Talk:Kosovo/Archive 12

Arbitration
A controversy over the introduction of this article, has recently lead to an arbitration case, which was concluded with putting this article under probation, among other measures. Before editing the introduction, please review the talk page archive and the arbitration case on Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom made a weird decision: to ban Vezaso for one year - regardless of the fact that User:Vezaso is indefinitely banned as per being one of the many sockpuppets of User:Dardanv. --PaxEquilibrium 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes that is the one year ban from editing Kosovo-related articles, that probably should be Dardanv instead of Vezaso. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

POV
Why the article is POV:

1. The map shows Serbia as a separate entity to Kosovo. At this time, Kosovo is recognised (however grudgingly) as a part of Serbia. The most pertinent evidence for this is Security Council Resolution 1244 ("Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,"). The Republic of Serbia is the successor state of the FRY, assuming all its rights and responsibilites (apart from some debts etc which were transferred to the Republic of Montenegro)
 * Untrue. The map shows Kosovo as a region within Serbia, as evidenced by the broken line representing an internal border.  Your evidence is irrelevant as your contention is false. Davu.leon 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

2. "security provided by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR)." The evidence shows that KFOR don't provide much security, as noted by organisations such as Amnesty International.

3. "Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and the Republic of Macedonia." This phrasing suggests Kosovo is independent.
 * How exactly does this suggest Kosovo is independent? I'm really interested to hear this one. Davu.leon 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

4. "The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's Albanian population." Why government on one side and people on the other side. Serbs in Kosovo are people too, as are all Serbs how don't want Kosovo to become independent. On the other hand, this is patronising to the Albanians - they have political leaders too.

5. "Incorporation into Serbia" The whole sections uses pejorative language ("stormed", "takeover", "broke the peace", "renewed the conflict") and lacks context (it's the middle ages :-)). It isn't sourced either, like other huge tracts of the article.

6. "Serbian Orthodox Church was officially abolished in 1532" Doesn't really convey that it was a forcible suppression. "Special privileges were provided, which helped the survival of Serbs and other Christians in Kosovo." Only in relation to their previous status. They were still discriminated against in favour of Muslims. i.e. Devshirmeh

There is also no section on Human Rights in Kosovo, which basically don't exist for Serbs and other non-Albanians. I hope this "small" selection is enough for the POV tag. --estavisti 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, write one. Be sure to use Reliable Sources and make it NPOV.  Good luck with that one, by the way. Davu.leon 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, but I strongly urge you to read the talk page archive and arbitration case before making big changes to this article. With regard to your points:
 * The map is a compromise between the Albanian view and the Serbian view. See talk page archives.
 * Security is provided by KFOR. Whether or not it is succesful is a matter of debate. Speculation would be original research.
 * Kosovo does border those countries, hardly a topic to dispute.
 * The dispute is between the Serbian government and the Albanian population. The Serbians in Kosovo have no dispute with the Serbian government.
 * Agreed, could be more neutral.
 * I do not know enough about this topic to judge your remark.
 * --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. 2. and 3. - Reinoutr had answered


 * 4. What Estavisti meant is that the non-Albanian population of Kosovo (particularely Serbs) are also a factor and "a side" in the dispute as well


 * 5. I strongly object. I myself wrote that part and consider it almost the peak of objectivity and neutrality. If we rephrase to the (possibly) desired phrases, that would be Serb POV.


 * 6. Well, yeah; but where's the relevance of the forceful abolition of the Church to Kosovo itself? Also, even though of the unorthodox laws, that might've been heavily against the Serbs, fact is Serbs lived well while the Patriarchate of Pec existed (1557-1766) and until the Ottomans started to lose and be on constant retreat (17th century), at least the best imaginable way that an occupied people can possibly be in. --PaxEquilibrium 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts I had
 * 5 - How is it serbian POV? Using weasel words such as "takeover" "stormed" "broke the peace" is inherently biased.  Avoid it.  Remember the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines.
 * 6 - Most of your arguement here is supposition and theory. Remember, encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
 * The map has been a subject of a lot of contention. Personally while I acknowledge that it is contented to be a territory of Serbia, Serbia's geography is irrelevant to the area of Serbia, and the map should just depict Serbia.  Anyways, just some thoughts.  -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The words 'stormed' and 'takeover', and the formulation 'broke the peace' are not "weasel words", even by the most lax interpretations of the policy. They are statements of FACT.  With all due respect, please refrain from attempting to misuse Wikipedia rules to justify your own POV.  There's been more than enough of that at this article already. Davu.leon 10:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They are. They infer bias in tone and definition.  An act of "storming" a city, or a "takeover" suggests an overtly hostile bias against the party that did the "storming" or "taking over."  Please consider the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines in the future.  Thank you.  -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are confused.


 * A. Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. The city was stormed by Serbs is a statement.  Weasel words would be Historians claim the city was stormed by Serbs.  So your issue is with the words not adhering to Wikipedia Neutral Point of View. So,


 * B. See below. (Thankyou, int19h) Davu.leon 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From Wiktionary:
 * Storm - "a violent assault on a stronghold or fortified position"
 * Take over - "to annex a territory by conquest or invasion"
 * There are other meanings, of course, but these are the ones that make sense in the context of their use. I fail to see how either of these is POV. -- int19h 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your very good comments. However, I only partly agree with you:
 * the map seems like an acceptable compromise. Note that the line betwee Serbia proper and Kosovo is dotted as compared to full for the 'foreign' countries.
 * Whether or not KFOR is successful in providing security is a matter of dispute. Maybe a better wording could be something like "with KFOR responsible for providing security".
 * Well, the province of Kosovo does border the countries mention.
 * You are partly correct, the dispute is between the Serbian government on one hand the Kosovo Albanian provisional government (or whatever it is called) on the other hand. Maybe the wording "Albanian population" should be replaced by the relevant Kosovar institution. However, at the same time it seems logical to say that it is with the Albanian population of the province, not with the Serbian population of the province.
 * I fully agree, the text should be changed to more neutral terms. Whether these are "weasel words" or not is beside the point.
 * If that is indeed the case then it should be changed.
 * Regards Osli73 12:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On Serbs in the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires
Why is it then that Serbs in the Ottoman Empire were peasants and pig farmers, while Serbs in the Austrian Empire were normal Europeans? Both were occupied by empires, after all. --estavisti 21:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet it is that all those Serbs that were "pigs & farmers" produced dozens of Patriarchs of Pech (1557-1766), the most cultured Serbs in the world that were in reality moral, spiritual, ethical & even political leaders of the Serb people; Omer-paša Latas, one of the brightest military minds of the Ottoman Empire; Mehem-paša Sokolović, quitte possibly the greatest official in Ottoman history as well as numerious poets and other people; the father of the Serbian language: Vuk Stefanović Karadžić; not to mention numerious politicians and other people. --PaxEquilibrium 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Of the three examples you present, one was taken from his parents as part of the blood tax and raised in Instanbul. He was a victim of the Ottomans, before he became one himself. He was hardly a Serbs in any meaningful sense (i.e. only by descent). Vuk was only a teenager when the rebellions against the Ottomans started. The Empire was so conducive to education that he learned to read from the only literate man in his region. Then, again thanks to the high culture of the Ottomans, he published most, if not all of his works in Vienna. While in Austria there were Gymasiums and universities, Vuk was stuck with his local monastery. And finally, Omer Pasha was such a great Serb that he lead Ottoman troops into Montenegro. Please, give me more great Serbs like him, I can't wait! --estavisti 13:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bajica Sokolovic maintained "close" to Serbian conscience and despite being an Ottoman and a Muslim, remained a Serb national "patriot" in a way til his death; contrary to Omer-pasa Latas, who really was the way how you describe. However, what to you define by "normal European-class citizens"? If you consider crossing to another faith "betrayel" that doesn't make Serb a Serb or similliar, you shouldn't look like that. The achievements of the Habsburg Serbs - never surpressed the achievements of the Ottoman ones. --PaxEquilibrium 20:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider his change of religion a betrayal, but rather his leadership of the Empire that was oppressing Serbs. Like you say, he was quite possible its greatest ever official. The Habsburg Serbs achievements rgeatly eclipse those of the Ottoman Serbs, like you youself implicitly admit, with your choice of the greatest Ottoman Serbs, one of whom wasn't an Ottoman subject for much of his life (the famous part), one of whom wasn't a Serb, and the third who was the Ottoman Empire's "greatest ever official".--estavisti 20:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Bajica Sokolovic kept a Serbian national identity and became arguably the greatest Ottoman official in the history. The best one the Habsburg Serbs got is Svetozar Boroevic von Bojna, who became the sole non-German Austro-Hungarian military general during the First World War; didn't fight for the Serbian national cause, but rather styled himself with Croatian nationalism, despite being a pious Orthodox Christian. --PaxEquilibrium 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd bring him up :-) No, I'm talking about people like Sava Tekelija. --estavisti 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, OK you win - I was just trying to fight against a feeling of "superiority" of the HabsburgSerbs towards the Ottoman Serbs, so often expressed by many Vojvodinians & Slavonians in those time. --PaxEquilibrium 21:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, don't worry, the Vojvodinians and Slavonians get my back up too. I'm Dinaric/Central Serbian by descent, the Habsburg Serbs have their own way of annoying me :-) --estavisti 23:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole section about Ottoman Kosovo is highly insulting. It is completely and utterly bias and should be stricken from the article. 'Islamized Serb' says it all. It was obviously written by an Ottomanphobic writer who like many Eurocentric historians views the Ottoman Empire as one big black spot on European history, if acknowledged at all. This is such an anachronism!!! The Ottoman Serb citizens where an integral part of the cosmopolitan empire and contributed instrumentally to it's rise. They were part of the ruling elite and gene pool of the Osmanli dynasty. The devishirme was not 'blood money' and many Balkan Christian parents welcomed the opportunity it provided for career advancement. If the Serbs et al were so oppressed wouldn't they all be Muslim and no church or monastery left standing in Kosovo or Serbia for that matter. The hateful and vengeful bias against the Ottomans must end, afterall who were the Ottomans- Hungarians, Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Circassians, Tatars, Cossacks, Poles, Romanians, Albanians, Jews, Persians and finally, and not most importantly Turks. Please read Osman's Dream for a measured and timely history of the Ottoman Empire by Caroline Finkel.Vrooman 02:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Currency
The summary section notes that the Dinar is used in 'North Kosovo'. This is incorrect as it also used in the many Serbian enclaves (e.g. Gracanica). In any case, even if the present formulation were to remain the proper reference would be to 'northern Kosovo' to avoid the suggestion that 'North Kosovo' is a distinct entity with a different currency usage.

As it happens I'm unable to edit the main page as I'm a recently registered user, though I've contributed to these pages in the past as '(JD)'. Any way I can get unprotected? JamesAVD 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You, sir, are correct. Changes made. Davu.leon 15:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure - for commercial transactions territorial continuinity is required. The Serb enclaves aren't connected to Serbia - whereas North Kosovo is a part of Serbia, de jure & de facto. --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Pax. It's a fair point, but the phrasing made it sound like north Kosovo was a distinct political entity, which simply isn't true.  And anyway, the Dinar is used in the Serb enclaves throughout Kosovo,  (though they will accept euros too,)  and it would be remiss of us not to mention them.   Davu.leon 08:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I really didn't know that. It still sounds illogical to me... --PaxEquilibrium 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All a minor point, really. There's no distinction between ethnic Serbian parts of northern Kosovo and ethnic Serbian enclaves in Kosovo, as far as either de jure or de facto distinctions go. Territorial continuity is in no way required for commercial transactions. As far as law in Kosovo goes, both the Euro and Dinar are official currencies, though the UN institutions use exclusively the Euro and you wouldn't last long offering to pay in Dinars outside of the Serbian areas. JamesAVD 13:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I also know of occasions where it has been possible to pay in Dinars at the Ministry of Returns and Communities, in Pristine/Pristina, illustring the difficulty of making sweping statements regading the use of different currency in Kosovo.

Naming of Cities
Why is it that the name of cities/districts in Kosovo are listed Albanian spelling first and Serbian spelling second? Kosovo is stil a Serbian province and the official language in Serbia is Serbian. If you look at the vast majority of new sources, other encyclopedias, academic sources, (even those advocating independence), the Serbian spelling is the one that is used. I hope Wikipedia will re-examine their naming conventions for Kosovo cities and places as the current method seems to be advocating a political stance rather than presenting the information in a scholarly, historically sound manner. MK013 23:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite Kosovo being de jure a Serbian province, Serbian laws do not apply to it because of its UN protectorate status. In particular, Kosovo has its own declaration of what its official languages are, and those are Serbian and Albanian. So they both have equal status. Yet they have to be ordered some way, and the ordering rationale has to be neutral (have a look at edit history of that box and check how many times it was edit-warred over to see why there is a need for a neutral solution). The present order is the alphabetical order of language names: Albanian comes before Serbian. If anyone has better suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them - just discuss them here before changing it, please, lest we get another edit war. -- int19h 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Serbian laws do not apply? Wrong! According to UN council resolution 1244, Serbian laws apply to all resolution unregulated areas. For instance, judiciary system is based on Serbian laws, so it's not Anglo-Saxonic like one would assume because of the UN and NATO are running judiciary. Even UN placed judges foreigners had to learn Serbian laws to be able to lead the processes. Serbian laws are the ones to be obeyed in many other areas, but the whole point is that it's not Serbian authorities who are using laws, it's the UN administration. The reason for this is that UN is unable to build the whole legal system from the beginning, partly prohibited by the resolution, and the other reason is that the Albanian institutions are simply not capable of bringing "better" laws because of lack of experts which would work on them - it requires a vast effort. 89.216.173.210 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was sceptical on this at first but took a look at the maps on the UNMIK site itself:. MK013 might be right. JamesAVD 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The roadsigns sometimes disagree though – and not just thanks to individual Albanians with pots of paint, I mean. Does anybody know if there's a single agency responsible for these? If there is, and presuming that their decisions about sign spelling are based on local demographics, perhaps there's a committee of some sort which measures that and decides on the language to be used? The results of this would quite likely be more up-to-date than the UNMIK maps. Their records would be a useful source to refer to here if anybody can find them. – Kieran T  ( talk  14:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the whole point. There is no official standardization body in Kosovo for names. Those names assigned could only be treated as "unoficcial" - they do not rely on any legal document that defines the process of naming and changing names. In fact, that document is Serbian law on naming. But again, there is no central base of maps and names in Kosovo. 89.216.173.210 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Int19h, it is a common misconception that Serbian laws do no apply. Law in Kosovo is precisely Serbian law up until 1999 with any amendments since by UNMIK. If UNMIK law is silent on a topic, Serbian law as of 1999 applies. Check out the UNMIK website for confirmation. Doesn't (necessarily) impact on this question but hasn't been stated since way back in the archives so worth repeating. JamesAVD 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I always though that Wikipedia should use the English place names. As Kosovo has been a part of Serbia for most of recent history the Serbian place names seem to have become the standard. This is perhaps best exemplified in the naming of Kosovo itself, with an "o" instead of an "a" (which is much more of a political statement).Osli73 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Final status
A preliminary solution was drawn by Martti Ahtisaari and his officials. Independence is dropped (but an mysterious already mentioned "..some form of independence" will be adopted). Kosovo will be proclaimed a state in the political sense, although it will not be a Republic (nor have any governmental order), since it will have state representatives nowhere (most notably not in the UN), neither an army nor a State-type government, nor other symbols of statehood (flag, national anthem, coat-of arms, minor political organizations, etc.). It will be stated as a constituent part of Serbia, however Serbia will have no authority in Kosovo whatsoever. In the style of the early 21st century agreement between Serbia & Montenegro, there will be a 3-year trial period, during which both Kosovo and the rest of Serbia is encouraged to continue negotiating minor things like the status of non-Albanians in Kosovo (Serbs, mostly), the protection of the Serb Orthodox Church and other cultural bastions as well as paying war damage, returning the refugees; optionally Kosovo starting to enter Serbian institutions & government etc (mainly because they solved none of those issues by now)... After a 3-year period negotiations may be reopened. A new UN resolution will be brought to replace 1244.

Expectations are that an altered version (i. e. without any Serbian Army's or policy or official presence in Kosovo) of this draft will be adopted and that Kosovo will generally, because of this, become much like North Cyprus and it is expected, although independence is out of the question, that after the 3-year trial period Kosovo will become a fully independent country. However, riots and rebellions as per this decision are expected, as well as recognition (which is allowed according to the draft - by anyone who wishes so) of independence by some organizations or states is expected (most notably Albania's; it is expected that it will be something like Palestine's status). --PaxEquilibrium 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Pax, I don't know what your sources are, but the scenario you describe is not under serious consideration anywhere. I'd also point out that the media are rife with rumors on this or that outcome for the Kosovo status process -- as a general rule, the media are just speculating or reporting half-truths.  The reality is that these issues are still under discusssion.  Until there is something more concrete, this kind of speculation shouldn't appear in the article. Envoy202 19:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Pax, look closely at that 'recognition of independence is expected...' Think carefully about it.  You're on the verge of what may well be the eventual solution.  Interesting times. Davu.leon 10:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't hurt the messenger. I did say preliminary; it's half-truth hear-say of a pretty much final status. Anyway, I personally do not like it, if that is what you wanted to know. --PaxEquilibrium 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is beginning to seem a little deceitful for us to continue to present only the view that 'final status process likely leads to indepdendence in 2006'. Clearly the process is not progressing at all and Russia is coming out quite strongly against independence. We should be reflecting the increasing probability that the 'talks' fail with either stasis or UDI the likely outcomes. Doing so would be no more speculative that the present line we take, surely? JamesAVD 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the last post. Kosovo's fate is more or less decided. Russia may not support the independence, but does anybody really care? Kosovar parliament will be given the green light to declare independence and individual countries will decide whether to recognise it or not, but it is more or less certain that USA and the EU will recognise it as a sovereign country. It may not have a seat @ the UN initially, but it will be given a chance in the future to prepare a formal bid. I don't think that's an important aspect anyway, Switzerland doesn't have a seat and nor did Austria until recently. Belorussia and Ukraine had seats during the cold war but were never sovereign states. What is clear is that Kosovo will not be returned to Serb sovereignty. Conditional Independence or whatever you want to call it gives Kosovo attributes of a state, and from what I gather those conditions will gradually be ticked off leading to full independence eventually.Sanmint 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, Kosovo can't return to Serbian sovereignty. Know why? Because it already is under Serbian sovereignty. :-) // --estavisti 02:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood my point, Sammint. It may be that independence is the only likely outcome, but at present we're putting across the UN line that this will be the negotiated outcome of all-party talks. Recent events do not suggest that this is the likely outcome of talks. It may be that failed talks, followed by a UDI, supported or not by major powers. At present we're offering an opinion on likely future events but not taking into account how events have developed in the past tweilve months. JamesAVD 11:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with JamesAVD on this. However, I would prefer to leave the old sourced & agreed upon version in place until a proper replacement (both wording and a new source) is agreed upon in this talk page. - Regards, Evv 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article should remain as it is. There has been no change in the conventional wisdom. Today had two media articles proving this point -- today's 'Economist' article on Kosovo was sub-titled "Despite its last-minute manoeuvring, Serbia now seems certain to lose Kosovo." Also today, the NY Times had an article that began with the words "In the next few months, Kosovo is likely to win independence from Serbia..." If anyone has more credible sources than the NY Times and the Economist, then they should share them on this page. Envoy202 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We're going down the wrong road here. Fine, some editors want to remove sourced and agreed upon material.  There is a case to be made for retaining it, as explained above by Evv and Envoy202.  There is also a case to be made for removing it, that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  It's a grey area, though, because Wikipedia rules allow for exceptions.  A case like this, where there is almost unanimous recognition, (even amongst the majority of Serbs,) that some form of independence is inevitable, would seem to be such an exception.


 * However, there is in this article an entire section devoted to the status talks, so I say in the interest of preventing another mindless revert war, let the babies have their bottle. Put a (see below) or something in the intro, and tidy up the future status section so that it's a little more legible and comprehensive.  If no one has any major objections, I may have a bash at this myself later today. Davu.leon 09:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have expanded my comment. My argument is that, at present, the article implies that a) independence is likely to occur and that b) this will be the result of UN-sponsored talks. This statement is not entirely incorrect, though it may be misleading or insufficient (and is perhaps embarrasingly close to the press releases of the mediating team). Point a) is quite clearly the opinion of the majority of sources, though many also offer the opinion that a deadlock might lead to the status quo being maintained indefinitely. More importantly, b) is not necessarily the case as these recent articles from the deeply credible Times and the more than adequate Guardian make clear:

- 'The vote took place amid rising international tensions over Kosovo, with fears that Russia could veto independence moves at the UN because of concerns over a precedent for Chechnya... Mr Ahtisaari is expected to announce a “managed” or “conditional” independence. But there are fears of a declaration of independence from the Kosovo Albanians.' The Times, 30 October 2006

- 'Amid growing calls for a decision on the province’s status to be delayed until 2007, Agim Ceku, the prime minister of Kosovo, said his countrymen could lose faith with the international community if the promise of sovereignty was snatched away from them at the very last moment. While the world’s attention has been focused on events in the Middle East and Afghanistan, experts fear that the Balkans, where wars raged for much of the 1990s, could erupt again unless the current situation is carefully handled... This has persuaded some European players that it would be best to postpone a decision on Kosovo until 2007 or risk handing ultranationalist Serb forces an election victory.' The Times, 13 October 2006.

- 'Plain-speaking Martti Ahtisaari ... let the Kosovo cat out of the bag this week with potentially unpredictable consequences for Balkan stability. As UN envoy charged with brokering a settlement by the end of the year between Serbia and the ethnic Albanian leadership in Pristina, Mr Ahtisaari conceded the negotiations were not going well. In fact, he went further. Agreement on Kosovo's final status was not on the cards, "at least not in my lifetime", he said. "The parties remain diametrically opposed." The breakaway province might have to wait a little longer for its long-sought independence, he said. ... US and British officials have moved quickly to re-bag Mr Ahtisaari's cat, insisting the talks are on course.' The Guardian, 13 October 2006

There is more than enough doubt being expressed about the outcome of the talks that we should either a) not comment on the talks and their outcome or b) mention the very real possibilty that the talks either go nowhere or fail, with the very real possibility of a universal declaration of independence by the Kosovo Albanians.

Whilst we shouldn't go further than this in our discussion, it's worth considering that this would cause immediate tensions amongst the players and institutions involved. There would be much pressure within and from the US to recognise independence. However, the UN itself is prevented by it's Charter from intervening and UNMIK would likely be forced to strike down a UDI if it came from within the provisional institutions of self-government. Serbs within the Republika Srpska might themselves raise the possibility of a UDI on their part. These are all possibilities and, as the credible articles above allude to, the result of failed talks and a UDI would be disagreements in the international community and not inconceivably bloodshed in Kosovo and the wider Balkans. If anyone can present a more credible observer of all this than Martti Ahtisaari, and can state them here, I'll be impressed...

To keep the article as it is, with a bland statement that talks will lead inevitably (peacefully) to full independence is not reflective of the situation on the ground or amongst commentators. We should agree a new form of words. JamesAVD 13:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please let me also say, for those here who personally support or oppose independence, that saying any of this is not to express a point of view on the desirability of failed or successful talks or of independence, just a recognition that the wider press and international community (including the main negotiator) see failed talks as a very real possibility. JamesAVD 13:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And just as a reminder to us all, Wikipedia policy on speculation (What Wikipedia is not) states: 'It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.' The Arbitration decision also makes clear that, 'Optimal reporting includes adequate treatment of new or prospective developments'. So the standard we need to adhere to is that our reporting of the prospects for Kosovo Final Status talks needs to be properly referenced. The most recent good references make clear we need to given some prominence to the possibilty (or likelihood if you believe Martti Ahtisaari) of failed talks. JamesAVD 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this! Some people are acting here like this is not encyclopedia and spreading Albanian propaganda. So, as well, I can say that if Kosovo declares independence on it's own, Serbia would likely invade the province and restore it to it's jurisdiction again. The only ones who could stop that income are Americans if they decide to bomb Serbia again. And that's the same way Kosovo was taken away in 1999. Does anyone really think that Kosovo Albanians can stand up to Serbian army? So if you're going to delete this comment, it would be fair to delete other biased comments as well. 89.216.173.210 13:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
 * verifiable
 * Here is a new article from today by Reuters discussing the very real possibility that talks will fail. This alone should be enough to cast doubt, along with the many articles JamesAVD posted so I will remove the prediction in the introduction. MK013 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "It is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence". This sentence is vaguely formulated and in may be misleading. Even if it is a fact, we dont have the sources to state this, the UN has not stated this and this is why we shouldent have statments like this, based on journalists. I think we should remove this sentence until we have a concrete facts about the proposals and etc. I also think we should follow Principle 7 in this issue. - Litany 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, principle 7 includes this statement: "Speculation by reliable experts may be included only in limited circumstances." Fairview360 05:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume that everyone who read it know that but I think most us wants to know who are the "reliable experts"? This is also vague wordings and dosent lead any closer to a solution. Litany 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * O.K., Litany. Please clarify your position then. You stated "I also think we should follow Principle 7 on this issue." But now you are saying that principle 7 does not "lead any closer to a solution." So now please state for us once and for all. Are you proposing that we follow principle 7 or not? Yes or no? Fairview360 22:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Litany, after you answer the question about where you stand on principle 7 -- yes or no -- I would like to know if you consider the Boris Tadic's assessment of current expectations to be that of a reliable source? He stated today: Kosovo is at this time closer to independence than to essential autonomy. http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n99738 Of course, he wants essential autonomy to be the outcome, but he acknowledges that the current expectation is some form of independence. He has acknowledged that obvious fact numerous times. Do you consider the President of Serbia Boris Tadic to be a reliable source? Who do you consider a reliable source? What reliable expert would need to state the obvious for you to accept it? Fairview360 06:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article you posted does not have a quote of him saying that. In fact it quotes him as saying "Today, we are pulling Kosovo out of independence, where Milosevic’s and Radicals’ governments pushed it." It is a very misleading article as he never once mentioned Kosovo was closer to independence. Please find a direct quote of him saying that. MK013 22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Title of article: Kosovo closer to independence than to essential autonomy: Serbia’s President
 * Date of article: 16 November 2006 | 18:16 | FOCUS News Agency
 * First sentence: Kosovo is at this time closer to independence than to essential autonomy, Serbia’s President Boris Tadic has stated, as cited by the Serbian Beta agency.
 * MKO13, the quote that you cited from the article is consistent with Tadic's acknowledgement of current expectations that Kosovo is close to getting some form of independence. If you say you plan to pull a car out of the mud, you are acknowledging that the car is in the mud. If you want to find the original transcript and find reason to object to the Serbian Beta news agency's accounting of what Tadic asserted, go ahead. That is your fool's errand, not mine. But do note that Tadic himself is not objecting to the article. Apparently, Tadic is farther along in acknowledging reality and working with it. It makes him a better president than you are an editor of wikipedia. Perhaps, you could learn from him and acknowledge the obvious. It would save us a lot of time and energy. Wikipedia is not a place for wishful thinking or denial of the obvious. Current expectations are that Kosovo is going to get some form of independence. Russia is accepting a visit by the leader of Kosovo. What does that tell you? Carl Bildt refered to "Serbia and Kosovo" as if they are on the same level. What does that tell you? You read an article that clearly states Tadic's acknowledgment of current expectations but it eludes your mental grasp. Hence this article gets protected since there is instability in the realm of the editors of this article. But we only have a few more months and then we will no longer need to discuss expectations. The actual decision will be there for all to see. Hopefully, it will be clear and concise without room for misinterpretation so this inane conversation can finally end. Fairview360 15:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK Fairview360, principle 7 states that Wikipedia not should be a crystal ball and tell the readers about a future we cant predict but it lets a loop hole about the sources and etc, so this opens for more conflicts between editors. It dosent matter what I think because I think it is pretty obvious where these talks about the future of Kosovo is leading (to some for of independance, with autonomy or soemthing else) BUT I dont know for sure and no body else does either, thats why I think this small sentence should be left out until we have an actual agrement stated by the UN. Principle 7 says that we should not predict the future, thats what I think is the most important. Litany 16:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So you and I support the part of principle 7 that says you and I should not predict the future. I agree that what you and I think is going to happen is irrelevant. What is relevant is the opinion of reliable experts. Reliable experts believe that some form of independence is the most likely outcome. Principle 7 states that the opinion of reliable experts may be included, but you disagree? Fairview360 05:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that an Independent Kosovo is a prediction. It is an accepted outcome. Everyone knows that some form of independence will happen. This means no Serbian sovereignty any longer. Stop feeding an illusion. Accept the new reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.217.3 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine. I think the Bosnian Serbs' independent Republic from BH is an accepted outcome. I think that the Hungarians in Vojvodina will receive regional autonomy. I think that Bosniacs in Sanjak and Albanians in Presevo will be constitutionally recognized. I think that the Croats in BH will receive a 3rd entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. AFAIC, I think that Montenegro will rejoin Serbia, the Republic of Dubrovnik will be restored, FYROM will join Bulgaria; I also think that it is a fact that Izrael will eventually retake the territories it previously conquered, that Transnistria will be independent, just as South Ossetia and Abkhazia; I also think that Nuclear Fusion will in several years be mastered by an ethnic Italian living in USA and that sharks will be in no time extinct due to the American invasion of North Korea (which is an accepted reality that it will happen) that will also sparkle a Nuclear War and eventual end of the world. Heck, I'm Nostradamus! :))) --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not predicting the future. We are accurately describing what current expectations are. Associated Press today: "if U.N.-brokered talks lead to independence as expected". http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4346608.html Pax, your facetious predictions are not indicative of actual current expectations of reliable experts. Fun reading though :) . Fairview360 05:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Litany
As regards your claim that this was "settled" - I don't believe it was. As you can see above, the discussion was still ongoing as of 11:00, 2 November 2006. The previous version that I had reverted to was the one that was settled upon after months of arguing, not to mention an arbitration, and it is the one that is supported by the majority of reliable sources. However, in the interest of not starting another arguement, I will refrain from reverting to the agreed-upon version and merely hope that you will in the future attempt to gain a consensus before unilaterally altering sensitive areas of this much-disputed article. Thanks, Davu.leon 15:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you need any proof you can read here on Kosovo's talk page. Consensus regarding this issue has already been reached by the arbitration commitee, read here: Requests for arbitration/Kosovo.
 * I would be pleased if you respect the ruling of the arbitration commitee and do not do any disruptive edits. Litany 19:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether there was a consensus or not, but what I do know is that this article is so messy it is hard to tell. There is an undeniable fact, however, and I can supply a great number of sources to support it, that says that the path to "some form of independence" is certain. This is not about predicting the future, this is about a future that has already been decided. Negotiations are bound to fail, so the solution will undoubtedly be imposed sooner or later, but no later than march 2007. I hope this argument is sufficient for the revert I have made. Sanmint 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see What Wikipedia Is Not. It's not a crystal ball, we should not post about the future, even if it is speculation that is generally agreed upon, it is still speculation.  I have refrained from reverting again so as not to break the three-revert rule, however I would probably expect that change to be reverted by someone else.


 * Also, please read the ArbCom ruling about this article. Thanks. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the poin here Wizardry_Dragon. We're not predicting the future here, the future is certain, it has been decided and there are numerous secondary sources that would agree with it including Financial Times and the Economist. These are reliable sources.


 * Just to put my point in context, if you look at the Demographics section of the USA here, the words "If current immigration trends continue, the number of non-Hispanic whites is expected to be reduced to a plurality by 2040-2050" represent prediction of future and as such should it also be removed?


 * It is in the interest of the general reader to know what the very imminent future holds for Kosovo. I will be reinstating the statement and I would ask the editors not to remove it.Sanmint 13:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could use a more authoritative source on the matter. With all due respect to the  newspapers in questions, American newspapers are rather out of their depth in the case of events happening in Kosovo, IMHO. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Economist is actually British, but the point still stands. --estavisti 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is on a path to independence. That fact has been repeatedly and widely written about. That fact is found in a wide range of authoritative sources, including media, academic writing, and the public statements of experts. This is not "speculation," or even informed speculation; it is, rather, a fact of the process. I travel all around Europe and have never heard anyone -- except for Belgrae government officials -- claim otherwise. It would be intellectually dishonest to either ignore this fact or pretend that all options for Kosovo's future status are under realistic consideration. Speculation does not belong here (for example, I would advise against any speculation about how and when Kosovo will become independent or what temporary limitations will be placed on its independence). But it it ludicrous to not state the obvious course of this process. Envoy202 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have further sources, cite them. It shouldn't be too hard if what you say is true.  Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wizard: I'd disagree about your conclusion about U.S. media being "out of their depth" (as your independent research has concluded). In fact, the NY Times does great coverage of Balkans issues.  Nick Wood, the Times correspondent for the region, is a top-notch reporter and has excellent sources in the region.  Envoy202 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Envoy, you seem to have a hard time distinguishing between facts and opinion. Fact: They are having negotiations to determine the final status. Opinion: this will lead to independence. Why have talks in the first place if the outcome is alredy determined? The world does not revolve around the US and just because the US and its media are pushing for independence does not mean Russia, China will not shoot this done in the Security Council. So once again, wait for the results to be determined before discusing the outcome as it's far from certain that Kosovo will be independent. MK013 20:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wizardry Dragon & MK013, in the arbitration the inclusion of this speculation on Kosovo's future by reliable experts was specifically contemplated in Principle 7 (see also Fred Bauder's comment on Proposed principle 11). - Regards, Evv 21:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Who's to say what constitutes a "reliable expert"? I can produce quotes from PM Koštunica and Pres. Putin (both heavily involved in the negiotation process) along with other "experts" which deny that it will be granted independence. Western "experts" say Kosovo will gain independence, Eastern "experts" deny. The fact of the matter is, nobody knows how this will play out. Just because Ahtisaari may propose independence does not mean Russia, Serbia, China etc. would accept an imposed solution without a veto in the Security Council. History is unpredictable and nobody, no matter how "reliable" or how much "expertise" they may have, can predict it. So once again I strongly suggest letting the talks play out before discussing the outcome MK013 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a neutral wording would be that final status talks are underway, without speculating on the results. Your Economist source is a year old. I ran a LexisNexis search just now and the situation looks pretty murky. Russia says they won't support a solution unless all parties agree, but Belgrade is digging in its heels. There is an Economist story from two days ago (2 Nov) that might have useful information on the current situation, and there are dispatches from Beta and Xinhua news services in October. I expect it will be possible to neutrally describe the situation and the points of view of the various entities somewhere in the article, but I would recommend that the introduction not predict an outcome or timetable. Thatcher131 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The reasons given so far to counter the inclusion of the paragraph about Kosovo becoming independent are uninformed at best and sinister at worse. With all due respect, all one has to do to find information about the imminent future of Kosovo, is to google news and search for Kosovo. Here are a few very recent reliable sources (as mentioned by Thatcher131) [] []. Financial Times and the Economist are british papers, they are not American. I also strongly disagree with the observation that New York Times lacks depth, that is very untrue.


 * P.S. Its interesting how no one answered my point about the Demographics of USA, which is rife with predictions.Sanmint 03:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that demographic predictions about the US are (a) uncontroversial, and (b) could probably be sourced to Census bureau analysis if necessary. And please refrain from describing other editors' motives as "sinister" or anything else. Thatcher131 07:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the inclusion of that paragraph is controversial, and I don't see that being a good enough reason for exclusion of such well-sourced material. Reading from the archives, I can see that there were and still are numerous controversies within this article that haven't been removed because they were well sourced, despite the protests.Sanmint 11:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As Sanmint says, the sentence isn't controversial at all: almost every source/comment share the view that Kosovo is heading to "some form of independence" (ranging from almost total autonomy within Serbia to outright full formal independence). Belgrade strives for the former, Priština wants the latter, but the differences are only a matter of formalities: an autonomous Kosovo within Serbia would be independent in all but name.
 * Furthermore, not mentioning the broad agreement on this issue would be outright misleading.
 * I already agreed with JamesAVD (in the "Final status" section above) that the source and the wording could do with some updating, reflecting the fact that the talks could lead nowhere and the final status be decided by UN diktat or some other means. But let's keep the old sourced & agreed upon version in place until a proper replacement (both wording and a new source) is agreed upon in this talk page.
 * So, let's talk about new wording and a new source. Does anybody have a proposal on this ? :-) Regards, Evv 11:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The comments ARE controversial. And autonomy is not independence, there's a huge difference actually. Your arguments are not address the key issues. Nobody knows exactly how the talks will end so there should not be predictions on it. MK013 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to add one more thing. These same "experts" said that the final status would be settled by 2006 and judging by the recent comments of Kofi Annan and Javier Solana, that will not be the case. So now we see how reliable these "experts" are. MK013 22:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * By "experts" the arbitration referred to the authors of reliable sources, not the political actors involved in the process.
 * Following WP:V and adhering to Principle 7 of the arbitration, the sentence in question merely reflects the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources share the opinion that "some form of independece" will be the likely outcome. Whether they're right or wrong about it is outside the scope of Wikipedia. - Regards, Evv 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are Western sources reliable, while others are not? --estavisti 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not always the case: in principle sources are reliable or not on a case by case basis, irrespective of their "Western" or "non-Western" nature. However, a certain pro-Western bias can be attributed to simple ignorance about/lack of familiarity with other sources (at least in my personal case). Do you have any particular non-Western source in mind, Estavisti ? - Regards, Evv 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section above for the continued discussion of how to represent the potential outcomes of the talks presently underway on final status. JamesAVD 13:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the best thing is to follow the agenda of the arbitration committe, and in this issue Principle 7 is the best to follow. Which means no specultions and even if the source are made by reliable experts the source is dating to over a year ago. Litany 15:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please comment in the section above, not here. JamesAVD 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reality
I do not really think that Kosovo is a part of Serbia.Why? Because it was not,it is now not,and will not be a Serb controlled state. And please do not violate the truth for telling the untruth someone should care about it and I know about kosovo so do not try to write un true things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.81.150 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I would refer you to the "Arbitration" section at the top of this talk page.
 * The issue has been discussed at lenght, apparently for most of this talk page history. Please read the archives (especially Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10 & 11) and the Kosovo arbitration case. - Regards, Evv 22:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it was not,it is now not,and will not be a Serb controlled state

1. It was, for centuries

2. It is

3. I guess we will have to wait. I suggest to you all to stop interpreting the status thinking that you're all the UN and just simply wait. I am not competent enough to decide a whole country's future, so I will not talk in the place of millions of people like all you do. Cheers, and don't mind my harsh words - I'm usually very bright! ;) --PaxEquilibrium 17:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * it was for centuries? I guess you know that one century = 100 years. We are not in 2012 now, are we?
 * it is? someone stop me from laughing to death.
 * future? I guess some like the just wish too much. All but Serbs are not sure about this. lots of love from Kosova, ilir_pz 16:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, centuries, yeah (some 400 years). If we count Metohija alone, then almost 1,000 years :).
 * Well, yeah, it is. If it's not a country, then it's for sure a part of one (Serbia in this case)
 * What on earth are you talking about? I can't really understand you over there... --PaxEquilibrium 17:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section above for the continued discussion of how to represent the potential outcomes of the talks presently underway on final status. JamesAVD 14:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I might try - but I wouldn't advise doing such a thing. This is not a discussion board/forum, but an encyclopedia. We write here what is said/sourced and that which is, not that which may be. --PaxEquilibrium 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pax, I mean keep the discussion within one subsection rather than breaking it up under multiple headings. Any further points re. how we describe future status process, please comment above? Thanks. JamesAVD 12:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel like vomiting when I hear some comments from some here :). Those who want to see what Kosovo really is, please be welcome to visit and check it :).ilir_pz 16:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It gets the guts, doesn't it? :) AFAIC, I forgot to tell - I spend a day in Kosovo recently. --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't spend a day in Kosovo, thats a lie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.217.3 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Right... Ilir pz is that you? --PaxEquilibrium 00:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well this two persons can just be rivals! Pax is from Serbia and Ilir is from Kosovo! Am I right? If it is so,then please state the truth in wikipedia not something for or against Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.68.30 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is toooooooo long
I think the Kosovo article is very long and has too much information about the History of Kosovo, which already has its own article already. Don’t you think the part “History” should be summarized just to their basic points, making the article more coherent, shorter and easier to read?--MaGioZal 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is we get a similar issue as with the History of Vojvodina - removing contents we can never balance the histories of the proper peoples (here when regarding to Serbs and Albanians, respectively, and in Vojvodina's case totally ruining it multi-ethnic order). If memory serves me well, we did try out a tiny version, but then huge disputes came over all those sentences - and the consensus ended up with "..more clarification is needed.." and so we ended up here. :) --PaxEquilibrium 14:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Humble bows to everyone who works on such a huge page BUT I agree this thing is WAAY to long. Perhaps a truce could be called, and the undisputed aspects (if any) of this page could be moved elsewhere with a reference back to this page and its ever-changing status?La Ley 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates
Can someone add these templates, I think they are neutral :) --Göran Smith 13:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I unprotected the page, you can do it yourself. Hopefully we won't go right back to edit warring over one sentence, hmm? Thatcher131 02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Spain & Independence of Kosovo
Spain (its Government & Premier) announced that the Kingdom of Spain cannot, will not and should not recognize or support any independence of Kosovo. Spain officially supports the legal status of Kosovo being a constituent part of the Republic of Serbia and fiercely argues that any sort of implemented compromise is unacceptable. He also says that not only independence of a "Republic of Kosovo" is impossible, but also that the entity should not receive any form of limited independence. He also says that so-called "self-determination" is what ruined Yugoslavia in the first place and is the key/sole problem of all European questions, and that it should simply not be applied to this case (or any other); considering that the official policy is against the creation of new countries (especially if illegal), but disappearance of the existing ones, and gradual thinning and merges of European borders. They also draw that self-determination is often (like in these cases) the source of irridentism and destabilization of the region, and says that Spain will not allow the creation of any ethnic country, supporting multi-ethnic order and stating (concentrating on Europe) that the current situation must be actively frozen, and countries, on historical basis, kept in the spirit of stability and Euro-Atlantic integration.

Other countries related to Serbia have stood aside it (Slovenia, Slovakia), stating that only compromise is the solution for Kosovo, and if independence is simply unacceptable to Serbia, so it must not be the solution either. Now, I fail to understand all those notes how Kosovo's independence is something so evidently "expected" by the whole world, and something that will certainly happen, when aside from Spain, a superpower (which is also a member of the 8 Contact Group) - the Russian federation, but other world powers, like the People's Republic of Chine, staunchly oppose such a thing. Recently, US envoys have payed a visit to Serbia stating that they want good relations with Serbia and remain open to a common compromise, ending their campaign of lobbing Kosovar independence. Currently, Italy replaced Britain and America as the main ringleader of the campaign for independence. --PaxEquilibrium 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Spain is a "superpower" teeming with aircraft carriers, strategic nuclear weapons, a space program, and stands as one of the largest economies in the world? When did this happen? Fairview360 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It reads to me as though that was describing the Russian Federation as the superpower.
 * Spain could be expected to say such things against independence. They are strengthening their own arguments against independence for the Basque region, and indeed Catalonia. – Kieran T  (talk  17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kierant, thank you for the correction. Indeed I misread it. Pax was indeed refering to Russia though I think he is mistaken about the US taking a backseat in regards to Kosovo getting some form of independence. The following is from B92: Fairview360 18:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Polt also said that the preservation of territorial integrity is not a central question in the Kosovo discussions.


 * “Should we protect the territorial integrity of every regime that chooses to kill its own citizens?” Polt asked, adding that it is in the international community’s best interest to offer everyone the same rights.


 * “Belgrade will have to live with the results of the Kosovo agreement, as will Priština. Both sides can choose to continue resistance against it, fight against it and live in constant animosity towards such an agreement. If Belgrade rejects the reached agreement for Kosovo and says that they will resist it, I would like to know if the people of Serbia really want that kind of a future.” Polt explained.


 * The US ambassador said that the possibility for violence breaking out in Kosovo still exists, but that it will not be tolerated.


 * “A violent past exists in Kosovo and we cannot forget who started that past violence in the 1990s. It was the Milošević regime.” Polt said.


 * “And of course there could be violence as a result of the agreement. I think that it would be a great mistake for whatever groups starts the violence, because it will not be tolerated by the international community.” he said.


 * The only problem is that regime no longer exists, so the argument drops to water. ;) If they support the territorial integrity, they would not support that kind of regime. --PaxEquilibrium 18:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ? Fairview360 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Pax is referring to the fact that the current government in Belgrade is not responsible for the actions of the Milosevic regime and hence shouldn't be punished for its crimes. Osli73 19:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The irony is that AFAIC, Kosovo's government is made from a regime that chose to kill its own citizens. The wholesome government of Serbia is composed out of strictly democrats and free-elected people (even without any "messy" figures), whereas War Criminals and former terrorists (sic!) form the Kosovar government. The most powerful man, the Premier, is a notorious War Criminal; and due to first-eye witnesses, a pure extremist nationalist by my opinion (war in Croatia), that even Croatian officials admitted that he was the one doing the "dirty work". Although I sincerely believe that Ceku tries to do what's best for Kosovo (but motivated by Albanian national interests solely), look it like this - if Stalin suddenly helped build a democratic regime in the early 1950s in Soviet Russia, I still would like him trialled for all the bad things he did before. Agin Ceku has murdered, had them killed or indirectly didn't protect over 800 non-Albanian civilians and POWs. Now, whereas in the Serbian government there are people that never wore weapons in their lives (and have nothing to do with the disgusting 1990s), the Kosovar government is composed mainly from people who not only were para-soldiers, but literally killers (as harsh as that sounds - I apologize if it offends anyone), people who were hiding and fighting a guerrilla war using even terrorist tactics (kidnapping, blackmail-assassination) and committing retribution acts (atrocities) against Serbs and Romas in the civil war. Carla del Ponte made a good critics of the Kosovar war criminal government and lodged an appeal for Ramush Haradinaj's case (as she said, a very notorious war criminal, ethnic cleanser), a man that walks free in Kosovo and is allowed to practice politics... bizzare :S. The very same government that supported (partly) the march 2004 mass anti-Serb riots. A government wanting to kill its own citizens... A good comparison would be if the Serbian Radical Party takes power in Serbia. :) So, according to logic and common sense, USA must not support Kosovo's aims for independence, and should support instead Serbia's territorial integrity according to what you say... :P --PaxEquilibrium 22:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "The wholesome government of Serbia"... interesting concept. As innocent and pure as the wind-blown snow. So Pax, could you explain why this beacon of democracy, law, and order, does not arrest war criminals Ratko Mladic and/or Radovan Karadzic? You apparently consider Carla Del Ponte a legitimate source. According to Del Ponte, the government of which you speak so highly knows where Mladic is but will not arrest him. From B92: "Carla Del Ponte says Serbia is far from the European values as truth and justice are relative concepts in the country." http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=37667


 * The relevance of this conversation is to the Kosovo article's description of current expectations and how the international community perceives Serbia's right (or lack thereof) to Kosovo. Pax, you would be hardpressed to convince people that your opinion here is reflective of the international community. Rather, your opinion is indicative of people who are painfully unaware of the course of current events. Fairview360 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, Serbia had, as Carla says, many chances to arrest Mladic (Karadzic is not in Serbia, unlike Mladic), but they missed them or in the worst case, are even protecting him. But we don't know these things, whereas we know that people like Ratko Mladic, Agim Ceku and Ante Gotovina are murderers, and nothing we say here will change that. If (hypothetically speaking) Kosovar President admitted that the Kosovar authorities had the chance to arrest war criminal in hiding Agim Ceku, but didn't; I would believe that Kosovo is indeed in the process of becoming a democratized place; but handing over power to the evil ones' never good - remember what had happened to Serbia when Milosevic seized state control? I am not at all reflecting the opinion of the international community (which is divided, with a large part supporting independence - but contradicting with International Law itself, a minor part opposing and the majority simply not caring); I was reflecting that which you said. --PaxEquilibrium 15:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pax, either you are not very good at speaking English or you are a seriously confused human being. You end your previous entry with "I was reflecting that which you said."


 * For the record, in this discussion I have a) mistakenly thought you were saying Spain is a superpower, b) thanked Kierant for correcting me, c) stated that I think you are mistaken about the US taking a backseat to Kosovo being independent, d)copied a section from the B92 Ambassador Bolt article, e) questioned your assertion that Serbia has a "wholesome government", e) asked you why this "wholesome government" has not arrested war criminals, and f) pointed out that your assessment of the international community is not accurate.


 * So how is what you say reflective of what I say? Among other things, you have said a) Serbia has a "wholesome government" (Pax, you might want to think about what you are saying), b)you stated that Spain "fiercely argues that any sort of implemented compromise is unacceptable" (Pax, so if Serbia and Kosovo compromise and that compromise is implemented, Spain will "fiercely argue" against that outcome? Really? Will they also retroactively argue against the compromise between the Czech Republic and Slovakia?), c) you have stated that Spain "will not allow the creation of any ethnic country" ( Pax, you really think Spain is claiming such power to effect world affairs?) d) you claim Slovenia has "stood aside" Serbia (Pax, actually Slovenia just upped its commitment to KFOR which means its soldiers may once again be standing in the way of Serbian forces), e) you can't understand how some form of independence is expected, f) you claim the US has ended its lobbying for an independent Kosovo (Pax, ironically you may be right. Maybe that's because its a done deal? Read the Polt interview.), g)those in the current Serbian government "have nothing to do with the disgusting 1990's" (Pax, so they were all in Switzerland at the time?), h) you claim the current Kosovo government wants to kill its own citizens, and i) you claim logic and common sense dictate that the US not support Kosovo independence "according to what (Fairview360) says" (Pax, where is the logic and common sense in that?).


 * O.K. So Pax, explain, if you will, how what you are saying reflects what I am saying. Please. Fairview360 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the latest back and forth, I'd like to make three points:

1) On the inevitability of independence -- Well, we've been around this argument before. First, virtually every credible source makes a point of saying that Kosovo's independence is all but certain.  It's extremely difficult to find a media article or academic report that does not mention this.  Second, the reality is that Europe is not divided on independence.  I spend a lot of time traveling European capitals talking about Kosovo and I can attest that there is an extremely broad consensus that Kosovo will become and should become independent.  The only disagreements are about how and when Kosovo should become independent.  Yes, there are some outliers -- Spain and to a lesser extent Romania and Greece -- but does anyone really believe these countries will seek or even be able to derail a status outcome that is so widely supported?  Admittedly, most folks are not thrilled about Kosovo's independence (it's an option with lots of problems), but expert opinion is remarkably unified that all other outcomes are not remotely viable. Also, remember that big countries have a powerful incentive to move this process to a rapid conclusion: there are over 16,000 troops on the ground who would be in harm's way if new instability hits Kosovo. It's always a pain in the ass getting Europe to agree to anything, but I share the confidence that all our credible source have that Kosovo's independence is still on train.

2) On the war crimes issue -- The problem with Serbia's new "democratic" leaders is not that they are morally responsible for the crimes of Milosevic; the problem is that they (especially Kostunica) have brazenly refused to fulfill Serbia's international obligations to cooperate with the ICTY. I do not believe in collective guilt, but I do believe that all nation's have a responsibility to deal with the legacy of the past (Americans still must deal with the legacy of slavery; Germans still must deal with the legacy of the Holocaust).  Serbia's leaders are not dealing with the legacy of the 1990s.  Their retrograde focus on the mythologies of the past -- especially their self-destructive attempt to hang on to Kosovo at all costs -- is distracting them from their brighter future in Europe.  As for the Kosovo Albanians and their leaders, I'd be the first to agree that there are some shady characters around. But the ICTY has spent years investigating Ceku and other Kosovo Albanian leaders, but only managed to get charges to stick on a few, including Ramush Haradinaj (and most experts believe that indictment was extremely weak, but that Carla Del Ponte felt pressure to indict at least one high-profile KLA'er to show "balance.") And, from a pragmatic and amoral point of view, both Ceku and Ramush have done more for the wellbeing of Kosovo Serbs after the war than any other Kosovo leaders.

3) On international law -- I bristle deeply when principles of international law are invoked to "prove" that Kosovo's independence will be "illegal." Kostunica, a lawyer by trade, has put all his eggs in this very unsympathetic argument that somehow Kosovo's independence will violate international law.  This is simply not right.  The reality is that Kosovo's independence is taking place in the context of Yugoslavia's 15-year, non-consensual breakup.  As part of that breakup, the UN Security Council (itself a major source of international law) passed Resolution 1244 that called for a UN-led political process to determine Kosovo's future status -- that Resolution deliberately did not rule out any particular status outcome, including independence.  Finally, there is nothing in the UN Charter or in international law that prevents the emergence of states on the territory of former states: if so, then the new states of the former Yugoslavia would never have come into being! International law is kind of like the Bible: it contains many principles and maxims that can be invoked to "prove" any case. For Serbia to rely on its interpretation of international law -- while ignoring the persuasive political, pragmatic and moral reasons why Kosovo should become independent and why Kosovo's two million citizens should not be forced to remain in a union with Serbia -- is unfortunate and does not reflect well on Serbia. I believe that Serbia, a great nation with a bright future in Europe, deserves better from its leaders.

Envoy202 23:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am amazed at this intelligent comment, I think this is the best one I have read so far on Wikipedia. Envoy202, I hearby give you my highest regards, I am really impressed at the high level of professionalism you have demonstrated when writing this compelling and rational text. If only more Wikipedians were like you. Good work! :) --  G OD OF  J USTICE 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say I agree. Despite independence might not be the best solution, I think it's the only one. Then again, we've had dire consequences before, like in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, etc... we humans dealt with it before - and so shall we deal with it again.


 * To Fairview: please do not answer so radically, I was only pointing out that which US officials announced according to you. No, they were not in Switzerland, they were hiding underground in a resistance and in a political organization preparing the crash of Milosevic's regime and boycotting the government, slowly conquering Serbia one-by-one and committing freedom propaganda including undertaking various "missions", reaching culmination with Milosevic's defeat at Belgrade, the nation's capital. Those people, are today's Government of Serbia (mostly). --PaxEquilibrium 15:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pax, you are doing a lot more than "only pointing out that which US officials announced". Furthermore, please read more carefully. The statements by US officials introduced in this discussion are not "according to me", but rather B92 and the rest of the international media. No one in the international community or the media is disputing what Ambassador Polt actually said. Are you? Fairview360 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

PaxEquilibrium, there is a very good English expression which says: "Put Up or Shut Up".

Now, let me explain what that means. First of all, Serbia and Serbs in general should get used to the idea that Kosova will not be run by people that Serbia and Serbs like, but by people that are elected in free and fair elections by Kosovars, the people of Kosova. Gone are the days when some Serb from Belgrade would decide who should govern Kosova and represent Serb interests there. When Bajram Rexhepi was elected as Prime Minister of Kosova in 2002 Serbs made up all sorts of stories against him because they knew that they had no control over him -- hence, they did not like him. Needless to say, all these storied proved to be false.

Moving to a more important point, the reason why the ICTY was created was so that an independent international court could try those accused of war crimes. If a person is accused and there is evidence (no rumours, sorry!) then that person is charged. This is followed by a free and fair trial that finds that person guilty or innocent. If the evidence was fabricated or false then that person is released and declared innocent, like Fatmir Limaj for example.

Serbia and Serbs have been making a lot of noise about Agim Ceku, Hashim Thaci and some others. However, one needs to learn that noise and rumours are not something that can stand or be used in a free and fair court. All the so-called evidence (or first-eye witnesses that you mentioned in your previous post) has been shown to be false and groundless by the ICTY. Therefore, you and your fellow Serbs may call Ceku a killer, but in front of law he is an innocent man, and none of you can show any document that supports your claims that he is anything other than an innocent man.

One thing that Serbia and Serbs don't like to remind the world is that every single, yes, every single Albanian that has been charged by the ICTY has handed themselves in, and none of them has run into hiding. Not a single Albanian (or Kosovar) has ever run away from justice. If a person is not guilty, or believes they are not, they do not hide from justice. That's why Ramush Haradinaj within 24 hours of being charged by the ICTY handed himself in at the Hague (yes, he was in the Hague the next day). Now, people like Mladic and Karadjic have not, and one must wonder why? The answer to anyone with 1 gram of brain is clear, but to those brainwashed may not be.

Having said all this, I, again, would like to invite PaxEquilibrium or for this matter anyone, be they Serbian or otherwise, to share everything they know with the ICTY. You know better than me PaxEquilibrium that you have no evidence, you have no first-eye witnesses or anything of the sort, but instead you still choose to lie. If you think you are not lying then go on show us, show the world, show the ICTY some evidence, real evidence, strong evidence, that Agim Ceku has committed a war crime.

I challenge you, and others who think like you, to Put Up or Shut Up!

And please, spare me of the "I am an open-minded... liberal... anti-nationalist..." nonsense. If you decide to call someone a killer then be prepared to show proof that that person was found guilty of killing someone in front of a free and fair trial in an independent or neutral court.

Also, please, please, spare me once again of that rubbish that Kostunica & Co are some sort of "clean" guys who have never touched a gun. The best thing in life and history is that actions speak louder than any lie or rubbish people say, and to prove this here is a photograph of Kostunica in Kosovo in 1998 holding a Kalashnikov and smiling. Hardly a clean man, don't you agree?

Finally, does Spain support or not the independence of Kosova does not matter that much. What really matters is what the man charged with finding a solution to the final status of Kosova will propose or say. That man is Marti Ahtisaari and what he thinks is what counts. Now, he chose not to tell the people of Serbia what he will propose until after the general elections, which leads us to believe that it will not be a good news for them.

I like to think of myself as a patient person, so, I am happy to wait and see who was right and who was wrong. But somehow I believe that Marti Ahtisaari's word will be more powerful than the word of some Spanish politician (with regards to Kosova issue).

As a closing note, I would like to say to Kostunica and his followers that every single country that is independent today has broken "international law" in one way or another to gain their independence. How did Slovenia or Macedonia or East Timor gain their independence otherwise? One cannot freeze the wheel of history and thus freeze the borders otherwise we would have today the same borders that we had in 1912 or 1802 or 1345, and of course we don't. From Kosova with Love, Kosovar 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with that logic is that if it is OK for Kosovo to break international law in order to gain independence, it is then OK too for Serbia to break it in order to prevent it, and you wouldn't like that.
 * As a side notes, there are plethora of countries which haven't broken international law when they gained independence, and "the people of Kosovo" does not exist. Nikola 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikola, how interesting! Last time I checked, "international law" (from the Serbian perspective) did not prevent Slovenia and Croatia from gaining their independence. Therefore, the Serbian "international law" is yet another myth. And last time Serbia "tried to prevent it" in 1999 they got a bloody nose, hence their troops left Kosova. Now, I think it is Serbia who "wouldn't like that" again.
 * And by the way, how would you call the people who are from Kosova, who live in Kosova? Vanzemalci (English:Aliens, people from other planets)? Don't be so stupid! Kosovar 01:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

-- I wouldn't overstate the "cleanliness" of the Kosovo Albanian leadership. They did some pretty shady stuff and have blood on their hands. Kostunica may be an unreconstructed nationalist, but he's not quite a paramilitary leader (yeah, yeah, I know everybody talks about that infamous photo with the gun...but come on, hasn't everybody been caught in a pose that was later regretted?). Let's have no illusions: there are some seriously dysfunctional and downright scary aspects to the Kosovo Albanians leadership structure. As for the claim that there are no eye-witnesses to Kosovo Albanians atrocities, my response would be that, of course, there are no eye-witnesses -- they've all been either murdered or intimidated into silence.

-- I think I will scream next time someone says that Kosovo's independence will be somehow "against international law." I have talked to many international legal experts (i.e., people who know a hell of a lot more on this subject than I do) and they tell me that international law on the recognition of states -- especially in the context of the violent, non-consensual dissolution of a state like Yugoslavia -- is murky. Recognition of new states has always been primarily a policy decision, not primarily a matter of international law. Furthermore, international law is not like domestic law: it is a body of principles and precepts (often contradictory) that countries generally agree to recognize and commit to implement (usually...). If you really want to cite international law, go to UNSCR 1244 -- a resolution passed by the Security Council, itself a major source of international law -- and review the provisions about a UN-led political process to determine Kosovo's status. Bottom line: Kostunica's selective interpretation of international law shouldn't be taken at face value (hey, I can claim that my boyfriend forgetting our anniversary is a violation of international humanitarian law, but that does not make it so).

Envoy202 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear "Envoy202", did you actually read my messages? I was not stating, let alone "overstating" the cleanliness of any political figure in the Balkans, be they Albanian or otherwise. I was merely showing to others that their claims that today's Serbian leadership is "clean" was complete and utter rubbish. Second, I challenge you to find a photograph of Ibrahim Rugova with a gun or any other "pose" that he later regretted. So, again, your claim that "everybody" has been caught... is rubbish.


 * Second, more importantly, justice does not take into account only "eye-witness account" as you seem to suggest. In fact, if that were the case most murder crimes would never be solved. There are other very sophisticated means of establishing justice, and believe you me the ICTY is a powerful court that can investigate and bring very strong evidence that is "non-eye-witness account" evidence. So, please, don't make more foul of yourself than you have already done. You can't just simply say someone has "blood in their hands" and then show nothing for it -- and by nothing I mean anything with legal or official basis.


 * Let me invite yet again all of you that think that someone is guilty of war crimes to contact the ICTY and share what you know -- because if you cared for the victims you would do something about it, and not simply lie and spread groundless propaganda.


 * From Kosova with Love, Kosovar 01:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Words "masses" and "razed to the ground"
Dear all: The section on Kosovo during Ottoman rule says:

"This brought a great shift, as the Orthodox Serb population began to lose its majority when masses of Turks and Albanians moved to Kosovo. During the Islamisation, many Churches and Holy Orthodox Christian places were razed to the ground or turned into Mosques".

I think the words "masses" and "razed to the ground" are both inappropriate and should be replaced by something less controversial - maybe "large numbers" and just plain old "destroyed". Regards Osli73 19:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Masses definitely implies informality, which is probably inappropriate, but it can of course also be used in the sense of "population movement en masse" &mdash; i.e. lots of people moving together in a very short space of time. Is that what happened? I'd agree on "razed to the ground" though; too emotive, unless it's quoting from a source. – Kieran T  ( talk  20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kierant, alright, does that mean we can change it? Really shouldn't be that controversial. Since no one else has commented and you don't seem to object I'll go ahead (see my entry above). Regards Osli73 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means, be bold :) – Kieran T  ( talk  22:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just did, let's see.... Osli73 22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the changes. Nikola 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that even before Serbians inhabited those lands and supposedly became the majority in the region those lands were already with an albanian majority before Serbian invaders forcefully drove away the albanian population. If you mention that Turks and Albanians 'drove out' the Serbs you should probably also mention that the Serbs also used similar chauvinist tactics. Lets not forget Where the Serbian Slavs came from, north of the Danube. Before that they were east of the Black Sea. --Shqipëtari 11:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
Would it be a bad idea to add the serbian spelling of Pristina there? Does some one know why they removed it? Litany 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous "Prishtinë / Priština" restored already. - Evv 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

those who believe Kosovo, according to current expectations, is headed towards some form of independence
Please add to this list Fairview360 23:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) :


 * 1) President of Serbia Boris Tadic
 * 2) A plurality of citizens of Serbia
 * 3) Foreign policy experts
 * 4) Western, Eastern, Southern and Northern Media
 * 5) Current leadership of Kosovo
 * 6) The vast majority of impartial observers
 * 7) Those who are for Kosovo independence
 * 8) Those who oppose Kosovo independence
 * 9) Those who are emotionally prepared to accept that current expectations are what they are
 * 10) Most of those who are not emotionally prepared to accept that current expectations are what they are
 * 11) Just about all editors of this article, even those who do not want it acknowledged in the introduction


 * Don't be childish. --Svetislav Jovanović 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Each of the above statements are substantiated. Read Boris Tadic's statements. He is not for independence but acknowledges that is where Kosovo is headed according to current expectations. Fairview360 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If they are please substantiate them with references. I think the statement should be clarified, and your last rv edit summary edit summary is not accurate.  If you haven't noticed I'm attempting to compromise with you on each edit, and simply refuse and continue to revert.   The last version I updated mentions news media not Western media (linked to News Media (United States)) in my first attempt for a compromise.   If there is a consensus to leave this in the (top) then we must clarify who "widely expects" this as the sources provided in the article -- (The Economist, New York Times, and Associated Press are all Western media sources.  As an encyclopedia I think it's important that we point this out so readers can make there own conclusions on the speculation we are providing.  // Laughing Man 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent Actually Laughing Man, what you have been doing is repeat edits without any discussion on the talk pages in direct violation of your parole.

This is not a matter of being a crystal ball. We are acknowledging what current expectations are according to foreign policy experts, diplomats, citizens of Serbia, the President of Serbia, reliable sources, etc.

1) According to Serbian President Boris Tadic... "Kosovo is at this time closer to independence than to essential autonomy, Serbia’s President Boris Tadic has stated, as cited by the Serbian Beta agency." http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n99738
 * No that's not the quote, the proper quote from the link you gave is “Today, we are pulling Kosovo out of independence, where Milosevic’s and Radicals’ governments pushed it” // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is indeed a quote. It is quote of the actual article.


 * Laughing Man, you seem to want to blame all of your troubles on the bogeyman called "western media". B92 is not western media. They listened to what President Tadic had to say and came to that conclusion. If you google it, you can find the entire interview with Tadic. Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * President Tadic: "I said this many times, that there is a greater possibility that Kosovo will become independent. Every citizen knows that, and I have no right to try to fool the citizens," http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2006&mm=12&dd=11&nav_category=92&nav_id=38533 Fairview360 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2) According to 32% of Serbs, independence for Kosovo is expected. 12% believe Serbia will hold onto Kosovo. http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Bilteni/Engleski/b021006_e.html#N13
 * No, 36 percent expected independence, 29 percent were unsure, 17 percent thought the territory would be split, and 12 percent though it would remain an autonomous region of Serbia. This poll was 1,634 people out of 8-9 million, certainly not the "plurality of citizens of Serbia". // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. My mistake. 36% responded that they expected independence which shows once again that these expectations are not limited to "western media". I suggest that you visit websites reviewing the accurate polling of recent US elections. You will see that 1,634 is a viable sample size that will produce results reflective of the entire population. Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * President Tadic's assessment of what Serbian citizens expect: "I said this many times, that there is a greater possibility that Kosovo will become independent. Every citizen knows that, and I have no right to try to fool the citizens," http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2006&mm=12&dd=11&nav_category=92&nav_id=38533 Fairview360 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3) According to Richard Holbrooke, "In the long run Kosovo will be an independent country," "The long run depends on what the Serbs do," "Will they except the reality and look to the future of Serbia as part of the European Union, or cling to a mythic version of a past and deny reality? If they deny reality and try to hold onto Kosovo, they will lose both. They won’t be able to retain Kosovo but will also lose the chance to join Europe." http://www.iwpr.net/?p=brn&s=f&o=325427&apc_state=henfbrn325425 http://www.iwpr.net/?p=brn&s=f&o=325425&apc_state=henh
 * And his opinion means what exactly now, especially with his background in the former Yugoslavia, he obviously will have that opinion. // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He has extensive experience working with the entire range of Serbian and international diplomats. Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to intelligence experts: "A final U.N. decision -- which will almost certainly recommend some version of independence for Kosovo -- has been delayed so as to not offend Serbian sensibilities." http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=281168
 * Not sure who these experts are, but I can't view your article as you need a login. // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can restore the link for general usage.Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is B92's article about the intelligence assessment http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=38321 Fairview360 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to US State Department sources: "Washington would support Kosovo’s independence, under international supervision." http://www.iwpr.net/?p=brn&s=f&o=325425&apc_state=henh
 * Which US State Department sources? // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Journalists are not going to reveal their sources, but it is no secret that that is the US position. Look at Ambassador Polt's recent interview. Fairview360 14:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

4) According to the media:


 * Armenian media: "Many believe (Kosovo) will be granted independence next year without the consent of its former parent state, Serbia" http://www.a1plus.am/en/?page=issue&iid=43320
 * The weasly "Many" again... who are they talking about? // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason journalists say many or it is understood is that one can not list all those who expect some form of independence because the list is too long. Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Qatar media: Kosovo "is widely understood to be heading for some kind of independence." http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/commentary/commentaryother.asp?file=octobercommentary812006.xml
 * Not Qatar, but David Charter - The Times // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Published in Qatar media. By the way, are you going to say that B92 is western media?Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Taiwan media: "Ahtisaari is widely expected to propose that the UN grants a form of independence to the ethnic Albanians." http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/11/12/2003336012
 * Not Taiwan, but AFP // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Published in Taiwan media. By the way, are you going to say that B92 is western media? Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Newsweek: U.N. negotiations on the future of Kosovo, wrapping up in Vienna, will soon recommend some form of independence. It's not "if" but "when," says Daniel Serwer at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington. "The big question is how to get the Serbs to accept it." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15463348/site/newsweek/


 * In any case I can accept what the media going to try to portray as it's nothing new here based on how they handled the Yugoslav Wars in the Western media. // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can not dismiss current expectations as a myth created by your prefered bogeyman the western media. Well, actually you apparently can, but it is not accurate. Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

5) There is ample evidence that Kosovo's leadership expects independence.
 * I'm assuming your not referring to UNMIK? // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am refering to the Kosovo political leadership, but given the UNMIK preparation, that also indicates that some form of independence is expected. Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

6)See media references above.
 * Since when is the Western media is impartial observers? // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is B92 western media? Fairview360 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Nikola 08:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

7)Obviously true.

8)Do the math. Even a majority of those who oppose independence believe that Kosovo independence is inevitable. 60% of Serbs want to retain Kosovo. Only 12% expect that to happen. http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Bilteni/Engleski/b021006_e.html#N13
 * Your math is a little off, 29 percent were unsure, 17 percent thought the territory would be split, and 12 percent though it would remain an autonomous region of Serbia. So this looks like 58% believe that independence is not inevitable.  Again this poll was only  1,634 people out what about 8-9 million?  I think you can do the math now to find out much of an accurate representation this poll is in the first place. // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * President Tadic is against Kosovo independence and yet that is what is expected and he acknowledges that fully: "I said this many times, that there is a greater possibility that Kosovo will become independent. Every citizen knows that, and I have no right to try to fool the citizens," http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2006&mm=12&dd=11&nav_category=92&nav_id=38533 Fairview360 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Our math is essentially the same. How we interpret it is different. 60% want Kosovo to remain a part of Serbia. 12% believe it will remain a part of Serbia. In any case, you would have to acknowledge that many Serbs who are against Kosovo independence believe that Kosovo will get independence. Again, look at opinion polling and you will see that 1,634 is a viable sample size. Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

9 and 10) Basically a statement saying that emotions are making it difficult for some to see the course of current events. But most of those having trouble accepting it can still see where things are headed.

11) A review of the discussion here will show that most editors aknowledge current expectations of Kosovo independence whether they agree or not. For example, I believe both Litany and Pax would acknowledge that most analysts believe Kosovo is headed for some form of independence although Lit and Pax do not want those expectations to be fulfilled and they both do not want those expectations to be acknowledged in the introduction.

Fairview360 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "emotions" and wikipedian's opinions do not belong in this encyclopedia. // Laughing Man 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you believe that your opinion has no place in the formulation of wikipedia articles, why are you writing your opinions here? It is the opinions of wiki editors and administrators that decides what is in the articles and what is not. There are those who have an opinion that describing current expectations according to reliable sources belongs in the Kosovo introduction. There are those who do not. Are you now saying that your opinion is irrelevant? Fairview360 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent First of all I don't see the media as a bogeyman or the media's current expectations as a myth, but rather an attempt to influence policy and public perception. Others (most likely the majority of readers) might be more willing to accept the "truth" reported by the media without questioning it. In any case, I feel we should simply clarify the statement so readers can decide for themselves.

My opinion is irrelevant in terms of belonging in the content of the article -- I am not adding to the article that I believe the outcome should be a certain way, and the main concern that I have is that the current statement is both weasly and crystal ball speculation which does not belong in an encyclopedia. In an attempt to compromise, I simply wish the statement be clarified instead of removed. I don't understand why there is a dispute over clarifying the sources of the statement provided in the article? // Laughing Man 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What alternate language would you propose? Envoy202 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the current version is my last attempt for a compromise version:
 * According to the news media it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence.
 * // Laughing Man 16:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly believe that those expectations are limited to the news media? Do you honestly believe that foreign policy experts do not expect that some form of independence will be granted? Fairview360 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's try to find consensus here. Admittedly, the "it is widely expected" formulation isn't great -- I am certain there is a special place reserved in hell for habitual users of the passive voice. So how about this language: "Virtually all international diplomats, media commentators and foreign policy experts believe that the status process will lead to Kosovo's independence, although this independence will likely be subject to certain transitional limitations on sovereignty." Envoy202 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the 'epic case' Fairview presented in support of the original paragraph deserves more intelligent answers than the ones given by some editors. As I have said before and I will repeat it again, there's is something sinister going on here, surely, to claim that only western media predict the future of some sort of independence is cocky and has serious political undertones.


 * Why on earth do we have to submit to a few serbian editors who think that by presenting quasi arguments can get away with watering down the description of the inevitable course of events. What makes it even sadder is that they are totally aware of them, but somehow think that by casting doubt over the future of the province, may in some way sway or influence public opinion.


 * The bottom line is this: Sources were provided to substantiate the claim that Kosovo will become independent, and as such it belongs there (even the Serbian population believes that Kosovo is well and truly lost). The suggestion above (made by an unsigned editor) is quite descriptive and I applaud it for being factual and accurate, however, it is slightly complex and in substance is essentially the same as the original paragraph.


 * I would ask the administrators to unlock the article so that the watered down paragraph stating that only the western media predict independence can be removed on the grounds that it simply isn't true. No propaganda should stand in the way of the sourced material. Serbian editors are quite happy to defend their arguments stating sources when it suits them (I have read the archive talk pages) but hypocritically, are unwilling to accept them when it doesn't match their motives. This is pure Balkan politics in action!Sanmint 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the sources do not substantiate that Kosovo will become independent. The sources substantiate what current expectations are among diplomats, foreign policy experts, media, and observers. A distinction that must be made before another round of epic-to-the-point-of-nausea discussions pour onto these pages. Fairview360 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make one more distinction: most involved diplomats work hard on making Kosovo independent. It is logical that they will say so when asked, but whether they truly believe that their work will be successful, we don't and can't know. Nikola 08:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We know that according to foreign policy experts, media, observers, and diplomats, current expectations are that Kosovo will receive some form of independence. Fairview360 08:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in Kosovo/Kosova and I can guarantee that from what the situation here is it seems highly unlikely that this region will remain as a part of Serbia. If you don't believe me then drop by within about 6 months and your passport will explain the situation to you. The only reason Tadic has changed his position on the situation at this time is because the elections in Serbia are not too far away and no sane politician running for the Serbian presidency will say that Kosova/Kosovo will have to be recognized by Serbia during such a time. After the elections ar finished the situation will obviously take a new turn and independence won't seem so impossible when that time comes.

Roncevaux 10:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with those who say that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be about speculation
 * However, in this case, it would seem that most (media, politicians, etc) assume that Kosovo will have some kind of formalized conditional indepedence in the future. Thus, the article could well state this without overstepping its bounds.
 * But, it should say "some form of" independence, since it's not at all clear that it's going to be full seat at the UN-style independence

socket puppet?
According to a 6-0 vote of the arbitration committee, Sletislav Jovanovic is likely a sockpuppet of Bormalagurski.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo

"Bormalagurski has used abusive sockpuppets"

"20) CheckUser shows that KOCOBO (talk • contribs) is an abusive sockpuppet of Bormalagurski, used to engage in further edit warring. Srbijanković (talk • contribs) and Svetislav Jovanović (talk • contribs) are likely sockpuppets, and Bože pravde (talk • contribs) is a possible sockpuppet. (evidence)"

"Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)"

Fairview360 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... This says that I'm a possible sockpuppet. I'm not a sockpuppet. --  G OD OF  J USTICE 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Srbijankovic's indeed Bormalagurski's sockpuppet (obviously), but not the other two. The other two (Svetislav and Boze pravde) are more likely each other's sockpuppets.


 * The most interesting thing is that Fairview appears to be a sockpuppet too. :)))


 * Oh really Pax? And whose sockpuppet might I allegedly be? Fairview360 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway - I've got a nice solution to the Kosovo dispute: SHUT UP. You've been all disrupting wikipedia (and partially, me as well) by piling discussions that are never-ending circles, and it's killing all of us. Since obviously not even the Arbitration Committee can help here, I suggest you just leave - and wait until the situation's resolved (which will be pretty soon). The only obvious thing is that you're trying to ballot votes across readers to propagate about Kosovo's incoming independence, or trying to explain every bit of international law to every 8-year old child that has never heard about Kosovo. That might be the only reason for such passions expressed here - as I don't think you realize that this is an encyclopedia. Geez, just leave it and then return when the status is resolved. I suggest that you try reading the whole archive (I just did) and you'll puke instantly. For God's sake, let the hungry wolves on top decide the future of millions and play God a little. --PaxEquilibrium 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pax, it is really not that complex or torturous. It is simply a matter of establishing what current expectations are according to reliable sources and deciding whether it is appropriate to include that in the introduction. Fairview360 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What does this mean: "The other two (Svetislav and Boze pravde) are more likely each other's sockpuppets."? I have nothing to do with Svetislav. Who is making these accusations and why? --  G OD OF  J USTICE 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To Fairview360: With all due your respec', you did not read 11 ARCHIVE PAGES that are full of discussions of nothing but ''this very same argument. Read it, and I will eat my hat if you don't puke instantaneously. --PaxEquilibrium 10:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am more interested in you eating your words. You have said that you believe I might be a sockpuppet. According to you, whose sockpuppet do I appear to be? Fairview360 13:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to know why someone is accusing me of being a sockpuppet. --  G OD OF  J USTICE 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

@Bože pravde: For the record, no-one is "accusing" you (Bože pravde) of being a sockpuppet. User:Bormalagurski was accused of using sockpuppets during the recent Kosovo arbitration case. The information you refer to comes from a process called Checkuser (see: m:Help:CheckUser). Your name came up during that process because you probably edit from within a similar IP address range and because you edit articles about similar topics as Bormalagurski. Therefore, your account was considered a possible sockpuppet. You were not informed, because this had consequences for you and was not an accusation against you. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

@Fairview360: I do not know who Pax is referring to when calling you a sockpuppet. Most likely he is referring to Vesazo/Dardanv who was discovered to use sockpuppets in editing Kosovo/Serbia related articles during the recent Kosovo Arbitration case. Apart from that, you appear to have edited under another account at least once:. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cpt. Morgan, thank you for the feedback. Yes, Fairview223 was the precursor to Fairview360. That one June 22 edit was my first ever edit on wikipedia. 223 was a random number. I just liked the sound of it. On July 15, when deciding to get more involved in editing, I chose Fairview360 in reference to 360 degrees. I thought it a better name and there was also the slight challenge that I had forgotten the password to Fairview223. :) Fairview360 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Reinoutr correctly interpreted my wording. --PaxEquilibrium 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So Pax, do you want to be more specific or do you prefer to speak in riddles? Fairview360 23:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's outrageous to suggest that the article be left alone until status is decided. You can't have the article downplay the genocidal action of Albanians against Serbs through the KLA and turn them into a some kind of great group. Independence or not that will always be disputed. Things will Always always be in dispute in Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.226 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * KLA was a guerrilla terrorist organization - but there was not really a genocide against Serbs (would make more sense the other way around - genocide of Albanians). --PaxEquilibrium 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What happened in March of 2004 definitely fell within the defintion of ethnic cleansing and genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.226 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The following happened in March 2004: 19 (nineteen) people died, 11 (eleven) of them Albanians. How more disrespectful can one be to true victims of genocide? What planet do you live in, I wonder? Just how more idiotic can a group of people be when you read day-in-day-out horrific stories of the worst crimes committed by Serbian troops and their efforts to cover up? Just 3 days ago the Serbian media report the following story: Witness "ordered" to cover up killings with more than 80 bodies of Kosovar Albanian civilians hidden in a refrigerated truck and thrown into Danube, and you call the (tragic) killing of 8 (eight) people genocide. What a waste of space! Kosovar 12:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The number of injured is what is important - in the mass riots over 1,000 people were injured, and they were mostly Serbs. Fact is that over 4,000 (mostly ethnic Serbs) people additionally were ethnically cleansed from their homes. But what is more noticing here is not the victim count (like one dead man isn't enough... yuch!), is the destruction of property by mostly Albanian paramilitary forces and armed mob. Almost a thousand houses were burned to the ground. But the shock lies in the cultural remains - Monastery Devic (15th century), Monastery Our Lady of Ljevic (from the 12th century), the vast Monastery of Archangels near Prizren (14th century). The public scandals would be the same if, for example, Moslem terrorists destroyed Notre-Dame in Paris, or members of IRA ransacked Buckingam's Palace. Normally, I speak hypothetically. But then again - it is people's lives that are above all, and like I said - one man killed because of his/her ethnic origin... this is an uneasy subject enough and brings back bad memories, so I'm not going to say anything else. --PaxEquilibrium 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear PaxEquilibrium, first of all, I was not replying to you but rather to that poor thing who would like us to believe that the killing of 8 (eight) people constitutes genocide. I hope you understand the stupidity of that case. Second, you can't simply change the rules and criteria as they suit you. If you want to claim that something amounts to genocide what really counts is fatalities. Injuries are a slippery subject, as you know, I can get a scratch in my hand and one could describe it as an injury. But this is not the point, we all know what happened in 2004, the question here is how stupid can a person be to call the killing of 8 people genocide, but not the killing and subsequent violation of dead bodies of 80 other people? This was my point. Full stop. If I started providing you with the number of injuries and people who were forcefully removed from Kosova by Serb troops you will understand how insignificant her/his case really is.
 * Also, why do you fail to mention the destruction of mosques in Belgrade and Nish, also in March 2004? Or are you another one of these Serbs who thinks that the heritage of other people is not as worth as that of Serbs?
 * With regards to the damaged/destroyed homes, nearly all of them have been reconstructed by the government of Kosova, and people are free to return there. You call ethnic cleansing the fact that Serbs were forced out from parts of Kosova, but why is it that the forceful removal of Albanians north of the Iber river is not ethnic cleansing. These are two cheeks of the same face. If one is ethnic cleansing, then so is the other.
 * And, finally, you surely have a great imagination (dare I say for exaggeration). I know you want to score a point with the "westerners" but, comparing the Notre-Dame and the Buckingham Palace with the monasteries that were damaged in Kosova is laughable at best.
 * Addressing another point from your previous posts, may I also add that since you are a Serb, the Kosova Liberation Army was of course terrorist, but to the vast majority of people in Kosova (where they were active) they were freedom fighters and to the vast majority of governments and (important) organisations (UN, EU, OSCE, NATO, etc.) around the world they were a guerilla group. The point is, you only represent the Serbian view, and by no means the "world's view" -- just to make that crystal clear. So long, Kosovar 00:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * TO KOSOVAR-The UN has repeatedly stated that people do not have to die for there to be a genocide. You are sadly ignorant and totally uninformed. 20-Dec-06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.227 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Kosovar (I can only see Your "Dear" as satyric plays), what criteria am I changing? No killing at all (or destruction) is what suits me. I claimed that Milosevic committed a genocide of Albanians (in a way). You are free to express if You disagree... (just I didn't really expect this from You.. nope at all!). Let us please stop playing with numbers. This reminds me of Franjo Tudjman a lot and his books on the Holocaust... that's a wrong path that I do not want to tread. Every man that died in Kosovo is a tragedy enough (especially when there's 12,000!).
 * I fail to mention because I was only referring to atrocities committed to Serbs. Those were not committed against Orthodox Serbs, but Serbia's Islamic community. I consider that sentence a direct personal attack. I only express objectivity and neutrality, as You noticed. Why do You have to keep insulting everybody like that? If I didn't know better, I'd say you're an Albanian nationalist (but that would be a personal attack, so I won't). No idea what you mean. Ethnic cleansing of over 350 Albanians that were exiled from North Kosovo is not ethnic cleansing of Serbs, but of Albanians.
 * There You go with the insults again. Why is it laughable? And yes, the comparison is bad - the Churches are (or better, were) three times older than the Buckingham Palace and the unique art represented in them is not easily matched in the Christian world (so that actually makes them more worthy). The only downside is that famous people sat at the Palace - although famous global Christians regularly visited Churches on Kosovo, so we're getting a wild mix over 'ere. :)
 * Calling me a Serb and creating ethnic lines won't do any good here on Wiki. KLA indeed restored to terrorist actions - regardless of what it was to anyone (Yugo, Kosovo, or anyone else). All the institutions you mentioned indeed considered KLA a terrorist organization, so I don't see your point. Anyone, I don't see why your attitude has climbed to such a harsh level - please cool off a little. Cheers, --PaxEquilibrium 01:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear PaxEquilibrium, when I address you as "dear" I mean it. I don't need to say or write something that I don't mean. Now that this is out of the way, let me say that the one who is angry here is not me. I hope you are actually reading my posts and getting their points. If things are not clear, let me clarify them once again:


 * Someone suggested that the riots of March 2004 amount to a genocide. This claim is not only laughable, but also highly offensive. Hence, I wrote back to ridicule these claims. I then reminded that person that just in one case of a horrible war crime 10 (ten) times more Albanians were murdered and their bodies violated in the worst possible way and asked why doesn't s/he, according to their logic (or lack of it), call that a "genocide" too? Therefore, I raised the question that one cannot change the criteria for genocide to whatever suits them.


 * You then joined the discussion and consciously or otherwise supported these claims because of injuries and damage to cultural ruins. Now, I totally reject this on the basis that there were more non-Serb fatalities than Serb, and on the basis that the Serbs themselves destroyed the cultural heritage of others. In addition, people of different ethnic groups were forcefully removed from most places where one ethnic group lives in a large majority. If one is a crime or atrocity then so is the other.


 * Furthermore, you tried to score some really cheap political points by mentioning "IRA" and "Moslem terrorists", and touching on sentimental buildings such as Notre-Dame and Buckingham Palace. Why, I wonder, do you treat others as children by having to "compare" a monastery with a royal palace, such as the Buckingham Palace. A damaged or destroyed monastery (or mosque) is a damaged or destroyed monastery (or mosque). We are all grown ups and can understand what they are, there is no need for confusion by "comparison". Notre-Dame in Paris is on a league of its own, and whether you understand this or not, what you are doing is manipulating with the feelings of people from these countries, namely England and France.

Now, if you think that pointing out these manipulations and one-sided description of events is "anger" then I don't agree with it. If revealing that someone's argument about "genocide" is fundamentally flawed is "anger" then I disagree once again.

Next, I challenge you to provide evidence that "all the institutions you mentioned indeed considered KLA a terrorist organization". If you think you are neutral then provide us with evidence (documents) where major foreign governments and organisations such as UN, EU, OSCE, and NATO describe KLA as terrorist. If you provide proof to support your claims then I will withdraw what I have said without reservations, but until you do that I stand by what I wrote and remind you once gain that the view you expressed here is the view of the Serbian side, and by no means the NPOV.

Finally, if you consider as personal attack questioning you about the issues you raised and ideas you willingly or otherwise supported then we will have to disagree yet again. PaxEquilibrium, above all I respect you despite the fact that we have different opinions in a number of issues. I can live with that and respect you. But, what I cannot agree with and respect is your thinking that you are objective and neutral. I understand that we have differences of opinion and we will continue to have these differences of opinion in certain issues, but I respect the fact that I can discuss with you in a human and civilised way and would never wish or intend to attack you personally or offend you. I expect the same from you. From Kosova with Love, Kosovar 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There. I claimed no such thing. It is that I argued that there was no genocide of Serbs - but genocide of Albanians, rather, and then You came in.


 * Those monasteries had the bodies of Saints in them. Several of them were an Imperial Palace ;). There is no real reason why I chose that. That accusation is also a clear violation of WP:Civil and an almost personal attack. I do not intend to manipulate anyone (I am no Milosevic, nor Holbrooke, neither Ceku).


 * Numerous major (and thus, all important) factions of the world considered IRA terrorist (most notably among them Russia and the United States). The NATO listed KLA in the List of the Terrorist Organizations. Aside from that, check MIPT Terrorism, where you'll find any info regarding Terrorism You would ever want - that's an article on KLA. Quote:


 * Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) formed in Macedonia in 1992 with the goal of uniting the ethnic Albanian populations of Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia into a "Greater Albania." Their name recognized that the province of Kosovo, officially part of the new nation of Serbia, was their most important and difficult target. The KLA was not based on a single rigid, hierarchical structure, but instead operated in dispersed cells. These cells did wear uniforms and maintain some form of chain of command, however. The group remained basically unknown until 1995, when it began carrying out small arms and sabotage attacks against Serbian Police outposts in Kosovo. The KLA also conducted vicious reprisal attacks against Kosovars accused of cooperating with the Serbians. The escalating violence forced the Serbian government to respond, but their response was, by almost any standard, far too aggressive; many innocent men, women, and children died as a result.


 * Anyway - I think it is simple irrelevant what "some consider" (here, on Wiki - it is relevant); but to me, a terrorist organization is terrorist if it's terrorist. I will not talk about this anymore, because it's a too painful subject and You'll assault me again. --PaxEquilibrium 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear PaxEquilibrium, you don't seem to understand at all. I was proving to a person that what happened in March 2004 was not by any stretch of the imagination genocide, partly because of the number of fatalities. Thus, the discussion was March 2004 riots in the context of whether it was a genocide or not. I repeat, the context of discussion was whether an event amounted to genocide or not. You then came in, saying that "[t]he number of injured is what is important..." and also mentioning the damage to cultural heritage. In the context of our discussion, you supported by implication the person who was claiming that March 2004 riots were genocide.


 * In my next two posts I made every endeavour to explain to you that the point of discussion was whether an event amounts to genocide or not. The discussion was not whether the death of innocent people (regardless of their ethnicity) is good or bad, whether a royal palace (Buckingham Palace) in London and a cathedral (Notre Dame) in Paris compares to a monastery in Kosovo or not, or in fact what took place during the riots. The fact that the discussion took that direction is not my fault, and, naturally, if you raise an issue I will address it.


 * Furthermore, if you label an organisation as "terrorist", I reserve every right to challenge that. And I have. You have failed to provide any proof whatsoever that the relevant world governments and organisations consider the KLA as terrorist. You cannot back up any of your claims with evidence that "major (and thus, all important)" governments or organisations consider the KLA as terrorist other than your words, which we already knew because you told us so ("NATO listed KLA in the List of the Terrorist Organizations" -- Where is the proof? Where are the documents? Where did you find this out?). There was no mention of UN, EU, OSCE, CoE and so on.


 * All you came up with was a website, which is not neutral nor a relevant international organisation. The website itself says the following: Points of view in this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or MIPT. The website, however, does provide a list of organisations that are considered as terrorist by the U.S. government (see, , and ) and the KLA does not appear in any of them (surprise, surprise).


 * PaxEquilibrium, you can have your opinion and I will respect that. However, unless there is strong evidence (from neutral parties) that view will represent your opinion only (or the opinion of a group of people), and does not represent a neutral or objective point of view.


 * Things would be perfectly clear if you said: The events of March 2004 were not a genocide and I don't share that opinion of people who think in that way. This would close the discussion about March 2004 riots in the context of whether it was genocide or not. I would then be happy to say that I am against any sort of violence from either side, and that I condemn the senseless destruction that has taken place in the entire region. Consequently, there would be no need to compare a monastery or a mosque with a royal palace or a bridge, and everyone would live peacefully side by side. Utopia, in other words. From Kosova with Love, Kosovar 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If You really need a source that it was up to 1999 considered a terrorist organization - then I'll provide it. But let's not talk about this, since there is nothing related to this article currently.


 * Quoting the United States special envoy to the Balkans, Ambassador Robert Gelbard: I know a terrorist when I see one and these men are terrorists, and described KLA as a terrorist organization, in early 1998. --PaxEquilibrium 13:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pax, no offense, but we've been through this before. By February 1998, the KLA had been removed from the United States State Department's terrorism list (fom Wikipedia, check the KLA page for the supporting reference). Gelbard was fired from his position for making the very statement you quote.


 * I know it's a touchy subject for you, but the majority of those who joined the KLA, in 1998 and 1999, did so to defend their families from Milosevic's forces who were, as you have already pointed out, conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Albanian people in Kosovo. I would imagine that you would do the same in their position, and would also take offense at being labeled a "terrorist".  Davu.leon 11:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the word, "terrorist", is inherently a point-of-view description, we should simply avoid it entirely except when quoting or referring to a quote. After all, there are plenty of people in the world who would describe the United States government as a terrorist organisation, by the very definition of the word, and I don't suppose that assertion would survive long in a Wikipedia article. – Kieran T  ( talk  13:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * None taken. :D It has been removed, of course - that's because You (USA) as a faction which is bent on its War on Terrorism and non-negotiating, cannot keep a terrorist organization as its ally. :) Gelbard fired? Really? As far as I remember, he just changed his opinions after the KLA stopped being a terrorist organization, and became a professional guerrilla army. I do not recall of him being fired at all.


 * It's not a "touchy" subject to me. :) Nothing is "touchy" to me. Yes, You are talking about the 1998 and 1999 - but as I said, then the KLA was a paramilitary force, no longer a simple Terrorist Organization (before like that described by the World; including Ibrahim Rugova). I would not be a terrorist if I joined then, I would be a paramilitary soldier (freedom-fighter?). However nothing can deny that the roots of that which I joined lie in terrorism and the ideology in nationalist irridentism. Besides, of course I would never ever do such a thing. If I would, I would have done it - but I didn't. If someone barges into my house and threatens to push me out of my home, or even kill - I will not kill him. Nor will I "take up arms" (betraying my beliefs) and become everything that I have been fighting against and everything I stand against. But NO. I left. And I consider myself actually "superior" to all those who attacked me ("us", if there is any) and all those who remained and went to resort to violence do allegedly "defend themselves". I did not "ran away crying from a battlefield". I went full of pride, knowing that I did the good thing. Many consider me a coward, and say that my current miserable life as a war refugee is the result of it - but I have in truth, acted far more honorable than... at least 1,000,000 (if not more) of my countrymen. For if I stayed - I would've lost my life, or lost my soul - for the moment that I would fire a gun (regardless to where is it pointed) - my very point of existence would have died forever, never to be resurrected; with that single shot.


 * I am far better today, alive and with a happy conscience, thank You. Then again, I am one, and I am a special case (but heck, isn't everyone and everything?). --PaxEquilibrium 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists are those who use terrorist tactics, i.e. assassinations, bombings of civilians, etc. But when it comes to politics it is very common that allegations are made by an aggressor party who calls the victim a terrorist in order to justify and implement the political objectives. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Bardylis 23:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do You count kidnapping civilians, taking them Underground to secret bases, torturing them, making demands (ransom) and then executing them not terrorism? That's what KLA did (and more than on one occasion). --PaxEquilibrium 00:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I count post-communist, pre-NATO Serbia a terrorist state if you ask me. Which one of the examples you brought forward did they not apply. And now it is all blamed on Milosevic so the Serbian people can quietly and nicely wash their hands. Germany distanced itself from the atrocities of the Nazi regime by apologizing for all the atrocities. They did not rush to argue that they suffered the losses too. :) Bardylis 19:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkish policy
I found this 2006 article on AIA on Turkey's policy with regards to Kosovo while searching for info on the Battle of Kosovo (1389). I thought it was rather well written and maybe could be useful to add to the Kosovo article. It's up to you all.
 * "Turkey’s Kosovo Policy: Inexistent, Hesitant or Prudent?" by Can Karpat, 09.01.2006, Axis Information & Analysis

Roncevaux 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Summit
Well, the World did not make a radical decision on Kosovo. Only 3 countries: America, France and Britain made the request that a solution is imposed, and it be forced independence (with the Fifth Republic of France somewhat on edge with and the United States demanding it fiercely), normally with the support of Albania; but the whole rest of the world supported compromise and negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina, with Russia and China refusing anything that's not a ..democratic compromise where both sides are satisfied, with an amazingly strong support from Argentina as well. Wide expectations are not that Kosovo will simply become independent, but that that will be the result of the compromise (and the current government does not take Kosovar independence as an option - but we'll see which government will be in the next elections). --PaxEquilibrium 18:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should stop embarrasing yourself PaxEq. Your post dated 19:46, 11 December 2006 was bad enough. You're not here on a diplomatic mission to try and persuade the world against the Kosovar independence.Sanmint 19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm merely trying to present that the whole world (allegedly including Serbia) does not so simply expect that Kosovo will become a country. The world isn't so black&white - the strongest expectations (which are forbidden as per Wiki's policy) are that compromise between Belgrade and Pristina will be accomplished (no need to impose a solution). As for my post in 19:46, I consider it very nice and see nothing wrong with (it tells a lot, actually); what precisely do You not agree? --PaxEquilibrium 20:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * SIGH*. We've been through this so many times.  I have yet to find anyone who truly believes that the status process will -- or should -- be held hijack by one party.  The Contact Group's Guiding Principles make clear that no single party has the right to block the process.  Once started, it must be concluded.  Furthermore, there is a very widespread consensus that Serbia will never sign on the dotted line to an agreement resulting in independence.  How do we know this?  Well, for starters, every Belgrade leader has said as much.  Fortunately, we've seen very positive comments in the last week from President Tadic suggesting that independence is more likely than not.  It's obvious what he's doing: preparing the his people for the loss of Kosovo.  I believe that after independence Tadic will seek to move beyond Kosovo and refocus Serbia on its brighter future in Europe.  We're at a lull in the process now -- no state wants to say anything to prejudge the process.  But we'll be in a very different place after Ahtisaari makes his final recommendation to the Security Council.  Envoy202 00:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It will be difficult to refocus Serbia away from Kosovo with thousands and thousands of Serb refugees from Kosovo flooding Serbian cities becuase Ceku is a terrorist monster. Keep living in your fantasy land where Kosovo independence means Balkan peace forever. 12-20-06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.227 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing is sure - Kosovo will get some form of independence, but including dependence (perhaps even to Serbia) - which would soon lead (possibly) to an establishment of a secular new country in the Balkans; this might not happen tomorrow, or not even in a month - and will create some sort of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, but with full international support and a much better status - and no matter when will this happen, this will happen, as shown by every responsible man of the world (including the Serbian President). --PaxEquilibrium 15:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The content of this article is one-sided
By the content of the article and the talk page it is apparent that no ethnic Albanian of Kosovo has participated in its composition. A large portion of this article presents Kosovo the way it is seen by Serbians not by Kosovars of which a majority (over 90%) are Albanian. I lived in Kosovo for 20 years before I moved to Canada, and I do not recall meeting any Albanian who has ever regarded himself or herself as a Serbian citizen. In fact if you refer to Noel Malcolm's book, "Kosovo: A Short History", you will learn that after the withdrawal of the Ottomans, Kosovo, despite being formally regarded as part of Serbia, it never became "legally" part of it. It only became an autonomous region within Yugoslavia, quite wisely taking into consideration the history and the view of the Albanians in the region, in order to maintain stability. This delicate balance however, was shattered and erupted, when the Serbian government removed the autonomous status of Kosovo and sought to, yes, "incorporate" Kosovo within Serbia. Starting from systematic deprivation of the population, including, expelling Albanians from work (including my father), banning Albanians from schools (including myself), continual harassment and violence by the police, all of which later on culminated into full scale genocide against the Albanian population. The aim of all this, as percieved by majority of Albanians in Kosovo, was to do what had already been done once, at the turn of the century by Serbian nationalists and extremists (cetniks) who tried to prove to the western powers of the time, that there are only an unimportant minority of Albanians in the region. The way to achieve this? By ethnic cleansing, of course, because as it was propagated by Serbian politicians of the time, Albanians are "primitive creatures with tails", in other words, subhuman. Knowing all this, I do not see how I can agree with this biased, doctrinarian, if not pro-serbian presentation of historical facts in this article. Couldn't help but notice. We need to distinguish between facts (plenty of which have not been included) and the way they are presented. Please refer to Noel Malcolm's, "Kosovo: A Short History" for an objective and neutral version of Kosovo's history. Will return with more details and sources. (Bardylis 06:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC))


 * I don't think that over 90% is Albanian. The figure would be somewhere around that, yeah. Of course You do not recall anyone considering or even being a Serbian citizen - they were all Yugoslav citizens. But that does not change the fact that KosMet/Kosovo-Metohija/Kosovo was a part of the People's/Socialist Republic of Serbia (as a component of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia/Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia/Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), as an Autonomous Region, an Autonomous Province and then a Socialist Autonomous Province. I would not refer to Noel Malcolm if I were You (then again, it's Your choice), he's the ridicule of journalistic research. In 1912, the Kingdom of Serbia liberated (conquered?) Kosovo, while the Kingdom of Montenegro captured and annexed Metohija; both from the Ottoman Empire. In 1918 Montenegro joined the Serbian Kingdom, thus Kosovo also becoming a part of Serbia, and a border correction was conducted several years later (in the early 1920s) when several square kilometers of Albanian territory (Gora) were annexed to Serbia. I do not understand what do You consider by "legal"; for example, if You're referring to the fact that Kosovo did not comprise the "legal" 1878 Berlin-Congress Princedom of Serbia ("international recognition") - then You have the fact that Serbian Kosovo+extra territories and Montenegrin Metohija became a part of an internationally recognized Yugoslav state in 1918 - the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929 (and Kosovo being in its Serbian part). In 1941 Kosovo was conquered by Axis forces and occupied by Albanian fascists, but there Your international recognition remains intact (as far as up to the very Kingdom's official end - 1945). --PaxEquilibrium 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. There is more than 90% of Albanians today, mainly because of the withdrawal of the Serbs after the peace-keeping forces entered. After participating in the genocide of Kosovar Albanians politically, militarily and para militarily many of them who were disillusioned until the last second had to pack and leave. But let us not get worried too much about the figure. A smaller figure may serve as an entertainment for many who prefer a minority or no Albanians.


 * Those estimates are from the years of 2000, 2001 and 2003 & 2004 (the 88%). You show as if the Serbs altogether participated in a genocide. That's a little too generalizing. Many of them [altogether almost 300,000 non-Albanians] (AFAIC, most) left in fear, oppression or even ethnic cleansing caused by the Albanian paramilitaries. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please. Be fair enough not to try to liken the killings of the Serbians to the Kosovar Albanian genocide by the Serbian state. Yes, I agree, it may be a little too generalizing. But those who did not, participated ideologically, and still do today, in that they do not take responsibility or try to justify it through the prism of Serbian history. It is only fair to admit it and let the issue rest. To stick to the subject, I have no firm proof about the figure and I cannot comment on that for now. Bardylis 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Atrocities are atrocities. They cannot be compared. To me, one innocent human being's death is sufficient to make the whole thing dirty enough. Have Albanians greatly suffered and endure a heavy oppression that threatened the very existence of their nation through coerce destruction? Yes. Have the Serbs and other non-Albanians been discriminated, ethnically cleansed, ... Yes. Please do not compare. Serbian nationalists tend to say how Serbs were oppressed for half a century (with their number decreasing from 200,000 or a quarter of Kosovar population to 150,000 or several meager percent and Albanian populace from a two-third 500,000 population to an almost 2,000,000 90% majority - and Serbs even had a higher birth rate than Albanians in several cases). --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And I ask you not to downplay the magnitude of Serbian atrocities toward Kosovar Albanians with your weak arguments. No one entered Serbian borders with artilery, paramilitaries and demented criminals released from prisons. No one killed Serbian men or raped Serbian women in Belgrade or any other city or village in Serbia. No one burnt down entire villages in Serbia. No one destroyed national landmarks (read: destruction of Prizren League before withdrawal of Serbs) in Serbia to try to erase Serbian national identity and manipulate historical data. I can give you countless examples that Serbia never suffered.


 * It was only when NATO started destroying the infrastructure of Serbia that the whole nation caved in, though they protested until the last minute. Given all the sufferings and the damages done by Serbia to other regions of ex-Yugoslavia, Serbia was afflliced with virtually nothing. They were all safe in their cozy homes. Bardylis 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I read what I just wrote. Disprove it if what you claim is true. Did any of the ex-Yugoslav territories have the capacity to bring the war within Serbian borders? Luckily this never happened and Serbian citizens where spared from the ordeal, damages and atrocities that happened within the other regions. I repeat I am not denying the fact that atrocities happened to ethnic Serbs in all these territories. Needless to say, those atrocities are likewise wrong. But it is hypocritical to downplay the magnitude of the crimes in Kosovo, by constantly applying the same offensive rethoric. Bardylis 19:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear God, just read what You wrote - You are beginning to sound like Milosevic, Tudjman, Thaci & the rest of the lot. Please just reread what You just wrote. --PaxEquilibrium 10:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since massive atrocities were committed over Serbs in Kosovo back then (including burning of villages, raping, ethnic cleansing, exiles, etc), where lies Your claim? Besides, it is the Serbs' suffers elsewhere that it's of more "magnitude". Take the Krajina region in Croatia for example - before the war, it was 80% Serb; after the war Serbs comprised 3-4% of it (Kosovo was before the war 80% Albanian and then almost 90% after the war). How is that's magnitude? My point - please stop comparing atrocities and claiming we should turn a blind eye on some and look only the other because they were less numerous or horrifying as the other one's. Croatia perhaps had the capacity to bring the war within Serbia's borders - but why should've it done that? I do not see Your point. --PaxEquilibrium 20:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me! Was the decrease in percentage because they were massacred or because they left the region due to the fact that they participated ideologically, politically and in many cases militarily in the atrocities against Albanians. Are you trying to paint all cases with the same brush? Read below; I did mention Croatia in my comments to "User Comments" below. And I did say you could input your data there. But the same does not apply to Kosovo.


 * I do not think that we should turn a blind eye to any of the atrocities but that we should learn to recognise the fact that all the atrocities against other regions were orchestrated and controlled by the Serbian government while no ex-Yugoslav region ever afflicted Serbia with anything of the like. As you say this was not necessary. And I agree and at the same time I argue that this was not necessary to happen in other regions either. Why is it OK for Croatia, Bosnia or Kosovo to be directly affected by war while Serbia who organized and controlled the war in all these regions is morally preserved and its right to remain intact is viewed as justifiable compared to other regions. Personally, I am glad that people in Serbia did not have to go through the same things. I would not want that for any human being. But not recognizing this means two things to others: Serbs of Serbia (who were not affected and whose government orchestrated and carried out all the attacks) do not want to take responbility for anything that happened or they take the responsibility for what happened but they continue to support it as the only solution, both of which are wrong.


 * Could you argue the same for Albanians. No. Because Albanians had to defend with minimal forces compared to the Serbian war-machine, and they were the victims in all this conflict despite Serbian efforts to portray Albanians as terrorists (with exception of collaborators deemed by Serbian regime as "honest Albanians"). Furthermore Serbian military, paramilitaries and other criminals had no army to fight against, except for KLA guerilla groups that were organized by Albanians themselves as the only alternative and the only resistance, while Serbian forces were freely killing civilians and burning the villages.


 * All the atrocities happened outside Serbia, and Serbian people within Serbia saw how they were directly involved only when NATO bombings started. That is when they became seriously active and overthrew Milosevic. Until then Serbia was a safe haven for extremists and nationalists who supported all the crimes within other regions. Bardylis 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Yes, they were Yugoslav citizens, which is why after Yugoslavia ceased to exist, other republics fought for independence and the idea of an autonomous Kosovo as part of Serbia seemed and it still seems to this day quite a bit of a stretch. Kosovar Albanians were never Serbian citizens and the issue of Kosovar Albanians remained disputable throughout the whole history that Serbia claimed Kosovo to be its integral part. In other words the matter was never finally settled and it is being settled today in a way that (as you say) is only logical and rational. This article either conceals or misrepresents this side of the story.


 * Well if You count "citizen of Serbia" as "Serbian citizenship" - and not actually having Serbia's citizenship, then of course they were. And they were indeed such a thing before the Communist Yugoslavia and WWII. I can't agree with You on the other matter. Kosovo was a 100% integral part of Serbia, internationally recognized as such (and by even the inhabitants of Kosovo). --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. Because you are incapable to see and comprehend this side of history you end up with a contradictory conclusion saying that independece is the only rational solution but that it is unacceptable. The issue of Kosovar Albanians did always remain disputable since the withdrawal of Ottomans and it was such before that (i.e. the Prizren League). You just conceal the part that demonstrates it. It was disputable enough to be included in the Treaty of London in 1913 under the "status of the other conquered territories: Kosovo, Macedonia and Thrace." It was conquered by Serbia. Not liberated. Furthermoe it was conquered as a region known as Kosovo, not Ottoman state or Turkey. But you will not be understand that unless you include the 1878 League of Prizreni, the 1911-12 Albanian Kosovar uprising, and all other major activities and campaigns. Bardylis 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was presenting the complex controversy of the issue. Independence is the only good solution because its acceptable by its population - self-determination - and enjoys a lot of international support; and it is not an option since Serbia won't give it away and there are numerous arguments against it. I don't see what is there not to be understood ;). And those things are indeed included. I repeat, "liberate"/"conquer" - it is disputable, but there are reasons to use both terms. Many other issues (Macedonian Question, Montenegrin Question, Serbian Question) have been left unresolved, and that's nothing strange for the Balkans, I don't see Your point over there. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. You do not mention that the history leading to 1912 is sprinkled with Serbian cooperation with the Ottoman Empire, as well as you do not mention Albanian campaigns against ottomans lead by Isa Boletini and Idriz Seferi during the same period (Hasan Pristina, Nexhip Draga, Bajram Curri, Riza bej Kryeziu, etc belong to the same team). Also you do not mention that "the fear from the Austro-Hungarian power was the leading factor in the Serbian politics and that it was completely and actively oriented against Albanians, to the point of directly helping the Young Turk regime - as it was clearly indicated in the directions given to Serbian teachers to help Torgut Pasha's punishment expedition against Albanian insurgents in 1910."


 * I don't understand - what Serbian cooperation - Serbia was very rebelling and hostile to Ottoman Turkey for most of the time (the 19th & early 20th centuries). I do not mention the 1878> League of Prizreni nor the 1911-1912 Albanian Kosovar uprising, because it was not a state. :) Besides, You should know that Serbs helped the Albanians in their national liberation, and although they never sent manpower en masse, large supplies were dispatched throughout the rebellion. It is only after several alleged purges and assessment of anti-Christian elements, and especially the massacres of Serbs in several cities between Montenegro and Serbia by Ottoman Muslims of Albanian descent that the Serbs took up a bad grim at the Albanian national movement. The fact that most Balkan states saw the central Balkans as territory ripe to be taken for themselves and the threat of potential successes of the Albanian rebels meant limiting future expansions to there. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ever heard of the Serbian expression "Pusto Tursko"? Will be back with more on this paragraph. Bardylis 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not that familiar into Serbian things. Mostly because I'm a newcomer to anythin' Serbian. --PaxEquilibrium 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotcha! Bardylis 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I got you (i.e. I understand) Bardylis 02:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 4. Kosovo, first of all was not liberated by Serbians, and second it was not even perceived as such by Albanians. Truth is, it was the success of the Albanian insurgents' (mentioned above) campaigns against the Young Turks that "convinced the Balkan states, that the time had come for an anti-ottoman war, whereas, the Ottomans were so weak that the war was won swiftly." This is the time when Serbia, with the backing of the allies (Bulgaria, Montenegro and Greece) managed to conquer (not liberate) Kosovo, despite strong resistance from Albanians. I can agree that local Serbians may see it as liberation.


 * I agree that "liberation" might be a POV term, yeah - but it's used mostly because the Serbs put it that way and because the majority of the conquered whole "Old Serbia" was indeed Serb (and not Albanian) - and that population perceived that as a liberation. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether majority was Serbian, so I cannot comment on that for now. Conquered "Old Serbia"? In the eyes of Serbs maybe. Bardylis 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the eyes of Serbs solely. Of course it was a foreign conquest for all followers of Islam, and not only Albanians & Turks. If we're referring to Kosovo in modern interpretation, then it's disputed whether Albanians or Serbs were in relative majority (but I think that's just some pro-Serb POVish junk, the Albanians were probably more), but Serbs were in majority in the whole seized territory of "Old Serbia". --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Old Serbia" in quotes explains it better. Yes, most likely they were majority in what they considered "Old Serbia". That is why it should be clarified. Albanians who were very active and successful against Young Turks did not see it that way. They were in Kosovo (Rrafshi i Dukagjinit and Kosova) and they were majority there, and we are talking about Kosovo (the so called Kosovo and Metochia by Serbians) are we not? Bardylis 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why "so-called"? The expression has simply died-out of the Albanian language, and that's solely because Albanians're (mostly) Muslims [there's the religious conflict again - Muslims-Orthodox Christians] and nationalism to an extent. --PaxEquilibrium 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First things first, Metochia (Churchlands) was never part of the Albanian language. "Rrafshi i Dukagjinit" was used by Albanians after the Albanian Dukagjin tribe that ruled the area. Metochia was always used by Serbs, and in the post-communist years it was simply used as a propaganda to further the Serbian anti-Albanian political agenda and at the same time as a Serbian nationalist sentiment imposed by the Serbian media.


 * As you can infer for yourself, during the communist Yugoslav regime the term Metochia (used by Serbians only) was omitted primarily because its religious meaning would have been in direct conflict with the communist ideology and on the other hand because Albanians (Muslim and Catholic and not only nationalists as you say) also opposed it, and still do today.


 * We are talking about the nationalist sentiment that this term represents today for Serbians and the fact that it is so-called among Serbians not among Albanians. Metochia perhaps has a meaning for the Serbian minority in Kosovo and those of Serbia, and it is fine to explain that. But for Albanians it was and it will always be Rrafshi i Dukagjinit.


 * That Albanians are mostly Muslims it is entirely correct. What is not correct is that it was a religious conflict. Did we not go over this point already? After communism, Metochia became a Serbian nationalist imposition much like the Serbian expression "Kosovo is the cradle of Serbia". For Albanians, regardless of religion, it implies one and the same thing, and that is Serbian nationalist propaganda. Bardylis 06:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 5. Moreover, taking into account Serbia's historical and pathological hostility toward Kosovar Albanians, Albanians not only do not want to be part of Serbia, but they do not even want their identity to be associated with it. Who would want to associate with a state or a nation that terrorized (what it claimed to be) its minorities. This part of history should be revealed as ugly as it is, so that it does not make Kosovar Albanians look outlandish, and as if they appeared out of nowhere at some point in history and suddenly posed a problem for Serbia. They were there and active all along.


 * Serbia's antagonism towards Albanians is more than stated - we all know what happened in 1989-1999 for a whole decade. However there is no "historical" hostility - in the Ottoman times there were indeed some eras of friendship, and up to 1989, there was most certainly no hostility in the Communist Yugoslavia (it's rather that non-Albanians were, after 1974, discriminated [mostly Serbs]). If You want to observe history, there were atrocities against Serbs as well - even committed by Albanians; like happened in World War II during the holocaust. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. There were eras of friendship. I may have generalized there. Nonetheless, it is clear that the view of Kosovar Albanians (explained above) is a result of a long period of hostile politics exercised against them by Serbia, and not only in the recent decades. Bardylis 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that if there was not Milosevic, Kosovo would've probably been a peaceful part of Serbia with no dead or economic backlash (it was always the least advanced part of the Balkans - You can expect what came of it after the 1990s). Please do not mix that with Albanian irridentism that called for an ethnically unified Albanian state. The appeals of how an unjust was did to Albanians and how Albania was "too small" mostly ended up in irridentist nationalistic opinions (heck, that's why it was abandoned by KLA and some Albanian Kosovar political leaders in the better favor of a democratic independent Republic of Kosovo). Serbs have experienced the same terrible thoughts (as can be understood by hearing meetings of the Serbian Radical Party) in the cases of Croatia & Bosnia. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Milosevic was well-supported by his nation. They turned against him when the war started directly affecting Serbia through NATO bombings.

Expansionist ideas are common in Balkans. The difference is that Serbia inherited from Yugoslavia the military means to pursue it. And it did. And they all fought back. I do not see the current Serbian government adopting a "peaceful" approach toward Albanians, nor even a constructive approach toward the issue of Kosovo. Although I learn that there are some constructive movements in Serbia, that are concerned about the well-being and economy of Serbia itself, and do not waste their resources with the issue of Kosovo. Bardylis 23:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why it was the least advanced part of the Balkans is that Serbia cared about colonizing the territory but not about the well-being of the majority Albanian population. Serbia wanted Kosovo, but not the Albanians. :)


 * Define well-supported. Ever since Milosevic had won power in the Republic of Serbia there was the Democratic Opposition. There were active media conducting propaganda against him, there was the famous Otpor resistance which became the symbol of fighting against dictatorship & tyranny in the whole world (with numerous sister project, like the one in Belarus). If You're referring to the fact that he won elections, see it like this - every single time (except the very first one in 1989/1990) Milosevic had allegedly forged elections, adding several percent to his political party. And not once, not ever did he ever get more than one third of the electoral body - how much did he get then, if the forging allegations're true? Even less? Milosevic martially occupied Serbia and ruled by force. When the brakeup of Yugoslavia started in 1991, there was a massive coup d'etat aimed at bringing down Milosevic - the only thing that saved him was bringing of tanks and heavy weaponry at the streets of Belgrade. Demonstrations were never rare in Serbia, and each & every time Milosevic had the tendency of bringing in Big Guns to the streets to stay in power. This is actually interesting, as for example, never has resistance & opposition been so large elsewhere in Yugoslavia, at other autocratic dictatorships (like Tudjman's in Croatia). Milosevic violently took over the B92 television/radio when it had sparkled too much voice of freedom. Slobodan Milosevic was to Serbia that which was Stalin to Croatia. In all of the Yugoslavian republics except for Montenegro and Serbia the nationalist right opposition won, but in these two countries, closest to the old Communist regime, the ruling class was able to remain in power mainly because of its already existing power (e.g. military power). The list of citizens of Serbia (of all nationalities, religions, sexual & political preferences, etc) that have mysteriously "vanished" is countless, accounting to hundred and hundreds of persons. Remember for example, when S. M. ran for the post of the President of the Republic of Serbia; he was losing to a democratic pro-western orientated pacifist opponent. And You know what he then did? He had his opponent assassinated, just as many other people who stood on his way on the politial ladder. So according to all this, Milosevic was never really "well-supported" as You claim (unlike, say, Tudjman in Croatia; Alija Izetbegovic & Fikret Abdic in Bosnia, Radovan Karadzic in Serbian; or their "corresponding clones" in Macedonia & Slovenia).


 * Wasting resources? Well, that's one of the reasons why they want Kosovo to stay in Serbia: Serbia has "wasted" gigantic amounts of resources/funds in Kosovo for almost half a century; nowadays, Serbia is receiving absolutely no gains from Kosovo whatsoever, but is still responsible for its debts and other expenses internationally (so in a way, Serbia has been drastically helping Ceku's government for the pas 5-6 years). The latter might actually be a good reason to simply recognize the independence of Kosovo and then channel the expenses to that newly-created state, but even all-altogether - one European official (the one who opposes the independence of Kosovo, mainly due to these reasons) is that in any case of Kosovar independence, Kosovo will have a so large debt to Serbia (even when the large alleged figure required by the Pristina government as a war damage payment is taken away from that figure), Kosovo will not be able to pay it (except perhaps at the price of remaining poor for quite a long time); the estimate is that Kosovo will probably need some 60 years to repay the debt totally.


 * I think that Ottoman hands have more to do it. If You didn't notice, the lands from which the Ottomans withdrew the first are today in EU, while those from which they retreated the last're hell on earth. --PaxEquilibrium 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 6. Other problems I find with this article are of such nature that when Kosovo's issue is finally settled, it will have to be edited to reflect the true (including the "ugly" side) history of the region. This is why I prefer Noel Malcolm, who by the way is a historian, and his research is in no way journalistic. What I like about his presentation is that it is neutral and not fueled by the local (home-made) sentiments. Perhaps you would prefer a Serbian historian. Please go to:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Malcolm


 * Ah, Noel Malcolm is a journalist/columnist writer, and not a historian. I prefer myself, if You're interested. :) --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can accept that as a good joke but not as a fact. :) Anyone who was able to go to the link I posted can see that. Well I am reading you am I not? And helping you widen your understanding too. Bardylis 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I do not understand. Noel is a writer who wrote about many things and dedicated his research to Balkan Muslims for a time because he found it interesting. I can start researching the Boers in South Africa and write several historical controversial books about them, but that won't make me a historian. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that you do not understand. Noel is a historian because of his academic achievement and not only his research. Furthermore, no one is denying that he was a columnist for Daily Telegraph. No one is denying his journalistic background either. Only You seem to be having difficulty understanding that his doctorate in History from Cambridge University, his research, works, and other academic achievements explain his authority as a historian. You do not have to be Serbian to be historian. :) If I were you, I would not beat this issue to death. It is becoming entertaining. Bardylis 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute, he's a professional historian? My apologies for my ignorance. That I did not know that. --PaxEquilibrium 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 7. Fact: Kosovar Albanians do not refer to Kosovo as Kosovo and Metohija or Kosmet. In fact this name for Albanians signifies only Serbian historical dogmatism and nationalism.


 * That's just a chain of coincidences. Kosovo and Metohija are two completely different regions - in 1945 they were united into a component autonomous political entity within Serbia. It is only in 1974 that "and Metohija" was left out of the official name - and this was AFAIC because of Albanian demands, which allegedly were nationalistic themselves. "Metohija" means "Church's lands", which is not appropriate for the Moslem Kosovan majority (the name is very old; the entire region was in possession of the Orthodox Church). It is only then in the first time that "Kosovo" really expanded to mean Metohija as well (although the Metohijan Sanjak in the Ottoman Empire was a component part of the Vilayet of Kosova, after its formation in the second half of the 17th century). --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 8. What do I mean by "legally"? Quoting from "Kosovo: A Short History". Forgive me if I did not translate it exactly right. I do not have the English copy. I promise to correct it when I get one.


 * 8.1. When Kosovo was occupied during 1912-13, in Serbia, the 1903 constitution was still in power. Clause 4 of this constitution says clearly that no change of Serbian borders can be valid, if it does not have the approval of the Grand National Assembly - and not the "General Assembly", or the parliament, but a larger assembly that would gather to specifically review constitutional matters. This type of larger assembly never gathered to discuss or ratify the Serbian borders, to include in it Kosovo and Macedonia. Some may say that, even though the correct constitutional and internal procedure of Serbia was not respected, the territories were already annexed, conforming with the international law, based on king's agreement. However, the strange truth is that Kosovo was neither incorporated into Serbia legally nor according to the international law criteria.


 * The 1912 and 1913 are full of Constitutional Acts that ratified war/peace, border changes etc. Besides, the 1913 30 May London Accords and 10 August Treaty of Bucharest completely ratified Kosovo as a part of Serbia - both by the Party that lost it (Ottoman Turkey) and the international community (the Great Powers). It was as legal as it could be. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 8.2. When a territory is transferred from one state to another through occupation at a time of war, the transfer needs to be recognized through a treaty between the two fighting parties, after the war. This type of treaty, the Treaty of London, 1913, was established between the balkan allies (including Serbia) and the Ottoman state at the end of the war; however, this treaty was never ratified by Serbia, therefore it is not valid as far as the new Serbian territories are concerned.


 * The peace was not really easily accepted in Serbia or Bulgaria - but it was signed. It is the Kingdom of Bulgaria which broke the peace subsequently. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 8.3. Another treaty, the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913, was signed by the end of the Second Balkan War, within the same year (a war that erupted between the victorious balkan allies, in which case Bulgaria attacked other allies); this treaty consisted of some clarifications about the territorial changes, at least in Macedonia, therefore if was signed and ratified. However the Ottoman state did not sign it; therefore the declarations about the recently conquered territories by ex-ottomans were not valid for those conquests.


 * That's totally irrelevant about Kosovo - the issue was Macedonia. Besides, I'm not sure if the Ottomans didn't sign it - but how else do You explain the fact that the Treaty of Bucharest expanded the territory of the Ottoman Empire at the expanse of the Bulgarian Czardom; it also ended the war between the two monarchies. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 8.4. In March of 1914, Serbia and the Ottoman state established a new treaty, the Treaty of Istanbul, where it was said that they would consider the unratified Treaty of London as ratified about the matters that concerned them. Unfortunately, this treaty was not valid either because it was never ratified, because both parties were engaged in the declaration of war between the two states, on the October of 1914.


 * That's very weird. For in the Great War, the Kingdom of Serbia and Ottoman Turkey were, despite being on opposing sides, not at war at all. Also, what's this Treaty of Istanbul? I've never heard of it (I searched Google and nothing came out). --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.osmanli700.gen.tr/english/affairs/olayi2.html Bardylis 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 8.5. And the problem was neither solved directly through the next established treaties between Yugoslavia and Turkey, as is the case with the Treaty of Sévres of 1920, that was rendered invalid and ineffective, or the Treaty of Ankara of 1925, which, despite of the mutual recognition of the two states, it would not specifically mention the territories that one party took from the other between 1912-13.


 * Now this has nothing to do. It was not Yugoslavia, but KoSCS (and I don't think it was in the negotiations there at all) and that was about the Turkish [Civil] War. 1925 Treaty of Ankara? --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=treaty+of+friendship+october+1925+Bulgaria+Ankara&btnG=Search&meta= Bardylis 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 8.6. Only in a way that is more or less thorough and pragmatic, the right for a new political ownership on Kosovo can be presented through legal theory. Both Yugoslavia and Turkey became members of the League of Nations and, according to clause 19 of the League of Nations Pact, they were bound to guarantee each other's territorial integrity. Even this, as a matter of fact, does not prove anything, because the territorial integrity that it referred to pertained to the territories that they legally owned: if one state illegally conquered a part of another place upon joining the League..., then no other state would be obligated to defend that legal conquest. However, if this issue concerning the League of Nations Pact coincides with a pragmatic approach by Turkey, which behaved like it considered these conquered territories as part of Yugoslavia - not only did it not submit a complaint, for example, but, moreover, later it opened its consulate in Skopje - then, some legal justification could be established in this case and perhaps be valid even for the Treaty of Ankara, of year 1925. Nonetheless, one issue is clear. This legal case pertains to the recognition by Turkey, not of Kosovo as part of Serbia, but as part of Yugoslavia, the state that became a member of the League of Nations and signed the Treaty of Ankara. Bardylis 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Kingdom of "Serbs, Croats and Slovenes", and it was in the Serbian part of it - besides, it was legally a part of "Serbia"; as a part of Serbia it entered into the Yugoslav Kingdom. What is this 1925 Treaty of Ankara? Never heard of it... --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of these points in "Kosovo: A Short History", are not intended as a justification for Kosovo's independence. It would be superficial to rely on this because it is commonly known that Serbia did have power over the Kosovo region. Perhaps, what is also commonly disregarded, which at the same represents the real problem, is that Kosovo's incorporation into Serbia, together with the Albanian majority was never an easy process, and it remained uneasy all the way. That of course is another long story that has to be included if we want to be fair.

There is a lot to discuss here in reponse to your answers but I do not see a point, since in its original context it is only intended as something rather strange to note. Bardylis 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Kosovo-Metohija became a Serbian autonomous region (ever since the defeat of the remaining Albanian and other satellite Axis forces as well as the Albanian rebels in 1945 by the Yugoslav Partisans), and interestingly enough, it self-abolished its autonomy on the first regional assembly's summit; though the decision was refused by Tito. The very reason of the existence of such an autonomy is to prove that the Yugoslavians (Serbs) can be fair - they defeated the "bad dudes" (Albania) and given some level of autonomy to the Albanian populace living there. It would only take after 1946 to form the very first regional offices, though. Kos-Met's borders were shaped by leaving Presevo (partially populated by ethnic Albanians) out of its borders and subsequently including Zubin potok, Zvecan and Leposavic (Serb-populated) in the autonomous region's territory - to make a balance; some mostly Serb areas in Kosovo and some Albanian in the area of Serbia proper. By special government drafts KosMet became an Autonomous Province and its rights almost equalized to those of Vojvodina, according to the new 1963 Constitution. Soon after the 1960s rebellions of Albanians widespread (calling for independence of Kosovo) - the Albanians lost the "covert civil war" on Kosovo and Metohija which Tito (successfully, unlike Milosevic, managed to keep hidden from the eyes of the world) - the Tito punished the rebels, the Serbs took the blame for the Albanian rebellion (for "making a too big fuzz out of it") and more Kosovar/Metohijan autonomy was supplied - by new special drafts from 1971 etc. Then the Albanian language was seriously brought into the institutions replacing Serbian (Serbo-Croat) as the Province's dominant language and real Provincial offices were formed for the first time. The new Socialist 1974 Constitution proclaimed the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo which had the same status as the Socialist Republic of Serbia in the federal republic. It had even the top ranks and had to an extent more power in the federal government than SR Serbia, but still officially its component part.


 * I will be back with more information on that to pacify the issue. You keep mentioning Albanian fascists as if Serbians were clean. You probably know that there is more to it that is being concealed. Why do you not include it and try to be less absolute. By the way, your view is clear in your manichean depiction of Albanians as "bad dudes". You must be the "good dude" then. Bardylis 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A nation cannot be "clean". I merely said that Albanian fascists occupied Kosovo (and not the Serbian Axis collaborators). it is not what I claimed, but they (the Allies). A whole nation cannot be a "bad dude" - but the Axis forces were indeed characterized as the "bad dudes" - and so was Albania (according to Enver Hoxha's words alone about the Albanian fascism - remember Tito's words about the Ustashas? That's a good comparison). --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, there were issues with the way you presented it. Bardylis 07:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In the article under "Kingdom of Yugoslavia and WWII" it is stated that:

The greatest part of Kosovo became a part of Italian-controlled Fascist Albania, and smaller bits by the Nazi-Fascist Tsardom of Bulgaria and Nazi German-occupied Kingdom of Serbia. Since the Albanian Fascist political leadership had decided in the Conference of Bujan that Kosovo would remain a part of Albania they started an ethnic cleansing campaign of the non-Albanian population in the Kosovo.[citation needed] The infamous SS Division Skanderbeg committed crimes. [citation needed]. Tens of thousands of Serbs lost their lives and around 75,000 Serbs fled Kosovo during the war.[citation needed] Hundreds of thousands more would leave in the following decades, following the shift of power in Kosovo. [citation needed]

So, let me break this down for you: Italian-controlled Albania was fascist whereas Serbia was merely Nazi German-occupied Kingdom of Serbia? This is exactly what I mean by presentation issues. Fact is that Axis forces controlled the region by manipulation of nationalist sentiments of both sides and there should be no manipulation of this matter in the article. It should be presented fairly. Likewise as it is stated in the article the liberation from fascists came from Albanian partisans themselves and it is not Serbian generosity that allowed Kosovo to be an autonomous region within communist Yugoslavia. Bardylis 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The so-called "Kingdom of Serbia" was created after the Chetnik/Partisan 1941 rebellion that almost expelled the Axis from Serbia. It was only then that a Serbian puppet-state was created (it was not supposed to be created at all); the sole existence of Serbia was to torture and slowly ethnically cleanse its people; inly in Serbia were all of its citizens treated as inferiors & discriminated, and only there was ethnic cleansing present over the Germans' alleged "allies" by the Germans themselves; Serbia was unique, and the only Axis puppet under direct German occupation and with extremely limited or absolutely no self-government powers - compared to the "Independent State of Croatia", for example, which was truly what its adjective implies. And it aint such a fact - there were no nationalist sentiment manipulations by the Axis in Serbia to access control; Serbia was just a means to an end (of the Serbian people). The Partisans were, nevertheless, led by Tito in their campaign to thwart the last Albanian rebellion; and yes, it practically is this "generosity" that made Kosovo autonomous (observed as a great mistake by Serbia today - had it not been that way, there would've been no Kosovo War, no fights or controversies, etc... and they would have Kosovo in their state still). --PaxEquilibrium 10:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like first I have to thank Serbia for its "generosity" toward Albanians. We are truly lucky people. Along the same lines, I encourage them to read more because what you are saying is completely false. The term chetniks within the context of the history of the Second World War Yugoslavia usually referes to the specific movement created by the infamous Yugoslav army colonel, Drazha Mihajlovic. The political competition with the communist partisans, which took place by the end of 1941, turned into an open combat between the two movements. Since the Axis occupiers were interested to engourage chetniks in this direction, Mihajlovic gradually became involved in the agreements for "parallel actions" and in the end even in direct collaboration, first with Italians, whereas later, in 1943, with Germans as well. This is only one example of chetnik collaboration.


 * Well, granted autonomy was indeed in a way generous. It was most unorthodox and extremely unexpected in the world scene (Kosovo [later] enjoyed the greatest status of self-government in the world). The Chetniks openly collaborated with the fascist Italians, that's most certainly known - but that is often counted as one of the positive things done. For the Italians sponsored the Chetniks to fight the Ustashas & the Communist Partisans (both Italian enemies), and could also turn a blind eye on fights against the German Nazis. However, the Chetnik vs Partisan Civil War was started by the Partisans, and not the Chetniks (so open conflict did not so ununderstandibly erupt). As for collaboration with the Nazi Germans - the Royalist Chetniks did no such thing (at least not on a large scale - only one "traitor" portion went to collaborate with the Serbian collaborationist regime, and mainly out of national solidarity). ANd regardless of anythin', the Partisans even themselves were assisting (the word "collaboration" is rarely tagged to the Partisans - because they won the Civil War) the Germans, even much more than Chetniks themselves. --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. There would be no peace in the region if Autonomy was not given to Kosovo, and Tito knew this. If you consider "generosity" the fact that he did not proceed with a genocide of Albanians to solve the matter differently, well, that's another story. Let's just say he was wiser than today's politicians. Any power that came around in Kosovo either fought directly against Albanian national movements, used them to their advantage, or considered a diplomatic way to keep it under control. Tito's way was the latter and it proved more successful.

What you should try not to ignore is the activities of Kosovar Albanians in the post-war communist movement, their influence in the Kosovo region and the influence of communist Albania as well. The relationship between Enver Hoxha and Tito was well until Tito took a more progressive approach and distanced himself from Stalin. During this period the debates were continuing over the issue of Kosovo, and whether it should remain under Yugoslavia or become part of Albania. If it hadn't become autonomy within Yugoslavia it would simply join Albania. Keep in mind, the ideology of post-war Yugoslavia and Albania was communist (idealist against fascism) not nationalist.

Communists had two strategies when they dealt with Kosovar Albanians. On one hand, they would turn a blind eye toward Albanian nationalism and on the other hand they would suppres ruthlessly developments of any non-communist Albanian national resistence movements. So "generosity" is an exaggaration only to satisfy the feelings of Serbians who like to see it that way. In practice that wasn't really the case. Bardylis 02:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Nazi-occupied Kingdom of Serbia was governed by Serbian officials from Belgrade. Its sole purpose and existence, being under Nazi regime, owes much to its ambitions to create the Greater Serbia. How else do you think it was controlled by Nazis? And such ambitions did come to realization whenever the occassion permitted. The politics of the Axis forces only sought to pragmatically control the area in a way that it would make the occupation of Axis forces more successful. Furthermore, it is not that Nazi Germans or fascist Italians favored one nation over the other. They merely played one against another as the occassion required to maintain control. And Albania itself was never fascist as you put it because it constantly remained under Italian fascist regime at the same time that Serbia remained under German nazi regime.


 * The Nazi-like "Kingdom of Serbia" was administered by the German High Command (which was commandeered indirectly from Berlin). Its existence has nothing on earth to do with Greater Serbia - how could it? That "K." of Serbia was a lessened Serbia, unlike the other "Greaters" Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria & Romania. As I said, as the Serbs were a lower race, and a national enemy of the Axis, Hitler gave as much parchments of Yugoslavia to the neighboring countries (+created Croatia & Montenegro) and still left a large serbian area not given to anyone left under direct German control. It is only after the Great 1941 Chetnik-Partisan rebellion that almost fully expelled the foreign invaders and succeeded in overthrowing the fasistoid collaborationist regime in the "Kingdom" of Montenegro that Serbia was created. After Hitler himself saw the threat of the mass Serbian rebellion, he had dispatched direct reinforcements from the fronts (and the reserves) to increase the occupation strength in the Serbian-inhabited German-occupied districts by 400% plus dispatched a large short-term division temporary to crush the rebels. His advisers nevertheless told him that it still would be far from enough to fight the Serbs, and that even if they succeeded in quelling the rebellion, another of same magnitude (or of insignificantly less) is to be expected. It is then that as a last resort, the Nazis decided to form some sort of a self-government (a puppet state). They decided to offer it to a former war hero, General Milan Nedic - but he refused it and the fights continued. Despite the high casualties, the Chetniks & Partisans allied continued to fight the enemy and there were no volunteers for collaboration. In the end, Nedic accepted it after all, after humongous atrocities were committed against civilians, to the scale that it was ordered that every 10th citizen of every supply center was to be killed (and the process had already bygone started). It was a move of a desperate, last resort and had nothing to do with any irridentist ideology, be it nationalist or not. Now, Nedic's authorities were limited to strictly 3 things: 1) Organizing a military force to patrol & control borders facing Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania & Hungary. His other task is preparing a tiny private Army to fight the Chetniks & Partisans. And his last was to commandeer a very large chain of Intelligence, so to speak as the German High commander in Belgrade said "so that every district of Serbia had Nedic's ears"..so that he could pinpoint the Germans any possible "traitor". Aside from that, Milan Nedic did some of the "good" things - he housed over half a million refugees from Croatia and Albania and he managed to subject (in due time) one part of the Chetnik force to fight for him in Serbia (national solidarization). How was it controlled by the Nazis? Well, every single street in Serbia had a German patrol. It was not a system of almost full self-government like in Vichy France or the Independent State of Croatia; but a brutal military occupation much closer to the General Protectorate of Warsaw. Whereas the Croats, for instance, were treated as one of the "higher, supreme races", the Serbs were treated as inferiors even in their own country. While the neighboring Croatia, Albania, Hungary and Bulgaria committed massive genocide over the Serbs, the outlawed people - atrocities over Serbs themselves were committed in the "K. of" Serbia, where there were extermination camps for citizens of Serb ethnicity. Besides that, the general Axis plan for the future of this Serbia lied in assimilation into Bulgaria. By 1943 some territories were already handed over to Bulgaria, and by late 1944, the majority of Serbia was a part of the "Czarist" Kingdom of Bulgaria [and although the Axis were expelled by 1945, the Axis documents abolished Serbia giving most to Bulgaria and tiny portions to Croatia in 1945, as part of the plan]. The Serbs that were not destroyed by ethnic cleansing, were supposed to be assimilated into Bulgarians. The remained would've simply vanished (it is all of the Axis perfectly forged plan to exterminate Serbs [and not only them - but Jews, Romas too, etc]). You're mistaken about one thing (favoring nations over other nations). They did do such things, mostly based on their "scientific research" and the theory of the Pure White Man, and the Aryan race (not even interests lie here, but utter madness - Slavs were scientifically proven as an inferior race soon to vanish and as an extra, Croats were "proven" not to be Slavs - that's when the Nazis were forging and promoting "Illyrian theories" for second-class master races [Croats and Albanians]). In 1939-1943 Albania was indeed an Italian-controlled puppet-state, but afterwards it was practically fully independent (after the Fall of Italy). And the puppets installed in the seats in Tirana most do fall in a way under the category "fascists". --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what I found on wikipedia in regards to a part of this matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

Serbia Serbia was set up as a Nazi puppet state under Serbian army general Milan Nedić, which was known as Nedić's Serbia. The internal affairs of the Serbian puppet state were moderated by German racial laws, that were introduced in all occupied teritories with immediate effects on Jews, Roma people, as well as imprisonment of left oriented persons. The two major concentration camps in Serbia were: Sajmište and Banjica. Of 40,000 Serbian Jews around one half lost their lives in Nazi concentration camps both in Serbia and German Reich, where most of the captured Serbian Jews were transferred. Under Nedić, Belgrade was declared to be Judenfrei in 1942. Serbs were also victims of the Nazi regime, and most of the victims in Banjica were Serbian. Nazis had a policy of killing 100 Serbs for each killed German soldier and 50 killed Serbs for each wounded, resulting in widespread taking of hostages and executions such as Kragujevac massacre. Despite these represive measures, Serbs rebelled, and most Serbs saw Jews as their fellow victims in World War II, dying together in Nazi represion and genocide in Sajmište, Banjica and Jasenovac. Legends about Serbs saving the Jews in WWII are widespread in Serbia, and 152 Serbs have been honored as righteous Gentiles.

It shows a part that is accurate from what you have included in your paragraph. Nonetheless, there is relevant data that would help understand a more complete picture of events. One of them is the collaboration of chetniks that was notorious during this period. They were not exactly the liberation heroes as they are presented here. I can include more here later because there is a lot.

The other is that "the reports that were published in the post-war Yugoslavia leave the impression that germans were expelled by partisans, who "had liberated" the Kosovar cities with their forces. The truth is that, there were some combats between the combined Yugoslav forces and Albanian partisans in Western Kosovo, but mainly against the remnants of the "Skanderbeg" division, and these actions were entirely insignificant compared to the soviet-bulgarian advancements... The general truth is that in the cities of Western Kosovo cities were "liberated" or taken by partisan forces, only after germans and their assissting troops abandoned them; in the Eastern Kosovo, the power was seized by soviet and bulgarian forces (with some partisans that joined them) after germans had left the area. Germans were generally able to evacuate 350.000 soldiers and 10.000 vehicles from Greece and Albania, majority of them through Kosovo."

As for Albania, the term fascist Albania is not correct within the original context that brought up this issue, even considering your argument that it was fascist after Italians retreated.

See the paragraph below:

The greatest part of Kosovo became a part of Italian-controlled Fascist Albania, and smaller bits by the Nazi-Fascist Tsardom of Bulgaria and Nazi German-occupied Kingdom of Serbia. Since the Albanian Fascist political leadership had decided in the Conference of Bujan that Kosovo would remain a part of Albania they started an ethnic cleansing campaign of the non-Albanian population in the Kosovo.[citation needed] The infamous SS Division Skanderbeg committed crimes. [citation needed]. Tens of thousands of Serbs lost their lives and around 75,000 Serbs fled Kosovo during the war.[citation needed] Hundreds of thousands more would leave in the following decades, following the shift of power in Kosovo. [citation needed]

Bardylis 02:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Same goes for Albanian counterparts who wanted to join Kosovo with Albania, the collaboration of which was not the "ideological sympathy for fascism or nazism and neither any wider interest for the objectives of the Axis, but it was simply the desire of many Albanians to take advantage of the fall of Yugoslavia, in order to gain more power in their territory and to overthrow the slavic colonisation policy of the previous two decades."


 * As for the issue of Albanians during Tito's regime the following is true: "The government in Yugoslavia relied on the barrel of the gun - guns of Tito and his soviet sponsor. Whatever system that he would prefer to impose, he would impose, while in regards to the legal petty matters and whether they would be taken into consideration according to one order or another, it was entirly a matter of plain formality." Bardylis 06:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How can that be? Tito was with Stalin for only a couple of years (in 1945-1948) before asserting a pro-western NATO policy. A good thing is that Albania as well saw the policy of Soviet domination over eastern Europe 20 years later and abandoned the Soviet Union too. I think that that sentence You wrote is far too POV. The Communist Yugoslavia was the most liberal & democratic communist state on earth. This way seems as if Tito was worse than Milosevic. By the way, I remember Vlasi adoring Tito (I believe he does).

Exactly. It refers to the major developments within that period. Although I am not sure that you got the time-span right. I have to verify that to make sure. That sentence is not mine by the way. Furthermore the developments that followed after the change of relationship between Tito and Stalin, had a major effect in Kosovo, especially considering the unfriendly approach that Enver Hoxha's communist Albania adopted toward Yugoslavia after this occurred, and the influence it had in the political developments in Kosovo. The main issue that Yugoslav communists were facing was control of Kosovar Albanian national movements and how the dynamics of the wider political events were affecting them. I do not think that this makes Tito look worse than Milosevic. I do not know how good or bad he was but he was certainly wiser. Bardylis 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The thereafter period of SAP Kosovo is seen two-fold: days of fame and glory for the non-Albanians and days of horror, terror and hell on earth for the non-Albanians (primarily the Eastern Orthodox Christians [Serbs and Montenegrins mostly; some Yugoslavians]). Emigration and oppression by the Pristina government (allegedly nationalistic and with "Greater Albanian" pretensions) caused the leaving of thousands of ethnic non-Albanian families and a sudden change from a 60% Albanian absolute majority in the beginning to an 80% total Albanian majority in the end. It is after the 1989 600th anniversary of the Battle of Amsfeld that Slobodan Milosevic began his terror of the Province, restoring Yugoslav centralized control, returning it to the ol' "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" level and started colonizing it with Serbs (not to mention the alleged "Operation Horseshoe" - a plan to use the atrocities committed against Serbs in western former Yugoslavia as well as the Serbian refugees to "serbianize Kosovo" and remember also the astronomically high number of Albanian exiles). But we all know what those evil-doers did. Now, if You're referring to Kosovo "not really" ever being a real part of Serbia, and use it to justify its will for independence - well, You've got to problems: 1) In the Medieval Ages Kosovo was the Serbian state for centuries (Metohija for almost a millennium) and 2) Kosovo was never, ever in its history a country; nor independent, so if historically it does not "really belong to Serbia" (as if we can watch the world's territories like that), then it neither belongs to itself?.. or perhaps, the best solution would be to annex it to Turkey - the very country which fiercely opposes Kosovan independence and supports high autonomy within Serbia?


 * You refer to Serbians as Christian Orthodox when it is not relevant, and thus you are misleading readers and at the same making the conflicts in Kosovo look like religious ones. This was never the case. The conflicts were always of ethnic and national character. This type of misrepresentation of facts, which I also noted in some parts of the article, can be seen as trying to take advantage of the current global political climate. You can count on one person who noticed this and will work hard to change it.


 * Since we are talking about religion, what is said in this article about Sinan Pasha is untrue. He was not an islamized serb. He was of Albanian origin. Please go to:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinan_Pasha Bardylis 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are indeed correct. I mixed him with the Islamized Serb from Gorazde, Bosnia; Sinan-pasa Sijercic. And of course it was not an ethnic conflict, but religious always (it became national in world war II, perhaps). The Albanian Christians suffered under Ottoman yoke; Moslem Serbs were assimilated into Albanians. A good thing to notice is the Christian Albanian assimilation into Serbs that was not rare in the 19th and similar ages. Besides, Castrioti was/is celebrated by the Serbs as well; and is a hero to all Balkaners - Serbs & Albanians were almost like Serbs & Greeks in the Medieval Ages (while Albanians were still all Christians) and most of all, all Albanians were in the Serbian state for a period and they experienced cultural rebirth & arising of Albanian medieval civilization and art. Ever since the Old Slavic language became widely known amongst the Albanian intelligence. The Christian Albanians that moved in the Great Serb Migrations from Ottoman yoke to a free Serbia and to Vojvodina have been easily assimilated into Serbs. Today, mixed Albanian-Serb marriages are down-looked upon amongst both peoples - but before, they were not uncommon at all. The most beautiful and interesting thing that many Serbs never tend to refer to is that a very large number of Serbs is of ethnic Albanian origin (mostly in Herzegovina & Montenegro). You should read the works of Marko Miljanov, a Serbian 19th century Duke that researched the "Ancient Arvantic people" and was especially interested in their relations with the Serbs - himself an ethnic Albanian (read his name). --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Ottoman empire was waging an imperial and religious war at the same time yes. Not Albania or Albanians. We were talking within that context. The Ottoman Empire as you know included Serbs too. So you cannot argue that wars and conflicts between Albanians and Serbs were religious.


 * "A crusading army led by Regent John Hunyadi of Hungary was defeated by Sultan Murad II's forces at Kosovo Polje in 1448. The defeat was caused in part by Branković's betrayal of Hunyadi; Branković intercepted the Albanian reinforcements of Skanderbeg and delayed them when they were en route to the battle. This was the last concerted attempt in the Middle Ages to expel the Ottomans from southeastern Europe. Although Hungary was able to successfully defy the Ottomans despite the defeat at Kosovo Polje during Hunyadi's lifetime, the kingdom fell to the Ottomans in the 16th century. Branković also captured Hunyadi at Smederevo for a short time when he was going home from Kosovo in 1448."


 * From this perspective I do not see how Serbs can celebrate Castrioti. It seems that the Serbian monarch Durad Brankovic (whose daughter was married to Sulltan Murat II) "intercepted the Albanian reinforcements of Skanderbeg and delayed them when they were en route to battle". Bardylis 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Djuradj Brankovic is something of a collaborator in the manor of the Milan Nedic in 1941-45. :) Castrioti's mother is a Serbian princess. And he's celebrated because he's a Christian warlord fighting for the free Christian Balkans. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"His [Skanderbeg's] mother Voisava was a princess[5] from the Tribalda family,[6] who came from the Polog valley, in modern-day Macedonia."

That is as much as I know about Skanderbeg's mother. But what I do know for certain is that Skanderbeg fought for Albanian Christians and not for the Serbians, who at that time were bending to the demands of Sulltan Murat II. Likewise John Hunyadi fought for Hungarian Christians. I do not see how Skanderbeg's mother relates to all this. Regardless of religion, all Albanians consider him a national hero, which he was. Perhaps this too can explain to you that for Albanians the national struggles prevail over religious differences. Bardylis 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My side-point: independence of Kosovo is the only rational solution to the problem and is completely unacceptable (yes, you read me; both). --PaxEquilibrium 15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The independence of Kosovo is the only rational solution because you are wrong not because you are right. Bardylis 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I am wrong? About what? --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong in failing to see, accept, and include the history of the region that we are talking about, that is-Kosovo, not Serbia. As well not through the prism of Serbia nor even Albania. Regardless of whether or not it was a state (referring back to the discussion above), the significance of the events that you prefer to exclude cannot be denied and they merely reflect on the reality of the situation today. Point is, disregard for Albanian presence or presenting them as some kind of a persisting obstacle for Serbia's interests, leads to a misleading explanation of history, so that the only alernative to what you call a rational solution is an irrational one - genocide. No Albanians=no problems. Isn't this kind of perspective that still keeps Serbians proud and denying responsibility for, or even worse, justifying what happened. To deny the Kosovar Albanian side of history is to choose to deny the truth about the cause of the Kosovar Albanian significant majority as it pertains to Kosovo.


 * Indeed correct. Similar things were in Bosnia (no Muslims=no problems) and Croatia (no Serbs=no problems) and even after 1999 in Kosovo (no Serbs=no problems). I understand everything You say. --PaxEquilibrium 10:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What you have to understand is that Serbians have lost the political and military battle over Kosovo and that it has been governed independently from Serbia for the last several years. You really do not have the moral justification to explain Kosovo through the prism of Serbia's history. It has a history of its own and its majority population is a witness to that. Nonetheless, truth is, its relationship with Serbia should not be denied either and should be viewed objectively explaining both sides and respecting the feelings of all its people, Albanians, Serbians, Turks, Bosniaks, etc.


 * Uh? Wait a minute... are You objecting the fact that it's mostly pro-Serbian in the History? Well, for the historically most important Serbian region :) (there is a lot of Greek history on articles for Asia Minor and other places) what else can You expect? --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No. History can be pro-Serbian only if it is presented that way. Otherwise it is history. No such thing as "pro" or "against". There is nothing "pro-Serbian" about Albanian struggles against Serbia or against the Ottoman Empire. It is not "pro-Albanian" either. It merely explains what happened, the reasons why it happened, etc. Now, these can be manipulated with, presented unfairly, or misrepresented altogether. That is what I am objecting to and I think you know it. You are just wasting my time. Bardylis 00:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed until now, in essence I argue over one thing: to keep what is correct, factual and presented fairly and at the same time not to exclude or conceal what would help readers really understand what happened and what is happening in Kosovo. Bardylis 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But that can be easily seen. The article says that hundreds of thousands of Albanians were expelled, etcetera... Most (and neutral people mostly) said how the History section is full (especially the Kosovar war) of Albanian POV. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Telling the truth about what happened to Kosovar Albanians should not be regarded as Albanian POV. Rather, concealing it or mispresenting it would be Serbian POV. And these atrocities should not have to be repeated a million times in the article either. Instead it would be more useful to objectively include parts of history that would explain better the shaping of the reality today and the real factors that lead to the war. Less myth and more neutral inclusion of history would help significantly. Bardylis 01:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How on earth does Province equal Republic? Serbia was a Republic and Kosovo was a province. How is that equal?
 * 20 Dec 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.227 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Equal" in the sense mentioned in this article: In the 1974 constitution, the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo's government received higher powers, including the highest governmental titles — President and Premier and a seat in the Federal Presidency which made it a de facto Socialist Republic within the Federation, but remaining as a Socialist Autonomous Province within the Socialist Republic of Serbia. - Best regards, Evv 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * De Facto is not the same as the legal definition of equal. Kosovo was a part of Serbia. END OF STORY. You are just trying to make it seem like Kosovo was like Bosnia or Croatia or Montenegro which all broke away from Serbia. Kosovo was not like them at all. Kosovo was a part of Serbia. END OF STORY. Stop bringing your KLA propaganda on why Kosovo should be independent here. KosMetfan 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosnia, Croatia and Montenegro broke away from Yugoslavia not from Serbia.

The resolution passed in the Regional People's Council in Kosovo in July 1945 was in favour of annexation of Kosovo by 'federal Serbia'. Therefore the idea of an independent Kosovo is no newer or more unusual than the idea of an independent Serbia that would absorb Kosovo.

The war in Yugoslavia started in Kosovo and ended there, and this in itself explains a lot about its significance in the political developments within Yugoslavia. Its status remained disputable throughout the whole time, on top of continual discrimination toward the Albanians.

When nationalism was unleashed and the "Memorandum" drawn up by members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences started to be adhered to fanatically by the Serbian government and largely supported by the Serbian media, things started to get worse for Albanians. That tells us a lot about the collective involvement of not only the Serbian government, but many Serbian intellectuals as well, in the direct or indirect consequences of the Kosovo war. Bardylis 05:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some (mostly Serbian nationalists) have said that Serbia was a hostage of Kosovo - Kosovo had a veto to block any decision and it was by far more powerful than Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just one remark. Milosevic never had a full national support in Serbia. He cheated on elections few times and even changed constitution to stay on power. He used repression against his own people in the same way he did on Kosovo before the war. The claim that he had full national support is untrue. What about constant civil protest and demonstrations in Serbia, thru ought ninety’s.

I must say that I agree with Pax and understand his point of view. The only solution for one side is unacceptable for the other. It goes for both sides. Without consensus, there could be no solution and the only logic solution is unacceptable.--Marko M 23:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say full support I said well-supported. That can be empirically derived today from Serbia's approach toward the issue of Kosovo. It is not that Serbia has become more peaceful and constructive. It is merely the peace-keeping forces that are keeping the area safe from conflict until the matter is resolved. Do not assume that Kosovar Albanians trust the current Serbian government. Not at all. In fact the arguments I have been reading here make it clear that the Albanian significat majority in Kosovo (that does not share the view of Serbians and those in this article) pose a direct problem for Serbia. I will let you conclude what the solution to that problem would be if you leave it to Serbia to decide. Bardylis 00:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But Serbia has become more peaceful and constructive. The same goes for Kosovo Albanians. Unfortunately, in both cases, it is not an act of free will cause this kind of behavior has been imposed by the international community.

That’s why the decision want be made by Serbia or by Kosovo Albanians. Ahtisari or someone else will make a decision. But I am afraid that one or both sides want be satisfied with it. I don’t, see this region politically stable for a long time. --Marko M 17:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User Comment
While I try to avoid discussions about Kosovo like the devil, this comment struck me as particularly interesting.

'''"And I ask you not to downplay the magnitude of Serbian atrocities toward Kosovar Albanians with your weak arguments. No one entered Serbian borders with artilery, paramilitaries and demented criminals released from prisons. No one killed Serbian men or raped Serbian women in Belgrade or any other city or village in Serbia. No one burnt down entire villages in Serbia. No one destroyed national landmarks (read: destruction of Prizren League before withdrawal of Serbs) in Serbia to try to erase Serbian national identity and manipulate historical data. I can give you countless examples that Serbia never suffered." Bardylis 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)'''

I find it interesting because the converse is true for Albania, is it not? Nobody in Albania was raped or killed. No Albanian villages were pillaged. What is the true purpose of this comment? Well it's an attempt to turn the tables on the Kosovo debate by stating the Serbs have not suffered.

This is a sick piece of selective hearing. It is not true that no Serb in Serbia has suffered (although I've seen the buildings in Belgrade which still to this day have not been rebuilt, and the several public broadcast company buildings in Voivodina also destroyed). But no Albanian in Albania has suffered either, in fact they've suffered less than Serbia since there was no NATO repercussion. The suffering has mostly been contained in Kosovo, we can all agree to that. But to even mention that Serbia Proper has not suffered at all is a lie, especially in the face of no Albanian suffering in Albania.

Let's keep this discussion focused on Kosovo, not the bordering territories.--Hurricane Angel 06:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is true for Albania as well as it is true that Albania was never part of Yugoslavia or the war that happened there. Did Albania commit ethnic cleansing of Serbs is Kosovo? Did Albania fight in Croatia and Bosnia? No. It was Serbia who fought in Croatia, in Bosnia and in Kosovo while neither of these regions had the capacity to even take the fight within Serbia.

So whose selective hearing are we talking about? Is the fact that you see Albania as the motherland of Kosovar Albanians and the Serbs as the rightful owners of Kosovo, preventing you from seeing the conflict within ex-Yugoslavia clearly? Did your calculations fail with surprise when Kosovar Albanian regufees returned home after the war and re-populated the area? That is where their homes are and the region where they live was engaged in a war within Yugoslavia, and not within Albania.

But the fact is that Serbian nationalists consider that Kosovar Albanians came from Albania and they dismiss the fact that they are native and that it was Serbs who gradually populated the area during exodus since the 6th century.

I did not dismiss the fact that NATO destroyed the infrastructure in Serbia. I merely said that compared to the damages and atrocities that Serbia as a region in itself caused within the other regions of ex-Yugoslavia (and I repeat Albania was not part of the war) such as Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, Serbia as a region suffered virtually nothing from these territories withing its own territory.

Ethnic Serbs in these regions did. That cannot be denied. Nonetheless, nothing of the magnitude of Srebrenica in Bosnia or Recak in Kosovo befell ethnic Serbs within these regions, except in Croatia maybe. You can add your input there, if there is anything comparable to add. Bardylis 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the comment I made was not to turn tables on the issue of Kosovo but to show the other side of the coin. From the beginning, I explained that I prefer Noel Malcolm's neutral and objective analysis of the history and issues surrounding Kosovo. I personally think the feelings of Kosovo Serbs and the history should be recognized by Albanians as part of history of Kosovo, regardless of nationality or religion. It should be respected as history and as a logical precursor to the shaping of the reality today. Unless it is regarded objectively and not through a prism of nationalist sentiments the false statements that are made will always inflame one or the other side. The issue of Kosovo will find peace upon compromise of nationalism for objectivism of a multi-ehnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious independent state. That plurality should be cherished by all future Kosovar inhabitants. That is my position and I will continue to oppose any false statements and mispresentations that are one-sided and destructive. Bardylis 20:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the truth is that whenever atrocities against Kosovar Albanians are mentioned the same hypocritical rethoric "Serbs suffered too" applies to suppress the whole matter. Of course Serbs suffered too. Just as it is also true that majority of them backed (ideologically, politically or militarily) all the atrocities against Albanians? As well as it is true that they were not on the weaker side. They had the full backing of the Serbian government and forces until the last minute when they had to leave on account of their own acts.

I would see Serbia's up-front and honest standpoint only as constructive. It could in turn build some trust among Kosovar Albanians, whose doubt toward Serbia has not diminished exactly because to this day Serbia remains hypocritical about what happened. Bardylis 04:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Add to that the fact that over 800,000 Serbs in Serbia're actually ethnically cleansed refugees from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, and that their civilizations & heritage have utterly destroyed - well, they're all now citizens of Serbia, so why not count them? --PaxEquilibrium 10:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What a play of words and manipulation of time periods. No one is attacking Serbia now that they are Serbian citizens. No one (except NATO) attacked Serbia then when they were not Serbian citizens either. Bardylis 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? The suffers of hundreds of thousands of people are not important to you just because they belong to a specific ethnic group? It could be said that KLA "attacked Serbia", and in way as such, that Albania covertly attacked Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nazi or fascist Bulgaria 1941-1944?!
Bulgaria (see Third Bulgarian State) wasn't nazi or fascist state in the period 1941-1944. Bulgaria was allied with the Axis countries, but its inner political structure wasn't totalitarian or nazi. It could be described as relatively mild authoritarian regime of the monarch with limited forms of parliamentary democracy. The cliche "fascist Bulgaria" was widely used by the communist yugoslav historiography with obvious speculative negative connotation. Best regards, Jackanapes 09:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Need to add new sentence on revised timeframe
The section on the future status process needs a new sentence to reflect Ahtisaari's revised timeframe. I would propose: "Special Envoy Ahtisaari is now preparing a comprehensive status proposal that will address all the issues under discussion. Ahtisaari, supported by the Contact Group, chose to delay sharing this proposal with the parties until after January 21, 2007, parliamentary elections in Serbia." This seems a non-controversial, factual edit (as much as anything on this article is!). The UNOSEK website has a copy of his November press statement on the matter: http://www.unosek.org/unosek/en/press.html Any objections? Envoy202 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently none... probably because the page is protected and nobody can edit-war about it :-) If an administrator could incorporate this text or semi-protect the page for a little while, it would be much appreciated. - Best regards, Evv 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When an article is protected you need to post edit protected on the talk page to notify the admins of a requested change. Thatcher131 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that info :-) Best regards, Evv 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For those who are interested about…
…the article Serbophobia has been nominated for deletion for the fourth time. If you care, go there and place your vote. That’s it.--MaGioZal 11:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What has that to do with anything on this article? I don't want to spread bad faith, but this user appears to have been balloting for votes, posting this very same message to the up on articles related to, so to say, "Serbs messed up", and which are full of very biased editors: Talk:Kosovo War, Talk:War in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Talk:Yugoslav wars. --PaxEquilibrium 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Article protection
I was wondering whether anyone is interested on the article being unprotected, as there have been no requests to that effect. Regards, Asterion talk 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Asterion, congratulations with your Adminship, I only found out now. I think the article can be unprotected, but you will have to keep a close eye on it in case things go wrong. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Felicitaciones, Asterion :-) I did ask for semi-protection 3 days ago, when replying to Envoy202. I would prefer to have it so, semi-protected, to keep Asterion from being overwhelmed by this article's problems in the first days of his adminship... and happy 2007 everyone :-) Evv 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I would still need to agree the lifting of protection (or downgrading to semi) with the admin who set this originally. I do not think this will be a problem anyway. Happy new year, Asterion talk 11:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, the protection level is reduced to semi. Please find something more useful to do than flip-flop one sentence in the opening paragraph over and over again.  Good luck. Thatcher131 12:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Much better. I have added a new sentence on Ahtisaari's revised timeline. I notice yet again that the article is very long. The idea has been kicked around that maybe the future status process should be its own separate article. Worth considering. Envoy202 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You should know better Envoy202, especially after the unprotection. Please use sources when changing the article (please see 'controversial issues' section in the top of this talk page.  "During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them...".


 * Also I think this update highlights why should strive to stay away from any crystal ball speculation in this article. The previous version gave the impression that status has been 'committed' to be reached by 2006, now in 2007 you are conveniently updating it again with more crystal ball speculation.   If you do want to add more speculation, your change should state the fact that he previously "committed" to a status solution in 2006, but has since revised his outlook.


 * Please let our encyclopedia readers decide for themselves what all this means, instead of presenting only what you want. // Laughing Man 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like Envoy202's edit, which doesn't infringe WP:NOT, but simply states the current situation and timeframe. I also support her idea to split a separate article on Kosovo's future status process. - Best regards, Evv 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is very long indeed. I would suggest to start a fresh one for the status talks and also reducing greatly the history section and merge the content into the separate History of Kosovo article. Asterion talk 23:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

LaughingMan, please check out the source I cited above (the UNOSEK website). Ahtisaari issued a press statement immediately after meeting with the CG in November noting clearly his intention to go "without delay" to the parties after the January 21 parliamentary elections. As for the reference to the New York CG meeting in September, I encourage you to read the statement issued ( http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/72892.htm ) and draw your own conclusions about the timeframe. The Ministers "reaffirmed their commitment that all possible efforts be made to achieve a negotiated settlement in the course of 2006." Please feel free to summarize or quote that language as you see fit. Envoy202 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please cite sources in the article.  Also please to supply sources for your edits as this seems to be not NPOV unsourced, and potentially libelous since there is no source -- please see WP:BLP . // Laughing Man 07:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm pretty lousy with some of the more technical aspects of Wikipedia. I'd therefore be very grateful if you or someone else could help me add the sources I cited above. Also, if there are any other claims you find disputable, please point them out and I'll dig up some citations for you. THANKS! Envoy202 14:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do not know how, please post your changes here in talk page so we can work on it and add sources before adding it the article. Your "pretty lousy with technical aspects" is no excuse.  If you wish to edit this encyclopedia, particular this "controversial" article, I suggest you get familar with the WP:POLICY immediately.  Also, the citations are not for me, they are for everyone who wants to verify what has been added to article.  Thanks. // Laughing Man 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

New article on Status Process
Hey, gang. I've put up a separate "Kosovo Future Status Process" article. See what you think. I know it's light on citations -- I'd be grateful if people could help find citations on the web (google searches should do). Envoy202 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, LaughingMan, I see you slapped a "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag on the Kosovo Future Status Process article. Please point out specifically which assertions you find biased and we can talk about them. I always enjoy a hearty debate! I'm still trying to play around with the section and would really appreciate your specific comments. Envoy202 14:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Petkovic Resignation
Laughingman, you removed my change about Slavisa Petkovic's resignation. I was a bit surprised -- I didn't think people would object to factual statements about changes in government! If your objection is lack of sources, you can hop on Google and find bunches of articles citing the resignation. Could you please help me add the source to the article? I'd be very grateful. http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.363650179&par=0 http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/LZEG-6VUQUS?OpenDocument Envoy202 16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Info restored, both sources included. You can also cite your sources "the lazy way", by simply adding to the article the link/s exactly like you did above :-) Any other editor can then easily correct the format.
 * The "technical" form to add a reference is to simply post it between "thingies" (my level of expertise on the matter is clearly shown in my choice of vocabulary...)
 * So, to source the second link would require something like:
 * Petkovic resigns.
 * And to do it properly, something along the lines of:
 * Petkovic resigns.


 * Best regards, Evv 17:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, EW!!! I really appreciate the collegial and helpful attitude you bring to this page.  Envoy202 18:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, and thanks :-) But I just do some very minor edits (and some edit-warring here and there): it's the rest of you (lol @ "gang") the ones doing the real work. - Best regards, Evv 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up and the lesson for Envoy202, Evv ;)  Envoy, if you simply add the sources when you add the change, editors can review your contributions and sources given.  Wikipedia does not allow for original research and if you give citations to reliable sources your edits are verifiable.  I have updated the text to reflect what the sources say, not your speculation of what it means.  Thank you. // Laughing Man 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Always ready to serve :-) Anyway, Laughing Man has a good point: this article is so problematic that probably it would be better to source almost every single edit, and eventually trim unnecessary refs later. - Best regards, Evv 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Significnatly Trimming Future Status Process Section
As discussed, most people feel the article is way, way too long. I have already put most of the future status process stuff on its own Kosovo Future Status Process page. I would therefore propose significantly trimmming the status process section on this article. My proposed shortening is below. What do people think? Envoy202 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSED SHORT SECTION ON FUTURE STATUS: ''
 * See: Kosovo Future Status Process
 * See also: Constitutional status of Kosovo

A UN-led Kosovo future status process was begun in late 2005 to determine whether Kosovo should become independent or remain a part of the state of Serbia. Belgrade's position is that Kosovo should be highly autonomous, but not independent -- Belgrade officials have repeatedly said that an imposition of Kosovo's independence would be a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Pristina asserts that Kosovo should become an independent state, arguing that because of the violence of the Milosevic years made a continued union between Kosovo and Serbia not viable.

The Kosovo future status process is led by UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland; Austrian diplomat Albert Rohan is his deputy. Ahtisaari's office -- the UN Office of the Special Envoy for Kosovo (UNOSEK) -- is located in Vienna, Austria, and includes liaison staff from NATO, the EU and the United States.

Most international observers believe these negotiations will lead to some form of independence. Nevertheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in September 2006 that Russia may veto a UN Security Council proposal on Kosovo's final status that applies different standards than those applied to the separatist Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Other Russian officials have asserted they would only support an outcome to which both Serbia and Kosovo agree.

The Contact Group has said in numerous public statements that regardless of status outcome a new International Civilian Office (ICO) will be established in Kosovo to supervise the implementation status settlement and guarantee minority rights. NATO has also announced its intention to maintain KFOR in Kosovo after the status settlement.''


 * Nice job. And from now on, we sould make sure that those four paragraphs remain the limit :-) Best regards, Evv 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Now do the same for the History section and we'll really have something ;) Davu.leon 05:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There -- I just changed it. I tweaked some of the wording to make it sound better. Most significantly, I characterized the outcome in more detail. The article had said "some form of independence," which I changed to "independence, albeit with some conditions or temporary limitations on the exercise of sovereignty." The latter is more descriptive and is mentioned in most of the sources cited in the article. Any objections? Envoy202 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but
This article is an almighty mess. Envoy's suggestion ( above ) to trim the future status section is a start, but doensn't someone have a couple of weeks to spare to make this damn thing even marginably readable? Seriously, folks, a lot of this thing is going to have to be trimmed to meet any kind of reasonable encyclopedic standard. I'd love to do it myself, by I have neither the skill nor the patience. Nominations, anyone? Davu.leon 05:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. The history section in particular needs to be pared down significantly.  I've already started working on the post-1989 history.  I think much of the old, old history could be crunched.  Envoy202 18:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with History Section of Kosovo Article I have to point out again, the History section of Kosovo article needs serious consideration. I find, "History of Kosovo" link article is better than the History section of Kosovo article itself in many ways, and surprisingly enough the length of both articles is very similar. Shouldn't History section within Kosovo article be somewhat significantly shorter than the article "History of Kosovo"? Shouldn't they both complement each other structurally at least? I do not mean to inflame any further exhausting and pointless conversations, but to me, History section of Kosovo article seems like snap shot Serbian propaganda. When I read it, it seems like I am hearing Belgrade TV news in 1990's again. Judging from the titles themselves this is evident. Comparing both articles would help to start with. Thanks. Bardylis 21:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're all right, the "History" section should become a mere summary, to be expanded in the "History of Kosovo" article. This has been mentioned above by several editors. The problem is, nobody seems willing to do the arduous work for the pre-1989 period :-), and for good reason, since it would require sourcing with verifiable and reliable sources almost every single edit.
 * If you (and maybe PaxEquilibrium) are up to it, I heartily encourage you to begin with it; but do it slowly, and sourcing, sourcing, sourcing all the way :-)
 * Any areas of disagreement would be dealt with by clearly attributing interpretations, writing something along the lines of: Serbian historians like Smith, Jones and Bond consider Thisref ref ref, while French historian Phillips sees it This Way ref.
 * I guess that it would be better to actually work in Talk:History of Kosovo first, and only then create a summary here. - Best regards, Evv 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds great. Hopefully the problems with this article and the ArbCom case are a thing of the past. Asterion talk 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great to me as well. Thanks for the advice and proposal Evv. I can contribute, but I do need help as well. It will save lots of time to work on History of Kosovo article first, and then just make a summary of it to include in the Kosovo article. Asterion, I hope so too. THe current one is only generating problems, and creating long poinless talk page material. History of Kosovo article is more managable, because it has less problems. Bardylis 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly: it would be more managable there :-) I won't be able to help much, because I simply don't have books on the subject. And the few I have (only generic ones on the Middle Ages and Byzantium, plus Colin Imber's The Ottoman Empire, which I haven't read yet) are translations into Spanish :-) But I will do what little I can, and at least try to help with the coordination, if nothing else. - Best regards, Evv 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, we should stick to the principle you propose in dealing with disagreements, by attributing interpretations. I think that is a fair and objective approach. Bardylis 00:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

On using Noel Malcolm as a source
For everyone else's information and just to be upfront, I may source most of my contributions to Noel Malcolm's work on Kosovo history. I hope now that we have established that he is not an amateur historian, there won't be any stigma attached to this. However, if by any chance Noel Malcolm's work on Kosovo has somehow evolved into a taboo topic as it pertains to the Kosovo article on Wikipedia, well... I would like to know in advance so I do not waste my time. Anyone who can comment on this, please let me know. Thank You. Bardylis 04:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not waste your time. For others who are not familar with Noel Malcolm, please review the following papers:  Response to Noel Malcom's Book: "Kosovo. A Short History". // Laughing Man 04:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I read some of the content from the link you provided. The same one is also provided on the bottom of the page, in the article about Noel Malcolm. However, due to its ideological tone, I must admit, it did not seem worthy of my time to keep on reading. It speaks for itself. But since I am Albanian, I should perhaps tell you that the impression it leaves me with is the one where the direct resolution to this manifesto of a website you refer us to, calls for some kind of a solution to the "Albanian problem". To explain things further, the web page uses the term "Sqiptars" at least once, to refer to Albanians. If I understood properly the way this term was used in those pages, I have to explain to those who do not know that "Shiptari" in Serbian was a denigrating term used against Albanians, to substitute the correct name "Albanci". If that is really the case, I personally find it offensive that you referred me to this site.


 * My friendly advice to you is that It is not heresy to read Noel Malcolm's work. Bardylis 03:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a "web page" -- the link I gave contains several well referenced research papers with sources given. Your dismissing all of them as a "manifesto" simply shows ignorance or perhaps just fear to review anything that challenges Malcom's nonsense.  // Laughing Man 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying technical problems. Now go to those particular web pages of the website where the referenced research papers refer to Albanians as "Shqiptars" and answer the last part of my reponse to you. I do not fear the facts, I fear your ideology and some of those articles (if not all) are full of it.Bardylis 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Addition: Is Malcolm's book on Kosovo with a diverse list of sources in more than thirty pages of Bibliography not well-referenced research? Bardylis 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what your issue is -- please explain this to me as I don't understand. I thought that "Shqipatr" translates in Albanian language to "Albanian".  Where was this not properly used? (Note: if this is indeed a denigrating term, then we should delete the redirect on Wikipedia) // Laughing Man 22:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If "Siptar" in Serbian was adapted in English as "Shqiptars" it is indeed a denigrating term. But if you claim that it was not intended in that way, then you explain it to me, because I am definitely having problems comprehending this from its original context. Tito banned the use of this term during his visit of Kosovo due the same reason that I am trying to explain here. Quoting from the "controversial" Noel Malcolm's, Kosovo: A Short History again: "In March 1967 Tito paid his first visit to Kosovo for sixteen years, and made some public criticisms of conditions there. 'One cannot talk about equal rights' he declared, 'when Serbs are given preference in the factories... and Albanians are rejected although they have the same or better qualifications.' In the following year it was announced that the Serbian word "Siptar", a version of the Albanian 'shqiptar' (meaning 'Albanian') but with pejorative connotations, would no longer be used: the correct term would be 'Albanac' instead." Bardylis 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see why else would those authors use this term when "Albanians, Albanci, etc." explains pretty well who we are. Are you able to explain this? Bardylis 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked google just out of curiosity and found the same links posted on another uncompromisingly hard-core Serbian web-site: http://www.decani.org/nmalk.html


 * For those of you who are not familiar with the source of some of these responses, some of which are from members of the Institute of History of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, please be aware that this institution was the academic and intellectual engine behind the atrocities against the Albanian population during the political unrest and the conflict in Kosovo. The "Memorandum", an advisory document for the Serbian government, produced by members of this institute (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts) under Dobrica Cosic's direction in 1985, and published in 1989, served as a justification for "the 'Greater Serbian' policies pursued by Belgrade in the 1990's". The indignity of this institute is a very well documented phenomenon relating to the conflicts in the region.


 * No wonder members of this academy react to Noel Malcolm's book on Kosovo. He reveals (perhaps indirectly) its unscientific and biased involvement in the systematic discrimination of the Albanian population of Kosovo during the 90's. The Memorandum furthermore served Milosevic, his government, his supporters, and many Serbian intellectuals who supported the underlying consequences of that this document was advocating.


 * Why should such an infamous source of information be included for reasons other then the deserved criticism for its lack of scientific objectivity and credibility. Yet again, if it is included, let its tainted reputation be known to readers, so that they can approach its content with adequate caution. Bardylis 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a link from New York Review of Books, with Noel Malcolm's response to criticism of his work on Kosovo: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/777. Perhaps the author himself can explain better some misunderstandings relating to Kosovo: A Short History. That is all I could find for now. Bardylis 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have very little respect for the man, although only from the comments I've heard/read about him, since I haven't read any of his books. Nevertheless, as far as I'm concerned it would be ok to use him. Just attribute clearly anything coming from his book: According to Malcolm... Malcolm mentions... in Malcolm's interpretation... AND, on the first mention of his name, along the lines of controvertial historian Noel Malcolm ref, a special ref should lead to a lenghty note dedicated to concerns about his reliability and defense of his work on equal messure.


 * Why don't you read the book in question before you comment on it? Bardylis 15:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Off-topic comment: Very simple: money. It hasn't been published in Spanish (or at least it's not in the bookstores I visit), and it doesn't interest me enough to buy the English original paying in expensive dollars :-) - Evv 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Off-topic comment: Fair enough. Bardylis 03:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We assume that readers are not dumb, and that they'll be able to judge for themselves whether they trust Malcolm or not. But, to make sure that they're able to trust or disregard what comes from his book, attributing clearly all of his opinions will be essential. - Best regards, Evv 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the good advice Evv. I think that will work. Bardylis 15:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Evv, one bit of advice for you: If you're making judgements on comments Serbians make towards something or someone, they should be taken with a ton of salt. For one Serbian historians, politicians and their supporters are known for their myth creating capabilities and blind onslaughts on anyone who dares to break them up and reveal the truth. Clearly there's lots of propaganda going on here, I do not wish to get involved any further than this.Sanmint 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Off-topic comment: I do take with a ton of salt comments made by both parties, and others :-) Historical myth-making is not a Serbian exclusivity: hardly any country or ethnic group doesn't indulge in it. In many fields, it's only in these last four decades that Western historians have began to seriously shed the romantic myths created in the 19th century. - In Visigothic Spain, 409-711, historian Roger Collins devotes about a fifth of the book to explain why pre-1980's research on the issue should be taken with your ton of salt :-)
 * In The Fall of the Roman Empire, Peter Heather dedicates many pages to set aside 19th-century attempts to identify the tribes mentioned in Tacitus' Germania with the different groups of 4th- & 5th-century barbarians. - Does any of these remind you of certain Illyrians-Dardanians-Albanians links ? :-)
 * My opinions on Noel Malcolm are not based on Serbian comments (which I have only seen expressed in this very talk page), but on what can be heard/read about the man on the press and in "real life" conversations. I've only read David Irving's Hitler's War about a year ago, but I had formed an opinion on the man much earlier. - Best regards, Evv 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And people like you judge people on their nationality, not on their own merits...--Еstavisti 15:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not start these pointless wars of words again. This talk page is already long enough with useless conversations. Let's stick to the purpose.Bardylis 15:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Noel Malcolm's work was only a matter of time, and it only became more relevant when the issue of Kosovo was internationalized. I say this because Serbian mythology and legends confuse the foreign reader more than they attempt to reveal anything about the true reality of the problems that plagued this region throughout history. On the other hand, it may be true that Albanian interpretation of history also contains idealizations, but what is positive is that Albanians do not have their own brand of myths and legends, so their attachment to these idealizations is not strong enough to prevent them from seeing the reality.

I would not treat sourcing of Malcolm's work in the way that you [Evv] propose in the first paragraph. "According to Malcolm.... Malcolm mentions... in Malcolm's interpretation" makes it sound like he is some kind of a prophet. Also, I do not think that he is not known as a controversial historian, because he is only considered as such by Serbian critics. The article about Noel Malcolm says somewhat the same, that his work is controversial in Serbia (not world-wide). It just seems to me that the way you [Evv] propose to treat his sources is a bit extreme. But certainly what you propose in the next paragraph sounds more rational and I agree with that. Bardylis 03:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is extreme, I know :-) and probably, in many instances without disagreements it won't be necessary to treat him so (the ref thingy will be enough). But I really believe that these extreme messures will help to reduce frictions during the re-writing of the "History of Kosovo" article.


 * Also, where other sources agree with Malcolm I think that it would be enough, at least in some instances, to use two ref ref thingies instead of naming him again. I'm sure that we will be able to work it out as the writing progresses: we start with this rigid format and then we discuss ways to smooth it :-) -ways which, of course, would require clear consensus and not simple majority support-.


 * Regarding how controvertial he is, we would have this Big Note at the bottom of the article, just before the "References" section, and linked to from the first mention of "controvertial historian Noel Malcolm Big Note ". There, at that well-sourced Big Note, we will mention just who considers him controvertial - and let readers make up their own minds :-) Best regards, Evv 05:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great Evv. Very good! In regards to reducing frictions, I also agree that we should put attention into that as well, to be more pragmatic and save some time if we can. Thanks. Bardylis 16:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly: a boring and prophet-like over-attributed text would help to smooth the writing process; and afterwards -balancing style with the need for accuracy- we can calmly discuss just how many of all those attributions are really needed for the final text :-) Best regards, Evv 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

content forking
Is this how much of a fucking joke Wikipedia and ArbCom has become? Less than 24 hour notice for other editors to review your proposed version, and Christmas day for many of them, you make this type of massive change. I've had enough of this bs in this article, have fun with your content forks in this and related articles "Envoy". // Laughing Man 00:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, friend, there is no need to get bent out of shape! Let's keep it friendly and please avoid profanity.  Do you not like the idea of having a separate article on the future status process.  I proposed that to respond to the commonly-expressed belief that the article was way too long.  I then just copied most of the text to the new article, then reworked it a bit for readability.  Would you propose to do it differently?  If you have problems with sections of the Kosovo Status Process article, I'm eager to talk about them.  Envoy202 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Laughing Man, no big decission has been taken, no POV fork was created, nor is the current wording set in stone. The section needed to be shorten (as does the one on history), and the quicker the better.
 * Here's the revision as of 00:51, 7 January 2007, immediatly before the change: anything can be recovered and compared.
 * Want not make some changes ? Good, let's talk about it :-) But, please, let's stick to the current four paragraphs only:
 * Intro and positions of Belgrade and Priština.
 * UN actors/coordinators.
 * Observer's expectations (which doesn't infringe WP:NOT and has been specifically allowed in the Principle 7 of the arbitration -see also Fred Bauder's comment on Proposed principle 11- ) and relevant international reactions.
 * Projected post-definition situation.
 * I believe that Envoy202 did a good job here, but things can always be improved. But let's do it calmly, please. - Laughing Man, if you want to, do propose any alternative wording for that four paragraphs summary (further details should be dealt in "Kosovo Future Status Process"). - Best regards, Evv 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the new article. Just use sources rather than your own gut feelings. Fred Bauder 02:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom principles for Kosovo: "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball discourages inclusion of information regarding outcomes, or other future events. Speculation by reliable experts may be included only in limited circumstances." You have an interesting interpretation of this if you feel a new article that entirely focused on future speculation is alright.  So much for ArbCom "principles" being enforced. // Laughing Man 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation
I think it is a violation for writing untrue statements. What I mean is that we have problems to make a NPOV article. I think some people here state elements of like Serbia has been not involved in the balkan wars or whatever.I think this is like to say nazi Germany did nothing! Is this correct? This article should be locked only for a long time and in the end we need to write articles that are just neutral and we should take away vandalisers.I tink those who make problems have something against kosovo.82.114.68.30 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

New History Section
Hey, guys, I took a stab at reworking the recent history section. The source for this is 'Kosovo: War and Revenge' by Tim Judah (although some other sources I kept in from the original text. What do people think? My goal was to shorten.  The section now is too long and bloated.  Envoy202 17:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Here begins the proposed text.

Kosovo and the Breakup of Yugoslavia
Inter-ethnic tensions continued to worsen in Kosovo throughout the 1980s. In particular, Kosovo's ethnic Serb minority complained bitterly about mistreatment from the Albanian majority. Milosevic capitalized on this discontent in Kosovo to consolidate his own position in Serbia. In 1987, Serbian President Ivan Stambolic sent Milošević to Kosovo to "pacify restive Serbs in Kosovo." On that trip, Milošević broke away from a meeting with ethnic Albanians to mingle with angry Serbians in a suburb of Pristina. As the Serbs protested they were being pushed back by police with batons, Milošević told them, "No one is allowed to beat you." This incident was later seen as pivotal to Milosevic's rise to power.

On June 28, 1989, Milosevic delivered a speech in front of 1,000,000 Serb citizens at the central celebration marking the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo, held at Gazimestan. This speech is best known for its quote that: "six centuries later, now, we are being again engaged in battles and are facing battles. They are not armed battles, although such things cannot be excluded yet."

In 1989, Milošević engineered the revocation of Kosovo's special autonomous status within Serbia. Soon thereafter Kosovo Albanians organized a non-violent separatist movement, employing widespread civil disobedience, with the ultimate goal of achieving the independence of Kosovo. Kosovo Albanians boycotted state institutions and elections and established separate Albanian schools and political institutions. On July 2, 1990 an unconstitutional Kosovo parliament declared Kosovo an independent country, although this was not recognized by Belgrade or any foreign states. Two years later, in 1992, the parliament organized an unofficial referendum which was observed by international organizations but was not recognized internationally. With an 80% turnout, 98% voted for Kosovo to be independent.

Kosovo War
Main article: Kosovo War

As the wars in Bosnia and Croatia ended, the issue of Kosovo remained unaddressed. As frustrations mounted, an armed resistance movement led by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) began to employ guerilla-style tactics against Serbian security forces. Violence escalated dramatically in 1998 through a cycle of KLA attacks and Serbian reprisals. Both sides sometimes targeted civilians.

In the fall of 1998, as the violence worsened and displaced more people, the international community brokered a ceasefire. Under an agreement negotiated by Richard Holbrooke, observers from the OSCE moved into Kosovo to monitor the ceasefire, while Yugoslav military forces partly pulled out of Kosovo.

But the ceasefire did not hold and new violence erupted over the winter. On January 16, 1999, the bodies of 45 Albanian civilians were found in the town of Racak. OSCE monitors alleged they were the victims of a massacre by Serb forces. The Racak event brought new international attention to the conflict in Kosovo.

Within weeks, the international community convened a conference in Rambouillet, France, to seek a way to end the violence. An agreement was prepared (the "Rambouillet Accords") that would have resulted in a NATO peacekeeping force deployed to Kosovo and the establishment of meaningful autonomy; the international community also pledged to resolve Kosovo's future status at an international conference in three years. After more than a month of talks, Yugoslavia refused to sign an agreement. Kosovo Albanians, after initially rejecting the accords because they did not promise immediate independence, eventually agreed.

The failure of the Raimbouillet conference triggered a 78-day NATO aerial bombing campaign in the spring of 1999 to compel Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo. Milosevic capitulated in June 1999, agreeing to the full withdrawal of all security forces from Kosovo.

During the conflict roughly a million ethnic Albanians fled Kosovo, several thousand were killed (the numbers and the ethnic distribution of the casualties are uncertain and highly disputed). An estimated 10,000-12,000 ethnic Albanians and 3,000 Serbs are believed to have been killed during the conflict. Some 3,000 people are still missing, of which 2,500 are Albanian, 400 Serbs and 100 Roma.

Kosovo After the War
After the war ended, Kosovo was placed under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) and KFOR, a NATO peacekeeping force, was deployed. Almost immediately Kosovo Albanians began a wave of revenge attacks on Kosovo Serbs, causing large numbers of Serbs to flee (note: the exact number of displaced Serbs is highly disputed, with estimates ranging from 65,000 to over 200,000). Many displaced Serbs are afraid to return to their homes, even with UNMIK protection. Around 120,000 Serbs remained in Kosovo, but reported ongoing harassment and discrimination.

In 2001, UNMIK promulgated a Constitutional Framework or Kosovo that established the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG), including an elected Kosovo Assembly, Presidency and office of Prime Minister. Kosovo held its first free, parliamentary elections in late 2001 (municipal elections had been held the previous year). Work also continued on establishing a professional Kosovo Police Service.

In March 2004, Kosovo experienced its worse inter-ethnic violence since the Kosovo War. The unrest in 2004 was sparked by a series of minor events that soon cascaded into large-scale riots. Kosovo Albanians mobs burned hundreds of Serbian houses, Serbian Orthodox Church sites (including some medieval churches and monasteries) and UN facilities.

Here ends the proposed text.

Comments on the proposed text
After three days neither side complained... quite an accomplishment, Envoy202 :-) Go ahead and make the edit (all the previous text remains available in the revision as of 21:24, 22 January 2007) . And thank you very much for helping to shorten the article. - Best regards, Evv 14:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, i don't tink that the text is very good, starting with using Judah as its primary reference and going from there on. Here are my specific complaints:


 * Kosovo's ethnic Serb minority complained bitterly about mistreatment from the Albanian majority. - Kosovo Serbs were and are not a minority. Serbs are the constitutional nation of Serbia, and Albanians are a minority. We've been through this. Also, the phrase "complained bitterly about mistreatment" implies that they were not actually mistreated, but only complained.


 * Serbs are a minority in the province of Kosovo. Period.  If you want to contribute to English Language Wikipedia, learn to speak English. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, they are not. If you want to contribute to articles on former Yugoslavia, learn something about former Yugoslavia. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it right to say the phrase "complained bitterly about mistreatment" implies that they were not actually mistreated, but only complained. I thimk not. Buffadren 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This speech is best known for its quote that: "six centuries later, now, we are being again engaged in battles and are facing battles. They are not armed battles, although such things cannot be excluded yet." - excellently written, I especially like "best known for" part, but fails to mention that the sentence is taken out of context and is immediately followed by Our chief battle now concerns implementing the economic, political, cultural, and general social prosperity, finding a quicker and more successful approach to a civilization in which people will live in the 21st century. What is wrong with what is in the article now: However, many analysts - ranging from biographer Lebor to critics of American foreign policy such as Jared Israel - believe that the speech has been exaggerated beyond all proportion. Much of the speech was aimed at consolidating socialism and racial harmony in an era when Communism was collapsing.[16] - it could be trimmed, but it should be there.


 * In 1989, Milošević engineered the revocation of Kosovo's special autonomous status within Serbia. - First, I the status was not revoked, but reduced. I also don't like "engineered"; why not simply say "Milosevic reduced autonomy"?


 * Soon thereafter Kosovo Albanians organized a non-violent separatist movement, employing widespread civil disobedience, with the ultimate goal of achieving the independence of Kosovo. - request for separation existed long before. This should be better written as Kosovo Albanian separatist movement, organized a non-violent widespread civil disobedience...


 * Your wording is by no means better. As a matter of fact it is gramatically incorrect.  Your point on the prior existance of the request for seperation is irrelevant, as that has been covered in the earlier history. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But it was the existing separatist movement that organised civil disobedience, it didn't sprung up from nothing. What wording would you suggest? Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The way you (Nikola)suggest to paraphrase it, namely that "Kosovo Albanian separatist movement" organized a non-violent wisespread civil disobedience, lets the reader think that there was a majority of Albanians who was not necessarily in favor of such a goal. Of course, that is not true. It is proven by the very fact that Kosovar Albanians applied this in practice and not without any sacrifice. It seemed like Albanians would rather lose their employment rights and Albanian students their right to proper education, than accept Serbia's domination policy and the imposed programme. If some serbs dislike the fact that Albanians had such courage and determination to do so, well, I do not mean to be rude but, too bad. It was the exercised right of the poeple not to accept Milosevic's regime of oppression, and they were ready to go to tremendous extents to achieve the goal they collectively had in mind. Without any attempt to idealize, Kosovar Albanians did in fact earn their freedom. Bardylis 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But of course that they were. Nikola 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then your suggested paraphrasing misleads the readers. Bardylis 01:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As the wars in Bosnia and Croatia ended, the issue of Kosovo remained unaddressed. - which issues existed, and why would they have to be addressed?


 * At the very least the issue that 90% of the population of Kosovo wanted independence from Serbia, and this should have been addressed to prevent yet another war. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is such desire of Kosovo's population an issue (while equivalent desires of other populations are not)? For example, imagine writing in Spain: "As Franco's dictatorship ended, Basque issue remained unaddressed". Clearly, that is completely out of place. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reason No. 1: Serbia's domination policies and the results it produced (very unwise). Reason No.2: Kosovar Albanians endured the oppression until it paid off and the matter was internationalized (very wise). Bardylis 13:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As frustrations mounted, - which frustrations? Compare this with ethnic Serb minority complained bitterly about mistreatment - by that logic we can write As Kosovo Albanians complained about being frustrated...


 * Frustrations about the fact that non-violent protest against Serbian misrule was producing no results. Your logic is faulty, and again your command of English is suspect.  We could possibly write "As frustrations mounted over mistreatment of Albanians at the hands of Serbs in Kosovo..." What you have written makes little sense.  Kosovars did not complain about being frustrated, they complained about mistreatment.  Alternatively, their aspirations to freedom were frustrated by lack of international support, but then you are using a different meaning of the word.  Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually wrote that to point out faulty logic used elsewhere. I'd like to avoid frustration, which is a personal emotion, altogether. What is wrong with simply starting the sentence with "An armed resistance movement..."? Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * an armed resistance movement led by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) began to employ guerilla-style tactics against Serbian security forces. - completely untrue. KLA attacked security forces, and both Serbian and Albanian civilians. Short following sentence is not enough.


 * What is your complaint here? The statement is factually accurate, and NPOV.  If you want to get into the distinction between VJ and MUP, make a note and do so in a seperate article, otherwise I can't see your point. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So is the statement "Davu.leon wasn't beating his wife this week". KLA was targeting primarily civilians. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KLA was no at all targeting civilians. It was the other way around as I recall; Kosovar Albanian civilans were exposed to the Serbian military and para military operations, and KLA was a reaction to that. Furthermore, on many occassions Albanian civilians defending themselves, identified themselves as KLA. Bardylis 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KLA was targetting primarily Albanian civilians who refused to pay the 3% tax and support the separatist movement. Prior to the formation of KLA, there were no Serbian military and paramilitary operations against Albanian civilians. Nikola 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * < - - - - - reset indent I am not sure who has brainwashed you but to clarify things I happen to be one of those people who paid the 3% and I did not need KLA to motivate me. Likewise was the case with Albanians in diaspora and the households of my classmates who like myself, voluntarily completed their education in houses of Albanians who showed solidarity, simply because they utterly rejected Serbia's assimilation programme. The way we managed to keep the parallel system, including the funding for the government, was exactly by doing this: paying the tax. Just so you know, because I doubt that I can help you with your psychological situation, Albanian teachers and students were subject to periodic interrogations and mistreatments (i.e. physical, psychological torture) by the Serbian police, but that did not stop them in any way. What weird logic prompts you to imply that we needed Kosovo Liberation Army (its name is self-explanatory and it was perceived as such by Albanians) to motivate us to pay the 3% tax? Bardylis 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I recall Serbia's first military operations started in Drenica, where houses of Albanian families - among which Jashari familly was the most prominent for their heroic resistance against Serbian forces - were being attacked and razed to the ground. For Albanians they were and still are heroes whose families were terrorized by Serbian forces, but viewed from the Serbian pathologic perspective as represented by the Serbian media, they were terrorists (women and children included). KLA's activities were no more than a reaction to this threat to Albanian civilians, that was gradually spreading throughout the whole region. Bardylis 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ultimately I think your comment does not even deserve an honest explanation. Perhaps the simplest advice would help your situation better: Get with the program! Bardylis 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In the fall of 1998, as the violence worsened and displaced more people, the international community brokered a ceasefire. - NATO countries should not be called international community. Most countries in the international community had nothing to do with the ceasefire.


 * NATO counties ARE called the international community. They are a part of said, and while they do not comprise the whole, it is perfectly acceptable common English usage to refer to them so in this case. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * NATO countries are called the international community. That is wrong. The fact that they are (wrongly) called so sometimes doesn't mean that we should do the same. For example, see CNN's timeline about the period: October -- NATO allies authorize airstrikes against Serb military targets; October-December -- U.S. envoy Christopher Hill tries to broker political settlement. That is not international community. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But the ceasefire did not hold and new violence erupted over the winter. On January 16, 1999, the bodies of 45 Albanian civilians were found in the town of Racak. - very bad. It doesn't mention which side broke the ceasefire. People killed in Racak were not civilians (and, Racak is a village, hardly a town).


 * People killed were civilians. We do not need to enter into a discussion on this, as there is simply NO REPUTABLE SOURCE to suggest otherwise.  Serbian propaganda websites are NOT, I repeat NOT reputable sources. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No. People killed were not civilians, and there is no reputable source to suggest that they were. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OSCE monitors alleged they were the victims of a massacre by Serb forces. - perhaps "without any evidence" could be added in there somewhere.


 * Please read OCSE reports for evidence, which I assure you is plentiful Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We're talking about Racak here. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Racak event brought new international attention to the conflict in Kosovo. - but I could agree to this. By the way, why singling out Racak? Klecka and Glodjane massacres had more victims than it.


 * There was no massacre at Klecka. The University of Helsinki certified EU Expert Forensic Team came to the following conclusions about Klecka; "….the remains consisted of 89 major identifiable bones or bone fragments and a group of 108 small burnt bone fragments.…..  On the basis of DNA analysis, the examined bone samples were determined to belong to three male individuals…..  According to forensic and anthropological investigations, all remaining unspecified bone samples were consistent with originating from the three bodies. The results do not indicate the presence of more than the three bodies specified."
 * Yes. However, the limekiln used to burn the victims' bodies can develop high enough temperature to destroy human bones completely, as well as any DNA. It is presumed that all people (22 of them) who were kidnapped by the KLA in the area were burned there. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the evidence for a "massacre" at Gllogjan has been provided solely by Serbian Foresic teams. Available information on this comes from the same people who claimed that over 100 were killed at Klecka, which was, as we have seen, nothing more than a common lie.  There are now trials underway at the ICTY which will deal with this matter, and I for one would not be surprised to find that this "massacre" was, if not wholly fabricated by Serbia, then at least greatly exaggerated.  If Klecka is mentioned, the facts must be presented, and I would advise that Gllogjan should be treated in light of the available evidence. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't be surprised when ICTY concludes so. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Within weeks, the international community convened a conference in Rambouillet, France, to seek a way to end the violence. - there's it again, the international community that isn't.


 * This is really just staggeringly ridiculous argumentation. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An agreement was prepared - an agreement can't be prepared; it has to be achieved. Calling "agreement" something that isn't is bad. Perhaps simply "document" could be used.


 * Again, your understanding of English is lacking. The word 'agreement' can refer to the document itself. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Merriam-Webster's, an agreement is:
 * 1 a : the act or fact of agreeing b : harmony of opinion, action, or character : CONCORD
 * 2 a : an arrangement as to a course of action b : COMPACT, TREATY
 * 3 a : a contract duly executed and legally binding b : the language or instrument embodying such a contract
 * Nothing of this applies to the Rambouillet document. The document was not agreed upon; there was no harmony of opinion about it; it didn't arrange any course of action (it proposed a course of action, but that course has not been accepted); it was not a contract duly executed and legally binding. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * that would have resulted in a NATO peacekeeping force deployed to Kosovo and the establishment of meaningful autonomy; the international community also pledged to resolve Kosovo's future status at an international conference in three years. - why are words "Kosovo's future status" used instead of "independence"? Also, famed Annex which would allow NATO unrestricted access to Serbia is not mentioned. Subsequent resolution of the parliament of Serbia is not mentioned.


 * Annex should be mentioned. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The failure of the Raimbouillet conference triggered a 78-day NATO aerial bombing campaign in the spring of 1999 to compel Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo. - there's no reason to believe that NATO started its bombing campain for these reasons; the most that could be said is that it claimed so.


 * This statement is so bizarre I don't even know where to start. What possible reason could they have had?  To get your Oil?  Or maybe it's because they were suffering from the dreaded SERBOPHOBIA!! Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Establishing military presence in the region? Ousting Milosevic? Establishing control over Serbian economy? Why doesn't NATO bomb other areas where military is fighting terrorists and conferences fail? Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * During the conflict roughly a million ethnic Albanians fled Kosovo, several thousand were kille (the numbers and the ethnic distribution of the casualties are uncertain and highly disputed). - doesn't mention Serbs which fled Kosovo.


 * Check your facts. Majority of Serbs who fled did so after Serbian withdrawal. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I recall that in the article, there was a reference, which to me looked reliable, about Serbs who fled Kosovo during the bombing. But it is apparently removed. OK, let's do without it for now. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KFOR, a NATO peacekeeping force - KFOR also had Russian troops.


 * The Kosovo Force (KFOR) is a NATO-led international force responsible for establishing and maintaining security in Kosovo. A NATO led force from the (uh-oh) International Community!  Sarcasm aside, that change should be made. I suggest the following; KFOR, a NATO-led peacekeeping force. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * NATO-led. OK. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost immediately Kosovo Albanians began a wave of revenge attacks on Kosovo Serbs, causing large numbers of Serbs to flee - Albanian attacks are described as revenge, while Serbian aren't. This is a bad idea. Also, destruction of Serbian cultural heritage is not mentioned.


 * What are you talking about? Which Serbian attacks?  You mean when they sent tanks and helicopter gunships into civilian villages?  You want to describe those as revenge attacks?  Good luck finding any support on that one.  You are a bad idea.  Just one big bad idea.  I'm sorry for breaking the rules and being personally insulting, and I'm sure you're a perfectly nice and decent person when not talking about Kosovo, but you're just descending into farce here. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I actually don't, but if Albanian attacks should be described as revenge, I don't see why Serbian attacks shouldn't. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (note: the exact number of displaced Serbs is highly disputed, with estimates ranging from 65,000 to over 200,000). - complete and utter rubbish. The number is not disputed at all, and is well known, 20, 21 and 22.


 * I wouldn't say highly disputed, but around 200,000 seems to be the commonly accepted figure. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 250,000. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Around 120,000 Serbs remained in Kosovo, but reported ongoing harassment and discrimination. - again. They are neither harrased nor discriminated, but are only reporting so.


 * Nothing about this statement says the reports are untrue. Please don't see bias where there is none. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I simply can't fathom why is harrasment of Serbs always reported, while harrasment of everyone else simply happens. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Kosovo held its first free, parliamentary elections in late 2001 - were there some previous elections that were unfree? Nikola 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any election in Serbia that refused Kosovar Albanians the right to vote. Davu.leon 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They had the right, didn't wish to use it. Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent OK, the illusion of agreement vanished :-) But please, all parties, calm down, do remember to be polite, observe WP:CIV and WP:NPA (comment on content, not on the contributor). — Having this article on probation, I will ask uninvolved administrators to review the next inapropiate comment. So, please, don't respond to comments until you calm down and are able to be patient and polite. Now, to the content... let's go one detail at a time, starting by the first complain. - Evv 12:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I admit it, my earlier post was perhaps a little too sarcastic for it's own good. I wish to apologise to Nikola for saying that he himself is a bad idea.  I'm sure he's a great idea, and I didn't mean to hurt his feelings.  I do stand by my refutation of his points, however, as I believe most non-partisan editors will.  Obviously it would have been better to let a calmer, more level headed voice deal with his post, such as the ever-reliable Evv, but sometimes I just find myself getting a little worked up by all the nonsense posted on this article.  Again, this is not an adequate excuse for my rash and ill-advised post, so Nikola, if you're listening, I'm sorry.  Oh, and I'm not a sock puppet, by the way, but if you'd like to discuss that please post on my talk page, I promise I won't insult you again. :) Davu.leon 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense taken. I'm much more offended and annoyed by someone reducing number of Serbian refugees threefold than by someone calling me a bad idea - that was sweet actually, no one called me a bad idea before :) Nikola 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say one thing, as discussion seems to have died out. I am thinking about the proposal, and maybe I was a bit nitpicky, it might not be so bad, and I believe that we can easily reach a satisfying compromise. I wouldn't like to see Envoy's work, probably done in good faith, lost completely. Nikola 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I applaud you sir. I believe that shortening the main article should be the primary goal; highly controversial topics, like Racak (ie what type of evidence is available and what the differing viewpoints are,) should be linked to seperate articles for in-depth exploration.  All that is necessary in this main text is to note that controversy exists. Davu.leon 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Envoy's work is fair and contains a very good description.Sanmint 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is I applaud Nikola's admission that his criticisms were nitpicky, and that we can reach a compromise using Envoy's post as a framework. (Hopefully without too much alteration or expansion.) Davu.leon 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On Serb complains during the 80s
Kosovo's ethnic Serb minority complained bitterly about mistreatment from the Albanian majority.

First, the context and focus is on the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija alone, not the Socialist Republic of Serbia as a whole; and in Kosovo Serbs were a minority.

Second, that they complained is a fact, and I can't imagine any reader considering that those complains were unfounded, especially after having read the previous section on "Kosovo in the Second Yugoslavia". However, what alternative wording/sourcing do you, Nikola, propose ? Let's see if we can agree on the whole section in a few days. - Best regards, Evv 12:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Kosovo Serbs were mistreated by Kosovo Albanians. What's wrong with that? Nikola 06:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * thats a reasonable compromise because some editors would argue that saying the Serbs 'complained bitterly' may suggest that they are whinging or worse that it may imply it may never have happened, also it takes heat out of the sentence, the complaints were of course founded. Buffadren 18:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo resolution
A resolution was just adopted. It forces both parties to negotiate more actively and spend more energy in it, indirectly implying that it's vesting all power to Martti Ahtisaari, who is due to present his proposal for Kosovo's solution.

The resolution originally included that independence of Kosovo would probably be the best solution to the region, and recommended it; but in the very end, they considered it one-sided and excluded it. Ironically, the Serbian delegation voted against. LOL :D

I suppose we'll just have to wait for Martti's proposal. It appears that Kosovo's solution will be Semi-dependence under supervision and protectorate. What fears most is the reaction of the two sides: as that is step forward to Pristina, and step away from Belgrade, which will finally lose all logic territorial pretensions to Kosovo. But what is frightening is not only the possibility that Serbia won't accept this, but the reaction of the Kosovar Albanians, which some even drastically overestimate as widespread civil unrest (violence?) - some in Serbia (Belgrade) predicted even repetition of the 2004 March. --PaxEquilibrium 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The most important thing for all Kosovars is that Kosovo is not under Serbian sovereignty, which is what they will be celebrating sometime this year. They don't give a damn about the length of the international presence, most of them I think, would welcome it so that they have enough time to build the country properly. What is clear is that the US and Europe don't have enough energy to see independence through anytime soon, so they will be doing over time I guess, which is a shame since they showed great courage to stop the genocide in the 1999, and now they don't have the bollocks to see the job through.Sanmint 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with that. That's not the most important thing to ethnic non-Albanians, and most certainly not to Serbs (and Roms). 90% really isn't 100%. I wouldn't suggest that it will be solved this year, when the UN kicked in, everyone thought they'll go away by 2001, latest 2002 or 2003. Then, they all agreed that it will be "finally" in 2005, and then in 2006. And now, we're in 2007. Who can tell now how further will the bizarre situation go on? You probably heard about the SELF-DETERMINATION MOVEMENT! It's influence in Kosovo is growing year by year. They have been attacking UN officials & vehicles for years by now, and some even gone to the violence of injuring the peace-keepers - they call the UNMIK colonists/ocupators of Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This Kosovo talk is about to come to an END finally. Marti Ahtisari will present the proposal to both Prishtina and Belgrade on 2 Feb 07, and the Wikipedia will have another source to confirm from. I would please ask to change the Map as it doesn't reflect the reality today. There are plenty of maps of the new european state of Kosovo on internet. Thanks :)DOLKOS 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there aren't. I think you meant to say there will be. It does reflect the reality today. --PaxEquilibrium 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I think we have a difference on what reality is then!. My reality check shows that Kosovo has been removed from anything that has to do with Serbia and Montenegro. I think that's good for all, I am not trying to annoy anyone, but show my opinion and believe.161.51.11.2 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's nice, but what has that got to do with all this? This isn't a Forum. --PaxEquilibrium 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion board, oh by the way just read the news, finally all the mask is down, so-called pro democratic Serbian PM Kostunica blackmailed Nato and the EU by saying if they recognise the Kosovo Independence it will cut ties with them, that was funny....but sad, I think Serbia is going back to Milosevics policies.DOLKOS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.51.11.2 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

From Talk page: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." - Regards, Evv 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I and perhaps everyone here agrees with your comment Evv. However given the sensitivity of the subjuct matter even the coolest editors can drift into POV territory,but in fairness they do quickly return to that issues that we address. On difficult issue pages such as this, hard working editors are given a little more slack. However those that come here to solely let off steam are not of concern provided they stick to the talk page.  Buffadren 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

90s History...Take Two
Phew...what a response! I had no doubt that my proposal would get folks worked up, especially those with an ethnic axe to grind. That being said, I've carefully reviewed last week's comments and found many of them to be both useful and legitimate. I've made some changes here -- I'd appreciate your comments. I would only ask that you please be respectful and friendly in what you write. Thanks!! Envoy202 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Envoy202, you need follow your own advice by being "respectful and friendly" instead complaining about "those with an ethnic axe to grind" first. It makes me wonder if you didn't know what background someone was how you would react.  // Laughing Man 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Laughing Man on this, expressions such as 'axe to grind' are not helpful even if they are attached to a sentence calling for respect and friendiness.Buffadren 08:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a great improvement on the current article, regardless of axes or grinding or anything else. Let's stay on topic.Davu.leon 09:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! I accept the gentle rebuke.  No grinding should occur.  My apologies.  Now back to the article...  Envoy202 11:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here begins the proposed text.

Kosovo and the Breakup of Yugoslavia
Inter-ethnic tensions continued to worsen in Kosovo throughout the 1980s. In particular, Kosovo's ethnic Serb community, a minority in Kosovo, complained bitterly about mistreatment from the Albanian majority. Milosevic capitalized on this discontent in Kosovo to consolidate his own position in Serbia. In 1987, Serbian President Ivan Stambolic sent Milošević to Kosovo to "pacify restive Serbs in Kosovo." On that trip, Milošević broke away from a meeting with ethnic Albanians to mingle with angry Serbians in a suburb of Pristina. As the Serbs protested they were being pushed back by police with batons, Milošević told them, "No one is allowed to beat you." This incident was later seen as pivotal to Milosevic's rise to power.

On June 28, 1989, Milosevic delivered a speech in front of 1,000,000 Serb citizens at the central celebration marking the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo, held at Gazimestan. During the speech, Milosevic said that "six centuries later, now, we are being again engaged in battles and are facing battles. They are not armed battles, although such things cannot be excluded yet." This quote was widely interpreted as being a pivotal moment in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, although others have since asserted that it was not a bellicose speech.

In 1989, Milošević, employing a mix of intimidation and political maneuvering, engineered the revocation of Kosovo's special autonomous status within Serbia. Soon thereafter Kosovo Albanians organized a non-violent separatist movement, employing widespread civil disobedience, with the ultimate goal of achieving the independence of Kosovo. Kosovo Albanians boycotted state institutions and elections and established separate Albanian schools and political institutions. On July 2, 1990 an unconstitutional Kosovo parliament declared Kosovo an independent country, although this was not recognized by Belgrade or any foreign states. Two years later, in 1992, the parliament organized an unofficial referendum which was observed by international organizations but was not recognized internationally. With an 80% turnout, 98% voted for Kosovo to be independent.

Kosovo War
Main article: Kosovo War

In 1995, as the issues that sparked wars in Bosnia and Croatia were largely addressed in the Dayton peace agreement, the Kosovo situation remained without resolution. As Kosovo Albanian complaints over Serb oppression mounted, an armed resistance movement led by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) began to employ guerilla-style tactics against Serbian security forces. Violence escalated dramatically in 1998 through a cycle of KLA attacks and Serbian reprisals. Both sides sometimes targeted civilians.

In the fall of 1998, as the violence worsened and displaced more people, representatives of the international community brokered a ceasefire. Under an agreement negotiated by Richard Holbrooke, observers from the OSCE moved into Kosovo to monitor the ceasefire, while Yugoslav military forces partly pulled out of Kosovo.

But the ceasefire did not hold and new violence erupted over the winter. On January 16, 1999, the bodies of 45 Albanian civilians were found in the village of Racak. OSCE monitors alleged they were the victims of a massacre by Serb forces. The Racak event in particular brought new international attention to the conflict in Kosovo.

Within weeks, the international community -- including representatives of Russia, the European Union and the United States -- convened a conference in Rambouillet, France, to seek a way to end the violence. A draft agreement was prepared (the "Rambouillet Accords") that would have resulted in a NATO peacekeeping force deployed to Kosovo and the establishment of meaningful autonomy in Kosovo; the agreement also would have led to an international conference in three years to resolve the issue of Kosovo's status. After more than a month of talks, Yugoslavia refused to sign an agreement. Kosovo Albanians, after initially rejecting the accords because they did not promise immediate independence, eventually agreed.

Largely as a result of the failure of the Raimbouillet conference, NATO launched a 78-day NATO aerial bombing campaign in the spring of 1999 with the announced goal of compelling Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo. Milosevic capitulated in June 1999, agreeing to the full withdrawal of all security forces from Kosovo.

During the conflict roughly a million ethnic Albanians fled Kosovo, several thousand were killed (the numbers and the ethnic distribution of the casualties are uncertain and highly disputed). An estimated 10,000-12,000 ethnic Albanians and 3,000 Serbs are believed to have been killed during the conflict. Some 3,000 people are still missing, of which 2,500 are Albanian, 400 Serbs and 100 Roma.

Kosovo After the War
After the war ended, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1244 that placed Kosovo under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) and authorized KFOR, a NATO-led peacekeeping force. Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians began to attack the remaining Kosovo Serbs, causing large numbers of Serbs to flee (note: the exact number of displaced Serbs is highly disputed, with estimates ranging from 65,000 to 250,000). Many displaced Serbs are afraid to return to their homes, even with UNMIK protection. Around 120,000 Serbs remained in Kosovo, but were subject to ongoing harassment and discrimination.

In 2001, UNMIK promulgated a Constitutional Framework or Kosovo that established the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG), including an elected Kosovo Assembly, Presidency and office of Prime Minister. Kosovo held its first free, Kosovo-wide elections in late 2001 (municipal elections had been held the previous year). UNMIK oversaw the establishment of a professional, multi-ethnic Kosovo Police Service.

In March 2004, Kosovo experienced its worse inter-ethnic violence since the Kosovo War. The unrest in 2004 was sparked by a series of minor events that soon cascaded into large-scale riots. Kosovo Albanians mobs burned hundreds of Serbian houses, Serbian Orthodox Church sites (including some medieval churches and monasteries) and UN facilities.

Here ends the proposed text.

Comments on 90s History
Perhaps this is not the usual way of doing it, but I pasted the proposals to Talk:Kosovo/Proposed history rewrite. Diff between the first and second proposal is at, and I edited in my proposed edits of the proposal at. Here are my comments on my edits:


 * minority of Kosovo population - just trust me with that.
 * speech - if this is supposed to be a trim, why having entire quote from a speech in it, especially when it is contested? That the speech was a key to Milosevic's rise to power is uncontested.
 * engineered - as I said, I don't like the sound of it, don't think it's too important.
 * drastically reduced - revoked seems to imply that it was revoked completely.
 * 45 Albanians - it's disputed whether they were civilians.
 * international community - I simply stated who the representatives were.
 * highly disputed - but I remain adamant on this. The number of refugees is not highly disputed, it is not disputed at all. That an estimate given by a single unknown NGO should trump over the official numbers of registered refugees issued by three completely independent official agencies with opposite goals is the best example of undue weight there is. Not to mention that the estimate is ridiculously easy to refute.

I also linked a number of things, though much more could and should be linked.

To sum it, I don't like it. The international community is still there, and a number of crucial things not mentioned (for example, silent removal of KLA from USA's list of terrorist organisations). But it's still better than 90% of writing about the subject there is. So, as far as I am concerned, it could go. Nikola 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Nikola. I found them useful, well-informed and agree with almost everything.  Here is my point-by-point response:


 * minority of Kosovo population - ok, I'm fine with that. I know how neuralgic people can be on this point: the fewer targets in the article, the better.


 * speech - I'm also fine with a minimalist reference to the speech.


 * engineered - As you see, I added the words "employing a mix of intimidation and political maneuvering" to better describe what he did -- provided those words stay in, I'm fine with removing the word "engineered."


 * revoked - I'm fine with "drastically reduced" That being said, I think it's hard to characterize what happened as anything other than a revocation.
 * The new constitution of Serbia still gave the provinces a degree of autonomy. It wasn't fully implemented on Kosovo, of course... Nikola 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 45 Albanians - I know there are lots of conspiracy theories about Racak and believe me when I say I don't want to argue about them! Therefore, in the interests of harmony, I'm fine with leaving out "civilians."


 * international community - I'm fine with just mentioning United States, EU, Russia. I don't think there were other attendees, were there?  Anybody else know?


 * highly disputed IDP numbers - This is one area where I disagree. I believe citing the CCK, an organ of the Serbian government, is a bad idea, particularly given their track record of using this number in a politicized way.  Come to think of it, the CCK is a textbook definition of a POV source!  I do think highly of ESI's work -- their work on many Kosovo-related issues is both well known and well respected in the region.  Regardless, the fact that we are having this discussion shows that reasonable people disagree on the number.  Therefore, I propose we note the controversy and provide a range of numbers/sources claiming what they claim.  (On a personal note, I can't tell you how many times I've had this discussion with folks who work fulltime on IDP returns issues, including friends at UNHCR.  They are frustrated this number gets used for political purposes.  Particularly galling was the CCK's attempt several years ago to block a registration of IDPs in Serbia -- CCK leaders at the time knew that the number would come in lower than the wildly exaggerated numbers they had been citing.  All this politicking has taken the focus off really helping those who need it: the IDPs themselves who live in undeniably miserable conditions.)
 * Well I am disappointed to hear that :( At least this ESI's work is very obvious propaganda.
 * First of all, in the work, they are giving policy recommendations and analysis on which they base their recommendation. If one NGO made the analysis and another, independent of the first one, made the recommendations, that would be another thing entirely, but this is immediately suspicious.
 * Secondly, in what I see as an attempt of creating an impression that the number of refugees is smaller than it actually is, they are presenting all refugees as being Serbs (The claim that there are 200,000 IDPs from Kosovo in Serbia, representing almost the entire Kosovo Serb population...), but all refugees are not Serbs. According to CCK's data, 20% of refugees are not Serbs, and even while you suspect the total number of refugees given by CCK, there is no need for them to skew proportion of ethnic groups in refugee record. Now, even if we would take ESI's number of refugees (which is, in fact, number of Serbian refugees only) for granted, and fit it in CCK's proportions it yields a total of 81,000 refugees.
 * Thirdly, to get that number ESI uses method of substracting current Serbian population of Kosovo from Serbian population of Kosovo in 1991, but both of these numbers are bogus:
 * First, population in 1999 was not the same as population in 1991. While Serbs in general might have negative reproduction rate, Kosovo Serbs have positive reproduction rate, and this applies even more to other non-Albanians (Roma, Muslims). If you take a look at demographic history of Kosovo, you will see that after the second world war number of Kosovo Serbs was steadily rising, and stopped rising only after Kosovo was given high autonomy, when number of Serbs fleeing Kosovo equated number of newly born. Number of Kosovo Serbs increased 20% between 1953 and 1961, so, even assuming a lower increase of, say, 15%, between 1991 and 1999 when the autonomy was reduced, number of Serbs in 1999 rises to 223318.5; this alone rises the total number of Serbian refugees, per ESI's methodology, to 95,000; add 20% of minorities and you get 120,000, twice as much as their estimate, and getting closer to the official number.
 * Second, last, and the most important and glaring error in their estimate is that they completely neglect the fact that Serbian population in kosovo includes refugees. The number of Serbs in Kosovo which they are substracting from Serbian population in 1991 includes people who live in Kosovo, but in different place from that in which they have originally lived. As an example, I personally know one Kosovo refugee whose house is in buffer zone in Kosovska Mitrovica and even though he continues to live in the same city, he can't live in his house and is still a refugee (an IDP, to be precise), and registered as such.
 * Now, if we had an entire article devoted to the issue, say, "Kosovo refugees", we might display there all sorts of fringe views. But in this article, I maintain that it is undue weight.
 * I'd add that I know what is original research, and I am not implying that we should put my original research in the article; but if I could see such crucial errors in this report in five minutes, quality of the report comes dangerously close to quality original research on Wikipedia. Nikola 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * KLA as "terrorist" - The KLA was never included on the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Most folks who claim that it was an offically-designated FTO are referring to when Amb. Robert Gelbard in 1998 did use the "terrorist" word in reference to the KLA.  This was widely seen as a misstep, especially after Milosevic interpreted it as a green night to go nuts against the civilian population in Kosovo.
 * It's funny how American ambassadors all over the world suffer from a similar slip of tongue in similar circumstances ;) I've seen claim that it was on the list far and wide and would like to see some solid evidence of the opposite (I'm not referring to suggested rewrite, just a general comment). Nikola 09:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My plan is to leave the section up for the rest of the week for additional comments. If there are none, I will put it up on the article over the weekend.  Nikola: I still detect some residual unhappiness with the article!  If you have other proposed revisions, I would love to discuss them.  Envoy202 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea and good work, I too would like to make some small suggestions here later today. Buffadren 09:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mostly this, with Envoy's additions, is fine, but I have to say that I think that giving credence to the utterly unsubstantiated and frankly lunatic claims that the majority of people killed at Racak were anything other than civilians is sick and just downright wrong. I have personally talked to survivors of smaller mass killings by Serbian police, including in Likosan, where fourteen members of a family were taken from their house, one by one, and tortured to death over a twelve hour period.  To ignore what was done by some members of the Serb security forces, to cover up and hide these incidents in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia is a travesty, and tantamount to condoning these actions.  I feel very strongly about this particular issue, and I would ask that people think long and hard before they agree to whitewash it.  I am perfectly OK with noting that most Serbs believe the Racak conspiracy stories; I might too, were I fed them by my own government, who I am supposed to be able to trust, but just because someone believes a thing, does not make it so.  I urge you all to please think about this, rather than just giving in for the sake of convenience.  This one is worth arguing about.  Davu.leon 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't studied Likosane case in detail, so I won't comment on it. But to me, claims that people killed in Racak were civilians appear lunatic. Scores of terrorist attacks happened around the village, and that is undisputed. Stashes of weapon, military equipment, medicines and KLA uniforms were found in it, and that too is undisputed. People killed were heavily clothed, indicating they were not taken from their homes as the usual story goes, they had wounds typical for combat and not typical for a massacre, and gunpowder residue on their hands, which too is undisputed (or, to be absolutely exact, it is undisputed that they had residue at their hands that looked exactly the same as gunpowder residue; yet it is somehow disputed that it was in fact gunpowder residue). I do not understand how can anyone claim that they were civilians. Nikola 09:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed comments already copied to the article on Racak. Permission asked 7 days ago at Request to remove comments on Račak. - Evv 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, continue the discussion at Talk:Račak incident. It may even lead to an improvement of that article :-) - Regards, Evv 12:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Davu.leon 14:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll also try to introduce a friend of mine who devoted a bit more of his time to this. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please let all calm down a bit. These kind of comments get us nowhere. It is normal that each one has got their own POV on things and this is understandable. As long as this does not leak into the article and its tone is NPOV, this is all that matters. We could argue endlessly about Racak but the reality is that the incident nature is considered disputed, not just by conspiracy theorist but also by some mainstream media at the time (e.g. Le Monde). As there has been no final resolution on the issue, it would be pointless to try to convince anyone. As long as the wikipedia articles reflect this in a neutral way, this is all we need to worry about. You are obviously not going to convince each other and would not like a repetition of the previous conflicts on this article. So let's move on and work on this together. Best regards, -- Asterion talk 13:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All I suggest is that the wording be '45 Albanians, predominantly civilians'. We're not even calling it a massacre, just acknowledging that the majority of bodies found were civilians, regardless of whether they were executed or caught in the crossfire.  We can leave discussion on what actually happened to the Racak article itself. Davu.leon 14:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is two sides with differing accounts and claims about Racak.The Serbs claimed that Racak was used by the KLA and also there is claims that the bodies were dumped there to induce international intervention. A German film crew's 'evidence' to support this was presented at the Hague. So Davu.leon please refrain from using language like LUNATIC when commenting on other editors work. I do welcome your added comments here on this . Buffadren 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, perhaps lunatic is the wrong term, and it certainly wasn't directed at Nikola in particular, just at the claims themselves. Anyway it would perhaps have been better to call them risible. Yes, I think that will do.  Please read the above as saying 'unsubstantiated and frankly risible claims'. Davu.leon 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Noboby is a complete expert here, thanks for showing good grace Buffadren 18:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great feedback. I have only three main points in response:


 * Assertion about "KLA on State Department terrorist list" -- Go here -- Foreign Terrorist Organizations -- learn more about the statutory process to designate an FTO. You'll see a group has to meet a rather high bar (and go through a rather cumbersome process) to be designated.  The KLA was never so designated.  I explained above how Bob Gelbard's "terrorist" remark gave birth to the myth that the State Department designated the KLA an FTO.  Over the years I've studiously avoided drawing any conclusions about whether the KLA's activities -- or methods -- were moral.  If I were a Kosovo Albanian in the 1990s, I don't know what I'd do.  But that's not relevant to this discussion: my only goal is to make sure the historical record is accurately reflected in the article.


 * As I said, in this article we don't have to mention that KLA was terrorist organisation. In the article on KLA, this would be relevant. If it really wasn't on the list, it could be mentioned that it was a remark by Gelbart - in the article on KLA. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, discussion on details would be carried out better at Talk:Kosovo Liberation Army :-) Evv 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * IDP numbers -- This is a very personal issue for me. I've spent a lot of time with Kosovo Serb and Roma/Ashkali IDPs and have come to empathize strongly with their fate.  Belgrade manipulates them; Kosovo Albanians harass them; the international community pays attention to them intermittently.  Although I respect ESI's work (they've done some great policy studies on Mitrovica that have included Kosovo Serbs), I do not want to engage in a point-by-point argument about their assertions.  It is odd to call the work of such a well-known and well-respected NGO as "very obviously propaganda" -- propaganda for whom?  Regardless, I think we need to reflect in the article the legitimate diversity of opinion on this point.


 * I don't know what to say, you know that NGOs are very poorly viewed in Serbia. Propaganda for them? At most, we could say "number of registered refugees is X (though ESI estimates it to Y)". One thing in their report that I was not able to understand, if refugee number is overestimated, why is that harmful for refugees? Nikola 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Racak -- I, too, feel uncomfortable accommodating the conspiracy theorists about Racak. I've been to Racak, spoken with family members of those massacred and have seen where the bodies of the civilians were found.  This is the kind of stuff that hits you in the gut.  That being said, I know that it has emerged as an article of faith in some communities that Racak was either 1) a legitimate military operation against "KLA terrorists," or 2) a staged incident designed to provoke international community involvement in the Kosovo crisis (probably done by the same people who faked the Apollo moon landings).  But in the interest in harmony, I'm willing to leave the article vague and just say "Kosovo Albanians" instead of "Kosovo Albanian civilians."  I would reject any further attempts, however, to cater to the conspiracy theorists. Envoy202 02:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know of anyone who would say that the incident was staged. Perhaps someone would say that it was a legitimate operation against KLA terrorists staged as an attack against civillians. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also support leaving "civilians" out to assure agreement on the text. The word can always be introduced at a later moment. Try to argue the issue at Talk:Račak incident, where discussion will be clearer and more focused, and reach a decision there on whether to include the word here or not. - Regards, Evv 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's out for now. I don't like it, but consensus is consensus. ;) Davu.leon 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me stress for now :-) Discussion at Talk:Račak incident and changes to that article could very well create a broad consensus to add the word. - Evv 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links needs revising
The external links section is overloaded and needs to to trimmed back to at least half its size, some of the links have lost their importance. can I make suggestions as to which ones to remove, giving a week's notice before moving anything, Buffadren 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. please go ahead-- Asterion talk 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. I look forward to your suggestions.  Envoy202 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay here is my suggestions


 * The office of Prime Minister of Kosovo English version - RETAIN
 * Kosovo Assembly (Kuvendi i Kosovës) English version - RETAIN
 * The Official Webportal of Tourism in Kosovo- RETAIN
 * Serbia's Intransigence Washington Post Editorial July 24, 2006 DELETE OR MOVE TO HISTORY
 * EU Commission report on economic development in Accession countries, including Kosovo -NUETRAL
 * Kosovo and the Balkans - Discussion Forum DELETE
 * European Commission information on Kosovo NUETRAL OR RETAIN
 * Kosovo Statistical Office (SOK) LINK DOES NOT WORK DELETE UNTIL FIXED
 * Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding Kosovo NUETRAL TO DELETE
 * Kosovo travel guide from Wikitravel - RETAIN
 * RTK - Kosovo's public television - news in Albanian, Serbian, Turkish and Roma RETAIN
 * Human Rights in Kosovo: As Seen, As Told. Volume I, October 1998 - June 1999. DELETE OR MOVE TO HISTORY SECTION
 * Human Rights in Kosovo: As Seen, As Told. Volume II, 14 June - 31 October 1999. DELETE OR MOVE AS ABOVE
 * Kosovo maps from the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection RETAIN
 * KosovaKosovo A source of information reflecting both sides’ claims in the dispute RETAIN ITS UP TO DATE
 * KFOR NATO led peacekeeping force in Kosovo. DELETE -OLD SITE
 * UNMIK UN led civilian administration in Kosovo. KEEP
 * EU EU Pillar in Kosovo. KEEP
 * A collection of photos from Kosovo DELETE .WE ALREADY HAVE PHOTOS
 * Otvoreno A place where Serbian politicians speak openly on the Kosovo issue DELETE OR INSERT LANGUAGE NOTE
 * IOM International Organization for Migration DELETE LINK GONE IT APPEARS
 * (ICG) International Crisis Group, a source of independent analysis on Kosovo issues. KEEP
 * Kosovo Roma Oral History Project An advocacy website for Kosovo's Roma/ Gypsies, with significant details on Kosovo's contested history. DELETE
 * Kosovo Blog Search Challenge: Helping people find information from Kosovo DELETE
 * ECIKS Economic Initiative for Kosovo, information on investment opportunities. KEEP
 * US State Dept. fact sheet "The Ethnic Cleansing of Kosovo" DELETE OR MOVE
 * Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting, U.S. State Department Report, December 1999 DELETE OR KEEP THE FACT SHEET ABOVE

Okay thats my suggestion. I'm not trying to paper over history just trying to tidy up Buffadren 13:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree except that I'd keep Kosovo Roma Oral History Project. Nikola 20:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I support that too, Rroma are an important part of Kosovo. Asterion talk 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks great. Thanks for your work on this.  I'd only suggest making sure we add the UNOSEK website.  After February 2, that site will include some summary information about Ahtisaari's Settlement proposal -- it would be good to have a link to them (www.unosek.org).  Envoy202 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above comments. Just one suggestion: moving any discussion forum to this talk page by adding a "red message" along the lines of Talk:Evolution. - Best regards, Evv 11:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats fine but I suggest we give this a week so all editors have time to make suggestions including those that originally inserted the links. I'm not going to delete anything unless we have a strong consenses Buffadren 09:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Serbian enclaves Vs Serbian populated regions
In the Currency box at the begining of the main space it is mentioned that the Serbian Dinar is circlated in Serbian Enclaves. I for one don't like the word 'enclave' in this context. Is there any objection to saying Serbian populated regions instead.? Buffadren 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Buffadren,
 * Serbian Enclaves with a capital E gives the impression that it is a political unit. However, to only say that they are Serbian "populated" gives the false impression that there is not political aspect to it at all. It is my understanding that they are usually referred to as "Serbian enclaves" (ie no capital E). Since that is the way it is spelled in the article today, I think it should be left as is. Regards Osli73 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I find "Serb enclaves" an appropiate and accurate description for those areas. As such, it's widely used (c.f. Google Print & Google Scholar). - Regards, Evv 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, I'm happy to leave it as is, but be aware its is used both ways in article at the moment. Buffadren 08:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see "Serbian Enclaves" anywhere in the article and "Serbian enclaves" only once? Nikola 09:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Point
On main space the use of the words INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY are applied. However, there is no entity known as the International Community, I think it is used to infer some democratic higher authority. The international community IS every country in the world if we take it as is. And, most countries in the world have no stated position on Kosovo. Would it not be more precise to state NATO COUNTRIES instead ? Buffadren 19:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it depends on the context of usage. I would never say "the international community intervened in Kosovo in 1999" since only a subset of the IC (NATO) intervened, while others protested.  On the other hand, I'd feel comfortable saying "the international community insisted that Kosovo adopt high standards for its human rights legislation."  What particular usage in the article do you think should be changed?  Envoy202 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nikola had raised the issue before. I agree with Envoy202: as with most words, it's context what conveys the precise meaning, so that usage should be discussed on a case by case basis. - Regards, Evv 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Buffadren,
 * I think the the term "international community" (small i and c) is an acceptable synonym for the UN or some similar broadly international organization. However, care should be taken so that the term is not used for the EU, Nato or any other much narrower intl. organization. Regards Osli73 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * NATO countries is not correct either. Both Slovakia and Spain have a different position than the rest of the organisation. Asterion talk 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm confused about exactly what context you are referring to. What is the sentence that is objectionable? Envoy202 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I thought this was in reference to the status talks. Regards, Asterion talk 05:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not any sentence in particular, this wording is occasionally used, see talk above, I am satisfied with Envoy 202's take on this  just to be mindful it's not abused .Buffadren 09:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahtisaari's plan
I have removed the early BBC report. It is still far too speculative. We shall wait and see. Regards, Asterion talk 06:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And it was POV weighted too Buffadren 09:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's finally here. http://www.unosek.org/unosek/index.html, for those who want to have a read. Of course, this is still just a 'draft', but I think it's clear which way the wind is blowing... Davu.leon 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, it's been a big day! These has been an extremely busy week and I'll be glad when it's over.  I'll come up with some draft language to add to the article, as well as a more substantial update to the "Kosovo Future Status Process" page.  I'd suggest that any changes be discussed here first.  Envoy202 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Davu, excellent draft document important changes  discussed here forst always helps. Buffadren 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Section on Ahtisaari proposal
Here is a proposed section. I'll put maybe just one or two sentences on the main article, plus some more background on the Kosovo Future Status Process page. Any comments? Envoy202 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here begins the proposed text.


 * On February 2, UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari delivered to Belgrade and Pristina leaders a draft status settlement proposal. The proposal covered a wide range of issues related to Kosovo's future, in particular measures to protect Kosovo's non-Albanian communities such as decentralization of local government, constitutional protections for non-Albanian communities, property rights and preservation of Kosovo's Serbian Orthodox Church heritage.  The United States called it a "fair and balanced,"   while the EU Presidency noted that Ahtisaari's proposals build on almost twelve months of direct talks between Belgrade and Pristina."


 * While not mentioning the word "independence," the draft Settlement included several provisions that were widely interpreted as implying statehood for Kosovo. In particular, the draft Settlement would give Kosovo the right to apply for membership in international organizations, create a Kosovo Security Force and adopt national symbols.


 * In Belgrade, Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica, citing the caretaker status of the current Serbian government, refused to receive Ahtisaari. President Boris Tadic did receive Ahtisaari, after which he reaffirmed his vow to never accept an independent Kosovo.  In Pristina, Kosovo Albanians leaders issued a statement after meeting with Ahtisaari saying they are "convinced that the international process for the resolution of Kosovo's status led by President Ahtisaari will be concluded soon with Kosovo becoming an independent state."


 * Ahtisaari plans for a period of consultations with the parties in Vienna to finalize the Settlement. The Contact Group issued a statement encouraging "both Belgrade and Pristina to engage fully and constructively with the Special Envoy in this phase of the process."  Ahtisaari has said he "would be happy if he could submit [his] final recommendation to the [UN] Security Council by late March."


 * Here ends the proposed text.

comments 1
Sounds good, but should we state clearly that Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo will no longer be internationally recognised? I mean, that is now the case, is it not? Davu.leon 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How can we state that clearly if no sources state that clearly? I don't think that can be said from this proposal or our current sources.  It seems like the proposal is currently too vague for both sides. // Laughing Man 01:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it's stated clearly in the full text of the proposal; I was certainly told as much by someone who has read it, but I don't have a copy myself - which is why I was asking. I thought that somebody may have come across an easily available source.  Not to worry, we can wait until we have one. :) Davu.leon 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is original research. Besides, god knows what will happen during the UNSC vote. -- Asterion talk 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that the proposal doesn't mention souveregnity or independence anywhere. Nikola 09:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Laughing Man. The proposal is not sufficiently clear on the status outcome itself; none of the sources (nor even an original-research analysis of the proposal) would result in that conclusion.  Also, if you saw the transcript of Ahtisaari's statement, he made several references to coming back to the outcome at a later point.  Ahtisaari wanted to get the parties focused on the substance of the proposals -- i.e., minority rights, decentralization, Serbian Orthodox Church protections, etc. -- before actually addressing the outcome.  At this stage of the game, we need to reflect the ambiguity Ahtisaari has chosen to present.  We only have a few more weeks before this becomes much clearer.  Envoy202 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, per WP:NOR, let's wait until a few analyses of the proposals are published, and only then discuss whether those analyses merit mention in the article. - Regards, Evv 14:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

comments 2

 * US and EU opinion should not be directly following proposal, it should Belgrade and Pristina's reaction first, as they are the ones that need to agree with the proposal, with a separate international reaction section following.


 * Your are giving direct quote reaction from Kosovo Albanian leaders, but not of Serbian leaders.
 * Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica denounced the proposal as "illegitimate" because he said it "violates the U.N. Charter ... by undermining sovereignty of U.N. member Serbia."


 * "I told Ahtisaari that Serbia and I, as its president, will never accept Kosovo’s independence", president Tadić said.


 * Last paragraph, clarify this is a draft and will most likely be changed:
 * "I'm willing to integrate compromise solutions that parties might reach, and I will then finalize my settlement proposal for submission to the U.N. Security Council," Ahtisaari said.

...and what it requires to go into effect:


 * In order to take effect, the Ahtisaari proposal has to be endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, an outcome that is not assured since Russia has threatened to veto any measure unacceptable to Belgrade.


 * Let me just make it clear, The Russian Foreign Minister Mr. Lavrov on an interview for the Der Spiegel, just said "President Putin Never Said it will Veto any Resolutions on Kosovo" http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03377293.htm 161.51.11.2 22:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * minor - I've found a statement by a military analyst that has a different view of forces mentioned in draft
 * "’Lightly armed forces’ are mentioned, but that refers to a kind of gendarmerie rather than an army, set to operate within the police force. That would not be unacceptable since even municipalities have police, which is not an element of statehood"


 * minor - Your text "citing the caretaker status of the current Serbian government" unnecessary and confusing, remove

// Laughing Man 01:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Laughing Man: I agree with just about everything you wrote. I will add the direct quote from Kostunica/Tadic (I like the ones you picked), plus note that the proposal was a draft and will most likely be tweaked before it is finalized.  Also, I agree that a security force, as described in the proposal, is not necessarily an element of statehood (I don't like the term "gendarmerie," which implies heavy-policing functions, but the point stands).  I think, however, it's important to mention that Kostunica justified his dissing of Ahtisaari by citing the caretaker status of the Serbian government -- otherwise it sounds as if Kostunica refused to meet him solely out of pique.  Why do you think it's unnecessary and confusing?  Envoy202 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The military analyst quote does not need to be added, I just thought it was an interesting interpretation that was different from most others that I have read. If you can work it in, fine, but don't think it's necessary.   Regarding the caretaker part, Maybe it's just me but I felt it made the entire statement harder to understand, but based on your explanation I understand why you want to keep it there.  Either way is fine with me. // Laughing Man 04:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Envoy202 & Laughing Man, good job both of you. The "caretaker gov." part will look clearer once added to the "Kosovo Future Status Process" article, where readers would have been informed of the January 21 elections just a few sentences above. Regards, Evv 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Every cloud has a silver lining". So the silver lining in this case is found on the analysis of a Serb "security expert" who thinks the Kosovo Security Force will not be an army but a part of police? That's the best you guys could come up with? Any of you bother to actually read the proposal in its entirety? You might be able to find more silver linings. Just a thought.Ferick 05:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the KSF, you guys both are right: there is a deliberate ambiguity in the text about the KSF and its role. It's enough of an "army" to appeal to the Kosovars, but there are other compromises -- its ambiguous name, for example, plus a rather convoluted and confused description of its mission -- that will appeal to those who think Kosovo should not have a full-fledged "army," per se. The term "gendarmerie" carries baggage in Kosovo: in addition to not liking the "police" implicitations, the Albanians associate with the much-dreaded Interior Ministry forces (MUP). All these things considered, I think it makes sense to convey the Ahtisaari proposal's ambiguity and simply refer to "a Kosovo Security Force." Envoy202 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Economic statistics
Are there economic statistics, such as GDP and GDP per capital, available for the infobox? -- Beland 02:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Two matters
1. Ahtisaari's preliminary proposal isn't reflected (enough) in the article. That is a big thing, and no one reading the article would understand that. 2. The article said that Slobodan Milosevic delivered his (in)famous Gazimestan speech in front of 1,000,000 Serbian citizens! :) I have no idea if the one who wrote that intended to make a joke or other, but the figure is 100,000. When I read that... LOL :D --PaxEquilibrium 14:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The idea is to have very little in this main article (2 sentences, not more than 3), and expand on the "Kosovo Future Status Process" one. The text is being discussed in the "Section on Ahtisaari proposal" section above.
 * 2. lol I had seen the one million figure repeated so often, in books, TV and newspapers, that I never thought about it twice. I even restored the number when someone removed a zero (diff.). Apparently, that was the estimation given by Serbian state media at the time, and writers kept repeating it ever since :-). Checking books in Google I'm finding many mentions of those six zeroes but also estimates ranging from 300.000 to 600.000 people.
 * If you have a good source for a more accurate estimation, don't hesitate to change it and add a ref :-) - Best regards, Evv 16:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in Belgrade, and I watched many documentaries about Milosevic's speech. The several nationalist websites that I visited last year for a full text of Slobodan's speech, state a hundred thousand. I have never ever in the media seen a figure of one million. For a state with a population of around 6 million Serbs totally and only 225,000 in all of Kosovo itself, I don't think that it's just possible. I might be wrong, but 1,000,000 seems to me pure insanity (over one sixth of the whole population?, the vast majority of whom live very far away). --PaxEquilibrium 16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

For example, there was a coup d'etat on 9 March 1991 orchestrated by oppositional leader Vuk Draskovic. The state media (RTS) called them "several thousand terrorists and bandits, self-proclaimed democrats", when AFAIC 50,000 people walked the streets of Belgrade that night. The next day the Democrats' ringleader Zoran Djindjic led a group of 20,000 people and managed to arrange negotiations. The state media reported about a group of several protestants.

The 1996 and 1997 countermeetings of Milosevic's socialists, the state media said that "half a million" people walked the streets and saluted Milosevic, when the figure was less than 20,000. --PaxEquilibrium 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Million indeed seems to be an overestimate, and we should have some independently made figure. Nikola 22:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A Million is more than an overstatement, it is a fabrication at best, I suggest the figure be significantly reduced to 100,000. Perhaps the last '0' was an accident. Buffadren 12:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The source used for that sentence used the one millon number (it doesn't exist anymore ). Books usually mention big numbers:
 * The War in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1991-1995, by by Ivo Žanić, Noel Malcolm & Branka Magaš, Frank Cass Publishers, 2001, ISBN 0-7146-5204-0, p.101: "The state-controlled Serbian media said there were more than 1 million people present, but in fact there were an estimated 300,000 - 400,000 Serbs."
 * The Serbian Project and Its Adversaries: A Strategy of War Crimes, by James Gow, Hurst & Co., London, 2003, ISBN 1-85065-499-9, p.1 : "a gathering of 600,000 people".
 * Any better source would be welcomed. Best regards, Evv 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In Serbian we would call this све мој до мојега but the number makes sense. Nikola 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New section on Kosovo Future Status Process
As discussed, I've updated the Kosovo Future Status Process article with recent developments. Envoy202 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

These are my modest opinions on the topic:

@1. The thing is that when the Yugoslav war in 90's started, the 'international community' was from day 1 on a position that there cannot be border changes of the republics with force. They sticked to that principle. But only until Kosovo. That perception of unfairness could generate danger in future.

@2. But anyway, Serbia could not rule Kosovo without using force, so that right to rule was taken from it by NATO, also with force. Belgrade's policy of using force to keep others together in a centralized union just made them wish to leave as soon as possible.

@3. Serbian goverment still has a tool to make the recognition of Kosovo as a State more difficult. To give a choice for all countries, either they have diplomatic relations with Serbia or with Kosovo, not possible with both. But its not willing to use it, as it would mostly harm itself.

@4. Postponal of the status would be most likely choice if its not for the money. International community is not willing to pay for all of it, and want to have Kosovo as a subject to take credits/loans for itself. And also the responsability. Because its not looking bright now.

@5. Serbia is not still able and prepared to have Kosovo within its souveregnity, Kosovo is still not able and not in capacity to be a fully souvereign functional country, both are not able and in a position to stay outside European union even if they wanted to.

@all. Anyway you want it, you can always here me say, Anyway you want it, thats the way its gonna be.

psychokomat@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.173.40 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo Future Status Process: Neutrality disputed?
The Kosovo Future Status Process article has a "Neutrality Disputed" tag on it. I think we've done a good job (see above!) trying to make the article as non-POV as is humanly possible. Therefore, I would like to remove the tag or, at the very least, have a conversation about why it is there. I'd encourage people to discuss it on the Talk page for the Kosovo Future Status Process article. Thanks, guys! Envoy202 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree, but I will have a closer look later today Buffadren 09:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As Envoy202 mentions, let's try to avoid dealing with everything in this talk page, and start using each sub-article talk pages instead (in this particular case, Talk:Kosovo Future Status Process). This would both help to focus the discussion on the topic at hand, and greatly simplify future "article content/discussion" comparisons :-). - Regards, Evv 13:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Request to remove comments on Račak
OK, the "Račak comments" have been copyied to Talk:Račak incident.

If nobody objects, I would like to erase most of the comments on Račak from the "Comments on 90s History" section above (providing a link to Talk:Račak incident, of course). - Regards, Evv 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to do that Buffadren 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro Serbian and Pro Albanian Links
The external links have been halfed in size with agreement from everyone. Phew!. Shuold we leave the Pro Serian and Pro Albanian links or will I suggest two from ach side to be removed ? Buffadren 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. And, please, suggest any removal you want (more than two if possible :-) Best regards, Evv 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro Albanian and Pro Serbian links suggested deletions
We have a lot of pro for and against links some of which don't open, no longer exist, or are one page sites not really meriting inclusion. I have pasted below suggestions to tidy up and like the section above I will leave it here of a week so everyone can get there voice heard.


 * Okay here goes.


 * Pro-Albanian


 * Alliance for a New Kosovo                      .KEEP
 * Kosovo Agim Ceku, Wall Street Journal,  DELETE
 * KosovoEvidence.com - movie Kosovo     KEEP
 * Economic Initiative for Kosovo - "          .KEEP
 * Albanian.com - general information       DELETE
 * Why Independence for Kosovo? by two Priština intellectuals DELETE
 * Alliance for New Kosovo Resource on Kosovo independence KEEP
 * Kosova Crisis Center articles on Kosovo,.                           NEUTRAL
 * AACL Albanian American Civic League.  NEUTRAL or DELETE
 * KosovaLive Kosovo Albanian independent news agency ( section English). NEUTRAL
 * American Council for Kosova - U.S. nonprofit PR organization NUETRAL or DELETE


 * Pro-Serbian


 * Justice for Serbia, article Vojislav Kostunica, Washington Post, DELETE
 * Serbian Government for Kosovo-   CHANGE LINK to ENG and KEEP
 * Crucified Kosovo Overview of destroyed churches in Kosovo KEEP
 * Terror in Kosovo Terror in Kosovo (English )                          KEEP
 * Coordination Center of SCG and the Republic of Serbia for Kosovo KEEP
 * Eastern Orthodox Resource Centre                                       DELETE
 * Southern Serbia: The second Kosovo?                                   DELETE
 * B92 Serbian Independent news agency                                  KEEP
 * Hugo Roth, Kosovo Origins: a historian's comprehensive overview NEUTRAL
 * Save Kosovo - U.S. nonprofit organization :Kosovo 2006      KEEP
 * Diocese Kosovo of Serbian Orthodox Church                        DELETE

Over to you guys.

Buffadren 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree on almost everything. Only two notes:
 * 1. Alliance for New Kosovo Resource on Kosovo independence - Delete: is just a sub-page of the first link of the list.
 * 2. Diocese Kosovo of Serbian Orthodox Church - Keep: for the news section.
 * Regards, Evv 20:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro- Albanian:
 * Why Independence for Kosovo? by two Priština intellectuals KEEP
 * Kosova Crisis Center articles on Kosovo KEEP
 * AACL Albanian American Civic League. KEEP
 * KosovaLive Kosovo Albanian independent news agency ( section English). KEEP (since you want to keep B92)
 * American Council for Kosova - U.S. nonprofit PR organization KEEP (reason: you want to keep the Serbian version of this site)
 * Alliance for New Kosovo Resource on Kosovo independence KEEP

Pro- Serbian:
 * Terror in Kosovo Terror in Kosovo (English )   DELETE beacause it is very bombastic
 * B92 Serbian Independent news agency                KEEP
 * Hugo Roth, Kosovo Origins: a historian's comprehensive overview DELETE sub-page of  kosovo.net
 * Diocese Kosovo of Serbian Orthodox Church          NEUTRAL ( I prefere delete little more than keep)

Regards --Noah30 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Turkish language
Someone asked for this page to be "unprotected" at WP:RFP and have Turkish added as an official language of Kosovo. I understand this has been a point of contention in the past. I found this source: for listing that Turkish is the official language in Prizren (only). (see article 2.3). I can't read the language at that web site, so I can't say that this is a good source or that the law was enacted. If one of you who can read the language can verify this (the pdf is in English), perhaps the infobox could be edited to add Turkish as an official language in Prizren with this document as the source. Misha t x *разговор* 05:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

update: English lead in page here:   Misha t x  *разговор* 05:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It does say that in the Prizren municipality Turkish will be an official language, and depending on certain demographics, Bosnian, Turkish and Roma languages can be conferred an official language status in other municipalities as well. Baristarim 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The original request to have Turkish listed as an official language is clearly wrong. It can be associated as one of the official languages of Prizen Buffadren 11:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Map
The border between Albania and Macedonia on the map (used on this page) looks mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.188.97.134 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate, please ? - Regards, Evv 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of refugees
Contrary to discussion, the article currently states that "the exact number of displaced Serbs is highly disputed, with estimates ranging from 65,000 to 250,000". Is there any organisation other than ESI which disputes this? Especially, is there any organisation which has the importance of CCK or size of UNHCR or USCR? I offered a compromise wording already, but it was not followed. Nikola 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Nikola. I think we can easily find a compromise on this one.


 * According to our reliable sources, there is indeed a controversy on the number of IDPs. Although it has become orthodoxy to repeat the "200-something thousand" number, virtually every source that uses this number is relying on a registration exercise that came in early 2000 (there have been no subsequent registrations).  Multiple reliable sources have since challenged this.  They have researched this question and concluded that the higher numbers quoted do not make sense.


 * Just a few sources include:


 * The ESI report (http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/esi_document_id_53.pdf, see page 18) has a great summary of this discussion. I've worked with ESI for years and can vouch that they are well regarded among both Kosovo Serbs and Kosovo Albanians.


 * UNHCR itself has expressed doubt in the numbers it cites: "The sum of the estimated number of minorities living in Kosovo and the number of currently registered IDPs in Serbia and Montenegro, results in a figure significantly higher than the minority population that has ever lived in Kosovo...An undetermined number of minority returnees who have returned to Kosovo, including those who left during the NATO bombings but returned immediately after, never de-registered. Realistically, therefore, much lower numbers than those non-Albanians currently registered as IDPs in Serbia are truly IDPs, or remain IDPs in search of a durable solution, or await voluntary return." Italics mine.(UNHCR, Critical Appraisal of Responsee Mechanisms Operating in Kosovo for Minority Returns, Pristina, February 2004, p. 14).


 * Tim Judah (in a response to the ESI report found here: http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/esi_lausanne_reactions_id_1.pdf ) also speaks about what he calls the "curious headcounts" and calls the higher figure for IDPs "nonsense." He also notes that UNHCR has never carried out its registration exercise (I've had many UNHCR friends in Kosovo say this to me over the years -- they were particularly frustrated that Belgrade blocked for many years new registration initiatives).  Judah considers the possibility that Belgrade counted large numbers of retreating police, soldiers, administrative personnel and their families, i.e., Serbs not originally from Kosovo, who would have no intention of ever returning.


 * Where does that leave us? A highly-reputable NGO, a UN agency and one of the most respected journalists covering the Balkans all report doubt about the numbers cited by Belgrade (and, as a result, then used by UNHCR).  One may disagree with these sources or substitute one's own analysis for their research.  But that's not the point of Wikipedia, is it?  There is a legitimate dispute on the numbers.


 * Furthermore, I continue to believe that taking the CCK numbers at face value is not a good idea. We should be extremely cautious in accepting blindly any claim from either the PISG or the CCK, both of which have an obvious POV that they are trying to express.  I think it's fair to say that we should consider neither Belgrade nor Pristina to be wholly neutral sources on the issues we discuss here!


 * I'm willing to compromise, however, and give the Milosevic-era registration (and its subsequent citations by the current Serbian government) greater prominence, even equal weight with the other sources. So what about something like this:


 * "Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs, causing large numbers of Serbs, as well as Roma and Ashkalli, to flee (note: the exact number of internaly displaced persons is disputed, with the Serbian government claiming as many as 250,000 displaced, while subsequent studies have put the number at much lower, possibly as few as 65,000)."


 * Note that I referred to the Roma and Ashkalli -- I think it's important to note many of them fled as well. Again, I'm sure we can find a reasonable compromise on this.  How do others feel?  Envoy202 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, guys, I have one more source: the Council of Europe. CoE noted in this report ( http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2002/coe-kos-16oct.pdf ) the following: "The UNHCR figure of 231,000 IDPs in the FRY as of February 2002...may underestimate the reality...  Indeed, UNHCR emphasizes that in the absence of a complete registration process upon departures from Kosovo, numbers remain estimates."


 * Also, the U.S. Committee for Refugees (USCR), said in an April 2000 report: "The numbers are disputed. The Kosovo Serb National Council claims that about 100,000 Serbs are still living in Kosovo. By some accounts, up to 25,000 Roma are still living in Kosovo. The sum of Serbs and Roma who reportedly have fled (230,000) and those who reportedly remain (125,000) would be a larger number than the estimated 250,000 Serbs and Roma living in Kosovo before the war, casting doubt on the accuracy either of the past-war count or of the pre-war estimate." (USCR April 2000, pp. 2-3)


 * Again, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of these reliable sources. I'm merely noting that there is a legitimate controversy that should be reflected in the article.  Envoy202 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The figures are clearly disputed, as is usually the case in these situations, and the article should merely reflect that fact and provide the necessary refs to allow readers to make up their own mind about the issue.


 * Because this is the main article, I would usually prefer to keep the original formulation "with estimates ranging from 65,000 to 250,000", for brevity, with further details given at the sub-article. But in this case, with no "Kosovo After the War" sub-article and the issue being treated at Kosovo War instead, I agree with Envoy202 re-wording. In any case, I really like the addition of Roma & Ashkali. - Best regards, Evv 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The current phrase, "with estimates ranging from 65,000 to 250,000", would give all estimates equal weight, which isn't very realistic.


 * Where should I start? UNHCR does everything possible to reduce the number (so that it would have to give out less money). Judah is one of the most unrespected journalists covering the Balkans, in this case creating complete FUD about "large numbers of retreating police, soldiers, administrative personnel and their families", and even if their numbers would really be large, people "who would have no intention of ever returning" are still refugees, like it or not.


 * Similarly, USCR's report has the same error about which I warned above:"The sum of Serbs and Roma who reportedly have fled (230,000) and those who reportedly remain (125,000) would be a larger number than the estimated 250,000 Serbs and Roma living in Kosovo before the war" - but that is not the sum of Serbs and Roma living in Kosovo before the war, that is 1991 census, and in 1999 the number was more likely 300,000.


 * So, I would suggest this (without parts in []s):
 * causing large numbers of Serbs to flee; the number of registered[we all agree that this is the number of registered refugees] refugees is around 250,000[refs] though it is possible that actual number of refugees is smaller[UNHCR, Critical Appraisal of Responsee Mechanisms Operating in Kosovo for Minority Returns, Pristina, February 2004, p. 14], estimated as small as 65,000 by the ESI[ref].
 * Nikola 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right Nikola, gving all numbers equal weight isn't very realistic, as no reasonable independent observer believes Belgrade's numbers. However, in order to reach a consensus, we could conceivably have:
 * "Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs, causing large numbers of Serbs, as well as Roma and Ashkalli, to flee (note: the exact number of internaly displaced persons is disputed, with the Serbian government registering as many as 250,000 displaced, while subsequent international studies have put the number much lower, possibly as few as 65,000)."
 * Without italics, of course. Davu.leon 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how study by a single NGO is international study, and it should be noted that number of registered refugees is accepted (with reservations) by UNHCR, but yes, this is a wording which could be worked on. Nikola 10:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My first preference is for Eww's proposal: just listing the number range is simple and elegant, while allowing readers to then delve into the sources to draw their own conclusions. But I think Davu.leon's proposed compromise is also good. It incorporates Nikola's desire to refer to the registration, while still keeping Belgrade number in perspective. Good job. If there are no objections, let's go with it. Envoy202 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So, any sources which show that actual number of refugees is far smaller, and any international studies which estimate the number? Nikola 09:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, see discussion above. Also, I think it is important to note that the 250,000 number comes from Belgrade, and the 65,000 one comes from an international source.  If you want we can just call it an ESI report, but it is important to mention that the high figue comes from Belgrade, and the lower from outside Serbia.  There are obvious reasons for this.
 * I suggest a vote; those who wish to note the sources for the disparate figures, please vote aye below... Davu.leon 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye. Davu.leon 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No. You are misrepresenting sources given above, both in this discussion and in the article. The sources include:
 * Tim Judah - a single journalist, apparently heavily biased. He first pulls complete FUD that Belgrade counted large numbers of retreating police, soldiers, administrative personnel and their families, i.e., Serbs not originally from Kosovo without any evidence whatsoever, then states that they would have no intention of ever returning in complete disregard for these people, again without any evidence, and ultimately irrelevant - refugees are refugees regardless of whether they have intention of returning or not. He is not a reliable source.
 * USCR: The sum of Serbs and Roma who reportedly have fled (230,000) and those who reportedly remain (125,000) would be a larger number than the estimated 250,000 Serbs and Roma living in Kosovo before the war, casting doubt on the accuracy either of the past-war count or of the pre-war estimate. - doesn't say anything either way. I shown above that one of the reasons for flawed ESI study is that they haven't paid attention to population growth.
 * Council of Europe: The UNHCR figure of 231,000 IDPs in the FRY as of February 2002...may underestimate the reality... - this is an endorsement that the figure may be higher than 231,000, or I don't know to read.
 * This is the best you've got: UNHCR, Critical Appraisal of Responsee Mechanisms: An undetermined number of minority returnees who have returned to Kosovo, including those who left during the NATO bombings but returned immediately after, never de-registered. [...] Realistically, therefore, much lower numbers than those non-Albanians currently registered as IDPs in Serbia are truly IDPs, or remain IDPs in search of a durable solution, or await voluntary return - they do not dispute at all that the number of refugees was as high as 250,000 when they registered, but claim that it was lowered afterwards; they also do not remove IDPs who are not "in search of a durable solution or await voluntary return" from the total number which is again completely irrelevant.
 * To sum it:
 * There is no source disputing the initial number of registered refugees; therefore, this number should not be referred to as "Belgrade" number, this is an internationally accepted number;
 * Look. I'll try to use small words.  The refugees were registered by the Serbian government.  This is what we call a fact.  Why do you object to the inclusion of a fact?  Do you think that hiding this fact strengthens your case?  Do you then believe that including it weakens your case?  Does this mean that you yourself do not believe this number? Davu.leon 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The number was accepted by UNHCR. This, too, is a fact. Why do you insist on hiding this fact?
 * Propaganda directed on Serbs and Serbia during 1990s created impression worldwide that facts issued by Serbian government are unreliable. This is why most readers of this article, if they read that something is "Belgrade number" will dismiss it or doubt it. You, of course, know that all too well, or you wouldn't be trying to push the phrase "Belgrade number". Nikola 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are sources disputing that the number is the same today, but neither claims that it is far lower; even UNHCR doesn't claim that (they claim that "much lower" is the number of refugees minus those who returned minus those who don't intend to return - but again, people who don't intend to return are still refugees);
 * But those who returned are not. At the very least, this establishes that the 250,000 number you are citing is not universally accepted. Davu.leon 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we distinguish between two things, please? The number is universally accepted. It is universally accepted that the number of refugees was 250,000 when they were registered. The only thing not universally accepted is whether the number is the same today. This depends on a number of factors, including how many refugees returned, who could realistically be called a refugee and so on. Nikola 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only source which gives a numerical estimate to actual number of refugees is ESI, and ESI can not be called "international sources"; because ESI is a single NGO, and, ESI is predominantly funded by NATO countries which have in interest to diminish the number of refugees their actions created.
 * Nikola 23:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nikola, please, if you want to be taken seriously, try to tone down your anti-NATO rhetoric. While I think we can all agree that no country or alliance ever goes to war with entirely altruistic purposes, this assumption that everyone is out to get you does nothing for your credibility.  As for your point on the ESI numbers being the only source, I already suggested a solution; simply say 'an international study conducted by ESI.'  To clarify, international in this context does not mean every country in the world participated, it simply means that it was done by a party from outside of Serbia.  It's really not that difficult to understand.  No one is claiming that Belgrade is lying, just that there is significant controversy over the actual number.  All we need do here is make readers aware of said controversy, without making a judgement on which set of numbers to endorse.  Please calm down, we are not here to engage in disinformation, merely to state facts.  Though I know it can be difficult, you should try to assume good faith on the part of editors with whom you disagree.  As a final note, I would be more than happy to go with Evv's proposal, as outlined below.  It keeps things simple, factual and concise, not to mention avoiding lengthening the aricle yet again. Davu.leon 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What, only people who are pro-NATO are serious? ESI's study is not an international study. "International" does not mean "by a party from outside of Serbia". Nikola 12:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, only people who aren't deranged paranoiacs can be taken seriously. Not saying that you are one, just that it could be read that way from some of your posts.  A bit of friendly advice, nothing more.  Secondly, yes in this context it does.  That would certainly be my reading of the sentence, and I assure you my command of English is quite good.  Perhaps it is confusing to you, but again, this is the English Language version of Wikipedia.  Now if the majority of other editors agree with you that calling it an 'international' study is confusing, I'd be happy to propose an alternative, but until then, I would ask you to refrain from insisting on incorrect interpretations of a language of which your own knowledge is good, but ultimately limited.  (Again this is not an insult, your English is far better than, for example, my Serbian, which is almost non-existent.)
 * As a post-script, you didn't reply to why you object to mentioning that the 250,000 were registered by Belgrade. It is true, is it not?  Then why are you so against including it?  What possible reason could you have to conceal that fact?  Are you now telling us that the Serbian Government is not a reliable source? Davu.leon 15:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, the same way you are pushing for the phrase "Belgrade number", you are pushing for "international study". Word "international" has universally positive connotations which would give to ESI's study the weight it doesn't deserve. Nikola 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm "foreign" too, which doesn't only means that much of what I write probably looks funny and/or cave-manish, but also that many subtleties and of the English language escape me (including the connotations of certain words), and that I often unconsciously tend to apply the connotations of Spanish words to their English translations or equivalents :-) I guess the same could be said of a substantial part of en:WP "foreign" contributors, and I believe that this is one of the causes of many "nationalistic" disputes all across Wikipedia.


 * In this particular case, I would usually use the word "international", in the sense of "an independient organization not subordinated to any government, and whose staff includes many different nationalities" (my own definition - I don't have an English dictionary at hand). — But I understand Nikola's concern, and maybe alternative, more specific wording might improve clarity (I propose something below :-). In any case, I prefer that native English speakers would decide on this. - Best regards, Evv 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ESI is financed by a plethora of governments. Nikola 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's always amazing how different people can read the exact same text and draw almost opposite interpretations of it. This is a good thing, since the discussion it generates helps to improve the article. In any case, at least Davu.leon, Envoy202 and I read those sources as clear evidence that the figures are indeed disputed.


 * This whole issue would be easily solved by adopting the "simple and elegant" brief unattributed version: "with estimates ranging from 65,000ESI ref to 250,000Serbia, UNHCR & USCR refs " :-)


 * However, if the origin of the numbers is to be mentioned in that paragraph, then for clarity (and even honesty) the correct thing would be to mention the source of both numbers, in order to help the readers make their own mind about it. - Best regards, Evv 00:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't like it, but I could agree to your simple and elegant brief unattributed version. But mentioning the sources the way Davu would like it is something I can't agree to. Nikola 12:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Long proposal I
Both numbers have to be put in perspective. How about this long & detailed option (an adaptation of Envoy202's 13 Feb '07 proposal):

"Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs, causing large numbers of Serbs, as well as Roma and Ashkalli, to flee (note: the exact number of internally displaced persons is disputedUNHCR Critical, USCR, CoE, Judah, with the Serbian government claiming as many as 250,000 registered refugeesCoor Center, UNHCR, USCR, while subsequent studies have put the number at much lower, with ESI, a Berlin-based think-tank, estimating as few as 65,000ESI)."

As I said in 14 Feb '07, in principle I don't like it because I found it too long for the main article. But, since we don't yet have a clear sub-article where to detail the issue, I'm ok with having the long version here for now. - Best regards, Evv 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, absolutely not. A single flawed study is not "studies"; number of 250,000 is not claimed only by the Serbian government. I am thinking more about Evv's proposal; actually it is almost perfect except that it doesn't acknowledge that the number of initially registered refugees is undisputed, and it is only the number of current refugees that is. I think that we could easily write something that would go along these lines and be universally acceptable. Nikola 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First, the plural "studies" was meant to include the various analysis also (UNHCR Critical, USCR & CoE), not just ESI's work. My bad: I see the obvious distinction :-) and would modify it like this:


 * "...while subsequent analysis have put the number at much lower, with a study by ESI, a Berlin-based think-tank, estimating as few as 65,000ESI)."


 * Second, I had not understood Nikola's valid point before: the clear distinction between the number of people displaced immediatly after the war (all those who fled in fear of reprisals), and the number of those who remain as long-time IDPs. - How about something along these lines (additions & modifications in brown ):


 * "Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs, causing large numbers of Serbs, as well as Roma and Ashkalli, to flee, arround 250,000 in total (note: the exact number of internally displaced persons is disputedUNHCR Critical, USCR, CoE, Judah, with the Serbian government claiming as many as 250,000 registered refugeesCoor Center, UNHCR, USCR, while subsequent analysis have put the number at much lower, with a study by ESI, a Berlin-based think-tank, estimating as few as 65,000ESI)."


 * Oh my, this would make an even longer paragraph :-) A new sub-article on the "Immediate aftermath of the Kosovo War" could be usefull for all these details, allowing for a very short version to be used here, in the main article. - Best regards, Evv 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. How about;
 * "Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs, causing large numbers of Serbs, Roma and Ashkalli to flee. Whilst the number of internally displaced persons was initially registered by Belgrade as 250,000,Coor Center, UNHCR, USCR, a figure which the Serbian government maintain is still valid, there is significant controversy over the current number of refugees,UNHCR Critical, USCR, CoE, Judah which subsequent studies have put much lower, with ESI, a Berlin-based think-tank, estimating as few as 65,000ESI."
 * It's a bit long, but pretty fair to both sides, I think. Davu.leon 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * lol Davu, we wrote more or less the same thing simultaneously... I don't understand why wasn't there an edit conflict :-) I like your wording much better... let me try to merge both options. - Evv 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset tabs Actually, I would only change the "studies" bit:

"Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs, causing large numbers of Serbs, Roma and Ashkalli to flee. Whilst the number of internally displaced persons was initially registered by Belgrade as 250,000,Coor Center, UNHCR, USCR, a figure which the Serbian government maintains is still valid, there is significant controversy over the current number of refugees,UNHCR Critical, USCR, CoE, Judah which subsequent analysis has put much lower, with a study by ESI, a Berlin-based think-tank, estimating as few as 65,000ESI."

Let's see what other editors think of this. - Best regards, Evv 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

lol I was aiming for plural (in Spanish both singular & plural are the same: "análisis"), but I'm fine with either option. - Evv 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I could agree to this, with small changes.
 * Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs, causing large numbers non-Albanians to flee. The number of internally displaced persons was initially registered as 250,000,Coor Center, UNHCR, USCR. Whilst the Serbian government maintains that this number is still valid, there is significant controversy over the current number of refugees,UNHCR Critical, USCR, CoE, Judah which subsequent analysis has put much lower, with a study by ESI, a Berlin-based think-tank, estimating as few as 65,000ESI serbian refugees outside of Kosovo ."
 * Regarding non-Albanians, there are non-insignificant numbers of Croats, Muslims etc. but I don't feel too strong on this one, so it might go either way as far as I am concerned.
 * Regarding the end of the text, it is my understanding of their study that they refer to Serbian refugees outside of Kosovo only, and I think that it is important to notice that.
 * Regarding other things, see above. Would that be OK with everyone? Nikola 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Evv's March 1 proposal above -- it's succint, simple and straightforward. I'd rather not getting into the business of assessing the various claims about IDP numbers, as Nikola's proposed change does. I think it's better to just report on the controversy and let readers draw their own conclusions. I think Evv's proposal does that very well and without trying to bias the reader in one direction or another. Envoy202 01:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Short proposal I
Yes, go brevity ! :-) My preferred one:

Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs, causing some 200,000-280,000CoE p.30 Serbs and other non-AlbaniansFootnote to flee (note: the exact number of internally displaced persons is disputedUNHCR Critical, USCR, CoE, Judah, with estimates ranging from 65,000ESI ref to 250,000Serbia, UNHCR & USCR refs).

''Footnote: Including Roma, Egyptian, Ashkalli, Croats, Turks and Bosniaks. Sources listed here.''

Source for Roma, Egyptian & Ashkalli: CoE p.30 & Serbian gov. for Roma. — I didn't search for a source for Croats, Turks and Bosniaks yet, but the Serbian gov. lists 13,500 Muslims as IDPs.

Will this wording please everyone ? :-) Best regards, the user formerly known as Evv Ev 17:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To facilitate reading, the main text would look like this:

Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs, causing some 200,000-280,0001 Serbs and other non-Albanians2 to flee (note: the exact number of internally displaced persons is disputed3, 4, 5, 6, with estimates ranging from 65,0007 to 250,0008, 9, 10).

Best regards, the user formerly known as Evv Ev 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Go with it.  Envoy202 20:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is good! Though I think that it doesn't clearly show that current number is disputed and that initial number is not disputed. This should be easy to fix, for example with "note: it is disputed how much the number of IDPs decreased since, with estimates ranging..." Nikola 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about just adding "current", link this: "note: the exact number of current internally displaced persons is disputed" ? - Ev 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Nikola 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, but how about 'the current number of internally displaced persons...' Just to make it flow a bit better. Davu.leon 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, 'the exact current number...' Davu.leon 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * lol Of course ( I should have noticed that before :-) and I like the idea of removing "exact", since we're still mentioning numbers with three or more zeros. - Regards, Ev 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: since the text is almost agreed upon (probably only a couple of more formal "agrees" would suffice to end the matter), I added the text to the article, with Davu.leon's proposed minor change: replacing "exact" by "current". However, the issue is not closed yet, and anyone's objections will be adressed. My edit was not an attempt to forcibly close the debate: I only wanted to get all those references in order :-) Best regards, Ev 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Tragedy
I see that the tragic reality of Kosovo affects Wikipedia as well... this is deeply disturbing.

I think that the Kosovo Status Process sections needs to be re-balanced. There are strong arguments (despite low internet-popularity of it) that Kosovo should remain within Serbia.

What we offer the people Kosovo is the best solution; we offer everything except factual independence. --Boris Tadić 17:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Tadic, the status section of this article reflects only what reliable sources tell us is likely to happen, not what we believe should happen. (And believe me there is plenty of disagreement on that.)  However I am sure that your views and contributions would be more than welcome at the Kosovo Status Process article. Davu.leon 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC).


 * INow is as good as time as ever to assist this article but most editors here consider the article to be balanced. Re-balancing seems quite extreme. Buffadren 09:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, as Davu.leon said, all comments on how to improve this particular section of the article are welcomed at Talk:Kosovo Future Status Process :-) Evv 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO Protected Monuments
Would someone comment on the absence of any mention of the historical significance of Kosovo-Metohija?

That was the original name of the province until Tito shortened it to Kosovo in 1974. Metohija refers to "church lands," as the Metohija valley was essentially a church land grant made by Stefan at the behest of his son Sava. The Metohija valley contains a number of Eastern Orthodox shrines and monasteries, most notably Devich, Dechani, and Grachanitsa. Devich and Grachanitsa are both under UNESCO protection.

I would suggest that those facts are lost on the casual observer, and certainly the fate of those monuments weighs heavily on the minds of many Serbs. One could equate it to handing over the Alamo to Mexico, giving the Statue of Liberty back to the French, or Romania giving the Transylvania Region back to the Magyar Republic.

Kaplan, in Balkan Ghosts, correctly identifies Kosovo as a "crowd symbol" for the Serbs. I mention that only because there's very little discussion of the roots of conflict in the region.

Muresean 07:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt that the roots of the conflict started from the monuments, if that is what you imply. It was much more complex than that. Besides there are more mosques and Albanians in Kosovo than there are Eastern orthodox monasteris and shrines and Serbs. There are Albanian catholic churches as well. All these monuments mean something for all people who live there regardless of language or religion.


 * I am pretty sure that in the end Kosovo articles in wikipedia will have to be re-considered in order to complement its final status. You will always have the Albanian story and the Serbian story and there is not question about that. So if you look at Kosovo as southern Serbia (which it is no longer the case) you will explain it through the prism of Serbian history. If you look at it as an Illyrian-Dardan-Albanian land with an Albanian majority, you will explain it through the prism of Albanian history. And yet, if you look at it as a sovereign region or as an independent Kosovo than a fresh perspective will have to be considered based on various factors that shape its overall identity. Articles here are a good foundation to build upon, but as long as Kosovo's issue remains disputable, there will be disputes here as well. It is more a matter of perspective than fact, of which there is plenty to support any side of argument. However there should be room for all sides of the story in any overriding perspective. Bardylis 05:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't suggesting shrines or monuments are the root of the conflict, merely that they and Metohija are part of the history (as well as part of the tourism industry) and not mentioned.

I offer to do the copy editing of this mess, but I do not want to step on anyone. If no one has objections, I will post re-writes of sections here first for consideration and approval.

There are numerous glaring errors that need to be corrected. For example:

Throughout the following decades, numerous foreign peoples invading the Byzantine Empire stormed Kosovo, among them the Cumans.

The statement is slanted as well as erroneous. There is no evidence I can find that the Cumans were ever in Kosovo. The Cumans were a Turkic tribe occupying the area north of the Danube in the region of Wallachia in present-day Romania. The Bulgarian ruler Kayolan (and others) used them as mercenaries, and they did raid the Black Sea region, but they never raided or occupied Kosovo. The Oguz, a Turkic tribe driven from their lands by the Cuman, did cross the Danube and raided the interior Balkans, but that fact seems to have been ignored.

Additionally, there is evidence that Murad I may have been killed by Magyar knights, rather than Milos Obilic as legend has it, and I will include documentation and references for that.

Also, I have not seen anything reporting the size of Murad I's army, other than stating it was the largest he had assembled at the time, and it consisted of Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian and Macedonian Christians, in addition to the Ottoman Ghazis. I think it is disengenuous not to clearly state that Christians helped the Ottomans with their Islamisation "programme." It is also disengenuous to ignore the make-up of Lazar's forces, which were Serbian, Albanian, Magyar, Bosnian, and Brankovic's contingents from Macedonia and Kosovo.

I certainly agree there is room for all sides, but perspective extends far beyond Serbia, Kosovo and Albania. Whatever happens will have consequences for Bulgaria, Greece and most of all, Macedonia.

Muresean 03:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think any contributions would be valuable to enhance the material and avoid leaving gaps that would give a distorted picture of Kosovo. However, I still think that in the end, the entire material will have to be shaped to represent the view of the people that represent Kosovo. Example: Metohija is part of history of the region, which is why a reader of Kosovo's history should not be deprived of this side of its history due to political reasons or people's views. However, the use of this sentiment as an excuse by Serbian nationalists to further some old colonisation policies (and crimes) in Kosovo in the more recent history should not be hidden either, since this will give yet a fuller picture of the what connotations the word Metohija has for Kosovar Albanians. Likewise important is the fact that Albanians call it the Valley of Dukajin and behind this there is history. On the other hand, Kosovo's entire ancient architecture consists of a part of tourism industry, not only Eastern Orthodox shrines. Keep in mind that even more predominant are ancient Ottoman mosques throughout Kosovo, especially in Prizren. Also, there are many ancient Catholic churches.


 * I totally agree with what you say in the last two paragraphs, and I have tried to agrue along the same lines before. Especially because I was dissatisfied with some unnecessary idealizations about the Battles of Kosovo that do not give a full picture. It all seemed forcefully presented as if there was always a religious war between Albanian Muslims and Serbian Eastern Orthodox Christians. Nonetheless, when you consider the composition of the armies that were involved and the complexity of this part of history, you realize that there was a fight between two major forces: Ottoman (included all those who considered themselves Ottoman regardless language or even religion and those who helped them. To understand this better consider the composition of US forces today; it includes people of various backgrounds who consider themselves Americans) and anti-ottoman (more precisely Christians, regardless of language, who joined forces to stop the ottoman invasion). Bardylis 04:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Flag?
Does Kosovo have a flag? Sca 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet Buffadren 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. But the Albanian flag does get some use.   Misha t x  *разговор* 17:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It depends on which people/where uses it. The Serbian flag is present on the enclaves (for example, you will see only the Serbian flag in North Kosovo), whereas apart from the unofficial Albanian flag, there is no real "flag", unless you count the United Nations flag. It's due to get one very soon, though (just be patient for a while). --PaxEquilibrium 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Martti Ahtisaari
I finally think why he seems POV to the Serbian side. As President of Finland, he held (allegedly) hate speeches against the Russians (that it seemed to them, to the Finnish he was only probably commemorating the Finnish defenders against Stalin's invasion), but appears to have used rather "emotional" aspects for his campaign, and this led so far to him being satanized by the opposition Russian media - plainly because he held commemorations not only to the Winter War heroes, but also the Continuation War soldiers, while Finland was an Axis ally and fought an aggressive war against the Soviets (although defined as only being a reaction war). From this, apparently, Serbian tabloids invented the story how Oiva Ahtisaari "the Norwegian technician", Martti's father, was a Nazi trooper.

How on earth the international community thought that such a man could decide anything in favor of Slavs is beyond my understanding.

But this appears to be a totally off-Kosovo topic, considering that (perhaps) Russia might lodge its veto just because Ahtisaari wrote the suggestion, whereas Martti might be pushing just because Russia has expressed its interests and the Serbs being generally considered a "Russian-like people". --PaxEquilibrium 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly or Bitterly
I made an edit on the page and another user Davu.leon reverted me without notification. I am asking for opinions on the matter and in a sense I am also asking for support for my version. Below is the text in question.

Inter-ethnic tensions continued to worsen in Kosovo throughout the 1980s. In particular, Kosovo's ethnic Serb community, a minority of Kosovo population, complained bitterly about mistreatment from the Albanian majority

I want to change the words Bitterly complained to strongly complained. The reason is the people that complained were not embittered or bitter people in the overall context this text may infer this.

I have always been a fair editor here and I ask the original editor to reconsider his revert and failing that I ask the others here for their views and support to my change. Buffadren 14:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted because it was a section that has undergone considerable discussion, and the text was approved as is. I also believe that complained bitterly is a better phrasing here, and not necessarily pejorative or anti-Serb.  I would also say, for example, that the Albanians complained bitterly about persecution in the 1990's.  I believe you may be reading too much into it, and seeing connotations that simply aren't there.  Just because someone complains bitterly does not mean their complaints are not justified - that's another argument altogether.  However, I am quite happy to go with consensus on this, I was simply under the impression that the established consensus was to include the word 'bitterly'. Davu.leon 14:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Davu.leon's comment. - Evv 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bitterly is an emotional word, but Strongly is not, so for enciclopedia the word Strongly is best Pernambuco 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly on this one (or, for that matter, bitterly). I don't think "bitterly" is pejorative. I also don't think adverbs ever add much to good writing. How about a compromise: let's just get rid of the adverb altogether? Envoy202 17:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another good suggestion, instead of fighting over a word or another word, just remove both of them if it doesnt change the sentence, we dont want this page to become like Transnistria where you go to Talk page and everyone is constantly fighting and reverting over little bitty single words Pernambuco 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Davu.leon 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me too. if I understand things correctly we are going to insert this:


 * Inter-ethnic tensions continued to worsen in Kosovo throughout the 1980s. In particular, Kosovo's ethnic Serb community, a minority of Kosovo population, complained about mistreatment from the Albanian majority.


 * All in agreement? Buffadren 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Envoy202 10:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Davu.leon 12:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Evv 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree too, and have made the change Buffadren 15:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Democracy in action! :) Davu.leon 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We are no some much a democracy here but we have systems that we reach agreement by, but I know what you meant and I concur.


 * Agree. Read Montenegrins of Kosovo as proof. --Crna Gora 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro Serbian Pro Albanian links deletion
I made suggestions about the above and invited comments. Agreement has been reached I am going to make the corrections now. I notice since then some new links have been added so I will leave them be for now but list them here for your opinions in a few minutes. Buffadren 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OKay, changes made, There are two new additions that were added to the page while we left this for deliberation.
 * Serbian Government for K-M
 * Kosovo making a compromise,
 * I am happy that these are good enough to leave.
 * However some of the other links did not get removed for balance reasons rather than content. I suggest removing BOTH US non profit PR orgs, I had only suggested removig the Pro Albanian one and Noah 30 kindly pointed out my unintentional bias. Noah also requested deletion Terror In Kosovo which he calls VERY BOMBASTIC.  I was inclined slightly to keep it but if nobody objects I'll go with Noah 30 strong view.
 * Buffadren 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My personal view is that, in "generic" articles, the less external links, the better: there're plenty of more specific articles where to move them. In principle, consider that I'm for the deletion of any external link :-) Regards, Evv 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

UNOSEK Special Envoys site
I have be bold an inserted the UNOSEK site in the External LInks.I know I'd be the first to complain if someone else dropped in a website while the links were under talks here. I hope noboby complains because I do feel its important we have this site here. All in agreement ? Buffadren 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Belated agreement :-) Evv 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Serbia (indirectly) accepts Kosovo's independence?
Just in case you thought political tensions were high, an interesting news came out of Hungary today to raise those tensions even higher. For the first time in history a Serbian team played an international cup match against a Kosovar team. The handball team Naisa from Nish, Serbia played against Vëllaznimi from Gjakovë, Kosovo for a European Cup in Tatabanya, Hungary (neutral venue). This game was played at an international level where only teams from different countries play against each other, and since the Serbian team agreed to play against the Kosovar team one can conclude that Serbia has recognised Kosovo as an independent country at least in handball. Interestingly, only last month the Serbian Ministry of Sport did not allow the handball team Kikinda to play against the same Kosovar team Vëllaznimi from Gjakovë, but it seems that a month later the situation has changed. Needless to say, we are dealing with merely one sport, however it could be a good indication of how things may unfold in the coming months with regards to the Kosovo status. Furthermore, from 25th of March to 1st of April 2007 the European Championship in table tennis (ping pong) will take place in Belgrade, Serbia and the Kosovar national team is expected to participate. Now, if that takes place and a Kosovar national team play a sport at an internationally regonised level in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia I would think that it would be quite a significant development. Kind regards, Kosovar 02:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above post is just amazingly idiotic. KosMetfan 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, read carefully the Wikipedia policies on no personal attacks & civility (you may start with "Consequences of personal attacks"). - Ev 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Now what? KosMetfan 19:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now do your best to follow those policies. Doing so not only improves the general quality of discussions, but even gives more weight to your arguments :-) Best regards, Ev 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Does that mean that England accepted independence of Scotland and Wales? Quick! Someone edit United Kongdom and tell those people that their country dissolved! Nikola 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, someone edit Kongdom. Those damn giant apes can't get away with not recognising Scotland's right to freedom!  This is a travesty etc.  Davu.leon 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting then why did the Serbian Ministry of Sport state that if Kikinda played against Vëllaznimi, Gjakovë at an international level it would amount to directly recognising the independence of Kosovo. However, a month later Naisa did play against the same team (Vëllaznimi) for the same European cup, which according to the Serbian Ministry of Sport implies that they have recognised Kosovo as an independent country. It's such a shame that people like Nikola did not advise the Serbian Ministry of Sport earlier since that would have saved Kikinda a substantial fine from the European Handball Federation and a three year ban from European handball. Ouch! That must have hurt.


 * Needless to say, I did not suggest that we should edit the Kosovo article. I was merely raising a question (intelligent people would have noticed the question mark in the first line of my comment) and asking if this is how Serbia plans to prevent Kosovo's independence by collecting fines and bans and a month later accepting the inevitable. I am looking forward to the next few weeks and months to find out, are you? Kosovar 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk page: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."


 * Talk page guidelines: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." - Regards, Evv 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but on pages such as this, some grace is afforded given the sensitive subject matter often discussed, but in this case eve is right, the page needs archiving too. Buffadren 10:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I share that opinion, Buffadren. Thus, I seldom advocate for removing such comments from a talk page, but merely mention WP guidelines to editors that may be unaware of them (with the hope that it will also end the forum-style discussion that triggered the mention :-). And yes, when the current discussion on refugee numbers is resolved will be a good time to archive the page. - Best regards, Evv 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)