Talk:Kosovo/Archive 3

Kosovar, Kosovan, Kosovian
I've added an explanation of the usages of the collective term to the article. -- ChrisO 20:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It will go to BJODN soon :)) Nikola 07:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adding summary info to article
The Kosovo article is already structured along the lines of a regular country or state article, but it lacks a summary table giving basic information on the place (official language, capital, largest city etc). If nobody objects, I'll have a go at creating a summary table for the article. I've already moved the map to the top of the page and will create a locator map based on that in the Serbia and Montenegro article. -- ChrisO 10:24, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Moved tables below)

Table based on subnational entity template
Official language Albanian, Serbian Capital Pri&#353;tina President * Ibrahim Rugova Prime Minister * Bajram Rexhepi UN Administrator * Harri Holkeri * Interim administration pending final status agreement Area - Total - % water 10,887 km&sup2; n/a Population - Total (1999) - Density 1,900,000 est. 175/km&sup2; Ethnic groups Albanians: 88% Serbs: 7% Other: 5% Independence - Declared - Recognition (From Serbia) - 1990 - none Currency Euro, Serbian dinar Time zone UTC +2 Top-level domain .YU

Please comment on this table below this point


 * Should I start to object? Nikola 07:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * That's up to you. What's your objection? -- ChrisO 09:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I object as well, for several reasons:
 * 1. Kosovo is not a state
 * I've answered this on Talk:Vojvodina; the table is a standard way of displaying data on subnational entities. It has nothing to do with whether a region is a state or not. -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * As I see, a table is a standard way of displaying data on subnational entities; but which table? Even those that you mentioned (Limburg, Southern Finland, Pas-de-Calais, Dagestan, Karelia, Chechnya or London Borough of Southwark) have completely different tables with completely different colour, layout and data.
 * 2. The Albanian flag is not officially recognized (unofficial data can not go into tables)
 * As far as I know, it has an official status within Kosovo, but an unofficial status in the Serbia-wide context. I'm not sure how else we can resolve this conflict of status, where each side says that the other's flag is illegitimate, other than by showing both flags and explaining the circumstances. How do you propose to address the official endorsement of the Albanian flag by the interim administration? -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Write about it as a subsection in Politics and the international status? Note that Kosovo Serbs don't use flag of Serbia as a flag of Kosovo but as a flag of Serbia, so if you put both you are wrong. I am not sure about the status of the Albanian flag also. Nikola
 * 3. Ibrahim Rugova was never elected in a direct vote, he was actually nominated by the UN administrator, as well as Bajram Rexhepi. The UN administrators have the final say.
 * He was elected by the Kosovo assembly a year ago this month. Don't forget that the US president isn't directly elected either, but nobody doubts his legitimacy (well, not until George W. Bush anyway :) -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * An issue I will raise now is consistancy of information with other tables. A table is obvious sign that all the information inside it also exists in a table of any other similar entity. But Vojvodina has no president or official currency.
 * For example, you have even included TLD; but that is TLD of Yugoslavia and not of Kosovo, and Kosovo doesn't have a TLD (I would not object to including it if it existed). Each university in SCG has a TLD so if there are articles on them with standard tables, there would be no need not to include TLDs. But here there is no need to include it. Nikola
 * 4. Kosovo did not declare independence, Kosovo Albanians did.
 * Strictly speaking, it would be more accurate to say Kosovo Albanian members of the Kosovo Assembly did. But really, the situation in that regard is little different to (for example) Abkhazia or Chechnya or for that matter Republika Srpska, all of which were secessions by one ethnic group. -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * RS didn't secess in the same way as these, Bosnia was not an internationally recognised state when it declared independence. Nikola
 * I think that me and Nikola should write up a similar table for the Republic of Serbian Krajina, what do you say Nikola? -- Igor 0:46, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object in principle, if you have the data. It's already been done for Biafra, an extinct secessionist state in Nigeria. -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not a state? Nikola 09:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * True, but it's an administrative division. Wikipedia already has a well-established practice of giving summary information on administrative units of cities or countries (see, for instance, London Borough of Southwark or Surrey). Doing this for Kosovo implies nothing about the status of the province other than that it's an administrative division of Serbia, which we already know. I'd be grateful if you could verify the information that I'll be putting in the table, though. -- ChrisO 10:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I would have no problems if this table is not based on table used for states and is clearly distinct from them. In fact, I would proliferate it to Vojvodina, Serbia, Montenegro and Republika Srpska articles. However, I strongly object with several reasons if the table is going to have political data in it (such as: flag, president, prime minister etc.). What exactly would you put in the table? Nikola 22:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Full agreement with Nikola on this issue, the table should be in the format of similar administrative subdivisions in the world. -- Igor 0:46, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Which it already is; see Talk:Vojvodina for random examples. -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'd overlooked this comment of yours before I added the table. (I've put the table next to this thread for ease of reference so that we can work on it here before it goes into the article. I've amended it a bit.)


 * I cannot believe this because you have at first proposed a table similar to that of London Borough of Southwark or Surrey. But then you have inserted a table that has nothing in common with these two, but looks completely like a country table and contains all the information that I've objected about and which is not present in these two tables. Nikola


 * Southwark and Surrey didn't prove to be an appropriate model because they don't give the full set of information needed for an article like this (e.g. languages, currency, political data). I used instead the model adopted for the republics of Russia - see, for instance, Dagestan or Karelia. It's a standard template for many Wikipedia articles on subnational divisions. -- ChrisO 10:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * So what, add the new -- Igor 0:46, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I answered to this above. Nikola


 * At the very least the table should have physical, geographical and demographic information. It should also have political data: Kosovo does have an elected president and prime minister who are regarded by the Serbia/Montenegro government as being the legitimate government, representatives of Kosovo. See, for instance, the many references at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=rugova+site%3Agov.yu which refer to "Kosovo President Ibrahim Rugova" and "Kosovo Premier Bajram Rexhepi". The S/M government clearly accepts these as their official titles and roles.


 * As far as I can see, these are relayings of news by various news agencies: "PRISTINA,Oct 13 (FoNet)-Kosovo President Ibrahim Rugova" by FoNet for example etc. However, even if they are regarded as legitimate government, I don't think that they should be in the table as 1) their positions are purely nominal, and each of their decisions can be withdrawn by UN administrator and 2) it suggests a sense of permanence and there is no final status of Kosovo yet; when there is, maybe Kosovo will not have a president. Nikola


 * I found many references from the Serbian government itself to Rugova as "Kosovo President" - see http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/news/2003-10/14/331454.html, among many others. That article describes Rugova and company as representatives of "Kosovo-Metohija's interim self-government institutions." Also, don't forget that the posts were filled through democratic elections; the individuals concerned were not self-appointed. Given that, I suggest that we include both the President and Prime Minister posts but note their interim status. (I've updated the table accordingly.) We can always change it later when things are finally worked out. -- ChrisO 10:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That one is also a piece of news, not an official document. Nikola


 * I agree that the flag is more problematic. I suggest that both the Albanian and Serbian flags be used in the table in recognition of the fact that Kosovo's elected administration uses the former, but the latter is the legal flag of the whole of Serbia, including Kosovo. This seems the most even-handed solution; using the Serbian flag alone would be rather like using the flag of the People's Republic of China as the sole flag on the Republic of China (Taiwan) article, while using the Albanian flag alone would disregard the formal position of the Serbian flag being the official Serbia-wide flag. See the amended form of the table for a possible way of displaying this.


 * Why displayingthem at all? Nikola


 * Because they're both in common use - it's as simple as that. NPOV means that we have to report things as they are, not just how one side or the other would like them to be. As a matter of record, we should say that the two main national communities each have their own flag exclusively used in their own areas of settlement. The interim government of Kosovo appears to have formally endorsed the use of the Albanian flag, so it would be POV to ignore that, just as it would be POV to ignore the national legal status of the Serbian flag. -- ChrisO 10:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Serbs use both the Yugoslav and Serbian flag. There are many unofficial variations of both the Serbian and Albanian flags that are used in Kosovo and throughout the Balkans, listing all of them, particularly in such a table, would be ludicrous. --Igor


 * But am I right in suggesting that there are only two or possibly three flags with any official standing - the Serbian/Serbia-Montenegro flags (endorsed by the Serbia/S&M government), and the standard Albanian flag (endorsed by the Kosovo interim administration)? -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Answered above. Nikola


 * I've restored the information on the naming issue that you deleted without explanation.


 * I just reverted. Nikola


 * The majority consensus on Talk:Kosova was that it should be retained to explain the controversy; I suggest that you respect that view. If you have a problem with it, please have the courtesy to discuss the issue and suggest alternative ways of dealing with it, rather than just deleting factual material. -- ChrisO 18:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Table based on London Borough
Please comment on this table below this point

Thanks for producing this, Igor. My comments:


 * Morwen has produced a nice concise locator map which I've included in my version of the table: see Image:SerbiaMontenegro-Kosovo2.png. Image:KosovoMetohiaMap.png is a bit too large and detailed for this purpose and doesn't put Kosovo in its usual context as one of Serbia's two autonomous provinces.
 * I don't think that it doesn't put it into context but I agree that it is too large, though I think that the other one is somewhat small. But as far as I am concerned it could be used, eventually replaced with a larger image later. Nikola
 * The "ethnic composition" note is a bit POV; I suggest just listing the figures and explaining the context in the text.
 * Politics: you can't just ignore the elected administration. It's a good idea to include the UN Administrator (I've done this with my table as well) but given that the president and prime minister are recognised as such by all the governments and international organisations involved, they need to be included. Also, I think the "declaration of independence" does need to be mentioned. For comparison, see the tables in Chechnya or South Ossetia, which likewise declared independence in 1990 and 1992 respectively but haven't been recognised internationally. Northern Cyprus is not dissimilar.
 * Again, above. Vojvodina never declared independence. Nikola

The table isn't bad, but I still think that for the sake of consistency it would be better to use the standard model for subnational entities. -- ChrisO 11:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

=
==========================================================

Sirs,

I hope you don't mind if I join this discussion.

I have a long list of objections, but I would like to start with the most important one: the name of Kosovo.

I totally object Kosovo being named Kosovo and Metohija. Naming Kosovo like that shows that by default you are being biased. Kosovo is known internationally as Kosovo only. I am not aware of any major or important government or institution calling Kosovo as Kosovo and Metohija. To begin with, the United Nation calls Kosovo as Kosovo only (and United Nations opinion should matter). Otherwise, the name of the UN mission in Kosovo would not be "United Nations Mission in Kosovo and ...", but it is simply "United Nations Mission in Kosovo". End of story.

In addition, the American government also uses the name Kosovo only. See CIA Factbook, or all other document released by the American administration. In particular, I recommend you see "Erasing History: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo" (http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/rpt_9905_ethnic_ksvo_toc.html). The same with the governments of United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Japan and others.

Moreover, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has a large mission in Kosovo, and once again they refer to Kosovo as Kosovo only. The list of examples is absolutely countless. See at any other encyclopedia. Kosovo is named Kosovo, no more, no less.

Therefore, having said all this, if the name of Kosovo on your website remains as Kosovo and Metohija it will demonstrate that the whole contents on Kosovo is blatantly biased. If you want to be NPOV, then something has to be done immediately. Otherwise I expect a meaningful explanation as to why the name of Kosovo is different to all other international standards.

Another note, even in the former Yugoslavia (pre-1991) Kosovo was always Kosovo only. However, when Serbia violently revoked Kosovo's autonomy, Metohija part was added to the name. The reason: so that it sounds as if Kosovo is not one entity, but a number of smaller entities, in an effort to cut one big problem into a number of smaller ones. Unsuccessfully, of course.

I look forward to all your replies.

Yours.

=
==========================================================

Tables: outstanding issues
For ease of reference, I thought I'd add a list of the outstanding issues here so that we can work through them one by one. -- ChrisO 12:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flag
How do we acknowledge the fact that each community in Kosovo endorses its own flag and deprecates the use of the other community's? Should we show both flags? Should we show neither?


 * Neither is in official use, UN flag and Yugoslav ones are. --Igor


 * I don't know whether it is in official use and in which way Nikola 11:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Map
Which map should we use - Image:KosovoMetohiaMap.png (large, detailed) or Image:SerbiaMontenegro-Kosovo2.png (small, locator map)?

Politics
How do we acknowledge the existence of the President and Prime Minister of the interim administration? Both offices are recognised by involved governments and international organisations.

How do we refer to the 1990 declaration of independence, given that it's accepted by one side but rejected by the other? Wikipedia precedent is to include it but note that it is unrecognised.

To sum up my points:
 * Official name of the province should be used, as is in other tables.
 * I think we're all agreed on that. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, what I mean by official name is full name, "Autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohia". Nikola
 * I thought the autonomy was abolished in 1990? -- ChrisO 16:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, as I said numerous times before, it was drastically reduced, but not abolished. I think that it should have been abolished competely, but it simply hasn't. Nikola 07:02, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * There should be no flag; I am not sure about its officiality but am quite sure that it is not recognised.
 * The choice seems to be both or neither, doesn't it? I'll settle for neither, though obviously we'll need to revisit this when a flag is finally agreed. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You plan to live that long? ;))) Nikola
 * As long as it takes. ;) -- ChrisO 16:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Map #1 is OK for me.
 * Capital, surface, population are OK.
 * But I'm not so sure about official languages and ethnic makeup. It's somewhat offendable, as is the flag.
 * UNMIK declared Albanian and Serbian to both be official languages in 1999 (as I recall, they also declared English to be an official language). The ethnic makeup figures come from the Statistical Office of Kosovo (http://www.sok-kosovo.org/ ), though clearly they are an estimate in the absence of a reliable census. Their status as an estimate needs to be noted. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I also don't think that politicians should be there; if they go then put them all (including Covic).
 * An infobox of this sort ought give summary information on key aspects of an entity, which clearly should include governance. Regarding Covic, as I understand it his role is "Head of the Coordinating Centre for Kosovo-Metohija" and he is Vice-President of the Republic of Serbia. He has no role in the government of Kosovo. The situation would be somewhat different if there was a "government in exile" and a rival President and Prime Minister, but this isn't the case in Kosovo. As far as I know, there is only one administration there, which both sides recognise officially. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The coordination centre is the only formal way of influence of Serbia on politics of Kosovo, I think that this should be noted somehow. Nikola
 * Can you suggest an appropriate way of doing this? -- ChrisO 16:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it should be mentioned in "Politics" section and, as I said, I think that its head should be in the table. Nikola 07:02, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * And I am quite certain that there should be no TLD, time zone or official currency. TLD doesn't even exist, time zone is not province-limited and Vojvodina has no official currency.
 * I agree, TLD and time zone should be omitted. TLD crept in from the country table and time zone was relevant in the case of where I took this table from (Dagestan, because Russia's republics are in multiple time zones). Clearly this isn't the case here. However, the official currency should be given, as UNMIK declared the euro to be an official currency as of 1 January 2002. The dinar retained its legal status at the same time, so the province actually has two official currencies. I don't mind whether the currency field is given in Vojvodina or not, but you might want to include it for the sake of consistency. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Background must not be gray because it is gray on state tables.
 * But it shouldn't be pink either. No better reason then aestethic dislike.
 * Infobox suggests a pale green (#DEFFAD) for geographic subdivisions. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I like the way Igor's table is split into subtables.
 * Table of Vojvodina should be rebuilt to follow this one.
 * I agree, they should both be consistent. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You've not mentioned the "Independence" field - it should be included, as is the standard practice for secessionist regions elsewhere (e.g. Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, South Ossetia, Biafra etc.). I think this field also needs to be included in the infobox on Republika Srpska and any future infobox on Republic of Serbian Krajina. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I also have an idea I haven't seen in other tables but which I think could be applied to this one, presumably via which could stand aside the map and contain something like:

Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro: Nikola 11:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Serbia
 * Vojvodina
 * Kosovo and Metohia
 * Montenegro


 * I like it - very good idea. I'll see what I can do. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now just to wait for Igor's comments... Nikola 23:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just watched Covic on TV, he said that government of SCG doesn't recognise government of Kosovo. Nikola 19:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Demonyms, continued
I've removed some errors from the discussion of the demonym:


 * someone from Togo is a Togoan, and so on.

Actually, someone from Togo is Togolese.


 * "Kosovian" is grammatically incorrect; the -ian ending should only be used for nouns ending in -ia (e.g. Russia, Serbia, Georgia).

You mean like "Canadia" and "Panamania"? --Montrealais (not Montrealian ;)

And Liverpudlia? 142.177.21.14 17:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania is irrelevant
"Some historians, including Serbian, claim the Albanians originate from the Caucasus, particularly Caucasian Albania, Albanian linguists suggest that the vocabulary and structure of the Albanian language points to a much earlier presence in the western Balkans." The Caucasian "Albanians" are no mystery any more; their descendants are the Udi, as recently discovered linguistic evidence shows, and the reason for the coincidence of names (which also explains "Alps" and "Albion") is that *alb- is an old Indo-European root meaning "white", and applied to mountainous regions all over the place. The Caucasian Albanians' language, I should add, is non-Indo-European, and has nothing to do with Albanian. - Mustafaa 06:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Coincidence of names is not a crucial argument, and there are other linguistic arguments. There are other pointers to Caucasian origin of Albanians, such as folk attire and tribal organisation. Anyway, even if untrue, the view is held by some historians. Nikola 07:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Would you mind producing some of this other evidence? From what I know this is nothing more than a crackpot theory. Dori | Talk 16:27, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Can't find on the net, anyway they wear Keche as well and two of their their tribes are Gege and Toske (don't know English spellings, but I'm sure you'll understand). Nikola   08:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know what a "Keche" is, but Gheg and Tosk are two dialects of Albanian and have nothing to do with tribes. Are you saying that they speak Albanian? Dori | Talk 14:28, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * You know, Albanian hat. You should write an article about it :) AFAIK, there are no claims that Caucasian Albanians spoke (or are speaking) same language as Albanians. Nikola   12:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, we spell it Qeleshe. I hardly think that a similarity in the hats proves that Albanians came from the Caucus. Besides, there are only so many ways of making a hat, and many other people in the Balkans have the same kind of hat, it's hardly the most distinguished trait of Albanians. The language is much more important, and since those two are not similar, then that pretty much settles it, don't you think? Dori | Talk 13:37, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've added it to List of hats and headgear. Well, Qeleshe is quite specific, and I'm not aware that anyone in the Balkans has same hat, anyway, I don't know enough about the theory to discuss it further, I think it's well marked as a minority view. Nikola   15:01, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Name of the article
Sirs,

I hope you don't mind if I join this discussion.

I have a long list of objections, but I would like to start with the most important one: the name of Kosovo.

I totally object Kosovo being named Kosovo and Metohija. Calling Kosovo with such a name shows that by default the contents of the page is biased. Kosovo is known internationally as Kosovo only. I am not aware of any major or important government or institution calling Kosovo as Kosovo and Metohija. To begin with, the United Nation calls Kosovo as Kosovo only (and the opinion of the United Nations should matter). Otherwise, the name of the UN mission in Kosovo would be "United Nations Mission in Kosovo and ...", not as it is, simply "United Nations Mission in Kosovo". End of story.

In addition, the American government also uses the name Kosovo only. See CIA Factbook, or all other document released by the American administration. In particular, I recommend you see "Erasing History: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo" (http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/rpt_9905_ethnic_ksvo_toc.html ). The same with the governments of United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Japan and others.

Moreover, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has a large mission in Kosovo, and once again they refer to Kosovo as Kosovo only. The list of examples is absolutely countless. See at any other encyclopedia. Kosovo is named Kosovo, no more, no less.

Therefore, having said all this, if the name of Kosovo on your website remains as Kosovo and Metohija it will demonstrate that the whole contents on Kosovo is blatantly biased. If you want to have a NPOV, then something has to be done immediately. Otherwise I expect a meaningful explanation as to why the name of Kosovo is different to all other international standards.

Another note, even in the former Yugoslavia (pre-1991) Kosovo was always Kosovo only. However, when Serbia violently revoked Kosovo's autonomy, Metohija part was added to the name. The reason: so that it sounds as if Kosovo is not one entity, but a number of smaller entities, in an effort to cut one big problem into a number of smaller ones. Unsuccessfully, of course.

I look forward to all your replies.

Yours,

Kosovar


 * Well, there is at least one government which calls its province Kosovo and Metohia only, and it's the only one that matters. Nikola   08:27, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Dear Nikola,

I thank you for exactly proving my point. According to you, one opinion “is the only one that matters”, brushing aside all other views. The Oxford Dictionary of English defines your opinion as one-sided. The exact definition of this word is: “unfairly giving or dealing with only one side of a contentious issue”. To put it more straightforwardly, that is a bias in its worst form.

Too bad the rest of the world does not think like you, Nikola. Since when the opinion of the United Nations (UN) does not matter? What about the opinion of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)? Also, what about the views of the European Union (EU), European Parliament, Council of Europe, Red Cross, or United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, just to name a few.

Better still, how about the opinion of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which has an international reputation for impartiality?

Yet, most importantly, what about the opinion of the majority of the population in Kosovo? Surely their opinion should be the most significant.

Nikola, the official policy of Wikipedia is the Neutral Point of View (NPOV), not opinions that matter to only one group of people, isn’t it?

But then indeed, this comes as no surprise, as Serbs’ understanding of impartial opinion differs from the rest of the world.

Next please.

Kosovar

.....

Dear Yours,

What I said was not an opinion, but a fact. If tomorrow, the assembly of Serbia decides to change the constitution of Serbia in such a way that name of the province is changed to "Abvgd", this article would have to be moved to "Abvgd". If, day after that, it decides to change the name of the province to "Province 2", this article would have to be moved to "Province 2". And yes, noone's opinion, including mine, yours, UN's, or the majority of the population in Kosovo's, would matter.

Nikola 15:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

.....

Given the previous controversial acts conducted by the Serbian assembly I would not be surprised at the slightest if they start calling Kosovo as “Province 2”. No one can force them to call Kosovo whatever they wish to call it. No one is depriving Serbs of calling Kosovo as Kosovo and Metohija. However, this is not the point.

The point of discussion is whether the international community must use the same name as the one used by the Serbian assembly. The answer is no, of course. It is not within the powers of Serbian assembly to dictate the international community what action to take (including the naming of Kosovo). It is rather the international community, which enjoys such discretionary powers. Therefore, the issue in question is that there is an internationally accepted name for Kosovo, and that name is simply Kosovo.

Nikola, you forget the fact that this is not the website of the Serbian assembly, and it is not meant to adopt the views of that assembly. This is supposed to be an international encyclopedia with neutral and impartial views.

Your “facts” are only one part of the story. The other part of the story is that the vast majority of Kosovars uses the name Kosova, whereas the international community (just to remind you, United Nations, UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, European Union, Council of Europe, European Parliament, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Group of Eight, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, etc. … endless list) have adopted the name Kosovo.

Now that’s a fact you or anyone else cannot deny or ignore.

--Kosovar 16:50, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro is a sovereign country. Therefore, the international community, whatever it might be, has no discretionary powers whatsoever to name provinces of its constituent states. Assemblys don't have views, they pass laws. There is no story.

Nikola 17:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

.....

If that were the case, how come then that the international community refers to the territory as Kosovo only. Nikola, your statements are obviously false.

Also, the Serbian assembly de facto lost its entire jurisdiction over Kosovo back in June 1999. Kosovo is now administered by the United Nations. Serbia has absolutely no actual powers whatsoever over Kosovo. Kosovo has its own constitutional framework (http://www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm ), adopted and approved by the United Nations Security Council. And it is this constitutional framework that names the territory as Kosovo only.

My only question to you is: why do the UN Security Council (http://www.unmikonline.org/press/reports/N9917289.pdf ), OSCE (http://www.osce.org/kosovo/ ), and EU (http://www.euinkosovo.org/ ) refer to the territory as Kosovo only? If you can come up with a logical answer, I will appreciate it greatly.

--Kosovar 18:18, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

The international community, as you are trying to portray it, does not exist. All my statements are correct. Whether or not Serbia has actual powers over Kosovo is irrelevant. Various organisations apparently can use various names in their internal documents; only one name is official name. Aforementioned constitutional framework is an internal document of an international organisation. As such, it can not change a name of a province of Serbia.

Nikola 19:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

.....

Dear Nikola,

I asked you for a logical answer, not political propaganda. Propaganda is a sign of weakness and defeat.

If only the whole world was blind, you would make a great spin-doctor. Now, let me elaborate on your propaganda.

So, there is no international community, no international law, no international norms or standards?


 * No. There are international community, international law, and international norms and standards. Neither of which can change names of provinces of states which constitute the international community, sign treaties which constitute international law, and partake in creating international norms and standards. Nikola

So, you portray the United Nations Security Council as some sort of a “various international organisation”, the UN Security Council Resolutions are some sort of “internal documents”. Too bad Nikola the world does not circle around Serbia, and it doesn’t work as you would have liked it to. Frankly, I am not surprised at your opinion. No wonder your former beloved presidents and military leaders are all in The Hague.


 * No. I was referring to United Nations, UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, European Union, Council of Europe, European Parliament, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Group of Eight and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. They are all organisations, they are all international, and they are quite various. So, I think that the term "various international organisations" describes them quite appropriately. Nikola

Now, let me reverse your question and please, allow me to ask you: if the United Nations Security Council were some sort of “various international organisation”, and the UN Security Council Resolutions were some sort of “internal documents” why do you cry that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombarded Serbia “without endorsement by the United Nations”?

Serbs (and you personally) use this argument consistently in your interpretation of the situation in Kosovo.

So Nikola, what difference an “internal document” would make if NATO bombarded Serbs or not?


 * The difference lays in the fact that this particular international organisation can create a particular internal document which can make NATO bombing of Serbia legal under international law and legitimate in the international community. It arguably can not, and certainly did not pass a document which orders Serbia to rename its province. Nikola

You must choose, either cry together with other Serbs over an “internal document” of a “various international organisation” (i.e. a piece of paper, nothing more) for NATO bombing Serbia, or accept the fact that legal internationally binding documents and resolutions name the territory as Kosovo (no Metohija).

Make up your mind, Nikola. You can’t have it both ways!

According to you, documents approved and authorised by the Security Council, like the Constitutional Framework of Kosovo, are “internal documents”. I am really thinking if there is any point in arguing with someone who is so narrow-minded. Utter arrogance. Whether you like it or not, this document acts as the current constitution of Kosovo, and it is legally binding and enforceable (i.e. it is not non-sense as you would like to present it).


 * Acts is a very good word. It is not legally binding nor enforceable. I can go to Kosovo and break the constitutional framework or any of the laws passed by Kosovo parliament. If I don't get caught by KFOR or Kosovo police, I can return to Belgrade and live safely everafter, so long as I haven't broken a law or the constitution of Serbia as well. Nikola

In the end, I have no problem in calling Wikipedia a “various international organisation” as long as it names Kosovo like the other “various international organisations”. At the end of the day, it will only be an “internal document”, won’t it?


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Nikola

Kosovar 12:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I have removed the vote because "Kosovo and Metohia" is official name of the province and there could be no voting about that. Nikola 06:58, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I put it back. We don't follow official names here, we follow the most common name with some caveats and special conventions working against that sometimes. --mav 07:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Ditto, twice. Same for the Requests for comment -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

.....

Nikola, if you don't want voting, then answer my questions. Stop hiding! So, encyclopedias must use "official" names, while UN Security Council Resolutions (your "internal documents") must not. What a strange world you live in Nikola.

All of the sudden you went very quiet. Your answers seem shorter and shorter. Is it because you are loosing the argument?

Kosovar 08:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I have answered all your questions so far. Encyclopedias need not use official names, but this particular encyclopedia has chosen to do so. My answers are, on average, getting longer and longer, which means that you are a liar. Nikola 08:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Vote on the name
Under which name should this article go?

Kosovo and Metohia

 * 1) Drbug 20:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC) - for the sake of disambiguation.

Kosovo (current)
Everybody,who doesn´t accept UNMIK, but is writing for kosovo, is just making propaganda. it has nothing to do with english language. With people like that, i don t need to have a discussion. If you are able to accept UNMIK, than we can have a discussion.
 * 1) Dori | Talk 03:12, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Kosovar 04:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) mav 07:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC) (don't see why the common name should not be the one we use here)
 * 4) Chris 73 | Talk 08:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC) I have never heard of Metohia.
 * 5) Menchi 10:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Joli 10:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC) Oxford Dictionary of English uses the name Kosovo. So does Britannica, Encarta, and everyone else I know.
 * 7) Delirium 10:54, May 4, 2004 (UTC) -- But the very beginning should still read what it currently does: "Kosovo and Metohia, more commonly called just Kosovo...", just like we have Greece under Greece, but start out the article with the official name, the Hellenic Republic, and have Tony Blair there, but start it out with his official name. --Delirium 10:54, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ChrisO 12:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC) I favour this option, but with reservations. It is probably impossible to name this article without offending one side or the other. "Kosovo and Metohia" is the preferred Serbian name; "Kosova" is the preferred Albanian name; "Kosovo" is the most widely used name, but is a truncation of the Serbian name, so is not liked by Albanians. If the article is renamed, I suggest that the first sentence be changed to something like: "Kosovo, called Kosovo and Metohia by Serbs and Kosova by Albanians..."
 * ''Isn't it already? Mark Richards 17:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you Chris. Also, Mark could you please register your vote.
 * 1) Michael Snow 21:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC) By far the most common English usage. As ChrisO says, everything's potentially offensive here, and that would only make a difference if two alternatives were close to being equally common.
 * 2) Jmabel 22:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC) I am totally with ChrisO here.

First of all : UNMIK ! What does it mean ? UNMIK stands for United Nation Mission in KOSOVO. In Kosovo ! There are no words for Serbian teritory or things like that. If you would be so nice, to have a look to the homepage from UNMIK, you can see yourself : there are no words for Kosovo in serbian territory. They are just writing " ...in the war-ravaged province of Kosovo... " Than you can read this :
 * 1) perform basic civilian administrative functions;
 * 2) promote the establishment of substantial autonomy and self-government in Kosovo;
 * 3) facilitate a political process to determine Kosovo's future status;
 * 4) coordinate humanitarian and disaster relief of all international agencies;
 * 5) support the reconstruction of key infrastructure;
 * 6) maintain civil law and order;
 * 7) promote human rights; and
 * 8) assure the safe and unimpeded return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Kosovo.

That means, Kosovo doesn t have a status( it s war - ravaged ! ). It s just a province, administrated by UNMIK,and nothing else. It doesn t belong to any other state or country. UNMIK is there to help the kosovars to decide for their future.Every other offical reference, like offical serbian - or offical albanian reference, is just propaganda. From that point of knowledge, our discussion is, like I would say Serbia or Albania is a province in China. All articles with the subject " Kosovo ", which have to do with information or references BEFORE the 10. june 1999 belongs to the article " History of Kosovo ". In an other case, I ll delete it, because i took it like propaganda and not like neutral information for Wikipedia. People in this discussion, who don t accept UNMIK, aren t neutral. They are living in an own dreamworld, what has nothing to do with reallity and they are using the Wikipedia for their own propaganda.

If somebody think, that I m wrong, please show me. But please argue with informations from an OFFICIAL document, accepted from UNMIK and not with an dokument from national offical propaganda informations. We can have a disskussion with facts from UNMIK, not with the past. Wikipedia stands for knowledge and shouldn t have to become a place for national propaganda, no matter if it s serbian or albanian propaganda. In other case serbian and albanian people will ravage it, like they ve ravaged Kosovo.--Hipi Zhdripi 00:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

article name Kosovo redirect Kosova.

Comments
I doubt this issue could be resolved through discussion of involved parties, so I have listed this as an RFC and started a vote. As far as my vote goes, Kosovo is the most widely used name elsewhere (most organizations and nations). The Albanian name is Kosova, so I feel that Kosovo would be an acceptible compromise. Dori | Talk 03:12, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

.....

Delirium, I think the text should read something along this lines: Official Serb name "Kosovo and Metohija" (which can be written in cyrilic), Albanian name "Kosova", internationally known as Kosovo.

I am informing ChrisO's followers that, while it is a fact which noone denies that "Kosovo" is the most common name in English for "&#1050;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;", at the same time "Kosovo and Metohia" is the most common name in English for "&#1050;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086; &#1080; &#1052;&#1077;&#1090;&#1086;&#1093;&#1080;&#1112;&#1072;", a Serbian province you are talking about. Nikola 22:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

.....

Rubbish! What you are doing is simply translating the name from Cyrillic to Latin alphabet. Do you really think we are that stupid?


 * I wasn't thinking so, but after this I do. "Translation" (you meant transliteration) of the name to Latin alphabet is "Kosovo i Metohija". Translation to English language is "Kosovo and Metohia". Nikola


 * Thank you for pointing out your true intentions. I was using the softer term “translation”, but you instead use a stronger term “transliteration”. That’s perfectly fine with me. It clearly shows how you were “informing” us, and what you real intensions were. Kosovar 06:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

As I said before, if only the whole world was blind, you would make a great spin-doctor.

I am informing you all, including Nikola that the United Nations refer to the territory as Kosovo only. The United Nations has a mission in Kosovo, which is called "United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo", not Kosovo and Metohija.

I am also informing you all that the United States, European Union, Council of Europe, NATO, OSCE and all other encyclopedias and dictionaries of English refer to the territory as Kosovo only. Hence, this encyclopedia should follow the same pattern.


 * Are you certain that they are referring to it officialy or it is just a convinience? I am quite certain that even the government of Serbia refers to it as Kosovo only sometimes. Heck, I refer to it as Kosovo only, most of the time. But official name is official name. Nikola


 * Oh yes, I am absolutely certain they were referring to it officially. There is no such thing as convenience with governments and international institutions. Stop fabricating things. Start seeing the reality. And they don’t refer to the territory as Kosovo sometimes, but all the times. Is that clear? Kosovar 06:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Can Nikola’s view really measure against the opinion of the above? Surely not.

I am also informing you that Nikola cries that NATO bombarded Serbia “without endorsement by the United Nations”, yet he refuses to accept the resolutions by the same international body that refer to the territory as Kosovo only.


 * There is no resolution which endorses Serbia which name to use. (It would probably be against the UN charter but there isn't one so it doesn't matter.) There are resolutions that mention Kosovo in passing, but nothing of it is official. Oh yes, and I never cried. Nikola


 * Noone is endevouring to force Serbs to use whatever name they wish for the territory. However, the United Nations and the international community decide themselves what names to use, and they have decided long ago that they will use the name Kosovo only. Also, United Nations Resolution 1244 ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/371562.stm ) does not mention Kosovo in passing, it is a resolution on Kosovo. Let me write that again on Kosovo. Every UN Resolution is official. Anyone who says otherwise, is obviously living on a different planet. Kosovar 06:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

So, Nikola would like us to think that UN Security Council Resolutions come in two flavours, those that are pro-Serb and are all relevant, and those that are not pro-Serb and are irrelevant (or as he describes them “internal documents of various international organisations”).

What for a Serb represents the official name, for an Albanian that represents the name used by their occupiers.


 * What for an Albanian represents the real name, for a Serb that represents name used by separatists who are trying to separate the cradle of Serb statehood, culture and religion from Serb state. As there are more Serbs then Albanians, more people will be offended with the short form of the name then with the long one. Nikola


 * I have to thank you sincerely for replying to this. You prove exectly my point. There are two very opposing views: the Albanian view and the Serbian view. I thought Wikipedia has a policy of NPOV, right? Kosovar 06:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

At the end of the day, if Nikola thinks he has got a point, then why doesn’t he present his point of view and vote? Let the people decide what name to use for the territory in their encyclopedia. I need not remind you that this is not Nikola’s encyclopedia, nor is it Serb’s encyclopedia. This is everybody’s encyclopedia, and everybody’s opinion matters.


 * I won't vote because voting is irregular. If woting was regular, I would have voted. Nikola


 * Here, I really understand where you’re coming from Nikola. The Serbs’ understanding of regular and irregular voting is different to that of other nations. Milosevic has taugh them what truly free and open elections are. Whereas irregular voting are those that are not clearly and openly pro-Serb, am I right? Kosovar 06:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the problem lies with the fact that Nikola does not know what impartiality is. Nor does he accept the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.


 * I have to admit that I had to look it up in a dictionary :) Of course, I knew what it is, just not how it's said in English. Nikola 02:13, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You’ll need to look up at a lot of words in the dictionary to talk to me. Kosovar 06:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Kosovar 23:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

-

Based on the information displayed in Republika Srpska page, I have added the following information to the Kosovo page: that Kosovo has its own constitutional framework (http://www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm ), assembly, government, president, travel documents, identity cards, car plates, protection corps (Kosovo Protection Corps), customs code, two criminal codes, independent postal service, railways and their own airline (Kosova Airlines).

Also, I think it should be noted that there is a so-called "positive discrimination" policy in the Kosovo Assembly, and 20 out of 120 seats are allocated for minorities, whereas the other 100 seats are elected through direct elections. As a result, the Serb minority has 22 seats, instead of 12.

And I added a link to the website of the Kosovo Assembly (www.assembly-kosova.org).

I am happy to discuss this. Though I think that if Republika Srpska page contains such information, why can't Kosovo page contain the same.

Kosovar 03:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved the page
The discussion had died down and there was overwhelming support for the move. Nikola was the only dissenting voice, though I imagine Igor would oppose the move as well, but that's still a minority. Dori | Talk 00:54, May 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I was not a dissenting voice. I have not voted because the voting was irregular. Nikola 08:30, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I noticed the move, but a bit later it was back at "Kosovo and Metohia", so I moved it again to Kosovo. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * In what way was it irregular, Nikola? If there was a procedural problem let's hear what it was. -- ChrisO 15:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The Kosovo archives have recently been moved by Nikola. I suggest the are returned where they were Talk:Kosovo -- not Talk:Kosovo and Metohia. Also, I replied to Nikola's letter. Apologies for the delay. Kosovar 06:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I have moved the archive pages -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:34, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Cheers Chris. Many thanks for your efforts. Greatly appreciated. --Kosovar 10:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Move conflict
We appear to have a bit of a move conflict; despite the outcome of the vote, the page has been moved back to K&M several times. The log at Special:Undelete/Kosovo (which I think only admins can see) has this to say:


 * 10:48, 9 May 2004 . . Chris 73 deleted "Kosovo" (Deleted so that Kosovo and Metohia can be moved here as voted for on the talk page with 10 to 0)
 * 08:41, 9 May 2004 . . Nikola Smolenski
 * 08:26, 9 May 2004 . . Nikola Smolenski (moved to "Kosovo_and_Metohia")
 * 00:43, 9 May 2004 . . Dori (moved to "Kosovo_(disambiguation)")

I would be happy to support a fresh vote if it is justified - Nikola has called it "irregular" and "not democratic" and I hope that he will substantiate these claims. In the meantime, please do not try to force the issue by moving the page again - this applies to all sides, not just Nikola. A move war would be pointless and disruptive and I hope that nobody who's been involved in this discussion will engage in such conduct.

The relevant policy can be found at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User's_Guide:_Renaming_(moving)_pages - I recommend that people read and take note of it, especially the point that ""Move wars" are highly unproductive, and leave vast numbers of pointless redirects littering the place, which some poor soul will have to fix." -- ChrisO 16:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * These are actions of a reckless individual. There should be no fresh vote. I am yet to hear what was so 'irregular' or 'undemocratic' about the previous vote. Was it the fact that Nikola's views did not win? As a matter of fact, people can still continue voting, if they wish to exercise this right. Because the vast majority of people do not agree with Nikola, he now tries to disrupt the work. Shameful. If he leaves the page as it is, there will be no 'move wars'. --Kosovar 17:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree with Kosovar. The vote seems to be valid, democratic, and regular, similar to other votes at Wikipedia. The location was decided to beKosovo, and that's where the page should be. I am still puzzled how the page was moved back to K&M twice. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Update: If i counted correctly, the page has been moved a number of times in the last two days (with dates when known):
 * To Kosovo by Dori (00:43, 9 May 2004)
 * To Kosovo and Metohia by nicola (08:26, 9 May 2004)
 * To Kosovo by me (~10:48, 9 May 2004)
 * To Kosovo and Metohia presumably by nicola
 * To Kosovo by Dori
 * To Kosovo and Metohia by nicola (15:02, May 11 2004)
 * To Kosovo by me (15:38, May 11 2004)
 * I now gave the K&M redirect page a small history, so i think it cant be moved again without deleting the K&M page first, which requires an admin. Hope this helps -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:05, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The page is now protected temporarily, so I hope that all the parties can use this time to discuss this issue rather than engage in move wars. -- ChrisO 07:28, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Data on relative usages
For the record, this is what Google shows for the number of results returned for each variant of the name, searching only on English-language pages:


 * "kosovo -metohija -metohia -metohiya" - 2,100,000
 * "kosova" - 179,000
 * "kosove" - 9,850
 * "kosovo and metohija" - 19,100
 * "kosovo and metohia" - 6,640
 * "kosmet" - 5,360 (note - many references not relevant to Kosovo)
 * "kosovo and metochia" - 194
 * "kosovo and metohiya" - 23
 * "kosovo i metohia" - 4

On the issue of how to spell "Metohi*a", an English-language newspaper archive search also confirms that "Metohija" is predominant (3884 results) versus just 12 for "Metohia" and none at all for "Metohiya". A search for "Kosovo and Metohija" returned 476 results, with "Kosovo AND NOT Metohija" returning 158,823.

Although this is somewhat inexact, it does indicate a number of things:


 * 1) The overwhelmingly predominant name used for Kosovo in English is, unsurprisingly, "Kosovo" (without the Metohi*a bit in any of its variants).
 * 2) "Metohija" is preferred to "Metohia" (and I suspect it's probably a more accurate transliteration anyway).

Given these data, it's clear that "Kosovo" is the preferred name by a huge margin, and the preferred version of the full Serbian name is "Kosovo and Metohija". -- ChrisO 10:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Kosovë also has 17,600 hits. Dori | Talk 14:32, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

-

The first paragraph of Kosovo profile states that Kosovo is a province of southern Serbia. This is incorrect. Southern Serbia has no provinces. Kosovo is situated in the south of Serbia. The statement gives the impression that southern Serbia has provinces. Kosovo is (or was) an autonomous territory south of Serbia. --Kosovar 13:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Fixed. -- ChrisO 10:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

-

Suggested guidelines on usage
Rather than getting into an unproductive revert war over each link to the Kosovo article, I think it might be a good idea to work out some basic guidelines on where and how the names are used.

First, a bit of background: Kosovo is both an administrative entity and a geographical region. The term we use depends on the context.


 * Serbs refer to the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", or "Kosovo and Metohija" for short. Kosovo and Metohija are regarded as distinct geographical regions within that administrative entity. The entity was not created until 1945. (BTW, I do think we should standardise on "Metohija", as that is the most-used transliteration.)


 * Albanians refer to the "Republic of Kosova", or "Kosova" for short. I *think* that's used to refer to the entire administrative entity, including the part that Serbs call Metohija; perhaps Dori or Kosovar could confirm this? The name "Metohija" is not used.


 * English-speakers refer to "Kosovo" meaning the entire administrative entity, including the part that Serbs call Metohija. In this respect it's rather like the way we often use "Holland" to mean "The Netherlands" even though Holland is actually only part of that country. The name "Metohija" is only rarely used and has very little mass recognition.

I suggest the following guidelines:


 * For articles about Kosovo towns and cities (e.g. Pristina, Prizren, Kosovo Polje etc) it makes sense to refer to them as being located "in the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija," as that is the proper name of the administrative region in which they are located. I think Nikola's use of the term in this context should stand.


 * For historical references, particularly before the Serbian (re)conquest of 1912, references to a place called "Kosovo and Metohija" are anachronistic, as there was no administrative unit of that name before then; if I remember rightly, the name wasn't even used as the name of the Ottoman province covering the area. But it would be sensible to use "Kosovo" to describe the geographic region.

Does anyone have any comments? -- ChrisO 10:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for starting a compromise attempt. However, I disagree with your first point. In English, the province is called Kosovo, and should be referred to in that way (see also the majority vote above, which I consider valid until the majority votes different. Google also shows about 10 times more returns for Kosovo than for anything else). The name Kosovo and Metohija belongs at the beginning of the Kosovo article as the name used by Serbs, short for 'Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". The name can also be used at Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro. Thus "Prizren is located in Kosovo" seems to be the proper way for me. I would like to avoid the use of Metohija because, as you said, the name has very little mass recognition and is not used in English. About the geographic region: If the region is roughly the same as the province, I would continue to use Kosovo for both, otherwise maybe Kosovo (province) and Kosovo (region). I'll guess it will take some more time to sort this out. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

--

Many thanks to all of you for trying to sort out some of the mess with the Kosovo article. I would like to make a list of comments:

-- Kosovo is a territory with well-defined borders. This borders are georaphic borders and political borders. The same territory, with the same borders, used to be a province of Serbia, and now is under U.N. administration.

-- We are NOT dealing with different geographic borders for the territory, and different political (administrative) borders. Kosovo is one, and there should be no confusion over this.

-- The English name for the territory is Kosovo. If you trust the Oxford Dictionary of English, then you should use the name Kosovo. Even better, the United Nations uses the name Kosovo in all its documents and resolutions.

-- The Albanian name for the territory is Kosova. The Serbian name is Kosovo and Metohija.

-- Hence, when writing in English, one should refer to places within the borders of the territory as "... is a town in Kosovo". This is not the view of Albanians, nor the Serbs.

-- The official currency of Kosovo is the Euro ( http://www.bpk-kos.org/english/currency.htm ).

-- There are 7 commercial banks in Kosovo, and all use exclusively the Euro for commercial purposes. All payments are done in Euros, except in certain areas where Serbs receive payments in Dinar from the Serbian government (these amount to less than 10 per cent of all transactions).

-- The budget of Kosovo is calculated in Euros. I kindly ask you to visit the website of any bank in Kosovo and try and find a single reference to the Serbian Dinar. Finally, the European Central Bank has approved of Kosovo using the Euro and it officially supplies the Kosovo Banking and Payment Authority (i.e. National Bank) with the Euro banknotes and coins.

-- For more information visit the BANKING AND PAYMENTS AUTHORITY OF KOSOVO ( http://www.bpk-kos.org/ )

-- Kosovo Commercial Banks: ProCredit Bank (www.procreditbank-kos.com) -- Raiffeisen Bank Kosovo (www.raiffeisen-kosovo.com) -- The New Bank of Kosovo (www.brk-bank.com) -- Bank of Private Business (www.bpb-bank.com) -- Kasabank (www.kasabank.com) -- Banka Ekonomike (www.bekonomike.com) -- Banka Kreditore e Prishtinës (no website.)

-- The population of the capital of Kosovo, Prishtina, is well over 500,000. The British Government puts this figure even higher at 600,000 (URL: http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019233722672 )

Many thanks, --Kosovar 21:25, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Protection request of pages related to Kosovo
User:Nikola Smolenski has listed a number of pages related to Kosovoon Requests for page protection due to the dispute about the name of this province. According to the unanimous vote above, the English name Kosovo is to be used, not the Serbian name Kosovo and Metohia. The poll was removed three times by user:Nikola Smolenski, who disputes the validity of the vote and uses only the - in my opinion - narrowest possible interpretation of the vote result, i.e. that the vote decided only the location of the page Kosovo, but everything else is to be Kosovo and Metohia. The protection requests are made by him to ensure the usage of Kosovo and Metohia throughout Wikipedia. In my view, the above vote is A) valid, and B) decided the name to be used for this province. I am willing to support another vote if necessary. Comments about this dispute are very welcome. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)~