

The above bolded sentence fragment as an opinion and is not necessarily true. Some of these countries listed do not believe in an independent Kosovo due to entirely other reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvasecka (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

I see Serbian arguments are treated as with no value at all, although they are stronger than all the others. Once USA, UK, France, Belgium, and 10-15 other countries recognized Kosovo's independence, English wikipedia administrators allow Albanian vandals to write their labels and maps, or personally do so. English, German and French language speakers forget that 10-15 countries they come from, and that form the major part of North America and Western Europe do not represent the whole world, and that Wikipedians shouldn't act on behalf of their countries, but on behalf proven facts. These are: Kosovo is far from being fully recognized in the world (though it might be in days to follow), big countries like Russia, India, China, Brasil either deny its independence and entrance into UN or suggest further negotiations. However, I can't resist the feeling that administrators here follow only what their governments and media say, making this not Encyclopedia in English, but English encyclopedia or, what is worse and more real, American encyclopedia. Just wanted to make my point for the edit history. Yours act are to be remembered as well, you should be aware of that. --Ml01172 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo really should have consulted with Wikipedia before they declared independence. It is was most unconsiderate of them. BTW, noone ever recognized this country but we still have a very detailed article on it. Meh.--Lairor (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said Lairor! Cheers  ;-) --RobNS 05:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You people sound like lawyers. You're ridiculous. I just loaded the "Kosov[?]" page to look up a detail about its people, are realized at the last second that you would have tied the page up in so much petty hairsplitting that the phrase "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" looks dignified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.139.1 (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It says in the article that it never was a country... So I don't see what point you're trying to make, no one is denying that the article of Kosovo should exist. Chandlertalk 05:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if a national government exists, it's at least technically a country. So the CSA was a country, even though other countries didn't recognize it as such. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, "it was never properly an independent country", before you changed it. Chandlertalk 09:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's still POV. Recognition by other countries does not an independence make. The existence of a country, or a state, government, with institutions and people that follow them, and not other governments, are the essence of independence. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the unsigned comment "You people sound like lawyers." Sorry, I didn't know how to sign a comment, and just looked it up. And I, too, appreciate Lairor's comment.68.99.139.1 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Josh Knape

I believe Kosovo meets two of the requirements of a country according to intl. law

1. government institutions - yep
2. control of its territory - yep (with the help of Nato, but that's beside the point)
3. internatinal legitimacy (ie UNSC approval) - nope

So, it really shouldn't be that difficult. Just say that "Kosovo is a country but that it's independence is not recognized by all, including Serbia, Russia, China, Spain, the UNSC, etc..."Osli73 (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no reason at this point in time to treat this differently from Transnistria. Once Kosovo gets UN recognition, things will lie different, but at present, we really cannot within WP:NPOV treat Kosovo as a sovereign state. Let's be reasonable about this. Things look bright for the RoK, most of Europe will come round to recognize it by the look of things, and Russia+China probably won't care enough to put any of their weight behind Serbia over a rather unexciting minor patch of land like that. This will likely happen in a few weeks. Which will mean we can update the article in a few weeks. Our Albanian editors will just need the discipline to sit out the intervening time and accept the current "Transnistria"-like status of the RoK. dab (𒁳) 10:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about China, but they're rather obsessed with Serbia in Russia, and for a good reason. Remember, the Russian Empire basically fell apart after trying to protect the Serbs from Austrians. For the last few days the absolute majority of political programmes in Russia were dedicated to the events in Kosovo. And it isn't a tiny patch of land, it's roughly 20% of total land area of Serbia, and it's about the size of an average European minor in terms of population. If Russia has any principles, it will use all of its diplomatic power to boycott this Albanian-controlled territory, so I'd abstain from making such remarks. --Humanophage (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont see Transnistria to be recognised from any country what so far as independent. Sorry but it is nth similar to Kosovo. Piasoft (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's also Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is recognised by one country. Alæxis_¿question? 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the same happened for Kosovo in 1991. It was recognised by only one country. And since then arguments for its independece have changed. I hope all you guys are able to look reality, no matter how bad this could be for the Orthodox community. Piasoft (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the major difference between a country recognised by 17 countries (as of now) or even ~30 of them and a country that is recognised by one country? And there's also Taiwan recognised by 20-something states iirc. Since none of these countries is in UN now (and won't be there in foreseeable future) they all should be treated equally here in Wikipedia. Alæxis_¿question? 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the major difference between Kosovo and Taiwan is that the last one has never declared formally it's independence. Piasoft (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Split template removal

I think that we should have the split template removed. No serious discussion about splitting the article is taking place anywhere on this talk page, just a few mentions that failed to draw interest. And I doubt that there would ever be any consensus on creating a POV fork of this article. Húsönd 12:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to a split and support the request for removal. gidonb (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Geography of Kosovo

What do you mean by "Kosovo borders on Serbia's Podunavlje and Podrinje regions to the north" in the introductory section? It is not true, Kosovo doesn't share borders with either of these geographic regions of Serbia. --George D. Božović (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Kosovo borders on Central Serbia, which I think is undisputed? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be much more accurate to say : "Kosovo borders Serbia .(end of sentence)" ... --Cradel 23:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How can it be undisputed that Kosovo borders Serbia, if Serbia says that Kosovo is part of Serbia? We wouldn't say that southern England borders England, or that England borders Britain, or that Canada borders North America. 86.165.211.143 (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I would be nice if someone can provide a sound file of the word "Kosovo" in native and English languages? I found only IPA thing /kɔˈsɔva/ in Albanian and /ˈkɔsɔvɔ/ in Serbian. --Manop - TH (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused now, what does the Greek language has to do with Kosov[?] at the first sentence of the article ?!

PLACE-NAMES

A hotly debated issue has been the one pertaining to place-names in Kosovo, but little improvement has been done. Consider for example the name of the capital city, Prishtina. Its pronunciation is very phonetic if the Albanian spelling is used. However, Pristina has been in use in English-language media with the only reason to reflect the then official Serbian spelling Priština (pronounced Prishtina nevertheless). Wikipedia has been using Priština to comply with primary official use not the common English spelling. But now since Kosovo is an independent country, the place-names should reflect the primary official and popular usage (Albanian is the first official language in Kosovo). Therefore, I would truly appreciate it if there is an agreement for the move from Priština to Prishtina. Some have argued that it should simply be Pristina, since that’s used more in English, but before it was Priština not Pristina; it was Serbian not English, so let it be Albanian now. Furthermore, it is pronounced Prishtina in English to and it is very likely that English-language media will start using this form now to make it easy for their English-speaking readers.--Getoar (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WP should follow the example of other major English-language media. Unless and until most of the major media (BBC, CNN, Times, New York Times, etc) begin using "Prishtina", we should stick with the usual, accepted, standard English spelling "Pristina". 86.165.211.143 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

History section is out of control

I noticed that no sooner was the protection on the page lifted, several users proceeded to immediately revert to a highly POV, pre-protection version of the History section [[2]]. The current version is written from an extreme pro-Albanian POV. I have never seen anything like it. Dardanians as Albanians? The "'romantic vision in Serbian culture regarding Kosova as the “cradle of the Serbian civilization'"? The "Serbian peril"? This is unbelievable. I propose restoring it to the version before User: Pjetër Bogdani modified it, which is the only neutral one. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

We should change the External Links. Why should there be pro-albanian or pro-serbian sites? We should remove all the links that don’t belong there, and classify them differently, ex. Government, History, Tourism, Culture, Overviews, News, etc.--Rinigjon (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The External links section should conform with WP:External links which states that a lack of links is not in itself a reason to add links. I have replaced the huge linkfarm with the portal (the most relevant link of all), wikiatlas, wikitravel, the UN Interim Administration link, one republican link, one provincial government link and one tourism link. That is all that is needed. Green Giant (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The term "PARTIALLY RECOGNIZED" is factually wrong

The term "partially recognized" for Kosovo is incorrect, because Israel is also not recognized by some Arab countries, and yet we don't consider Israel to be "partially recognized" state. Kosovo is an independent, internationally recognized country, whose recognition is 'contested' or 'opposed' by some, and fully supported by major Western powers (e.g. the USA, Britain, France, etc). Bosniak (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. While Israel is partially unrecognized, Kosovo is only partially recognized. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is such a misfortune that so many countries are led by crazy, anti-democratic leaders who do not want to see peace in the world because it's contrary to their chances to remain in power.--Getoar (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Getoar, it's unfortunate, but there is nothing we can do. We have the United States and Western powers on one side defending freedom, and we have axis of evil (Russia, North Korea, Serbia etc) on the other side. Hopefully, good will prevail. God bless president Bush, God bless NATO, and God bless Western powers and Freedom. Bosniak (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The comparison is totally misleading. Israel has normal relations with 161 countries. Kosovo apparently has normal relations with 17, soon to be around 30 or 35. Many very large countries which recognize Israel have expressed reservations about Kosovo independence, including China, India, Brazil, S. Africa, and Mexico. <eleland/talkedits> 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

eleland, your comparison is rather humorous. You point out that Israel has normal relations with 161 countries, duh! Israel has been around for 50+ years, and Kosovo for a few days. In the next 50 years, Kosovo will also have normal relations with 161 countries or even more. I mean, duh!Bosniak (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, than "in a few days," Kosovo will be a fully recognized sovereign nation. There is no rush, and Wikipedia does not predict the future. Also, please watch your tone - that goes for everyone here. <eleland/talkedits> 08:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth mentioning that Israel is a full member of the United Nations, while Kosovo is currently not. <eleland/talkedits> 08:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

disagree. See the List of unrecognized countries - Kosovo like Taiwan and the Sahrawi Republic is recognized by a number of countries, but is not yet member of the UN and the majority of the countries do not recognize it YET. This is in contrast to Cyprus, Israel, North/South Korea that are practicaly undisputed and only non-recognized by special-case countries (like Cyprus-Turkey, Israel-Arab states, North-South Korea). 88.203.201.214 (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)]

dude, gets your facts straight. Taiwan is recognized by only 23 countries, duh! Bosniak (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

More countries that Kosovo then... And there are countries who will never recognize it because of situations they have with minority ethnic groups wanting to break free. Chandlertalk 07:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get you either, if I have a look at your user page you have a ubx with "This user is an atheist." in it, but use "God bless W" "God bless NATO"? You also seem to be from Bosnia, a country that hasnt recognized Kosovo, probably one reason why is because of the Republika Srpska might want som 'freedom' too? Chandlertalk 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop mentioning Taiwan, they haven't even declared independence. How can they be compared? You can't recognize a country that hasn't recognized itself as sovereign. NN 07:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't they recognize them selfs as China? Chandlertalk 07:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

what nonsense. the Republic of China is a founding member of the UN. Their de-facto territory is the island of Taiwan. Compare the Republic of Kosovo to the Republic of China once it is a full UN member. How does the fact that Israel is partially recognized make it any less true that Kosovo is partially recognized? Israel has UN recognition (since 1947). Compare Kosovo to Israel once it has UN recognition. It seems likely that Kosovo will be fully recognized in a few months' time. It isn't now. dab (𒁳) 10:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As a late entrant to this discussion, can I say there's no such thing as a "partially-recognised country". It's recognised by those countries that have recognised it, and not recognised by the others. You can't sort-of average it out and come up with "partially recognised". That term suggests that part of Kosovo is recognised and the remaining part is not. An analogy would be a TV program that 15% of a group of people have seen and the remaining 85% have not. Those that saw it, saw it 100%. Those that didn't see it, didn't see it at all. To call it a "partially-seen program" suggests that the entire group saw only 15% of the program. There is no single adjective I can think of that accurately describes Kosovo's international status, so we shouldn't just make one up, but come up with a better solution. I’d prefer the lead para to say something like:

• Kosovo ... is a self-declared country in the Balkans, presently .... Its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government have recently declared independence from the Republic of Serbia, which contested the act. It has received recognition from a number of countries, others are planning to do so, but others have said they will not recognise Kosovo. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of the international community is that Kosovo is independent. The majority of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the Group of Eight (G8) leading countries in the international community swiftly recognised Kosovo's independence and a majority of members of the European Union and NATO have recognised Kosovo or are in the process of doing so. 13:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo cities infoboxes

We should really find a consensus on how to display infoboxes on kosovo city articles .Should we putt :Country=Serbia , Province=Kosovo or just Country=Kosovo.
I think we should putt the latter butt not everyone agrees . Any suggestions ?--Cradel 14:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

we need some preliminary solution showing "(disputed)" with appropriate links for the time being. dab (𒁳) 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't the cities just be claimed to be part of "Kosovo", without specifying whether Kosovo is a country or a province? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

History

The history section is being added by incredibly POV and heavily disputed information by User:Dodona. We should protect the current neutral version. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

try to be more careful, you undid a lot of organisation work I just did. Also, the section on 20th century history is insanely long. Please try to reduce it dramatically, and invest some effort in building the sub-article linked. dab (𒁳) 16:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, I've done some cleanup. The "History" section still takes up a third of the whole article. It needs to be shortened even more. But the worst excesses are addressed for now, I think. dab (𒁳) 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be more on the controversy?

Seems to me there are massive controversies in europe about the fairness of taking a bit of another country and makeing it a new coutry, even in countries where the goverment officiall recognizes the new country there are political parties who object. The article seems to be very light on this area. --IceHunter (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really bother me. Kosovo is independent and will never be part of Serbia.Bosniak (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it bothers ppl who want to show all sides of a conflict, and try to keep the article as neutral as possible, you can just GTFO. Chandlertalk 06:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WHY is the History section unacceptable

1. It uses constantly "Kosova" instead of "Kosovo".

2. It mentions a fictive Dardania to the 19th century.

3. It refers to a lot of info totally unrelated to Kosovo.

4. It deletes a bunch of info from the neutral previous version.

In accordance to some of the content which seems patent nonsense and wishful thinking, this is completely against Wikipedia standards. I see absolutely no reason why is the previous neutral version rewritten and recommend no further edit there, but discussion in here. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, it is highly romantic and POV in tone. Nonsense about the the Dardanians being "generous" and "hardworking" and the "Serbian peril" is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Dardania is discussed in its own article. At most, one or two sentences should suffice. I've brought this up in the discussion at least twice before, only to be ignored (see above). Will seek admin help if this continues. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a side effect of lifting the full protection... But I agree with both of you, the section discusses things not really connected with the topic and is occasionally POV. --Tone 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Propose that the proetection be re-instated. Current situation is out of control. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

calm down. I don't see any mention of "Kosova". The adjective "Kosovar" is a different matter. Let's take this slowly, step by step. The history section needs to be shortened further, and you can help tighten it towards relevance in the process. dab (𒁳) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

contributions that are patently violating WP:NPOV should be reverted no sight (WP:SNOW). This is difficult enough as it is. Edit-warring throwaway accounts should be blocked on sight. dab (𒁳) 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The only uses of 'Kosova', outside of the word' Kosovar', are either references to the Albanian language, or to the distinct governemnt of the 1990's. There's no problem with that that I can see. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The first word in Getoar's version was "Kosova". This is not shortening, but insertion of Greater Albanian ultra-nationalist revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PPNjegos (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't there when I looked at the article. If 'Kosova' is a problem, it's one not in evidence in the current version, and the article should stay that way. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, current version is neutralish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PPNjegos (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutralish is not a word I guess.

I changed Kosova to Kosovo to comply with the general use in wikipedia. I have far more sources than the current version. We can't overload this section now with data about ancient battles. As we come closer to the present we write more, I believe. Nevertheless, we should not repudiate ancient history nor the existence of a Serbian state that included Kosovo. A paragraph about the Battles of Kosovo should be enough.--Getoar (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

TAKE A LOOK AT THE EDITED PROPOSAL User:Getoar/Notebook. I've made changes to reflect your remarks and added some more sources.--Getoar (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like your version particularly. However, my biggest problem is found by tracking the history of Dardania, which miraculously all is now in one article about the peoples of dardania, and whose empire has shrunk, according to Wikiality, from a large area to JUST Kosovo. It's amazing how the borders reconfigured retroactively. I note that before the Kosovo mess, Dardania, Balkans explained that the dardanian empire was much larger, but now Dardani says it's just Kosovo. very interesting rewritings of history to suit a POV. ThuranX (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo's history by a NPOV historian, Noel Malcolm :

"Kosovo is Serbia", "Ask any historian" read the unlikely placards, waved by angry Serb demonstrators in Brussels on Sunday. This is rather flattering for historians: we don't often get asked to adjudicate. It does not, however, follow that any historian would agree, not least because historians do not use this sort of eternal present tense.

History, for the Serbs, started in the early 7th century, when they settled in the Balkans. Their power base was outside Kosovo, which they fully conquered in the early 13th, so the claim that Kosovo was the "cradle" of the Serbs is untrue.

What is true is that they ruled Kosovo for about 250 years, until the final Ottoman takeover in the mid-15th century. Churches and monasteries remain from that period, but there is no more continuity between the medieval Serbian state and today's Serbia than there is between the Byzantine Empire and Greece.

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

But legally, Kosovo was not incorporated into the Serbian kingdom in 1912; it remained occupied territory until some time after 1918. Then, finally, it was incorporated, not into a Serbian state, but into a Yugoslav one. And with one big interruption (the second world war) it remained part of some sort of Yugoslav state until June 2006. Until the destruction of the old federal Yugoslavia by Milosevic, Kosovo had a dual status. It was called a part of Serbia; but it was also called a unit of the federation. In all practical ways, the latter sense prevailed: Kosovo had its own parliament and government, and was directly represented at the federal level, alongside Serbia. It was, in fact, one of the eight units of the federal system.

Almost all the other units have now become independent states. Historically, the independence of Kosovo just completes that process. Therefore, Kosovo has become an ex-Yugoslav state, as any historian could tell you.

Noel Malcolm is a senior research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetonm (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

dependent clause in intro

I removed the phrase "as independent from Serbia," from the intro, where it read "Kosovo...is a partially recognized as independent from Serbia, landlocked republic in southeastern Europe. " This is a clumsy phrasing and needs work. Perhaps stating 'Kosovo broke away from Serbia." Or somethign to that effect. Dropping that phrase into the middle of the sentence it was in, however, was very poorly written material which seemed designed to almost taunt the serbian POV editors here. As such, I've removed it in the hopes that a stronger introduction can be reached. ThuranX (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is partially recognised as an independent country, and partially as being an autonomous province of Serbia. The wording needs to be very carefully chosen. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

NOT what I said, or was talking about. I'm not here to argue the idiotic POVs that are making this entire article a war zone; I fixed one lousy phrase which did not read well at all. I even suggested alternate solutions. Putting a dependent clause in the midst of adjectives like that is not good grammar or writing, that's it. ThuranX (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is disputed by...

"Kosovo's sovereignity is disputed by Serbia, Russia, China, Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Greece, Cyprus and other nations."

I find this very POV. Shall we also name that many countries that recognise Republic of Kosovo? Mentioning Serbia, Russia and Spain is enough. Serbia represents the "other" party in the dispute, Russia represents the major force (similar to USA) and Spain represents one EU member in a partly EU-handled process. Bardhylius (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is POV. Most of the world recognises Serbia and Kosovo a part of it so does Serbia. PPNjegos (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That comment sounds like it's steering back into a political fight. We need to figure out how many, and which nations, should be int he list of nations disputign the sovereignty as regards this one sentence. Serbia is covered elsewhere, so perhaps this should focus on the larger diplomatic recognitions worldwide. Russia has been outspoken in its' opposition, so I agree they belong. Why should or should not all the others mentioned be included? ThuranX (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a good case for mentioning Spain as showing that "the west" isn't united, that the EU-15 aren't unanimous. There's also a good case for mentioning Romania and Greece because these are fellow Balkan countries (and EU countries), and one of them shares a border with Serbia, which shows that Serbia's neighbours aren't all against it. Finally China is important as one of the five permanent members of the UN security council. 01:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.211.143 (talk)

Then let's explain the objections of russia as a Serbian ally and memeber of the UN Security council and china as a member of the security council, since they have a political say. Although, can't we instead divide this up into sections under objecting states? Or put that into the article on the declaration? Perhaps we should use the para to shunt readers to that article, keeping this focused explicitly on the nation's history, politics and cultural identity, not unlike most other nation articles, avoiding much of the controversy now occuring? ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should recognize that Kosovo split from Siberia Serbia and that both sides have claims to back themselfs up, and that the Russians are allies of Serbia. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Kosovo's sovereignity is disputed by Serbia, Russia etc.", then I suppose there should also be a mention about "Kosovo's non-sovereignity is disputed by the UK, the US etc." (212.247.11.155 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm changing it to my proposition. Any complaints? Bardhylius (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Double edit war on images -probation is circumvented?

Since protection was lifted as far as I can see a double edit war is going on with the images, once there is the edit war on which file should go to the infobox which changes several times a day and then comes the one on the images themselves which goes on even on commons where not everyone has an account. Why was protection lifted in the first place? And why is Serbia protected at the same time? Hobartimus (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

UNMIK

Someone forgot that those leaders are no sovereign leaders and that Kosovo is STILL administered by the UNMIK, that is that Joachim Rucker is its Head of State. PPNjegos (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruecker still retains some powers but he is not the head of state and has never been. He is only an administrator, head of UNMIK, and his powers are being transfered in large to the government of Kosovo. In about four months the transitory period will be over.--Getoar (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PPNjegos, keep dreaming. Kosoo is gone. Kosovo will never be part of Serbia. Maybe in your imagination, but - of course - reality is different. Bosniak (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Serbs disagree, they think Kosovo has always been part of Serbia. Let's agree to disagree, ok?204.52.215.13 (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL FOR THE HISTORY SECTION

I think that this User:Getoar/Notebook should replace some of the current history section. It has way more sources. Please offer your thoughts.--Getoar (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Yes it should , the current article lacks a lot of information that is mentioned here , and its not like we are making this up , there are the sources ,read them--Cradel 00:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Hi i Think your history proposal is good. it explains thoroughly the history of Kosovo from a neutral point of view and has alot more detail in it about its history than the current article has on it at the moment i think it should definitely be considered for use in the article. Gr8opinionater (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2008 (GMT).

Thank you for your support. I understand I did not discuss my earlier edits, but the history section was challenged for lack of references and verifiability, so I proceeded with changes and offered explanations in the edit summary. I have made significant changes and altered biased-sounding language.--Getoar (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree

The version in your notebook is highly unbalanced and unsuitable in its current form. It is written from an entirely Albanian POV and tries deliberately to minimize any Serbian connection to Kosovo. Specifically:

1)The first two paragraphs about the Dardanians and the Roman emperors are completely irrelevant to the article. Dardania is discussed in its own article and furthermore Kosovo was not called Dardania until the 19th century. The etymology of Dardania is also false. There is no relation between Kosovo and Dardania other than a strictly geographic one.

2)The sentence about Illyrian culture being preserved in Dardania is also nonsense. The Slavs arrived in the 6th century AD and the article MUST mention this. It was indeed the cradle of the Serbian state, and this must not be in "quotes".

3)The whole second paragraph of the "Ottoman conquest" is also highly POV. It uses highly romantic wording such as "Kosovo was a typical redoubt of defiant people who fought against the new regime in quest for their national liberty". This kind of stuff has no place in an encyclopedia. It also is written as if Albanians were the only people in Kosovo and makes no mentions of the Serbs. In fact, Ottoman census records are clear that Kosovo was almost 100% Serbian at the time of conquest, and the proportion of albanians increased after each Serbian uprising and massacres by the Ottomans (see Demographic history of Kosovo).

4)Same goes for the next paragraph. Only Albanians are mentioned.

5)Way to much room given to the Albanian national movement.

I suggest you take a good look at the current version of the history section. That is NPOV. Your version is written from an entirely Albanian POV and is highly unbalanced. Not surprisingly, this is due to the fact that all your sources are exclusively Albanian. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And what about the current article , isn't that a little por-serbian instead of neutral ?--Cradel 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is it pro-Serbian? Because it doesn't state that Dardanians=Albanians and have been there since the Big Bang? Kosovo was indeed the center of Serbian culture in the middle ages, as the innumerable Serbian monuments in Kosovo today attest. You might not like it but that's the way it is. The data from historical censuses is also undisputable. Kosovo was 99% Slavic/Serbian at the time of the Ottoman conquest. Take a look at Demographic history of Kosovo to see what I mean. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 98%. 1% were ethnic Albanians and 1% others. But by the time of 15th century Ottoman annexation, western Kosovo (Metohija) had already a sizable Albanian minority. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of my sources are actually Russian and I'll be adding some more English ones.

Dardania should be mentioned because it’s part of Kosovo’s history. More information of course is found in the corresponding article. There are articles about modern Kosovar history as well and that does not mean that we should not talk about it here.

About the arrivals of Slavs, that could be included, but Serbs did not settle in Kosovo in the 6th century.

As to the cradle issue, that is how Serbs regard it and not how it is. The Serbian state was founded just north of Kosovo in Raska and Christianity in general is not attached to holy places like Judaism and Islam.

Furthermore, I talked about Albanians in the 19th and early 20th century because there's nothing important to say about Serbs. The League of Prizren e.g. is very significant to the Albanian history and was founded in Kosovo, but I did not call Kosovo the birthplace of modern Albania as some may prefer to call it. Nevertheless, the crucial points of the Albanian national movement pertain to Kosovo; it was established there.--Getoar (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1) About Dardania, User:Dbachmann answered you on his talk page here [[3]]. Don't pretend you don't know about it.

2) Slavs did indeed arrive in the Southern Balkans in the 6th century. That is common knowledge.

3) The ancient Dardanians, whatever they spoke, were certainly not the ancestors of today's Kosovo Albanians.

4) The large number and significance of the Serbian monuments in Kosovo (Gracanica, Decani, etc.) are indeed proof that this was the cradle of the Serbian culture.

5) As the census records show, Kosovo was virtually 99% Serbian at the time of Ottoman conquest and for several years afterward. The percentage of albanians started increasing with each Serbian uprising and subsequent Ottoman reprisals and depopulation.

6)Nothing important to say about Serbs? That is just your own POV. Although I do agree that the league of Prizren is significant in Albanian history and should be included.

--Tsourkpk (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

He should have answered in my talkpage, not his. Sources mention a Kingdom of Dardania actually and Slavs arrived in the Southern Balkans in the 6th century, but the Serbs settled in Kosovo only in late 13th century (or 1190s). There are Orthodox monuments in Kosovo, but if you read what N. Malcolm, professor at Oxford, says then you'll realize it was not the very heart of the Serbian state (only the geographical center). The demographic issue was never solved, but Malcolm says there is a period when Serbs constituted a majority. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the Albanians came in and took Serbian lands by force or with Ottoman assistance. Don't forget: Ottoman census usually reflects religion (here Serbian Orth.). We could perhaps talk about 19th century Kosovo Serbs in a longer article, but they are not significant for this section.--Getoar (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1)Serbs are Slav, yes? Slavs settled as far south as Greece in 6th century AD, how could they not settle Kosovo as well.

2)How is "heart" different from "geogrpahical center"? The cultural and spiritual significance of the monuments I mentioned (they are UNESCO World Heritage Sites after all) is conclusive evidence that Kosovo is the cultural and spiritual heartland of Serbia. If it wasn't Kosovo, then why aren't these World Heritage Sites found in Raska or somewhere else/

3)The Ottoman census records seem pretty conclusive to me.

4)19th century Kosovo Serbs in another article (But 19th century Albanians in this article, of course)? What are you talking about? That doesn't make any sense. Both are relevant, so both should be mentioned. It seems that the very mention of the words "Serbs" and "Serbian" consitutes Serbian propaganda as far as you're concerned. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Slavs did not settle in all places they went through. UNESCO protection does not assert holiness for a place; meeting the UNESCO criteria does not lower the spiritual and national importance of e.g. Raska or Zica (the latter was burnt down and then the Patriarchate moved to Peja). As I said, the Ottoman census usually reflects religious affiliation; the Serbian state discouraged Catholicism (if repressed sounds Alb-POV). Finally, unnecessary overuse of the words Serb and Serbian makes make the article SPOV. I can’t talk about Serbs of that period because they did not do anything that amounts to the importance of the League of Prizren. Other articles may include more information and details, so Serbs could be mentioned.--Getoar (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But the Ottoman census did distinguish between Orthodox Christians (which most Serbs were) and Roman Catholics, which I believe most Albanians were before the Ottoman conquest. And the Ottoman records show an overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians with very few Roman Catholics in Kosovo in the years immediately following the conquest. whatever, we need to give this some time until a consensus develops. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, that is exactly what the current history section says:

Fully absorbed into the Serbian Kingdom until the end of the 12th, it became the secular and spiritual center of the Serbian medieval state of the Nemanyiden dynasty in the 13th century, with the Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Peć, while Prizren was the secular center. The zenith was reached with the formation of a Serbian Empire in 1346, which after 1371 transformed from a centralized absolutist medieval monarchy to a feudal realm. Kosovo became the hereditary land of the House of Branković and Vučitrn and Priština flourished.

This seems to be in broad agreement with what you're saying, and all of it is true. Where is the bias in it? It seems to me that you want it omitted from the article because you don't like it, not because it is inaccurate or irrelevant. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I believe Getoar's history proposal is better. It is from a more neutral POV and it also has more sources. I propose to use his proposal, and if there are disagreements we can address them by modifying that version.--Rinigjon (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! The current lame section should be replaced. It is selective in time period and issues and has practically no sources. If there is doubt about my hardcopy sources, I could verify them for you. I reiterate it, the current version is rather lame than pro-Serb and yet both.--Getoar (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, it seems like some are actually thinking that my proposed version is going to be the unchangeable Gospel. I am proposing a new version, but all are welcome to add or improve as long as they offer sources and the points they make are significant.--Getoar (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Vuk Branković and the House of Branković, History of Medieval Serbia and the various maps there show Serbs in Kosovo. BalkanFever 02:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Getoar, your history proposal looks good and there is no need to change. Also your point on the other who have something to add or improve show a lot that you are tolerant in many areas. --Zeke sq-N (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree More sources more neutral. Hobartimus (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s 5:1. I believe I can now make the necessary changes. And please feel free to discuss further changes. Thank you.--Getoar (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I don’t think Malcolm is neutral nor are most of the sources in your proposal. You seem to follow the Albanian sources while you have no Serbian sources. And what’s your source for the claim that the name Dardania derives from an Albanian word? --George D. Božović (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

After all this quarreling, I have put a tag {{disputed}} on the section. Feel free to remove it when there's a clear consensus, but not before. And don't forget that the article is on probation. --Tone 14:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PQE's Argument

Disagree. Firstly, let me pose a better question - what is wrong with the previous version of history? Didn't the best solution seem that we just go on from there, and NPOV-ise it if it was any Serbian or other POV, instead of totally rewrite from scratch with Albanian POV?

1. The article includes a lot of weakly based and totally biased claims. The first sentence is a first problem. Quote: Kosovo was known in antiquity and up to the 19th century as Dardania. That is completely false. Kosovo was known as "Kosovo" during the medieval Serbian reign - the lords of the House of Brankovich were "Lords of Kosovo" and not Dardania. The Albanian version of the name comes from the Turkish Kosova - the Ottoman Empire also thus used the term, as we see at the Viyalet of Kosova article. Such a term was also applied by the rest of the world for that geographic region. It is patent nonsense to claim this thing. Additionally, I am very worried because this version is AFAIK not actually sourced - it calls upon sources and misinterprets them very badly. Let me refer to the actual source by Arthur Evans from 1883 and quote him:

The Albanians of this part are a rougher and more fanatical set than those of the Adriatic coastlands, and to give them complete local autonomy would be simple giving them free hand to tyrannize, even more than at present, over the industrious Christian population of the Dardanian lowlands. I use the term "Dardanian," because the districts of which I am speaking (those, namely, embraced in the present Kossova Vilayet and the northern strip of the Monastir Vilayet including Kalkandelen and Prisrend, and which lie between Albania proper and Serbia, answer nearly exactly to the old Illyrian Kingdom and later Roman Province of Dardania. Although, owing to the great Serbian exodus under Arsenius Tzernojevich, there has been a great Albanian migration into this Dardanian region during the last three centuries, it is certain that, at least in the southern districts, the Slavonic element, though less self-assertive, still largely preponderates. The rich plains about Uskup are tilled almost exclusively by Slavonian peasants (falsely called Bulgars - really, as their language shows, very pure-blood Serbs), and Serbian is the language of the market-place. Even about Prisrend, where the Albanian element is larger, a large number of the so-called Arnaouts still speak Serb, while at Novi-Bazar the Serbian language is overwhelmingly preponderant. In the mountain ranges alone can the population be fairly called Albanian.

Thus, as we can see, this source, in itself actually pro-Serbian (if one refers to the article as a whole), does not nearly such a supposed thing as the author claims.

2. The "from Albanian word dardhë = pear; literally Pearland" Dardania, does not come from this supposed theory from the Albanian word dardhë (a statement itself very problematic, and yet another one not belonging to the Kosovo article). That is just one of the theories, and according to the Dardani article, an even unlikely one. Next to that, the Dardanians weren't a solely Illyrian tribe, but a mixture Illyrian-Thracian one. The rest of the section refers to parts of history totally and completely unrelated to Kosovo itself. Of the mentioned cities, only Ulpiana is actually found itself in Kosovo, while Skopje and Nish are cities found in Serbia and Macedonia, which is that to what I was referring to when I stated unrelated.

3. The Following the barbarian invasions between the 5th and 8th century, Dardania became a safe haven for the preservation of Illyrian culture and language as well as the heritage of the Romanized population, and remained part of the Byzantine empire bit. It calls the Great Migrations period "barbarian invasions". Taking to granted this, and the previous pointing out of Illyriandom, I think it is obvious that the reason was to point out the superiority of the local population, not corresponding the modern understanding by which each people is thrust upon unique historical consequences, bringing them to the situations thereof. Additionally, Dardania did not become a safe haven for Illyrian cultural preservation - it was completely assimilated and disappeared, at least in the region which once made Dardania. This is yet another attempt to claim continuinity of the Illyrian civilization, a revisionist attempt to depict history in I think we all know which manner. The region was intensively romanized and by the early 7th century AD completely colonized by Slavs and it became the center of Slavic outlawness in the Balkan peninsular.

4. The following assessment of a Serbian invasion in the late 12th century (by which the article treats solely the Serbs as the bad dudes, the Bulgars and Byzantines being OK), not only that it's not quite historically accurate, but is incredibly connoted with bad faith. The seat of the Serbian Orthodox Church wasn't moved to Peja, but Pec. That section shows clear violation of WP:POV and WP:NPOV, as it intentionally leaves out most of the text (or, considering that this is an edit, deletes) related to the Serbs, and makes bad-faith interpretations in its last sentence.

5. In 1389, in the famous Battle of Kosovo a coalition of Christian armies including Serbs, Albanians, Bosnians and Hungarians, led by the Serbian prince Lazar Hrebljanovic was defeated by the Ottoman Turks, who finally took control of the territory in 1455. Again, this was not a coalition of Christian armies. There were of course, even Vlachs in the forces, but they only fought as viceroys. It would be very same to say that they defeated "a coalition of Islamic armies". There is direct historical documentation of, next to the Serb commanders, only the Bosnian Duke Vlatko Vukovic of the House of Kosača and only because the Bosnian ruler - was the supreme sovereign as "King of Serbs" (refer to the Tvrtko article). History mostly accepts that Horvat led a detachment of Croat forces to fight in the Serb army, but there are no sources to confirm this, hence especially not the theory of a coalition of 'Christian armies', produced by Turkish sources in an attempt to overestimate the magnitude of their Pyhrric victory (a very same notion as the Serbs idolize their very defeat at the Field of Amsfeld).

It is because of this that the article is very full of totally & completely biased data, and by all Wikipedia's standards, doesn't belong there, at least not in this form. I have only worked through the oldest history bit, to show how deeply problematic it is, but I can guarantee that the rest is no better. We could go on to it as well, if needed. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the above argument may have some good points but the manner in which the the edit was done completely disregards the article probation. user:Tone inserted the section when he had an 5-1 support, he went out of his way to make sure his edit had some support instead of deciding the fate of the section via edit warring. Considering the article is on probation it could be expected that others gain support before editing (the same section) as well. I guess it just shows that probation is completely meaningless if unenforced. I wont revert the edit however because I don't care enough either way but I thought in the case of probation things would play out somewhat differently. Hobartimus (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

About the maps showing Kosovo in Europe

I think that the map

is more neutral than

Because the latter is more adequate to represent sub-national entities, like

Independent of any kind of opinions, the situation of Kosovo is, completely de facto and partially de jure, of much more independence than Bosnia's Republika Srpska. I think it is better to show Kosovo as a separate entity inside Europe, and not as a province of Serbia (which is not the real situation on the ground since 1999 and even more in 2008), IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epcott (talk • contribs) 05:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is more neutral to depict the specific geographic area described, regardless of claims of sovereignty. ThuranX (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See the map history of the image!! after the second map was in the article someone attacked it in commons to circumvent the article probation and instead of replacing the image in the article that suits his POV with on of the many different ones that already exist he modified the image where it's not possible to revert it without a commons account. Of course this only resulted in the map taken down but the point is to really watch out when linking commons images, it's not possible to put them on your watch list and they can be altered even while discussion about them is taking place here Hobartimus (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Kosovo is now independent of Serbia.--Getoar (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related, but would the second map be appropriate for Serbia? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but it would be great for the actual article about the current diplomatic conflict going on between Serbia and Kosovo, as it shows both areas. A closer view of it would be even better, but as far as the two-tone look and such, it'd be great there, while I still support image one, as it clearly shows ONLY the area discussed by this article. ThuranX (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I propose keeping on the Map of Europe Kosovo a part of Serbia until it is accepted into the Council of Europe (a two-third supermajority of Member States needed, likely for Kosovo to get some day). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The current map does not states a neutral position, it puts Kosovo as and independet state, i strongly suggest creating a special map that will mark conties with flags, so you can mark Kosovo with UN flag, since officaly by United Nations resolution 1244 it is de facto a protectorate, and marking the administrative border with difrent line then the internacional borders. Wikipedia should keep on following the dispute. So marking kosovo with UN flag, serbia with its flag, and marking administrative borders of kosovo - not internacionaly recognizes ( and guranteed to be only administrative by 1244 UN resoultion), and with full line the internacionaly recognized borders by the United Nations. In additon to keep te neutrality, you can add a map that will mark the territory that is proclaimed as independend. This way its like Wikipedia recognize Kosovo, and i know you dont want that, you want to neither recognize nor not recognize, till it is UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.5.7 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to article

How does "Dardania" come from the Albanian word for pear? BalkanFever 09:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian pear=dardhë from that darda from that Dardania--Cradel 10:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a linguistics source for that claim rather than a bare observation of similarity of the two words. --George D. Božović (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's 19th century speculation. Discussion of this belongs on Dardani, and is completely offtopic here. dab (𒁳) 15:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no doubts that the name Dardania is probably related to modern Albanian word dardhë, but the article had stated that it came from Albanian dardhë, which is not only untrue but also quite absurd, since there are no words from modern languages which possibly could serve as origins of ancient names, right? History doesn’t go backwards. ;) --George D. Božović (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not true and not absurd. Modern Albanian and Ancient "Albanian" (Illyrium) have vary similar words. That includes also "pear". Please dont make statemets that are base on your belief/dissbelief and emotions. This is for all Mr.XXXvić that read wikipedia 80.78.70.231 (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The article said the name Dardania came from Albanian word dardhë. It may have come from an ancient Albanian word, as you point it out yourself, and I am not sceptical of it, but it certainly could not have come from a modern Albanian one. See the point? --George D. Božović (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This was for all Mr. IP addresses who read Wikipedia and advise on avoiding making statements that are based on one’s belief or disbelief and emotions even though they do the very same thing themselves. :) --George D. Božović (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Albanian language is one of the oldest languages in the world (see the U.S. Library of Congress sources - you've got plenty of them!). The word "dardhë/a" is an ancient word, from which the name "Dardhan" or "Dardan" derives. And the name "Dardan" is a demonym of Dard(h)ani/ia. The source of this is the famous work of J. G. von Han, "Albanische Studien, I " of 1854. Check that out!--_Arbër ^{t •  ?} 10:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Uncooperative editing

As a first step towards bringing back a semblance of sanity to the editing of this page, I want to impose the following rule, under the authority of the Arbcom parole:

Every edit to the Kosovo page must be accompanied with a clear, informative edit summary explaining what is being changed. In particular, every edit that is a revert, if only partial, must be clearly marked as such.

Failure to observe this rule (by any but the most innocent of newbies) will be met with short blocks as disruptive behaviour. Thank you – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

excellent. hope this works. ahah, I note I have just failed to comply, here. Don't block me please, I was just fiddling to find the proper link to Turdas culture. dab (𒁳) 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling code in the infobox

Right now they are on "None assigned", and this is not to promote any pro-serbian claims, but at least the calling code still has to be the serbian one, or what they used two weeks ago? Maybe a "+381 (No new one assigned)" or something like that. The Internet TLD also at "None assigned" might be a different game, but there might have been one special used for the last 10 years or so? Chandlertalk 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

of course. Unless the temporary government cuts all phone connections, restore the Serbian calling code as the de facto way to telephone into Kosovo. dab (𒁳) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't some phone operators use numbers under Monaco's country code (or am I thinking of something else)? Which country code to list, Serbia's or Monaco's? Or both? What top domain to list? .rs? .yu? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

The moblie operators (Vala and Ipko) use monacos and slovenia code .But the calling for Kosovo code is +381 (still serbia's) --Cradel 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But if different operators use different country codes, maybe all of them should be listed, with a mention that actual usage depends on phone operator? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Lead phrasing

I endorse the current phrasing as WP:NPOV:

Kosovo is a landlocked region in the Balkans. It is administered by the partially recognized independent government of the Republic of Kosovo but is claimed by Serbia as part of its national territory. [...] Kosovo's provisional government unilaterally declared independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008 and received partial international recognition as a sovereign state (notably from the United States and some major European countries). Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence is disputed by Serbia [...] and other nations. The official position of these countries is that Kosovo is a Serbian province under ad interim UN control, formally known as Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija

that is, pending UN recognition. Once the UN passes some resolution, we'll obviously rephrase that. As things stand at the moment, the phrasing cited accurately summarizes the situation. dab (𒁳) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Tsourkpk (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this doesn't cut it. In addition to being clunky and not very specific, it tilts way too far toward the Serbian POV. For the last few months we've been discussing how to characterize Kosovo's imminent statehood. We agreed that "state" was an appropriate word, which did not cast a judgment on the legitimacy on Kosovo's independence. Finally, I don't understand what "UN recognition" means. Recognition of states is a function of sovereign governments, it is not a competency of the UN Security Council or any other UN organ under the UN Charter. Envoy202 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hasving spent the weekend fighting about just the first two of those sentences, i'm certainly good with keeping them as is. UN recognition isn't IN the quoted text, thus the meaning is irrelevant and doesn't come off as any POV. I don't see a Serbian POV here. Please be specific as to how such a POV is perceived. ThuranX (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the "landlocked" bit out of the "self-declared" etc. sentence about the political status, where it's unrelated and hardly very important, to the sentence dealing with the geographical situation. Hope that's uncontroversial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

what the phrasing is designed to reflect is the "UN pov", not the "Serbian pov". The UN position at present remains that Kosovo is an autonomous Serbian province under ad interim UN control (the status quo ante). Until the Security Council issues some new resolution, our article will have to reflect that as the "default" status of Kosovo in the international community. I'm sorry if that status caters to the "pro-Serbian pov", but that's how things stand at the moment. There is no way to phrase this in a way that satisfies everybody. Stating the UN position first is the best we can do in cases like this. --dab (𒁳) 10:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone bring another example of an independent state that is recognized by the worlds only superpower several great powers and it's independence is questioned on wikipedia? Hobartimus (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Its independence is questioned in the real world, and that is what must be reflected in Wikipedia. See International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. BalkanFever 10:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My question stands. Can you name another country recognized by the only superpower and several great powers that would be termed as 'region' in wikipedia? Denial by hostile countries is irrelevant many other countries' existence is denied the exact same way by their enemies. If you cannot name such a country then I must conclude that the above formulation is far from NPOV and basicly and exact match with the POV of one side. Hobartimus (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

see partially recognized state: the only states which currently have a status at all comparable to Kosovo are Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and the Republic of China (Chinese Taipei, Taiwan). Both of these are governments in exile with claims to territory not actually under their control. The short answer, then, is that we cannot "name another country recognized by the only superpower and several great powers" because there is no such case in existence. We need to find a solution for this as a case of its own right. The fact (or notion) that the USA are the "world's only superpower" is irrelevant here. What counts is that they are a permanent member of the UN Security Council. As long as Russia and China reject Kosovo's independence, there will be no change in UN position. As soon as Russia and/or China change their approach, things will look different. In fact, the quick recognition by the USA has sort of poisoned the well and turned this into a pro-US vs. anti-US issue. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know the UN did not pass any resolution as to the validity of the declaration independence one way or another or to the validity of recognition as an independent state, which is in the competence of the member states anyway. As far as I see there are 2 major POVs in this issue, the Amercian-Western-whatever POV is that Kosovo is an indepentend sovereign state who "will never be part of Serbia" (don't know the exact quote something similar) The other POV is Russian-whatever POV is that Kosovo is part of Serbia. I think it's best to just clearly describe the POVs and their major supporters without searching for elaborate formulations to fit the ever changing situation. Hobartimus (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus is absolutely right. There is no "UN position" -- the UN Security Council has not expressed an opinion on the declaration of independence. Russia wanted the Council to say it was illegal; France, UK, US wanted the Council to say it was just fine. End result: deadlock. The UN Secretariat is therefore trying to be studiously neutral and not take a position on this (the Secretariat generally dislikes interpretating resolutions of the Security Council). Note also that UN Secretary-General Ban pointedly has refused to express an opinion on the status of Kosovo or the legality of Kosovo's actions. UNMIK has taken a similar line. Therefore, you cannot say that there is a consolidated "United Nations POV." There is not and UN actions on the ground show that. I further agree with Hobartimus's suggestion that the answer is simply to state the two POVs that he lists and not take a side one way or the other. Envoy202 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

of course there is an UN position. It's called Resolution 1244. The UN doesn't churn out updated resolutions on a weekly basis, give them some time. The UN position is that the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government is just that, viz. provisional institutions of self-government. dab (𒁳) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How should you pronounce the names? I saw Kostunica on TV pronouncing the Serbian name like "Kossovo". --Vuo (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's how you would pronounce it in the English language. --Prevalis (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By "Kossovo", I mean /kosːovoˑ/ (in IPA), with a geminated /s/. --Vuo (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Two issues with the article

1. Kosovo is still administered by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, waiting to be replaced by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo. The intro of the article depicts as if Kosovo is a sovereign and fully independent (de facto) state, which is no case. The same is also missed in the template.

2. It is not simply claimed by Serbia as its own national territory - what the text should reflect neutrally is that it doesn't recognize Kosovo's secession. Keep on mind that only 17 countries have recognized independence of Kosovo. I know that it is obviously that we are headed somewhere, and let me quote the US ambassador to the UN SC "A process has been started that cannot be reversed". But we have to present the current picture at this very moment. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Is the presence of a UN administration -- or, for that matter, the incoming EU-led international presences -- incompatible with being an independent (sovereign) state? Since Dayton Bosnia has been under an even more intense administrative regime, the Office of the High Rep, but that does not change the fact that Bosnia was an independent state.

2. I'm not quite sure the difference between saying "Serbia 'claims' the territory of Kosovo" versus "Serbia 'does not recognize' Kosovo's secession." Could you please explain further? Both seem to have the same practical effect. Do you perceive one to be stronger or otherwise tilt toward a value judgment on the legitimacy of Kosovo's independence? Envoy202 (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PaxEquilibrium to the extent that we should state that Kosovo is under ad interim control of the UNMIK. This holds true regardless of its status. I am not sure what would happen if the Kosovo Assembly would ask the UN to leave Kosovo: since the Assembly was installed by the UNMIK they would sort of be bashing their own support. If the Assembly were to use military force against the UNMIK troops, the UN would be forced to regard them as insurgents and fight back. Of course the Assembly will not be as stupid as that. Ergo, as far as I understand, even "independent Kosovo" recognizes that it is under ad interim UN control. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Kosovo (UNMIK) be merged here (maybe in its own section)? BalkanFever 10:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I argue that it should be merged with the UNMIK article. Imagine that the UNMIK is officially discontinued in say, in June. At that point, Kosovo (UNMIK) would refer to the history of Kosovo, June 1999 to June 2008. It would then not be proper to have Kosovo (UNMIK) redirecting to Kosovo. It will always be proper to redirect Kosovo (UNMIK) to United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. Once the mission is terminated officially, we will also be able to turn "Kosovo (UNMIK)" into a "history of Kosovo (1999 to 200x)" article, where "200x" will be 2008, 2009 or whatever year will see the conclusion of the UNMIK. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the declaration of independence UNMIK acts on behalf of the government of Kosovo do they not? If the Kosovo Assembly would ask the UN to leave Kosovo, they would have no other choice but to leave correct? I mean the UN is not an occupation force that's there to oppress the people there. If a request is made by the democraticly elected representatives of the Kosovar people they would simply leave. It is not uncommon for small states to rely on others for support and security, but if they do it from their own free will I don't see how that can be charactherized as being "under ... control". It is true that the UN presence is a pre existing condition so both version may be correct. Is there a plan to get certain sections of the article and gauge support for them via surveys? It might be a good idea in the case of an article that is under probation. Hobartimus (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. BalkanFever 10:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Look at the template. There is no mention of the UNMIK. It shows as if the President and Prime Minister of the formerly-provisional institutions of self-government have authority, when they are actually close to nothing compared to the SRSG, who is the true "Sovereign" of Kosovo. The Bosnia and Herzegovina article contains info on its protectorate. I think you have misunderstood me, Envoy202?

2. Yes, I do. Kosovo's transitional institutions unilaterally declared independence (which was outside their mandate, refer to the Constitutional Framework of PISG). As such, a part of the world's internationally recognized Countries and no organization recognized it, and Serbia refuses such an act. So far, it is stronger. As International Legal experts point out, one step becomes "legal" (as per being 'normal') if a vast number of international factors recognizes it (if the UN isn't the case). When/if that happens, we should then note that Serbia claims Kosovo is a part of its territory, because so far the arguments didn't lead that far. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

names of cities

the most names of cities of kosova are wirten only in serbian. The first officel language in Kosovo ist albanian! please, change that or write the two typs of wirtning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.79.46 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on UNMIK Regulation 2000/43, the names of municipalities, districts, cities, towns, villages, etc., in Kosovo should be in the order Albanian/Serbian. The regulation (in English) can be found here: http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/2000/re2000_43.htm .--_Arbër ^{Let's talk} 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

a Wikipedia style guideline proposal is under development here. dab (𒁳) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Serb POV?

Take a look: "Significance of Kosovo to Serbia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.13.34.136 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

um, the title may be somewhat biased, but the image itself is pretty straightforward. A more neutral title might be "ethnic Serbian presence in Kosovo". dab (𒁳) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Waiting?

Neither the EU or the UN are going to make a decision about it. The Security council is dead-locked over it and the EU announced that they don't have an official stance. So, why does it say "and Montenegro stated they will wait for a decision of the European Union" when their decision was to let members make their own choice?Contralya (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

well, that's apparently still what Montenegro said. You should ask them. dab (𒁳) 20:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo Map

In Wikimedia Commons there is an SVG map, highlighting also the location in the world. Please sysops if you think is better the SVG one, change it. LocationKosovo.svgis also used at sq:Kosova. Bye --Eagleal  18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Protectorate, Central Serbia and the official name

I'm referring to PaxEquilibrium's changes.

1. "Republic of Kosovo, is an international protectorate in the Balkans,"

1. Kosovo is not a protectorate. The authority and the responsibilities have almost completely been transferred on the hands of the newly formed Kosovo institutions. UNMIK may still have a small legal authority, but that's not qualified as protectorate. Kosovo is in the institutional transition phase. When EULEX is finally deployed, Resolution 1244 will be abolished and by June, 2008 the entire competence is expected to fall on the Government of Kosovo.

2. "Kosovo is landlocked, bordering Montenegro to the west, Albania to the southwest, the Republic of Macedonia to the south and Central Serbia to the north and east."

2. Kosovo is independent. The government of Serbia has no power whatsoever in governing Kosovo. The only power it has is in the North Kosovo, where UNMIK and SHPK roles are very indifferent and where EULEX wasn't situated at all. "Kosovo borders Serbia to the north and east but the government hasn't judicial power in the North Kosovo." This way.

3. Republic of Kosovo is a semi-official name?

3. On what grounds? Republic of Kosovo is the name.

Bardhylius (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That, Bardhylius, would be the Albanian pov. We try to implement some sort of neutral discussion. dab (𒁳) 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It has been partially transferred to Kosovo's formerly provisional institutions. The true 'Sovereign' was and remains the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. It's "small legal authority" is so high that it can (as it did before) override any at all decision of Kosovo's institutions, and that it could even abolish its very independence, as the Serbian authorities demand. As per the General Secretary of the United Nations' words, the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 remains, and has legal basis to relate to EULEX as well. Bosnia and Herzegovina is independent since 1992, and is stabilized since 1995 - and it still isn't a fully sovereign country, in the true meaning of the State. Do you really expect Kosovo will within months? Also, keep on mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

2. Well, Serbia's power reaches to the territories where citizens loyal to it reside (which isn't just North Kosovo). I insist on "Central Serbia" because Kosovo really hasn't yet achieved any greater recognition (three crucial factors: 1. only a small part of the international community has recognized it. 2. the state to which it officially belongs refuses to accept its secession and 3. only one of its four neighbors recognizes it), so it should stand there just for a while more. It isn't damaging anyway, is it? It indeed borders Central Serbia, rather than Vojvodina.

3. On the grounds that "'Republic of Kosovo" has never been adopted, is present in no official document and isn't even seen at the PISG Assembly's Kosova Declaration of Independence. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"When EULEX is finally deployed, Resolution 1244 will be abolished"

Is this true? Wouldn't Russia be able to veto a resolution abolishment? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Not true. UNSCR 1244 will probably remain for years to come, continuing the controversy. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is, first and foremost, a "region" (OED). It may also be a protectorate and what not at present, but that's secondary and ephemeral. dab (𒁳) 10:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)