Talk:Kosovo/Archive 29

Background: ICJ advisory opinion
I propose editing this to "..did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence': nor did the declaration of independence violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244, since this did not describe Kosovo's final status, nor had the Security Council reserved for itself the decision on final status".

This edit has been accepted in the separate articles on the Advisory Opinion and on the Republic of Kosovo. Two points here: it might not have violated general international law but still have violated international law because of a binding (Chapter VII) resolution of the UNSCR, and what the current version has as the president of the court's description, as if it was his personal opinion, in fact comes from the majority decision of the court.

--Markd999 (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: declaration of independence
Current article reads:

"Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations. The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state, has control over most of the territory..."

All this is perfectly true, but it reads oddly. There is no sense of chronological development, although of course this is given in the body of the article. I propose to edit to:

"Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations in 1999. The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo)declared itself an independent state in 2008, and has control over most of the territory...." --Markd999 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Background: EULEX
Current version reads:

"the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008."

Is this true, or is it neutral? I think neither.

As for the truth, EULEX has the power to arrest and prosecute people, as well as to assist the development of the Kosovo police, prosecutors and judiciary. These were all powers of UNMIK. But UNMIK also had the powers to legislate by itself; to inspect and if necessary amend (or even veto) laws passed by the Kosovo Assembly; to take most economic decisions even against Kosovo Government decisions; to refer prosecutions to courts composed solely of international judges; to run the Customs Service, which it did to the last; to directly run elections, although in practice it gave this up in 2004; etc etc etc.

It can be seen even from this brief and partial list that "most" powers of UNMIK were not transferred to EULEX (although I think that most Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo would agree that EULEX would have been important if it had done its job properly).

As for neutrality, I can quite see that Serbians would prefer EULEX (whose role Serbia recognises) to be mentioned rather than the International Community Office (whose role they do not). But more of UNMIK's powers passed to the ICO (under the Ahtisaari Plan, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) than passed to EULEX. And some, of course, lapsed altogether (or, if you take the view of a non-recognising state, became unenforceable).

I would therefore propose to edit as follows:

"Some of UNMIK's powers in the area of rule of law were transferred to the European Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008. In the Declaration of Independence of February 2008, and in its Constitution, Kosovo accepted a general supervisory role with important specific powers, proposed in the Ahtisaari Plan, exercised by the International Community Office (ICO). The International Steering Group has decided that, since Kosovo has passed legislation envisaged in and has implemented the Ahtisaari Plan, there is no reason for the ICO to continue to exist beyond September 2012" --Markd999 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks reasonable to me. Good work! bobrayner (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But, you must use good neutral source for this. Without it, please, dont add this info. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 07:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you are confused. There is EULEX, as an EU institution, which is composed of 27 EU countries. Then there is the ICO/ICR/ISG/Ahtisaari Plan, which is composed of (for example) only 20 EU countries. Distinct, but overlapping, entities.


 * As you mentioned, some institutions Serbia recognizes as legitimate, others it does not. The International Steering Group (ISG) was created by the Ahtisaari Plan which is closely linked with the independent Republic (being explicitly referenced in its Declaration of Independence for example). Anything related to either should not be referred to as some universally accepted fact; it is a partisan institution. The ISG made the ICO/ICR.


 * UNMIK powers were not (AFAIK) passed to the ICO/ICR/ISG/Ahtisaari Plan. The powers of EULEX were recognized by the PISG, which was recognized by the UNMIK which was recognized by the UNSC which was recognized by the UN Chart which was recognized by Serbia. (PHEW!) But I cannot prove this! I think the PISG became the Republic but I cannot really find "the sauce"; everyone has stopped talking about the PISG, which is still recognized by UNMIK regulations AFAIK. And then again, everyone stopped talking about the UNMIK too, who seems to have abandoned his post after the Declaration of Independence (or at least stopped updateing his website)...


 * TLDR: No, you assume too much. When you can fill in the gaps in the Government of Kosovo article, then maybe something can be said. Int21h (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note the weak link between UNMIK and EULEX. The only reliable source I could find was 1 (literally, 1) BBC article, wherein it does not give details. No UNMIK regulations online even mention EULEX. Many other, in my opinion, unreliable sources also repeated this, also without any references given and likely themselves internally citing the BBC article. Int21h (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

UN Administration Period
Current version has 2 sections: one titled as above, the second entitled UN Administration 1999-Present. The second title is neither neutral nor correct: even if one believes that under UNSCR 1244 UNMIK ought to be administering Kosovo, it does not claim to be doing so in fact. The first title is quite neutral and if one thinks that UN Administration exists legally today (even if not in fact) it still applies. The first paragraph of the second section is pure duplication and I propose to delete it. The second paragraph has information not elsewhere in the article, and I propose to retain it with the following minor amendments:

"Under the Constitutional Framework, Kosovo had a 120-member Kosovo Assembly. The Assembly includes twenty reserved seats: ten for Kosovo Serbs and ten for non-Serb and non-Albanian nations (e.g. Bosniaks, Roma, etc.). The Kosovo Assembly was responsible for electing the President, Prime Minister, and Government of Kosovo, and for passing legislation which was vetted and promulgated by UNMIK."

(This proposed edit already accepted in the article on the Republic of Kosovo. --Markd999 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, from what I can tell UNMIK christian-ed the PISG, which from what I can tell became the Republic, then abandoned the post. ("Hey UNMIK I was wondering what happened to this PISG enti-- Hey, where did UNMIK go?") Int21h (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Background: Border
It's not mentioned in Noel Malcolm, but I think that in 1953 or thereabouts there were bigger revisions to the border: that the three Presevo municipalities went over to Serbia from Kosovo (after municipal referendums) and the three municipalities of Zvečan, Lepkosavič, and Zubin Potok went over to Kosovo from Serbia (again, after municipal referendums). There were also revisions to the southern border: Đeneral Jankovič/ Hani i Elezit transferred from Macedonia to Kosovo (not that Macedonia would want it back: no statues, and more Albanians).

Zoupan (or someone) please tell me whether this is right or wrong. In one way I would prefer to be wrong; personally I dislike the idea of borders being delimited on ethnic lines, and would not want a historical argument for the transfer of territories in this way. But then, of course, I am not a Serb living in Zubin Potok or an Albanian living in the Presevo Valley. But if facts are facts we should include them. --79.126.148.120 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I'm going to look it up, we need sources. You would prefer to be wrong? Don't mix nationalistic partition with Yugoslav geo-administrative reforms.--Z oupan 21:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo War
I propose to edit the section on war crimes, beginning "Stojilkovic killed himself...." with the following, already accepted in the article "Republic of Kosovo", with the citations found there:

"Stojiljković killed himself while at large in 2002 and Milošević died in custody during the trial in 2006. In 2009 Milutinovic was acquitted by the Trial Chamber; five defendants were found guilty (three sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, and two to 22 years; and in 2011 the remaining defendant, who had been in hiding when the main trial started, was found guilty and sentenced to 27 years. The verdicts are under appeal. The indictment against the nine alleged that they directed, encouraged or supported a campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians and aimed at the expulsion of a substantial portion of them from Kosovo. It has been alleged that about 800,000 Albanians were expelled as a result. In particular, in the indictment of June 2006, the accused were charged with murder of 919 identified Kosovo Albanian civilians aged from one to 93, both male and female.

In addition, the Office of the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor has secured final judgements involving the conviction of 7 persons, sentenced to a total of 136 years imprisonment for war crimes in Kosovo involving 89 Albanian victims. As of June 2012, a trial of 12 defendants for an alleged massacre of 44 Albanian victims in Čuška (Alb: Qyshk) is ongoing."

This updates the trial situations and gives credit to the Republic of Serbia War Crimes Prosecutor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, again quite valid update. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't understand why nobody else comment in here except two of us... ? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone else is asleep :-)
 * Usually we have epic disagreements on this talkpage. When somebody proposes something reasonable and uncontroversial, this is a serious break from tradition, and we don't know how to respond! bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Hvala! Faleminderit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Early History
Current text reads:

"During the 13th and 14th centuries, Kosovo became a political and spiritual centre of the Serbian Kingdom. In the late 13th century, the seat of the Serbian Archbishopric was moved to Pec, and rulers centred themselves between Prizren and Skopje, during which time thousands of Christian monasteries and feudal-style forts and castles were erected."

No problem with most of this, but "thousands" of Christian monasteries and etc etc were erected? Quite impossible. Any idea of how many hectares it took to endow a monastery, even with only a few monks? Or how much labour it took to build a castle, which also required large amounts of land to maintain a garrison? Where are the remains of these "thousands" of monasteries, etc? Just remember that in the early middle ages it could take over a thousand sheep to supply the parchment for one single manuscript copy of the New Testament.

I propose just a short edit. "Msny" instead of "thousands of". But it strikes me as shocking that anyone could look at the denity of monasteries, castles, etc in Europe, most of it always richer then Kosovo, and then suggest that "thousands" of these institutions could conceivably maintained. --Markd999 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you. Instead of using term "many" it would be better to present as precise number of churches and monasteries as possible. Huge number of churches and monasteries is one of the reasons why some people consider Kosovo as "Holy land". "Many" is concealing this important fact. I was surprised to see google hits for thousands because it really sounds impossible. To my surprise, there are numerous sources about more than thousand churches and monasteries. In that case, together with "feudal-style forts and castles" thousands don't look so impossible. Maybe some user who is more acquainted with this issue could help to determine most precise number? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Searching for a single number would be futile; over the centuries there will have been various new churches built, old ones abandoned, merges, splits &c. and the historical record is not perfect.
 * It should be more straightforward to get an accurate number if we focus more closely; for instance, there should be some good papers on Google Scholar based on Nemanjid chrysobulls. (New churches or monastic foundation would typically get a grant of land or other feudal resources in order to support its ongoing operation; the grant documents tended to be preserved, for obvious reasons; and now they're a good source for all kinds of history, not just the history of church foundations).
 * However, Malcolm (Medieval Kosovo: 850s-1390s, p50) says "...Kosovo was not the main focus of the church-building activities of most of these rulers". bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True, the 'heart' of the medieval Serbian Kingdom was Raska, not Kosovo. A precise number say, of the most important churches, would be much better than ambiguous 'thousands' which is impossible. There are not a thousand mosques in Kosovo, and that's for a population almost 90% Muslim... - Ottomanist (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Christianity is older than Islam in Kosovo. When searching, "thousands" have been built, "hundreds" have been destroyed. --Z oupan  08:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If the population of Kosovo is likely to have been 350,000 in the seventeenth century (and it can hardly have been higher in the early fourteenth) it is quite impossible that it can have supported "thousands" of churches, monasteries, forts and castles. Each of these required, and still require, specialist personnel who require upkeep from others - despite the monastic aim of poverty and working for the monastery - and as for the costs and time of building, these were huge by modern standards. If you look at Velika Hoca, by Rasovec, for example, there are a number of Serbian churches - 12 I think - which are offshoots of bigger monasteries and are there because those monasteries gained much of their income from producing wine from their holdings there). There may be sources which talk of "thousands"of these establishments, but then medieval and early modern sources almost everywhere in Europe tend to use exaggerated numbers to mean "a lot".

The Serbian Orthodox Church produced a book (in, I think, around 2000, called, I think, "The Crucifixion of Kosovo"), detailing destruction or damage to churches and monasteries in Kosovo. Although it tries to disguise it (or possibly the attitudes in the Balkans to "restoration", as demonstrated for example in Macedonia, are different from those in Western Europe), many or most of these are 1990s "restorations" of churches, often quite small, that had been destroyed or collapsed over seven centuries. For example, the Monastery of the Archangels in Prizren can be seen in an early 1990s photograph to be visible only to the foundations.

It is evident from this source that the number of "restored" churches was relatively small; the policy of "restoration" applied to churches that were never particularly significant except to a small number of people who worshiped there, so it is extremely unlikely that more significant monasteries were not restored or recorded.

I don't think it will be possible to reach a definitive number at the present time, and with present political controversies, but "many" instead of "thousands" seems to me to be generous. If you compare with the density of archeological church, monastic, and military settlements which existed in northern Europe (simply because higher rainfall levels supported more people, the real description would be "few". I don't think this is sensible in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede
I think the UNESCO World Heritage sites and the 1389 Battle of Kosovo are sufficiently important to mention in the lede. I really do not understand edit summaries such as these. Athenean (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Not that important", wow. It should stay in the intro, without a doubt.--Z oupan 08:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I half-agree. Whether the 1389 Battle of Kosovo Polje was really hugely important at the time or whether its importance is a matter of later mythologising seems to me irrelevant. Whatever, its importance in Serbian ideas of their history means it should be in the lead.

The World Heritage Sites are another matter (even though I find Visoki Decani magnificent and exuding spiritual peace, which I cannot say for Gracanica or the Patriarchate). Every country, or "country" if you prefer, has World Heritage Sites. It is very unusual for them to be mentioned in the leads to Wikipedia articles, and if they are mentioned it usually means that there is nothing more recent that might interest the reader.--Markd999 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Biased article NATO publication
Statement: " Its independence is recognised by 90 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). "

Should be replaced by

'''Majority of countries does not recognize Kosovo as independent country naming countries and since you are menitiong Taiwan then you can also mention that Kosovo is not recognized by Tranzistria, Nagorno Carabah, Abhazia, Ossetia... etc.. The you can state that Kosovo is recognized by 90 countries and Taiwan(China). '''

What is also missing is fact that USA lead effort inserting pressure on many countries (using and abusing) its power in order to excel Kosovo recognition throughout the world. There are various testimonies and could be easily found on internet. Even US diplomacy did not hide it. One of the pressure was on Serbia itself where Serbian future accession talks to EU where conditioned on its approach to Kosovo issues e.g. Serbia would not be able to join EU if it sued NATO for de facto and de jure illegal military intervention not approved by UN madate which as results has amputation of Serbian territory (no UN mandate(braking international law), no declaration of war by US congress(breaking US law - constitution). Some examples you can even find in speeches of Ron Paul, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parentti, Russian and Chinese diplomacy (announcements, protests...) There are vast records on all of this.

It is also known fact that many countries surrounding Serbia did recognized Kosovo as consequence of NATO and EU pressure namely FYROM, Bulgaria, Monte Negro as well as some countries in central Europe like Czeck Republic, Slovakia and Poland. Some officials even did not kide it and on announcement of Kosovo recognition they argued openly that this was tactical decision for greated cause e.g. EU or NATO membership etc...

But nothing of it is mentioned. Instead only number stating number of states that recognized Kosovo independace is sited as intention was to create imagery of some wide consensus.

Facts are facts, emotions are justifications are something completely different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As a non-American, you may not realized that Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky are what are known here in the States as "kooks" - and their views are basically fringe, and not representative of the American public. You can't base changing the article on what they claim. Also, you are using your own emotions as justification for pushing a particular POV for the article - which you just decried as being wrong. ??? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Representative opinion of American public is not known in the world of non-americans for being outstanding in terms of quality but is rather subject of mocking. Noam Chomsky is considered broadly as one of leading intellectuals and scholars in the world. It is funny that you find yourself qualified to comment on his qualities. Regardless you missed completely the point of criticism. Facts are that majority of the world does not recognize the Kosovo independence and number of those countries is not stated as I suggested above and is pure fact regardless of Chomsky. It is UN fact. Second point you missed, again regardless of Chomsky, is that US imposed diplomatic pressure on many countries to acknowledge independence of Kosovo under using NATO and EU umbrella. They have never hide it, but where very open on it, again regarless of what Chomsky thinks about it. This article was least about Chomsky. Thanks God or better saying Karl Marx, Darvin, Ainstain etc., I am European!80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The existing statement is pure fact. What you're suggesting is POV-pushing. Bazonka (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement is fact but incomplete fact. How can what I say be POV if I asked that number of states that do not recognize Kosovo should be stated too and first because there is more of them. You see this is the fact that you do not like, but it is the fact too. Avoiding to name it looks as you are trying to hide something.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The solution is to say that "Kosovo is recognized as an independent state by (number) states, and is not recognized by (number) states."--R-41 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That "solution" rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Solution is simple. State number of countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence. Then state number of countries that do recognize. Then state there was milder or stronger US pressure on some on them to recognize Kosovo indepedence and state mechanisms and examples (NATO and US harmonization, EU accession talks, economic pressure, internal instabilities like in case of FYROM, where majority of the people expressed strong opposition on streets of Skopje etc). You can also quote US diplomats and leaders.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That solution rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand where do we disagree. Yes many countries where forced to recognize independence of Kosovo under pressure of US diplomacy and NATO and EU aspirations. This is why I stated that after quoting number that is fact this condition should be stated. If you are trying to say that majority of people oppose Kosovo independence in Czech Rep. I agree, but fact is that Czech government did recognize it. What is then problem for you there?80.61.205.20 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We disagree that, apart from Kosovo, everyone agrees what constitutes a country. Kosovo isn't the only political entity with a disputed claim to statehood, so saying that a certain number of states recognize Kosovo's statehood is itself disputed. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it will not be the first time principles are broken. But fact is that USA considers Kosovo as country and behaves in that way. So this is fact and count goes one up. Now if I understand your point problem is that USA does not follow its on principle on the matter. But US has not following its own principle in many other issues yet they are going on with it. We cannot deny Viethnam even though it was against US principle. Even some laws are very seemingly unconstitutional. However, laws are there, Kosovo has US embassy in it so that is countable fact. Unfortunately there is no mathematics and honesty in this. Anyhow, I think we will disagree again. I am not denying anything you say, but what I suggest is we are still better then what is currently there if we do the way I suggested. Your idea will take lot of battle, not with me of course, to win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This is all POV pushing origional research which has no place in an encyclopedia. As another poster says, Chomsky and fellow traveller Perenti are fringe, genocide-denying kooks and their works on the Balkans been thouroughly discredited. Thannad (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you read carefully what is bold and see what problem you may have with that. It has nothing to do with Chomsky and you can check it easily. Your statements on Chomsky you can place on Chomsky article and see will they be valid. In no way he is subject here and I am willing to delete his name from my statements if you want.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not udnerstand this opsession with Chomsky. Point is that you are not stating the fact about total number of countries that do not recognize the Kosovo and fact that many countries that do did that under pressure of USA. USA government openly and without hiding "urges" countries to recognize Kosovo independence after war it waged over Serbia. This war, factually, did not have UN mandate and was unilateral action, even NATO does not denies but justifies it, so it is also fact regardless of what Chomsky you dislike so badly thinks.But to your horror even BBC shows more interest in Kooks liek Chomsky that main stream Americans like Bill O'Raily. Not to mention what universities think about those two. But, again, this is not story about Chomsky but about facts that are publicly KNOWN!80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strange that our own article on Chomsky doesn't mention his genocide-denying kookiness. One would also expect that if he was such an unreliable source, he wouldn't be cited so widely on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the Balkans, he is hardly ever cited, except by Srebrenica denialists and Serb apologists (and there are quite alot in this site, especially on articles relating to Kosova). Wikipedia does not like criticism sections, and that is why our own article on Chomsky fails to mention these views. Thannad (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC
 * Ah, that must be it. Those genocide denialists and Serb apologists are really insidious, aren't they?  I've often heard it said here that Wikipedia would be a much better place if they were all rooted out and run off the site for good.  —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct.Thannad (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So Mate, are we moving further or you are still not convinced. Have we agreed that some countries can LOVE independent Kosovo but till you do not do paper work in UN you DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize itBold text. Are we going to wait for pigeons with "messages of desperately waited Independence" to come or we are going to write facts as they are and do some serious business. I see your stance is very NATO colored. You like chopping countries NATO stile, from Iraq to Serbia. Lets close this case and move on to counting how many countries will recognize independence of Scotland, after queen jubilee is over. Seams she will be the "Last Emperor of Scotland". What do you think?80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You helped us understand Albanian democracy. NATO invented democracy for NATO invented country80.61.205.20 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why entering even this discussion here. Chomsky is least issue here. Facts stated has nothing to do with his opinion. It is pure UN count and loudly spoken US foreign policy. Chomsky is frequently guest of universities, public philosophical debates. Its pointless to discuss his qualities expressed by those who are only (un)invited to Wiki(NATO)pedia. This is not forum and not about Chomsky.

'''To help to all. Facts are in bold have nothing to do with Chomsky. Please stick to them. The only reason I mendionted those people is fact that for US to go to war according to US consititution it needs to be approved by congress. It has never been. Regardless of that it is not subject of Kosovo. It was only mentioned as additional hint. If you do not like it delete it. But deal first with facts in BOLD for God sake'''80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down please. Perhaps instead of saying "Its independence is recognised by x UN member states", we should say "Its independence is recognised by x out of 193 UN member states". We don't need to explicitly state the number of non-recognisers - anyone with half a brain can do simple mathematics to work this out. Bazonka (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume everyone with half brain will understand this formulation either: Its independence is NOT RECOGNIZED by x UN member states out of 193" Since you are very honest guy you will for sure see this formulation equally right and will not have problem to do it this way. Unlike you who came with that suggestion I see difference and for me then second option looks better. I offered you strait statement, but then you appeal on other people brains so lets do it then second way stating how many countries DO NOT RECOGNIZE Kosovo Independence out of 193 since anyhow it takes BALLS for those countries NOT TO Recognize Kosovo Independence considering pressure of "World Policeman" allias USA and pressure it mounts to other governments.80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I ✅ with Bazonka. Its independence is recognised by XX UN member states out of 193. Simple inclusion, more information's, more NPOV. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 09:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought we are talking serious things here not voting. Science is not election. I also fail to understand your argument why my formulation is so disagreeable to you. It should be more about arguments and less about emotions and friendships. Could you explain why is way he suggest so much "agreeable" then mine? Why it is so hard to write that there are countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence and so easy that there are those that "recognize it". I undersatnd reasons CNN does not like to state that, it has its propaganda effect. Especially when they state number then accept it and then only mention over and over again that "Serbia and its powerful ally Russia deny it". There one can clearly see propaganda effect it aims to create leaving viewer with feeling that there are broad international consensus and some boring Serbs and Russians who do oppose it.I thought aim of science/encyclopedia is not to create sentiments but report facts with least possible ambiguity. Would you agree? How on earth it is POV to you? 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If we give the total number of UN states, then we are stating how many countries don't recognise. Of course recognition and non-recognition are not as black-and-white as they may seem - there are different shades of non-recognition, from the Serbia-style "will never recognise" to countries like Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, which practically do recognise, but just haven't done so diplomatically. But explicitly talking about non-recognisers, we are giving the false impression that they're all the same. Bazonka (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the same when we say for those that recognize it, because many of those countries are doing it under open pressure of USA and clear disapproval of population. Thus you can avoid also statement of recognizer countries. This is why facts should be stated as they are and then in text you can explain that there are some cases like Cape Verde, but also other types like FYROM, Czech Rep, Poland, Bulgaria, Monte-Negro etc where there is clear public opposition to Kosovo Independence. Some of governments of those countries justified clearly their decision based on ambitions to comply with EU and NATO agenda and not to step on US toes. Regardless of reasons facts are facts and that should be stated. Your reasoning works more against your statement because everyone knows that it was American push that made countries go that road rather then their free will. It was almost commanded from Washington and chronology of events clearly shows it. It is also very clear that many governments who opposed Kosovo independence faced open pressure for US to do so and we all know how much balls and convictions it takes to DO THAT. So please, write the facts. We can put those preceptions, conditions and limitations later on. Not to mention that without UN mandate thus DE FACTO and DE JURE US invaded Serbia (then FRJ) and amputated part of its territory. They justified it with humanitarian reasons but never denied it was not in accordance with UN carta. Unlike them Russians did have UN mandate in Georgia (which arguably is used or abused, but they still had it). NATO never had any mandate and act completely unilaterally. It itself explains determination of US and NATO in pushing this agenda and challenges poor and small countries face to take their stand. Thus, judging honestly, there is much more integrity in using NOT RECOGNIZE countries and mentioning number then RECONGIZE countries and mentioning number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is fact to say how many countries have recognised. It is subjective, and possibly WP:OR, to say why they recognised. Bazonka (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also FACT to say how many countries DID NOT RECOGNIZE IT. It is pure fact verifiable in UNITED NATIONS. Technical problems of tiny island is ridiculous excuse not to do it. Nothing is subjective in statements of American Secretary of states that urges countries to recognize Kosovo, mounts pressure on that. Nothing is subjective in fact that in majority Czech people oppose Kosovo independence, nor when officials from FYROM and MonteNegro state that Kosovo independence is recognized as gesture of NATO/EU solidarity in their own language which I do paraphrase here. Nothing is subjective in American open policy of pressure and lobbying for Kosovo Independence using diplomatic, economic and what not pressure. It is astonishing that your subjectivity can rule in WIKI(NATO)pedia, based on comical example of Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, like Russia, China, India, Argentina, Brasil .... do not mater. But this is true example of NATO BIAS in this WIKIPEDIA. Most of articles more then 95% are sourced in NATO countries sources and even such an obivuous facts easily verifiable by UN data cannot be stated as FACTS based on comical excuse.80.61.205.20 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick count on the International recognition of Kosovo page and found 94 UN member states that have made statements against recognizing Kosovo. Adding this to the 91 that have recognized Kosovo gives us 185. However, there are 193 UN member states. You are assuming that those for whom we have no statement have actually not made a statement of recognition that has not been found and that the lack of a statement of recognition is the same as a statement of non-recognition. I don't see how anything resting on these assumptions can be considered an easily verifiable fact. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. You just formlated it right. So here we go: "102 countries do not recognize Kosovo independace and 91 do recognize it. Out of 102 that do not recognized it 94 have made statements against Independace of Kosovo. Other 8 do not have strong stance or do not oppose it but due to tech and what not reasons did not officially recognize it. Among those 91 who did recognized Kosovo independence, some did it under pressure of USA or did it to comply with NATO and EU majority stand or to enhance their integration into those structures. So what on earth would be wrong with this Khajidha. It look like clear fact easily verifiable. Finally some sense!80.61.205.20 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is wrong is that you are STILL assuming that those 8 have not recognized. It is quite possible that some have, but the news has not reached us. Also, you are making POV assertions that some of the recognizers did so under pressure from the US. This is possible, but you have not provided evidence. Also, you are assuming that the non-recognizers were not pressured to take that position by Russia or some other state. Your statements are thus full of opinions, not verifiable facts. The ONLY verifiable fact there is the number of countries that have explicitly recognized (either through a statement of recognition or through opening relations), which is what is already in the article and is what you are arguing against.--Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * qoute 1: "What is wrong is that you are STILL assuming that those 8 have not recognized. It is quite possible that some have, but the news has not reached us." then you tell me :"Also, you are assuming that the non-recognizers were not pressured to take that position by Russia or some other state.". That is joke of a day. First you speculate to the level of comedy then accuse me of speculation. Listen no one stops you to change counts when "the news come" like pigeon is still flying over Atlantic :-). Till news do not come to UN it is FACT they do not recognize it. Do you understand the difference of political article and scientific fact. Same fact is that there is no Kosovo seat in UN. Is it because some countries do not want it, or because they do not care, or because they care but they are lazy ... that does not matter because DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize it. I am fighting (exposing nonsense) for hours to get basic fact in place and you want me to prove you something way more sophisticated. Look there is plenty of material on Internet about it. Russia does not have more then 5% of NATO GDP nor NATO reach nor its power, neither they bombed anyone on Balkans so yes there is possibility Russia influence some countries but way way less so even common sense is enough to see that coming. Just little bit of digging on internet and you will find many interesting things.80.61.205.20 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Who's the arbiter of what constitutes a country? That needs to be established before one can make any statement as to how many countries have recognized Kosovo.  Thankfully your recent edit does make such an establishment, referring not to "countries" but to "UN member states". —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all of the non-recognising countries have issued statements opposed to recognition. Some have just said stuff like "We're thinking about it," which isn't exactly taking the pro-Serbia side. Whilst recognition shows that the country is definitely taking a side (diplomatically at least), not recognising covers the the pro-Serbia stance, but also the don't care and the about-to-recognise stances. Bazonka (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about taking pro-Serbian side. It is about facts. They can think about it, they can pray on it, but till they do not recognize it they DE FACTO do not recognize it. Similarly some countries that recognize it have strong feeling of reconsidering it. Some where even warned by US not to do it. But it does not matter because they DE FACTO recognize Kosovo independence. I cannot believe I had to expalain this over and over again. WIKIPE-dia si COME-dia.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's the slightest bit relevant to the objection I raised. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because it was a response to Khajidha. Sorry if the paragraphs have got muddled. Bazonka (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So Mate, are we moving further or you are still not convinced. Have we agreed that some countries can LOVE independent Kosovo but till you do not do paper work in UN you DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize itBold text. Are we going to wait for pigeons with "messages of desperately waited Independence" to come or we are going to write facts as they are and do some serious business. I see your stance is very NATO colored. You like chopping countries NATO stile, from Iraq to Serbia. Lets close this case and move on to counting how many countries will recognize independence of Scotland, after queen jubilee is over. Seams she will be the "Last Emperor of Scotland". What do you think?80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The anonymous user named 80.61.205.20 has to immediately stop her/his uncivil and combative language towards other users including the use of bolding and caps lock for shouting at other users. Such behaviour is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. In addition the user cannot legitimately accuse other users of pro-NATO opinions when the user herself/himself clearly has anti-NATO opinions, promoting either stance is in violation of POV. The user has to directly indicate exactly what specific sentences in the article are biased and present reliable sources for discussion to make the article less biased. Unsubstantiated accusations of NATO POV in the article in combination with clearly anti-NATO rhetoric here, alongside uncivil behaviour towards users will not resolve the issues here, and will likely end up in administrative action needing to be taken.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The anon IP from the Netherlands is a bit confused - the queen would be an empress, not an emperor. Also note that the United Nations has nowhere near the military and economic strength of the NATO alliance - if NATO considers Kosovo an independent state, then by every measure that matters, it will be one! As long as the NATO military backs a gov't in Kosovo, "de facto" is the proper term to use. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Box: telephones
Under "calling code" there is currently a footnote which reads:

"Officially +381; some mobile phone providers use +377 (Monaco) or +386 (Slovenia) instead."

Not a NPOV and not strictly true. +381 (Serbia) is the calling code for fixed lines. The only two mobile operators licenced under applicable law in Kosovo, both of them under UNMIK authority under UNSCR 1244 so Serbians cannot dispute their legality, use the Monaco or Slovenian calling codes as part of their licence.

I propose to edit to "+381 (Serbia) for fixed lines; mobile phone providers in Kosovo use +377 (Monaco) +386 (Slovenia)" and to put this in the text instead of as a footnote. --Markd999 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's nothing "NPOV" about a telephone exchange; just say it needs correcting. There's far too much Serb-Kosovar antagonism on the talk pages, this is complete over-exaggeration.  Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Help! I don't know why it has come out as it has! And I don't seem able to undo it --Markd999 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Z oupan 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Serb exodus 1999-2000
Current text reads:

"Some 200,000–280,000, representing the majority of the Serb population, left when the Serbian forces left. There was also some looting of Serb properties and even violence against some of those Serbs and Roma who remained.[110] The current number of internally displaced persons is disputed,[111][112][113][114] with estimates ranging from 65,000[115] to 250,000.[116][117][118] Many displaced Serbs are afraid to return to their homes, even with UNMIK protection. Around 120,000–150,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo, but are subject to ongoing harassment and discrimination due to physical threats for their safety.[119]"

Not NPOV, internally inconsistent, and difficult to support from facts. The 1991 census recorded 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo. It is difficult to see how this could have risen by 1999 to a range of 320,000-430,000 (those who left and those who remain according to this passage). "internally displaced persons" implies a view of Kosovo's status as part of Serbia, as "refugees" would imply a view of Kosovo's status as independent: "displaced persons" would be neutral. Serbian claims of 250,000 people displaced to Serbia from Kosovo may include Roma and - who knows? - even public servants, police, and army personnel deployed in Kosovo temporarily before 1999.

I suggest the following passage as a NPOV replacement, based on the article "Republic of Kosovo" and accepted there as NPOV (with citations):

"Many Serbs (and Roma) left with the Serb forces, or as a result of revenge attacks and occupation of Serb properties in the aftermath of the conflict. Estimates of the number of Serbs thus displaced range from 65,000 to 250,000. Given that the 1991 census recorded only 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo, the higher estimates, if based on fact, must include Roma, Serbs displaced within Kosovo, and perhaps other elements. It is generally agreed by both Serbs and Albanians that the number of Serbs remaining in Kosovo is in the range of 100,000-120,000, although in most urban centres other than North Mitrovica and Kamenica the Serb population is now negligeable. Although, since 2004, the Kosovo Government has been the largest funder of returns projects for displaced persons, the number of such returns remains relatively low, partly due to continued fears of possible violence or harrassment"

--Markd999 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We have numerous sources for this. I strongly disagree with your unsourced suggestion. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter, you have accepted an almost identical text in the "Republic of Kosovo" article. Of course there are numerous sources for the highest figures of displaced persons. There are also sources for the lowest figures of displaced Serbs, which are in fact cited in the current text. The point is that the text should not present as fact the highest figures, and then say that there are much lower estimates. Nor, if the Republic of Serbia (because the 1991 census was carried out by them, after Kosovo autonomy was ended) could record only 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo, should one say without explanation that a much greater number of Serbs than existed in Kosovo in 1991 left in 1999, while at the same time two-thirds of the numbers of Serbs living in Kosovo in 1991 stayed. (Do not think that I underestimate the level of violence or fear of violence that Serbs, whether they left or stayed, had to go through).

If you propose amendments to my proposed edit, I would be happy to consider them. Otherwise I shall go ahead. --Markd999 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are not amendments, i disagree to remove sources, without strong and great ones that says opposite. And i didn't agree on anything on RoK page, as i told you, that was a marathon of edits, and i didnt even followed everything of those. Some of those "agreed" edits will be questioned. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

But I do not intend to remove any sources. The fact is that there are estimates from 65,000 to 250,000+, and of course these must be cited. But you cannot put as a statement of fact in the first sentence that the figure is 250,000+, and then put in later down that estimates vary from 65,000-250,000. And if you accept that the number of Serbs resident in Kosovo in 1991 was 194,000, and I see no reason to doubt that the Serbian Statistical Office carried out the census professionally, then the fact that the number of "Serbs" who left, plus those who stayed, requires some explanation - or at least needs to be noted. --Markd999 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve the history section of this article
As a person of no Balkan descent, but who knows Balkan people and a significant understanding of 20th century history of the Balkans, I am disappointed with the way in which the history section is organized. It is almost completely dedicated to the rivalry and conflict between the Albanians and the Serbs without describing almost any other topics beyond the ethnic nationalist conflict perspective. For instance, it should describe what internationally-significant cultural and scientific achievements were made in Kosovo and/or by people from Kosovo. Again, by cultural I do not mean exclusively the Albanian and Serb culture, but am referring to cultural developments by individuals and groups who may reside in one ethnic group or another, but whose culture significantly influenced the world. Scientific advancements that were created in Kosovo or by people who came from Kosovo will also make this article better balanced in its historical coverage. That is my advice on how to get this article in better shape.--R-41 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to agree, but I fear that it is very difficult to do - not just because of Serbian-Albanian controversy, but because there are very few examples which one can give of people from Kosovo who have had "significantly influenced the world" except in terms of this ethnic conflict - even if, unlike some, I regard the ethnic conflict as having started relatively recently and because of influences outside Kosovo. The obvious exception might be Mother Theresa of Calcutta, both of whose parents may have come from Kosovo and who, undeniably, saw the vision which decided her on her religious vocation. But she was born in Skopje (Macedonia) and mostly brought up in Albania.

Kosovo people, Serbs or Albanians, are (most certainly) not less creative than others. But Kosovo has always been an inland area without navigable rivers; when until the late nineteenth century, trade (and therefore the economy) depended mainly on navigation. So you cannot expect Oxford, Cambridge, la Sorbonne, or Heidelburg in Kosovo's history. --Markd999 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Even including information on significant historic economic, industrial, environmental, and archaeological topics in Kosovo - whether they be internationally or locally significant, would be better than an article focused almost exclusively on the ethnic conflict between Albanians and Serbs.--R-41 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * bobrayner (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ too. There are no one important from there, but there must be something that was there before this conflict. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather ignorant statements above. Trade was done on camels, horseback and other means for centuries without the need for rivers. Places like Prizren were some of the most important centres of Ottoman Europe. Prishtina had Jewish refugees from the Christian reconquista in Spain and Mitrovica was mined since Roman times. Trade couldn't be conducted between the east and west of massive world empires without transversing Kosovo. Obviously there are massive achievements from the people inhabiting Kosovo, the Serb-Albanian 'ethnic' conflict is a recent phenomena. Good suggestion above. Ottomanist (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Granted that there was always trade. But until the invention of the railway it was always, and everywhere, even in the easiest terrain, cheaper to transport goods by water than by land, which meant that where there was only land transport available the goods had to be high value (say, gold from Novo Brdo, or crafts like silverwork from Prizren) and the customers relatively rich, whereas for England in the same period it was possible to export wool in bulk or import wine from Bordeaux or even Spain by sea. Most goods going from (say) Istanbul to the West went by sea, not transversing Kosovo or Macedonia. Kosovo did not end up being the poorest part of former Yugoslavia only because of Serbian or Yugoslav policies! But the article would, I certainly agree, benefit from some reminder that even in the middle ages Kosovo's urban centres were quite cosmopolitan, with Germans, Hungarians, and Jews; and its history is not all about just Serbs and Albanians (just as neither its present nor its future are). --Markd999 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree on a trivial point; I'd argue that there's evidence of overland trade in less valuable goods across much of premodern Europe, and Kosovo is no exception. 15th century Kosovo's main exports were agricultural products and nonprecious metals. If you want to look at ties with other groups of people (not Ottomans, not Serbs) maybe it's worth looking at Ragusan businessmen, Saxon miners &c. And we have barely any coverage of the Byzantine era. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's get back on the main topic, what material on Kosovo's history, beyond the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict, should be mentioned on matters such as economic, industrial, environmental, and archaeological topics in Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is that Kosovo has nominally gone on and off the map several times over the centuries with one huge absence. Its capacity has also varied down the generations, vilayet? Ceremonial unit? Autonomous province? And this all comes before the lack of clarity from 1999 onward. Along with the name having bounced back and forth, so too have the borders. The Kosovo with which everyone associates dates back to 1946 in the FPR Yugoslavia. The last time the region was known was up to the First Balkan War when it was the Vilayet of Kosovo. For what it's worth, Mother Teresa was born in that entity: Skopje 1910 was the capital of that province. It is a little something if nothing else. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not much of a difficulty. History isn't created by names or boundaries. The History section should cover the area that is now Kosovo (although as it didn't exist in a vacuum, it doesn't have to rigidly follow modern borders). CMD (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The easiest thing then is to produce a small section on notable people from Kosovo's towns, you'll find those on the articles. But we just need to keep away from politics. A lot of footballers that represent foreign teams come from Kosovo. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Map
Without any discussion, map was reverted to the non neutral version after years of consensus version by pro-kosovo editor. This contemporary map is non standard, and represent Kosovo as independent UN state, which is of course wrong. That was also his breach of 1RR on this article. Any thoughts? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought this was supposed to be an article about a region, so I question why any state borders are used at all. CMD (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, i agree, but we need a map for location within Europe. Do you have any neutral in mind? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is non-neutral about File:Kosovo in Europe (de-facto).svg? It shows where Kosovo is just fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Kosovo is not independent sovereign state like the rest of those. So, it must not be presented as such, as that fails the consensus we have on this subject. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the map is not to show what status Kosovo has, but where it is. The map does that just fine: territories that are Kosovo are red; territories that are not Kosovo are white. What could possibly be contentious about that? How else could you possibly show where the freaking place is if not by giving it a different colour? The only detail that could possibly have a political implication is the way the borders are shown. Is the northern and eastern boundary of Kosovo shown in the same style as its southern and western boundary? Then it implies it's separate from Serbia. Is it shown in a different style? Then it implies it's part of Serbia. As it happens, it is actually a different style in File:Kosovo in Europe (de-facto).svg, so, if anything, it favours a pro-Serbian view. But that graphic detail is so tiny you can't really see it anyway, at infobox size, so it doesn't matter. I can understand why one might have a problem in deciding what map to use as a locator map of Serbia, but here? No. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oo, that was quite nice explanation. Yes, i agree, that graphic detail is so tiny, and i cannot see it either. But here, on this map, which stands here for years, i CAN (and i am sure that you can too) see it quite clearly. Therefore, this old map is better, and should be placed back, as Kosovo must not be represented as independent sovereign UN stats, as it is not that. For the majority of the world, Kosovo is part of Serbia, and while things are like that, it must stay like that. And specially when it is pushed by nationalist cross wiki fighter. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does it need location in Europe? Is that common for region leads? Balkans just has a map of the Balkans and the immediate surroundings, and there's already one of the infobox. In line with this train of thought, why is the country infobox being used? CMD (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, i agree with that too! We must remove that! Then none will create new problems like this one again. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What, remove the whole infobox? Well, infoboxes must burn in hell, generally speaking, but this does seem to have some useful bits. Or remove just the top map? Well, some locator map is certainly necessary, and I think the locator inset in the – otherwise excellent – File:Kosovo map-en.svg is a bit too small. I agree a locator map on Balkans-only level might be a bit more useful than the Europe-level map we now have, just because it would make the geographical relations to the surrounding states better visible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that country infobox should be removed. Regardless of the map issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the map is not in doubt, and neither is its ability to perform its function. However, what you've got there is a political map, wherein we've highlighted Kosovo alone - which is what we usually do for fully-independent countries. Even fully-independent countries that are part of a union like the EU have other associated countries highlighted in this type of map. Make no mistake: by depicting Kosovo in this manner on a political map we doubtless do imply that its entirely independent.

As stupid as that is - we can't have it up. A possible compromise would be a composite map where in one half we depict Kosovo without highlighting Serbia, and in the other half we do highlight Serbia in a lighter shade of the same colour. I could whip that up right now if its acceptable? -- Director  ( talk )  19:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it would just confuse readers. Interesting idea though. Can't we just take the yellow map, crop to a Kosovo centred bit, and get rid of the lines? CMD (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Get rid of the lines? You mean, of all the country boundaries? No. What use is a locator map if it doesn't locate stuff in relation to what for most readers is the most accessible point of reference – other countries? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I suppose. In my experience when one discusses regions one is usually discussing geographical features, be it plains or mountain ranges or whatever, so something can simply be superimposed over country borders (like in Balkans). I though that if it's a map of a much closer area, that shows the recognisable adriatic, readers could gauge the location of the region, which is all that's usually needed, as regions are generally vaguely defined. Since this article is calling a political area a region, perhaps it goes along with the theme of the article to remove countries altogether. CMD (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Sorry, Director, I normally respect you as a sensible and intelligent person, even when we disagree, but this particular suggestion is so utterly ridiculous I really don't know what to say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No offense taken Future :). Though I could include a caption/legend in the individual segments of the map to explain that one depicts the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" and the other the "Republic of Kosovo". I think if anything it would nicely illustrate to the reader the dispute itself, while, at the same time, showing him "where the bloody hell is it", as it were. I think people have heard that there is some kind of dispute here, and that one of those neighboring countries claims the region - highlighting it could be useful. It would look good I think :). But if people don't like it.. -- Director  ( talk )  19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, any version when Kosovo is not independent state is ok. As it was for years before. Old version was here for long years, i dont see any reason why it should not stay there. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think it is unacceptable to have a map that could be understood as implying that it is independent, why do you think it would be acceptable to have one that implies it is not? If we go down to this level of political obsession, then surely the one implication is just as POV as the other. (The solution, as always, is: stop obsessing, start writing for readers, who don't care.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * O, stop with this, please. Yes, it is unacceptable to have a map where Kosovo is sovereign and independent, but it is acceptable to show that Kosovo is disputed, as Kosovo is disputed. And that's it. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In the end its impossible to put forward a political map that is neutral in a political dispute. The current political map, that completely ignores Serbia and depicts Kosovo just like an independent state, is 100% to the one side of the dispute. Hence, I disagree with its inclusion per WP:NPOV. The only logical solutions that I can see are 1) not using a political map, or 2) using two political maps, each depicting one view. I would propose we try the latter and put together an elegant two-part image that includes in-map captions explaining the two conflicting political views. I don't think its that crazy, esp. considering we don't really have much choice. -- Director  ( talk )  19:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Two separate maps is out. Absolutely no freaking way. That would simply make us all look like idiots. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahaha, yes i agree, that would be quite too much. But what is wrong with old map? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing, except that it is too small and the color scheme is not clear enough. On my screen, it was showing Kosovo as little more than two or three pixels in a barely discernible colour. As for the question of whether or not to show Serbia shadowed, I personally actually don't care. Although, if I were to take your political POV sensitivities seriously (i.e. acknowledge the need to avoid showing Kosovo as an independent country), I'd be forced to also take the other side's political sensitivies seriously in just the same way (i.e. acknowledge the need to avoid showing it not as one). As I said, the only solution is to ruthlessly trample over both sensitivities, wherever we encounter them, and simply choose the map that is graphically most pleasing and easiest to read, and for no other reason than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ahahahaha..."? -.-
 * Then the only other course of action that I can see is no political map. Which means we can either have no image, or we can use some kind of non-political map with Kosovo vaguely pointed out.. I don't know. Though, mind you, I do not think two political maps would "make us look like idiots" - if there are two valid political maps (one showing Kosovo as independent, the other as part of Serbia).


 * Though, I must point out, I'm not suggesting two images, I'm suggesting a single two-part composite map. -- Director  ( talk )  20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How would a composite map not just be very confusing? We should provide readers with clear simple information, not politically correct pandering. CMD (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't make it confusing, obviously... Otherwise, lets have the old map back until there's some semblance of a WP:CONSENSUS for the edit. Apparently what's wrong with the old map is that "Kosovo ≠ Serbia" . Which kinda ignores the point of view that "Kosovo = Serbia".. textbook case really. -- Director  ( talk )  20:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How's this for a rationale? This article, supposedly, is about a region. How do we show a region? We highlight it. We don't have to highlight any particular country. If we have a shaded Serbia, then we're clearly noting it's in Serbia. If we don't shade anything, it could be a highlighted part of Serbia for all we know, or it could be another state. Given this, a map which just highlights Kosovo and nothing else should be used. CMD (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. Plus, the present map actually has both: it just highlights Kosovo, for the reasons you state, and (if you look closely) it makes a subtle distinction between the boundaries towards Serbia and those towards the other neighbouring territories. Which is okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fut.Perf. "..the only solution is to ruthlessly trample over both sensitivities, wherever we encounter them, and simply choose the map that is graphically most pleasing and easiest to read, and for no other reason than that." - Again, there's a serious flaw in that line of thinking: you'd only be trampling over one "sensitivity".


 * @Davis. The same problem. It doesn't matter which logic you use to arrive at a conclusion - if the conclusion is not in-line with WP:NPOV. -- Director  ( talk )  20:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how it fails NPOV to highlight a region on a map. By ignoring countries, it even follows the whole point behind the creation of this page. CMD (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So, do we use the clearer map except with Serbia highlighted in light gray? -- Director  ( talk )  20:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we'd be trampling over the other side's sensitivities. What makes you think that would be preferable (apart from the fact they are not yours)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps not as much. Note: the "standard" way of depicting a province of a country is not to use a map of Europe at all (have a look at Vojvodina for a rather obvious example, or Trentino, or Papua..). And if we use a map of Europe for a province (rare), we highlight its country in a lighter shade of green (or whichever colour we're using). As I've said before, its impossible to have a completely neutral single political map - but I think a light grey-highlighted Serbia is about as close as we'll get.. seeing as how light grey is as close to white as it gets.


 * The way I see things, we've moved from a non-neutral political map that's trying to be neutral (that doesn't strongly favor the Serbian side), to a blatantly pro-Albanian POV map. -- Director  ( talk )  20:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You could just as well see it exactly the other way round. If we don't shade Serbia, we are making no statement about their political relation or non-relation at all – the only thing we're saying is that Kosovo is here, and everything around it is not Kosovo. If we do shade Serbia, we are making a statement – namely, that there is a relation between them. If anything, that is taking sides. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, a 'map of Europe with Kosovo highlighted and Serbia in light grey' seems objectively very far from a map like this or this. Whereas it seems only a small step from a 'map of Europe with Kosovo highlighted and Serbia completely white'. So no, I don't think its an entirely reciprocal situation. At best, we're moving from a biased map to a completely biased map. I can't conceive of any valid logical argument that would maintain this political map is somehow less biased.


 * In addition, it seems useful from an educational, encyclopedic perspective to highlight where this "Serbia" is that's claiming the region. -- Director  ( talk )  20:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Claims? Shouldn't that be something for the Republic of Kosovo article? This one describes a region. CMD (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case we shouldn't use a political map at all.. But since we are, its pointless to make a distinction on that basis. -- Director  ( talk )  20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The existence of this article is based on a distinction of that basis. CMD (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the borders of Kosovo and the (claimed) borders of the RoK are identical, so it doesn't help to make that distinction when using a political map (which could not be said for, say, Silesia or Macedonia). -- Director  ( talk )  20:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the result of trying to create a "region" article about a political area, I suppose. Kosovo is a political area, which means that many will automatically see any map with it shown as political (and they may be right). However, because of the basis of the article, we have to make that distinction. A macedonia which is perfectly congruent with a claimed country, I suppose. CMD (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree with that.. Kosovo is a region. The borders in their present state were (un)fortunately created around the historical boundaries of the region of Kosovo. Its not merely a political area.. if anything, the latter was built around the former. The Republic of Macedonia is a political area as well, but since it isn't identical with the region there's no problem of this sort (and the Macedonia region is perhaps an even more disputed Balkans area, a five-sided dispute, no less!). -- Director  ( talk )  21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "region" holds inherent flexibility (except when it's a proper name, such as for French subdivisions), so the fact we're dealing with a place with delineated boundaries makes it a political area. CMD (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) The only reason we are using a "political" map (i.e. one that shows country borders) is, as I said, the fact that for most readers countries are the most natural and most accessible frame of reference for locating stuff. – But, now that I think of it, and as you mention the argument about the "encyclopedic information" of "where this 'Serbia' is", there's another argument that might lead me to come down in favour of the shadowing: since this is the article not merely about the present-day status of Kosovo but also about its history, one might argue it makes sense to show it in relation to a territory to which, undoubtedly, it did belong until recently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FPS, this "new" map is here without any consensus of agreement. If you finds it questionable, then propose new solution, but old map must be restored, until new consensus. Revert your self, your breached 1RR rule on this article, and you may be reported for that. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

From a neutral observer's point of view, how about File:Kosovo in its region.svg? It neither highlights Serbia nor Albania but only Kosovo, and it presents Kosovo in a closer region (eastern Mediterrean) than the "Kosovo in Europe" maps. If you apply the 500px zoom or higher, you'll find that it has two different styles of political borders: solid lines for sovereign states and a dashed line at the Kosovo/Serbia proper border. I think this could be a politically unobtrusive and graphically appealing compromise. De728631 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to give Serbia the lightest shade of grey there. While it is different from a map of Europe, the main point of contention is the sole highlighting of Kosovo. And the dashed line is, unfortunately, not visible (and if it were, I fear the map would then be unacceptable from the Albanian point of view). -- Director  ( talk )  21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It is too similar with this map which is pushed without any agreement at the moment on the page. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me; again, purely on grounds of readability and graphical clarity of information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm withdrawing here. WhiteWriter and his buddy Antidiskriminator just started yet another disruptive attempt to rename an article to a distinctly pro-Serbian nationalist title. The very fact I'm agreeing with WhiteWriter thus makes me feel like I should perhaps re-evaluate my position.. -- Director  ( talk )  21:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, DIREKTOR, you are not agreeing with me, but with your common sense. Dont leave conversation, nothing good will go out of that. Each page for its self. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Points taken. I assume though that the physical map shown in the infobox is not disputed. It does has a small embedded locator map showing "this map in Europe". So do we even need a seperate map for the region? Those who'd like to see a geographical context can click the thumbnail of the physical map for a full view and check the embedded locator map. If there's so much discontent with either version of a regional map then let's not have that at all. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, i agree. That would be the best and easiest solution. ✅ to remove the map. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think an intermediate level of locator – between the detailed physical map and its own locator inset, which is tiny – is useful. The purpose is to allow the reader to visualize the place in relation to the surrounding countries, which neither of the two others do. I don't agree with the easy way out of destroying useful reader-friendly information merely because it conflicts with the political over-sensitivities of a few editors here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we keep a locator, I think the in its region map would be better than the Europe one, being much easier to obtain detail from at a quick glance. CMD (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I among others disagree with this wrong map, per reasons explained above. I insist to restore consensus version until all users agree on new one. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 10:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What you call the "consensus version" actually doesn't even get the basic geographical facts right. As somebody noticed on the AN discussion you opened yesterday [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=507147697&oldid=507146056], the geographic shape it shows is simply in the wrong place. So, no, now that we know this, that map is out completely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, and how about a map which looks like first one (standard version) comprise the area of third one, and have shaded Serbia? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 10:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would be an improvement. If we want pure geographic facts and no political implications, then the only clean solution is no colouring except for that which shows us where Kosovo itself is. No colouring = no political claims. Colouring = political claims. It is as simple as that, and you can shout and holler and refuse to listen until you're blue in the face. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are again distorting the facts. Borders = political connotations, not colors. I added new proposed map above. Then, if you are so fond of no coloring, remove red color from this map. I would agree on that then. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 10:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have crossed the line into "WP:IDHT" territory, so this discussion is now over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And you have failed WP:POINT long time ago, but people must live with that. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 10:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fut.Perf.; I think the new map is clearly better. This is an article about Kosovo; let's have a map showing Kosovo; simple. Personally, I'm quite surprised that WhiteWriter pushed so hard and so long for a kosovo-the-disputed-state article to be separate from the kosovo-the-area-of-land article... and then feels that the latter article must have a map which shows as part of the Serbian state. bobrayner (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is unfortunately not neutral, as you insisted that Kosovo is independent and neutral state like France or Germany. Therefor, your view is not neutral, but highly pro Kosovo. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 10:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time you tried to exclude the input of those who do not agree with your stance on Kosovo; you really ought to stop that. It's rather corrosive to the wikipedia way of editing. I realise that it's much easier to get a consensus if you can silence the people who disagree with you, but the repeated polls to split the article are far behind us. Anyway, back on topic: This is an article about Kosovo, so let's have a map which shows Kosovo. It's quite simple. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo under Communist Yugoslavia
The present text has this rather odd sentence about the 1974 Constitution:

"Kosovo was granted major autonomy, allowing it to have its own administration, assembly, and judiciary; as well as having a membership in the collective presidency and the Yugoslav parliament, in which it held veto power."

But it did not have veto power in the Yugoslav Parliament, and it already had membership there (for what that would have been worth under Rankovic!).

What I propose to replace this with is:

"Kosovo was granted major autonomy, with its own government, assembly and judiciary, as well as representation in the collective Yugoslav presidency on an equal basis with the Republics; while it remained an Autonomous Province of Serbia, as well as a federal unit of Yugoslavia, it had a right of veto over any Serbian legislation which affected Kosovo" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Provisional Institutions of Self-Government
Current text reads:

"However, since 1999, the Serb-inhabited areas of Kosovo, such as North Kosovo have remained de facto independent from the Albanian-dominated government in Pristina. Local politics in the Serb areas are dominated by the Serbian List for Kosovo and Metohija. The Serbian List is led by Oliver Ivanović, an engineer from Mitrovica. Within Serbia, Kosovo is the concern of the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija, currently led by minister Goran Bogdanović.[136]"

Very outdated, and not an NPOV anyway. The SLKM has ceased to exist. So has the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija. I would suggest as a replacement:

"The Serbian Liberal Party (SLS), led by Slobodan Petrovič, is the dominant force in all Serb-majority municipalities south of the River Ibar, and is a coalition partner in the Kosovo Government. Turn-out in local elections in these municipalities approaches turn-out in most Albanian-majority municipalities. North of the River Ibar the picture is different. Turn-out in local elections organised under Kosovo applicable law is almost zero and the de facto authorities in these municipalities continue to reject Kosovo's Government"

--Markd999 (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A Tsar or Prince
Current text reads:

"In the 1389 Battle of Kosovo, Ottoman forces defeated a coalition of Serbs, Albanians, and Bosnians led by the Tsar Lazar Hrebeljanović.[45][46]"

How pathetic. Every other Wikipedia or other text that I can access refers to Lazar as a Prince, not a Tsar. It is not clear whether this was an Ottoman victory (it was, after all, the first time that a reigning Ottoman Sultan was killed or captured after a battle, and we do not know which side retired first, which was then the sign of "victory" in essentiually drawn battles) --Markd999 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the wording. Hope that helps? bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It does. Thanks.

--Markd999 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

History
Current text reads:

"The Kosovo Albanians claim that the Illyrians, whom they claim as their direct ancestors, were the majority population in the region, and continued to be so throughout history despite failing to create any 'national institutions' in Kosovo until modern times and despite encroachments on their native territories.[27] The Serbians deny this claim.[28][29] Moreoever, they argue that, even if there is some linguistic connection between the pre-Slavic population of "Dardania" and modern Albanians, this cannot be used to justify modern territorial aspirations since it relies on territorial claims from pre-Migration Age Europe, at a time where there were no states or nations as we know them today.[30] Serbian claims to Kosovo extend even farther than the migrations dated to c. 6–7th century, on the account of admixture with preexisting Illyrians and Roman populations and their preservation of certain of their customs.[31]"

I do not think that this is entirely NPOV or fairly reflects educated Kosovo Albanian opinion. Noel Malcolm's "Short History" is widely available in translation in Kosovo, is accepted by most as the best history of Kosovo, and concedes (as indeed some previous Kosovo Albanian historians had done) that for much of the later middle ages and even the early modern period people with Slavic names and speaking Slavic were in the majority. There is (see articles on "History of Kosovo" or "Genetic Studies of Serbians") evidence that a substantial part of the genetic inheritance of both modern Serbs and Albanians pre-dates any Indo-European language group (as is the case almost everywhere elsewhere in Europe). The central historical case put forward by Kosovo Albanians in the 1990s was that existing "Illyrians/Albanians" had been Slavised during Serbian rule in the middle ages, and the final sentence of this section, citing Serbian claims, goes some way towards accepting this.

History is generally misused to support different national claims, but very few Albanians in Kosovo would accept that a linguistic connection between ancient Illyrian and modern Albanian was the primary basis of their territorial aspirations, any more than a Wendish Sorb in East Germany would seriously think that history justified or made realistic a claim to be an independent state controlling a large part of present Germany. The Kosovo Albanian claim to independence rests on the claims that those with an Albanian identity today (whatever their ancestry) form an overwhelming part of the population, which I think no-one would deny; and that they have been regularly treated by Belgrade with brutality or discrimination, which few outside Serbia would deny either.

I cannot see that this particular section (as opposed to the detailed historical sections which follow) adds anything. It is consciously slanted towards present Serb/Albanian political issues, something which as a historian I find grossly unprofessional. I propose to delete it, as the simplest solution.

Markd999 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. This would require quite extensive reworking to be anything near legitimate. For one thing, it ascribes historical opinions and arguments to "the Albanians" and "the Serbs", collectively, which is extremely inappropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Map removal
I am proposing to remove current map of Kosovo, and leave only Kosovo physical map per several reasons. First, as map does not have shaded Serbia, it imply that Kosovo is not disputed, nor pert of Serbia for the majority of the world, but only independent, which is wrong per WP:NPOV, and current Kosovo status. Yes, this is article about region, but as we cannot present this fact in neutral faction, we should remove the problem. Then, this map is exquisitely ugly, and it is not used anywhere on wikipedias, i suppose per its questionable quality. Map is also tilted, as you may see from the locations of eastern countries, and comparation with some other maps. Then, Kosovo physical map have its own locator, and that one can be used without any further problems. Who wants to know more about locations, have several articles in the lede. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 11:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. We are not going to destroy useful, reader-friendly information just because of the intransigent political hyper-sensitivities of a few editors who think that any presentation that fails to explicitly favour their view is ipso facto non-neutral. No stop beating the dead horse; your level of stubbornness is disruptive and I will have to report you at AE for the sheer tediousness of your refusal to listen if you continue like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont see any problem with normal dispute resolution process. As far as i see, only you disagree to remove this problematic and non neutral map, while several users agreed or proposed removal, so we will see what neutral users say about that. Problem can be avoided also, if not fixed. What we should do, as map is not useful, reader-friendly in its current form... And we already have that in physical map. Lets see, FPS, it may be useful for all of us. And i would be much more informed just to see at least someone neutral. That is the main reason for this... Also, i would propose you to calm a bit down, all of this is not so much important at the end, so lets keep it communicative and peaceful. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 11:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I tend to agree with FPS regarding your stubbornness. In the discussion above, you seem to be the only one not interested in a compromise but you keep insisting on your point of view. Several editors have already objected to removing a regional map, so let me propose another solution that might as well display the disputed status of Kosovo. A map similar to this could be created that highlights both Serbia and Albania in complementary colours and Kosovo in a mixed colour, e.g. light blue, pink and purple. That way we'd represent both sides of the medal. De728631 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's well-intentioned, but I don't think it would work. There is no competing viewpoint that Kosovo belongs to Albania. Either it's part of Serbia, or it isn't part of anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am quite sorry you think that, De728631, as i really want to compromise, but i am afraid that highlighting Albania would be very wrong. Albania is not participating in the medal. There are several views. Kosovo is Serbia (Serbian POV, Kosovo presented in the same color as Serbia), Kosovo is independent (Kosovo Albanian POV, Only Kosovo highlighted, as it is now) And Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (This is my POV, and by that i would somehow show that Kosovo is de facto independent, but officially is largely unrecognized.) That was the reason for highlighting Serbia, with Kosovo in main color. This was done following agreement we had on this page. I would really appreciate opinion on this, as it looks like to me we are all talking in the same direction, but only disagreeing in the technical way to achieve that. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No-one would show Kosovo in the same colour as Serbia in a map of Kosovo. That would be highly inconvenient, as an understatement. CMD (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just tried to play around with Inkscape and I now think that a multi-coloured version would be unsuitable for colour-blind people anyway. So either we shade Kosovo and Serbia in different hues or we only highlight Kosovo and are left with the question of how to represent the borders. As to previous agreements, consensus can change, and since you mentioned de-facto-independence let's have a look at the existing options. Commons:SVG locator maps of Kosovo (location map scheme) has some "de facto" maps which are either not readable at all or look quite similar to the current map. And then there is File:Kosovo in Balkans.png which looks like it would suit all requirements of neutrality since all surroundings are highlighted alike with no country being preferred or neglected – a non-political map that only shows Kosovo in its region, something we'd like to have here. And then there's also File:Kosovo in Europe (less biased).svg showing an unobtrusive Serbia in the background but then the map's frame is again all of Europe and the grey on blue combination makes it look awkward at small sizes (200px or so). De728631 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * this is great for me. Here may be questioned why is entire Balkan highlighted, it looks like a federation, or European union style map... So, what do you propose at the end, De728631? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 14:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And i created same map, but in our wished size. This one is also great for me, it is colour-blind friendly per lines, and it represent only Balkan as agreed. Kosovo in Balkan.png -- WhiteWriterspeaks 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the hatching supposed to do, and how do you believe it is different from just highlighting? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read this discussion. De728631 said that multi-coloured version would be unsuitable, and that is ok for me. Also, it look less biased then any map presented before this one. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 14:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. What is the hatching meant to express? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing already explained, that region of Kosovo is disputed between two political entities. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How would hatching in an area outside Kosovo express any such thing? It just doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it represent other political entity. That is the way to present both sides. One side is just Kosovo, other side is Serbia with Kosovo. As this is about Kosovo, that region is in main color. Without it, there is no way to present any dispute, in a easy understanding way. That is the reason why is this map more neutral than that one in the article. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(outdent): Look, here's a very simple free lesson about map design. If you want to use hatching between two colours in order to express an uncertain or disputed status of something, it only works if the hatched area contrasts with two adjacent areas represented by the two pure colours in question. Say, you have a solid red area that stands for "X", and a solid blue area that stands for "Y", then a hatched red-blue area may be understood as "not-quite-X-and-not-quite-Y". Easy. Here, you have a solid gray area (meaning "territories that are not Kosovo"), and you have a white-and-gray hatched area. But where's the solid white area for it to contrast with, and if there was one, what would it mean? "A territory that is not Kosovo, but of which Kosovo is a part"? If you had such an area, then a hatched one would mean "A territory that some consider Kosovo to be a part of while others don't". But you don't have one, so the reader has no way of understanding what you mean by your stripes. Without this contrast, hatching is just another fancy way of highlighting. You've already been told why you can't have highlighting; this version changes nothing about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not "just another fancy way of highlighting". It serves to distinct the territory of Serbia without Kosovo from the rest of the world.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely what highlighting in a solid colour does too. Duh. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is completely irrelevant data! We are disusing minor, non important fragment, and i think that you are just moving away from the subject. You should show your own will to compromise, and tell what we can create in order to replace this map. You are talking bad thinks about my stubbornness, and you first didn't show even smallest compromise toward different opinions. I will never agree on blank map of kosovo, presented like independent sovereign state as it is now. Absolutely everything else is open to agreement. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 15:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's only one way that readers are likely to interpret that image; that Kosovo is in some way a part of Serbia. Which is why it is inherently non-neutral, incompatible with the situation on the ground, and should not be used. All the other territories on that map are made "distinct" from Kosovo by the simple expedient of shading them grey; since this article is about Kosovo rather than Serbia, I cannot fathom why Serbia should be made some other colour. bobrayner (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said before, File:Kosovo in Balkans.png (→) seems to be the best solution for me since it avoids all political bias by highliting the Balkans peninsula as such (one might argue that Romania are missing) but it does not give weight to anything in terms of Kosovo vs Serbia. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That map looks reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as reasonable as the one we have now – but I'm not really sure why we would want to highlight the Balkan countries, as a group. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points. I'd be happy to keep the current File:Kosovo in its region.svg too. To remove the map completely would be unhelpful for readers. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Highlighting the Balkan region is not a good idea. That way readers could be mislead to believe that Balkan States are unified in some kind of federation to which Kosovo belongs. Highlighting Serbia would not be against NPOV, but taking in consideration note about territorial dispute, would be informative to the readers. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point with the entire Balkans highlighted. But if Serbia is marked too I suggest that an informative caption is provided along with the map. E.g. "Map of the Balkan Peninsula. Kosovo (red) is a disputed region claimed by Serbia (hatched)." How's that? De728631 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, by me! Sure, if you ask me, i again agree on that. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole article is basically nothing but a great big disclaimer about the disputed status; the status issue is right in the intro paragraph, and you want to add yet another disclaimer note just to the freaking locator map?!? Really, how ridiculous can it get? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On that note, if the status is already mentioned in the intro then we only need a caption along "Location of Kosovo and Serbia in the Balkans" if that map is chosen. I'm fine with either map version, without any personal preferences or prejudice. but any of you guys should be willing to give in and accept a compromise. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @De728631, I also agree with your proposal to provide informative caption along with the map.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to accept some sort of shaded or status map if this article was meant to describe something which has a disputed status. However, it's not. This article was created on the premise that Kosovo is an area that is so much more than a dispute, and it was split to form the separate Republic of Kosovo article, which is about the disputed entity. To push this split through multiple discussions, and then to desire what was supposed to be an article not about the disputed entity to have a map showing the dispute, seems highly contradictory. Proverbially, you can't have your cake and eat it too. CMD (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks and canvassing and forum-shopping are a Bad Thing. Please don't do that. bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed that, and you have no rights to search it and post it after i deleted it. Canvasing?!, user already participated on AN/I... And multiple issues should be addressed on different places, as it can be seen in wiki guidelines. And you should not STALKING my edits, that is even worse then anything you falsely listed on my behalf. And again, nothing useful from your side, only attacks, and bad faith toward me, as numerous times before. Very bad wiki attitude, it is not strange that people are leaving this page. At the end, i really cannot participate in this anymore. De728631 finally proposed something that can be good for all, and i hope that this horror is over. I am off for today, it was too much anyway... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been pointed to WP:CANVAS before. Picking one person out of a discussion who you think most likely to agree with you, then going to that editor's talkpage to ask for help here, is canvassing. That's a bad habit, and you should stop it now. (Using emails would be worse, of course). bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really AGF to suggest the message on my talk page was canvassing, rather than seeking a neutral opinion. I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of dispute over the status of the territory, nor do I wish to have one, and I certainly have no wish to express one on Wikipedia.  It was, however, clear what WhiteWriter was objecting to, on AN/I, though it could have been expressed more explicitly.  The issue of choosing or making a map that shows Kosovo as neither a nation-state nor an administrative subdivision seems to be the point.   This resolves primarily into the question of how the putative internal borders are displayed, as national or sub-national and for this I would suggest simply colouring the borders of Kosovo with the colour used for the entity itself, this neatly side-steps the question as far as the image is concerned.  Hope that helps. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC).


 * As far as borders are concerned (rather than shading of territories), I'd be happy with either the current image (dotted border), or with your suggestion (no separately-coloured border line at all). Either would be fine by me. bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In all versions we've discussed so far, the boundaries towards Serbia are in fact already shown differently than the outer ones on the other side, i.e. in accord with the Serbian view, but that's apparently not good enough for WW. As for making the boundaries themselves the same colour as the highlighted territory, it's an interesting idea but I'm afraid it would be suboptimal, because, given the extreme relative thickness of the boundary lines at this small resolution, colouring them in red would have the visual effect of making the territory appear significantly larger than it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I am not suggesting we flood-fill the borders, but use a rather more refined approach. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

Hi, I'm the author of some maps mentionend in this discussion. If you were missing one map in Commons:Category:SVG locator maps of Kosovo (location map scheme), please tell me at my Commons talk page as long you idea matches my overall color scheme. I'm convinced that I could translate your proposals into alternative maps. I tried to create various maps reflecting the different views on the Kosovo. I won't tell you what map to use or which map is right or wrong - that's up to you. One question that was asked above: what's the point of grey-yellow hatch marks (cf. File:Kosovo in Europe (less biased).svg or File:Kosovo and Metohija in Serbia (Kosovo semi-independent).svg)? That's bascially the logical development when you stick to my color scheme. It means that the Kosovo is either not part of Serbia (if only grey stripes are taken into account) (exactly like let's say File:Montenegro in Europe.svg cleary states that Montenegro is sovereign) or that Kosovo is part of Serbia (if only yellow stripes are taken into account) like let's say Vojvodina is a subterritory of Serbia. (cf. File:Vojvodina in Serbia.svg = File:Kosovo and Metohija in Serbia.svg/File:Kosovo in Europe (non-independent).svg). File:Kosovo in Europe (less biased).svg shows whole Europe. Thus the latter map tends to underline the fact that Kosovo possibly could be independent while File:Kosovo and Metohija in Serbia.svg implies that Kosovo is more likely a part of Serbia. You see: the size of the area shown also matters. The more Wikipedia users are used to this color scheme, the more likely user understand the political implications of such maps. But, and that may be important, the English Wikipedia doesn't adopt this color scheme quickly. So please take into account that English readers may not understand the map concept as easily as - let's say - Norwegian or German users.--TUBS (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I've come late to this discussion, but I've been busy elsewhere and just noticed it at WikiProject Serbia. My preference would be for [[File:Kosovo in its region.svg]] to remain in place. This article already makes it clear that Kosovo's status is disputed. I do not see the need for the map to have a caption also pointing to the dispute. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the original problem. The map shades Kosovo and only Kosovo. I don't see how this makes a statement either way as far as independent vs part of Serbia. And, yes, I do know that location maps for subnational entities generally have the nation they are part of shaded and I find it just as pointless and stupid on those maps. --Khajidha (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

37,000 families?
The article currently includes the following sentence in the Ottoman Kosovo (1455-1912) section: "In 1690, the Serbian Patriarch of Peć Arsenije III apparently led a group of 37, 000 families from Kosovo to the Christian north,[55] although, this might have been around 30 – 40, 0000 individuals.[56]" Checking the footnotes given, note 55 states "The Serbs. Sima Cirkovic. Blackwell Publishing. Pg 144 Patriarch Arsenije III claimed that 30,000 people followed him (on another occasion the figure was 40, 000)" while note 56 merely refers to "Anscombe, Frederick F. (2006). The Ottoman empire in recent international politics – II: the case of Kosovo. The International History Review 28 (4) 758–793." Does the specific claim of 37,000 families (which would be a much higher number of individuals) actually appear in the source text? If so, why does the footnote not specifically mention it? Judging by what is shown here, both sources would seem to indicate a total of 30,000 - 40,000 people. I am bringing the issue to the talk page for clarification before changing the sentence. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The figure of 37,000 "families" appears only in one monastic source, I think about one hundred years after the event. Patriarch Arsenije wrote, at the time, of variously 30,000 and 40,OOO "souls", i.e. individuals. Serbian historians in the nineteenth century took up the monastic source as an explanation of why the "Cradle of Serbia" seemed to have so few Serbs - a "Great Migration" had taken place. Go ahead and change the sentence; but Serbians seem even more attached than other South East Europeans to the idea that history is a "science" which contains absolute truth, and that the version they learnt as children is the absolute absolute truth. Why they do not go back to pre-Einstein physics or even pre-Galileo physics, if they do not accept that the search for truth involves finding things which reverse their received ideas, is beyond me. But I can only think of one Serbian Professor that I have met who might have said, like a Cambridge physics professor who had to introduce a visiting lecturer who proved that his career had been entirely in defence of a false idea: "Mr X has just proved that the theory I have been teaching for 30 years is wrong. I congratulate him with all my heart, and look forward to real progress in this field".

I bet your change gets undone.

--Markd999 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

First World War
Current text reads:

"In 1918, the Serbian Army pushed the Central Powers out of Kosovo."

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but this is absurd. There is much to admire about the Serbian military performance and the suffering of the Serbian people during the First World War, but the idea that the Serbian Army alone marched from the Greek border with present Macedonia into Kosovo and Serbia is mad. Most of the troops were French.

Easiest and shortest edit: "In 1918, the Allied Powers....." Markd999 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed, although the most precise and accurate would probably be, "In 1918, a combined Franco-Serbian army defeated the forces of the Central Powers in Kosovo."

Languages
Current text reads:

"The native dialect of the Kosovar Albanian population is Gheg Albanian, although Standard Albanian is now widely used as an official language.[168][169] Serbian is the next most common, spoken as a first language by 5–7% of the population. According to the draft Constitution of Kosovo, Serbian is also an official language.[170] Other minority languages in Kosovo include Turkish, Gorani and the other Serbo-Croatian languages.[citation needed]"

Another absurdity. The Constitution (not a draft) of Kosovo, like the Constitutional Framework before it, makes Standard Literary Albanian an official language; it's not just "widely used" (although it may be badly used: it is). Serbian is also an official language, under the Constitutional Framework and the Constitution (it is also badly used). The wording of this section suggests that Turkish is a Serbo-Croatian language. Personally, I have no problem in accepting that Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin are all basically the same language, but others do: and Macedonians seem to think that the Gorani all speak Macedonian. Incidentally, there also the Roma, Ashkali, and Egyptians, whose languaage(s) seem to me to pose insupersble problems for this article if one were to reflect reality.

Proposed change:

"Official languages in Kosovo are standard literary Albanian and Serbian. Laws are also published in English. Other minority languages include Turkish, Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Gorani and Romani. The dialect of most Kosvar Albanians is Gheg Albanian, which involves significant difefrences between generally spoken language and officially written" Markd999 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, ✅. This is non controversial for me... But you must use references for this. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Referendum on Independence
Current text reads

"An advisory referendum on accepting the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo was held in the Serb-dominated regions of north Kosovo on 14 and 15 February 2012.[147] The referendum was held in Zubin Potok, Zvečan and Kosovska Mitrovica on both days, while Leposavić voted on 15 February. The voting ran from 7:00 to 19:00 on both days.[148] 15 February is also symbolically Serbia's National Day. The result saw 99.74% of voters reject the writ of the Republic of Kosovo's institutions and only 69 supporters. [edit]Geography"

Factually incorrect, not NPOV, and with absurdities. Personally, I don't mind a reference to the referendum. But under Serbian law, Kosovska Mitrovica includes South Mitrovica with its overwhelmingly Albanian majority, and the referendum was certainly not held there. Who cares what the voting times were, unless they were grossly abnormal? Who cares, if the referendum results were as reported, whether there was a special symbolic value for Serbs in the day chosen for voting? What might be relevant is who organised the referendum, who was entitled to vote, and who counted the votes (not that I think that a majority of Serbs in these areas would, even without intimidation, have chosen to accept the institutions of Kosovo, but as a democratic exercise this is still pretty dubious). 79.126.141.251 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence
Current text includes:

"The Serb minority of Kosovo, which largely opposes the declaration of independence, has formed the Community Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija in response. The creation of the assembly was condemned by Kosovo's president Fatmir Sejdiu, while UNMIK has said the assembly is not a serious issue because it will not have an operative role.[138]"

I doubt whether this is relevant, and do not even know whether the CAKM even formally exists any more. I do not suppose that many Serbs actually supported the declaration of independence, but many south if the Ibar were resigned to it and cannot now be described as "opposed" to it. I propose to delete, unless convinced that the assembly has areal existence and a real de facto role. Markd999 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose. This way their way of resistance, and this is important data, no matter if CAKM exist anymore or not... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 08:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it might have been important if the CAKM had actually done anything that anyone can remember, other than denounce the Declaration of Independence. But it didn't, and the article should not imply that it still exists or has ever had any functionality. The resistance to Kosovo independence of Serbs north of the Ibar is perfectly well documented elsewhere in the article. The point of the CAKM was to demonstrate that Serbs south of the Ibar shared their point of view, as I expect many or most did, and some Serbs from the South joined the CAKM (it cannot be demonstrated that they were very representative, but they were representative enough of Serbs south of the Ibar not to endorse anything beyond suggesting that Serbs should not recognise the Kosovo institutions). So even if Jakšič wanted something which would be more than headlines for a day or two, he did not get it.Markd999 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable source about that, or not? If yes, bring them here. If not, your observation is just OR, so... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong in talk being about own opinion (that's what talk is!), though own opinionshould not be in edits. But has CAKM decided anything, or even met again, since its first meeting? Do you have any reliable source on this? There are very obvious difficulties in deciding who can claim to represent the Serb minority in Kosovo (no census data until recently, two sets of elections - Kosovo and Serbian -, the question of whether displaced people outside Kosovo should be included as the Serb minority "in" Kosovo, as they were at least in UNMIK times, etc etc). So I was not going to challenge the first four words as being not NPOV. And I do not in any way challenge the view that almost all Serbs in Kosovo would prefer Kosovo to be in Serbia if this could be achieved in a way which was stable and did not provoke conflict again. But the present text implies that CAKM exists in reality, and functions at least in some rudimentary way, if not as an administrative body then at least as a voice of those Serbs who have not decided to come to an accommodation with the Pristina Government. But I have not seen a single source since 2008 which suggests that this is the case. The article already accepts that all Serbs found the Declaration of Independence unacceptable/very unpalatable/sad even if inevitable (some spectrum of opinion existed but I have only met one Serb who was prepared to say that Kosovo should be independent), and that no Serb representatives were prepared to vote for it, CKAM is irrelevant.Markd999 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources about their recent activities.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, Antidiskriminator, it still exists and meets. That's what I asked in the first place, and if you had posted this reply then, I would promptly have dropped my proposal to delete the reference - as I now do. I still find the CKAM pretty pathetic, but that's my OPV. If it exists it has a right to a mention.Markd999 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Demographics
This section requires extensive revision. If the 2011 census is accepted as accurate - and it was supervised and found acceptable by EUROSTAT - then a lot of the section becomes nonsensical. Markd999 (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

History: Second World War
This is a breathtakingly un-NPOV and unfactual section, with a paragraph of un-NPOV and unfactual Albanian stuff added at the end to a lot of un-NPOV and unfactual Serb stuff. The "History of Kosovo" article does not treat the Second World War in such detail and does so with a much more neutral point of view.

I agree with one thing: Kosovo Albanians took advantage of Axis victory to attack many villages inhabited (mainly) by Serb colonists, and tens of thousands of these fled and many must have been killed. The rest is pretty well nonsense. No source from the Axis occupying powers mentions large-scale immigration from Albania into Kosovo, let alone Italian-promoted immigration. The Italian Civil Commissioner recorded that the Italian military, from top to bottom, took the side of the Serbs. The Vulnetari (if we are to use an Albanian word, lets spell it properly in Albanian- Vullnetari (which does not mean "Kosovars" but "Volunteers", never numbered more than 2,000). The Skanderbeg (another spelling mistake) SS Division did indeed round up 280 Jews in Djakova/Đakovica, but lots of Jews from Kosovo, Albania, and Macedonia were saved by Albanians (and I do not think the same thing can be said for Belgrade Jews). I cannot see any huge successes by Fadil Hoxha or any other partisans in Kosovo, whether Albanian or Serb, and its "liberation" took place as filliing a vacuum left ny retreating German troops whose position had become untenable by conventional Soviet advances and whose war diaries hardly mention pertisans in Kosovo at all.

What therefore happened was a multi-dimensional conflict, interethnic, ideological, and international, in which the first was the prime motivator and the second and third took a much lower place (so the Italian-appointed, ethnic-Albanian Commissioner of Police in Peja/Peč was quite happy to have dinner with a British SOE agent and agree to change sides if crcumstances permitted).

I suggest the following text:

"After the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, most of Kosovo was assigned to Italian-controlled Albania, with the rest being controlled by Germany and Bulgaria. It was a confused time, with inter-ethnic conflict taking primacy over ideological or international allegiances (although both had important consequences). During 1941, and later, tens of thousands of Serbs, mostly recent colonists, fled from Kosovo."

I tolku. Dosta. Mjafton. Enough.

--Markd999 (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Your claim that "No source from the Axis occupying powers mentions large-scale immigration from Albania into Kosovo, ...." is incorrect. This assertion is properly sourced, like other assertions you mentioned, about Jews, Kosovars, and all other things you referred to as "breathtakingly un-NPOV and unfactual". It would be wrong to replace well referenced and informative text with "confused time" paragraph you proposed. Your comparation with Belgrade Jews is irrelevant and "breathtakingly un-NPOV".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator: I agree that the claim of Italian-sponsored immigration from Albania is sourced, to Miranda Vickers, who does not appear on my bookshelf because (you may perhaps be surprised to hear!) I regard her as too unquestioningly pro-Albanian to be reliable. So I cannot check her source. My claim is that there is no documentary source from the Axis occupying powers mentioning any mass immigration, let alone an Italian-sponsored one; and you cannot carry out a sponsored mass migration of this sort without creating incentives (availability of land, how it will be distributed, how people will be transported, etc etc) without creating lots of documents. Noel Malcolm ("Short History of Kosovo", pp.312-313) discusses this in some detail, and the only footnote to his discussion is also a secondary source (you can't refer to documents which do not exist!) - two Serbian historians who also dismiss the idea of mass immigration.

I shall therefore make my change after 72 hours from now, to give you time to show that there is a contemporary source for the mass-migration story which Noel Malcolm dismisses as "sheer fantasy". If you can do so, I promise that I shall unreservedly apologise. Markd999 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your approach. Your insisting to provide primary sources for assertions supported by secondary source is not based on wikipedia policies. You can not justify removal of text properly sourced by secondary source with lack of primary sources. Discarding Miranda Vickers as "unquestioningly pro-Albanian to be reliable" simply based on your opinion and in the same time insisting on the view of Noel Malcolm, the president of the Anglo-Albanian Association, does not make much sense. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Počituvan Antidiskriminator, There are sources on these pages which are simply faked. There are sources on which one should place no reliability, pro-Albanian or pro-Serbian. If I put on the internet that Kosovo people (Serbs and Albanians) were immigrant green humanoids from Mars, and then quoted it on Wikipedia, I think that it would rapidly be deleted. If the wretched Miranda Vickers has a source for her allegation, let me know. Noel Malcolm is a later analyst than the Mirander Vickers work quoted, and seems to annihilate it. I do not know of an even later work than his which questions his analysis, though perhaps it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't remove referenced text. Miranda Vickers is not medieval author, but contemporary historian. Don't give undue weight to Malcolm's view. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, you cannot just push your pov without agreements. This article is under ARBMAC, and you are disturbing wiki in order to prove the point. You MUSt gain consensus for your edits, before edits. And your way to start 1000 sections, and push after 24h (or 48, doesnt matter) is a way too much. Please, be careful, that way of editing is not helpful. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a slightly odd stance on consensus, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been applied to edits pushing POV in the other direction. I hope that wikipedia's little microcosm of Kosovo disputes will not degenerate to the level that any change you don't personally like can be discarded as "unilateral". ;-) bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Look who is talking about IDONTLIKEIT removals... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am entirely prepared to change proposed edits, or even abandon them, if those who disagree are prepared to put forward reasoned arguments for their disagreements. In that case the article should reflect both points of view. In this particular case we have a referenced claim by one contemporary historian (even if I don't rate her very much) who I assume took a Serbian secondary source and did not question it - this happens with most historians; they can't read every primary source - and another contemporary historian who describes these claims as "sheer fantasy" and devotes 20 pages to the events in question, and says there is no primary source for the Serb claims. To repeat: you cannot have a policy of resettling 72,000 Albanians without lots of documentation. You have to define your policy, announce it to possible migrants with inducements for migration, arrange the logistics (petrol and transport in the Second World War was very scarce), settle them on the land with some sort of legal title however provisional, etc etc. Italian archives for this period are quite good, so far as I can see, although it is not my specialist period. So either we should have a section which says that these are Serbian claims and that others say that they are "sheer fantasy" without any documentation, or we should have a section which leaves matters a bit confused, as they are in war. Personally I prefer the second approach. It is shorter and leaves the Serbian version with less potential egg on its face. Markd999 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Markd999, the source says that the Italian regime "encouraged" such a project, but it doesn't mention to what extent it was implemented and if it was ever implemented. Personally, I don't think that it had any effect on the demographic structure of Kosovo (based on the post-WWII demographic data), not to mention that the Yugoslavs only managed to get ~65.000 colonists in Kosovo during a 10-year peaceful period, so I find it hard to believe that the Italian regime achieved such a result in a 2-year period during wartime.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many sources which support the assertion about Mustafa's speach: "Mustafa Kruja, the head of the puppet government, delivered a lecture at the Royal Italian Academy on May 30, 1941, on the natural and historic roots of Greater Albania. In June 1942 he visited Kosovo and Metohija and during a meeting with local Albanian leaders publicly said that "The Serb population in Kosovo should be replaced as soon as possible. All native Serbs should be declared "colonists" and as such sent by Albanian and Italian authorities to concentration camps in Albania. Serb settlers should be killed." " - p.31 "Greater Albania": concepts and possibile consequences; Jovan M. Čanak, Ana Selić, Ljubiša Gvoić; Institute of Geopolitical Studies, 1998
 * I found some work which says that some Serb authors claimed that 260,000 Albanians settled Kosovo in period 1941-1948 and that Malcolm referred to such claims as "sheer fantasy" claiming that number of settlers was probably up to several thousands. I apologize if that work is wrong, but since Malcolm's work is not available online please be so kind to check Malcolm's work and if he referred to figure presented by Vickers or those higher estimations.
 * Migrations during war time can include much bigger number of people than 72,000. For much shorter time than 2 years. Sometimes in two weeks. I don't think that it is necessary to elaborate that. But if it is I will. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a 1998 Serbian work and the quote appears in no RS. Isn't that the sameinstitute that was publishing papers on how Srebrenica never happened? Of course, in their own words The Institute is remote from any party or political ideology, and akin to every policy or strategy with a state-funding approach, which takes into account vital state and national interests. That would explain their academic output. Enough said.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ....The Serb settlers should be killed - p.146, Hitler's Jihadis: Muslim volunteers of the Waffen-SS, Jonathan Trigg
 * The Serb settlers should be killed Global war crimes tribunal collection, - gives a list of works which supported this assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't use isolated quotes as after the part the source is revealed to be the infamous Knjiga o Kosovu.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not part of the source but one of the sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Surova vremena na Kosovu i Metohiji p.203, Branislav Božović, Milorad Vavić, Institut za savremenu istoriju, 1991 - in this work the above quote is summarized on Serbian language.
 * Istorijski zapisi p.155 Istorijski institut SR Crne Gore u Titogradu, Istorijsko društvo SR Crne Gore, Institut, 2000 - summary of the same quote on Serbian language --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence i.e. certainly not fringe ones. Btw Istorijski institut is not the author so at least learn to cite sources properly. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kosovo i metohija tokom vekova Vasilije Krestić, Đorđe Lekić - NILP "Panorama", 1995
 * Zločini i zablude albanskih separatista - Milan Mijalkovski, Novinsko-informativni centar "Vojska", 1999
 * Seobe Srba nekad i sad - Institut za međunarodnu politiku i privredu, 1990
 * During past couple of decades there are many published sources which support this assertion. Is there any source which deny it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't add any other unreliable sources. Btw Krestic was called by Milosevic as a defence witness and he was deemed too unreliable, but his works were allowed to be presented in the case as It is true that the methodology of the Report is questionable in a number of respects: for example, it contains sweeping conclusions without analysis and is poorly referenced. However, these are matters that may be said to go to the weight that the evidence is given and could be adequately addressed by the Prosecution in cross-examination.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any source which denies this assertion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Find reliable sources as the burden of evidence lies with you.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Knjiga o Kosovu, Dimitrije Bogdanović, Serbian Academy of Science and Arts - 1986: "da treba nastojati da ce srpski živalj na Kosovu i Metohiji što pre smeni... Sve starosedeoce Srbe oglasiti kolonistima i kao takve preko albanskih i italijanskih vlasti poslati u koncentracione logore u Albaniji. Naseljenike Srbe treba ubijati"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)*[http://edocs.nps.edu/AR/org/SSI/Aug03_Nation.pdf Despite its relative backwardness and isolation, Kosovo’s status as a focus for Serbian nationalism and flash point for armed conflict has generated a large literature describing the region’s history. The Kosovo problem is evoked from a Serbian perspective in Dimitrije Bogdanović, Knijga o Kosovu.]
 * Bogdanovic was the author of a very influential study called Knjiga o Kosovu, which was published among the numerous revisionist writings of 1985
 * Book about Kosovo wanted to portray the Serbs as the sole victims of historical persecution, it thus sought to counter the claims of Albanian victimization during the interwar period.
 * According to Bogdanovic his aim was to defend Yugoslavia's territorial integrity threatened and undermined by Albanian nationalism-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 06:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Large-scale immigration would have involved land being available or being made available. It does not follow that Serb settlers who were killed or forcibly expelled left a vacuum in land occupancy. Their settlements had been made on land confiscated from Kosovo Albanians, who not unnaturally wanted to take their former land back and who would probably have been almost equally hostile to any immigrants taking the land as they were to the Serbs.

We have two Serbian historians who conclude, like Noel Malcolm, that the new arrivals were only a few thousand (4,000 at most) consisting primarily of administrators from Albania and former exiles from Kosovo who returned, and other Serbian historians who make what appear to me (and Noel Malcolm) grossly exaggerated claims. (Even if the Mustafa Kruja speech is a correct quote, nothing in it implies that he was talking about replacing Kosovo Serbs with Albanians from Albania). We have the choice of either putting in both points of view in this article, which makes the section very long, or putting a short neutral passage. I think that if both points of view have to be put at all, it should be in the article "History of Kosovo".Markd999 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw, Miranda Vickers has never held an academic post, though she does have a Masters degree in history. I suspect that most members of history faculties would describe such a person (although it also applies to me) as an "amateur historian" Markd999 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be so kind to reply to my above question (repeated here): I found some work which says that some Serb authors claimed that 260,000 Albanians settled Kosovo in period 1941-1948 and that Malcolm referred to such claims as "sheer fantasy" claiming that number of settlers was probably up to several thousands. I apologize if that work is wrong, but since Malcolm's work is not available online please be so kind to check Malcolm's work and if he referred to figure presented by Vickers or those higher estimations.
 * This source says that "Vickers' analysis is particularly strong when she discuss WWII and its effects on Kosovo" - Modern Greek studies yearbook,
 * Sabrina Ramet says: "Meanwhile, with Italian encouragement, as many as 72,000 Albanians from Albania were settled (or resettled) in Kosovo." - The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building And Legitimation, 1918-2005,
 * SANU Institute explains this program which involved 72.000 Albanians from Albania in this journal
 * "At the same time, over 75,000 Albanians from Albania, settled in Kosovo by the Italian authorities during the Second World War, remained on the property of Serb interwar settlers." A Legal Geography of Yugoslavia's Disintegration - Ana S. Trbovic
 * "about 75,000 Albanians from Albania had settled on the abandoned Serbian farms" Kosovo and Metohija: living in the enclave - Dušan T. Bataković
 * "In the same рeriod, around 75,000 рeoрle moved to Kosovo from Albaniа." - Kosovo i Metohija: argumenti za ostanak u Srbiji - Slobodan Erić --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Antidiskriminator, Thanks for these references. I think one of them, which refers to a 1941 Italian proposal to resettle up to 75,000 Albanians in Kosovo, may be correct. It does not say whether it was ever carried out, and I simply can't see how it could have been. In 1940-41 the vast majority of military logistics remained horse-drawn, not mechanised, even by the Germans; so one had to mobilise horses for military operations, and there were many fewer in the Balkans than in Western Europe. Civilian transport took second place by a long way. The Italians (or at least Mussolini) had lots of megalomaniac plans; few of them were successful. When the Italian Foreign Minister, Count Ciano, handed over the declaration of war on Britain in 1940, when it appeared almost certain to most people that Britain would be defeated, the British Ambassador responded, according to Ciano's diary: "Your Excellency, I have the honour to remind you that Britain is not in the habit of losing her wars" and Ciano recorded: "Catastrophe". And it was.

Noel Malcolm does discuss the higher claims. He cites a study by two scholars (one Croat, one Serbian) who have investigated war losses for 1941-45; the Serb thinks it was 3,000 Albanians and 4,000 Serbs and Montenegrins. A subsequent study by two other Serbian historians raised the estimate to 12,000 Albanians and 10,000 Serbs and Montenegrins. He then says that after 1945 Serbs claimed up to 100,000 refugees, and that in 1985 (only then) did a petition from Kosovo Serbs claim that 260,000 Albanians had entered Kosovo between 1941 and 1948.Markd999 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that "Noel Malcolm does discuss the higher claims" which were not claims of Miranda Vickers but claims of other scholars about 260,000 settlers from Albania. It was wrong to imply that his claim about "sheer fantasy" referred directly to claim of Miranda Vickers. When you wrote that "the claim of Italian-sponsored immigration from Albania is sourced, to Miranda Vickers" and insisted that Malcolm disputed mass migration claims discarding it is a "sheer fantasy" I am afraid that everybody understood that Malcolm referred to Vickers, especially after you wrote "Noel Malcolm is a later analyst than the Mirander Vickers work quoted, and seems to annihilate it". I hope it was unintentionally, though I wish I shouldn't have to ask you twice to clarify this issue.
 * There is a long list of sources about invitation of Albanian president and mass settlement. A source you picked in your last comment does not actually deny mass settlement was carried out.
 * Your last remark about pathetic Assembly of the Community of Municipalities predominantly populated by Serbs brings additional concerns about neutrality of your edits.
 * Here are some more sources:
 * "Kosovo was built as a bridge for Albania to cross over into Yugoslav federation...A blind eye was also turned towards the Albanian settlers who had taken over the land of departed Serbs and stayed behind." - Serbia: The History Behind the Name, Stevan K. Pavlowitch
 * "Some 70,000 settlers came north from Albania to Kosovo during the war." Kosovo & NATO: impending challenges : the views of experts at the Woodrow Wilson Center : highlights of seminars/discussions held March-June, 1999 - East European Studies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 1999
 * Your suggestion is not supported by reliable sources nor by consensus so it is time to close this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A 1985 petition referring to 260,000 immigrants, without any previous claims for such numbers, is not the same thing as scholars, let alone scholars who cite primary sources. I do not see how anyone would have thought that Malcolm was referring to Vickers' one sentence; he went for the original sources both of claims of large-scale settlement and whether there were primary sources which supported them. Anyone can come up with seminars where someone lazy has repeated some rubbish which they have read.

I agree that there is no consensus on this issue. But the fact that there is no consensus is not an argument for no change to a section which only presents one side of a disputed issue. (I think the wrong side, but that's not the point). Either the section presents both points of view, or we seek wording which reflects a NPOV. 79.126.158.4 (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Another (last) try for consensus, since no-one else seems to be trying. I propose:

"After the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, most of Kosovo was assigned to Italian-controlled Albania, with the rest being controlled by Germany and Bulgaria. It was a confused time, with inter-ethnic conflict taking primacy over ideological or international allegiances (although both had important consequences). During 1941-1945 tens of thousands of Serbs, mostly recent colonists, fled from Kosovo. There were also post-war Serbian claims that there had been large-scale Albanian immigration, but these are disputed by other historians (some of them Serbian) and contemporary sources for these claims seem to be lacking" (References:Vickers and Malcolm).--Markd999 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This paragraph is not much different than first version of "confused time" paragraph you initially proposed. My position remains unchanged. Taking in consideration dozens of sources I found and presented to support my position, I am even more convinced that it would be wrong to replace well referenced and informative text with slightly modified "confused time" paragraph you again proposed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have presented seven sources, none of which discusses the claim in any detail at all, as Noel Malcolm and his sources do. This is rather as if I were to present the thousands of medieval manuscripts which referred to the Donation of Constantine before it was conclusively proved that it was a forgery, or the thousands of sources which referred to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion before (and after) this was proved to be a forgery, as meaning that the claims resting on these documents were verifiable. One can also go to the 1951 Yugoslav census which shows how many people were born outside the state (as a Serb, will you say that this is a forgery?)If we end up in an edit-war, it will be clear that I have sought consensus and you have not. Otherwise we go back to 1RR a week.--Markd999 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you really sought consensus. Without success. Your proposal to replace well referenced text which contains important assertions with "confused time" paragraph did not gain consensus.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Then here's a final try. As a personal comment, I would add that hard-line Serbian negotiating tactics usually seem in the short term to be very successful, but equally ususally seem to end in a solution which is worse for the Serbian position than what they were originally offered.

"After the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, most of Kosovo was assigned to Italian-controlled Albania, with the rest being controlled by Germany and Bulgaria. A three-dimensional conflict ensued, involving inter-ethnic, ideological, and international affiliations, with the first being most important. Nonetheless, these conflicts were relatively low-level compared with other areas of Yugoslavia during the war years, with one Serb historian estimating that 3,000 Albanians and 4,000 Serbs and Montenegrins were killed, and two others estimating war dead at 12,000 Albanians and 10,000 Serbs and Montengrins.

It is not disputed that 1941-1945 tens of thousands of Serbs, mostly recent colonists, fled from Kosovo: estimates range form 30,000 to 100,000. Post-war Serbian claims that there had been large-scale Albanian immigration range from 72,000 to 260,000 people (with a tendency to escalate, the last figure being in a petition of 1985) but these are disputed by other historians (some of them Serbian) and contemporary sources in Axis documents do not exist. "Markd999 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

North Kosovo Crisis/2012 referendum on Kosovo independence
These two sections seem to me superfluous. It is clear from the rest of the article that Serbs north of the Ibar are mostly outside the Kosovo institutional framework and reject it, while Serbs south of the river may not like it but have to make their own adjustments. The "North Kosovo Crisis" never turned into anything much, and could only have done so if Serbia was prepared to intervene against KFOR, and the referendum simply gave the results anyone would have expected. (And how can one possibly judge the results, given that there was no international monitoring of who was entitled to vote, who did vote, and what the process of counting was like?)

I don't think the Serbian case, even though I disagree with it, is remotely affected by deleting thsese sections. So that is what I propose to do. Markd999 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. That stuff about "without the consultation..." was problematic anyway; looks like a translation of the standard Belgrade response to actions by Kosovo authorities, "unilateral". (A term which has become very widely used on enwiki articles in this area). bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is bad. There is no a single reason except your OR about this cases. This is article about region of Kosovo, and should be informative and neutral about that. I strongly disagree to remove these sections, as you are in that way removing and hiding real situation on kosovo. People reading this article must know that kosovo is not only RoK as you may propose with this. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whitewriter, It isn't an article about a region of Kosovo, but about Kosovo. Burning down customs posts set up under the authority of the UN mandate is all very well, but one has to wonder whether it was all a matter of popular reaction, although I entirely accept that the Serbs in the north will have sympathised, or a matter mainly of economic (illegal) interests (probably Albanian as well as Serb). There were in any event few consequences. If it merits attention, let it be under a separate article on North Kosovo.Markd999 (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. This is THE most important event on the Kosovo in the past 5 years. It is exceptionally relevant to be here, and on a separate article also. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

UN Administration Period: UNSCR 1244
Current text reads:

"Resolution 1244 provided that Kosovo would have autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and affirmed the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, which has been legally succeeded by the Republic of Serbia.[109]"

This is a very un-NPOV reading (although I entirely concede it is a possible reading) of UNSCR 1244, and if it was the only possible reading the ICJ could never have concluded that the Declaration of Independence was not illegal under UNSCR 1244. Nor could Ahtisaari, who brokered the agreement enshrined in UNSCR 1244, have possibly produced his plan for supervised independence of Kosovo without being seen, even by supporters of an independent Kosovo, of brazenly acting in bad faith.

Proposing a summary of a UNSCR is always fraught with dangers, because they are usually drafted in the full knowledge by the members of the Security Council that they disagree on certain issues and therefore contain language which is subject to different interpretations. Neverless, I think that the following summary is quite safe:

"UNSCR 1244 charged UNMIK with developing, and progressively handing over power to, autonomous institutions within Kosovo. These would remain provisional until a final status solution, and in the meantime the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (of which Serbia has been accepted as the successor-state) was confirmed even though the effective exercise of its sovereignty was suspended"

The citation should not be a BBC Report but UNSCR 1244 itself.

I think my proposal is NPOV. It allows Serbians and their supporters to argue that a final status solution has not been reached, because such a solution would have to be either agreed by Serbia or imposed under a Chapter VII Resolution of the UNSC; that Kosovo therefore remains legally part of Serbia; and that Kosovo's present institutions are illegal because the Constitution which provides for them has not been specifically approved by UNMIK. These arguments have of course been rejected by the International Court of Justice, but as all the articles which refer to the ICJ ruling make clear, the ICJ opinion is "advisory", unless or until Kosovo becomes a member of the UN in which case it could apply to make it legally binding.Markd999 (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. You removed the very argument of the your obvious "opposing" side. Stunningly unbalanced proposition. --22:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But you do not say with what you disagree. The factually incorrect bit of the current text is that UNSCR did not affirm the territorial integrity of the FRY; it affirmed the "commitment of the member states of the UN to the territorial integrity of the FRY". The possible interpretations of UNSCR 1244 were argued over at great length in the ICJ case, with not only Kosovo and Serbia (predictably) disagreeing, but other UN member-states and the judges themselves disagreeing. The submissions of the majority of the UN member-states which bothered to make submissions, and the opinions of the majority of the judges, disagree with the current text. Once again, either we can put a text which can be interpreted in either the Serbian or Kosovo-Albanian (and majority ICJ) point of view; or we can expand the text to include the exact wording of UNSCR 1244, the different meanings both sides (and the ICJ) attribute to this text. My preference is the former, because it is shorter, and in principle I believe that a NPOV description can be arrived at without having to go into all the disagreements between the two (or more) sides which are anyway quite well described in this article.Markd999 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Economy
No separate section on the economy, which seems a little odd. I propose to import the main section of "Economy" from the article "Republic of Kosovo" since this is not only the easiest solutiom but there has been very little disagreement on it.Markd999 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Society
I think Albanians and Serbs might just agree on one thing: the "Rule of Law", "Relations between Serbs and Albanians" etc do not share the same importance as "Wines" and I suggest that the politically controversial subjects should be put in sections which deal with political controversy.--Markd999 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"One of three countries with a large muslim population"
In the religion section it says that there are only three countries lying entirely within Europe with a "large muslim population" - Kosovo, Bosnia and Albania. But the UK and France both have significant numbers of muslims. This should be changed to "a proportionately large muslim population", or perhaps "a muslim majority". Would change it myself but the page is semi-protected.--212.44.62.158 (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bosnia doesn't have a muslim majority AFAIK. Maybe "large "indigenous" muslim population" would be appropriate? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Significant" is not the same as "large" - while Muslims do live in the UK, France, Norway, etc., the population is not proportionally "large" in comparison to the Balkan states. That's why the various Reliable Sources don't refer to the populations elsewhere in Europe in that way. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but is the religion section verifiable by any census results? For Kosovo, it is perfectly clear that most Kosovar Albanians once thought of themselves, or at least declared themselves, as Muslims. But if you now walk through Central Pristina during Ramadan, during the day-time, you will see the cafe-bars full and people drinking alcohol everywhere. Maybe they would declare themselves [nominal] Muslims if given the choice in a census, maybe not. You see more women in burkas in Oxford Street than in the whole of Pristina. There is a clear contrast with Albanians in Macedonia, where many more Albanian women wear headscarves and Ramadan is widely respected (at least in public). But an encyclopedia is supposed to have verifiable facts, not opinion or impressions.

All that can be factually asserted is that the majority of Kosovars have a Muslim family background. This means nothing if we do not know how many of them think of themselves as atheist, agnostic, or "Muslim-lite" (i.e. turn up at funerals, circumcise their sons, and ignore everything else).

--Markd999 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke or what, Mark? Are you implying that muslim women should wear burkas? I am from Turkey, a country with around 74 million people, where in every poll people declaring themselves as muslims are around 98-99 percent and yet have not been able to see one woman in burka in my life, even near the Afghan Embassy in Ankara. Also, as a moslem people we Turks have our national liquor, the rakı, which is a highly alcoholic drink. You are not serious with those comments, about society and religion, right? --E4024 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On a different point, many censuses in the last century will have had problems with categorisation, which blurs the boundaries between location, dialect, religion, ethnicity &c.; so many statistics will count people as "muslim" because they are ethnically "albanian", or vice versa. bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Saygınlı E4204, It's not a joke. And I am not saying that, if asked, the great majority of Kosovars would not categorise themselves as Muslims. But it is amazing how many people in Kosovo are deeply offended at being classed automatically by Westerners (and with some political motives from the US ("We've saved a Muslim people") as being Muslim just because they are Albanian, and then being seen as the same as Afghans or whatever. Just as the Serbs class them as Muslims to identify them with Al-Qaeda.

I know (and love) Turkey, and lived there for four years. I've seen more burkas than you in Istanbul, but certainly not as many as in London. If I learned nothing else, it is that Islam has as many faces as Christianity, some of them not very attractive and some very attractive; and that what makes someone feel Muslim is not what Westerners, or Wahhabis, or Taliban, believe is demanded by the Kuran-i-Kerim.

Nonetheless, the present text is offensive to Kosovars and not supported by facts. Wikipedia is about facts. Markd999 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Burqa? Sure? Sometimes I see tourists from the Gulf in Niqabs walking after their husbands in Kapalıçarşı, possibly you are confusing the outfits. BTW which language is the word you added before my user name? I hope it is something good, after living four years in Turkey... --E4024 (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right, of course, niqabs. And please don't make fun of my Turkish, since I lived there there thirty years ago and my active Turkish has suffered, though I understand what I hear well enough. "Sayın", of course. But I'm sure that "saygılı" is also true after checking in my Redhouse Sözlüğü. Markd999 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your effort and was trying to help with your Turkish. If you call me "sayın" it means that you are a "saygılı" person. Nice meeting one more here. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Current text reads:

"The two main religions of Kosovo are Islam and Christianity. Muslims make up 90% of Kosovo's population,[171] and followers are mostly Sunni, with a Bektashi Islam minority.[93] If considered an independent state, Kosovo would be one of three countries lying exclusively within Europe with a proportionately large Muslim population – next to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania – and easily the "most Muslim" of them all by proportion of population. Islam was brought into the region with the Ottoman conquest in the 15th century and now nominally professed by most of the ethnic Albanians, by the Bosniak, Gorani, and Turkish communities, and by some of the Roma/Ashkali-"Egyptian" community. Islam, however, does not dominate the Kosovar society, which remains largely secular.[172] About three percent of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo remain Roman Catholic despite centuries of the Ottoman rule. There are an estimated 65,000 Catholics in Kosovo and another 60,000 Kosovar born Catholics outside of Kosovo.[173] The Serb population, estimated at 100,000 to 120,000 persons, is largely Serbian Orthodox. Kosovo is densely covered by numerous Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries.[174][175][176] Some 140 churches are reported to have been destroyed and partly looted for the black market in the 1999 to 2004 period, of these 30 in a single outburst of violence in March 2004.[177]"

I propose to replace with:

"The two main religions of Kosovo are Islam and Christianity. The great majority of Kosovo Albanians (perhaps 97%) have Muslim family backgrounds, as do the Bosniak, Gorani, and Turkish communities and by some of the Roma/Ashkali/Egyptian community. Kosovo censuses do not ask questions on religious affiliation; it is therefore not clear how many maintain a Muslim affiliation. Kosovo society (like the constitution) remains largely secular. There are an estimated 65,000 Catholics (mostly Albanians, but with some Croats) in Kosovo. The Serb population is almost exclusively Serbian Orthodox. Around 40% of mosques were destroyed in 1998-99, and 140 Orthodox churches were reported to have been destroyed or damaged in the six weeks after the withdrawal of Serbian forces, and around 30 in another outburst of violence in 2004".

It is not true (at any rate by Western European standards) that Kosovo is "densely" covered by Serb Orthodox churches or monasteries.

The "main article" for this section turns out to be a subsection of "Demography of Kosovo". I propose to add a "see also" for "Islam in Kosovo" and "Christianity in Kosovo"Markd999 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do the sources claim it is "densely covered"? If so, the article must reflect that and not "truth" - you know, being Wiki and all that.  Also remember that the scholarly source may be using a different set of criteria for what that means than perhaps the common sense of the man on the street might think. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Relations between Serbian and Albanian communities
This is not a badly written section; the bits of it which I would regard as not NPOV are not very so (and my POV, that inter-ethic relations deteriorated badly with Albanians expelled from Serbia in 1878, colonists brought in from Serbia onto previously Albanian-owned lands, etc) would be less NPOV. But all of the sources cited are in fact only one sociological study. What I have seen and heard is that there remains a significant diversity of relations between Kosovo Albanians and Serbs according to local history. For example, a rather famous KLA leader (who for obvious reasons will remain anonomous here), once remarked to me that if it were not for Miloševič he would probably now be declaring his identity as Yugoslav. In Mitrovica the Albanian villagers fed the Serb miners during the strike of the 1930s. In Gnjilane there is a Serb village which exists because they went out and found their Albanian neighbours in 1999, and persuaded them to come back. In Kamenica there were no serious expulsions of Albanians in 1999, no large-scale evacuations by Serbs in 1999-2001; a green market which remains firmly multi-ethnic; and a total of a few windows broken as the casualties of the riots of 2004.

I invite a little more diversity of opion and information, even if the overall picture may not change much. Markd999 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Since no-one has commented, I would propose to change this section to:

"While there have always been tensions between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo, there are also areas where they have had a long history of co-existence as part of what was accepted under the Ottoman Empire to be a multi-ethnic polity. Tensions seem to have worsened in the second half of the nineteenth century and the twentieth century, as ideas of mono-ethnic "nation states" took hold in the Balkans, starting in Serbia. These resulted in large-scale forced emigration of Albanians in central Serbia to Kosovo and elsewhere in 1878; atrocities during the Serbian conquest; attempts to colonise Kosovo with Serbs in the 1920s, 1930s,and 1990s; and projects to "repatriate" people declaring themselves Turkish to Turkey in the 1930s and and 1960s (many of them middle-class who might have acted as the natural foundation of a multi-ethnic regional identity). This process culminated in the forcible expulsion of a majority of Kosovo Albanians in 1999, many of whom found on their return that their houses had been destroyed and who displaced Serbs in their turn. It is therefore unsurprising that sociological studies have found that there was little inter-marriage between the two communities during the late Yugoslav era.

There are, however, some areas of Kosovo in which even the events of 1999 had relatively little serious effect on Albanian-Serb relations: in Kamenica, the vegetable market continues to operate on a multi-ethnic basis, and the 2004 riots resulted in a few broken windows.Markd999 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Geography
Current text reads North or Northern Kosovo is a region in the northern part of Kosovo with an ethnic Serb majority that functions largely autonomously from the remainder of Kosovo.[155][156] Ibarian Kolashin, a toponym that predates the political partition, is also used to refer to the area. North Kosovo is by far the largest of the Serb-dominated areas within Kosovo, and unlike the others, directly borders Šumadija and Western Serbia. This has facilitated its ability to govern itself almost completely independently of the Kosovo institutions in a de facto state of partition. Although the Kosovo status process had repeatedly ruled out formalising this partition as a permanent solution, it has been increasingly mooted amidst continued deadlock.[157][158]

O dear, o dear, o dear. Are we to have no sections which should not be under the headline of Kosovo politics? Can we not have some consistency with the lead and the political sections, which have been accepted by Serbian contributors?

I propose to delete, I do not see anything in this region which is geographically different from areas to the south.Markd999 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per article Northern Kosovo. I suppose that you already know that... :) -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Either we change to language accepted (including by you) in several other parts of the article, for the sake of consistency, or we delete. As far as content goes, I am happy with either. But as to style, I think that constant repetition is both unnecessary and irritating to the reader. Good style is to be as short as one can in delivering the information (as Pascal wrote: "I am sorry this letter is so long; I have not had the time to make it shorter") and not to duplicate except where necessary.--Markd999 (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillic
Perhaps this will be taken as evidence of an anti-Serb bias, but actually it is just to make the article shorter. Do we really need, in an English-language article, Serbian names spelt in Cyrillic as well as Latin? (It's not even the case that all the bits of the article which include Serbian names, even those bits written by Serbians, consistently use Cyrillic as well as Latin: names of municipalities, for example. And when I visit Belgrade or Skopje half the advertisements seem to use the Latin alphabet).

The general Wikipedia practice, so far as I can see, is that articles in English use the Latin alphabet only for names etc, unless there is a good reason not to. (Someone will no doubt find examples of articles on China which have all the Chinese hieroglyphs as well as Latin transliterations).

But I don't see any good reason to have Serbian names spelt in two alphabets.--79.126.130.95 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not optional, cyrillic is official letter of Serbia also, and must be used. Dont worry about article size, Wiki have big servers. :) -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, happy to oblige in the lead. For some reason the use of Cyrillic in the section on the name annoys me - you don't find Cyrillic in the articles on Russia, Bulgaria, or Macedonian except for the official name. But it's too minor a change to argue about. --Markd999 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Flag / anthem in infobox?
Regarding [ this material] (recently removed and reinstated), it seems to me that information about the flag, coat of arms, anthem, and official languages of the Republic of Kosovo doesn't really belong here. This article (Kosovo) is supposed to be about the geographical region, not about any political entity. I also note that this same material appears to be currently included in the Republic of Kosovo article, where I do think it unquestionably does belong. Comments? — Rich wales 14:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, this flag, anthem and COA suppose to be removed, as this is article about the territory, and not Republic of Kosovo. Also, User:Bobrayner breached 1RR on this page with this edit, and he didnt even discuss the edit, what is also required per ARBMAC restriction on this article. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 16:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just came here to comment, and edit-conflicted with you ;-)
 * It's a consequence of the bizarre decision to split the article. WhiteWriter ran some polls trying to get a consensus to split the article; the polls didn't deliver the right result (despite attempts at ballot-stuffing) so people went ahead and split it anyway. So we now have absurd separate articles on the state versus an article on the area of land which the state occupies. We don't do this for other countries; we don't have two separate articles for Ghana-as-a-country versus the-area-of-land-occupied-by-ghana. Such mental hurdles may be necessary in Belgrade, but not here. This bizarre split leads to some counterintuitive results such as "Oh no, an infobox applies to the same thing which is in two articles but we should only have the infobox in one article...". Back in reality, things are much simpler; Kosovo is Kosovo, and we should really mention things like the flag and anthem of Kosovo in an article about Kosovo.
 * It's unfortunate, but sadly not a surprise, that a veteran ARBMAC editwarrior threatens to report me for making a single edit which restored information about Kosovo to our article about Kosovo. WhiteWriter must be disappointed that their retaliatory SPI didn't achieve the desired result. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is all irrelevant empty talk. This article is about territory and we have gigantic consensus for the split. But if you question it, raise the question about it here, and not edit war on ARBMAC main subject per your own POV, despite wiki rules, and without any talk page activity (as usual). -- WhiteWriterspeaks 16:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't really compare Ghana and Kosovo. Ghana isn't disputed and Kosovo is - we must tread a careful NPOV line in Wikipedia and actually I think that the split has worked well (although I opposed it initially). We cannot say that Kosovo = RoK, and nor can we say that Kosovo = Serbian province. We can say that Kosovo is (mostly) controlled by RoK, but we shouldn't be implying that this is the best or correct situation. Adding a flag and coat of arms does give this impression. Bazonka (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to state that this restriction is actually editor 1RR per week, and not article per day, so this actually was not 1RR vio, but flag and COA obviously should be removed by some admin... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 16:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should an admin perform edits on your behalf, in a content dispute? bobrayner (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My behalf? Only me? :) Because you disregarded split consensus, and pushed your POV on ARBMAC subject... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * WhiteWriter threatened me, but didn't threaten Sowakralj for making this edit. Sadly, it's obvious why the response was asymmetric. bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That was first edit, anyway not not santionable. Dont play victim, my dear friend. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless Bobrayner has a secondary account that I don't know, I can't see where he made two reverts at this article within the last seven days. See the article's edit history. There is no such 1RR violation on his part. The only one to blame here is Sowakralj who reverted something without the discussion required by the ARBMAC ruling and even without an edit summary. Bobrayner was correct to undo this revert by Sowakralj. That said, this section should now be used to discuss the merit of having the Republic of Kosovo state symbols in an article about the geographical region. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We already agreed that we should not have RoK here, there are not other possibilities about it. Why are you admins allowing restoration of this in the article? That is violation of our split agreement, and ARBMAC restrictions on this article. And no, De728631, i am afraid that you are not right. User:Easyas12c (19 edits since 2010) is the first to blame, who added this in article, without any agreement nor consensus. Then Bob reverted back same info, also without without any agreement nor consensus. Now, User:Sowakralj reverted for the second time, but he was never informed about ARBMAC, i mean, he never received ARBMAC notice. Some admin should do it. So, please restore status quo, and remove this pushed coat of arms, flag and anthem. If anyone want it here, must have serious consensus. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 16:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, the ARBMAC notice is clearly visible in the edit window and we do not need to notify every single potential editor of these conditions. Now as to the 1RR rule, it means that any editor may not make more than 1 revert per week on this article. Bobrayner made one single revert of an edit that had not been justified per the common rules of editing (no edit summary for the removal of a larger portion of content) and per ARBMAC (no discussion of the revert). Note also that reverts have to be discussed beforehand, not additions. Based on the arguments by RichWales and Bazonka I agree though that there is now consensus to remove the flag and anthem. De728631 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging
With this edit the project tag for WikiProject Unrecognized Countries was removed. While the article itself is about the region, not the political entity, there was no valid reason to remove this project tag. The WikiProject Council/Guide guideline states that "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article." I'm therefore asking WhiteWriter to restore the tag. Thanks. De728631 (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Although related WikiProject didnt actually said that this article is within their scope, i will restore it, as it is not important. You could do it your self also, there was no need for this official new section and talk page info. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. On that note, putting a tag on an article's talk page is the Wikiprojects' way of voicing their interest in the article. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, i agree, that can only do good. Thanks, be well... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 October 2012
There are many facts that need change in this article about Kosovo but this time I would sugest just one.The currence as legal tender used in any transition within Kosovo and others banks abroad is Euro.People use U.S dollars, Swiss francs, GB pounds and many many more so I sugest thet you remove Serbian dinar out of currency used in Kosovo or add another 20 more.

174.1.100.5 (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the pro-Serb point of view, the dinar is still the official currency of Kosovo (we must maintain a WP:NPOV so we have to represent both sides). I expect it is used in the Serb-dominated northern parts of Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever the official currency is, the requested edit has no reference and is thus ❌. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Opinion of International Court of Justice about declaration of independence of Kosovo
I undid this edit. The report of the international court says that the declaration of independence does not violate international law. But at the same time they avoided to review the international legal status of Kosovo. They do not say that Kosovo is an independent state or answered the question about the final status of Kosovo ("Security Council did not reserve for itself the final determination of the situation in Kosovo."). The international court recognized the validity of the UN Resolution 1244, which also does "not contain any provision dealing with the final status of Kosovo". This are interesting details which were also discussed for a long time in the german wikipedia and due to respect to the "neutral point of view" we decided that it should be mentioned. I thought due to the wikipedia principle of the neutral point of view it should be mentioned here too. The source is the report of the international court itself. Regards Seader (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should this information be unnecessary? An explanation is needed if you delete it from the article. I do not think that is is unnecessary because it is an important part of the advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence. And because of the principle of the neutral point of view we must show both sides of the argument and thats why it should be in the article. Regards Seader (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are three problems;
 * We already have lots of different articles making the same points over and over again - Kosovo's recent history is discussed a hundred times over. This makes it very difficult to manage neutrality problems. If this detail belongs anywhere, it's on one of the (multiple) articles dedicated to Kosovo's declaration of independence and Serbia's subsequent ICJ request.
 * I note that you're referring to text in a primary source; the secondary sources don't make the point that you're making. For instance, the UN News page simply says: "By 10 votes to four, judges at the ICJ concluded that the declaration does not breach either general international law, a Security Council resolution from 1999 following the end of fighting in Kosovo, or the constitutional framework that was adopted by the Secretary-General’s Special Representative on behalf of the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)."
 * Serbia tried asking the ICJ whether the declaration was illegal; the court rejected their claim; it's too late for ifs and buts. bobrayner (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Haradinaj case
Current text reads:

"Notices of appeal are currently being considered."

This needs updating. I propose the following text:

"On 29 November 2012 the Appeal Court found all three accused not guilty on all charges. It found that there had been abuses amounting to war crimes at a KLA prison camp, including eight deaths, but that there was no credible evidence of command responsibility against any of the three accused. On the contrary, the evidence pointed to Ramush Haradinaj trying to prevent such abuses"

--Markd999 (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Needs a source for the quotation.Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
Added dates of First Balkan War to Lead; separated paragraphs having to do with 500 years of Ottoman rule and 20th-century events. Made similar minor changes, no substantive ones.Parkwells (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Repetition
The first paragraph of the "Kosovo War" section virtually repeats, word for word, content in the immediately previous section, "Disintegration of Yugoslavia". Why is this? Repetition needs to be reduced or, preferably, eliminated.Parkwells (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A new solution on the Kosovo issue
I have a brand-new solution when it comes to Kosovo. I suggest that when searching for Kosovo in Google, that Republic of Kosovo is the first one to choose instead of this article that is only about the geographical region of Kosovo. But to do that, you do also have to change this article's name to Kosovo (region). It's the same as when it comes to Macedonia. This is the way it would look like: 1. Google Search: Kosovo 2. Alternatives. Republic of Kosovo Kosovo (region) Try wich Macedonia and you'll se how it looks like. And then when you are on the Republic of Kosovo website, and if you click for other languages, the article about Kosovo will come, not as it is right now. I think that this might be a good solution. Hannover95speaks 21:40, 02 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You should request a page move. See WP:RM. Bazonka (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But this page should be the first, that is the reason for the split. I disagree with that, but you may ask for rm, if you want... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will ask for rm. It's a new solution and maps and stuffs are then not so fouced when this all is done. And the page Republic of Kosovo should be the first, not this one. You might look for the Macedonian model. Hannover95 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be better to undo the split, since it was the product of tendentious editing and there was no consensus for it. bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have massive consensus for this, dont mislead editors... And Macedonia is recognised by entire world, while RoK is still mostly unrecognised disputed entity. Those two are not comparable in the encyclopedia. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is, of course, the EU recognizes it, and it's statehood is backed up by the insurmountable military might and power of NATO, in the face of which, the small country of Serbia is totally helpless. Kosovo independence is a fact.  Even Serbia is beginning to negotiate trade and customs processes with Kosovo, as it knows it must.  A decade from now this whole issue will be gone.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WhiteWrtier, as you know, there's a page called Republic of Kosovo. What I say is that we have to request a page move since other languages about Kosovo is not about the region, it's actually about the country KOSOVO. All these pages in other languages have Kosovo's national anthem, flag and so on. But not this one, the English one. So a whatsover RM would solve this problem. And The Republic of Kosovo should be the first, on the grounds that other languages have that system. Hannover95speaks 21:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia does not have to do what the other languages do, and vice versa. The versions are all independent of one another. If you can put forward a good case for renaming then fine, but "we have to request a page move since other languages about Kosovo is not about the region" is not a strong argument. Bazonka (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find an excellent argument when Kosovo gains its 97th recognition. That would mean that more than half of all countries in the world has recognized it, and it would then be an argument to request a page now when more countries are in favour of The Republic of Kosovo. Official status: 93 out of 193 United Nations (UN) Member States (48.2%). There are only four countries left. Hannover95 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To be more exact, Republic of Kosovo the has received 95 diplomatic recognitions. Republic of China (Taiwan) and Sovereign Military Order of Malta are included. Hannover95 (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This page has been a field of battle for a long time now. But, we will have to find a more permanent solution. I trust no editor should act as a guardian for this page (I claim there are guardian editors of this page for two years now). Since I am an Albanian from Kosovo, I might also look biased, that is why proposals from neutral editors should be considered more relevant on Kosovo page issues than my, or let's say WhiteWriters, edits and/or proposals. Personally, I think this page should be solely about Kosovo as a Republic. It is recognized as such by nearly 100 countries, and recognitions are continuing. But we should let other judge that. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest the removal of the section "Relations between Albanian and Serb communities", as there is not a single source for the outrageous claims about Serbs' genocidal tendencies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.32.85 (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone deleted much of what I wrote for the relations between Albanians and Serb section that had reliable sources and was neutral, and basically replaced it with b*llsh*t. I am restoring what was there before that was referenced to reliable sources and didn't say any of such rhetoric of genocidal tendencies.--R-41 (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

interesting article - Serbia de facto recognizing independence of Kosovo
By DUSAN STOJANOVIC Associated Press BELGRADE, Serbia January 13, 2013 (AP) - (snippet) - Serbia on Sunday adopted a set of guidelines for reconciliation talks with the leaders of Kosovo, in a strong first signal it is loosening its claim to its former province in hopes of getting closer to European Union membership. In a resolution adopted by an overwhelming majority in Parliament, Serbia maintained it will never recognize Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence. But in a big shift in policy, the document called for wide autonomy for minority Serbs within Kosovo's borders, indirectly recognizing Kosovo's sovereignty and territorial integrity. While outlining a government plan for the talks with Kosovo's ethnic Albanian leaders, Serbia's Prime Minister Ivica Dacic said "Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo practically does not exist" since NATO's 1999 bombing campaign chased Serbian troops out of the region. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Recognition remains an official (and thus by definition a de jure) act. The Prime Minister's note the fact that Serbia doesn't control Kosovo isn't recognition of anything, just a simple and plain statement of fact. CMD (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but there are things going on under the surface, per the news article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this will change much Kosovo-related content, for OR reasons, and because entrenched positions of specific editors do not necessarily change to reflect the nuances of the latest government press-release. It would be nice if we could get more sources that show a more nuanced position... bobrayner (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt sources are going to discuss something very nuanced for now. If this actually does change how Serbia interacts with Kosovo, it'll take time for that to show and then more time for sources to analyse it. CMD (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 4 December 2012
I would like to propose a few related changes to the "early history" section of this article, especially to its third paragraph. All of these changes are suggested in the spirit of increasing the NPOV of the section and directing readers to more thorough entries on the Roman and Byzantine history of the region.

First, the "further information" links should also include one to Moesia; the link to the Dardani should be deleted, as it is neither particularly helpful nor among the most crucial links to include here; and, for consistency, the link to the Illyrians should be replaced by one to Illyria, since the emphasis is then on the region, not to "a broad, ill-defined group of peoples." Given the overlap of modern-day Albania with Macedonia (Roman province), I think there's an argument to be made for including a link to that region as well.

Second, the final sentence of the third paragraph (regarding the "earliest references to an Albanian population") should be deleted, as it refers not to the Kosovo region but to the first proto-Albanian state, the Principality of Arbanon. The inclusion of this sentence is misleading and seems a fairly clumsy attempt to insert Albania into a paragraph that is about the Byzantine-Slavic control of the area--and thus into the history where it doesn't belong (i.e., it's neither accurate nor a NPOV).

Third, should there absolutely need to be a reference to an Albanian population here, it may be worth pointing out that the very same source cited in (current) note 34 asserts that Albanians didn't migrate into the Metohija & Kosovo regions until the 13th and 14th centuries, respectively. Although they were already in the region of modern-day Albania, their territory in the late 12th and early 13th centuries was bordered by Lake Skadar and the Drin river in the north, the Black Drin river and Lake Ohrid in the east, and (roughly) the Devoll river in the south. Madgearu makes the following points over two pages in the first chapter of his history of the region: Source: Alexandru Madgearu and Martin Gordon (consulting editor), The Wars of the Balkan Peninsula: Their Medieval Origins (Scarecrow Press, 2008). Ironymobile (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Albanians "were recorded for the first time in literary sources in the eleventh century. They had no political and military role before this period, and therefore no Byzantine history has mentioned them" (25).
 * The quotation cited in (current) note 34 reads, in full: "the chronicle of Michael Attaliates" contains the first "indisputable" reference to an Albanian population (again, not in Kosovo, but in general), "the Albanians (Arbanitai) were involved in the 1078 rebellion of Nikephoros Basilakes," which took place at Thessaloniki.
 * "The Albanian language was mentioned for the first time in 1285."
 * "Arbanon was a small region located in the mountain areas of central present-day Albania, in the northern part of the Shkumbin river valley. This river was always a dividing line between northern and southern Albania, from linguistic and cultural points of view.... The geographical fragmentation determined by this river was considered one of the reasons why no unitary Albanian state could be established during the Middle Ages."
 * "At the end of the twelfth century, the Albanians were attested to as a compact group in the mountain zones around Shkoder Lake, in [what is now] northern Albania.... and migration toward the plains of Metohija began after the end of the twelfth century. Albanians are attested to in Epirus in the same period (twelfth-thirteenth centuries), and it can be supposed that this area also belonged to their primary homeland, where they lived together with the Greeks" (25-26).
 * Lastly, he also notes that while Albanians began migrating south and east in the thirteenth century, "the decisive role in the increasing of Albanian penetration in Kosovo and Macedonia was played by the Ottoman domination, which favored the Albanians, who more easily accepted the Islamic religion (unlike the Serbs)" (26).

I have objection why this hasn't been punlished earlier: German TV WDR (via ARD) broadcasted special show "Es begann mit einer Lüge" - Doku über NATO-Einsatz in Jugoslawien, ARD 2001‬‏ describing in detail falsification of the evidence in so called masacre in Racak in order to blame Serbs for massacre against civilians. Main investigators (from Germany) clearly stated that their findings were falsified, that all casulties were men in age fit for the army service and that there were no evidence of the close executions, but of regular war-field wounds. When asking high German officials (of the time) about falsification of the reports, there was no answer back.

I have no objection to deleting the links to Dardania (or, for that matter, Illyria/Illyrians). I would suggest replacing these links with The Archaeology of Kosovo which is as neutral as one can probably get. For the record, I believe that the evidence fairly conclusively suggests that modern Albanian is descended from Illyrian, and I believe that probably (though not certainly) the inhabitants of Kosovo before the arrival of the Slavs spoke this or something close to it. All one can say with certainty though is that there was a population here; archaelogy gives some idea of their lives; this population was not exterminated or driven out by the incoming Slavs (there is no evidence for such a thing, and DNA evidence for unusual haplogroups which are particularly prevalent in Kosovo, Northern Albania, and parts of Serbia show that there was continuity) and that this population mostly ended up speaking Slavic - which, by itself, says very little about the "ethnic" composition of the population (for example, the expansion of the German language into previously Slavic-speaking areas in the early middle ages owes much to the fact that Slavic princes encouraged German immigration for economic purposes - and encouraged it with lower tax rates than those paid by their existing peasants, so the latter had an unintended economic incentive to switch to German).

Markd999 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ironymobile, you have struck the core problem of Kosovo. But I think, using one source to solve the problem is a bit hasty. —MirkoGashi 46.19.228.27 (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for people to check a recent change
Hi. Could knowledgeable editors please be sure to check [ this recent edit] to determine if it is, or is not, properly sourced and sufficiently balanced? It appears POV to me at first glance, and I'm uneasy with the deletion of earlier text to make room for this new material, but I don't know this subject well enough to say for sure. Thanks. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a horrible NPOV failure. bobrayner (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, do you want to know what a "horrible NPOV failure" is? The fact that reliable sources (e.g. a book written by Paul Mojzes) are replaced with the writings of a  Noel Malcolm. That, my fellow editors, is, as bobrayner likes to say, "a horrible NPOV failure." 23 editor (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Any intractable disagreements over NPOV or reliability of sources should be taken up at the relevant noticeboards — WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN, respectively. Everyone also needs to note that this article is on ArbCom-imposed probation, including a "one revert per week" limit when dealing with the article text (see [ here] for the notice).  Edit warring is not acceptable (here or anywhere else), even if you are convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong — and anything that even looks like edit warring on this article, or any other article "related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted" is likely to lead to people being blocked from editing in order to protect Wikipedia from damage.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to make the above warning official and leave no room for misunderstanding, here is the relevant official notice for all to see.

— Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that some people hold such absurd, hateful beliefs about independent, reliable sources such as Noel Malcolm is a sad fact of life in the Balkans; but we shouldn't let those beliefs influence articles in this encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * [Noel Malcolm] is currently the chairman of the Bosnian Institute, London, and is the president of the Anglo-Albanian Association. – Wikipedia Noel Malcolm

RS? 23 editor (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course Malcolm is a reliable source, notwithstanding the attempt to frame him as being on the Wrong Side of some adversarial thing (oh noes, he has connections to people who aren't Serbs! The fact that 23 editor thinks this taints a source is further evidence of how bad the pov-pushing is on articles related to Kosovo). The adversarial approach is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you still disagree about using Noel Malcolm as a source, try asking the reliable sources noticeboard... bobrayner (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Everyone please remember that WP:NPOV does not say we are to figure out which side of a dispute is right, and then present that side as "the truth". Rather, we must make sure that an article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."  In some situations, this will require us to explicitly acknowledge that a controversy exists, and that certain sources say this, while other sources say that, but without attempting to convince the reader that one of the competing factions has a monopoly on truth and goodness.  And WP:RS does not mean we can or should rate the reliability of sources according to whether or not we agree with what they say.  Even if you are convinced that the side you favour is 100% in the right and that your opponents are either hopelessly ignorant or lying through their teeth, you need to set your own biases aside here and come up with a way to describe the overall conflict in a balanced, detached fashion.  Anyone who feels he/she is simply unable to do this and still be true to his/her deeply held convictions would probably be better off standing aside and allowing other, less emotionally vested editors to work on the trouble spots.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No "That's the reality; choke it down"s?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Kosovo War article has also been problematic - for much of its history we've had an article which emphasised that Kosovars did bad things then NATO dropped bombs, glossing over one of the worst - and most notable - bits of the war (to which the NATO bombing was a response). Every so often we still get somebody turning up - sometimes with a source like globalresearch.ca - in order to paint NATO as the baddies. It's got better recently, but the article still needs some NPOV fixes, and we can be quite sure that most edits in that direction will get reverted automatically... However, Kosovo War is a different article to Kosovo, and if there's a problem with the former then Talk:Kosovo War is probably a better place to discuss it. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * bobrayner, it isn't the fact that the person in question "has connections to people who aren't Serbs", it is the fact the groups with whom he's affiliated have an interest in painting a picture of Balkan history that suits their own goals and opinions. Oh, and yes, reliable sources noticeboard is a marvelous idea. Don't be surprised if I bring this up over there.

23 editor (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Geography
I propose adding:"Kosovo contains the only example in Europe, and one of the only two examples in the world, where a river divides and the resultant flows end up in two different seas (the Bifurcation of Nerodime River)"

Just to show not everything is political!

Markd999 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This bifurcation is defunct actually defunct now, so it is pointless. Maybe you can add that it once was on the territory of Kosovo, but a lot of thing once was... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it defunct? I don't know of any sources which suggest this, and I see you have only altered the article on it to "Nerodimka River". I don't mind that, but this section, which refers to Uroševač, should at least have the Albanian name (Ferizaj) as well. I'll put that second "Uroševač/Ferizaj" if you want. Markd999 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, again no. We have main articles about it, so you should not place dual names nowhere in wikipedia per guidelines. Place article name with linking, so if anyone care, can see other names in the relevant articles. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 14:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of articles on Kosovo have the names in both languages - as of course does this Article for Kosovo itself. Look at the list of municipalities! If we wanted to complicate things further we could add a third name, Ferizič, which was what it's then Serb majority called it in 1905. I always thought that it was called after an early Ottoman vali called Feriz, but apparently it did not exist until the 1880s when the railway was under construction and someone called Feriz opened a hotel. I don't know why railway towns - everywhere - are so depressing, but Uroševač/Ferizaj always reminds me of that Soviet joke:

"where were you born?" "Saint Petersburg" "Where did you finish your education?" "Petrograd" "Where do you live?" "Leningrad" "Where would you like to live?" "Saint Petersburg" except that if I was answering for this town I would say to the last question "Anywhere else on earth". (Apologies to any patriots of Ferizaj/Uroševac).

Markd999 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. It is not an issue of Serbian or Albanian names. This is wikipedia on English language. Sometimes English language names correspond to Serbian language names, sometimes to Albanian, sometimes to both, sometimes to neither. In any case, only English language names should be used in the article. I think you should revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish it were that simple, Antid. In principle you are right. So we use "Kosovo" because that is the normal English usage, and the Battle of Kosovo Polje similarly. But for most Kosovo toponyms there was so little written about them in English, until the 1990s, that it is very difficult to say that there is any generally accepted English usage. Probably the most common usage since 1999 has been the practice of the UN (followed by other international organisations such as the OSCE and the EU) of putting both Albanian and Serbian names - and this is followed in, for example, the list of municipalities in this and other articles. So it is a matter of consistency within Wikipedia as well as consistency with international practice. (Though at least we can avoid absurdities like "Prizren/Prizren", which I suppose if Turkish is included as an official language in the municipality should be "Prizren/Prizren/Prizren"'

Markd999 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject. We are talking here about basic policies on wikipedia. I respect your efforts but taking in consideration that your editing violate basic wikipedia policies it might be better to first propose major changes at the talkpage and to implement them only after getting some positive feedback? Please restore English common names.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what I think I am doing, Antid. If you do an internet search on most Kosovo toponyms, you will end up with most references being UN/OSCE/UNDP/EU references, which give names in both languages. And given that there is a dispute over sovereignty, and a difference in the languages related to this dispute, this convention (sensibly applied) appears "appropriate to the subject" in most cases. Not all, of course.Markd999 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My position is based on the existing valid wikipedia policy. Until your convention is promoted to wikipedia guideline or policy the existing policies should be respected. Please restore English common names.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop, Mark, you are going too much. Article linked already have other names in it, DONT add dual names around. Wikipedia have its own guidelines, and does not care about your "internet search" reasons. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The guidelines say "one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive". I don't think you would like this solution (nor would I; we'd end up with "The Patriarchate of Peja"). Another proposed solution is "Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems". This is basically what I have done; the overwhelming majority of official or scholarly English-language references to (most) Kosovo toponyms use both Albanian and Serbian forms. We have not (yet) had edit wars over which form should come first; although nothing would surprise me, I hope we never do. There are more serious issues than this on which to spend our energy; but the idea that the average Englishman in the pub, or even the average scholar of the Balkans or the average diplomat, considers "Uroševac" or for that matter "Ferizaj" to be established English usage is absurd.Markd999 (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Geography/Climate
The geography section contains a reference to the climate of Kosovo. Since there is a separate article in Wikipedia on the climate of Kosovo, I propose to add a link to it. Markd999 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Demographics
Present text (which includes outdated 2005 estimates) has the sentence: "According to latest CIA The World Factbook estimated data, as of July 2009, Kosovo's population stands at 1,804,838 persons. It stated that ethnic composition is "Albanians 88%, Serbs 7%, other 5% (Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian, Janjevci – Croats)". The latest CIA The World Factbook (updated 11 February 2013) estimates Kosovo's population as of July 2012 as 1,836,529. It states estimated ethnic composition (as of 2008) as "Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008)". If we are to quote the CIA World Factbook let us keep it up to date: so (first and easy proposal) let's replace with the latest estimated data from the CIA World Factbook. Second (and more difficult) proposal: The whole paragraph of the current text reading "At 1.3% per year, ethnic Albanians in Kosovo have the fastest rate of growth in population in Europe.[164] Over an 82-year period (1921–2003) the population of Kosovo grew to 460% of its original size. Whereas Albanians constituted 60% of Kosovo's 500,000 person population in 1931, by 1991 Albanians constituted 81% of Kosovo's 2 million person population.[165] If growth continues at such a pace, the population will reach 4.5 million by 2050.[166] However, this is unlikely to happen; until about 1990, Kosovo Albanians had very high birth rates of about 4 children per woman, similar to many poor developing countries, but this has fallen down to about two since then and will likely sink below replacement eventually, as it has in Albania itself.[citation needed] In addition, Kosovo has a high emigration rate now which it did not have before 1990." seems to become absurd, given that Kosovo's population now (whether by CIA estimates or by the official census estimates of 2012) seems to be below the 1991 official census data. We obviously need to change this paragraph; I invite proposals.

Oh, btw, all the municipalities are given in Albanian and Serbian (except where the two forms are identical). Markd999 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines
Hi, Which guideline says that we must use Urošeevac and not Ferizaj, Peć and not Peja? bobrayner (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AT, among others. We must use article names, to avoid errors and pushing. I will also mention WP:SKYISBLUE. Just imagine that wiki with tons of dual/triple names for every term. That would be very wrong. Who is interested in others names, should click the article in question.. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 23:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, Whitewriter, I've quoted the guidelines (which, admittedly, say that the use of dual names is to be avoided if possible); but if you want to fight this through to the end, I'll propose a Kosovo section in "categories" under naming. On two of the tests in the guidelines - a simple Google search, or the name used by the linguistic majority - we end up with either a dual name (almost always with the Albanian version coming up first) or just the Albanian name. You cannot say that there is a "customary English usage" simply because Serbians have got there first on Wikipedia in putting up what are essentially stubs for toponyms. Personally I am quite happy to have the Serbian version put first, and as you know I think there are some things ("the Patriarchate of Pec, or Visoki Decani, for example) where only the Serbian should be used; and I will resist Albanian attempts to change them. "Customary English usage" changes over time. We still use "Milan" instead of "Milano", "Florence" instead of "Firenze", and "Rome" instead of "Roma". But we do not use "Leghorn" any more instead of "Livorno", or "Burma" instead of "Myanmar" (although, in the second example, interestingly enough, the inhabitants still do). So I think you are fighting a losing battle, and I am offering you a compromise which will keep your versions alive for much longer than will otherwise be the case.Markd999 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Serbians have got there first on Wikipedia", "you are fighting a losing battle", etc, etc... You dont have anything to offer to me, as this is not question of me, or you, but wiki guidelines. If we have article name, that should be used. Simple as that. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If we respect the guidelines, you might like to ask yourself how far you and antid have respected these guidelines in your responses to "Monuments in Kosovo": Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks I shall respect the guidelines and seek dispute resolution.Markd999 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe, if user delete from article every mention of word Serb-ia, -s, -ian, there is not too much place left for AGF. And by far more after WikiAcademy Kosovo, backed by Ministry of Foreign affairs of Republic of Kosovo. This is not subject for this page, use relevant pages for discussions. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)