Talk:Kosovo/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Infobox

I do not understand why users are taking unilateral moves when it comes to the infoboxes. We have ALL agreed to have 3 infoboxes, one general infobox about Kosovo, one about the Republic of Kosovo and one about the autonomous province of Kosovo. Suddenly, someone made the "general" box into the RofK box! Considering that the LARGE MAJORITY of the world DOES NOT see Kosovo as an independent Republic, it's simply POV PUSHING to try to suggest that this is an internationally recognized Republic. The previous agreement worked fine, but some users just can't accept a compromise and HAVE TO keep pushing their ONE AND ONLY POV. --JUSTICE 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me because that way Serbian and Albanian views are displayed.24.36.52.249 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

the LARGE MAJORITY of the world DOES NOT see Kosovo as an independent Republic

This is a misleading (dis)information, since the immense majority of the world states are not verbally opposed to the Kosovar independence — they simply kept neutral (or saying that they would wait more time before taking any kind of decision) or not manifestated anything about the issue.

In fact, discounting churches, organizations, sub-states and para-states, the only two nation-states that declared themselves absolutely against the Kosovar independence declared in February 2008 are Serbia and Russia — they lead actively, from the state-controlled media to the diplomatic front, the worldwide campaign against the stablishment of nationhood for Kosovo.

The pushing in the English Wikipedia version of this article is to the Serb nationalist one. I suspect nowadays the contents of the page about Kosovo in English Wikipedia is closer to the version of Serbian Wikipedia than to the German, Dutch or French Wikipedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.96.212 (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, and this should be changed. The moving of the RoK-Infobox to the top was one step in the right direction. It is a shame until now that the English Wikipedia is closer to the serbian Wikipedia than to any other Wikipedia. 99 % of Wikipedias show the RoK-Infobox, only the serbian and English Wikipedia did not. A shame, like I said. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"they simply kept neutral (or saying that they would wait more time before taking any kind of decision) or not manifestated anything about the issue" -- and this is precisely what Wikipedia should do, and is doing, pending UN recognition of Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The UN is not entitled to recognize states. Did you mean membership rather than recognition? Colchicum (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about consensus, dab? You are the one who threatens others to block or ban them and you are talking about consensus? You are the one who is the problem here as you avoid consensus. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

From the html comment at the beginning of the article:

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.

it seems people are forgetting about this. I am willing to slap blocks on anyone who makes further unilateral changes to the long-standing compromise version. Unilateraly moving about of infoboxes will result in blocks. If you want to change something, your only option is to establish WP:CONSENSUS first. --dab (𒁳) 10:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention Spain, Bosnia, China, India who are never going to recognise Kosovo given the current situation in thier countries. Essentially, somethings like 70% of the worlds population doesnt recognize ROKosovo. Now, that number is from what i recall reading but you get the general idea.Mike Babic (talk) 11:20, 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.86.134 (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its a shame how serbian r*** and a r*** admin from swiss are acting here. Can't anybody stop them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwarzschachtel (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You have just attacked me as an editor. Stop being disruptive.Mike Babic (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The pro-Serb biased intro

I noticed that the intro to the particle is pro-Serb and biased because it says "partly recognized". Thats not the point. Its partly recognized because it is new and it takes time as country by country each one recognizes a newly declared state. More and more countries recognize Kosovo every day, and the only country not to recognize it is Serbia for the obvious reason. I mean, if the UK and the USA recognize it, isn't that enough? We're civilized countries you know, we don't go around recognizing rogue states such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia or North Cyrpus. Many countries are partly recognized, the biggest example being Israel that no Arab country recognizes and no Muslim country either. The intro should read Kosovo is a country which it is. It is not dependent, it has its own government and parliament and capital city (Prishtina). It has an official language - Albanian, and is a candidate to join the EU, NATO, the UN, World organizations and the like. I hardly think British peacekeepers will work on missions to defend and protect "illegal countries" will they. This isnt the USSR. Fuquit (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel is recognized by 99% of the world. Kosovo by 54/184 countries. I see no reason to change the wording.24.36.52.249 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What you’ve said about Israel isn’t true, because Israel is not recognized by more than 2 nations in the world. So, less than 99% of the UN member-states recognize Israel as a nation. Check the map:

Israel's diplomatic missions abroad: status of relations. Countries coloured green have full diplomatic relations, grey have never established relations, orange at one point had relations but no longer, and red have no relations and does not recognise the State of Israel

It’s curious to see that as of today there are just two countries that recognize Kosovo but don’t recognize Israel: Afghanistan and the United Arab Emirates.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.96.212 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but Israel is an UN member, Kosovo is not. Israel is recognized by a majority of UN states, Kosovo is not. Thus, you can't compare the two. --JUSTICE 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Let’s remember that non-UN member Taiwan is recognized by fewer nations than Kosovo nowadays.

Yes, and in the Tawain article it is written: "is a state in East Asia", so why cannot we write the same in Kosovas case, too? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

because it's not the Taiwan article, it's the Republic of China one. If we had a separate Republic of Kosovo article, we could also state "the Republic of Kosovo is a state in the Balkans". I was suggesting that we do this split from day one, but the Albanian patriots were opposed to it. You will also note that I do not "WP:OWN" this article, since I am defending a consensus that was built in contradiction to my own recommendation. Stating "Kosovo is a state" is like moving Republic of China to China, and I doubt you'll find anything near consensus for that. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dab, it is enough! How many times shall we repeat this for you: There is only one Kosovo! There is more than one China and more than one Macedonia and so on. Dab, it is enough, you have done no good to this article, honestly. Just leave it, please. It makes no sense to repeat over and over again why Kosovo is not like China or Macedonia and so on. You are just disruptive, don't you see this? --84.56.245.4 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

None of you got the point I made. It doesn't matter a great deal the amount of countries to recognize the indepedence of Kosova, but the actual states who do so. It is the reputable countries which recognize Kosova, the democratic ones with free, fair, uncorrupt systems, the ones which hold elections and from where you never hear about voter intimidation or irregularity. surely, if the US and the UK recognize an independent Kosova, that is more than enough. But do add on the likes of Italy, Germany, Sweden, France, as well as the newly liberated from Communism countries and other former Yugoslav countries, how the heck can one dispute a country seen to be a country by the important people? By having this "disputed" nonsence, you not only play into the hands of the Serb butchers who started the wars and comited the unspeakable barbaric war crimes, but you also play into the hands of international despots who by my calculation, are the only ones left to not recognize Kosova. Why care about them? Who in this world cares whether Robert Mugabi of Zimbabwe recognizes Kosova? That man has no edufcation and probably doesn't even know where it is. I expect if you check Zimbabwe's records, they don't recognize half the countries in the world. It makes me sick every time I turn on the TV and I see the reputable presidents and reporters speaking about the horrors that that sick Milosevic-style dictator has caused. And just to appease him, and the rump Soviets still hangind onto a "federation" in Moscow? Please, do me a favour. The countries who recognize Kosova are democratic, and those who don't are all military fascist dictatorships renouned for their poor human rights records. I'd bet that the Zimbabwean nation recognizes Kosova, and I expect the Russian nation recognizes it aswell. Except for those all attached in some manner to the old system, the elitists but they are a minority. Let's make the policy to respect the democracies and not the dictatorships just becuase the latter is a worldly majority as far as "amount of countries" is concerned. Fuquit (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Horrible. Just horrible. your first argument that only "undemocratic countries" refuse to recognize the ROKosovo is horribly wrong. India, Spain, Romania, Slovakia, etc do not recognize the Republic of Kosovo. You just labled 70% of the world as you put it, "military fascist dictatorships". I know that you are fighting against "the evil Serbs" here on wikipedia but you need better reasoning. Also, the cause that you are fighting for is rotten to the core. You are litterly fighting for a weakened rule or law. You are pushing for the dissilution of nation state and basiclly going back to pre world war II period when might was right.Mike Babic (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Infobox reverts by dab

dab, you have reverted my edits to the "Kosovo under UNSCR 1244" edit. You have also reverted my edit of Kosovo during the Austrian occupation in 1600, and other minor edits. You have not provided any reason for it. You have resorted to threatening with an immediate block, even though you were the one who reverted an edit, not myself. Some explanations follow

1. Regarding "Kosovo within Serbia" aka "Kosovo as defined by UNSCR 1244" edit: UNSCR 1244, does not, in any way, shape or form mention "Serbia." It exclusively refers to Kosovo and the FRY. [1] I invite you to show me why we shold describe Kosovo under UN administration, per UNSCR 1244, as "Kosovo within Serbia" in that infobox.

2. Regarding the Austrian occupation of Kosovo during 1600: I changed the words "Kosovo, like the rest of Serbia..." to "Kosovo, much like Serbia" for one reason: they were both merely regions of the Ottoman Empire, and were, as such, integral parts of the Ottoman Empire. There was no political entity of Serbia, and as such, there wasn't a "Kosovo, like the rest of Serbia" because there wasn't a Serbia to be a part of.

I invite you to address these issues since it seems you have a propensity to threaten people with "immediate blocks" if they don't agree with incorrect information that you seem to agree with. --alchaemia (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the the NPOVest way to address the item 2 would be simply “Kosovo, like Serbia” instead of "Kosovo, much like Serbia" or "Kosovo, like the rest of Serbia…"

About the UN Resolution 1244, we must not engage in interpretative ways of reading like “The resolution which is still in power says Kosovo is Serbia because Serbia is the legitimate and natural succeror state of the Federal Republic of Yugosavia”. We should present the 1999 document as it simply says, without further interpretations: Kosovo as part of Yugoslavia and as an UN-administered region without Yugoslav troops, with the future of Kosovo to be decided later. This is what the document says, simply.--201.52.95.234 (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

201.52.95.234 is right. Yugoslavia is now Serbia because Serbia assumed its name, legal contracts, etc.Mike Babic (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are misinterpreting what “201.52.95.234” has wrote. 201.52.95.234 say the quite contrary: that the Resolution 1244 does not mention the terms Kosovo is Serbia, Kosovo is part of Serbia, Kosovo as part of Serbia or Serbian province of Kosovo.

Trough all the text of the resolution of 1999, Kosovo is mentioned as part of Yugoslavia — Serbia did not exist as a nation from 1918 to 2006, when Yugoslavia/Serbia-Montenegro was dissoluted, not morphed into Serbia, by the declaration of Montenegrin independence from the union, not from Serbia.

Yugoslavia was not and is not Serbia — even Serbian president Boris Tadic ackowledged it when he commanded de declaration of Serbian independence and dissolution of the union after the independence of Montenegro, with the office of Serbian-Montenegrin presidency of Svetozar Marovic] being extinguished in June 3, 2006.--BalkanWalker (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Serbia inherited all of the legal responsibilities from Yugoslavia. Thus it has the right to implement 1244. So, think of it simply as Serbia is Yugoslavia when looking at legal issues.Mike Babic (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Serbia inherited legal responsibilities of FRY after the year of 2000, not Yugoslavia. The FRY from which Serbia claims to have derived its responsibilities from, only became a UN member in the year 2000, almost a year after UNSCR 1244 was adopted. [2] Any claim that Serbia is the legal successor to the FRY of 1999, which UNSCR 1244 mentions, is shaky, at best. --alchaemia (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the terms mentioned above but mu point still stands. Your saying that the document is null because it was signed while SRY wasn't part of the UN. First time I heard of this. Care to explain or provide sources.Mike Babic (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For there to be a clear case of inheritance, there must also be a clear case of continuity. There was no such continuity between Yugoslavia and FRY, which was only admitted to the UN in the year of 2000. UNSCR 1244 refers exclusively to the FRY of 1999, not the new-member-of-the-UN FRY-cum-SCG of 2000 and after. Thus, UNSCR cannot define Kosovo as "within Serbia", because in 2000, there wasn't an international-subject Serbia to be a part of. It is my objective opinion that, if we are to define the period of UN-administration, we must present the case as it stands in the resolution: that Kosovo was part of FRY, not Serbia. --alchaemia (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't become a member until 2000. Read this for details UN_Member_States#Yugoslavia Ijanderson (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesnt negate my claim at all. This section is getting off topic.Mike Babic (talk) 17:48, 16

December 2008 (UTC)

dab, I invite you once again to discuss these issues. You are continuously dodging this invitation and that is unacceptable. --alchaemia (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this, it just got caught up in my revert of unilateral changes to the infobox etc. You can form a consensus on it without me, no? --dab (𒁳) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Civilian Deaths

This is disputed. News articles in 1999 that support civilian killings are negated by witnesses in the ICTY. For example, the pretext that the Račak incident involved civilian killings is disputed by the evidence that "Helena Ranta, the Finnish pathologist who had conducted the forensic examination on the Račak casualties" gives in the court. She says that the Racak was a KLA stronghold. "[She was] convinced that there is enough information to just suggest that there was fighting between the Serbia army and the KLA in the village". Does anyone out there feel like there is something behind these statments? Yes, I'm a Serb but i do feel like the article continues to perpetuate one side of the story and this keep people in the dark. Let the light shine.Mike Babic (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Ranta's report: “No ammunition was found in the pockets. It is likely that no looting of the bodies has occurred, because money (bank notes) was found on them. The clothing bore no identifying badges or insignia of any military unit. No indication of removal of badges or insignia was evident. Based on autopsy findings (e.g. bullet holes, coagulated blood) and photographs of the scenes, it is highly unlikely that clothes could have been changed or removed. Among those autopsied, there were several elderly men and only one woman. There were no indications of the people being other than unarmed civilians.” Yes, you are a Serb wanting to make this article 100 % pro-Serbian. --NOAH (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not Ranta's report, that is her personal opinion. Her personal opinion is her own, and as anyone could see, none of the facts mentioned in the paragraph you cite are indications that the people were not armed terrorists. Nikola (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes your attacking me as an editor because I bring a different side to the article. Yes this article is horribly slanted to the Kosovilian side. BTW GREAT accusation, that is really constructive. Back to the issue, provide a source please. And yes, i do feel bad about flamming on your comment, but there are so many people who are extremely "anti-Serb" and Im just sick of it.Mike Babic (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment, calling them 'kosovilians' (Kosovo-Villains), when they're called Kosovars betrays your bias more than any other comment I've seen by you on this talk page. I've yet to see you actually argue for neutrality. The opposite of pro-kosovo is not pro-serb, but neutrality. Try working ofr that, not for Serbian promotionalism. ThuranX (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is "biased", probably you as well. The question is whether or not the bias effects your judgment and objectivity. Personally, I do not see the connection between "...vilians" and "villains", maybe you consider "civilians" a biased term as well? Also, it does not make any sense for a pro-Serbian editor to "make fun" of Kosovars when many Serbs are Kosovars as well. All in all, a weak attempt at discrediting an editor, try again. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as editors we really shouldn't try to interpret sources, we just report what they state (see WP:OR). I suggest we simply state that the leading theory/view is that the Racak massacre was a killing of civilians (and then present who believes this and why) but then also state that there exists a minority view that this was not the case (and present who states this and why). We don't need to put any more judgemen of either of these 'views' than that.Osli73 (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What is disputed in Following the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia to halt the killings of civilians...? Regardless of whether there were killing of civilians (there were, but it doesn't matter right here), it was the officially stated goal of the NATO campaign. Do you dispute this? If so, man, you have drifted very far from reality. Colchicum (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed to halt the killings of civilians to with its stated goal to halt killing of civilians and removed the tag. The sentence doesn't imply that killings have happened. Hope this helps. Colchicum (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, your deduction is great but sadly I did not aim for the association, it was by accident. So, the Kosovars is what they are called "officially"? I always thought that they might call them "Kosnians" similar to (Bosnians) (Bulgarians) (Russians) etc.Mike Babic (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Here is what I am going to add to the article to make the claims about atrocities that are already there more precise, after all, the ICTY is probably the best kind of source for such things; Mike Babic and others, you are welcome to propose a couple of lines about the Serbian position on that matter, we'll add it right below if it is reliably sourced and is not just somebody's personal opinion:

On May 22, 1999, Louise Arbour, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, indicted Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milošević (1941-2006), Serbian President Milan Milutinović, Yugoslavian Deputy Prime Minister Nikola Šainović, Chief of the Yugoslavian General Staff General Dragoljub Ojdanić and Serbian Interior Minister Vlajko Stojiljković (1937-2002) with crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war during the Kosovo War. Immediately after the NATO campaign, in June-September 1999, the FBI sent to Kosovo two Evidence Response Team Groups upon request by the UN to provide additional forensic assistance to the ICTY. Based on the new information, on October 16, 2001, ICTY Prosecutor Carla del Ponte brought an amended indictment against the five. The charges were that during 1999 they supported, encouraged and directed a deliberate and widespread or systematic campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians living in Kosovo, aimed to expel a substantial portion of them. The campaign was claimed to include displacement, destruction of property, intimidation, assaults and killings. In particular, the indictees were accused of execution of 606 ethnic Albanian civilians listed by name, aged from one to 93, including women, at numerous locations in Kosovo between January 15 and May 25, 1999. The trial is still pending.

Colchicum (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Any news sources, especially CNN, from 1999 CAN NOT BE USED. Its like using CNN to state that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Write about Albanian indictments as well to make it NPOV. To start, write about the indictments of the "Prime Minister of Kosovo". I'm angry at the fact that after i point out the bias, you go on and write more stuff that is clearly biased. I expect people to moral by writing some pro-Serb stuff. I don't have a high opinion on current contributions. To say it discreetly, i think that this information is evil and people who are perpetuating it are evil as well. I haven't met a single hard working editor that is at least a bit pro-Serb.Mike Babic (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Then any Serb government or media source, from the 7th Century to 2008, is - by the same logic -also out of bounds. This may be a good idea. Secondly, I don't think it is a good idea to use indictments to try to prove who did what. By their very nature these are just accusations - unproved. Far better to use the judgments of the ICTY, which we can presume to have gone through some process of critical examination. Davu.leon (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The text presents they indictments as indictments and clearly attributes them. Still it is very strange that they have not been included so far. We cannot be silent about what happened after the war to Milosevic and Co. Colchicum (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC) And no, these are not merely accusations, as they certainly have gone through some preliminary process of critical examination. People do not end up in Belgisch Park because of mere accusations. Colchicum (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big discussion on it, but one of the big problems in the ICTY has been that they didn't properly investigate before indicting, in many cases. In fact Justice Schomberg (sp?) gave an interview I think in 2006 detailing how the OTP were handing in indictments that were little more than a bundle of unsubstantiated allegations. For the record I do tend to believe that Milosevic was involved in decision making that contributed to Genocide, but I certainly wouldn't use an ICTY indictment to justify that belief. Reference to court transcripts would, in my opinion, be far more acceptable. Davu.leon (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Court transcripts are too detailed for a short summary, maybe in a separate article about the trial, and the court has not yet been finished. The ICTY indictment is not used to justify any such belief, it is only used to confirm that an indictment has been made, which is notable and on topic. Colchicum (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you are a serious man. It turns out you are just a nationalist zealot, wasting the time of other editors. It looks like you will still be unsatisfied as long as the article doesn't say that Albanians eat Serbian children for breakfast or some other nonsense. Wikipedia runs on specific policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR are among them. Either you accept them or you'd better go somewhere else. Wikipedia shall not be based on the "truth" you believe it, it shall be based on reliable published sources. Of course we can do without the CNN, other sources say basically the same. Please reconsider your attitude. Colchicum (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I accuse you Colchicum of being an ass and murdering children. Lets put that on your personal page. Lets be fair and reserve judgments. Accusations are unproven.130.113.111.210 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

When you become a prosecutor of a UN tribunal and get me to the Hague, we will discuss this. But I am still at large and you are still nobody. Colchicum (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, talking seriously,

Is the fact that Milosevic and Co. were indicted for war crimes related to Kosovo? Yes.

Is the fact notable? Yes.

Do I represent the indictment as proven accusations? No.

So what's wrong with it? Colchicum (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Include both Serbian and Albanians to the list. Then its fair.Mike Babic (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will be done. Colchicum (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we then mention the results of the trials? i.e. that the ICTY has conclusively stated (in two separate trials) that the KLA never had a policy of targeting civilians, whereas the Serbian military did? That Haradinaj, Limaj, Balaj etc are innocent of all chares? Are the Serbian editors on this page willing to accept that as an NPOV statement of fact? Are Albanians willing to accept that two KLA members were convicted? You see, this is just opening up a huge can of worms. Davu.leon (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should, if they are explicitely attributed to the ICTY. the KLA never had a policy of targeting civilians, whereas the Serbian military did; two KLA members were convicted is of course not a NPOV statement of fact, but the ICTY stated that the KLA never had a policy of targeting civilians, whereas the Serbian military did; it convicted two KLA members is. Colchicum (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps [3] should also be summarised somewhere near that. Nikola (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is it. Maybe it is too long for this article, though. Colchicum (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Its like using CNN to state that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

Well, as far as we know CNN (or NYT, or BBC, or Der Spiegel, or Le Monde) never said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It simply said that the government of USA suspected that Iraq had or was capable to develop these weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.101.36 (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously include that the Serbian paramilitary forces targeted civilians if you have good sources. Check your sources before posting! My point is that CNN at that time had false information that Serbs were killing "hundreds of thousands of civilians". Also, it really bugs me when people talk about civilians killing and attribute it to the "Army". Yugoslavia was extremely corrupt at that time and warlords ruled. Meaning, the "men in masks" don't translate into Yugoslav army, unless your source specifically tells that.Mike Babic (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Many, I think the immense majority of the Western World press reported the actions of the Yugoslav military and paramilitary forces (both acting in coordination and under orders from Slobodan Milosevic) in Kosovo. To judge all of the Western World media in 1999 as unreliable is, sincerely, not a very NPOV attitude. And it's a matter of fact that the Milosevic’s Yugoslav forces in Kosovo were there and not protecting the Albanian-spaking Kosovars, to say the least. The presence of Arkan in Kosovo and the non-signing of the Rambouillet Agreement by Milosevic is a clear proof of these Serbian manouvres at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.97.241 (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, Rambouillet Agreement asked Serbia to let NATO troops in the entire country, that is why it wasnt signed. CNN is full of crap and this is proven time after time. Dont use thier crappy information, use other sources.Mike Babic (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Split the article into two: 1. Republic of Kosovo and 2. Kosovo and Metohija

This is the only solution to the mess the current Kosovo page. The Republic of Kosovo page then can follow the template of a state as it is a partially recognized state. Even Rhodesia from the 1970s followed other country templates in the encyclopedias and almanacs of the time and it wasn't even recognized. Azalea pomp (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be just another Greater Serbian nationalist POV-forking, just like the cases Independent State of Croatia and Nedic’s Serbia / World War II persecution of Serbs; Bosnian War and Bosnian Genocide / History of Republika Srpska; and Kosovo War and NATO bombing of Yugoslavia / Legitimacy of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.97.117 (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

YES SERBS REALLY DO GET THEIR SIDE HEARD ON HERE. For example, the fact that hundreds of Serbian churches were burned down in Kosovo is not even in this article.Mike Babic (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To be more neutral it should lead to a disambiguation page with the following

1. Republic of Kosovo - Current partially recognised Country in the Balkans
2. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija - Current disputed Autonomous Province of Serbia
3. Kosovo Region - Region of Kosovo in the Balkans (geography and history ect)
4. Kosovo under UNMIK - Kosovo under UN administration
5. Kosovo under EULEX - Kosovo under EU administration
6. Republic of Kosova - Former partially recognised country
7. Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo - Former Autonomous Province of SFR Yugoslavia
8. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990-1999) ect
9. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946-1974) ect

This would be the best solution in my opinion and it will help readers for the correct article they are looking for. So this will be the best solution in terms of neutrality and practicality Ijanderson (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think in the meantime it would be the best solution until Kosovo has more recognitions and such. I agree it isn't the best solution, but this current page is a mess. Azalea pomp (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

right. We can do another strawpoll about this. I am reluctant, but if you get a consensus, that's fine with me. I want to make clear from the beginning that none of these articles will reside at Kosovo -- Kosovo would become a redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation). --dab (𒁳) 17:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeh thats I was trying to do. Kosovo should lead to a Disambiguation. Then we can have Republic of Kosovo; Kosovo i Metohija; UNMIK Kosovo; EULEX Kosovo ect all as separate articles, as well as all the other small places in Europe also called Kosovo on this disambiguation page called "Kosovo". The current state of this article is messed up. dab, could you please organise a strawpoll please? Best to do this with consensus. We can always get Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation to help us with the disambiguation page as they are experienced. Ijanderson (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The current page is a bizarre mishmash of Serbian fantasy and present realities. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

this looks like a lot of trouble yet I think it could resolve the issues that we are having right now. Mainly, the edit warring. My main problem is that the separate articles will become POV. Any thoughts on how we may resolve this?Mike Babic (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

the last strawpoll is here, Talk:Kosovo/Archive_18#new_strawpoll. I don't see why we need a new one, the set of arguments hasn't changed. I wish people would invest their time here in improving articles instead of re-iterating stale debates on minutiae of article organization every couple of months. --dab (𒁳) 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. They will inevitably become POV-forks. Some of such articles has already been created, so you can see it right now. If this article is not neutral enough, the others are much worse. Furthermore, where are we going to put the information about physical geography, wildlife, pre-WWII history? Colchicum (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We can put that all on Kosovo Region a new article about the region of Kosovo in the Balkans as I suggested earlier. This article will not be about the status of Kosovo, be it either a Republic or an Autonomous Province. This is to be about the region and this could be the image for the article [4] Ijanderson (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no way that that should be the map. The names of all cities and areas are given in Serbian only, completely ignoring the demographic picture in the ground, as well as the usage of names by international agencies and organizations. That in itself is POV. --alchaemia (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Disagree - Actually, this article IS about "Kosovo Region," that's what some people don't seem to get. The article already clarifies that the territorial unit known as "Kosovo" is recognized in different ways, and under different names, by different sovereignties. If people can just accept that, and allow the different political facts to be stated and sourced, there should be no problem. Segregating the data in this article is just bowing down to the demands of POV. Let's keep this rational and civil and leave all the current and necessary information in the present article. I agree that it could be better, but I disagree that the different political classifications need to be separated, that in and of itself does not make it a "mess," it makes it accurate and comprehansive, as it should be.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor point: Kosovo would not be a redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation), it would act as the disambiguation page. We only have "Name (disambiguation)" when "Name" is the location of an article. BalkanFever 04:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Balkan, here is a solomnic solution that will please no one :) -- Do create the disambig page per above. Even call it Kosovo. Just make all links point to sections of one existing albeit improved, unified article. :) Called: Kosovo (omnibus).

It is a fallacy that Kosovo is a region disjoint from some putative state. It is not. There is not Poland region or the Germany region. Sigh. --Mareklug ^talk 18:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo absolutely has a regional identity that is separate from any singular political personality, either as a state or as a province. This is because, even though there is no consensus on its status, it is still "Kosovo." Any territorial unit on earth that can be identified by name, and whose existence is universally affirmed independent of its political identity, is a region. A region may be disputed or not. Kosovo might not have historically been a region, but it has become one. And Germany most definitely is a region, a historical region where two separate states once existed, an empire, and even prior to the german state, a collection of kingdoms and principalities that were culturally considered "Germany." In certain contexts, the region "Germany" might even be considered synonymous with the classical "Germania," though this last example is admittedly more rare.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is a country - National Geographic, Oxford Atlas

National Geographic Atlas of the World, Eighth Edition http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/places/countries/country_kosovo.html

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780195374513-0

Full of crisp, clear cartography of urban areas and virtually uninhabited landscapes around the globe, the Atlas has maps of 69 cities and nearly 100 different regions at carefully selected scales to give a striking view of the Earth's surface. Opening with world statistics and then a colorful, instructive 48-page Introduction to World Geography--beautifully illustrated with tables and graphs--this acclaimed resource provides details on such topics as climate, the greenhouse effect, plate tectonics, agriculture, population and migration, and global conflicts. As in years past, this edition includes the latest geographic information: a new flag for Iraq, the addition of the Republic of Kosovo to the map of Europe, a new region in Senegal and two provinces in the Philippines, plus the appearance of the world's newest landmass, Warming Island, revealed by the melting Greenland ice sheet. Current census statistics also help to illustrate tables showing the population of world countries and cities and the popular satellite image section has been refreshed with stunning new images of different regions and urban areas.

Kosovo today is listed as a country. This wikipedia is becoming everyday less relevant. Is Akbhazia or any other regions added on Oxford as countries? No. All Maps have listed Kosovo as a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If they are idiots, why do we have to be idiots too? Nikola (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why has the status of Kosovo not been updated to reflect it is a country, as per the International Court of Justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goochylittlepig (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is over 190 countries in the United Nations. Barely 50 countries have recognized Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state. Just because National Geographic (American) or the American Government want Kosovo to be an independent state does not make it so. I understand the differences of opinion and agree in principal to the concept of self-determination (but forcing out one side of people to do that isn't really fair) and I feel that this article goes some way to satisfying both sides of the Kosovo arguement.--217.203.137.240 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not set any precedences, but it follows those of published atlases and encyclopedias. So far National Geographic is a well known and respected publication. Azalea pomp (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As prestegious as National Geographic and Oxford are, these are mere commercial publications that obviously follow the recognition policies of their national governments, and should not form a basis for article treatment. Unlike those publications, Wikipedia cannot sanction or endorse a POV, it can only reflect the political reality, which is that there is a de facto independent state called Kosovo, and there is currently no global political consensus on its legality, only states that recognize vs. states that do not--wikipedia accurately reflects this condition and should not be modified to categorize Kosovo one way or another until the issue is more clearly resolved and a majority of states take an official stand.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall something about Wikipedia not being meant to reflect "reality", but rather to be a reflection of its sources. I don't know on what basis you are deciding what "reality" is, but it sounds like a clear case of POV, or OR to me. Just a thought... Davu.leon (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean, of course, the reality according to sources. Wikipedia does not serve as a mere respository of data from other encyclopedias, it relies on a multitudinous variety of first and second-hand sources that comes in many shapes and forms. In the context of this article, "sources" has been firmly established to mean official government statements and positions, and not the POV of local publications, conveniently selected from one or two countries. But even if wiki were to just recompile second-hand encyclopedia data, and nothing else, the fact remains that, because the majority of governments don't recognize Kosovo, the majority of encyclopedic sources also don't recognize Kosovo, on a global scale, and not just refering to NG and Oxford, or to the majority of encyclopedias printed in the US and UK. It would be like taking one publication from Serbia and one from Russia, and trying to argue that Kosovo cannot possibly be a country because they say it isn't. The determining factor is consensus, which currently does not exist either way, either in the political or the scholarly sense--that will arise over time. Wikipedia cannot claim any more than the fact Kosovo is a de facto and partially recognized independent state--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

, . The 

It should be called a country. It is de facto 'a country', I haven't seen or heard a 'binding' ruling which stats otherwise. The fact of the matter remains, Kosovo has declared her independence, Serbia has no say overwhat happens in Kosovo, (legally anyways, the North of Kosovo is 'de jure' apart of Kosovo). Resolution 1244 states this. It also explains that Kosovo is apart of Yugoslavia, which does not exist anymore.Realmadrid123 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yugoslavia does exist: Serbia is a recognised succesor state of yugoslavia, so when 1244 refers to Yugoslavia, it also refers to Serbia. The soviet union does not exist anymore, but Russia got it's seat on the security council, as a recognised succesor state.

You say that 1244 states northern kosovo is part of kosovo dejure. 1244 also states that Kosovo is part of Serbia de jure. Yugoslavia renamed to Serbia and montenegro, then montenegro got LEGAL independence, so Serbia is recognised de jure as being a succesor of Yugoslavia. And, there will never be a "binding" ruling on whether it can be independent, as it is up to every state to decide who it recognises. Your points are invalid, and should not be included in the article for the reasons I have stated above. Anyone else any feedback?218.103.207.164 (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it matters, after reading the discussion I now agree that calling Kosovo a country just now is WP:POV. --Seba5618 (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

There is a worldwide consensus in every Wikipedia, even the Russian one, (with the only exception being the serbian Wikipeda) that the RoK-Infobox should be at top. Why not on english wikipedia? Because of some serbs and an admin calld dab? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this childish argument really that important? Who cares? Colchicum (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Me cares. And if it would not be important, why does dab threaten to block or ban others? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"a worldwide consensus in every Wikipedia" is irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't use Wikipedia as a source. We have, after long discussion, opted for the present compromise solution. If you have a better solution, feel free to suggest it and see if it gains consensus. For example, I would be willing to support a move of this article to Republic of Kosovo, so it could be unambiguously about the 2008 Republic. Kosovo would then either redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation), or to a separate article on Kosovo (region). As always, as long as there is an international territorial dispute, Wikipedia will not prejudice its outcome by opting to represent one side's views. --dab (𒁳) 16:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If all the other Wikipedias are irrelevant (are they?) then have a look at every other encyclopedia, Kosovo is RoK, in every Wikipeda (except this one and of course the serbian one) and every encyclopedia they all have the Infobox of the RoK in the Kosovo article. Do you want to deny this fact? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

what "other encyclopedias" were published since February 2008? Schwarzschachtel, you seriously seem to have no idea how this works. Please read WP:RS and WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 16:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/322726/Kosovo --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC) PS: This is the link to "Kosovo" and it is about the RoK! So why not on English wikipedia, too? Again, there is a worldwide consensus of how to handle a Kosovo article. Do you honestly want to deny this obvious fact? How can you do so?

The point is that the ROKosovo is a different thing then Kosovo region. Kosovo region is claimed by Serbia as a province and by Albanians as ROKosovo. So we have to take these two views into account.I think there are more important issues than this. Making Wikipedia NPOV is the most important thing you can do right now And that does not make it NPOV.Mike Babic (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

indeed. you just linked to Britannica's "Kosovo (self-declared independent country)" article. Well done. This is the split I suggest right above. --dab (𒁳) 18:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What? How can you lie so blatantly? I linked to Kosovo and it is about Republik of Kosovo! It is written in the Kosovo article: '"self-declared independent country"! There is no other article called "Kosovo" in Encyclopedia Britannica! --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some tricks in having separate articles. What would the central article be? And what would each article contain? Kosovo with the intro and history as it is now, RoK with post-2008 history and political section, KosMet with what Serbia considers a part of its teritory? If I remembered correctly, the fact that it would be increasingly hard to keep separate articles NPOV and useful at the same time, was one of the reasons to keep it all together. I may support a split but would first like to see how separate articles would look like. An outline in the sandbox would be insightful. --Tone 19:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, make your Kosmet article, but Kosovo will stay about RoK as long as Istanbul will not become Constantinople again. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I am talking about. This is not NPOV we want to have. Find a better solution. --Tone 19:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't talk, just do! You can have your own Kosmet article, but Kosovo will stay about RoK! --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with a single article covering it all. However, if anyone wants to have separate articles, go ahead, create an outline and we will talk. That's all I have to say here. --Tone 20:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So this goes to dab? Fine, but we should not wait but put RoK-Infobox at top, because otherwise we can wait for eternity. He had the chance to do so since the military secession 1999 or at least since Declaration of Independence in Februar 2008! In both cases he had more than enough time. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I am frankly tiring of your apodictic approach here, Schwarzschachtel. We have discussed this for ages, and the consensus was for a single article with multiple infoboxes. No new material has been presented, and the situation hasn't changed significantly, so I see no reason to rehash the debate just because one partisan editor decides he must tell every one what this article will and will not be. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dab, you are contradicting yourself as you wrote: "This is the split I suggest right above. --dab (𒁳) 18:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)" And now you claim consensus? What consensus are you talking about? I showed you the Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Your answer to my link was a blatant lie as you suggested I linked to something else. No, I linked to Kosovo and this is RoK and there is no other article called "Kosovo" in Encyclopedia Britannica! Why can't you accept this but do insist on your blatant lie? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Schwarzschachtel present an outline on how two articles might work or shut up. NPOV is the most important thing editors can concentrate on right now.Mike Babic (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that your contributions to this discussions are bad but I have compassion for new editors so I'm going to explain it to you. Brittancia does have an article about the RoKosovo however this article on Wikipedia is about the Kosovo region and not about RoKosovo. If you want to propose two article structure that is fine. One article could be RoKosovo and the other could be Kosovo.This idea was introduced by a user above and this is a positive thing. It is you that needs to come up with this idea and provide us with an outline so that we can either accept it or reject it.Mike Babic (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

this was known as the "Taiwan solution" in the past discussion, because we have two articles, one on Taiwan and the other on the Republic of China. The "Taiwan" solution is one possibility, but the Albanian users shot it down. For pity's sake, let us point newcomers to this past debate in the archives, or we'll be forced to go through all of it yet again. --dab (𒁳) 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we make it like Britannica and dedicate the article "Kosovo" to the RoK? What's wrong with Britannica having the article Kosovo about the RoK? Why not on English wikipedia, too, like in every other Wikipedia, too? Why are you evading this question? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC) PS: Again, there is a worldwide consensus of how to handle a Kosovo article! Do you honestly want to deny this fact?

the answer is five letters: WP:NPOV. "NPOV" is for "neutral point of view", and "WP" means that this is mandatory on Wikipedia, the site you happen to be on right now. --dab (𒁳) 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The current info box with Kosovo within a darkened Serbia is very much POV, it needs to be changed immediately. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Even the name of the file — Europe location SRB with KOS.png — reveals a POV.--BalkanWalker (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If the name is a problem, I will rename the image. I realize that you would very much like File:Europe location KOS without SRB.png - not going to happen. Nikola (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with replacing the locator map with File:Europe location KOS.png. Please pull your own weight though, Azela. It works like this: you present a suggestion "I would like to replace the locator map with File:Europe location KOS.png. Comments?" and then you wait for reactions, ok? --dab (𒁳) 17:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to replace the locator map with File:Europe location KOS.png. This map is much less POV. If this is not acceptable to many, I suggest a close up map of Kosovo with no other political borders. The object to the current map as it is clearly Pro-Serb POV. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I undid your work because the map you used was a political map. On the other hand, the map of "close-up of Kosovo with no borders" is a more neutral so its acceptable.Mike Babic (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• fwiiw, 'support the move to a locator map that doesn't highlight Serbia. Ideally, though, the Serbia-Kosovo border should be marked as disputed (as dotted or similar). --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support replacing the locator map with this one File:Europe location KOS.png. We could use a footnote to describe the disputed nature of the northern Kosovan border. --alchaemia (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• I Support the display of the neutral locator map that doesn't highlight Serbia. And I think that, excluding the Serb editors, most of the people here agree.--BalkanWalker (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sorry if I missed something important, but how exactly is a map that does not highlight Serbia neutral? A neutral map might be one that highlights Serbia and Kosovo in a way that is different than usual highlighting of countries and their subdivisions - for example, File:Europe location SRB with KOS.png. Nikola (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Image:Europe location KOS.png -- CD 19:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Organized crime

Here the link
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/sais/nexteurope/2008/12/kosovos_plot_thickens.html
Here is the summary:

• Kosovo accounts for up to 80 percent of the heroin that enters Western Europe
• senior Kosovar politicians as being allied with traffickers
• Serbian and Albanian mobs work thogether
• mafias in Kosovo recruited Serb mobs to burn down customs posts and chase UN officials out of the north
• new pro-European Serbian government shares the EU dislike of these Serb mafias

Some of this definitely need to be included in the article yet i want to include it as NPOV. I ask for your input.Mike Babic (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why, again? --alchaemia (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what your saying. That's not a complete sentence.Mike Babic (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, Kosovo is the hub of organized crime in Europe, both before and after independence. I don't think that's really news. I think this is why the EU opted to try independence, since Beograd didn't seem able to do anything about it, so they figured, maybe a Pristina goverment with EULEX backing would. I do think this is probably the chief importance of Kosovo today, and obviously the main part of Kosovo's "GNP". It should be reflected in the article. Meaning, the lead should chat less about Thraco-Illyrian tribes and mention mafia mob rule instead. --dab (𒁳) 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I've yet to read anything more xenophobic than these. Why are you an admin again? Kosovo, with barely 2 million people, is the "hub" for organized crime in Europe? Are you kidding me? Kosovo has no GNP other than drug money? Are you kidding me? Do you realize how many Kosovars have actual jobs and send hard-earned money back home? How many invest in local businesses, houses, schools? The lead should mention "mafia mob rule instead"? Instead of what? Actual, verifiable data? You should be ashamed of yourself, "sir". --alchaemia (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely poor judgement, Dab. There is nothing "obvious" here. It should be reflected in the article, but certainly not in the lead and not with such sources. The source Mike cites is not The Washington Post but a blog hosted on its site [5]: The content, views and opinions appearing on Next Europe were created and researched by individual contributors. Colchicum (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Also this: senior Kosovar politicians as being allied with traffickers certainly falls under WP:BLP. Colchicum (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC) And this: new pro-European Serbian government shares the EU dislike of these Serb mafias is off topic. Colchicum (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a better source by the same author: [6]. However, right now I have no access to it. Colchicum (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Colchicum, this is just one source picked at random. We could pile up hundreds of sources on Kosovo's role in drug and sex slave traffic. Why do you think the EU came up with EULEX, out of some idle mood for some random activism? In the long run, it will either be a radical crackdown on crime in Kosovo, or a wall built around Kosovo, which will make the region an isolated ghetto like the Gaza strip. Europe simply cannot tolerate this sort of criminal hotspot in its backyard. Now it will be easier to build around Kosovo than around all of Serbia, so the Serbs in the long run may even be glad to be rid of this troublespot. --dab (𒁳) 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is not a forum, there are policies like WP:NOR, WP:V etc. Therefore the discussion is pointless. We need reliable published sources. If you can pile up sources, do that. Colchicum (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now if you read e.g. UNODC reports (such as this and this), they talk about the Western Balkan route, which includes Kosovo, but also many other places (Kosovo is landlocked as you know). They don't single out Kosovo. Nevertheless, the Western Balkan route accounts for only about a half of the Balkan traffic, let alone other routes to Europe. Therefore it remains unclear how Elizabeth Pond concluded that "organized crime in Kosovo <...> accounts for up to 80 percent of the heroin that enters Western Europe" and whether she was in a position to make any reasonable conclusion concerning this. Maybe the article in The Washington Quarterly clarifies this issue, but I will be able to check this only in mid-January. It is common knowledge that Kosovo lies on a heroin traffic route. However, it is not clear how much heroin flows through Kosovo, and an unreferenced figure in a single blog entry of a highly opinionated author is not a good source for that. Colchicum (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all I'm familiar with the work of Elizabeth Pond and I usually take her word at face value. She has been writing about Kosovo for the last 20 plus years. For example, while Kosovo was relatively peaceful in 1981, she wrote a paper on Kosovos' economy called "Why Turbulent Kosovo has Marble Sidewalks but Troubled Industries". Her book End game in the Balkans has received positive reviews from professors at Johns Hopkins University and Oxford University. On the other hand, I'm not going to base my entire opinion on a singe source. So I have been looking around, here is the list.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,549441,00.html
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1464.html
http://news.ebru.tv/en/europe/1643
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/balkans
http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=article&articleid=7582
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3496
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3950
http://www.bulgaria-italia.com/fry/kla.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8055
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/01/heroin.html
http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/kosovo-one-of-the-world%E2%80%99s-major-drug-trade-centres/
On a side note. I would like to find alternative sources with more credit.Mike Babic (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Colchicum, I note you are not objecting to sources like balkaninsight.com just as long as they reflect favourably on Kosovo. Let's use equal measure here. We have official reports, e.g. from the Swiss Federal Police, dating from 2008, to the effect that Ethnic Albanians keep a grip on heroin supply[7]. This is a huge problem in Switzerland, which has the largest Kosovar colony in Europe. This poses a "significant threat" to Switzerland, and something will need to be done about it one way or the other. It is very nice for Pristina that people have stopped shooting one another in the streets, but this doesn't ameliorate the fact that Kosovo basically runs on drug money. This is summed up in this 2008 interview[8]

Kosovo's institutions and UNMIK [...] have given birth to this child together. Today, we have this situation because of the duality of authority. [...] So, in the past, it was this confusion concerning the lines of accountability that was the reason why Kosovo became probably the most extreme case of corruption and organized crime in the Balkans. But our organization [Pristina based anti-corruption NGO] believes that it is not going to be a similar situation with the future EU mission. Not only because the EU has a better reputation on tackling organized crime, but also because Kosovo is at the doorstep of the European Union and whatever happens in Kosovo, Europe will be very much exposed. For example, you have a lot of human trafficking passing through this territory and Europe is directly suffering from the toleration of these organized crime structures. So, Europe has a more direct interest.

The EU itself states in the strongest term that this must change. Not just by putting together EULEX, but in a current (November) report[9], asking that Kosovo "consolidate the rule of law, the struggle against corruption and organized crime". This is not something you ask an independent state unless things look really, really bad. --dab (𒁳) 12:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you require to verify a UN report [10] (ok, I'll find a direct link, I saw the report somewhere yesterday). Hilarious. This wasn't my source, by the way. I don't care whether a source reflects favorably on Kosovo, I have nothing to do with the Serbs or Albanians or former Yugoslavia, I do care whether it satisfies WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Cherry-picked results from the top of a Google search, which don't cite their sources, usually don't. Let's not accuse each other of bias, because sometimes your comments are well over the line of neutrality (ghetto etc.). It is not a new thing that Ethnic Albanians keep a grip on heroin supply (in Switzerland). But it is not a very meaningful and neutral phrase per WP:WEASEL. How many ethnic Albanians? Are there others? (For sure there are many, maybe not in Switzerland, I don't know, but in general in Western Europe there are. Anyway, this is not Swiss pet Wikipedia). What does it have to do with Kosovo in general? It is a textbook instance of WP:SOAPBOX. It wouldn't be difficult using sources like these (interviews, editorials etc.) to make the US look like in Iranian or Al Qaeda propaganda. Oh, wait, the quote is taken from the title of the article [11]! Then what does the article say? In the late 1990s, Albanians were blamed for trafficking some 70 to 90 percent of Switzerland's heroin supply into the country. Not in 2006-2008, in the late 1990s, when there was sort of a war in Kosovo and instability in Albania, if I recall correctly. Albanians, not necessarily Kosovars. Blamed. In Switzerland, not entire Western Europe. speedboat traffic to Italy -- clearly this is about Albania, not Kosovo. Ok, what is this chat about? If you want to add something on crime, it is up to you to find reliable sources and produce a meaningful, relevant, coherent and neutral summary. Then I don't object. But soapboxing will not be tolerated. Colchicum (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is it: Crime and its impact on the Balkans and affected countries, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report, March 2008:

Historically, there was a point in time when the chaos in Albania, Kosovo (Serbia) and the Albanian-speaking areas of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia gave a competitive advantage to Albanian-speaking traffickers. In addition, the need to gain money for the war effort provided a strong motivation to cooperatively raise money by any means possible. But as the region stabilises, this advantage is eroding, and this trend appears to be reflected in the arrest and seizure records of West European countries. (Page 14)

Based on an analysis of 18,749 heroin trafficking arrests made in 2004 in 15 European countries, possible ethnic Albanians (citizens of Albania, Serbia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia combined) represented about 6% of heroin trafficking arrestees. If half of those from Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were ethnic Albanians, then the share would be 5%.
This 5% is responsible for a disproportionately large share of the heroin seized, however, largely due to the role Albanians play as importers to Italy: perhaps 10% to 20% of the heroin supply to Western Europe. This figure is considerably less than some previous estimates, suggesting a declining role for ethnic Albanian heroin traffickers in Europe, a decline supported by the downward trend in both ethnic Albanian arrests and seizure totals in many key heroin markets. (Page 14)

Murder rates in the province of Kosovo have also been in decline, dropping by 75% in five years. Based on population projections from a 2001 estimate made by OSCE (2.4 million), the police recorded rate today is under three per 100,000. As in Albania, there may be some under-reporting, and according to the 2007 Progress Report on Kosovo by the European Commission, “The format and the content of key crime data are inconsistent at regional and central level.”60 But the Kosovo Police Service is receiving highly competent help from international experts, and it is unlikely that many murders are missed, given the proliferation of security personnel. If anything, the rate of under capture should be declining, meaning the nominal decline could actually be concealing an even more dramatic decrease. (Page 39)

There is evidence for the declining role of Kosovar Albanians in the seizure data gathered by the international administration managing the province. In 2004, loads of 50 kg to 100 kg were seized coming from Turkey to Kosovo. Today these seizures are much smaller, mostly between 5 kg and 10 kg. The largest in 2007 was just 47 kg. (Page 74)

Kosovo is consistently ranked fourth or fifth among the countries of Southeastern Europe by number of human trafficking victims, after Albania, Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria (Figure78 on Page 79). Colchicum (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

---

This information need to be told. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. We could made a section that deals with the "Underground economy of Kosovo. Lets weed out facts that we can agree on, and then we can determine what needs to be added. These are some of the facts

• Organized crime accounts for some 15-20 percent of the Kosovo economy and this figure would be far higher if one subtracts the substantial portion of Kosovo GDP made up of foreign aid [12]
• Through Kosovo travels up to 40% of the heroin sold in Europe and North America [13]
• Albania, Kosovo and western Macedonia area is a huge drug warehouse. there are at least seven tons of heroin in this region at all times [14]
  Mike Babic (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No way. These are not facts. The first source is merely somebody's unsourced personal opinion, gossips. The Guardian article, as we have already discussed, is very outdated, from 2000 (when the situation was entirely different, see right above), and doesn't cite its sources either. Your third source claims that it is backed by the UNODC, so we can safely cite the UNODC, which doesn't make such outrageous claims, by the way (see right above). Colchicum (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

look, Colchicum, I agree we just want the facts. In this case, they are unpleasant facts. I give you a reference pertaining to Switzerland, not because I am Swiss, but because most Kosovars out of Kosovo are in Switzerland. Pretty relevant, don't you think? And your reaction is what, "this isn't Swiss pet Wikipedia"? Wth? --dab (𒁳) 19:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, most Kosovars out of Kosovo are in Germany, not Switzerland. Second, 180,000 ethnic Kosovars are Swiss citizens, so you may refer to them as the Swiss mafia from now on, thank you. Thirdly, you provided no verifiable reference. You provided some vague, unsupported opinion. This is not a forum, furthermore, this is not your forum. Please vent your frustrations elsewhere. --alchaemia (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dab, I've already given you a reference. An up-to-date report by the UNODC, which cites its sources. What is wrong whith it? Colchicum (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Swiss source cite the same UNODC report "Crime and its impact on the Balkans". Why should we cite your source and several opinion pieces and not the freely available original report, which deals not only with Switzerland, cites its sources and is free of the twisted wording? Western Europe is slightly wider than Switzerland, Kosovo is not the only place the Albanians come from (in fact, according to the UNODC, most of the heroin comes through Albania and not Kosovo), and Albanians are not the only suppliers, not even the most significant ones in the Western Europe in general (well behind Africans and locals, whoever the latter may be). I don't like such people as Behgjet Pacolli myself, but this is all off-topic here. Colchicum (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Colchicum, UNODC is not specific enough. You're trying to prevent this information from being added to the article. Your argument that these are opinionated pieces is weak because some authors cited above are professors at famous universities. I would like to see some sources that state that Kosovo is not a "huge drug warehouse".
Mike Babic (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The UNODC is perfectly specific, if all Albanians account for up to 20% at most, the Kosovar Albanians cannot account for up to 60%, and the figures like 60% are sheer nonsense. I am trying to prevent bullshit from being added to any article on Wikipedia. Add it to your blog. Colchicum (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Also what other information are you talking about if all your sources that are not just opinion pieces retell the UNDOC report? Colchicum (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the authors are professors at famous universities (professors of what?) or something else as long as their opinion pieces are not peer-reviewed. You have yet to show any academic source supporting your claims. But that's impossible, such phrases as "huge drug warehouse" are normally not accepted there. Colchicum (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I admire the intensity of your dedication. As mentioned above, Elizabeth Pond’s book Endgame in the Balkans has received many positive reviews from various experts in the field. this book and her statements have made me curious about the Kosovos’ drug trafficking situation. I have provided many sources above that add support for the claim that Kosovo is a drug trafficking heaven. I expect from you to give me refuting claims that are cited by supporting sources. Meanwhile, I will start developing a section called “underground economy of Kosovo”. All of my statements will be cited.Mike Babic (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So far you have provided nothing from Endgame in the Balkans, only some third-rate internet crap (that is, "many sources above"). We have an up-to-date 2008 report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime which perfectly satisfies WP:RS and contradicts your claims. If the section is created, the report will be there as well. Meanwhile read WP:RS very carefully (this in particular: Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact). Also mind that the article is under probation. Colchicum (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Colchicum, I admire your patience in dealing with people like Mike Babic and dab. Obviously, they've never heard of reliable sources, and consider their ill-advised opinions to be of the highest merit. My hat off to you for keeping your cool down and for preventing these ill-researched opinions from creeping into the article. --alchaemia (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets not start worshiping Colchicum just yet. He is pushing back extremly hard and that is the reason for my admiration. On the other hand, he is pushing back agianst any changes that include anything bad that is happening in Kosovo and therefor he is a bad editor. I will have to ask you once again what makes all of the sources posted above unrealiable. If you cant answer this, then provide one source with a statement that contradicts any of the statments on those websites posted above. Alchaemia you would be wise to explain how the sources are unrealiable as you claim. It is not a good policy to argue based on general assertions or personal opinions.Mike Babic (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is saying that? The sources above include Serbian propaganda websites like Balkanpeace (a website advocating war)--NOAH (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That Balkanpeace article is copied from NATIONAL POST. Any more comments? Thanks for taking a second to look at the link before you called it propaganda. You haters cant win. You have tons of editors who support you on here but the truth is coming out. People need to value the truth more and fight for it even if it doesnt support you own national views. I would be the first to recongise Kosovo if there was actual civilian killings like they claim but I value the truth. You should too.Mike Babic (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, alchaemia, once they move to Switzerland, or Germany, they become the Swiss, or German, mafia. That still doesn't change the fact that Europe's drugs arrive via Kosovo, and via these mafias, and that this is the main notability of Kosovo from an EU point of view. Colchicum, I don't see the problem. I understand what you want, or how you argue the UN report "contradicts" anything. We have perfectly valid journalistic references, not just "internet crap". Yes the drugs also "pass through" other countries, your point being? I don't understand your opposition. Nobody is saying there is organized crime in Kosovo because "Kosovo is evil" or something. Organized crime goes wherever there is weak government. Kosovo has a very weak government atm (see article), hence organized crime flocks to Kosovo. This is what motivates the EU to send in EULEX. Perfectly simple, perfectly uncontroversial, and perfectly relevant. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

That's ridiculous. Kosovo is but one country through which these drugs potentially travel, and there are many countries in between Western Europe and the origin of these drugs. They don't suddenly come to Kosovo from the air and then simply get transferred to Western Europe through secret, Kosovo-only channels. I'm sorry, but there is nothing "perfectly simple" or "perfectly uncontroversial" here. There are a bunch of dubious allegations, entirely unsupported, and you want to include those in the introduction (!) section of the article. That's not happening. Your xenophobia can be satisfied elsewhere; I suggested a forum, but there are other venues as well. --alchaemia (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Look Colombia is notorious for its organized crime surrounding cocaine trafficking yet its hardly mentioned. I'm not a fan of the Albanians but devoting nearly an entire section to organized crime in order to besmirch Albanians and give Kosovo a bad image is in bad taste and is only being fueled by biased users - europemayhem (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Organized crime accounts for 15-20 percent of the GDP. I'm not sure not sensitive I'm to your claim that it doesn't deserve its own sub section under "economy".Mike Babic (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The informal economy accounts for 15-20 percent of the GDP, not "organized crime." If we are to include anything about the informal economy, we should also clearly include the smugglers in the northern part of Kosovo, known for smuggling a wide variety of items with gasoline being the most prominent, who, incidentally, Mike Babic, happen to be ethnic Serbs. --alchaemia (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Alchaemia, I am not sure what you are trying to do here. Pretend organized crime in Kosovo somehow isn't notable? Can we please stop these games and agree to collaborate in a matter-off-fact manner without all the hand-waving and spin-doctoring? We get it, you would prefer it if organized crime isn't mentioned. Well, too bad, that's not for you to decide, but what you can do is keep a critical eye so coverage doesn't become alarmist or tabloid style. --dab (𒁳) 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it isn't for you to decide either. It's clear from your "contributions" to this discussion that you do not necessarily care to support your xenophobic statements with arguments. Instead, you prefer to paint an entire nation and a state in the worst of the worst organized crime out there, ignoring completely any other view that disputes your ill-supported POV. We can mention organized crime, of course, but there is no reason whatsoever to mention that in the introduction to the article as you advocate here. If we do so, then we will do so for Switzerland too, for example, which has its own share of organized crime. You agree with that? --alchaemia (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing border

Should the Kosovo border be added to File:USVisaFree.PNG? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

• Yes. It is a state recognized by the United States, and has its own visa regime with other states. I would also suggest changing the color of red in that flag to something not as loud. --alchaemia (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Variant of English used in article

Currently, there is no standard variant of English applied (for example there are 9 recognises and 7 recognizes in the article at present), and I think it's time for a decision to be made between British English and American English. I would suggest British English, as both the International Reaction to DOI and Kosovan Passport pages use this, and also this is a European article where British English tends to be more accepted, but either one would be good just to have some consistency in the article. Your thoughts?-- Bernerd (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is in Europe, then I suggest British English as well. --Tone 09:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Kosova" if you don't mind pleaseFucquit (talk)

No, Kosovo is the most used expression. This has been discussed several times before. --Tone 12:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

More on names

Getting back to the important chapter about the names, I think that its a good idea now to erase the Serbian names as they are no longer relevant, and just use the British English/standrad Albanian names for the places, including the title which I gather should be Kosova. Even the former republics in Yugoslavia have now accepted Kosova as the name as I, even though not speaking the language, see how in Croatian and Bosnian text they now use "Kosova" when writing about the place. Unless it means something else!! Asd everyone knows, there is no true Serb populaton in Kosova except for the few dozens here and there in the north who Milosevic "forced" into the region when he tried to expand Greater Serbia into Kosova when it ws still Yugoslavia. But I've realized on Wikipedia that when a city or country changes hands/rulers, they use the new names. Otherwise, we can go back on the Zimbabwe page, rename it Rhodesia and rename Harare as Salisbury. The so-called "Serb" names are not valid any more. Fucquit (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we're not using either Albanian or Serbian names right now, we're using English names, in which Kosovo is included, even the ROK government uses Kosovo in English [15] — chandler — 12:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

May I also stress that Croatian and Bosnian have not adopted /Kosova/ as the name of the territory. The variation /Kosova/ is used to mark the genitive case (giving a noun a sense of ownership, as if preceded by of or from) in the languages you mentioned, and this is also the practice in Serbian. Evlekis (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

locator map

Every editor who tries to revert the first map that appears on the first infobox to the one that shows Kosovo without Serbia highlighted gets its edit reverted little time later by Mike Babic, saying that “Discussion must be made first”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.94.184 (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The map that you want to change the picture to is a geographic definition of a "political map". I told you that File:Kosovo_map-en.svg is okay. If you want to change it to that map you can. It doesn't look too political yet shows Kosovo without Serbia that's why I think it's a nice compromise. Mike Babic (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok then will someone change it to the most neutral map without Serbia? Azalea pomp (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have {{rpa}}'d this. Stick to the topic. Which locator map do we want?

1.File:Europe location SRB with KOS.png (Serbia in light gray)

2.File:Europe location KOS.png (Kosovo alone)

3.File:Kosovo in Balkans.png (Kosovo within the Balkans)

:4.File:Kosovo_map-en.svg state your preference, and we'll see if there is consensus. My preference is with (2) Kosovo alone, as an innocent locator map "Kosovo is here". --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss locator maps substantively for a spell, because I see more issues than the choosing of one from the three alternatives presented. It's not the burning issue, and the present map, which is alternative no. 1, is entirely suitable: David Luzzi's locator maps for Europe are used nearly everywhere, and I don't object to emphasizing Serbia relative to all other "surrounding backgroud" with a bit of heavy grey. Some might construe it as a veiled statement, to the effect that Kosovo is Serbia, since analogously, the geographical Europe is lighter than the surrounding continents. But the non-Europe is lighter, while the non-Kosovo is darker, if I may couch the situation thusly. And acknowledging on the map that Serbia is intimately involved in depicting cartographically Kosovo's location is simply depicting true information in the appropriate context. So map no. 1 is fine.

I find all maps except the first one acceptable. We really should have the Albanian forms of the cities in Albanian areas and Serb forms in Serbian areas though which is my only minor problem with map 4. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Maps 2 and 3 are completely unacceptable because they imply that Kosovo is not in Serbia. Map 4 is very nice, but is not a location map. Nikola (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

But I cannot support the map used in the third infobox, the UN administered territory. The United Nations is officially neutral and even agnostic on the subject of recognizing Kosovo independence, and the current Secretary General is on record saying that. Furthermore, the EULEX

This is wrong. Serbia is a member of the United Nations, in its full territory. The United Nations being agnostic means that they still recognize Serbia, in its full territory. The EULEX mission is status neutral, hence it too won't change future status of Kosovo. Nikola (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

was sanctioned by the UN Security Council to deploy under UN auspices exactly on that basis, so why is a Serbian POV map, Kosovo within Serbia, being tolerated as this infobox'es main illustration? I don't object to it's inclusion in the Serbia article somewhere, or in the proper place, context-dependent, in this one. But it's choice for the soon-to-be-there-only-in-name UN administration is entirely inappropriate. This map should be removed from that infobox. We have no need of a map there. Alternatively, install the map no. 1 there, and put the same map in the unshaded Serbia variation, as the map depicted in the first box, which is map no. 2. I hasten to add that one infobox IMHO would suffice for all of Kosovo, and various competing depictions, definitions and duh-dahs can be sensibly esconded there, even the, gack, various flags, coat-of-arms, and competing official names and designated officials. If I may coin a phrase.that should guide us in Wikipedia article design: Kosovo is. --Mareklug ^talk 15:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• 2>3>1>4, though I don't care much. Colchicum (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC) And yes, we need three infoboxes, but we don't need three maps. Colchicum (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Map 4 is good because it's not technically a "political map". This could be the main map.it shows that Kosovo's borders are disputed. On the other hand, it shows Kosovo alone. Thereby satisfying the Albanian editors.Mike Babic (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Map 4 is not a locator map. And it is not neutral, it uses Serbian names only. Colchicum (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer any of the maps with the exception of the map 1 (File:Europe location SRB with KOS.png), which raises serious POV questions. As a compromise solution, we could choose map 3 (File:Kosovo in Balkans.png), but in terms of quality and detailment of image, the map 4 (File:Kosovo_map-en.svg) is the clear winner.--BalkanWalker (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • For a thumbnail such detailment is useless.Colchicum (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support map 2. Map 4 is not neutral, as it uses exclusively Serbian names, as stated by Colchicum. --alchaemia (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

1 and 4 are fine with me. Maybe we could find a new map that is more accepted.Mike Babic (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Map 4 is not a locator map, and was inserted into my post. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Map 2 for me. The important thing is that it shows clearly where Kosovo is. If we gone use the first one then a change has to be done on the map in the Serbia article. Otherwise it is not npov. 85.226.157.245 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • you have a point there, the locator map at Serbia clearly needs to indicate Kosovo as disputed territory. --dab (𒁳) 20:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I second that. The disputed territory needs to be marked at both maps. It would be reasonable to use Europe location SRB with KOS.png in this article and a kind of inverse image in Serbia article. Do we have such a map available or should it be created? Some opinions would be appreciated. --Tone 21:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• i support usage of map 2 This article is meant to show Kosovo, with in Europe. We should use map 2 for 'Rep of Kosovo info box' and map 4 (which is now crossed out on talk page) for 'Kosovo region info box'. This will work out best and be the most neutral IMHO. We already have a map showing Kosovo within Serbia, the EULEX map. Ijanderson (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I of course support map 1, it's the only neutral map among the four. Nikola (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Map 1 is the ONLY choice if you want a NPOV article. I support it. --JUSTICE 20:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

right, but then we need a similar solution for the locator map at Serbia. That's probably the only way to go. As in every other country article, the first map shown should be a locator map, showing Kosovo within Europe, and not just a map of Kosovo itself. --dab (𒁳) 22:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you've already changed the map at Serbia article. I think this is fine now. Do we have a consensus here? --Tone 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Map 1 does not show Kosovo as being an ordinary part of Serbia, but it doesn't depict it as a fully fledged independent country either. Its the only option as long as Wikipedia supports both views. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How about we create a new map without baorders at all and show Kosovo shaded in a seperate colour? surely this will be neutral as it will show the location of Kosovo in Europe without political baoundries. Ijanderson (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however, it will ignore the point of view that Kosovo is a part of Serbia. The map simply must have some kind of association with the remainder of Serbia as long as Wikipedia supports that point of view as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Map 1. Portraying Kosovo without any association with Serbia is a violation of NPOV. --Tocino 01:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I ask everyone asking for map 1 here to show fairness and insist on a corresponding solution at Serbia, where predictably my edit towards neutrality has been reverted --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is we should equate Serbia (a sovereign state) with Kosovo? The Serbia article is indisputably about the Republic of Serbia, the position of the Republic of Serbia is that Kosovo is its UN-administered province. The situations are not reciprocal, as this article is not solely about the Republic of Kosovo, but the whole of the region/territory/area/whatever. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I disaggre with you DIREKTOR, 53 countries have so far recognized Kosovo as a state and thus no longer see it as a part of Serbia, 6 of them are neighbouring countries of either Serbia or Kosovo. With that knowledge I can't see how keeping the old map in the Serbia article can be npov. 85.226.157.166 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What about Georgia? ;) I don't see anybody highlighting 2 regions that declared independence - South Ossettia and Abkhazia, both recognized by some countries (to be fair, less than Kosovo, but still a minority, just like Kosovo). --JUSTICE 22:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

2 and 53 countries is a major difference. How about Morocco? West Sahara has been recognized by less countries than Kosovo and still is shown with a different shade of color... 85.226.157.166 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

2 and 53 is a major difference? Perhaps, but so is 53 and 200. The recognition of the Republic of Kosovo, with which I'm sure we're all familiar with, is besides the point, however. I repeat: this article is not about the Republic of Kosovo only, it is about the entire region. i.e. it also covers the Serbian enclaves. (I'm not going to start repeating myself all over again, see old discussions on this matter.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A compromise has to be reached, Kosovo is a disputed territory and it has to be shown on it's own article and in the serbian one. That is what I think but it seems it will be impossible with a change because so many here simply want to tone down the Kosovo independence as much as possible. 85.226.157.166 (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're proposing two articles, one with an Albanian POV and one with a Serbian POV? :P That's not what Wikipedia is about. We're talking about NPOV here, while all some pro-Kosovo independence users want is to ignore the fact that the majority of the world does not recognize the "Republic of Kosovo". So, you want to create a new article for all the "Serbian nonsense" (and the "nonsense" is, btw, backed by the UN, UNSCR 1244, Final Helsinki Act of 1975, as well as the majority of UN states)... Funny.. --JUSTICE 18:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How about we choose map 1 but the grey shaded bit of non Kosovo should be lined instead of filled. This is more of a compromise I believe. Your thoughts? Ijanderson (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No to Map 1. Clearly it is Serbian POV. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Clearly" Map 2 is Albanian POV... Map 1 is NOT Serbian POV, this map or this map would be Serbian POV. Map 1 is obviously a compromise version. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Map 1 as any kind of compromise. Map 3 would be the only compromise of the three. Azalea pomp (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Map 3 is a map of the Balkans with only Kosovo highlighted. It is no different than a map of Europe with only Kosovo highlighted: it depicts Kosovo as a completely independent state, hence it is Albanian POV. A compromise version must include both views. In other words, the view that Kosovo is a Serbian province must also be represented by a compromise map. Map 1 is not Serbian POV, because it does not depict Kosovo as an ordinary province of Serbia, but neither does it depict Kosovo as an independent state. It is the only compromise map version here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

in my view, there is no problem with Map 1: it shows Kosovo as a territory under dispute. Guess what, it is a territory under dispute, as will be clear to anyone spending 30 seconds reading the article. Of course, the same dispute needs to be reflected in the locator map at Serbia. Also see e.g. India for a locator map that highlights territorial disputes. May I ask all Serbian editors here to accept that if they want to get their way of reflecting the dispute at this article, they are expected to agree to reflect the same dispute in the same terms over at the Serbia article. Any other approach would make it rather difficult to WP:AGF. --dab (𒁳) 13:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand what's wrong with map 2. We use it in the french article and nobody has complained yet, certainly because nobody considers it as an Albanian POV, to my point of view. People can see that Kosovo, for some people, is part of Serbia, just beneath, can't they ? To be fair, in the article, I can only see 2 maps with Serbian POV (first one and the third), the second only shows Kosovo alone, just the territory. I still can't see what's wrong with map 2. --84.227.159.212 (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree Map 1 is obvious Serbian POV. Kosovo is in dispute, so there needs to be a map which is totally neutral. What wikipedia needs to do is see what the published almanacs, atlases, and encyclopedias do in 2009. Azalea pomp (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

we could use map 2, but what are we going to do with the Serbia locator map? We should display the Serbia/Kosovo border in a highlighted manner (as e.g. on google earth), dotted or the like. Something like this probably won't show up on the thumbnail image though. --dab (𒁳) 18:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Serbia's should be changed as well. We really should use as a precedence how almanacs, atlases, and encyclopedias treated disputed territories. A good example would be North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Neither country had complete recognitions by other countries. I don't think South Vietnam was in the UN. Yet all of the sources from that time, list the two as separate countries with maps, flags, etc. Wikipedia needs to use published materials as a model and not create its own. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Map 2 is the exact same map Kosovo would have if it was completely and indisputably recognized and independent, with no dispute raging whatsoever. In this way it represents the Albanian point of view (POV) completely, while it in no way hints or recognizes that there is another side to the whole matter. The other point of view, which supports the perspective that Kosovo is a part of the Republic of Serbia, is thus completely ignored by Map 2. While a border outline may be acceptable on the Serbia locator map, Map 2 cannot stand as long as our goal here is to equally (or even nearly-equally) represent both sides of the Kosovo dispute. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Basicly agree with Dab's position. Something needs to change either here or in the Serbia article. Hobartimus (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR,
Let me show you something : look at the first map on the article. Kosovo is within Serbia, right. The second map only shows the Kosovo territory with cities names in Serbian, and the third map also shows Kosovo within Serbia with Serbian names. Kill me if I'm wrong ; it clearly proves that theses maps are Serbian POV. I'm not against the fact to show all points of view, but here, we have three same points of view. --84.227.148.46 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, hi Mr. IP. Let me just ask you one question: What would the locator map look like if Kosovo was just like any other fully-recongized, non-disputed state? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

One that clearly shows both the state and the region relative to its European geographical position? Also one that doesn't contain Serbian names exclusively. --alchaemia (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in other words: Map 2 or Map 3. Both of which display NO relationship with Serbia, whatsoever. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR,
This map would look like that : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_location_KOS.png This one shows the Kosovan POV, the second and third (of the article) the Serbian POV ; it's all about considering ALL points of view, to me. I just want to make this article better. Best greetings. Mr. IP.--84.227.148.46 (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Mr. IP, exactly. If there were no dispute, no enclaves, no lack of (UN) recognition, Map 2 would be the map we'd use. Now then, I would also like to ask you this: is there a dispute? Are there Serbian enclaves in Kosovo? Was Kosovo's independence recognized by the UN and the majority of the world's governments? Yes, yes, and no. In recognition of the dispute, please note that Map 2 is NOT NPOV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Serbian point of view would be to not even have a border between Kosovo and the rest of Serbia. The Serbian point of view would be to have the same map for Kosovo as we have for Vojvodina. That is the Serbian point of view, not what is being proposed here as Map 1! Map 1 is a compromise, the others are Albanian POV. --JUSTICE 06:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR,
If you agree with the fact that ALL points of view must be showed, can you, please, show me where the Kosovan (For JUSTICE : We don't talk about Albanian POV, but about KOSOVAN, which is very different, because these are two different territories) POV is showed. On the article, map 2 is clearly not NPOV, but Serbian POV (to me !). Map 2 is clearly not NPOV, because of its Serbian names (it'd be OK if Mitrovica was in Serbian but I don't understand cities like Prishtina and Ferizaj are written with their Serbian names).
Map 3 is (could be) NPOV, because it shows the point of UN, I'm OK with that.
And I want to add that this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_location_KOS.png only shows the territory, the disputed territory.
Best Greetings, your dear IP.--84.227.219.220 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Albanian POV is "showed" by the fact that Map 1 does not present the rest of Serbia in the same way as Kosovo, but in a light grey color: only hinting at a relationship between the two. This map does indeed "show" Albanian POV (and it is indeed ALBANIAN, not "Kosovan" POV, since many ethnic Serbs are Kosovars as well, and do not share the said POV). A map that does not show Albanian POV would be this, for example, or a map that represents the remainder of Serbia in the same color.

In short, Mr. IP, Wikipedia supports both views:

View 01: "Kosovo is independent."

View 02: "Kosovo is a part of Serbia."

In order for View 02 to be at all represented by the locator map of this article, some kind of relationship with the remainder of Serbia must be shown in some way. Otherwise, View 02 would not be present in the locator map. Only View 01 would be represented by this articles locator map. This much is plain logic and is indisputable. This Map is Serbian POV, this map (for example) is Albanian POV, Map 1 is NPOV (Map 3 is equal to Map 2 as it does not show any relationship with the remainder of Serbia, whatsoever). Pray tell, Mr. IP, how may I be any clearer? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your "arguments" are ridiculous. So you don't want to display pro-Kosovan "POV", so instead you want a map to display pro-Serbian POV? You want to put the Serbian coat of arms all over Kosovo too? And rename it to KosMet to fit in your distorted view of both reality and what constitutes NPOV? Any mention of Serbia, on a map or otherwise, in any capacity other than a neighboring state that is disputing the northern Kosovan border is POV. No shading it the same or different, no Serbian-only names on KOSOVAN cities, nothing of the sort. --alchaemia (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have presented my arguments as clearly as possible. Would you care to respond to them instead of working towards earning yourself a personal attack report? Statements like "Any mention of Serbia, on a map or otherwise, in any capacity other than a neighboring state that is disputing the northern Kosovan border is POV" clearly indicate you are not being objective, i.e. you are not really trying to achieve an NPOV consensus, but are here to ensure that the locator map expresses only "View 01" (as I've named it). I'll ask you a question: how is the (quite valid) point of view that Kosovo is a part of Serbia represented by Maps 2 and 3? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the "quite valid" view that Kosovo is "a part of Serbia" is not valid at all. Kosovo needs to be shown, clearly and without any shading or crap around, in the European locator map. We can make a footnote explaining that Serbia disputes the Kosovan northern border and that there is a dispute between Kosovo and Serbia in general. --alchaemia (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Instead. you've beautifully illustrated my point: you do not believe that the point of view that Kosovo is a part of Serbia is valid in any capacity, and are trying to remove it from this Wikipedia. You are NOT working towards a balanced article, an article that represents a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). You are working towards an article that represents only your own point of view, or in other words a POV article.

In any event this discussion is not on the validity of Serbia's claim on Kosovo. Kosovo being a part of Serbia is a point of view recognized in the article and on this encyclopedia in general. It must be included if all point of views are represented (WP:NPOV). The fact that you personally do not agree with that is not relevant to these considerations. How is the point of view that Kosovo is a part of Serbia represented by Maps 2 and 3? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, and you completely ignored, we can include a footnote describing the disputed nature of the northern Kosovan border and explain the situation and that Serbian point of view. Please read before accusing me of supporting this or that POV. --alchaemia (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be necessary to show a relation with serbia when the picture is suppose to display the region of Kosovo. Sápmi, Basque Country, Taiwan, Western Sahara and probably others don't. — chandler — 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(To alchaemia) A footnote on a map!? Maybe you didn't read what I plainly wrote several times? The view that needs to be supported is that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, not that the "fully sovereign" Republic of Kosovo has a border dispute with the Republic of Serbia. How is the point of view that Kosovo is a part of Serbia represented by Maps 2 and 3? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would that view need to be represented? Do we present the view that Taiwan is part of China, on a map, for the Republic of China article? We do not. There is no reason why there should be three different maps presenting the same basic state, that of Kosovo. We can talk about the dispute between Kosovo and Serbia, and, obviously, the article does just that. Though you won't be able to shoehorn your pro-Serbian bias into this article by presenting biased and ultimately erroneous information. --alchaemia (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And as I feel it, even if you show only Kosovo, that isn't necessarily pro-Independence or anti-Serbia. And it would be more NPOV than to show it inside Serbia, which will always be seen as a anti-Independence pro-Serbia image, not a NPOV image... I don't see why a image showing Kosovo (because the area of kosovo is considered the same by both Serbia and ROK, right?) Under that there's perhaps a note saying "Kosovo in green, territory claimed by the Republic of Kosovo and Serbia" (ROK and Serbia listed in alphabetical order) — chandler — 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The map showing Kosovo as part of Serbia in any form is POV. And I don’t know why is there such intransigence in regarding any other map different from the map 1 as “unacceptable”.--BalkanWalker (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If it hasn't been proposed already, perhaps something similar to the Western Sahara (Morocco, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic - Even though we don't have a article split for Kosovo as a region/territory and the Republic of Kosovo) situation can be implemented. With some stripes and notes on "controlled de facto/jure" on both articles — chandler — 01:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem, chandler, is that in order for the map to be NPOV, the point of view that Kosovo is a part of Serbia must be presented on the map. The crucial difference between Kosovo and the Western Sahara is that around 75% of the world (and the UN) are of the stance that Kosovo remains a part of Serbia (under UN administration), while most of the world does not recognize Morocco's control of Western Sahara (which would warrant representation on a map). Serbia must be marked on the map in order to preserve the NPOV, whether there are stripes or it is colored in grey is immaterial, but it must be marked in recognition of the fact that 150 of the world's governments hold it to be within Serbia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, how I see it, the locator map in the first infobox isnt suppose to be political, it is just suppose to show where the region called Kosovo is in Europe, no matter who controls it. And in refering to Western Sahara I meant that, because SADR is recognized by a similar number as Kosovo, the map at "Western Sahara" just shows the area called Western Sahara, it's not political. That's for the Serbia article and the ROKosovo infobox — chandler — 09:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

the fact that 150 of the world's governments hold it to be within Serbia.

It doesn't matter, the image is suppose to show where the geographical arean called Kosovo is, not the borders of Serbia, not the borders of the Republic of Kosovo. See images like File:Basque Country location map.png and File:Corrected Sapmi in Europe.PNG. — chandler — 10:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that even this assumption is POV, because most of the UN countries simply did not manifested in relation to their current or future position regarding Kosovo -- even the UN General Assembly never adopted any resolution about the 2008 Kosovar independence until now. And we see trough the international media that the only two countries that nowadays say that they never recognized, recognize and will recognize an independent Kosovar state are Serbia and Russia — the other UN countries that did not recognized Kosovo as of today are more or less muted or ambiguous in relation to the Kosovo question.--BalkanWalker (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

BalkanWalker, we're not here to discuss the validity of Serbia's right to consider Kosovo a part of its territory. The fact you will simply have to face is that the view that "Kosovo remains a part of Serbia" is equally supported by Wikipedia. That's all I'm going to say on that. It is a fully accepted point of view that should (and is) represented in any NPOV version of the article. This is not the issue here, and (re)starting that vain argument will solve nothing.

Chandler, I completely understand what you're trying to say, however, the main problem here is that the map that shows only Kosovo and makes no mention of Serbia is completely supportive of the point of view view that Kosovo is an independent state. On the other hand, the point of view that Kosovo is not an independent state is not represented at all by such a map. In other words, such a map represents only one POV, hence it is not NPOV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article it self, starts pretty fast be describing the facts of it being disputed by Serbia etc. and therefore I don't think it would be a anti serbia pov to just show the region of Kosovo on a map. Because you really can't have a map that shows a neutral view (if neutral is suppose to show both the pro-Independences and the anti-Independence view, and any anti-Independence map has to show Kosovo inside Serbia), because I don't see a way to show Kosovo as both independent and not. That's why I think it would be best that the first infobox has a map that just shows the region of Kosovo, like Western Sahara which also is disputed between two governments. — chandler — 10:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chandler. People want to see clearly where Kosovo is located on the map, the current one is not only POV but also confuses the reader. Emto (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So if the article is NPOV the map should be allowed to represent only one POV? Maybe we can't have a 100% NPOV map, but we can certainly do our best. Total neutrality is an unachievable goal in most cases anyway, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards it. Showing a map that shows only Kosovo would be the same map of a hypothetical "Republic of Kosovo" article, i.e. it would be the map used if the Albanian POV was the only one. Therefore, if it excludes the Serbian POV, it most certainly is "anti Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it would be the same map is because the republic of kosovo's territorial claim are the whole region called Kosovo. That doesn't make it Albanian POV in my eyes, for me that's NPOV, because that choice would be to only go with the region called Kosovo, not caring which countries claim which territory. — chandler — 12:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And the only reason (pro-)Albanian users are supporting such a map is because it would be the same as the map of the Republic of Kosovo. "Reasons" are irrelevant in this debate. If the map is identical to the map that supports exclusively Albanian POV, what difference does it make? As I said, I can see your logic, but I'm afraid I am of the opinion the controversial nature of this issue cannot allow for even a semblance of favoritism one way or the other.

This map would be full Serbian POV, a map showing only Kosovo is full Albanian POV. The map with Serbia lightly marked in grey is clearly the best we can do and the closest we can come to an NPOV map. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not the "best we can do." We already solved that problem: look at Republic of China, Basque Country, etc. They are all shown separate from any other political entity. That is the only way to go. In addition, Map #2 should be corrected as it shows Serbian names of Kosovan towns exclusively and that is POV par excellence. --alchaemia (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The things is, if you compare the current map with File:Map_of_Serbia_(Kosovo_and_Metohija).PNG I think there's an easy argument to say they're both very similar, only difference is the rest of Europe is showing on one of them. Trying to move forward... I don't know if this is considered a POV-fork or acceptable, I haven't uploaded it to wikipedia yet but what about something like this, that would show both points of view, sorted in alphabetical order and following the colour scheme of WP:WPMAP. — chandler — 12:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR,

YOU said that This map would be Serbian POV. So, can you explain me why do we show it on an article which has to be neutral !? You talk about neutrality and NPOV but you show the opposite by leaving this map, which is, to you, Serbian POV, on this article. Mister IP.--84.227.42.104 (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

An atricle about the Serbian propaganda on Kosovo should be made

http://www.ethnography.com/2008/04/the-battle-for-kosovo-on-the-internet/#comment-604

Is this fake to you? Do you understand how a monastery that is 900 years old should not be bombed? It is your duty as an Albanian to tell your side of the story. I have nothing against that. I want you to write about the massacres if you have sources. Just stop the crap. No I dont hate the Jews. I even read their religious texts once, amazing people.

http://brianakira.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/kosovo-muslims-pissing-on-destroyed-orthodox-church.jpg

http://www.usde.se/zaboravi/akomozes/kosovo/images/ovkodsgl.jpgSerbian Defense Forces (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about the Jewish people?I just provided a link about the Serbian propaganda phenomenon.Propaganda was used as a war tool by Serbian politicians and the army in the Balkan conflicts.Who said anything about the monisteries?I think you're arguing with yourself?!?!? btw.I'm not Albanian.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

pray avoid posting random weblinks, and try to follow WP:TALK. Don't post just for the sake of debate or controversy. If you genuinely want to work on a decent coverage of Serbian nationalism, feel free to go over to Serbian nationalism and begin editing without further ado. --dab (𒁳) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Destruction

The first link talks about what really happened to the 8 monasteries in Kosovo while the second link shows the actual destruction. Could someone add this to the article because I may have some prejudice on the subject.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23634
http://www.serbianorthodoxchurch.net/historyofchurch/destruction1999/index.htmlMike Babic (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yale Daily News? What's that, some basement-run one-man enterprise? SerbianOrthodoxChurch.net? Really? Find some credible independent sources, and add them yourself keeping NPOV in mind. --alchaemia (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's a college daily newspaper (the latter which you mention). Far from being a "basement-run one-man enterprise", it probably still doesn't qualify as a "Wikipedia reliable source"; it's certainly not on the list anyhow. I'm afraid the only sources which can be used here are the known international news networks and the broadsheet newspapers from a number of countries. I don't like it at all, but it's the rule. Evlekis (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4083005.stm

I think actually we are far advanced of any stage where denials can be made about the systematic and rampant destruction and desecration of Orthodox temples and shrines in Kosovo. I cannot take anyone seriously who continues to allege that Serbs are making this up, and it is shameful that the monks in this province should be repaid for their efforts to defend Albanians by being branded as liars. Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria compared to Kosovo article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria Why is in Transnistria article the infobox at top and not in Kosovo article? --84.56.250.118 (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

as you can see, it doesn't have any other infoboxes... — CHANDLER^#10 — 06:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A further article to compare against is the article on South_ossetia. Hobartimus (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So move the Kosovar infobox on top, too, please. --84.56.232.213 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia is not comparable because it is not a region of Georgia, but carved out of several Georgian regions. Transnistria is comparable, but proper solution should be to introduce Moldova province infobox like here. Nikola (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

serb-POVers used South Ossetia as a reason not to change the map of Serbia because the map of Georgia had not been changed. Now they are saying it is not the same thing as Kosovo? I hope i'm not the only one noticing this. Emto (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

South Ossetia is similar to Kosovo in some respects, and dissimilar in others. It is similar in respect that it is a region that separeted from a country, it is dissimilar in being a pre-existing region of the country. Nikola (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  The only difference is that Russia Claims there different(I don't see how)--76.105.233.104 (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Transnistria does indeed seem to have pov problems. Please come to Talk:Transnistria and help fixing them rather than trying to use them for leverage in introducing pov problems to this article. See also WP:OTHERCRAP. The existence of flawed articles is no excuse for introducing even more flaws. --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The discrepance between Kosovo and Serb Krajina aricles

While in this article about Kosovo the map of the main infobox shows Kosovo as somehow "a part of" Serbia, in the article about Republic of Serbian Krajina the non-contiguous regions of the rebel, unrecognized-by-no-one-in-the-world separatist republic is shown completely separated from the internationally-recognized-by-the-UN-since-early-1990's Republic of Croatia.--201.52.94.192 (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You will note that the article you mention is entitled Republic of Serbian Krajina, unlike this article, which is about "Kosovo" in general. The partially recognized Republic of Kosovo doesn't have a dedicated article. There remains the option to fork the Republic of Kosovo article off the Kosovo one, but the Albanian patriots were all decidedly opposed to that. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The article Republic of Serbian Krajina is a lost cause because there have been too much editing warring on it. Most editors have given up. So if anyone could work on it it would be great. But its a brutally developed article that shouldnt be a base for the Kosovo article.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Need Albanian Editors

As a Serb I believe that Kosovo Albanians sided with the Nazis and cleansed out Serbs from Kosovo in 1940's. Similarly, I want to determine if these sites are propaganda or the truth.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, a couple of idiots don't represent the whole albanians. Most albanians helped the jews during WWII, Israel even thanks Albania officially for that, so much for the "Nazi Albania" propaganda -- CD 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are the references to Milosevic being constantly deleted?

It’s quite clear that the change of the status of the former Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo were made by the time of Slobodan Milosevic’s governemnt over Serbia. Here’s a excerpt from a New York Times October 8, 1988 article:

“ Mr. Milosevic is accused of having reverted to what some described as ‘Stalinist’ methods in purging leading figures from various institutions — chief among them are the main newspapers and television and radio stations. ‘Politika is not a newspaper anymore,’ the novelist said of the nation’s most respected and traditionally independent daily. ‘It is now his information bulletin.’

‘He has surrounded himself with authoritarian ciphers,’ a Western ambassador said. Professor Markovic said, ‘He is ready to use people of doubtful reputation if they are ready to serve him.’

Under the men Mr. Milosevic has appointed, the Serbian press has carried on a vituperative campaign against any Yugoslav leader who has cautioned against the extreme opinions expressed at the rallies. The press has also condemned Yugoslavia’s Albanians. Slovene leaders have been prime targets.

‘He has made a Faustian pact,’ said President Stanovnik of the nationalism of the masses that he accused Mr. Milosevic of having unleashed. ‘Now the devil is out of the bottle, and he can’t put it back.’

But another view is that the Serbian leader has already achieved a major victory through the pressure that the rallies have brought. Last week the Politburo approved his proposal for amendments to the Serbian Constitution to curtail the provinces’ autonomy and bring their defense and foreign policies, as well as their security arrangements and court systems, under control of the republic.

‘Milosevic understood the issue of Serbia with two millstones around its neck,’ the Slovene President said. ‘He understood that the only way to get legitimacy was to appeal in that way to the people.’

”

--BalkanWalker (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said anything here… so I’m restoring the info about Slobodan Milosevic right now.--BalkanWalker (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo Budget

This info needs to be added http://www.zibb.com/article/4602398/Kosovo+parliament+approves+2009+budget about the Kosovo budget to be 1.45bn EUR for 2009. Kosova2008 68.187.141.179 (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

How comes that even Somaliland has his own country info box on top but not Kosovo? --84.57.225.100 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you see any other infoboxes on that article? — CHANDLER#10 — 17:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see other infoboxes in Kosovos article. Please remove them. Thank you. --84.57.225.100 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

....................................................... In Somaliland...................... How can it not be the top infobox if its the only one.... — CHANDLER#10 — 21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why double standards? If one infobox is fine for Somaliland, so why not also for Kosovo? And Somaliland is not the only example, there are many, here one more: Tuvan_People's_Republic. Kosovo seems to be the only one with more than one infobox. Why this discrimination? --84.56.228.126 (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Because Kosovo is not only a country, but a historical region and still a recognized part of Serbia in most of the world as that under UN administration... And the only reason you want it up top is because you think it would give more credibility or make more countries recognize Kosovo as a country just because omg it's the topmost infobox on wikipedia. Throwing away NPOV without consideration, if you look through the talk archives you'll probably find lengthy discussions about this subject. — CHANDLER#10 — 04:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Serbia is not a historical region? Yes, it is. And look at Tuvan_People's_Republic, it was recognized by no other country but it has his own country box. So again, why this double standards? Do you want to tell us that double standards are NPOV? --84.57.235.64 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at that article you'll see that the republic isn't located at Tuva, which covers the region... If the ROK was split from this article to Republic of Kosovo it would have its infobox on top... But I dont see the double standard as the Tuvan PR has a own article and not merged with Tuvan... — CHANDLER#10 — 19:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No POV fork, please. If some day Kosovo becomes a part of Albania, then you can make your own RoK article and the article named Kosovo would reflect the new reality. But until this happens, Kosovo is RoK. --84.57.235.64 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference between Somaliland and Kosovo is that Somaliland does not have a regional equivelent in Somalia - several regions represent the territory of the Republic of Somaliland within Somalia. Kosovo is different because both Serbia and the Kosovo government recognize the territory as composing a singular entity.--R-41 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The autonomous province of Kosovo was not "recreated" by Milosevic, it existed decades prior…

That is not the truth.

In fact, the Yugoslav Serbian SR “Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija” ceased to exist in 1974, when the new Yugoslav Constitution was stablished. Between 1974 and 1990, there was no “Kosovo and Metohija”. --alchaemia (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC) The action of Serbian SR leader Slobodan Milosevict was first to dissolve both the former autonomous Kosovo parliament and the independent League of Communists of Kosovo, and then dissolve the autonomies of Serbian SR SAP's, re-creating the so-called “Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija”.

Before any editor try to remove the reference to Slobodan Milosevic, please discuss here first, or else I would consider it vandalism and revert the edit. Thanks.--BalkanWalker (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

When Kosovo was created as a part of Serbia within Yugoslavia, it was denied the rights to separate at any time.

-rmaslic

But this is not the point. The point is that the abolition of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo and the re-creation of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija by the Slobodan Milosevic government in Serbian Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia is an uncontested historical fact, largely documented and comment at the time. There is no reason to deny or hide about the fact.--BalkanWalker (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Any of those sources talk about the illegitimate nature of that "abolition"? --alchaemia (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

HEADS UP

"Kosovo officials say the Saatchi & Saatchi advertising company has won a contract worth 5.7 million Euros ($7.3 million US Dollars) to improve the "country's" international image."[link]

I expect them to start editing this article. I expect "new editors" that will change many historical facts, especially those relating to Serbia. This $7.3 million contract has been announced today, January 22, 2009. The purpose of this contract is to convert people to be pro Kosovo independence regardless of facts. They will surely make this article slanted, and highly biased in order to promote that cause. I'm asking all editors start watching this article more closely.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So in other words, you are entitled to defend Serbia by presenting lies but Kosovars are not, whatever... 85.144.179.57 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

All Im saying is that we can expect this [type] of activity. It will only add to the already pro-Albanian bias in the article. It is immensely hard to predict what exactly Saatchi & Saatchi will do in order to earn that $7.3 million. It is important to keep a watch on new editors.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the start of the $7.3 million dollar project to promote Kosovo's amputation has started tonight. Tonights' episode of Mad TV mentions Kosovo. Mad TV is a comedy show that has a serious viewership and is being broadcast to 300 million Americans and 30 million Canadians. Being a Serbian victim of past propaganda I can clearly see that this is the start of the campaign mentioned above. It is being used as the first step in the larger picture. As for myself, I realize that there is zero chance that I can fight back against $7.3 millions dollars since they will most likely use Youtube, Facebook, Internet forumns, TV Shows, Radio shows, lobbied politics and other means to promote Kosovos separation. It is somewhat time consuming to fight against these people yet it holds a great reward. So I'm asking people to contribute to this article from the Serbian prospective as well. Please try to keep a watch on weasel editors who add uncited facts.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is really irrelevant whether the pov pushing is coming from unpaid teenage patriots or from paid goons. We have to be braced to deal with pov pushing, of either flavour, in any case. Wikipedia is built so as to be able to deal with this, it's not a problem. Serbia's problem isn't Saatchi & Saatchi, it's the fact that most countries that matter in any way by now consider Kosovo an independent state. Sure, there is no unanimous consensus, there is Russia and China who are being difficult just for the sake of it, and there is Spain, Romania and Greece in the EU, but there is really no conceivable scenario that would result in a return of Kosovo to Serbia. The Serbs should just try to get as much out of this as they can, politically, and let Europe pay them dearly for showing good grace and playing the good guys this time. At the very most, Serbia can hope to chip off North Kosovo from the RoK, but if they want that, they'll have to let go the rest of Kosovo first. If they can't bring themselves to that, they'll just end up with nothing instead. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

1244 is still in effect. It is a serious offense to common decency, common sense, to breach international law. All those countries that seem to separate their common sense from their actions, should be sued by Serbia. Anyways, I just have read that Kosovo separatists have paid "The Economist" to publish favorable articles on the so-called "Republic of Kosovo". There needs to be a substantial discussion on the sources used to back up the claims on this article.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro

That intro is pretty terrible now, can we revert that? Beam 00:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

TURN Republic of Kosova into an article...this is rediculous. The political limbo of the newly republic should not

affect Kosova having it's own article regarding the REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA.

No POV fork please, there is only one Kosovo and this is the Republic of Kosovo. There are no 2 different entities, no 2 different locations called Kosovo. This article is about the Republic of Kosovo as Kosovo is now for over a year an independent state recognized by 56 countries including all of his neighbours but Serbia. --84.57.225.100 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow 56 countries. That's barely 25% of the total countries in the world. And many of those recognizing have only done so because of political pressure from the USA. Notable countries which refuse to recognize this crime include Spain, Greece, Cyprus, China, Argentina, Slovakia, New Zealand and of course about 150 other countries. Sure, independence has been declared and some countries have recognized this and the country is not governed by Serbia but it's no independent state.--217.203.166.49 (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Using Sima Ćirković as source

Following the invitation from Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, in 1690, the Serbian Patriarch of Pec Arsenije III claimed that he led 37,000 predominantly Serbian families out of Kosovo and other areas into Austria. More migrations of Orthodox Christians from the Kosovo area preceded and followed throughout the 18th century during the Great Serb Migrations, in addition to the forcible removal of Christian subjects by the Turks as slaves and war booty. In 1766, the Ottomans abolished the Patriarchate of Pec and the position of Christians in Kosovo deteriorated, including full imposition of jizya (taxation of non-Muslims). In contrast, many Albanian chiefs converted to Islam and gained prominent positions in the Turkish regimen. On the whole, "Albanians had little cause of unrest" and "if anything, grew important in Ottoman internal affairs", and sometimes persecuted Christians harshly on behalf of their Turkish masters. The final result of four and a half centuries of Muslim rule was a marked decline in the previously dominant Slavic Christian demographic element in Kosovo. The cause of this demographic shift was manifold. The outward movement of Christians was accompanied by an inward migration of Albanians and other Islamic peoples such as Circassians (with notable anti-Christian sentiments), who often served as auxiliary troops for the Turks. In addition, during Ottoman rule, the distinction between Serb and Albanian was not always clear cut. As Islam became the dominant religion, some Serbs converted to Islam and lost their Serbian identity, and were rather referred to as "Turks" or "Albanians". In the 19th century, there was a "awakening" of ethnic nationalism throughout the Balkans. The ethnic Albanian nationalism movement was centered in Kosovo. This, unfortunately, systemetised the underlying ethnic tensions into a broader struggle of Christian Serbs against Muslim Albanians.

In 1871, a Serbian meeting was held in Prizren at which the possible retaking and reintegration of Kosovo and the rest of "Old Serbia" was discussed, as the Principality of Serbia itself had already made plans for expansions towards Ottoman territory. In 1878, a Peace Accord was drawn that left the cities of Pristina and Kosovska Mitrovica under civil Serbian control, and outside Ottoman jurisdiction, while the rest of Kosovo remained under Ottoman control. In the same year ethnic Albanians formed the League of Prizren, pursuing political aspirations of unifying the Albanian people and seeking autonomy within the Ottoman Empire, although certain Albanian factions wished for a continuance of the Ottoman Empire.

The excerpt above on the article is based mainly on the book “The Serbs”, by Croatian Serb author Sima Ćirković. But as can see here on Amazon, his book shows a clearly pro-Serbian nationalist bias. Should books and authors like these be regarded as trustable sources? Well, I do not think so… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.84.151 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is, do we have a better source than the Serbian sources above? I presume that we don't. So, the book should be used since the most of the information can be checked by alternative sources.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To the user above, please create a user account. For better or for worse, snonymous users who discuss and edit things are usually distrusted on Wikipedia because they may be previously banned users. Also be very careful when you accuse a source of being "pro-Serbian", you better have clear evidence to back up such a claim or your claim will not be taken seriously as these accusations of "pro-Serb" and "pro-Albanian" are commonplace in this article and usually made by users who are biased themselves.--R-41 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken link

Please fix the population broken link .. http://www.ks-gov.net/ESK/eng/ AnteKosova 21:04 , 3 Mars 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

"Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Kosovë; Serbian: Косово or Косово и Метохија, Kosovo or Kosovo i Metohija) is a disputed region in the Balkans. Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo"

If majority of the region is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo then why article do not mention who govern the rest of the region? I suppose it would be Serbs from North Kosovo, but why this is not explained in the introduction? 81.18.48.224 (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A genuine zero-tolerance policy for hatemongering is needed on this article and to block certain users, plus a new focus on information outside of the subject of conflict and war in Kosovo.

As neither an Albanian or a Serb, I have noticed for some time that this article and the discussion page has become utilized by POV-pushing which is deliberately attempting to cast negative villainized views of Albanians or Serbs, or to push beliefs that Kosovo is either part of Serbia or that it has been legitimized as an independent country. I have seen people on this article accuse each other of being "pro-Serb" or "pro-Albanian" and starting vicious arguments. This is hatemongering and baiting people to start arguments, Wikipedia administrators should take an even stronger stand against this hatemongering, for instance the practice of people assuming bad faith (which is banned on Wikipedia) and are accusing each other of being "pro-Serb" or "pro-Albanian" should be stopped entirely, users who continue do this or accuse an entire group of people like "Albanians" or "Serbs" as a whole of committing atrocities or crimes should be banned from Wikipedia. It is understandable to say that certain groups from these nations did crimes, but accusations against an entire nation or ethnic group only serve to cause conflict on the discussion page and make the discussion environment on this article worse for editors who are genuinely commmitted to promoting a neutral and balanced article. If someone has a problem with the content of the article, criticize the content, but NOT THE NATIONALITY OF THE USER or supposed biases by a user towards a nationality. Secondly, Wikipedia administrators should be more strict in being deletionist in regards to controversial material being put on this page to villainize Albanians or Serbs, as I have seen these attempts repeatedly. This does not mean that information on wars or atrocities by these groups towards each other should be ignored in parts of the article regarding conflict, but such material must be backed up by multiple, reliable sources (i.e. DON'T rely on website material that could be made by anyone with unverifiable information, rely on multiple books or articles made by scholars on the subjects). Lastly, editors should write more about other material aside from the history of conflict and war in the region, such as significant historical achievements in Kosovo - be it cultural, scientific, technological, etc. The section on conflict and war in Kosovo should be isolated to one specific section in the article, while other sections can focus on other material without getting entangled into the controversial aspects of conflict and war in Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo, might i inform you, as you prove yourself to be ignorant, is a very important historical part of SERBIA-the albainians HAVE NO right whatsoever to it. I mean, come on, the first serbian school was built there, among other things! As you have pointed out that you are neither albanian our serbian, you really cant imagine how much historical value Kosovo has for me and my fellow serbs. Especially how much it pains us to have something which is a part of us wrenched away from us. Because the first time that happened we did nothing-nikola tesla who was legally a serbian by birth, his notes were lawfully ours(we would have placed them in our national museum. Instead, America decided suddenly, that THEY deserve his notes, which they end up using to create war weapons. Definatly NOT fair. I advise you NOT to make any further comments like this, to avoid being attacked by serbs who think you shouldn't say a thing when you have no idea what your taking about. Let us take care of our affairs, you take care of yours.75.155.170.198 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already under an Arbcom probation as advertised on top of the page. Abusers need simply to be reported to an admin with evidence of disruptive behavior and hatemongering. Húsönd 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User names like "Serbian Defense Forces" also aren't exactly conductive to a peaceful atmosphere of npov. I recognize Serbian Defense Forces (talk · contribs) as an intelligent user who is honest about being partisan, but I would seriously recommend a username change if he wants to be taken at all seriously. And yes, we should also clamp down more decidedly on WP:TALK violations clearly intending to just fuel the fire. There is no age limitation for editing Wikipedia, but we can ask editors to edit as if they were grown-ups. And we can ban those who do not comply. I am willing to slap blocks on any account behaving disruptively, just drop me a note. That said, I do think the article has made good progress and is reasonably stable at this point. This is a great achievement for a topic as badly disupted as this one, so, well done everybody. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern on this matter, but I think that there should be no sympathy for anyone who is deliberatly pushing biases whether or not they are honest in openly declaring those biases. If anything, if they are attempting to show good will by admitting their biases, they must also be willing to accept that some of their views might be wrong. I have been proven wrong by other users on many occasions, but instead of holding the other person in contempt, I learn from my errors and am willing to change my views if the evidence against my views is overwhelming. Other users must do this. As for this article right now, due to controversial topics within it I suggest that it be put through rigorous deletionist measures to get rid of poor sources (i.e. websites not associated with scholarly sources or which have declared or apparent biases like promoting Kosovo independence or websites promoting Kosovo as a Serbian province). I am going to make a start with this, but I do not have the time to constantly do this, so I urge you User dab to help out by trying to get the support of some administrators for them to pay closer attention to any new content that is added to this article - if such material is non-scholarly and dubious it should be scrapped as that is the way that professional people make scholarly work.--R-41 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As a footnote, Kosovo is legally a part of Serbia. Just check the UN Resolution 1244 and it states that it is a UN administered province of Serbia. Legally Kosovo is not a country. I think it should be mutually agreed that it is a United Nations administered province of Serbia. -rmaslic

What gives the UN the right to decide that?76.105.233.104 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have watched a few cases of the kind of uncooperative/disruptive editing that we are aiming to reduce. The problem I think is that too often sane editors assume that other editors are also sane and therefore capable of detached observation and reason. I think that maybe 5-10% of disruptive editors are capable of rational thought when it comes to topics that are personally sensitive to them regarding cultural issues. Perhaps if we could have a team of verified psychologists on wikipedia, we could screen for those not capable of rational thought and ban them from editing. The evaluations could be done on the basis of their comments at talk pages and the nature of their article editing. The people who are disruptive and frequently irrational should not hinder the progress of these kinds of projects. Its only a suggestion of how to enforce what you have described. Cheers. 70.171.22.172 (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Very admirable sentiment R-41. Sadly, most of those doing the disruption I think are personally involved, being Serb or Albania themselves. It's hard to get those disrupting to behave like adults. I guess though if the Wikipedia community just keeps it's eye out we can report these people and make sure they don't alter the article in a negative way Lemniwinks (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the supportive statements above. Thank you. My argument is that it seems like that "pro Serbian" side is being suppressed. For example, this usually doesn't stay too long in the article. Specifically, sources statements like "...Kosovo which is the main transit point for all drugs" seem to disappear instantly. Likewise, this statement wont stay too long in the article "over 200,000 Serbs have been ethnically cleansed by the Albanian authorities". Seriously, even this article talks about how people who say anything negative about Kosovo's separation are labeled "Serbian agents" or "Serb apologists". To end this note on a positive, supportive stance, i support Albanian right to self-determination. Yet I have experienced the media war, that happened against Serbs in 1990's. I know how the game is played. Simultaneously, I feel powerless to cause a serious change in peoples opinion. G-d bless.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How comes Transnistria has its own country box on top but not Kosovo?

Why do we measure in double standards in this case? Transnistria is much more a disputed country than Kosovo as it is not recognised by no other state, nevertheless Kosovo does not have its country box on top! How comes? --84.56.254.172 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. And as always... Transnistria doesn't even have a infobox about the region, it only has ONE infobox, so how can it NOT be on the top? chandler · 17:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why has Kosovo not also just one infobox? Please delete all the other infoboxes, one is enough as shown in the Transnistria case. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It is NOT a double standard, Transnistria is not a region inside of Moldova. Transnistria does not have a UN resolution of it. chandler · 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason you give is very arbitrary. If a region declares independence and gets recognition it deserves the countrybox and no other, just like in many other cases as shown before. Therefore the double standard is undeniable. --84.56.250.27 (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Recognition is relative. Many countries (the majority actually) do not recognize Kosovo as independent, thus we must have different infoboxes that conform to different neutral points of view. This has been discussed multiple times. Húsönd 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to hit the hornets' nest here, but I think the Kosovo situation has evolved/matured somewhat in the past year, and that some decisions made last year could stand to be revisited now. Given that Kosovo has been de facto sovereign for a year now — and that, although its status is still hotly disputed, it is currently recognized by more countries than Taiwan (which has a country box on top) — it seems to me that it's very reasonable to acknowledge the current reality and move Kosovo's country box to the top of the article. If we're comparing Kosovo to the PMR (Transnistria), I would think the case for Kosovo having a prominent country box is stronger than that of the PMR, since the territory of Transnistria is claimed by the Republic of Moldova. Richwales (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The difference with Taiwan is multiple articles (one for the island, one for the country, and one for the PRC region). If the Republic of Kosovo was on Republic of Kosovo the infobox would be at the top, but as I remember it that was shouted down by pro-independence editors. chandler · 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an observer here, but I think the person who brought up the issue has a point. What exactly is the argument against this? Lemniwinks (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Those already stated here and there and there. Other examples don't have other infoboxes of the region (which in most cases isn't the same, here we have 2 entities claiming the exact same region etc), they might have separate articles for the region and the disputed country (which again, as been shouted down by those who wan't the ROK infobox at the top). So therefore the neutral infobox of the region has been chosen over the Republic of Kosovo's and the UN mandate's infoboxes chandler · 05:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And as dab wrote on the first of those archives chandler · 05:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Transnistria does indeed seem to have pov problems. Please come to Talk:Transnistria and help fixing them rather than trying to use them for leverage in introducing pov problems to this article. See also WP:OTHERCRAP. The existence of flawed articles is no excuse for introducing even more flaws.

If other articles have obvious NPOV flaws fix them instead of trying to use them as POV-push tools chandler · 05:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the reason you give not convincing. Kosovo is a country and not a region. --Tubesship (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Most still say its a province. --Local hero 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Most countries still say Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. (Even more countries, I believe, than the number which think Kosovo is still part of Serbia.) This isn't a good enough criterion. Richwales (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is why the article should be SPLIT! You can't cover all the things this article tries to (geographic region, Autonomous Province, UN administration, Republic) in one article without upsetting SOMEONE who thinks that their interpretation should be preeminent. The previous provincial administrations (as part of Yugoslavia) and the 1990s declared republic each have their own page, why not the conflicting modern administrations? Khajidha (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No! Kosovo is a country and includes the region and the geographic, so why should it not be possible to incorporate the "region and the geograpic" as there is no difference at all but they are congruent to each other?! Your reasons are no reasons at all but are only aimed to cause a POV fork. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no POV fork about having a separate article for the history of a region, a region, different historical governments of a region. chandler · 07:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have everything you want if you name it correctly. Kosovo is about the country, no disambiguation, no POV fork. Therefore the country box should be the only one and there is no need for other info boxes, especially not on top of the article. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You say that you don't what any distractions? Then why are you being one. this article is NOT about the country formed in 2008 just so you know, this includes pre-2008 about Kosovo (as in the region). And just so you know it's not a POV fork to split information into articles where they fit. See for example how Macedonia is split... again it is not a POV fork to have a article on the historical region called Kosovo and a separate for a new country. If you think that is a POV fork you better actually find out what it means. Just as the Republic of China, and Taiwan isnt one, PR of China and China isnt one, Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia isn't one, etc etc etc. They are not POV forks and neither would this be. chandler · 08:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And I hope you realise that there are other articles that in your mind surely would constitute POV-forks

1. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946-1974), a province of Serbia
2. Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo (1974-1990), a province of Serbia
3. Republic of Kosova (1990–2000), a self-declared but internationally unrecognised entity
4. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990-1999), a province of Serbia

So you're gonna go and request them to merge with this article right? "no disambiguation, no POV fork.", or do you want to change your mind chandler · 08:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is enough to look at the sorry state of the mentioned articles to understand that they are indeed POV-forks. Colchicum (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Cholchium. It's a shame to see how Wikipedia is getting abused by a few people. --84.56.250.27 (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your example is misleading as the region Macedonia is not congruent with the Republic of Macedonia. I know that you know because this was mentioned before so why do you try persistently to mislead people? --84.56.250.27 (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt have anything to do with it. The country isn't on "Macedonia" even if it's the most common name. That's why Republic of Kosovo can be on Republic of Kosovo. chandler · 12:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your distraction as I already told you about congruency. There is no congruency in case of Macedonia and that's why Macedonia is not about the country and that's why there must be a disambiguation in case of Macedonia. This is not the case in Kosovo, therefore no disambiguation and no POV fork. Kosovo is the country. --84.56.250.27 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you dont know what a POV fork is if you think EVERY split of an article is a POV fork, second your point about "Macedonia is not congruent with the Republic of Macedonia" doesn't matter as the Repulbic of Macedonia in reality is the primary topic people will look for, But because of a small dispute it's not on Macedonia. While this is a much larger dispute at the moment, you're trying to push through your POV (not bothering about the neutral pov) that the whole world has accepted the Republic of Kosovo as a country and as in power of Kosovo, which is NOT the case. chandler · 00:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am tired of your distractions. --84.56.250.27 (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So don't come back, you're a distraction chandler · 11:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Partially recognised country

Shouldn't the lead mention "Kosovo is a partially recognised country" somewhere near the top? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And by mentioning this it should also be annotated that Kosovo has already gained more recognitions than Taiwan. Every day of Kosovos existence nails it firmer on world maps. --84.56.250.27 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It does mention, Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo. And comparison with Taiwan is a thing of simple maths, no need to mention it separately. --Tone 10:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Serbian Terror in Kosovo

Maybe we should expand the article a bit and explain readers that Kosovo Albanians suffered from Serbian terrorism since Kosovo became part of Yugoslavia? I think that issues with Serb terror in Kosovo should be dealt in the article. Thank you. Bosniak (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And the countdown until some Serb poster goes into hysterics over this post begins.Khajidha (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article is a good example for how Wikipedia can be abused by a group of pro Serbian nationalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.255.224 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, anyone want to take bets on the next post after this one, then? I'll give evens for a hystrionic pro-Serb counterpost and 5/2s on another anti-Serb "yeah-you-tell-'em".  ;) The Tom (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The next post will remind everyone to use the talk page to comment on how to improve the article rather than to belittle the opinion of people who have not yet spoken. If there is something someone can add to this discussion that will result in the article being improved, please do so. Otherwise, please avoid fanning the flames.

Thank you! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading some posts is time that seems to be in vain. The article is seriously skewed towards pro-Kosovo seperation from Serbia. Seriously facts, such as K-Albanians burning Serb churches dont make it to the article. Essentially, there are many sources that planly state that the Serb "massacres" in Kosovo were greatly exagurated by the Western Media. Lets Start with that. (This is only for people who know Serbian history very well--->) The top adviser for Milosevic, Jovica Stanisic was working for the CIA. So essentialy, the CIA was calling the shots on the "Serb" side during the conflicts (this is the guy who "conviniently set up a "Serb death squad in Bosnia and taped the killings". This is some truth i share with you. You may wish to consider adding a section about the destruction of Serbian churches. Seems like a relevent thing to add. Lastly, I usually forgive yet I cant forgive stupidity and racism based on false information.Super ZZ 3 (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You remind me of some holocaust deniers. Shame on you. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop the Serbophobia!!! Your comment seems to be someone racist. I will forgive your lack of knowledge on this issue. I lived though this [type] of hell and I know that media is biased. YET this is 2009, and now WIKIPEDIA is biased. This is the new front. G-d bless.Super ZZ 3 (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop defending the racist apartheid regime that existed in Kosovo by telling us lies about the conflict that the serbs are responsible for. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Sebs were under a dicatorship and Serbs protested Slobodan Milosevic. Shows some respect and sympathy. Read [this] and [watch some videos] to learn about a different view on the Kosovos' issues.24.36.148.68 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

serbs protested against Slobo after well deserved bombs fell upon them and Kosovo was freed. And about the genocide see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nusaLngStiI and this: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs.htm --84.56.237.2 (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Education in Kosovo

How come there isn't a section/ chapter on Education in Kosovo? It should include the universities, literacy rating, primary language used in the schools ect Ijanderson (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Because unfortunatley this is no more WP but serbopedia when it comes to Kosovo related articles thanks to some serbophile admins. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to remove some templates

Let's all admit that it completely defaces the article to have three templates on top jumbled together. Enough time has passed that the facts should be respected and fact is that Kosovo declared independence, nobody disputes that. At this point any serious challenge to that independence must come in the form of military action. Let's imagine if there was no US war of independence and instead King George simply said "I dispute your independence I think you are just a province" like the case here. Is this enough? Would we regard the US as a province today in that case? Without a war of independence between Serbia and Kosovo how can it be decided? Serbia had the choice to declare war on Kosovo but they did not, they instead gave implicit approval to the independence. The Wikipedia article should reflect the realities on the ground. If Serbs really beleive that Kosovo is part of Serbia they should send in the police to arrest anyone who says otherwise. Hobartimus (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before this article is being used for three separate concepts, each of which needs its own infobox. The only way to remove the multiple infoboxes is to SPLIT the article and cover each topic separately.Khajidha (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hobartimus and I disagree with Khajidha. Khajidha, you may split but Kosovo will be about the Republic of Kosovo. Make your own article about Metochia or how else the serbian calls whatever they want. This is Wikipedia and not Serbopedia, please respect this fact. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)BTW: You have already Kosmet for your sick serbian propaganda. Please do split, because the existing redirection from Kosmet to Kosovo does not reflect the serbian lies.

Wow, I've never been accused of being a voice for "sick serbian propaganda" before. Actually, I SUPPORT the independence of Kosovo. I made the suggestion of splitting because I felt that it was impossible to get a good Republic of Kosovo article while Serbian posters were constantly forcing it to comply with their ideas of what a Kosmet article should be. AND because it is impossible to get a good Kosmet article with pro-Kosovan posters forcing it to comply with what a Republic of Kosovo article should be. The fact is BOTH views have fairly widespread international currency and BOTH deserve a Wikipedia article. Just as there are SEPARATE articles for the previous (unrecognized) Kosovan state and the previous forms of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, there should be separate articles for the current (partially recognized) Republic of Kosovo and the present Serbian government designated autonomous province. ALL of these articles would be linked to a central article on the geographic region. The central article would acknowledge the ambiguity and direct readers to the different sides. Each individual article would have a short note that explained the ambiguity and then cover the relevant material. That is the Republic of Kosovo article would mention that not all states recognize its independence, but would then present only the RoK data. What is so wrong about that idea?Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats wrong with reflecting reality? I agree that some countries recognise Kosovo as a seperate entity from Serbia yet most countries dont. Khajidha is right on the issue.Super ZZ 3 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to tell us that Taiwan is not independent as it has far less recognition? Honestly? Read the Montevideo Convention, its first sentence of article 3 explicitly states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." --84.56.237.2 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

it was signed by Honduras, United States of America, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Cuba, not a majority of the world countries. Nice argument tho.Super ZZ 3 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you want to tell us that Taiwan is not independent as it has far less recognition? Honestly, stop your distratcion. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times and it took many lengthy discussions for us to reach the 3-infobox compromise solution. It's WP:NPOV, folks. Please don't restart a discussion that won't lead anywhere. Húsönd 11:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is abused and you know that. I am very disappointed that you do want to keep it this way, dear Husond. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC) BTW: In every other language the WP is more NPOV (with the exception of the serbian WP) as they have only one template, the one of the Republic of Kosovo. Don't you think this is something to think about instead of trying to stall any discussion about this shameful pure serbian propaganda article?

Unfortunately it's a very hard question. For example if you insert a picture into this article which is on Commons it is possible for users to attack the picture on commons. In the past such attacks against pictures on Commons happened quite frequently because admins here cannot ban accounts on commons. For example check the file history of this file. Even if this article is fully protected it is still possible for a user to change the map itself on commons. This also happened during a period when the article was fully protected following the declaration of independence. Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and you know what is the most shocking fact? That the worst abusers are administrators or persons who are backed up by administrators! That is really disgusting. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How comes that this article has more in common with the serbian WP than with all other WPs?

Isn't this undoubtably a sign of POV when the english WP together with the serbian WP is the only one that has not the country box template on top? And dear Husond, don't dare to call me a troll again and dear Dieter Bachmann, aka dab, don't dare to block me, as this question is absolutely justified. In opposite, you both are misusing your admin status and I hope someone will hold you accountable for that. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Its clear to me that its pro-Albanian. Look at this [EVENT!!!] Its clearly not in the article because the article is clearly pro-Albanian.24.36.148.68 (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say that this article is probably some sort of frankenstien-ish mixture of pro-serbian and pro-albanian POVs. In short, a horrifying mess. Who else says we should do a facelift? Zazaban (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Se/e/ms fair to do that...24.36.148.68 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues that need to be addressed

These questions need to addressed. who/what/where/why/how 1. Ethnic cleansing of Albanians and Kosovo War massacre 2. Ethnic cleansing of Serbs 3. Destructions of holy sites (Serb/Albanian) 4. Feel free to add issues to this list. Mike Babic (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This article needs an even tighter clampdown on extreme points of view

Once again the talk page is being FILLED with people accusing some editors of being "pro-Albanian" and others of being "pro-Serb". Plus claims of Serbian terrorism which will be followed by accusations of Albanian terrorism. The one fact that is true is that Albanians and Serbs have not have good relations between each other for MANY, MANY years. So these two camps have got to prevented from being allowed to have edit wars with each other on Wikipedia. I have told people in the past to control themselves and criticize the content of what a user is saying, NOT THEIR NATIONALITY, accusing a person of bias without justification simply because of their nationality is xenophobic prejudice. The next time I ever see on this discussion page an accusation by someone of another person being "pro-Albanian" or "pro-Serb", I will send a request to administrators to have this page FULLY BANNED from any amateur users from editing it, then they will have to send their requests for changes to the article to administrators who will decide whether the changes are needed. I believe that the amount of xenophobic hatred between Albanians and Serbs may justify this article being blocked from any non-administrator edits. I have made suggestions in the past on this talk page for ways to have moderate edits which respect different points of, but they have been ignored. They have been ignored because of a large number of completely immature and biased users, particularly Albanians and Serbs who are emotionally attached to the content of this article. This is a final warning to those users who refuse to cooperate and insist on accusing one side of being ostensibly evil and the other side of being innocent: stop this biased and immature behaviour immediately or I will request that this article be blocked from any non-administrator users from editing it. Don't make up excuses. Just stop the negative behaviour NOW!--R-41 (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Although there is a debate going on between Albanian and Serb editors, it is constructive. As exemplified above, there are many valid facts that are brought to the light when such debates occure. More importantly, it allows us to add to the article both sides of the story by discussing both sides. Creating a rigid, top-down authoritative system is counter-productive to the spirit of wikipedia. Moreover, it allows "administrators" to have an overriding say in what reflects "reality". Thus, it will allow for a concentration of editing power. This will undoubtfully lead to a more skewed article.Mike Babic (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mike Babic, you may very well be a good-intentioned user, but the use of terms "pro-Albanian" and "pro-Serb" by multiple users to denounce a point of view are predjudicial because how can one assert what the view of an entire nationality is on a topic, people are individuals with varying beliefs, even if they do agree in some way with something. All that I am requesting is that the prejudicial accusations of "pro-Albanian" or "pro-Serb" stop. If they do not stop, I will address this to Wikipedia administrators. This article was put in lockdown after Kosovo's government declared independence because fanatic partisans who favoured Kosovo's government or Serbia were fighting non-stop edit wars on the issue of independence. The administrators put the article on a temporary block from non-administrator user edits until the crisis of edit warring died down. That decision was a good decision, passions were too inflamed immediately after the Kosovo government's declaration of independence. If edit wars are going to return to this article, then the administrators should be informed and appropriate action should be taken. This article is already under watch, but immature users are still fighting. It is up to the users' actions to determine whether they can become more constructive or fall into edit warring, if the second choice is the case, measures must be taken to stop it.--R-41 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

map

The Republic of Kosovo infobox seems to have a map which does not have clear border lines.

This is the only infobox in this whole article the should be doing justice to the Independent State has a map which still shows it as a province of Serbia.

Please can you admins change this map to the one that is use in the CIA World Fact book.

Even though everyone knows that Wikipedia is edited by people, they still look at wikipedia as a main source of information. For this reason i urge all editors of the Kosovo article to make a compromise and only have one infobox (Republic of Kosovo) or to split the article into as many sub-categories as are needed but making sure that the main Kosovo article should be replaced by the Republic of Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.168.57 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the serbs should make their own article named Kosmet, like I proposed. This seems to me to be the only way to get this article right again. At the moment it is unbearable POVis pro-serbian propaganda. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

this has been discussed. On the other hand, rhe article is definety pro-Albanian (doesnt include the destruction of Serbian churches, the drug and crimes in Kosovo, etc).24.36.148.68 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You may include the destrucion if you mention that the few destructed churches are all build up again, in opposite to the destructed mosques in serbia, as they are all destructed and no one still exists there. Again, please answer how it comes that the English and serbian WP are the only ones with more than one info box. Thank you. --84.56.237.2 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

O man, lets put aside the fact that Albanians sided with the [Nazis] and commited ethnic cleansing in WW2 and that this isnt in the article. Lets put that aside. I want you to know that I respect Albanians since I know that they are being misguided. Above all, there are 3 info boxes since this reflects reality. A number of countries accept Kosovo seperations from Serbia yet also a number of countries see Kosovo as defined by the UN charter, Kosovo as part of Serbia. This is reflected in the 3rd info box (3rd since it usually goes in translation English version, Albanians version and then, at the end Serbian version). This article is clearly pro-Albanian.Mike Babic (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What sides the Albanian government (read: government, not ethic group, which is not a cognitively unified entity and thus cannot chose sides as a whole) took in WW2 is completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It's like bringing up Hitler while discussing something that Germany did in the last ten years. Zazaban (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Understandable, my point is that Albanian Kosovo "as a country" was first constructed by Hitler when K-Albanians sided with Hitler while Serbs popular support was anti-Nazi at that time. Since this is not mentioned, this is my support for illustrating my view of this article as being pro-Albanian. Another support would be the fact that K-Albanians as the poorest region in Yugoslavia got large amount of funding for schools, hositals, road, factories, etc. Over $1 million USD per day, back in 1990's went to construct Kosovo which was largly Albanian. Although largly Albanian, it wasnt 90% Albanian, it was lets guesstimate 80%. Thus, it is interesting to learn, that the method of removal of those 10% of Serbs from Kosovo is also not described in the article. Its somewhat clear that I'm baseing my view of this article on supportive facts that are not present in the article. Facts that should be present yet I dont care to write them since over time they will become present in the article.24.36.148.68 (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To say that Kosovo independence move was created by Adolf Hitler is simply absurd — there is no serious historian (outside of the Balkans) that would believe this history. And, to make things clear, most of the killed people during the 1998-1999 Kosovo War were the Albanian-speaking Kosovars, not the Serbs or any other people of the region — and this is confirmed by all the forensics and the by the experts of ICTY, too.

The most massive people expulsion during the Kosovo war was also perpreted on Kosovar Albanians, too — the immense refugee camps in Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia weren’t mirgae, and contrary to Milosevic’s propaganda the Kosovar Albanians wer not fleeing NATO bombs, but Serb military and paramilitary forces — including the ones commanded by Arkan.

So, it seems like if anyone talks about common sense here is labelled “anti-Serb”, but if others say here that Kosovar Albanians were Muslim “Nazis in the past, Al Qaeda today”, nobody says a thing.--201.52.99.144 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Pec put first and then in brackets (Peja)? The same goes for Kosovska Mitrovica!? We here, that represent the reality and the only authority in Republic of Kosova, do not name our cities like that! The only ones that calls those cities like that are a minority! Surely youd want to name a city by how the authority in Republic of Kosova has named it, and as well as how the majority of Kosovars name it. Thus I propose to put albanian names for our cities, and put the bosnian/serbian ones in brackets cause obviosly I dont want them to feel left out. They too live here, but as a minority, they are the ones that should be put in brackets, not us the majority in Kosova Republic DiedonD (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo not a country officially.

This article should not be about pro-albanian or pro-serb arguments. I would however like to point out that Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations, unlike all recognised countries. The fact that Serbs massacred Albanians should not be ignored, the actions were despicable. Since Kosovo's declaration of independence, the Albanians have a large majority and there is still alot of tension with the Serb minority, the Kosovan government needs to maintain order and protect the Serb minorities or else they shall come under the same scrutiny as the Milosevic regime. Kosovo has seen enough bombs and we don't need to see the same situation but played the other way round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.6.103 (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Serbian views on the past 20years can be summarised by this http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5973 website.Mike Babic (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, both the United States and many European countries have recognized Kosovo. [16] Nonamer98 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your statment. That should be added to the article. Yet that doesnt mean that a point proveing that Serbs were demonized in the media during the war should be removed. That should be mentioned. Also you might not realise the significance of that picture in the article, but I do.Mike Babic (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To Talk about “demonization of Serbs” as a fact in the article is POV. Other thing to be clear about is that Kosovo is a partially-recognized country — with the USA, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Croatia, Macedonia and other countries recognizing its government, passports, flags and borders. And, in fact, if we see in other versions of Wikipedia, the only two versions that show Kosovo as a part of Serbia is the Serb Wikipedia and the English-language Wikipedia.

And one more time, the facxt that Kosovo is not in the UN would mean it isn’t a country. Switzerland was out of UN until the 21st century, and Taiwan left in 1971 — but both are considered countries. About recognition, Israel is not recognized by most of the Arab World, which in many times describe Israel as a mere “Zionist occupation of Palestine”. But no one serious says Israel does not exist as a country.

So, before invoking passions, think before writting, please.--201.52.99.144 (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my motivational speech for a more neutral artiucle....Listen, I'm 100 hard core into politics. This could be my medication talking yet I want you to know that I just had surgery that will imporve the quality of my speech since I'm grooming myself to become an politician. To add, I want you to know that I have lived though an ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Krajina. I know what the media in western country was reporting, and what was realisticlly happening. You can't argue against the demonization of Serbs in the 1990's by citing your opinion. Demonization of Serbs did happen in the media in order to allow the military to engage targets without protest. As shown in the article, the media reporting of 200,000 Albanians dead turned out to be less than 2000 in the years leading up to the bombing. The fact that the media lied should be added to the article. The fact that 2000 Albanians died should be added to the article. We also need to add the statement of the British Defense Secretary George Robertson, who stated that most of those 2000 Albanians in the pre-war period were "victims of the KLA rather than the Serbs". Yes, KLA killed Gorani (Muslims in Kosovo) and all other Albanians who did not want for Kosovo to seperate from Serbia. Now, my main drive for writing all this, is for the Serbs to stop being killed in the Kosovo and for our 1000 year old churches to stop being burned down. Above all, you need to stop complaing when I add sources such as the one above because I want the hatred of Albanian and Serbian people to stop. Now listen carefully, I dont belive In my Serbian goverment now, just like I didnt belive that Slobodan Milosevic was acting in the interest of Serbs. Thus, I want you to know that you need to write truth, without regards to whos cause it will help. This is the only way for the article to improve and for us to stop this hate. For example, you may noy like the fact that Serbia paid out millions of dollars to build Kosovo schools and hospitals, etc, yet this is a fact. Just like its a fact that all Albanians enjoyed stated sponsored, Albanians langauge TV, and Albanian langauge schools who were also sponsored by the Belgrade during most of the 20th century. Yet allow for these facts to enter the article. This is what will save your people. Kosovo is headed into becoming a mining country that will be filled with slave labour. This labour will be proivided by the local population. Already Serbs are economiclly being forced to sign up for US Army and go fight in Iraq since this is the only way for them to survive and send their family money. Lastly, I wish to say that certain groups working on this board, especially these [groups http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23219277/], will be recognised and exposed in an instant. I dont mind when people add pro-Albanians stuff, even if the article is still pro Albanians, yet they should also add some pro-Serbian stuff since this is the only way for our people to connect.Mike Babic (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Kosovo IS a country, officially. It is recognized by more than 50 countries. Of course it's a country. You don't have to be a UN member to be a country. Kosovo already has recognition by the most powerful and the most democratic countries in the World.Bosniak (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I see China, Russia, India, perhaps even Brazil, Spain, Saudi Arabia and Iran as pretty powerful... But yes the most democratic countries, we do recognize Kosovo (everyone in the top 10 except New Zealand at least) chandler ··· 07:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please participate in a vote to determine the future copyright terms of Wikimedia projects (vote ends May 3, 2009). Vote now! [Hide]

[Help us with translations!]

Please participate in a vote to determine the future copyright terms of Wikimedia projects (vote ends May 3, 2009). Vote now! [Hide]

[Help us with translations!]

Palestinian territories are also recognised by a lot of countries, even Canada I think. The question with Kosovo right now is if the 1244 is still active. If it is, then Kosovo is 100% Serbian, if its not then it's a country.24.36.148.68 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Is a country defined by other countries or by itself is the relevant question. If the existence of a country is defined by how outsiders view it, then Kosovo is part of Serbia (UN Security Council 1244). If a country is defined by the people who actually live there, then Kosovo is a country (Kosovo declaration of independence). It all comes down to whether territorial integrity or self-determination is considered more important, both have been considered to be of paramount importance in international relations. Khajidha (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:History of Kosovo

There is an attempt to use the Coat of Arms of the Republic of Kosovo as the symbol for the entire Kosovo region currently taking place on Template:History of Kosovo. Not only that, but the template makes no mention of the dispute and goes on to characterize the current state of affairs in Kosovo by calling it "Republic of Kosovo". In essence, the template completely ignores WP:NPOV and the fact that most of the world does not recognize the "Republic of Kosovo" or its Coat of Arms as representative for the entire region of Kosovo. I'd like to invite users involved in these affairs to have a look at this dispute. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad English

"Serbs hold a strong cultural attachment to Kosovo and see it as the cultural heartland of Serbia, here a World War I poster - “Kossovo Day” from 1916 inviting to solidarity with the Serbia's allies." That's bad English. --130.243.148.247 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Double as much supporters for Kosovo at the ICJ

http://www.ora-online.ch/index.php/kosova/270-doppelt-so-grosse-unterstuetzung-fuer-kosovo-vor-igh says that about 20 countries will support Kosovo and only half as much will support Serbia in the courtroom. The problem that I wanted to point out is that many users say that Kosovo is not a state and refuse the using of signs of its statehood, for example the country box as it is on top of every country by stating that most countries do not recognize Kosovos independence. It seems they are wrong and they should at least admit now that most countries neither recognize nor not recognize, like New Zealand, for example. Therefore there are more countries that do recognize compared to the countries that do not recognize. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

UN Charter Resolution 1244 clearly states that Kosovo is a part of Serbia. The present goverment of Kosovo is part of the a Provisional Institutions of Self-Government which is outlined in the resulutuion 1244. Also, the EULEX "works under the general framework of United Nations Security Resolution 1244", as found on their site. My point is that 1244 is 100% in force and with this Kosovo is seen legaly as a province of Serbia by all countrie unless othewise stated. Those countries that did recognise the seperation of Kosovo are in direct violation of 1244 and they do so at the risk of being sued by Serbia. Thus, here on Wikipedia, we need to mention that some countries recogniuse the sepeartion of Kosovo while the majority of the world continue to see Kosovo as legaly a Serbian province. This seems to be reflective of reality and acceptable to Serbs and Albanians.Mike Babic (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

These numbers shown us at the ICJ prove exactly what I said from the beginning and disprove your claims as there are more countries in favor of Kosovas independence than against it and most countries are just still indifferent. However, time is on Kosovas side, every day nails Kosova firmer on the maps. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The UN resolution 1244 do not states, in any part, that Kosovo is part of Serbia — in fact, it states that Kosovo is a part of Yugoslavia (by then, a non-UN member that was not recognized by USA as the sucessor state of Communist Yugoslavia) which would be out of political and military control of Belgrade and with institutions of self-governemnt until a resolution of its political status is defined. And the resolution 1244 was adopted by the UN Security Council, not by the UN General Assembly. So to define that “the majority of the countries of the world recognize Kosovo as part of Serbia” is not very precise to say the least, since many countries could be neutral in relation to the Kosovo’s independence question.--BalkanWalker (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

sheesh. statehood is not a popularity contest. Well, it may be, but you need to be popular enough to get UN recognition. Kosovo doesn't have that. There are promising signs that it may get there. Which means we will properly reflect the fact once it becomes reality, per WP:CRYSTAL. For now, the very fact that Kosovo's statehood is debated in front of an international court establishes that this is a dispute hence Wikipedia will continue to treat Kosovo as a disputed territory. --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dieter Bachmann, you live in Switzerland, you have to know that Switzerland itself was not a UN member until recently, so this is not an argument at all when it comes to statehood. And while talking about reality, Kosovo's independence is fait accompli. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The point isn't membership but recognition. If you know of any national or international body disputing the statehood of Switzerland later than 1648, I'd love to hear about it. dab (𒁳) 11:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just face it, there is more support for Kosovo at the ICJ and resolution 1244 does not rule out independence as it does not states, in any part, that Kosovo is part of serbia, like BalkanWalker wrote. Everything else is nonsense - or serbian nationalistic propaganda denying the reality. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am facing it. Things are looking bright for you aren't they. This means that maybe in five years or so, the RoK might get full international recognition. Feel free to come back once this happens. Until then, WP:CRYSTAL. See you around 2014. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This will be short and simple. Resolution 1244 was signed by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia has all legal rights and responsibilities of that dissolved state. 1244 reaffirm the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia and this is a fact. The new agreement, Eulex agreement signed by the government of Kosovo is also under 1244, as cited in my post above. To add, the actual government of Kosovo functions under one of the pillars of the 1244 that calls for Provisional Institutions of Self-Government.Mike Babic (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If partisan, POV-pushing Albanian and Serb nationalists keep this argument up about whether Kosovo is independent or whether it is not, it will not matter because then it will become an edit war and this article will have to be put in lockdown. Albanian and Serb nationalists should not be trusted as objective observers of the situation. There is only one objective reality, and that is that most Albanians and Serbs ABSOLUTELY HATE EACH OTHER. I posted the sociological studies from the Tito-era on this article that indicate that Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo did not like each other in peacetime and there were few intermarriages or friendships between the two ethnic groups. Albanian nationalists see the Serbs as trying to occupy their land, Serbian nationalists see Kosovo as being occupied by Albanians. The only fact of the matter is that the two sides are completely unreconciliable, most Albanians hate Serbs and most Serbs hate Albanians. Xenophobia between ethnic and religious groups is strong in the Balkans and xenophobic nationalism is commonplace. SO, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS AT THE U.N., ALBANIAN NATIONALISTS WILL SAY KOSOVO IS THEIRS AND SERB NATIONALISTS WILL SAY KOSOVO IS THEIRS, THERE IS NO WINNER! If this article is just being used as a blog for such xenophobic Albanian and Serb nationalists to vent their hate of each other, this article should be shut off to all non-administrator users as it was after the declaration of independence by the Kosovo government in 2008. SO LET'S JUST STATE THE FACTS ABOUT THE SITUATION IN KOSOVO, KOSOVO IS A REGION WITH TWO ETHNIC FACTIONS THAT HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF HATRED TOWARDS EACH OTHER. THEY HAVE BOTH COMMITTED WAR CRIMES AGAINST EACH OTHER BECAUSE THEY HATE EACH OTHER, THE END! Every time that I see an Albanian nationalist or Serb nationalist say "this is pro-Serb", "this is pro-Albanian", "this is anti-Serb", or "this is anti-Albanian", I will post the capitalized statement on the situation of Kosovo, because that is the ultimate reality of the situation. Kosovo is a disputed territory just like Kashmir, East Jerusalem, Chechnya, South Ossetia, Somaliland, and the Tamil regions of Sri Lanka. Thus Kosovo is not some special place that defies the laws of gravity (metaphorically speaking of course), it is just like any other disputed land. Multiple factions contest the land and hate each other. The sooner that Albanian and Serb nationalists recognize that their dispute is not unique, perhaps they will be less arrogant in asserting their claims.--R-41 (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's it. But you can say it much shorter: If there is no consensus in a marriage the consequence is divorce. Such a pity serbs seem not to accept this divorce. But they must, there is no other way. The sooner they accept it, the better for them. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

that's not what R-41 said. Ethnic hatred or a separatist movement do not make for a successful secession. The point is that for the purposes of Wikipedia, we let the real world take care of the real-world problem. We are not part of the solution, we merely report on what is happening. For the time being, we report the territory as disputed because, as this talkpage illustrates so effectively, it happens to be disputed. That's all there is to say about it until there is some major development out there in the real world. --dab (𒁳) 12:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems you missed to realize that the divorce already happend, like many serbs. And guess what? Some will never realize. They lost contact with reality, like you did. ;) --84.56.253.226 (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Now, if there is anything you want to say regrading the improvement of this article within WP:TALK, now would be a good time. Otherwise I think we can conclude this discussion. --dab (𒁳) 15:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there is something I want to point out in the article, it is written: "On the other hand, the proclamation of independence is not recognised by the majority of UN countries" and I showed that this is just not true, see the sayings of New Zealands Prime Minister about neither recognizing nor not recognizing and about the numbers at the ICJ which are proving his sayings. How often do I have to repeat that and how long will you continue to deny the reality? --Tubesship (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so the anon is not anonymous after all. Tubesship, you should be well-aware that sock puppetry is a serious breach of policy. Stop editing as an IP if you do not want to get yourself blocked. — Emil J. 09:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you like show me where it is written that one is obliged to log in instead of trying to intimidate others, please? <°((((< --84.56.253.226 (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You use the IP mostly for inflammatory POV-pushing on talk pages of various Kosovo-related articles. That falls under WP:GHBH. In any case, the policy page recommends you (see the lead section) to provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry, and you did not do that. — Emil J. 15:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My IP is an IP and not an alternative account. Stop arguing with me and stay on topic. You use this as a distraction from the discussion. The discussion is about Kosova and the fact that not announcing a recognition does not mean an opposition towards recognition as I have shown with the numbers at the ICJ. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC) BTW: The main reason not to log in is to avoid others vandalizing my personal talk page as this happend in the past, but that it off topic, so let us stay focused.

The policy applies whenever you use two or more different identities, it does not matter whether it is a real account or only an IP address. You can see for yourself how many of the socks reported on WP:SPI are IPs. There are efficient ways of dealing with vandalism on your talk page, or any other page for that matter, see WP:Vandalism. — Emil J. 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

58 UN members recognize the RoK. The UN has 192 member states. You do the math. But I agree this "majority" business is misleading, because the majority of these states is completely irrelevant to the question. The point ist that Russia and China refuse to recognize it, and until that changes, there is no way forward. Kosovo is under UN administration and policed by the EU. It is by no stretch of the term in any way a sovreign or self-governed entity, nor does it remain under Serbian control. Kosovo is a disputed territory under UN administration. The two parties in the dispute are the Repubic of Serbia (recognized by all of the UN) and the Republic of Kosovo (recognized by some states but not by others). This is the "reality" and you are the one trying to deny it in favour of your fantasy about a possible future. And I say this not as a "pro-Serb" partisan. Personally, I would like nothing more than a stable and independent Kosovo if this would mean that Europe could finally be excused from having to babysit half the Balkans. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dieter Bachmann, we live in a free world where neither Russia nor China can act like dictators over the world. They might be dictatorships at home but not when it comes to the globe, even if you may find this pity. You may try to create a dictatorship in your country if you like, but do not advocate it here on Wikipedia, please. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We live in a world where the nuclear powers, i.e. the permanent members in the UN security council, call the shots on any geopolitical question. That is, you get your independent Kosovo as soon as the US, Russia, China and a bunch of Europeans agree that this is the way it's going to be. I am sorry to shatter your delusions about the "free" world where any happy-go-lucky party of irredentists can go and declare themselves independent and live happily ever after, I do not endorse or "advocate" this as the way it should be, but this happens to be the world where "we live". You may consider the Russians or the Chinese, or even the US, check as applicable, evil buggers, but that doesn't change anything. Now if there is anything you want to discuss that pertains to this article, bring it up already. --dab (𒁳) 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to the one anonymous user's claim that Kosovo's independence was like a divorce in saying: "If there is no consensus in a marriage the consequence is divorce", my response is that even a divorce in most societies requires a legal division of assets and decision of responsibility over children between the two parties. As of yet, Kosovo is in dispute because the division of assets has not been accepted and the metaphorical divorce paper and decision of responsibility over the Serb population (like the issue of responsibility over children in a divorce) has not been agreed to by Serbia. I am not attempting to promote Serbia's case, but I am saying that Kosovo's separation is indeed like a divorce, but there is a dispute over Kosovo's seizure of the assets and population claimed by Serbia (i.e. Kosovo Polje, Serbian Orthodox monastaries, the Serb population and the territories they reside in), that is why it is a disputed separation. The fact that both Albanian and Serb nationalists don't respect each others' respective claims is why the dispute exists. On Wikipedia we are only to report what is fact, WE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE JUDGEMENTS IN THE ARTICLE ON THE COUNTRIES THAT SUPPORT OR OPPOSE KOSOVO'S INDEPENDENCE, WE CAN ONLY SAY THAT THEY DO OR DO NOT! SO IT IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS TO JUDGE THEM. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO JUDGE THESE COUNTRIES, GO AND TALK ON SOME BLOG OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA ABOUT IT, BUT DON'T TAKE UP SPACE ON AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ABOUT IT! If fair was fair in my mind, Kosovo would be independent but Serbia would get a partition of Serb-populated Mitrovica and Kosovo Polje linked to Serbia with a roadway that would officially connect it to Serbia like Goražde is to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it's too bad that most Albanian and Serb nationalists are too stubborn and arrogant to take an idea like this into consideration, "c'est la vie" (French: "that is life").--R-41 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

R-41, I do not know how much you know about Kosovas history, but maybe you do not know that Kosova already gave up, or should I better say had to give up most of its territory. Do you know that Skopje was the capital city of Kosovo? No? So look here: Kosovo Vilayet. Should Kosovo ask for reconciliation as it lost so much territory? I don't think so, neither should serbia. And no, Bosnia is not a role model, you know that it does not work well as it is a crippled state in which the entities are blocking each other. No, the Kosovars do not want anything from serbia and serbia should not want anything from Kosova. Revenge was never healthy. --84.56.253.226 (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

R-41 I hate the admins-only-edit idea. It's not what Wikipedia is about and it seems like this article is not being vandalized at all. On the other hand, your divorce analogy explaines a complex issue in simple terms, and i want to praise that by saying good job. Kosovos "republic or provincial status"classification is complex since there are two sides (pro-anti seperation) that have equal reputable states supporting thier views. Kosovo is best classified currently as a DISPUTED REGION. I urge people to reflect reality in this article. Also, sensitive issues without solid supporting (issues that are hard to understand and are twisted by the two opposing sides, Albaniand and Serb, respectivly ) need not be added, or their prominance in the article should be kept in check by the admins.Mike Babic (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

the divorce metaphor is a good one, but this isn't about Kosovo the territory divorcing form Central Serbia the territory, it is Serbia's ethnic Albanians divorcing Serbia's ethnic Serbs. And it is one ugly divorce. Now Kosovo the territory in this simile represents the divorcing couple's kids, or wealth. The Kosovo question is, then, who gets to keep what. Does the beaten wife walk away with all the money? Is the property shared equally? Or according to some key (you keep southern Kosovo, we keep northern Kosovo; you get 90% of the territory, we retain 10%)? In a divorce, these things are decided by a court of law. A divorce doesn't work like "I hate you, I'm leaving you, oh and I'm keeping all your money", but most of our Albanian editors seem to think that this is exactly how it works. Now of course the metaphor breaks down because there is no universally accepted court of law. The closest thing the world has is the UN, and it is precisely for this reason that Wikipedia will begin treating the Republic of Kosovo on equal footing with any other independent state from the exact moment as there is a UN resolution doing the same: not before, and not any later than this. Counting individual countries recognizing or not recognizing is like polling the couple's friends to see whether the husband or the wife is to blame. So what if the wife has more friends saying the husband is a bastard, or vice versa? It is still the court of law that has the final word on who walks away with the kids and the money. If (if!) the ICJ endorses the secession, this may be a first step (first step!) in a process towards a UN resolution recognizing the RoK. Please. This will take time. Wikipedia will list Kosovo as a disputed territory as long as things are up in the air, Albanian protests notwithstanding, and it will treat the RoK as an independent country on equal footing with Israel as soon as we see the UN resolution, Serbian protests notwithstanding. This is what npov policy dictates, and no amount of ethnic bickering on talkpages is going to have any effect on it. It is really futile to keep arguing about this. --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment about my metaphor. And no, I do not think that any side owns anything to the other side. See what I wrote about the huge loss of territory of Kosova Vilayet. The same goes to Germany as they lost their eastern parts to Poland, Königsberg even to russia. But revisionism is never the way to a peaceful future. We do not ask for reconciliation, nor should the serbian side dare to ask anything from the Kosovars. Just let the wounds heal. You know, time is a healer. If divorce is accepted. Unconditionally. --Tubesship (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:dab. NPOV policy is essential and we have no right on Wikipedia to declare who deserves anything. I see hypocrisy in the one nationalistic statement made by the anon user who said "the Kosovars do not want anything from serbia and serbia should not want anything from Kosova. Revenge was never healthy." But it is the Albanian nationalists' intention to get revenge on the Serbian government by separating, as are the actions of most nationalists. Why? Because if their goal was not revenge they would have cooperated to sooth relations between Albanians and Serbs to deliver constructive justice, no matter what the denials by the Serbian government and Serb nationalists, because they would have the moral high ground to not incite further revenge by alienating Serbs in Kosovo. But that was not and never has been the goal of most Albanian nationalists, just as reconciliation has never been the goal of most Serb nationalists. Nationalism is about separation, segregation, and assimilation - even in the most noblest of causes, this causes dissent amongst those who do not want to assimilate or those who do not want to be segregated from another group of people, this is why nationalism commonly leads to war. Like I said, even the most benevolent nationalists like Mahatma Gandhi failed to unite the people of colonial India because there was little will amongst most Muslim people and Sikh people to be assimilated into a Hindu-dominated society, thus conflict has since exploded. To me, nationalism is a naive and immature ideology, and I used to be a Canadian nationalist so I know this. And to those who claim that nationalism can provide social justice, why not apply social justice to all people in the world rather than just one nation? There is no rational and non-emotional answer to this, only excuses. So nationalism is inherently not about social justice it is about separation, segregation, and assimilation, that's why it causes conflict amongst groups, And that's why Albanian and Serb nationalists; Indian and Pakistani nationalists, Canadian and Quebecois nationalists; and Hutu and Tutsi nationalists (in Rwanda) have been in conflict and vicious cycles of revenge, because nationalism's nature incites such conflict and revenge. The solution to each of these conflicts is to get both sides to STOP demanding revenge or "retributive justice" as some people sugarcoat revenge as; and instead have rehabilitative justice of both sides recognizing that they both have made mistakes that agitated both sides that started the conflict and hatred in the first place. Separation and segregation does not solve the problem. In addition, it does not matter whether either side is fully and immediately committed to such action, it takes time, but in the meantime, revenge MUST BE STOPPED. If they aren't willing to stop murdering each other, that's why peacekeepers go in, to stop their immoral actions. Now that that is said, I have described why I and hopefully others should question the judgement and justifications presented by nationalists and to understand why the dispute in Kosovo is not a local phenomenon but an international phenomenon caused by the factional nature of nationalism itself. And lastly Balkan nationalists should not feel sorry for themselves, they could have lived together if they wished to, their country was not in the worst shape in the world, it was better off than many other countries. But they wanted revenge of old disputes that took up the world's time and attention to solve and prevented the world from rallying resources to stop the Rwandan Genocide that was a conflict that was on the verge of exploding in a country where the poverty facing all of its people explained why radical ideas could easily catch on. 800,000 to 1,000,000 people died in the Rwandan genocide (that's about 20% of the total estimated population of Rwanda at the time) and the man who attempted to stop it, Romeo Dallaire says it happened because people were so distracted by the Balkans wars and by racist views of black Rwandans being less worthy of help than white ex-Yugoslavians. Dallaire is correct, the Rwandan Genocide could have been stopped if the wars in the former Yugoslavia had not erupted over petty differences and opportunism of nationalist political leaders in the former Yugoslavia. So I say that the arrogant and bigoted Balkans nationalists of any faction deserve no respect, only the victims and the families of the victims of those who actually suffered in the Balkans wars do deserve respect.--R-41 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned Mahatma Gandhi and indeed we had our Gandhi called Rugova. We tried everything to reach peacefully an agreement to overcome the apartheid, we tried it for many years without violence and only as a last resort Kosovars began to fight. This fight was for freedom and NATO helped us to free Kosova. What you try is revisionism as it is now a decade that Kosova was freed, so it's time to get over it, you won't turn the clock back. And never say again, we did not try it peacefully at first. --Tubesship (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say one thing, since this is not a disscusion blog about poltics. Majority of Serbs hated Milosevic, for exaple see the protests in Serbia in 1996-1997 BEFORE the Kosovo War. Milosevicess key secret police advisor during the Kosovo war, Jovica Stanisic, was a CIA AGENT as this link will prove. . My point. I studied how the world works and i figured most of events in the Balkans and why they happened. Serbs are not to blame, so dont use wikipedia to attack a nation of people. Kosovo is a disputed region and should be treated as such. Also, please take a look at my evidence which is numerous, and remember when editing that the CIA was calling the shots in the ex-Yugoslavia and not the Serbian people who had little or no control in the political matter.Mike Babic (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To Tubeship, I said that nationalism AS AN IDEOLOGY LEADS to violence because it involves separation, segregation, and assimilation of human beings into artificial factions and some people who do not identify with such factions do not want to be part of them, the solution then is partition or war. Nationalists MAY initially be peaceful but their ideology can never bring social justice for humanity. India's nationalism began as peaceful and now it is violent against Pakistan just as Pakistani nationalism initially tried to be peaceful and indeed initially got a peaceful partition from India, but there was a dispute over Kashmir. Even Germany's nationalism began as a liberal nationalism meant to respect human rights, but as everyone knows it mutated into a genocidal regime led by the Nazis. And in the words of a notable refugee from Nazi-run Germany, Albert Einstein, "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." By the way Tubeship, your use of the word "we", who does that refer to, "we" mean every Kosovar, does it mean every Albanian Kosovar, does it mean every human. Did every Kosovar, Albanian Kosovar, or every human "try it peacefully" at first? How can you assume such things? Besides Albanian and Serb Kosovars hated each other for decades, it is a documented fact in Tito-era studies acknowledged by the United Nations, ever since Albania became independent, Albanians and Serbs have quarreled over Kosovo. And as I so admire Gandhi I say that his refusal to support any act of violence in response to violence is notable. It is unfortunate that Kosovo's Gandhi, Rugova could not work things out, and I admire him for trying, but like Gandhi, one good person cannot truly control nationalism, nationalism ends up controlling society and the leaders must harness what already exists. In my country in 1995, Canadians and Quebeckers witnessed in a referendum on independence for Quebec the Quebec nationalists beginning the campaign saying that an independent Quebec would be inclusive, but when people like Aboriginals and English Canadians did not want to be part of an independent Quebec the campaign turned ugly. At the end, the Quebec nationalist leader, Jacques Parizeau, who had claimed at the beginning of the campaign that Quebec would be inclusive, blamed the defeat of the independence "yes" side on "money and the ethnic vote" and promised that French Quebeckers would eventually have their "revenge" on Canada. That was a change in a few MONTHS! So, inclusive nationalism commonly degenerates to exclusive nationalism, because the only truly inclusive nation is humankind. Also it is NEVER TIME to get over and forget mistakes, it is only time to acknowledge them, and find peaceful means to ensure that they do not happen again and get over old hatreds.--R-41 (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I will get back on focus, but here are some quotes for some nationalists to remember:

"To him in whom love dwells, the whole world is but one family." Buddha.

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." Charles de Gaulle, leader of the Free French forces in World War II.

"Borders are scratched across the hearts of men

By strangers with a calm, judicial pen,

And when the borders bleed we watch with dread

The lines of ink across the map turn red." Marya Mannes

"Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched." Guy de Maupassant.

"It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens." Baha'u'llah, founder of the Bahá'í Faith.--R-41 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

R-41, I see that and why you as a Canadian are biased when it comes to Kosova as you link its case to the referendum on independence for Quebec. Anything else than this bias cannot explain your far-fetched implication of Kosovas struggle to overcome apartheid with nationalism a la Nazi Germany. You say: “Also it is NEVER TIME to get over and forget mistakes, it is only time to acknowledge them, and find peaceful means to ensure that they do not happen again and get over old hatreds”, but would you dare to say this to the Holocaust survivors, too? Get your facts straight, there was a good reason why serbs were bombed out of Kosova by NATO. So dear R-41, stop equating victims and perpetrators and to Babic: Stop your conspiracy theory about the CIA, they were not responsible for the apartheid regime in Kosova but serbs were. --Tubesship (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are "good reasons" why Serbs were bombed. Two words come to mind, Camp Bondsteel and Kosovo mineral deposits. BTW, this should be added to the article. This is the citation, dare I ask someone who claims to be free from bias to enter this into the article. I would greatly appreciate the effort since I'm not sure that I could add it without being biased a little since I'm a citizen of Serbia. http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=l8437&PHPSESSID=83ni8uleaj70borm6b1ivh3nq4Mike Babic (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tubesship stop saying "dare to say" to me. I am free to say whatever I want, I dare to challenge ignorance and ignorant views. As for your question for Holocaust survivors, I say a Holocaust survivor has the right to hate Nazism for its maniacal genocidal nationalism, racism, and totalitarianism. For those reasons I too spit on the Nazis' beliefs. But NO ONE, and yes, not even a holocaust survivor should promote hatred or revenge against Germans or Germany as a nation. I understand that they should be furious at what happened, but nationalist revenge against all Germans is not the solution because not all Germans supported the Holocaust and many Jews were Germans themselves. I say punish the true criminals, the ones' who did the killings and the beatings, not an entire group of people to whom a smaller group was associated. If you hate the Socialist Party of Serbia because of Slobodan Milosevic's actions and the party's policies and want people from that party punished for what they did, I would stand alongside you. NATO had the right to attack Serb military aggressors who were attacking and killing Albanian civilians. The UN mandate over Kosovo was the only viable solution to prevent the violence from continuing, and I think that the mandate should have been in place longer before any decision on independence was made, to let tensions sooth and allow a rational solution to the problems be discussed (such as a partitioned Kosovo as I mentioned earlier). Milosevic was a tyrant who needed to be stopped as well as the Serb ultranationalists. But if you want Serbia as a nation to pay for what you seem to claim all of Serbs supported, I stand against you. Tubesship, you made a prejudicial assumption that because I am a Canadian I cannot possibly understand what the war is like. Already I can see the segregated view of the world that you see. I knew an Albanian from Kosovo who told me of the horrors of the terrorism perpetrated by Serb nationalist paramilitaries in his village. They ordered everyone to leave their house in five minutes, or they and their house would be torched and burned town with them in it. That is horrible, so don't tell me that I am an ignorant fool, I learned of it through what an Albanian told me. But why then do you have superior judgement? Did you witness the war crimes in person yourself? If you did witness them yourself, I would respect your anger for being legitimately caused by personal grief, and for that I would be sorry for you. But if you did not, then you are just like me, a person who listened to someone else describing it. I do not speak for all Canadians on everything just as you cannot speak for all Kosovars or all Albanian Kosovars. Remember that the Kosovo Serbs are officially Kosovar citizens, you cannot ignore their wishes unless you wish for a segregated society.--R-41 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

R-41 So you write you would dare to say: “Also it is NEVER TIME to get over and forget mistakes, it is only time to acknowledge them, and find peaceful means to ensure that they do not happen again and get over old hatreds” to a Holocaust survivor?! Ok, I invite you to come with me, I know an old Jew who lost his whole family in Auschwitz. DARE to tell him that and look how you would feel by doing so. I don't think you could do as I think you are a humane person. --Tubesship (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that destruction of Serbian churches should be added to the article since it's clearly a significant event and the fact that it's not in the artivle highlights that the article is pro-Albanian.Mike Babic (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC) (Ctrl-click)">http://www.emperors-clothes.com/churchpics/list.htmMike Babic (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

---

First of all, I do not think the site “The Emperor’s New Clothes” (last update on December 22, 2008) should be considered a mainstream, scholarly or NPOV site. And second, it should be noted that a great part of the Orthodox churches describe on “Jared Israel”’s list are reconstructions made after the death of Josip Tito, and mainly during the Serb nationalist Milosevic’s (1988-2000) era. --BalkanWalker (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

guys, this section has long left anything resembling WP:TALK compliance. The long and short of it is, this is a territorial dispute. The Serbs and the Albanians want the same piece of land, known as Kosovo. It is a comparatively small piece of land, and of little importance geopolitically, it is just one of several cases we keep under Category:Disputed territories. This isn't about who bombed whom, it is about who is going to get jurisdiction over the territory in question, not more, not less. As simple as the monkeys competing for the waterhole in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Wikipedia certainly isn't going to make any statement as to who is "right" in a case like that. --dab (𒁳) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)