Talk:Kosovo/Archive 5

According to resolution 1244, UNMIK is to:

 * perform basic civilian administrative functions;
 * promote the establishment of substantial autonomy and self-government in Kosovo;
 * facilitate a political process to determine Kosovo's future status;
 * coordinate humanitarian and disaster relief of all international agencies;
 * support the reconstruction of key infrastructure;
 * maintain civil law and order;
 * promote human rights; and
 * assure the safe and unimpeded return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Kosovo.

'''this is just one part of the resolution. Here is the whole resolution. http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm These official documents show you a complete 1244 Resolution, together with all the small changesmade by NATO. It is clearly stated that Kosovo is part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro)currently administered by the UN forces. Let's stop albanian propaganda!''' Gianni ita 15:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted blatant POV passage
I have deleted a blatantly POV-ed sentence from the section where it's spoken about Serbs and Roma leaving. It said "(note: Most of Kosovo Serbs were in the ruling administration of Milosevic's installed apartheid in Kosovo)". It is both factually ridiculous (what? The majority of the Kosovo Serbs were doing administration jobs? And what about numerous monks and entirely Serb villages? Everybody was administering? What a nonsense!) and is clearly POV. I do not cover my leaning - I am pro-Serbian (though not Serb and not originating from Serbia, I am a Jew), but hey! The folks here need to put some limits on this kind of savage trolling. --Aleverde
 * In one way or another they were at least assisting the regime. There are very few I remember in my town, who refused to do so, and were labelled as traitors, and later joined as well. They were in all the police forces, municipality offices, all state-owned offices, all factories(where they had expelled the albanians from, of course), etc. And monks, oh yeah, most of them were blessing them for fighting the "turks" away. As ridiculous as it may sound to you. No wonder they are now afraid to return to Kosovo. Conscience bites more than anything. Nothing bad with being pro-Serbian, it is obvious you are. But try to be pro-smart-Serbian, who have recognized the reality. (Read: Kosova will never be under Serbian rule again, in no way) thanks, Ben uk 10:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nikola's reverts
Nikola has started to make reverts of ChrisO's version without any explanation at all; this kind of behavior, where he is ignoring the rest of the community and their input, as well as reverting to push his point, is against a number of wiki policies. GeneralPatton 20:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * He's now broken the three revert rule. GeneralPatton 20:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The province in question is called Kosovo (the word is derived from the serbian word "kos" - blackbird, coloquialy known as "Kosovo polje" and broadly translated it means "the field of the blackbirds". The word KosovA is a bastardized version of the serbian word. Same linguistic bastardization can be found in the Gaelic word Dub Hlin (town of black lakes), which over the centuries became Dublin (capital city of Ireland)- Dublin in English has no meaning, KosovA in Albanian equally has no meaning both are the names belonging to the ethnically stronger community which had prevailed at the time of ethnic dominance by the native speakers. Naturally the war for Kosovo keeps going on everywhere including the pages of this encyclopedia. Propaganda war knows no boundries. Historical facts can be checked, examined and speak abundantly of Kosovo's rich Serbian history. The many Serbian monastaries from 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14, 15, 16 and 17th Century speak strongly that Serbians had a firm foothold in Kosovo. Following facts played a key role in Kosovo's ethnic change:

1. Albanian birth rate was above that of any other nation on Earth;

2. Year 1688-1690 a mass exodus of Serbs was organized by Arsenije III Charnojevic

3. Communist politics brought many native Albanians from Albania to Kosovo in the aftermath of WW2

4. In its efforts to stifle Russian and/or Chinese version of communism (praciced only in Albania) Yugoslav leaders pretty much opened the Kosovo borders to further demonstrate their own approach to communism was the only correct way.

5. As the ethnic balance was shifting (numerically) in favor of Albanians, the more Serbians were being forcefully expelled.

CONCLUSION: Today's situation of Kosovo is clearly a nightmare because of the above and many more historical factors. In spite of the strong Serbian cultural identity established in Kosovo, the population growth and demographic make-up are clearly in favor of the Albanians. Their (Albanian) numerical superiority does not make Kosovo entirely Albanian.

"If the Pope says the Earth is flat - the facts don't have to say it's so"


 * Milosevic propaganda--Hipi Zhdripi 21:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And what about this? "Today's situation of Vojvodina is clearly a nightmare because of the above and many more historical factors. In spite of the strong Hungarian cultural identity established in (so called) Vojvodina, the population growth and demographic make-up are clearly in favor of the Serbians. Their (Serbian) numerical superiority does not make Vojvodina entirely Serbian." User:195.56.15.8

For user 195.56.15.8: I was never interested in history of Kosovo, but since I tracked your changes to this page, I have to inform you that Vojvodina is not so called, but the autonomous province of Serbia with the official name Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. And, yes, it is not entirely Serbian, it belong to all its citizens, and it have 6 official languages (including Hungarian). I do not know for whom exactly the situation in Vojvodina could be a nightmare? User:PANONIAN


 * I just wanted to point out that the reasoning based on "historical facts" above makes sense. I (sincerely) hope that Kosovo will remain part of Serbia.

To ChrisO
ChrisO, this regards your recent edits, which entailed the erasing or modification of some of my work on the article: I am not blaming you for partiality to the Serbian cause, I am sure that you want to contribute to the writing of a neutral and valid article. However, it starts getting increasingly evident that you and several other editors are giving way to the press exerted (particularly) by Nikola Smolenski and forget that the historical truth lies in fact, not with those who scream louder. VMORO
 * Why did you add again the claim that the Albanians drove 100,000 Serbs out of Kosovo during WWII and what neutral source of information did you use? Because the source quoted in Demographic history of Kosovo is some Serbian nationalist memorandum which is as credible as something Milosevic would say.
 * Why does the figure of the non-Albanian refugees from Kosovo continues to stand at some 300,000 people when the whole non-Albanian population of Kosovo was 300,000 in 1991 and when the UN quotes some 150,000 non-Albanians still living in Kosovo NOWADAYS? Where have these additional 150,000 people come from? And why you you give full credit to Serbian sources even when all other sources say the opposite thing?


 * Well if historical truth lies in fact VMORO is just shouting quite loudly to no avail. The whole non-Albanian population of Kosovo in 1991 was 360,000. Keep note, that was in 1991.
 * --Igor 02:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Nope, Igor, you can't count - 340,000 in 1991, as compared to 200,000-220,000 according to the UN approximation for 2002. Which leaves us with how much? 120,000-140,000 *ethncally cleansed* non-Albanians. Can you point me out where exactly I *was shouting loudly to no avail* 'cause I don't seem to be able to see it? VMORO


 * All that said, Chris revision of the article is still by far the better and more balanced one compared to some of Nikola’s work.GeneralPatton 23:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The website of the Serbian Government says that there were 194,190 Kosovar Serbs in 1991. Yet, Kosovar non-Albanian population seems to have exceeded the 450,000 figure by 1999.  Hand on a minute, I thought that the Serb population was in decline in Kosovo - this is what the Serbs themselves say. Something smells here! Remember, there was a war in Kosovo and some non-Albanians were supposed to have died (no disrespect, my thoughts are always with the families of the innocent victims of war) -- some were supposed to be around the world as asylum-seekers or whatever (that is, not included in the list of refugees in Serbia and Montenegro). Current estimates say that there are approximately 400,000 Kosovar Albanians living in the West (Western Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) today, and this would suggest that approximately 40,000 Kosovar Serbs, Kosovar Roma, Kosovar Turks etc. are in the West, Turkey or somewhere else not registered as refugees in Serbia and Montenegro.


 * If anyone can add this numbers up, let me know.


 * We all know too well how reliable are the information of Nikola Smolenski -- who today told me that former Yugoslavia (pre-1991) had "granted" (note, this countries did not declare their independence) independence to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia! Interesting then why there were so many wars, horrible crimes and massacres. It must have been Serbs trying to make Slovenians, Croats, Bosnians and Macedonians accept their independence that was "granted" to them.


 * The information here is hopelessly bias and if NPOV policy is to be followed, the changes must take place immediately. -- Kosovar 13:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-Hugely anti-Albanian comments removed-

The Skanderberg SS battalions attacked Serbs in WWII, what numbers I dont know.


 * Yep, this is anti-Albanian, but this is factual. It's not the problem of the user who put it up here, it's the problem of Skanderbeg and Albanians who served in German forces. They also killed some number of Jews of course, and we Jews have long historical memory, just in case that you forget it. Aleverde

Neutrality
Absolutely, Patton, but even his work is still tipped over to the Serbian side. And he has not even bothered to answer my questions. Besides, some of the data here and in Demographic history of Kosovo are grossly manipulated (and one can easily guess who did it). For example, Yugoslav census 1921 posted 430,000 Albanians in Yugoslavia and the map made after the census portrays Kosovo as predominantly Albanian. Despite that, here and in the other article, an idea is given that interwar Kosovo was predominantly Serbian. VMORO


 * Nikola tends to ignore talk, it's a reoccurring thing with him. He also tends to have some extreme viewpoints, such as that the ICTY is "illegitimate" in his words and that Srebrenica numbers have been "inflated". He’s even admitted in chat that he systematically promotes a certain positions on things (i.e. Serbian hard-line one). You really can't expect a true NPOV from him, but we can do our best to counterbalance his stuff and make the articles closer to the truth. GeneralPatton 23:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Albanian recognition
Does Albania actually recognise the parallel government? Where is this written? Thanks! Intrigue 23:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be correct to say that Albania -had- recognised the parallel government. Under an UNMIK agreement with the Kosovo Albanian political parties, the (still unofficial) Republic of Kosovo and the parallel government were wound up and replaced with the provisional institutions. This is not to deny the right to Kosovo Albanians of self-government, but this was an act of their polticial representatives, who still maintain their right to declare indepedence - they have attempted to do so through the UNMIK-created parliament but have been contstantly rebuffed by the UN. The website of the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to a Mission (note - not an Embassy, an important distinction) in Kosovo, titled, "Misioni i Republikes se Shqiperise ne Kosove". I'm afraid my Albanian is not good enough to translate this precisely, but I suspect its something likle the 'Mission of the Albanian Republic' (ie. Albania) in or to Kosovo. If anyone wanted further clarification you might call that office on +381038 5483689. (JD)

Relocated?
The Serbian security forces "relocated" Albanians? Heh, did they also permanently relocate those they killed? It would be funny if it weren't for people's lives that we were talking about Nikola. Dori | Talk

Nikola objects to the following sentences in the Demographics sections (I've bolded the relevant bits for clarity, with Nikola's suggested words in italics):


 * The population is currently comprised of almost a 90% majority of Albanians, estimated at 80% prior to the Kosovo War of 1999 except for a brief interlude during the war as many of them fled the province or were expelled/relocated by Serbian security forces.

The refugees were clearly expelled. The evidence for this is overwhelming; it was reported by literally thousands of people, and the OSCE's postwar report (http://www.osce.org/kosovo/documents/reports/hr/part1/ch14.htm) does a good job of summarising the evidence. The expulsions are also a big element of Milosevic's war crimes indictment. I don't think it's credible to refer to this episode as "relocation" when it was clearly much more than that.


 * In the aftermath of the war, many thousands of Serbs and non-Albanians (especially Romas) left/fled the province for fear of reprisals from the returning Kosovo Albanian refugees.

I don't know why Nikola is deleting the last part of this sentence. Doing so leaves open the question of why the non-Albanians fled, even though it was very clearly because they feared that the returning refugees or KLA would attack them. This was reported in both Western and Serbian news sources that at the time. See, for instance, "Kosovo's Serbs flee in fear", "Kosovo's Serb exodus" and "Serb refugees return to Kosovo" , all of which refer to Serbs fleeing because they "fear that K-For will not - or cannot - protect them from guerrillas of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), who have been coming down from the mountains to return to their towns and villages." -- ChrisO 13:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually ChrisO, all three sources that you give are British, BBC, none of them is Serbian. Serbian sources and  speak of something quite different. And so do some other neutral sources such as Human Rights Watch:
 * When ethnic Albanians returned to Kosovo with the entry of NATO, Kosovo?s Serb, Roma, and other minorities were immediately subjected to violence, causing a massive outflow of non-Albanians from Kosovo.8 High levels of violence against non-Albanian communities?much of it politically-motivated and organized?continued for months, with the international troop presence and U.N. administration largely ineffective in stopping the violence.
 * --Igor 02:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I recall the reports of postwar revenge attacks. OK - I think we need to add a sentence to say something like: "Thousands more were driven out by intimidation, revenge attacks and a wave of crime after the war as KFOR struggled to restore order in the province." -- ChrisO 10:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thousands? here's the data


 * 22,000 to Bosnia, 63,000 to Serbia, 70,000 to Montenegro, 242,000 to (FYRO)Macedonia, 445,000 to Albania (mid June 1999). Assuming that the flux into Serbia-MG-Bosnia was non-ethnic-Albanian, we get 155,000 "others" and 687,000 ethnic Albanians, meaning 18% of the fleeing people were non-ethnic-Albanian. compare that with the "80% Albanian" claim in the demographics and you get a flow that shows no ethnic bias but a jump of an order of magnitude triggered by the NATO intervention.


 * Nope, I don' want to assume any such thing as the refugees to Bosnia and Montenegro were all Albanians, which in its turn signifies that your calculations are of no use VMORO


 * The UNHCR's Kosovo Crisis Updates have some demographic information about the refugees. It's not accurate to say that those fleeing to BH and Montenegro were all Albanians, although it's safe to say that the vast majority were. Here's what UNHCR has to say:


 * At peak there were nearly 22,000 Kosovar refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of whom around half came after the start of NATO airstrikes in March 1999. The others fled into Bosnia over a period of around one year, following the outbreak of hostilities in Kosovo in March 1998. Most of the Kosovars who have gone to Bosnia have been ethnic Albanians, but there are also quite a few Roma — currently estimated at around 1,000. 20% are estimated to have arrived in 1998, 50% shortly after the start of NATO airstrikes, and the remainder after the peace settlement.


 * I've not found much information about the demographics of the Montenegro refugees but again they appear to have been mainly Albanian. There is a question mark about the 63,000 who are said to have gone to Serbia. The map you quoted says "[as of] mid-June 1999", which would include the people who fled at the end of the war - I would guess that these are largely Serbs and Roma, but it's possible that some Albanians may have gone to the Sandjak or the Albanian-populated parts of southern Serbia (Preševo etc).


 * The "As Seen, As Told" document corroborates the evidence. In Chapter 14, one reads: In addition, more than 100,000 Serb IDPs are estimated to have left Kosovo and to have been registered in Serbia and Montenegro. Source: UNHCR, Geneva, 15 October 1999.  Doesn't that number represent about 50% of the pre-war ethnic Serb population of Kosovo? Themos


 * As for the question of whether the refugee crisis was "triggered by the NATO intervention", postwar analyses of the refugee flows shows quite clearly that it was not .-- ChrisO 16:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That is not what that analysis shows. The Policy or Panic document only looks at refugee flows during the period of NATO intervention. It is hence incapable of detecting whether anything was triggered by the NATO intervention, since it does not extend the study to before and after. But we can easily see (because we know that the refugee flows were orders of magnitude smaller before), that, indeed, the NATO intervention triggered the refugee crisis (crisis meaning an escalation, here). Themos


 * saying "as KFOR struggled to restore order in the province" is partisan. No doubt the same claim is made by any authority to legitimise its presence. -- Themos


 * Not at all. Law and order had clearly broken down in Kosovo. One of KFOR's first tasks was to restore it. KFOR had a lot of difficulty in achieving this initially. It didn't need to "legitimise" its presence by doing this, as its presence had already been legitimised - the Yugoslav and Serbian governments had surrendered law enforcement responsibilities in the agreement to end the war. -- ChrisO 16:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Would you accept a wording that "the MUP struggled to restore order"? If not, why would you accept the same about KFOR? We already know that during the MUP's reign, the ethnic balance in Kosovo was not significantly affected while during KFOR's reign, it was. Is the ethnic cleansing of Serbs what you mean by order? Claimimg that KFOR's presence is legitimate because the opponent surrendered is quite interesting but would land you into some pretty untenable positions if applied to WW2 Europe. Themos

This is an interesting discussion, perhaps lacking some background to tie it together. Quite a few Serbs left Kosovo during the bombing for safety in Serbia proper, but very many (quite possibly half) left as NATO entered, mostly to Serbia proper but also to Montenegro (which is ethnically Serbian). Many thousands still live there, mostly in temporary camps or abandoned schools and the like - I visited a few whilst in Belgrade working at one of the western Embassies. All of them are quite clear about why they left: fear. All non-Albanians were clear that NATO moving in would mean a return of the KLA and of all those ethnic Albanian Kosovars who had so recently fled to Macedonia and Albania. Even prior to the bombing, ordinary Serbs had lived in fear of a wave of kidnappings and murders or Serbs by Albanians - it was this that led to the massive overreaction by Milosevic and the arrival of gangs of murderous thugs from Serbia (moslty Bosnian war veterans) who began to attack Albanians. So, when the Albanians returned, most Serbs left in fear of reprisals. Senior NATO figures often say that they regret that more was not done at the time to prevent Albanian voilence and encourage Serbs to remain. Those Serbs who do remain in Kosovo live in a climate of fear, and are mosty unable to leave the Serbian areas; a wave of voilence earlier this year, with gangs of Albanians laying seige to the Serbian enclaves, led to the destruction of homes and churches (including a number of historically important medieval monastries) and more Serbs left for Serbia proper - all of this was well covered by media.

The problem of 'returns' of Serbs to Kosovo is one of UNMIKs biggest headaches. Most are living in terrible conditions in Serbia proper, but are still unwilling to return out of fear for their security; they would return if they could be placed in more secure, perhaps Serbian-majority areas. Ethnic Albanians do not want them to return, partially because that would mean a larger non-Albanian voting population, but also because the abandoned homes of all those departed Serbs are now occupied by - guess who? The international community does want the Serbs to return, but cannot be seen to support mass returns to new settlements, as this would be seen as supporting the Serbian case for evential partition of Kosovo (one of the possible solutions to 'Final Status') - only return to 'point of origin' (ie. their original homes) is countenanced, but these have either been destroyed or occupied by ethnic Albanians. All rather difficult. (JD)


 * The article name is Kosovo not "Histori of Kosovo". Wrong place for discussion.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

'History is past politics, politics present history', Hipi. The background above is critical for an understanding of why we are all here debating the neutrality of this article. You reject it as merely 'historical' because you dislike the implications of admitting the awful present situation of the ethnic minorities (Serbs in particular) in Kosovo. You deny the existance of these new injustices (this time against Serbs) because you feel that to do so would threaten your right to independence. But without a resolution of the new injustices there will be no peaceful and stable resolution to the 'Kosovo problem', and no chance of an independent Kosovo. So you should begin with an understanding that making Serbs feel safe and welcome in Kosovo is the only route to independence: your fate really is within your own grasp. (JD)

Interesting paper
Here are two interesting papers that touch on the Kosovo in the 80s and mythmaking ...

http://www.amid.dk/pub/papers/AMID_34-2004_Diken_&_Bagge_Laustsen.pdf

http://www.ichrp.org/ac/excerpts/50.pdf

GeneralPatton 13:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/talk.htm (And try reading it before you pee on it, Patton. Gil-White is a leftie hater who had set out to prove TENC wrong.) Kwantus 14:53, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
 * The article name is Kosovo not "Histori of Kosovo". Wrong place.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"Fear of reprisals"
My concern is that saying "many thousands of Serbs and non-Albanians (especially Romas) left the province for fear of reprisals from the returning Kosovo Albanian refugees" suggests that


 * 1) the number of those leaving was under 10,000
 * 2) reprisals were not in fact carried out, only the fear drove them out
 * 3) the violence is attributed to returning refugees in general, tarring all Kosovo Albanians with the same brush.

All of these are wrong and the text should be made more explicit. So: "many thousands" should be "tens of thousands", "for fear of reprisals" should be "following a wave of violence" and "from ...refugees" should be "by Albanian-nationalist militant organisations". -- Themos 09:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you read "many thousands" to mean "under 10,000". The reason I originally used "many thousands" is simply because nobody seems to be able to agree how many left Kosovo. If you use "tens of thousands" you will, I'm sure, find people changing that to "hundreds of thousands" or some random number. The wording is just a way of conveying the scale without getting into disputed numbers.


 * We would not (and should not) talk about "hundreds of ethnic Albanians killed in Kosovo during the war" or of "tens of Yugoslavs killed by the bombing" just to avoid disputed numbers. The way to deal with disputed numbers is to present verifiable estimates from as many sources as we can.Themos


 * I take your point about tarring all the Albanians with the same brush. However, I don't think it's accurate to say "Albanian-nationalist militant organisations" were solely responsible for the violence. The point was that many Serbs believed that their former neighbours would take revenge for being expelled - given the amount of weapons in circulation, it was understandable that they would see any aggrieved Albanian as a threat. Perhaps we should say something like "from armed militants or former refugees seeking revenge"? -- ChrisO 11:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * two points: a) we need some data on the actual violent acts that happened as NATO went in. I remember reports of houses being burned, looting, etc. The factual basis for the fear should be made clear. b) do we use the word "revenge" for the attacks on ethnic Albanians? I think it was quite clear (from victims reports) that the attackers thought they were taking "revenge" for the NATO bombing when they attacked what they considered NATO's "allies". The problem with the word "revenge" is that it is intrinsically partisan. All sides tend to excuse excesses as "revenge".Themos

I'm a former diplomat and have spent time in Kosovo. Voilence on both sides was carried out in part by armed groups (paramilitaries on the Serb side, the KLA on the Albanian) but also by groups of individual Albanians, mostly young men of course, perhaps motivated or directed by KLA-types. We saw this again earlier this year, with large groups of Albanians destroying Serb homes across Kosovo (see media reports). Guess this does implicate the returning refugess, but most will understand that only a minority were involved in violence. (JD)


 * Dear JD, I appreciate your comments and I believe you have a rather good understanding of the situation in the Balkans. Nonetheless, you forgot to mention another important factor, i.e. the number of properties that Serbs have sold since the end of the NATO bombing. In case you were not aware of this, a large number of Serb properties have been sold legally and willingly. In particular, the majority of flats owned by Serbs in the capital Prishtina have been sold. Now, these Serbs will never go back to Kosova because they do not want to go back. You need to remember that Serbs under Yugoslavia (that is, since the Ottomans left) have been the priveledged ethnic group in Kosova. Now they know that that will never be the case again, and rightly so. They understand that if the unemployment rate in Kosova is going to be 40 per cent, so will be the unemployment rate for Kosovar Serbs. No longer will a Serb be the director, and the Albanian will do the "dirty" job for them (dirty as in hard labour). This ought to be made clear. High on the list of "new realities" is also the fact that nowadays if a Serb wants to address an Albanian, he or she may need to do so in Albanian. If a Serb man wants to pay an electricity bill, he will probably need to speak some Albanian, not that any Kosovar Serb is paying any electricity bills these days. And so on. Put differently, there will no longer be priviledged ethnic groups in Kosova.


 * Kosovar Serbs know these issues very well. They may say different things in public, to a diplomat like yourself, or indeed in front of the media. However, the matter of the fact is that a great number of Serbs have sold they properties in Kosova and they won't be going back. Let me illustrate this with an example: the supposedly Serb-owned houses in a small village just outside Mitrovica (the name of the village is Frash&euml;r in Albanian, I do not know and do not want to know the Serb name) were attacked by a group of angry Albanians, only to discover that the majority of the houses were Albanian-owned (purchased after the NATO bombing). But, it was too late, the houses were demanged and the Albanian owners kept this quite bacause they knew that the houses would only be rebuild if they were Serb-owned. Similar stories are coming out of other places too.


 * A quite update in the meantime, 95 per cent of the damaged houses from the March riots have been completely renewed, the other 5 per cent are in the process of being renewed.


 * Also, we must never fail to mention that Kosova today has a policy of positive discrimination in politics. In fact, Albanians have shown themselves to be gentlemen enough to give no less than 20 out of 120 seats of the Kosova Assembly to minorities, 10 of which go to Serbs. Does Serbia do this for Albanians from the Presheva valley: No! Do the Macedonians have any such policies where 25 per cent of the population is Albanian: No! How about Montenegro where 5 per cent of the population consists of Albanians: No! In addition, two ministries of the Kosovar Government are reserved for Serbs, plus one more for non-Serbs non-Albanians. This shows that if Kosovar Serbs really want to help themselves and improve their lives, they can because there is the political will and there will be a political will in the future. But, will they run the state, hand-pick the best jobs, enjoy priveledges in issues like language and so on, the answer is NO! So, they have to make their own mind.--Kosovar 01:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kosovar - some very important points. Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo were quite clearly discriminated against for all of the modern period. Worth remembering, though, that under the post-war Communist system, which continued unchanged until the fall of Milosevic, virtually everyone was discriminated against across Yugoslavia. None had the legitimate democratic and economic rights that most of us now enjoy. That Serb Communists appointed fellow Serb Communists to choice positions in Kosovo is no surprise, and as democrats we would all (Serb, Albanian and all of us) have opposed such favouritism. No doubt there was also a degree of discrimination on purely ethnic/religious grounds. Such favouritism also existed, for instance, in Northern Ireland, until modern legislation against discrimination was able to tilt the balance and amend (though not overturn) those historical wrongs. So It is still regrettable that, in Kosovo, the situation has been reversed by equally bad discrimination against Kosovo Serbs: you're right to say that Serbs have been voluntarily leaving Kosovo for a very long time, but a far larger number are forced to sell their property as the threat of violence against them prevents them living there. Past langauge discrimination against Albanians is no excuse for current langauge discrimination (on threat of voilence!) against Serbs. There are certainly wrongs to be righted, but the present situation is only creating more wrongs and so generating future conflict.

I also take your point as regards 'positive discrimination' in politics towards Kosovo Serbs. Every territory of the former Yugoslavia has had to find a balance between its ethnic groups. In Bosnia, the Federation is balanced equally between Serb and non-Serb, each with its own entity, and with sub-entity Cantons allowing balance at a local level. Ethinically divided countries across the world have adopted some type of 'federation' to balance ethnic groups - Canada is one example. Why not a similar solution for Kosovo? Cantonisation or entity-isation would give Serbs in Kosovo a real say in how government works, which the current position (a permanent minority in the assembly) does not. Most ethnic Albanians would oppose this - why? Because they fear a partition of Kosovo? If Serbia is to be partitioned along ethnic lines (with majority-Albanian Kosovo secceeding), why should Kosovo not be partitioned along ethnic lines, with majority-Serbian areas reverting to Serbia? It strikes me that Serbs in Kosovo are willing to consider all solutions, including complete independence, yet ethnic Albanians/Kosovars are not. I hope this does not sound 'pro-Serb' - I would jump equally quickly to the defence of ethnic Albanian rights, and supported the NATO intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing. The unintended consequences seem to have been pretty bad though - perhaps the international community should be using its money and its soldiers to enforce some balance?

Another important point - if we are see real reconciliation in Kosovo, as across the Balkans, we should make sure that those who committed war crimes on all sides are dealt with equally. I suppose you would support the arrest and trial in the Hague of any Kosovo Albanians indicted for such crimes? Something on this issue should perhaps be included on the main page, as the potential indictment of senior Kosovo ALbanian leaders could lead to voilence (most likely against the international community and NATO forces). (JD)


 * Dear JD, thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your time and effort.


 * When I wrote about discrimination and favouritism on ethnic grounds in Kosovo, I did not mean only the discrimination in the former Yugoslavia pre-1991. That discrimination did change after the fall of comunism -- Serbs took this discrimination and favouritism to levels never seen or heard before. Kosovar Serbs (approx. 8 per cent of the population) that I know think that they should be priveledged in Kosovo, in politics as well as public services. They think (not only expect) that Kosovar Albanians must speak to them in Serbian only. Although I respect your opinion, I totally disagree that currently there is a language discrimination against Serbs. I know a few Serb MPs, they speak Serbian in the Parliament, every law passed by the Assembly is available in Serbian, every official document is available in Serbian, they can fill in any application form in Serbian, there are TV and Radio stations, newspapers in Serbian -- surely you cannot call this a discrimination. I would love to hear about what you call a "current language discrimination".


 * It is interesting that you mentioned the divisions along ethnic lines. Why is it that you fail to suggest similar solutions for Macedonia, Montenegro and southern Serbia (Presheva-Medvegja-Bujanoc region)? The latest cencus in Macedonia shows that over 25 per cent of the population is Albanian, yet noone mentions partition of Macedonia (for your information, Albanians do not want the partition of Macedonia, I hope you do not subscribe to such rubish). Isn't it shameful that Albanians in Macedonia had to take up arms for their right to use their mother tongue in schools, and against discrimination in the public services, police, military and so on -- yet Serbs in Kosovo are granted these rights by default. Albanians in Macedonia today have far fewer rights than the Kosovar Serbs, nonetheless they represent at least a quarter of the population of Macedonia. Why is it that they don't have the right to "cantonisation or entity-isation", as you put it? Additionally, Albanians in Montenegro today are in the same numbers as Kosovar Serbs in Kosovo, nevertheless they cannot use Albanian language in the higher education, not to mention "cantonisation or entity-isation". The Government of Montenegro has shown itself to be very mature and responsible, and I have nothing but praise for them, but I must mention it to show you (and others) that what you seem to suggest represents nothing else other then double-standards. Last but not least, what about the Presheva-Medvegja-Bujanoc region in southern Serbia? They have a large Albanian population, border Kosovo and are as you would describe a "a permanent minority". Why can't they have the right to "cantonisation or entity-isation"? I am afraid JD, you will have to answer a great deal of questions before you can ask me, or any other Kosovar Albanian whether we oppose divisions along ethnic lines. Let us not forget that the current borders of Kosovo existed even in the former Yugoslavia (pre-1991) and their is strong basis for Kosovo secceeding. It is not the case, as you seem to suggest, that there are some Albanian-inhabited villages in a part of former Yugoslavia, hence let us make up a border over there.


 * I do not think that you or your views are 'pro-Serb', as there is no real reason for you or anyone else to side with one ethnic group. Unfortunately, this is a paranoia that has been widely embraced by a vast number of Serbs in their belief that the "world is against Serbia". I do not suffer from such feelings, and rightly so.


 * Before I move to the next topic, I would like you to know about one more thing. Serbia and the Serbs had a great chance to save themselves and their country (Serbia, not Kosovo) -- and at the same time stop Kosovo from becoming independent in the very near future. That great chance was offered to them (and Kosovar Albanians) in Rambouillet, France. Oh well, as you know, they blew it up! The chose a different path: all or nothing. Stupidly, they went on to flight the strongest powers in the world, and in the end, of course, they were left with nothing. That is why you need not feel sorry for the consequences, intentional or unintentional.


 * This is why my friend Serbia is, as you put it, willing to consider all solutions. If only some of that willingness existed back in early spring 1999.


 * If you read carefully, you must have noticed that I wrote stop Kosovo from becoming independent in the very near future. Kosovo was going to become independent sooner or later, no doubt about that. One can never force a solution on 90 per cent, or even more (since the majority of non-Albanian non-Serb Kosovars support the independence) of the population of a country. Only the people of Kosovo can and will decide about their own future and the future of their country, make no mistake about it.


 * Finally, with regards to the Hague tribunal, Kosovar Albanians are by far the strongest supporters of the ICTY. You are wrong in thinking that Kosovar Albanians do not stand for justice for all (all as in Albanians, Croats, Slovenians, Serbs, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Bosnians). The Hague tribunal has thus far charged 3 Kosovar Albanians and all three today are under the ICTY custudy. None of them refused to go there nor did anyone encourage them to hide, like the Serbs do for example. In Albanian culture true heros do not hide - that is alien to us. Today, as always, Kosovar Albanians are ready for complete and unreserved cooperation with the ICTY, regardless of whom they investigate and subsequently may or may not charge. I do not subscribe, not should you or anyone else, to the Serb propaganda that ICTY is afraid of charging Kosovar Albanians. I cannot image for a second Carla Del Ponte (whom I admire) hesitating to charge an individual or group if there is a case against them. In fact such a thought makes me laugh, and there is nothing else but to feel sorry for such people.


 * My final message: do not speculate, it is no good for your health. Kind regards -- Kosovar 04:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Think we're in danger of getting moved from this page. But this is a good discussion. Let take language first (also see my points below). I certainly did not intend to say that there was no discrimination post-1991. If anything, it was probably worse as the whole ethnic 'balance' (!!) of Yugoslavia was destroyed by the death of Tito. From 1991 until 2000 the system within Serbia (and inlcuding Kosovo here) was based on the Communist system with increasingly nationalist elements. You cannot blame this system on the Serbs. It was the fault of a post-WWII world obsessed by the Cold War; the rights of minorities and the democratic and human rights of all were undermined in places across the world. After 1991, the Serb nationalists, primarily Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies were guilty for the continuation and worsening of discrimination; many, many Kosovo Serbs, as you well know, opposed Milosevic and would have worked (some more than others) to find a balance in Kosovo. The reaction of some Kosovo Albanians to this discrimination was unacceptable - particularly the kidnappings and murder of ordinary citizens of Kosovo. And the reaction to this by the Millosevic government, by then tipping over into a dictatorship, was even more unacceptable, and so the West interevened. None of this excuses any discrimination now. We start with a clean slate. As the UNMIK constitutional framework states (http://www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm), all have the right to: (a) Use their language and alphabets freely, including before the courts, agencies, and other public bodies in Kosovo; (b) Receive education in their own language; (c) Enjoy access to information in their own language; (d) Enjoy equal opportunity with respect to employment in public bodies at all levels and with respect to access to public services at all levels; e) Enjoy unhindered contacts among themselves and with members of their respective Communities within and outside of Kosovo; (f) Use and display Community symbols, subject to the law. As you well know, the reaction in central Pristina to someone speaking in Serbian would be unpredictable but certainly unfreindly. Given the events of earlier this year, all Kosovo Serbs are afraid to use their language and symbols outside of the Serbian areas - this is completely unacceptable. Protected areas within the Parliament or courts are really not enough. Do you accept that ordinary Serbs are unable to use their language freely outside of the Serb areas? Is this not discrimination, as bad or worse than was committed (in language terms ONLY) against the Kosovo Albanians?

On entities etc. I agree with almost all your points; there needs to be either a more consistent approach to the 'solutions' for ethnic balance across the Balkans, or at least an agreement why this inconsistencies occur. I don't think (and nor do 'negotiators') that historical precedence is sufficient to exert a claim for or against a degree of self-determination. If Kosovo/a had never been self-administering, would you think you had less of a claim to independence? Of course not. Ultimately, as you say, the solution has a lot to do with the treatment of one 'side' by another. In Montenegro the situation has been historically better (but by no means perfect) than elsewhere; this is why there is less pressure for change. I had originally intended to respond to your point about Serbian representation in Parliament - and I think my points now fit within this discussion. If the Serbs in Kosovo NOW feel that they are being discriminated against, it is legitimate and unsurprising if they demand greater defences against this - a range of solutions from stronger legal rights, stronger influence over democratic institutions, or even, finally, a split. If Motenegro started to abuse its ethnic Albanian population, they would be within their rights to demand seccession; same for Serbs in Kosovo; same for Albanians in southern Serbia. Of course, whether or not they get what they want depends on: a) how forcefully or effectivly they pursue their goals and b) what the international community supports. And this is the dilemma for us all - and the only solution I can see is to try and reduce discontent; the only way I can see the international community allowing an independent Kosovo is if the Serbs are (relatively) content to live there. Events such as those of earlier this year, and discrimnation against Serbs as perceived by Serbs and by internationals such as myself actively undermine the case for Kosovo independence. I guess its a case of rights (to self-determination) entailing responsibilities (to not abuse your minorities). Serbia got it wrong and was punished; I suspect the IC will not risk the same in an independent Kosovo. Thoughts?

Totally agree with your points on the Serbs (or, more precisley, the Serbian state as run by Milosevic and his political allies) getting it wrong again and again. Eveything 'done' to the Serbs from 1991 up to now are in large part the fault of Milosevic, Seselj, Karadzic, Mladic and so on. Ordinary Serbs, as I am sure you will agree, were powerless to resist, just as you yourself were powerless to resist the destruction of Serb homes and churches in Kosovo earlier this year. To link in whit the preceeding point, there is a risk if a country/government/people gets it wrong, then the international community will interevene. It has intervened in the Balkans and nothing will happen to Kosovo without the support of the IC - if Kosovo Albanians acknowledge this they will more likely get what they want; and if they do not there is a real risk of losing the prize they have sought for so long.

On ICTY. Some good points. I do seem to remeber than certain of the K Albanian ICTY indictees may have not gone to the Hague SO willingly. It took a while to 'find' one or two of them, then they appeared after behind the scenes discussions with the politicians. But, in the end, they did go, all credit to them. You're right to say that 3 K Albanians (do you mind me putting it that way, I do also mean Kosovars, but we need a common reference) have gone to the Hague, but the right words would be that 3 have been openly charged; there are certainly a number of 'closed indictments' which are not public. Closed indictments exist where there is sufficient evidence for a case but where publication would reduce the chance of bringing the indictee to court or where a public indictment would cause other problems. This is not Carla del Ponte hesitating to charge; these people have been charged, just not yet publicly. It is these closed indictments which are source of speculation, some of it well informed (and I do not include Covic here, although as you well know, he is often well-informed), that very senior K Albanian politicians might be the subject of closed indictments which at some point will become open, requiring those people to stand trial. My question was - what would be result? How would the political parties, former KLA types and ordinary Kosovars react? This is, as I am sure you agree, an important question - and of more than just acadmeic interest. (JD)


 * Very good points! I must stress though that there is absolutely no institutional discrimination in Kosovo and there is a lot of political goodwill from the Kosovar Albanian side to improve things on the ground. It cannot be understated though, that the Kosovar Serbs could help themselves by cooperating and making use of this political goodwill. Instead they have chosen the path of no cooperation in hope that they would block the political processes in Kosovo and spoil the image of the progress achieved since 1999. Consequenly, Kosovar Serbs share some of the responsibility on the matter and this needs to be understood.


 * In addition, do you seem to suggest that Milosevic somehow was reacting to kidnappings and murders, and that apart from that there was no violence towards Kosovar Albanians whatsoever? Are you suggesting that somehow Milosevic was acting in self-defence?


 * As far as 'self-determination entails responsibility' is concerned, I could not agree with you more. However, the independence must come first -- people will know that they got what they really wanted, calm down and only then start thinking about the responsibilities -- and then whoever does not behave must face the severest consequences. Kosovar Albanians today cannot be held responsible for security issues because they are not in charge of security -- these responsibilities lay with the UN and NATO. But until the 'house is sorted' (final status resolved) not much will change because every side is led to believe that they can impose their views on the ground. Imagine the case of a family (in this case a nation) moving into a new house. Until the children know in what room they will get to sleep they will make noise and trouble in an attempt to change minds or influence decisions. Once we all know openly and clearly what is going to happen only then we take decisive steps in ensuring that everyone is truly equal and respected &#8211; no one privileged, no one discriminated.


 * Finally, the most willing part to cooperate with the ICTY are the Kosovar Albanians. JD, you a making a serious mistake if you think that FL was not willing to voluntarily hand himself in. He was abroad when he was charged -- he was not hiding as you seem to suggest (an offensive statement, really) -- he was on holidays skiing. When he found out he was charged, he phoned the media immediately (hardly a hiding strategy!) and expressed the willingness to hand himself in. He tried to reach a deal with UNMIK to allow him to come back to Kosovo so that he could formally voluntarily hand himself in. UNMIK could not guarantee that he would not be arrested in front of the cameras and the family, hence he went to the Hague directly.


 * As long as a person is not publicly charged -- he or she in fact is not charged. That is it. Your statement has too many might, could, would... (equals speculations). I do not want to be drawn into speculations. One thing I can say though: if an individual, regardless of whether he or she is Albanian, Bosnian, Croat, Macedonian or Serb has committed crimes and is charged then that person must face the law. If he or she is a Kosovar Albanian, he or she will be in the court. No Albanian will go into hidings, while receiving a pension and support from the government, police and the army. -- Kosovar 19:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kosovar - Agree that there is little or no institutional discrimination (depending on how you define it). Agree that the Kosovo Serbs continue to play a very poor hand; cooperation would have won them more influence. Agree that the K Serbs should take advantage of the goodwill that exists in the large part of the Kosovo Albanian community. However, part of the problem is that they DO want to spoil the image of progress since 1999 because they do see (and experience) real problems which most of us downplay in the (generally very good) wider picture - if those problems (security and returns especially) were dealth with, the worst elements amongst K Serb politicians would not be able to exploit the fears of ordinary Kosovo Serbs. That was my point on Milosevic - his system discriminated against and committed crimes against the Kosovo Albanian community; some in the K Albanian community responded, in part against MUP/VJ but also against ordinary citizens; this allowed Milosevic to expolit some legitimate concerns of K Serbs for his own, twisted nationalist/personal glorification agenda.

On the other points, I see what you are saying but I can't agree. It's the responsility of Kosovo Albanians not to destroy Serb homes, not to intimidate Serbs in the street, and to allow them to speak their language freely, etc. NATO and the UN should only be there as a last resort. It's precisely the same problem with your analogy of childrens' bedrooms - in demanding Independence before restoring security, good administration and human rights for all, Kosovo Albanians are asking to be treated as children (which is far less than they deserve). Hence the 'Standards before Status' mantra, however empty it can sometimes seem. As I said before, if this is recognised by the Kosovo Albanian community, indedependence would be assured more quickly. I firmly believe that if large numbers of Kosovo Serbs are allowed to return to Kosovo (anywhere in Kosovo), if those still there begin to feel less aggression towards them, with greater decentralisation, then we will have strong basis for a truly multiethnic, independent Kosovo. Not a bad goal surely?

And, on idictments. Take the point on FL - if that's the story, fair enough - had seemend suspiscious at the time. But on closed indictments I am right - if there is an indictment, but that indictment is not public that person remains, in law, in the eyes of the Hague, indicted. Not guilty, not subject to an arrest warrent, but indicted. And I do think it is a matter of legitimate, useful speculation/discussion as to the effect of the 'opening' of a closed indictment against senior Kosovo Albanian politicians. The chance might be 25%, 50% or 75%, but the effect could be massive. Good to hear that you think the response will be measured (and, as you point out, a hell of a lot better than actions of Karadzic, Mladic etc), but many in the international community are worried. I think it should be covered in the article - with plenty of caveats. Cheers for the interesting discussion, Kosovar! (JD)


 * Dear JD, I certainly enjoyed the discussion. I would like to conclude that the Kosovar government has rebuilt 95 per cent (5 per cent still under construction) of all the houses that were destroyed in March. I do not recall Serbian government rebuilding a sinlge house in Kosovo after the bombing (if you do, please let me know). I stand for 'Standards And Status' - the people involved in this process would be more inspired and work harder. FL was live on RTK (Radio Television of Kosova) and his statements can easily be found in archives. Finally, you may want to read the following from the Wall Street Journal -- Kosovar 19:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JD and Kosovar, I enjoyed reading your discussion, and I think I should point out a few things that should have bearing on the article text:
 * The statement that "Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo were quite clearly discriminated against for all of the modern period" is quite an exaggeration. All nationalisms or activities that the government thought were nationalist were suppressed in Yugoslavia, not just Albanian. After the Yugoslav constitution of 1974, Kosovo had practically the same internal autonomy as Yugoslav republics and Kosovo's leaders were overwhelmingly Albanians. There was full bilinguality in the province, there were TV, radio and newspapers, as well as schools and university studies in Albanian. The Yugoslav Official Gazette (which carried all laws) was published in Albanian since 1970 and Albanians, politicians as well as ordinary citizens, could and did use the Albanian language in all official and public business. Kosovo's representatives in the federal presidency were Albanian and two of them were presidents of Yugoslavia. Apart from the crackdown in 1981 (which I do not know enough about to have an informed opinion), this situation continued until the rise of Milosevic. All that said, I understand that Kosovo Albanians must have felt at least a bit out of place in the South Slavic country: there was the language barrier, plus the fact that they were considered one of the nationalities and not nations of Yugoslavia. Anyway, the discrimination at least from 1974-1987 is not that clear.
 * Without diminishing Milosevic's responsibility for the bloodshed in the late 1990's, it is obvious that Kosovo Albanians after the 1990 proclamation of independence had no intention to settle on anything less. All ouvertures by the Serbian government were either rejected or ignored and I think everyone will agree that Albanian armed organizations were ready for a war of independence long before the escalation in the late 90's. I'm not implying that there is anything morally wrong with this position, I just think that it is worthy of note when discussing the events of the 90's, especially with regard to negotiations. Zocky 02:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The article name is Kosovo not "History of Kosovo". Wrong place for discussion.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

'History is past politics, politics present history', Hipi. The background above is critical for an understanding of why we are all here debating the neutrality of this article. You reject it as merely 'historical' because you dislike the implications of admitting the awful present situation of the ethnic minorities (Serbs in particular) in Kosovo. You deny the existance of these new injustices (this time against Serbs) because you feel that to do so would threaten your right to independence. But without a resolution of the new injustices there will be no peaceful and stable resolution to the 'Kosovo problem', and no chance of an independent Kosovo. So you should begin with an understanding that making Serbs feel safe and welcome in Kosovo is the only route to independence: your fate really is within your own grasp. (JD)

Number of refugees
First, as I said, the way in which this page is moved has insulted me and I find it insultive to comment here since; I hope that this exception will be appreciated.

For the sake of sanity, I will pretend that none of this hasn't been pointed out numerous times already.

I can not comprehend why are sysops reverting the article to the version with lower number of refugees, when that lowered number is provided without any justification and, as I said, references for the higher number were provided numerous times.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040203102745/http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/coordination_centre/index.html gives number of refugees as 242,381 and estimates that there are 50,000 more unregistered refugees. UNHCR Global Report 2001 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (to obtain it you may go to http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home?page=search and search for "Yugoslavia") at page 1 gives number of registered refugees as 231,000, report from 2002 at page 9 gives it as 263,600 and report from 2003 at page 1 gives it as 234,826. Note that both sources include only refugees inside SCG, and only registered refugees, so the actual number is higher. As after initial wave of violence some refugees have returned to safe areas, initial number of refugees in 1999 was even higher. So you can see that number of refugees in 1999 is probably even higher than 300,000; it would be fine with me to say something like "more than 250,000" but lowering the number two or threefold is not acceptable in any way. And of course, despite what VMORO might claim, UNHCR is not Serbian source. Secondary sources do take over these figures. For example, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1226542.htm mentions that "Some 200,000 Serbs fled the province"; the first link above gives the number of Serbs (for there are non-Serbs who have fled the province) as 226000. http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/yugoslavia.htm gives "The 277,000 internally displaced people in Yugoslavia" (in 2002).

As for discrepancies between censa and number of refugees, it should be noted that both 1991 Yugoslav and 2002 UNMIK's censa are ESTIMATES of the province's population while refugees are REGISTERED individually; in order to get aid, each refugee must proove to be from the province and register. This is why their EXACT number is known, and as could be seen, the sources don't round the numbers but give them accurate to the last digit. The fact that the numbers don't add up means that estimates are wrong, not that number of refugees is wrong. Further, UNMIK's censa include people who are internally displaced within Kosovo; they are still refugees.

Nikola 12:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- There are some 65,000 refugees. Serbia can register 2 million refugees, but it's all propaganda. In the census of 1991 the number of Serbs was under 180,000, the census was organized by Milosevic gov. The number of Kosovo Serbs should be around that today, maybe 185,000. There are some 120,000 Kosovar Serbs in Kosovo today and some 65,000 in Serbia. Go to www.esiweb.org, read their paper "The Lausanne Principle: Multiethnicity, Territory And The Future Of Kosovo's Serbs"

POV claims about expulsions
Leaving aside the refugee figures, I've removed a statement that Nikola keeps adding:


 * "many foreign governments, human rights groups and international organisations claim that they were expelled by Serbian security forces, though they are sometimes disbelieved because of their connectedness to NATO."

This is unsatisfactory for a couple of reasons. It's factually incorrect, as it was the refugees themselves who said that they had been forcibly expelled. Ignoring or denying this simply isn't credible. It's also not much more than innuendo to claim that there is a link between NATO and the human rights groups and international organisations stating that there were mass expulsions - the obvious implication is that organisations such as Human Rights Watch, the OSCE, UNHCR etc are just fronts for NATO, which is disputable to say the least. -- ChrisO 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Some refugees said that they had been forcibly expelled. Whether they were speaking the truth, represent typical refugees, or were expelled in a typical way is a matter of conjecture.
 * And if it is a matter of conjecture, then it matters who is making that conjecture. I don't say that OSCE, UNHCR etc. are fronts for NATO. It's almost the opposite: NATO, OCSE, UN and other organisations are all fronts for their member states and their political goals.
 * To take OSCE as an example:
 * OSCE expelled FRY from its membership in OSCE in a way contrary to OSCE's charter
 * OSCE sent a verification mission to Kosovo to se whether there are human rights violations by Yugoslav government
 * Results of its findings were used to justify NATO's bombing of FRY
 * Its chief "discovered" "Racak massacre", which was used by NATO as pretext for the bombing
 * On the other hand, OSCE didn't sent a verification mission to Yugoslavia to see whether there were some human rights violations commited by NATO countries in the course of their bombing
 * And now, a report by OSCE is taken as a proof that Kosovo Albanians are expelled from the province? This is laughable to say the least.
 * To suggest that NATO member countries, who are all also OSCE member countries, would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on bombing of Yugoslavia, but would then allow OSCE to produce a report unfavourable to them (which would then likely result in spending more than hundreds of billions of dollars on reparations) would mean to think that their politicians are all schyzophrenics. To make long story short, you believe that refugees are expelled; but suppose that they aren't. Would OSCE's report be any different? Of course it wouldn't. So you can't take it as an evidence that the refugees are expelled.
 * Same goes for NGOs. In true spirit of NPOV, in a piece of the article now in History of Kosovo, a statement by European Stability Initiative (for which I've never heard until I saw it on Wikipedia) gains as much space as SCG's report. If we look who's funding the ESI, we see:
 * Department for International Development, UK, a NATO member
 * European Commission, most countries are NATO members
 * Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada, a NATO member
 * Udenriksministeriet, Germany, a NATO member
 * Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, The Netherlands, a NATO member
 * US Mission to NATO (no comment)
 * Commonwealth Office, UK, a NATO member
 * Utenriksdepartementet, Norway, a NATO member
 * King Baudouin Foundation, Belgium, a NATO member
 * I don't know why, but to me it seems that there might be some link between NATO and this particular human rights group, and that it might have been financed by some NATO members, who possibly might want for it to produce a report favourable to them.
 * To conslude, I don't understand how some people can think that OSCE, UNHCR etc. are not influenced by NATO; but I understand that there are some people who think so. But what I truly don't understand is how there are people who think so and don't understand that there are other people who think differently. Nikola 12:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't compete with conspiracy theories, because I know that you won't believe anything I have to say. I will say, though, that I know from my personal experience with (some of) those organisations that they don't work in the way that you claim. For instance, the OSCE represents 55 countries - it's based in a neutral country (Austria), NATO countries are in a minority and there are pro-Serb countries in its membership, such as Belarus and Russia. It's fair to say that it's working increasingly closely with NATO, but that's because its role is increasingly overlapping with that of NATO (i.e. promoting peace and democratisation). It's also fair to say that it's taken some positions that are similar to those of NATO, but again that's because it has a similar set of core values (i.e. human rights and democracy). Outside Serbia and the Serbian community, I don't think many people seriously doubt that the OSCE was telling it as it saw it in Kosovo.


 * You take it as given that NATO promotes peace and democratisation and its core values are human rights and democracy. The given is that this is what NATO claims. The actions of NATO in Turkey suggest a very different reality.Themos


 * I think it's up to you to prove your case of an anti-Serb conspiracy, rather than for everyone else to have to prove a negative. I note that you haven't produced any evidence ("it seems ... there might ... it might..." etc). A matter of conjecture, right? -- ChrisO 00:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The only person mentioning any conspiracy is you. I never claimed such a thing. For example, ESI's donors are proudly listed at ESI's web site where everyone can see them. Have I claimed that NATO is financing ESI secretly, while there are other donors listed on it's page, that would be a conspiracy theory.
 * Anyway, this is a non-issue. As you say yourself, "Outside Serbia and the Serbian community, I don't think many people seriously doubt..."; that POV, which you acknowledge to exist, as POV in one of the two sides in the conflict, is notable.
 * (And "it seems ... there might ... it might..." part is irony.) Nikola 21:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you including this stuff in the article, as long as you attribute it to someone. As it stands at the moment, it's both your opinion and weasel words, but it ceases to be so if you can attribute it to some Serbian organisation, person or thing. I don't think it'd be that hard to find a quote from someone like Seselj which would get the point across. Ambi 01:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know of one interview in which it is suggested that the KLA contributed to the movement of ethnic Albanians, but there is no confirmation or investigation of these claims that I know of. Themos


 * emperors-clothes.com is far from being a credible source about this issue, its like using stormfront.org for Holocaust. It's an anti-NATO/US/EU propaganda site. GeneralPatton 18:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nikola seems to be rambling a bit but I think he has a valid point. I'm a former diplomat, having served in the region and worked on Kosovo. Some background - increasing Albanian discontent and voilence against Serbs in Kosovo led to a massive Serbian police against the KLA, with about as much subtlty as used against insurgents in Iraq; hardline, nationalist Serb paramilitary groups (mostly Bosnian war veterans / war criminals) took advantage of the situation and started to attack ethnic Albanians and their homes with impunity, aid and abetted by 'special force' elements of the Serbian police and encouraged by the Serbian President (Milosevic) himself; ordinary Kosovo Albanians began to leave Kosovo out of fear; western media took up the story and we all began to pay attention; seeing the situation moving in their facour, the KLA seems to have encouraged other ethnic Albanians to leave, perhaps using the fear of Serb voilence as a motivator; OSCE produced a report suggesting war crimes were happening; Milosevic blustered, NATO intervened, the Albanians returned and many Serbs left. So, most ethnic Albanian refugess left out of fear of the Serb paramilitaries (who, it's worth saying, were not from Kosovo), but some (no doubt a much smaller number) left under the encouragement of the KLA who had an interest in making the situation look as bad as possible.

Nicola also has a valid point on the neutrality of the international community. We each like to think that our viewpoint is neutral, but foreign policy is complex and sometimes you have to accept some contradictions. For instance - why support (sort of) possible independece for ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, but not allow the same for Serbs in Bosnia? Why do war crimes commited by Serbs have to be tried in the Hague, but not war crimes committed by Iraqis? Why have no senior Kosovo Albanians been arrested for war crimes, when the Hague thinks they were committed by both sides? And organisations such as the OSCE and the UN are not always neutral or reliable - they have vested interests and their own policy goals to pursue. Reports written by individuals in such organisations can lack information or come to an unsupported conclusion - and sometimes those individuals have their own views they want to put across, or their careers to advance. So, whilst Nicola way overstates it, their is a case for saying that the organisations of the international community (the UN, NATO, the OSCE etc) form a system, and that when that system is used with a particular goal (such as stopping ethnic cleansing in Kosovo) there IS a conspiracy against (for instance) Serbia under Milosevic - but its a very open one! The point is Serbia, needs to move on from Milosevic and the events of the past. (JD)

I would like to make a few brief comments. More on this topic I have written above in discussion with JD:


 * First, why support the independence of Kosovo, but not that of Bosnian Serbs? Because Kosovo has historically been an entity, autonomous, and most importantly with clearly defined borders. Kosovo has been autonomous under former Yugoslavia (pre-1991), it had its own assembly, president, police, education system and so on. In other words, there is very strong basis for supporting Kosovo's independence. Bosnian Serbs did not have any of these, hence they got a republic within Bosnia. Negotiators take all these factors under consideration, hence Kosovo is one level higher than Bosnian Serbs, that is, the right to self-determination.


 * I makes no make sense for the KLA to encourage people to leave Kosovo. The KLA was fighting for the survival of these people, for their liberation, not for them to leave the country. These people supported and fed the soldiers of the KLA and one's thoughts must be very distorted to come up with such 'conclusions'. I do not know a single person (and believe you me, I know many Kosovar Albanians) who has been encouraged or has heard of KLA encouraging people to flee. If you do not have any actual facts, then please do not speculate. If we are to fill these pages with speculations, like Nikola does, then we better rename Wikipedia as Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedic Speculations.


 * If there is a case against senior Kosovar Albanians, Carla del Ponte will not hesitate a minute to charge them. Anyone who knows a thing or two about del Ponte and the ICTY know that they are not 'afraid' to charge whoever it is that is accused of war crimes. Anyone who says otherwise is a victim of anti-ICTY Serb propaganda. It makes me laugh when I think that Serbs even managed to accuse the formal Kosovar Prime Minister, Bajram Rexhepi, as a war criminal -- only to be humiliated to a public apology by Nebojsa Covic since there were absolutely no facts.

My final message: do not follow Covic's path? -- Kosovar 04:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kosovar - I have answered points one and there above. On point, two, which has relevance here, I think it is important for us to note that a number of non-Serbs witnessed KLA encouragement of refugees in the period prior to the bombing. I have met a couple, and they remain unwilling to speak about is openly. I'm more than happy to exclude this element (as speculation) from the main article until we have something further, but I am not willing to pretend that it is impossible or just a Serb lie. I'll do some digging around the international study groups and see if there's anything further I can add.

But, getting back to the point of this section, I think its important that we recognise that there is a broader picture to the event prior to the bombing than we acknowledge in the main article. There are many across the world who perceive a bias of opinion amongst a group of organisations (NATO, the EU, OSCE and so on) who have a common membership and common set of goals, and even amongst the more reliable human rights organisations. Personally, I'm with NATO and the UN every time, but I recognise any dissent. The problem is that very few have the whole picture. This is the source of Nikola's comment. Can we not acknowledge this?


 * JD, I see where you are coming from, but the same could be said about the events after the bombing. If there was a bias of opinion prior to the bombing -- there certainly is one after the bombing. We must strive to be balanced. -- Kosovar 19:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions for resolving the current disputes
I think it might be a good idea to step back a bit at this point and address the two disputed sentences individually.

Economy
Nikola's version of the first disputed sentence is:


 * The Dinar is widespread in Kosovo because most trade is done with the rest of Serbia and the Kosovo Serb enclaves also use it widely.

Ambi's version is:


 * The Dinar is not widespread in Kosovo, most trade is done with the rest of Serbia using Euro, and Kosovo Serb enclaves use dinars only when in Serbia.

Could the two of you please cite your sources on this? I don't know for sure either way, though I've heard anecdotally that the dinar is only used on any significant scale in the Serb-inhabited areas of Kosovo. I certainly can't imagine the Kosovo Albanians using it when they have the Euro to hand, and UNMIK doesn't treat the dinar as legal tender for official transactions. Der Spiegel ran an article on Kosovo recently which said: "In these miniature states [i.e. Serbian enclaves]] surrounded by NATO barbed wire, where the valid currency is still the Dinar and not the Euro..." (see http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,323632,00.html ). According to UNMIK's website, "De facto the Euro is used for almost all transactions." (http://www.unmikonline.org/eu/index_fs.pdf ) If you can find any more evidence, please post it here.


 * The Blue Guide Albania and Kosovo, 1st edition (James Pettifer, May 2001) says on p21: "Most of the same factors affect business in Kosovo as in Albania except that the Yugoslav dinar has become a redundant currency, and is only used for small change, if at all. The only exception to this is in the Serb enclaves....." Key45

I distrusted anon's edit and haven't tried to find references. Anyway, Blue Guide that you quote suggests that Dinar is in use as small change on entire teritorry, so that is a widespread use even if it is small percenteage in total flow of the capital. Der Spiegel also says that Dinar is used in enclaves and not that they use it only to trade with rest of Serbia, if that was what anon intended to say. Nikola 21:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot to sign. You can read it using amazon's inside the book search.  "If at all" doesn't sound like entire territory to me.  If no one can agree between "Is widespread" and "Is not widespread" why not leave that word out entirely, and simply say
 * The Dinar is the primary currency in Kosovo Serb enclaves.
 * Maybe it could be said that outside of them it is used sporadically. I believe that it would cover low volume of use, and would be true if it is not used on entire teritorry. Nikola 07:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, the kos=yoguhrt thing sounds really unlikely to me too. - Key45 04:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've reverted it - I couldn't find any substantiation for it. I think someone was trolling... -- ChrisO 08:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is as good a point as any to throw in my observation that the classical greek word for blackbird is "kossu^ph-os", some one thousand years before the slavic entry into the Balkans. However, I don't know of any expert linguistic source that evaluates this fact. In modern Greek, the region is called Kossuphopedio. Themos 11:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having lived in Belgrade until recently, and travelled around Kosovo extensively, I can probably clear this up. The Euro is the main currency for the Albanian and international population. It can't be the official currency as Kosovo is not in the Eurozone. As everywhere across the Balkans, including in Serbia proper, the Euro is also the currency for trade and for large denominations (you might buy a car in Belgrade, in cash, using Euros) and is generally accepted anywhere (you could buy your petrol in Euros anywhere). In Kosovo, the Dinar is still the main and official currency for the Serbian areas (that is, parts of northern Kosovo inlcuding towns such as Mitrovica, and the small enclaves elsewhere) and is used for all transactions from buying bread to paying taxes. Serbian pensions and salaries are still paid to Serbs in Kosovo in Dinars, no doubt a main reason that the Dinar is still used in the Serbia areas. The Dinar isn't used anywhere in Kosovo outside of the Serb areas, for fear of revealling yourself as a Serb! (JD)

PS Apologies for the way I've intserted this, not a very experienced user.

Kos in Albanian means "set yoghurt". In England they call it "Greek-style yoghurt". -- Kosovar 04:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as the currency is concerned, here are some more facts:


 * Budged calculated in EUROs ONLY
 * Electricity paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
 * Telephone bills paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
 * Water bill paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
 * Garbage collection paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
 * Heating paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
 * "Anything you can think of" bills paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
 * Postage (postal stamps) priced in EUROs ONLY (see the stamps Kosovar Postal Stamps)
 * Banks operate using EUROs only (maybe except Serb-populated areas where both currencies are used)
 * Loans available in EUROs only (no loans available in Dinars, even for Serbs, sorry!)
 * Bus tickets in EUROs only
 * Endless list? Yes!

So, if anyone is living or staying in the country, and needs or uses any of the above must use, you guessed it, the EURO. --Kosovar 04:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Serbian government gives out payments in Dinars ONLY.
 * Serbian government gives out pensions in Dinars ONLY.
 * Serbian government gives out social aid in Dinars ONLY.
 * The list perhaps isn't endless but it certainly exist. Nikola 08:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would guess that this is only in the Kosovo Serb areas? Other than for transactions with the Serbian government and (presumably) for trade between Kosovo Serb areas and Serbia, is the dinar used for anything else in Kosovo? -- ChrisO 14:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is used for trading in the enclaves alongside the Euro and, according to the Blue Guide above, sometimes for small change outside of them. Nikola 03:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh really! I did not know that the Serbian government gives out pensions and social aid at all, because the Pensioners' Fund of Kosovo was stolen by the Serbian government. It was stolen just like they stole the savings of Kosovars stored in the banks of the former Yugoslavia (pre-1991). Kosovar pensioners (non-Serbs) stopped receiving pensions back in 1999 -- and what happened to their pensions has nothing to do with the Serbian government, does it?


 * Let me tell you one more thing, my grandfather receives a pension from Canada in Canadian Dollars (CAD) for 25 years that he worked over there. Put if he wants to use that money in Prishtina, Peja, Gjakova, Prizren, Mitrovica, Gjilan, Ferizaj, Skenderaj and so on (that is, 95 per cent of the country) he must convert it to Euros first. In fact, he and everybody else can use Euros in 100 per cent of the country, no problem with that. And be assured my friend that the Canadian government has the same influence (power) over Kosovo as the Serbian government, i.e. none.


 * Norwegian government gives social aid to the poor people of Somalia in Norwegian Kroner (NOK) only, but the point is what currency is actually used in Somalia and what currency the national government and the banks use to do everyday business.


 * The issue is: on what currency is the country run? And the answer to that question is undoubtably: the Euro. The fact that a few pensions and some social aid are paid in Dinars in less than 5 per cent of the territory of the country has very little, if any, influence on the everyday business and the way the country is run.


 * Summary: The Euro is the de facto currency of Kosovo, except few areas where, in addition to the Euro, Kosovar Serbs recieve pensions and social aid in Dinars. -- Kosovar 01:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Kosovo is not a country, and your other assertions are incorrect in a similar way. Nikola 03:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I knew too well you would give up since there is not much you can say really. Who should know better, me who lives in Kosovo or a person (for example, you) that probably cannot even enter the country. I thought the topic of discussion was the economy, and in particular, the currencies that are used in Kosovo today, right? -- Kosovar 04:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * One of telltale signs of trolling is when a participant states an obvious fact, misinterprets it completely, and then proceeds as if the misinterpretation is undisputed truth.
 * In the above paragraph, Kosovar claims that my reply is short because I gave up and I have no arguments. This is wrong: my reply is short because Kosovar's point are so ridiculous that they need no reply. Nikola 10:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, the truth (the whole truth and nothing but the truth) is that Serbia, and the Serbian government have no powers over the economic and financial policies in Kosovo. As a matter of fact, there are Custums at Serbian-Kosovar border points -- the significance of that cannot be overestimated. All the Serbian government can do is give out aid and pensions, part of which they stole from the people of Kosovo. As I stated above, any government (Swedish, Swiss, Jamaican, Brazilian) can do that. Today, the Euro is far more used (accepted) in the United Kingdom than the dinar in Kosovo - so there you go. Is that a 'ridiculous' point too? -- Kosovar 17:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, the essential points are that: 1) the Euro is used for official payments by the UN in Kosovo and by the governmental institutions which it has authorised, across both majority-Albanian and majority-Serbian areas; 2) the Euro is also used by all 'internationals' in Kosovo and by all Kosovo Albanians / Kosovars, again across all areas; 3) the Euro is used ocassionally by Serbs in Serbian areas for large payments and for some trade; 4) the Dinar is used for official payments by the Serbian government to Serbs and a few non-Albanians in Kosovo; 5) the Dinar is also used within Serbian-dominated areas of Kosovo by Serbs amd internationals; 6) the Euro cannot be the official currency of the UN-administered territory called Kosovo, at least until it joins the EU and the associated monetary system. Can we all sign up to these 6 points, or give valid reasons why not? (JD)


 * JD, you have my blessing on the issue in hand. Everything you have typed above is spot on. -- Kosovar 17:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with them, but aren't they covered in the article? Nikola 10:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Not number six. An official currency is the currency so designated by a government, to conduct its affairs, denominate its accounts, and serve as legal tender within its jurisdiction.  The issuing agency, if it is not a part of that government (in the case of the euro, the ECB and the various Eurozone banks), is not required to consent.  So long as there are enough euros in circulation (and there are), the euro can be the official currency of any government that so chooses:  say, Kentucky.  (The US dollar is official currency in many places besides US territory.)  The Eurozone can discourage the official adoption of the euro outside of its borders, but it cannot prevent it. &mdash; Ford 00:32, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)


 * BBC: Euro the official currency in Kosovo


 * USA Today: The use of dinars not encouraged by UN Mission in Kosovo -- Deutschmark (nowadays the Euro) the the undisputed king


 * Pravda: Even the Russian Pravda admits the Euro is the official currency -- Nice


 * Needless to say, the Banking and Payments Authority of Kosovo confirms that in accordance with a UNMIK regulation the Euro is an official and most widely used currency in Kosovo


 * BBC: All public accounts and customs duty will now be calculated in Deutschmarks (Euros nowadays)


 * The British, the Americans, the Russians, the French and the Kosovars say the EURO is the official and the most widely used currency in Kosovo. What more do you want? -- Kosovar 10:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * One more update: From now on Kosovo will use a distinct Barcode to barcode its products and services. Wonderful news! It must be noted somewhere in the article


 * More importantly, earlier this year Kosovo got its own and distinct Swift banking code -- used for international banking. News item of the 19-Oct-2004. -- and  -- Kosovar 10:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks as if we're agreed (?) on the usage of Dinars and Euros across Kosovo (Euro everywhere and for official payments, Dinar in Serb areas, roughly). Question is, what is the official currency. I'm certainly not keen to take the word of the BBC, Pravda or USA Today, none of whom have permanent staff in Kosovo, and all of whom aim to simplify their reporting for a more general readership - we should aim for a higher standard. Barcodes and SWIFT codes all very interesting but too technical for this - though we could perhaps include links to relevant articles.

Back to the point in hand - official currency. As told to me by the former head of the EU Pillar, the determination in the UN in Kosovo is that the province has no single official currency; economic matters within UNMIK are handled by the EU Pillar, which could not very well give permission for the Euro to become the official currency. The policy is therefore one of constructive ambiguity. The only place where you will find precision (and, for our purposes, the truth of the matter) is in the UNMIK Regulations and administrative directives. Nowhere in these regulations will you find a reference to an official currency - the UN have not declared an official currency for Kosovo.

As you'll see below, the source of all law in Kosovo is Yugoslav law up to 1989, as amended by any UNMIK Regulations, all of which are available for review. I therefore read through each regulation from the entire list which was relevant to this discussion, looking for any references to currencies. In doing so, I also came across a few other regulations of interest to other discussions on this page. All are listed below.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 1999/1 (On Customs) Customs and excise duties and sales tax shall be paid in Deutsche Marks. A person wishing to pay such duties and sales tax in local Dinars may do so at the reference rate applicable on the date of payment but shall be charged a twenty five percent (25%) administrative fee thereon to cover handling and transaction costs.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 1999/2 Pursuant to UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/4 the budgest, financial records and accounts of public bodies, agencies or institutions and UNMIK shall be formulated in Deutsche Marks. Pursuant to UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/4, the designated currency to be used for compulsory payments shall be Deutsche Marks. Pursuant to section 4.2 of UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/4, the administrative fee for a person wishing to make compulsory payments in Dinars shall be ten percent of the assessed compulsory payment. Administrative fees and compulsory payments, if paid in Dinars, shall be calculated in accordance with the most recent reference exchange rate quoted by UNMIK.

This was updated (once the Euro arrived) by ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 2001/24, which provides for the same as 1999/2.

REGULATION NO. 1999/4 The source of Direction 1999/2 by stating that any person whishing to make an official transaction in Dinars may do so, at a particular rate and exhange cost. (see more discussion below)

REGULATION NO. 1999/16 (On the Central Fiscal Authority) Does not mention currencies. Nor does No.2000/7 (amending 1999/19)

REGULATION NO. 1999/20 (On the Banking and Payments Authority) Does not mention currencies.

REGULATION NO. 1999/21 (ON BANK LICENSING, SUPERVISION AND REGULATION) Where credit limits etc are specified, the denominations are in DM.

REGULATION NO. 1999/24 (ON THE LAW APPLICABLE IN KOSOVO) Of general interest. To note that applicable law in Kosovo is Yugoslav law as of March '89, amended by any UNMIK regulations. The law applicable in Kosovo shall be:(a) The regulations promulgated by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and subsidiary instruments issued thereunder; and (b) The law in force in Kosovo on 22 March 1989.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 2000/16 (ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERIM ADMINISTRATION) Again of general interest. The official gazette shall contain UNMIK regulations and administrative directions issued by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. All information contained in each issuance of the official gazette shall be in the English, Albanian and Serbian languages, published together as one volume. In the case of any disparity between the translations as to the meaning of information contained within the official gazette, the English text shall prevail.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 2000/17 (ON THE CURRENCY PERMITTED TO BE USED IN KOSOVO) Amends Yugoslav criminal law to make the DM the 'designated currency' to be used for fines, charges and penalties.

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2000/1 (ON THE KOSOVO JOINT INTERIM ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE) General interest. Marks the transition to a structure determined entirely by the UN: Current Kosovo structures, be they executive, legislative or judicial (such as the “Provisional Government of Kosovo” and “Presidency of the Republic of Kosovo”), shall be transformed and progressively integrated, to the extent possible and in conformity with the present regulation, into the Joint Interim Administrative Structure.

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2000/18 (ON TRAVEL DOCUMENTS) General interest. Residents of Kosovo may apply for a travel document. The travel document does not confer nationality upon its holder, nor does it affect in any way the holder's nationality. The travel document does not guarantee its holder admission to other States.

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2000/43 (ON THE NUMBER, NAMES AND BOUNDARIES OF MUNICIPALITIES) Kosovo shall have thirty municipalities as set out in Schedule A annexed to the present regulation. Official communications shall not contain any name for a municipality that is not a name set out in Schedule A to the present regulation, except that in those municipalities where ethnic or linguistic communities other than Serbian or Albanian form a substantial part of the population, the names of the municipalities shall also be given in the languages of those communities. Schedule A is here. Note that Albanian is listed first (sort of).

UMIK REGULATION NO. 2000/54 (ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERIM ADMINISTRATION) In the performance of the duties entrusted to the interim administration under United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), UNMIK will, as necessary, issue legislative acts in the form of regulations. Such regulations will remain in force until repealed by UNMIK or superseded by such rules as are subsequently issued by the institutions established under a political settlement, as provided for in United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). Meaning - UNMIK sets the rules, but that all rules are interim until final status is resolved (roughly).

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2001/11 (ON VALUE ADDED TAX IN KOSOVO) Worth noting that under UNMIK definitions, Kosovo remains a part of the (at that time) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Serbia and Montenegro, unter international law, is considered the direct successor state of the FRY. 1.13 “Import” means a supply entering into Kosovo from another country, either directly or after transiting through another part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 1.14 “Intra-FRY inflow” means a supply entering into Kosovo from another part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2001/26 (ON PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS) For the purpose of regulating the rights and obligations of participants in payment transactions in any foreign currency in Kosovo. The present regulation shall supersede any provision in the applicable law which is inconsistent with it. CHAPTER 1, SECTION 1:(p) “Foreign currency” means any currency other than the Yugoslav Dinar. Under this legislation, the Euro is a foreign currency, unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise?

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2004/41 (ON THE PROMULGATION OF THE KOSOVO WATER LAW ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF KOSOVO) UNMIK didn't like the use of the spelling 'Kosova' throughout the document and replaces it with 'Kosovo'. (a) The word “Kosova” in the title and throughout the text of the Law shall be deleted and replaced with “Kosovo”;

From reading through all the above, and I have not listed those economic regulations (eg. tax or customs) where they did not refer to a currency, I think we have some clarity on currencies. The first point is that only UNMIK regulations are the source of law in Kosovo. UNMIK regulations refer to all currencies other than the Dinar as foreign currencies. UNMIK nevertheless identifies the DM and later the Euro as the currencies to be used for the budgets, financial records and accounts of public bodies and as the 'designated currency' for official transactions, though the Dinar can also be used for the latter (at a cost).

There are only a few conclusions we can draw from this. This is not one of them: the Euro is the (only) official currency for Kosovo. I take Ford's point about what is and is not an 'official currency'. Clearly a number of states use another currency as an 'official currency'. Montenegro also uses the Euro and Montenegrin law refers to the Euro as its official currency (the Dinar is specifically excluded) - and the EU is not entirely happy about it. Kosovo, however, has not declared in any official document that its official currency is the Euro (as many countries have for the Dollar and as Montenegro has for the Euro).

It is my belief that UNMIK has chosen, deliberately, not to declare a de jure 'official currency', precisely because it is an agency of the UN and as its economic arm is run by the EU. The Euro is nevertheless the most widely used, and along with the Dinar is the only currency available for payment of fines etc. In the Euro's favour it is also the currency for financial reporting. However, in the Dinar's favour it is the only currency not considered (under the law applicable in Kosovo), a 'foreign currency' - the Euro is a foreign currency in Kosovo under UN law. This point rather outweighs the importance of what currency is used for financial reporting. And, if we take the Regulations above to their logical conclusion, as Yugoslav law is still in force unless amended by UNMIK Regulations, then we can take it that the only legally-sanctioned 'official currency' remains the Yugoslav Dinar - until an UNMIK Regulation is produced which states otherwise and overrides law as of March 1989. I'm more than willing to be proved wrong on this - but please come up with something more than some website text with no legal force. (JD)

Note also that Wikipedia carries the following in it's definition of Currency, "Typically, each country has given monopoly to a single currency, controlled by a state owned central bank, although exceptions to this rule exist. Several countries can use the same name, each for their own currency (e.g. Canadian dollars and US dollars), several countries can use the same currency (e.g. the euro), or a country can declare the currency of another country to be legal tender (e.g. Panama and El Salvador have declared US currency to be legal tender)." Under this definition, the Euro may very well be legal tender in Kosovo, and used as the financial reporting currency, the designated currency for official payments, and for paying official fines alongside the Dinar - but this does not necessarily make it the 'official currency'. Unless anyone can come up with a recognised definition of 'official currency' (I've tried) which covers this, I propose we note that both the Dinar and the Euro are legal tender in Kosovo, but that use of the Dinar is limited to the Serb areas. (JD)

PS - I've now created an account, but have no idea how to add my tag to an edit. Any advice appreciated - I'm registered as JAD. Cheers! (JD)

I've also taken a look at the strange case of the Banking and Payments Authority, which states on its website that "In accordance with UNMIK regulation No.1999/4 the Euro was adopted as one of the official currencies in Kosovo from January 1, 2002. It replaced the German Mark  being then the measurement and reporting currency in the territory of Kosovo. Today, Euro is the most widely used currency in Kosovo.".

As you'll see from the list above, and from reading the specific Regulation, UNMIK Reg 1999/4 says no such thing. Section 1 says that parties to a contract can use any currency they wish. Section 2 removes any Yugoslav legal control over the use of currencies in Kosovo (but does not revoke any other aspect of Yugoslav law). Section 3 says that UNMIK and the SRSG (the Head of UNMIK) determines which currency is to be used for financial reporting. Section 4 says that UNMIK will designate the currency for official payments, except that the Dinar shall always be acceptable. Sections 5, 6 and 7 are repetitive. Administrative Direction No. 1999/2 then identifies the DM as the currency to be used, alongside the Dinar for fines, and for as the currency for financial reporting and official payments. This is later updated by Direction 2001/24 to replace the DM with the Euro.

It's pretty clear to me that this piece of legislation does not declare the Euro as the (or even 'an') official currency of Kosovo. Even the BPA's website calls the Euro 'one of the official currencies'. And I seem to remeber that a number of countries allow or specify financial reporting in one or more currencies without making the other currency an 'official currency'. I'd state again that a currency needs to be declared 'official' in order to be so. Nor is the Euro being the designated currency for 'official payments' sufficient to make it the 'official currency'. Over the course of my readings, I'm beginning to think that perhaps ONLY the Dinar is the official currency, as laid out in Yugoslav law prior to 1989 and unamended by UNMIK. Again, willing to be proved wrong, though. I think the best like to take is 'the Euro and the Dinar are both legal tender in Kosovo, though the Dinar is only used privately within Serb areas'. (JD)


 * Many of the countries of Europe use the Euro as their official country, without being in the EU. Some, such as the Vatican City and Monaco are actually permitted to mint their own Euro coins Astrotrain 16:56, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Those states/jurisdictions do so with the express agreement of the Eurozone countries, as they had done with the various predecessor currencies (the Lira and the Franc in the above examples). Kosovo does so without formal approval, though there is some tacit acceptance that no damage is done to the Euro by letting Kosovo adopt the currency as one of the legal currencie, alongside the Dinar. On independence, should that come about, Kosovo would not be able to use the Euro formally. (JD)

Demographics
Nikola's version of the second disputed sentence is:


 * The population is currently comprised of almost a 90% majority of Albanians, estimated at 80% prior to the Kosovo War of 1999 except for a brief interlude during the war as many of them fled the provincel; many foreign governments, human rights groups and international organisations claim that they were expelled by Serbian security forces, though they are sometimes, mostly in Serbia, disbelieved because of their connectedness to NATO.

My (and others') preferred version is:


 * The population is currently comprised of almost a 90% majority of Albanians, estimated at 80% prior to the Kosovo War of 1999 except for a brief interlude during the war as many of them fled the province or were expelled by Serbian security forces.

I've explained my own view of this above and I think the onus here is on Nikola to explain who claims that NGOs are "connected to NATO" and to come up with some form of words that is neutral. -- ChrisO 20:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I propose you have a look at, say, the response of OSCE to the crisis in Kosovo (1998-1999) and the crisis in Chechnya (1995-present) or the Turkish Southeast (1990s). I picked OSCE because of the confidence with which its report "As seen as told" states that "Between March and June 1999 forces of the FRY and Serbia forcibly expelled some 863,000 Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo". Do you think you can find a similar report that states equally categorically that Turkish state forces (part of NATO) "forcibly expelled" about 2 million people from the Turkish Southeast? The actual number is difficult to pin down: the latest EU report talks of 3 million on page 51. Is that a fair test of OSCE's impartiality and if not, why not? Themos 13:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You explained your own view, but your own view is not relevant for the article; please, supply a proof that these NGOs and international organisations are universally trusted. I don't see why should I have to prove a negative, which is generally hard and sometimes impossible; However, I have found some articles which show how much NGOs and international organisations are mistrusted in Serbia. True, not (only) because they are connected to NATO, but more because of general mistrust. Also, my wording is more neutral already; it is version which you are pushing that is not neutral.

On je u Kosovskoj Mitrovici ocenio da Prelazno administrativno ve&#263;e "nije dobra ideja", kao i da je "neprihvatljivo". Prema njegovoj oceni, taj projekat bi mogao "da padne u vodu" ako Srbi u njemu ne budu u&#269;estvovali, a "sa me&#273;unarodnom zajednicom treba sara&#273;ivati, ali ne sve verovati". - President of the Democratic Party of Serbia, Vojislav Kostunica, [Shortly afterwards, he was elected for the president of Serbia]'' Visited Kosovo yesterday. [...] He commented that [...] "the international comunity should be cooperated with, but not trusted completely".''

and : Demokratska stranka Srbije kaze: »... razbojnicko hapsenje otklanja i poslednje nedoumice o prirodi Haskog tribunala kod onih koji bi ih jos mogli imati. Nesumnjivo je da Tribunal nije ni pravna, ni sudska, ni medjunarodna institucija, vec natovsko, odnosno americko sredstvo pritiska i zavodjenja reda u svetu«. - Democratic Party of Serbia [Currently the ruling party in Serbia] says: »... this barbaric arrest removes the last doubtfullness about the nature of the Hague tribunal in those who still might have it [emphasis mine]''. It is udisputable that the Tribunal is neither legal nor judicial nor international institution, but natovian, that is, American instrument for pressure and inducing order in thw world.«.''

- Nongovernment organisations were not looked with good intentions befor the NATO aggression. A: Krajnje je vreme da se shvati da nevladine organizacije nisu neprijatelj nego komplementarne i neophodne forme koje poma&#382;u dr&#382;avi da funkcioni&#353;e na op&#353;te dobro svih njenih gra&#273;ana. - It is a final moment for understanding that nongovernment organisations are not an enemy but complementary and neccessary forms which are helping a state to function for common good of all its citizens.

or : Nata&#353;a Kandi&#263;: Zavladala je atmosfera u kojoj se nevladine organizacije koje se bave ljudskim pravima vide kao neprijatelji srpskog naroda, ukoliko ne slede "patriotski" ton koji preovla&#273;uje u dru&#353;tvu; Sve podse&#263;a na dane uo&#269;i NATO intervencije u SR Jugoslaviji i obe&#263;anje Vojislava &#352;e&#353;elja koji je konstatovao da, eto, Srbi ne mogu da dohvate NATO avione, ali mogu njihovu logistiku na zemlji, odnosno nevladine organizacije, me&#273;u kojima &#381;ene u crnom - Nata&#353;a Kandi&#263;: [director of the Fond for the humanitarian right] An atmosphere exists in which nongovernement organisations which deal with human rights are seen as enemies of the Serbian people, unless thez follow "patriotic" [quotes her] tone which is overwhelming in the society; Everything remains on days shortly before the NATO intervention in FR Yugoslavia and promise of Vojislav &#352;e&#353;elj [His party currently has more than 33% in the parliament, its presidential candidate came close second to the current president] who stated that, Serbs maybe can't reach NATO aircraft, but they can their logistics on the ground, including the Womeni in black.

[...] Kad je re&#269; o drugim me&#273;unarodnim organizacijama, prema UN, OEBS-u i Partnerstvu za mir preovladava nepoverenje [...] Najslabiji rejting imaju NATO i Ha&#353;ki tribunal, koji, kao deo sistema Ujedinjenih nacija, verovatno sni&#382;ava i percepciju te organizacije, ba&#353; kao i njihov protektorat na Kosovu. [...] Poverenje u nevladine organizacije me&#273;u gra&#273;anima Srbije kre&#263;e se izme&#273;u niskog i srednjeg, u pore&#273;enju sa poverenjem u druge institucije. [...] Istra&#382;ivanje je sprovedeno u periodu od 16. do 25. decembra 2002. godine na teritoriji Srbije bez Kosova i Metohije. Intervjuisano je 2.057 punoletnih gra&#273;ana, u 103 slu&#269;ajno odbarane mesne zajednice u 68 op&#353;tina - ''An examination of the European Movement in Serbia and the Institute of the Social Sciences: Citizens of Serbia don't trust to the international institutions and organisations, this report shows. [...] When talking about other international organisatrions, the UN, OSCE, and the Partnership for Peace are mostly mistrusted [...] The lowest rating have NATO and the Hague Tribunal which, as a part of the system of the United Nations, probably lowers the perception of that organisation, as well as their Protectorate on Kosovo. [...] Trust in nongovernment organisations among the citizens of Serbia is around low and medium, compared to other institutions. [...] The examination is conducted on the teritorry of Serbia without Kosovo and Metohia. 2,057 adult citizens were interviewed in 103 randomly chosen local communities in 68 municipalities''


 * Nikola 22:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Related to this, I see that you were not so diligent to revert the latest anon edits. Do you agree that this article should not have SCG template? Have you found references which claim that the name means "yoghurt" in Albanian? Nikola 22:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * According to the New Oxford Albanian-English Dictionary kos in Albanian means yogurt or more precisely solid yogurt. In England I have seen that producers of these products prefer to use the expression set yogurt instead of solid yogurt. -- Kosovar 06:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saying that "percentage of non-Albanians has remained fairly constant until after the Kosovo War" is VERY misleading. Percentage of non-Albanians From DHoK:


 * 1948: 31.54%
 * 1991: 18.4%

How can someone say that this is "fairly constant" is beyond me. So I will change this. Nikola 12:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is well known that all the data for the official registrations of population in Kosovo (during former Yugoslavia) were gathered by Serbs, and many Albanians who lived in the highlands have never been included in the official data. As these data became more and more accurate, the percentage of Albanians increased. Hence, whoever made the statement about fairly constant percentage of non-Albanians is correct.


 * We must not forget that Serbia tried all means to increase the number of Serbs living in Kosovo, by introducing laws that forbid Albanians from legally buying Serb property, as well as bringing over 10,000 Serb refugees from Croatia and Bosnia. I am sure that Serbian government even today includes these 10,000 people in the total number of Serbs that have left Kosovo since the arrival of the NATO troops. -- Kosovar 06:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Does anyone actually believes in these statements? Because if people do I will debunk them, if not I won't waste my time. Nikola 11:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The people of Kosovo (i.e. Kosovars) have never fully trusted the official data regarding the population of Kosovo. As it became more and more difficult for Serbs officials to lie about the ethnic composition of the Kosovo population, more and more accurate figures were being produced. Full stop. Even today you cannot convince a Kosovar that the official data from the former Yugoslavia were correct, whether you accept it or not.


 * The complete and utter destruction of Serbs forces in the Republic of Croatia by the Croatian army led to a large number of Serb refugees. Approximately 10,000 (ten thousand) Serbs refugees were brought to Kosovo by the Serbian government with the sole intention of changing the ethnic composition of the population. Whole villages were built for these Serbs using the taxes paid by Kosovar Albanians. It is only natural that these people left Kosovo (willingly or not, that is another issue) and these people cannot be considered Kosovar Serbs. -- Kosovar 19:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, it seems that you really do.


 * During SFRY, censa in Kosovo, except the 1989 one, were undertaken by Kosovo administration, which was almost entirely Albanian. The number of Albanians is thus likely overestimated.


 * Serbia has population of around eight million, and of that number two million or 25% live in Kosovo and Metohia. During Yugoslav wars, Serbia had to accomodate for some half million of refugees. 25% of half million is 125,000. So, according to your numbers, actually Serbia settled TWELVE TIMES LESS refugees on Kosovo than it realistically should. These 10,000 people are 0.5% of the population; that does not change ethnic balance, actually there were more than 10,000 Turks living on Kosovo. And no, as they are refugees already, they are not re-registered as refugees, but even if they would be, they would be some 5% of all refugees which barely affects total number. Nikola 11:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If during the SFRY the Kosovo administration was almost entirely Albanian then that means that during the SFRY Kosovo's population was almost entirely Albanian. The population of Kosovo today is almost entirely Albanian, therefore non-Albanians has remained fairly constant. Thank you very much!


 * No.


 * In 1948 there were some 70% Albanians and 30% non-Albanians, and in 1991 there were some 80% Albanians and 20% non-Albanians. This means that percentage of Albanian population increased for 14%, which I agree is not much but don't think could be described as "constant", while percentage of non-Albanian population decreased for 33%, which is very significant decrease. Nikola 00:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Year 1948: 70% Albanians. Year 1991: 80% Albanians. Albanian population increased by 14%? 80 minus 70 equals 14, right? Who taught you maths Nikola? Can you ever stop lying? Year 1948: 30% non-Albanians. Year 1991: 20% non-Albanians. Non-Albanian population decreased by 33%? 30 minus 20 equals 33? Only now I get to know who am I discussing with. You are reinventing the meaning of spin as we know it today. Enough said. -- Kosovar 18:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hold on, Kosovar. You are misunderstanding what Nikola is doing.  His math is correct.  He is comparing the difference with the original.  For instance, if I have two kilograms of flour and get an additional kilogram, then I have made a 50% increase, because one is 50% of my original two.  I have added 50% onto what I had originally.  10% out of an original 70% is 14% of the original, so that an amount equal to 14% of the original has been added to the original.  10% out of an original 30% is 33% of the original, so 33% of the original has been lost.  It is perfectly good math, and it is a standard method of comparison.  &mdash; Ford 00:27, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)


 * Kosovo had nothing to do with the Croatian and Bosnian wars, hence we should not settle any Croatian/Bosnian Serbs in Kosovo -- not a single one. Thank you very much. Keep them to yourself. You started the wars, you suffer the consequences. While under repression and violence an estimated 400,000 young Kosovar Albanians left Kosovo during the 1990s, Serbian government was bringing Serb settlers from the Croatia and Bosnia -- that does effect the ethnic composition. It is obvious you would make a really crap accountant.


 * You are completely wrong. Kosovo had a lot to do with the wars. It was a part of Serbia, and Serbia is the principal state of Serbs who were fighting these wars. Furthermore, a large number of Albanian mercenaries from Kosovo have fought in them. Serbs have not started the wars, there was no repression and violence on Kosovo which could cause 400,000 residents to leave, the number is overestimate anyway, and in the same period a lot of Serbs left Serbia for economic reasons too. These people were not settlers but refugees, and Serbian government has full right to put refugees on whichever part of its teritorry it pleases. Nikola 00:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry, but the one person who is wrong here is you. It is very obvious that you have a distorted view of what has happened and what is happening around you. Kosovo was under Serb occupation, Kosovars had nothing to do with the wars since Kosovars were not asked anything about these wars, nor they wanted to be connected with them in any way. What happened in Croatia and Bosnia was between Croats, Bosnians and Serbs -- Kosovars do not fit in any equation here. Even your lie that there were a large number of Albanian mercenaries cannot put Kosovo in any equation whatsoever. If there were any mercenaries in these wars, it was Russians.


 * Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other human rights organisation have very extensive information about the violence and the violation of human rights in Kosovo during the 1990s. Unfortunately for you and other Serbs, the world does not start following the successful NATO bombing. Now, let us see if Serbia can "put refugees wherever it pleases". -- Kosovar 18:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Kosovo was never under Serb occupation. And even if Kosovo Albanians had nothing to do with the wars, which is not true, the refugees surely didn't want to become refugees. Yes, there were Albanian mercenaries fighting in the wars, I need not mention anyone besides Agim Ceku and his Albanian unit. And Russians who fought in these wars were volunteers.


 * It is not true that HRW, AI etc. have "extensive information about the violence and the violation of human rights in Kosovo during the 1990s". They lack information about violence commited by Albanians, KLA and NATO, while their data on violence against Albanians comes from unverified sources and is oftenly bogus. Nikola 02:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Accourding to your logic, Kosovar Serbs make up just over 5 percent of the Kosovo population -- which barely affects total numbers. We should just ignore them, right? -- Kosovar 11:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No. Nikola 00:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank You. You just helped me prove that you are writing a lot of rubish and nonsense. It could not be clearer, therefore I must thank you. -- Kosovar 18:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Another telltale sign of trolling is when a participant claims to have won the argument when no such thing happened. Nikola 02:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Language and population issues
I realize this page is a minefield, but a few factual issues. In reverting (though not immediately) my changes in the order of Albanian and Serbian (I had placed Albanian first, since it is and has long been the dominant language), Nikola stated that Serbian was the &#8220;official, majority, primary, sourced, etc. language&#8221;. I do not know what &#8216;sourced&#8217; is supposed to mean, and &#8216;primary&#8217; is almost designed to be subjective and thus indisputable, but if Nikola is actually claiming that Serbian is the majority language of this territory he is the only such person I know of. The only way to make such a claim is to look at Serbia as a whole; and that would be like saying that English is the majority language of Puerto Rico or Québec &mdash; a misleading statement, and meant to be so, I think.

I will not change it without some documentation, but it is curious that the 80% figure has slid past the neutrality watch. I can think of no neutral source before the war that used it; the figure in common use (except perhaps in Serbia) at the time was the higher 90% figure &mdash; that is, 90% of the territory was Albanian even before the war. Is there a reason why 80% is now being used?&mdash; Ford 13:28, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)


 * This figure is from the 1991 census of Kosovo (which was almost entirely boycotted by the Albanians). It was apparently derived from "official Yugoslav statistical corrections and projections, with the help of previous census results (1948-1981)". It's not regarded as being a credible figure because of the boycott and its methodology, and it's quite likely to have been affected by political considerations as well. The Statistical Office of Kosovo states that "The quality of the 1991 census is questionable." All the figures I saw before the war were certainly in the 85-90% range. -- ChrisO 14:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Khm... Serbian is the majority and official language in Serbia, and this is article about a province of Serbia. In other articles about subdivisions same order of names is used, for just a few examples Chechnya and Ingushetia have their names first in Russian and then in languages of their populations, and Crimea has it first in Ukrainian (population: 68% Russians). This order is also applied to articles about cities etc.
 * By "sourced", I was referring to the fact that both English and Albanian name are derived from Serbian name, so that is one more reason why it should have precedence.
 * I won't revert till I hear counterarguments. Nikola 11:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps inadvertently, you inserted your comment between the two paragraphs of mine. I have moved it. In response to your point, I am glad that you concede that Albanian is the majority language of this territory. I suppose we could find examples on both sides from elsewhere in the encyclopedia. In my opinion, those cases where the local majority language is clearly one thing and the majority language of a larger territory to which the locality belongs is another should be resolved in favor of the local language, and in time I will address those as well. Only territorial claims prevent agreement on that matter. I would point out that Kosova (Kosovo) is not a part of &#1057;&#1088;&#1073;&#1080;&#1112;&#1072; (Serbia) de facto; &#1041;&#1077;&#1086;&#1075;&#1088;&#1072;&#1076; (Belgrade) has no control over what happens here. Yes, there is international recognition of &#1057;&#1088;&#1073;&#1080;&#1112;&#1072;&rsquo;s claim in public, but everyone recognizes in private that Kosova (Kosovo) is now under the shared control of its elected administration and the Western powers; it is the Western powers, not &#1041;&#1077;&#1086;&#1075;&#1088;&#1072;&#1076; (Belgrade), who are preventing the territory&rsquo;s full independence, and they are doing so for domestic political reasons of their own. We have an obligation to present both sides, but the status of the territory de jure is by definition a point of view, and in this case, moreover, a point of view not in accord with reality. We can acknowledge that the point of view exists without conceding that it is accurate, because in this case, it clearly is not.&mdash; Ford 14:21, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was reply to your first paragraph while I didn't think that your second paragraph is important.
 * In my opinion, articles on political or geographical entities should mention their names in official language of the country in which they are in first, because it is a consistent way of naming, sometimes the only available information, and to do otherwise would open a can of worms where a lot of names could be swapped back and forth. I do advocate the same for Serbian cities and villages outside of Serbia. Also, this is not one of the cases where, to cite you, "local majority language is clearly one thing and the majority language of a larger territory to which the locality belongs is another". Albanian name is derived from Serbian name so it is not another thing.
 * Your other points are blatantly incorrect and anyway I don't see why are they important to name order. Kosovo is part of Serbia both de facto and de jure. Belgrade agreed to give control of the province to the UN, which it had full right to do. Factual independence is prevented by Western powers - as if it would be prevented by Belgrade if it still had control; the Western powers are on the field with Belgrade's permission. I do not agree that de jure status of something is always a point of view, however even if so it is clear that in this case one point of view is prevalent and in fact I have never heard of a different point of view on this matter. Nikola 08:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Western powers are not &#8220;on the field with Serbia&#8217;s permission&#8221;. To say so is ridiculous. Such permission would never have come from the likes of Ko&#353;tunica, let alone Milo&#353;evi&#263;. The Western powers bombed Serbia. I am sure you of all people have not forgotten that. We may disagree on whether intervention was justified, but surely both of us can acknowledge the fact that Serbia did not invite the bombing; and what happened as a consequence of the bombing was no more by invitation than the bombing itself. I know from past experience that there is no point in arguing these points with you, but for the sake of others reading, I will point out that you have called my points &#8220;blatantly incorrect&#8221;, when it is you who say things like &#8220;Belgrade agreed to give control of the province to the UN&#8221;, and &#8220;Kosovo is a part of Serbia both de facto and de jure&#8221;. Serbia, I will say again, has no control over what happens in the territory. If the Western powers decided to grant independence, it would happen tomorrow. Even most Serbs recognize this fact, even if they do not like it.

If, as you say, the Albanian name is derived from the Serb name and they are therefore the same thing, I cannot imagine why you care which one comes first. That being the case, please leave the Albanian name first. Besides, the so-called English name is listed as &#8216;Kosovo and Metohija&#8217;, which is transliterated from the Serb name, and very few people in English use the full name, so the Serb name is essentially listed first anyway. I cannot imagine why you would insist that it be listed both first and second.&mdash; Ford 10:59, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)


 * Yes they did. I don't recall that I have ever had a discussion with you regarding these points, however I would agree that there is no point in arguing them. Serbia has no control of the province because it handed it over to the United Nations, which it had full right to do. It is true that NATO forced this handing over by bombing Serbia (and thus made it illegal) but it is irrelevant - it happened anyway. The Western powers cannot grant independence to a part of Serbia any more than Serbia can grant independence to a part of any of the Western powers and so they cannot decide to do so; at most, they can pretend to be doing so, but they can not really do it, not tomorrow and not ever.


 * I could ask the same: why do you care which one comes first? I see that you are trying to be bigger Albanian than Albanians; the article was edited by Albanians, even by a Kosovo Albanian - and noone of them changed name order. You ask that I leave the Albanian name first, and thank you for asking nicely - but Serbian name was there first; what you really are asking is to uphold your moving of it to second. A smaller point: the English name is not a transliteration but a translation of the Serbian. Nikola 03:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Small things first, then, Nikola: &#8216;Kosovo and Metohija&#8217; is not a translation, though it is true that &#8216;&#1080;&#8217; is translated as &#8216;and&#8217;. The two significant words are transliterated, and transliterated, moreover, in the fashion that Serbs do themselves, on those occasions when they cannot or choose not to write in the Cyrillic script. I know the distinction between &#8216;transliteration&#8217; and &#8216;translation&#8217;, but I didn&#8217;t think anyone would seriously nitpick on the &#8216;and&#8217;. Was that really worth mentioning? (And how do you argue that &#8216;Kosovo&#8217; and &#8216;Metohija&#8217; are English translations of anything? Do those look like English words to you?)  My point stands:  saying &#8216;Kosovo and Metohija&#8217; is essentially using the Serb name anyway.&mdash; Ford (continues below)


 * I'll move to threaded mode since now the points have separated; hope noone will have trouble with this.
 * If transliteration "in the fashion that Serbs do themselves" is a problem (related to this or not), I am for using Metohia in the article. Though Metohija is more oftenly used, I noticed that it tends to be used by Serbs who write in English while it seems to me that native English speakers use Metohia.
 * I don't see why is the name not in English when the only motivated word in it is translated. If we follow your point, then we have to conclude that List of cities in Serbia and Montenegro is written in Serbian because most significant words are transliterations of Serbian. Or that sentence "Ten largest cities in Serbia are Belgrade, Pristina, Novi Sad, Nis, Kragujevac, Prizren, Subotica, Pec, Zrenjanin and Djakovica" is a transliteration because most significant words in it are transliterated, while sentence "Five largest cities in Serbia are Belgrade, Pristina, Novi Sad, Nis and Kragujevac" is a translation since most significant words in it are translated. That is ridiculous.
 * By the way, I might agree that saying "Kosovo and Metohia" is in some way using Serbian name, but again saying "Kosova" is too. So, whichever name order is choosen, a name which is in some way Serbian comes first, so this argument is not relevant. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not judge the rightness or sense of my actions based on what another group of persons does. I don&#8217;t suppose that being a &#8220;bigger Albanian&#8221; than the Albanians is a good or bad thing; the statement has no use. I simply believe that, if we are going to mention local names at all (and we should), we must mention them in the order in which they are used. Most of the persons in Kosovo call it &#8216;Kosova&#8217;. A small number call it &#8216;&#1050;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086; &#1080; &#1052;&#1077;&#1090;&#1086;&#1093;&#1080;&#1112;&#1072;&#8217;. Therefore, &#8216;Kosova&#8217; should go first. I imagine that the Albanians would prefer to have &#8216;Kosova&#8217; first, and in fact to have it used throughout the article, and to have Albanian names used for the cities, rather than Serb names. I agree with them, even if it is a spelling issue. But then they have to contend with nationalist reverts. I am not an Albanian or a Serb, so at the very least I am not motivated by nationalism one way or the other.&mdash; Ford (continues below)


 * I understand your point completely. However, for all this time, you have not stated why do you have it. Why would a local name of something have to be mentioned in language spoken by majority of the population of something?
 * I have stated my reasons why I think otherwise: I believe that stating name of something in the language which is the official language of the country in which that something is should be used because it is always possible, neutral and unambiguous. Why do you think the way you do? Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Ford, please accept my apologies for answering a question which was primarily addressed to you, but I felt a real need to add my input.


 * Sensible people like Ford think in a sensible way because Albanian language is the official language in Kosovo. Remember, the laws that are valid in the cities, towns and villages of Kosovo are approved by the Assembly of Kosovo -- not that of Serbia. It is rather sensible to use first the name of the place that is used by the vast (overwhelming) majority of its inhabitants. You go and tell 90 per cent of the population of Ferizaj that the Serbian name is neutral and unambiguous. Or even better, tell 99 per cent of Skenderaj that a name used by less than 1 per cent of its population is neutral and unambiguous.


 * Needless to say, Serbian language is also an official language in Kosovo -- but it is definitely not the primary language. When a town has a majority Serb population, like Leposavic, we should use the Serb name first, Albanian second -- it is only fair. -- Kosovar 20:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are wrong on all your points. Albanian language is not the official language in Kosovo. The laws that are valid in it are approved by UNMIK.


 * Albanian language is the official language in Kosovo -- welcome to the real world Nikola. I love it when you make this kind of statements, it really shows your mentality and others can see it.


 * Assembly of Kosovo passes the laws, UNMIK approves them. Serbia has absolutely no say on any law that is approved in Kosovo. Hence, the names of places in Kosovo that are used by Assembly of Kosovo should be used in Wikipedia articles and the Assembly of Kosovo uses Albanian names first, Serbian second.


 * Why? Nikola 11:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Because at least 88 per cent of the population of Kosovo speak Albanian as their first language, that is why. -- Kosovar 13:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * So? Why should name used by 88% of a population of something be used prior to its name in the official language of a country in which that something is? Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have explained above why I don't think that it is sensible to use as the first name the name that is used by the majority so I won't repeat myself. But I'll give a few new examples: if we follow this logic to its end, abandoned villages should not have a local name mentioned because noone lives in them? Which name order should be used for places which originally had Serbian majority, which is now displaced and replaced by Albanians? Which name order should be used for uninhabited geographical features (rivers, mountains, etc.)? Nikola 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Villages with no population have no articles in Wikipedia. If a place had majority Serb population prior to the bombing, the name used first should be Serbian. The names of rivers, mountains are less problematic, and the order of names used in the Assembly of Kosovo should be used. -- Kosovar 19:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Why prior to the bombing? Why not 10 years ago? 50? 100? 500? I say 400, for that is before any forceful population movements occured. Nikola 11:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Come on Nikola, don't be so modest. Why go back only 400 years? Why not go back 2000 years when these lands were all Illyrian? Is it because then there were no Serbs, not one? Why not go back to the times when these lands were ruled by King Agron and Queen Teuta -- when Dardans lived in Ulpiana and centuries before places like Naisus was occupied by Slavs (i.e. Serbs). Why not go back to the great times when these lands used to give Rome emperors?


 * If you really, really want to know why, I'll tell you -- not problem. Because the world does not go around Serbs -- and you cannot go back in history only when it suits the Serbs -- if you want to go back in history, then go in all the way. The point is we live today - not yesterday, not tomorrow, but today -- and it is today that matters. Join the really Nikola. Soon it is going to be mid-2005. -- Kosovar 13:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The difference lies in the fact that Illyrians were not forcefully moved from the territory, and also, that we don't know what those Illyrian names were.


 * However, you have just proven my point. As the period from which the names are used may be set arbitrarily and different people are likely to have different opinion on it, it is better to use one criteria which cannot. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think you properly understand the distinction between &#8216;de jure&#8217; and &#8216;de facto&#8217;. We can disagree about whether the Western powers should grant independence to Kosovo, whether under &#8220;international law&#8221; (which is hardly a definite thing) they may grant it independence, but in the real world of real control, they can grant it independence, whenever they want. They didn&#8217;t need Serbia&#8217;s permission to occupy Kosovo, and the use of coercion brings us into the realm of fact, not Serbian nationalist theory. Or do you think that somehow Serbia could stop them? &mdash;Ford 05:06, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)


 * I am quite certain that I understand the distinction between de jure and de facto. For example, I know that de jure Kosovo is ruled by UN-appointed administration, and de facto Kosovo is ruled by Albanian mafia lords. But we were not talking about control, but about whether is a part of Serbia. It is, both de jure and de facto.
 * However, I did not understand the distinction between "may" and "can"; in Serbian, they both translate in a single word. I checked a dictionary to be sure. After some browsing of Merriam-Webster, I came to conclusion that you were referring to the distinction of whether something is allowed versus whether something is possible.
 * Independence is a term defined in the international law. As I seid the Western powers can pretend to be granting independence to Kosovo, and they can even behave towards Kosovo as if it is independent, but it is simply not possible for them to grant independence to Kosovo. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Ford, I am very sorry if I am interfering in your discussion with Nikola, however there are a few things I would like to write to Nikola.


 * So Nikola, who granted independence to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia? Was it by any chance Serbia? Or maybe Yugoslavia?


 * In case you are interested, the independence of a country is not granted by anyone. The independence of a country is declared by the people, and then the independence is recognised by other countries. This is the beauty of democracy, people choose what they want.


 * As this is a point oftenly mentioned, I'll comment on it: its fallacy lies in the fact that the people of Kosovo does not exist. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Serbs certainly wish the people of Kosovo did not exist, but they do. Here I am, one of them. We are approximately 2 million people, and we very proundly call ourselves Kosovars. If one follows your logic there would be no such people as Austrians?


 * Interesting. I thought you are an Albanian. Nikola 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting indeed. Do you think that Austrians do not exist? Do you think that Austrians do not have the right to decide about their own future? -- Kosovar 09:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Wait, are you an Albanian or aren't you? Nikola 11:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am from Kosovo. I am a Kosovar. If I were from the United States, I would be an American. If I were from Austria I would be an Austrian. If you believe that the people of the United States of America do not exist, I strongly suggest you go and see a doctor, preferably a psychiatrist -- but not Boris Tadic, he obviously did not help. If you believe the people of Austria do not exist, I suggest you go and see two doctors, preferably psychiatrists -- none of them being Boris Tadic, he obviously did not help.


 * You cannot get away with this one. You opened your mouth when you should have kept it shut -- now listen and learn. If a person is from Kosovo, that person is called a Kosovar. That person can be ethnically Albanian, Serbian, Roma... but that person is a Kosovar. If a person comes from the United States of America, he or she is an American. That person can be African, Mexican, English... but that person is an American -- hence, African American. Got it! Similarly, if a person is from Austria, he or she is an Austrian. That person can be German, Hungarian, Slovenian... but that person is Austrian. Again, similarly, you have Kosovar Albanian, Kosovar Serb, Kosovar Roma... and these people together are the people of Kosovo. The people of Kosovo are overwhelmingly Kosovar Albanian (me being one of them) - hence, I sign as Kosovar. Got it.


 * Now you're trolling. You are using fallacy of equivocation by trying to create impression that there is only one meaning of the word "Albanian", "Serbian" and so on.


 * There exist something called nationality and there exist something called regionality. A person can be ethnically Serbian or Albanian, that is, having Serbian or Albanian ancestors and being part of Serbian or Albanian culture, wherever it lives. And a person can be regionally Serbian or Albanian, that is, live in Serbia or Albania regardless of how it got there.


 * What a lot of rubish, as usual, from Nikola. I am very sorry to inform you but something called regionality does not exist. The Oxford Dictionary of English does not have such a word, therefore it does not exist. You cannot built your argument on non-existant terms Nikola, the rest deserves no comment. -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the Google certainly says that it does. It is apparently a neologism, which is why it isn't in the OED. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * A person who lives in Belgrade is called a Belgradian, one living in New York a Newyorker, one living in Vojvodina a Vojvodinian, one living in Siberia a Siberian, a person who lives in Africa is an African and so on; this is regionality. A person could not be Belgradian, Newyorker, Vojvodinian, Siberian or African by nationality. "The people of" Belgrade, New York, Vojvodina, Siberia or Africa does not exist.


 * "...this is regionality..." bllah-bllah-bllah... Oh really? You are turning out to be more clever than the Oxford Dictionary of English. Could you please define, in clear English the meaning of the word regionality, I do not understand what on Earth are you talking about. -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In this meaning of the word, it is the status of belonging to a particular region. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * On Kosovo, there does not exist any sense of common identity in its residents, nor there exist sense of nationally different identity between Kosovo Albanians and other Albanians. That is why the people of Kosovo does not exist, and Kosovans, which you call Kosovars, are simply people who inhabit Kosovo, and not a people. And, as we all know, all Albanian politicians see independence of Kosovo just as a intermediary goal towards union with Albania. Nikola 00:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, at least 88 per cent of the population have a very common sense of identity. That is very similar to Slovenia or Croatia, and way higher than Macedonia, for example. -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * One of their problems lies in the fact that there is a neigbhouring state with people who have exactly the same sense of identity. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "People who inhabit Kosovo are not a people"? You are loosing it. What are they? Aliens? -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * English language is hopelessly muddled on these issues and I often wonder is that intentional. See ; the first "people" has meaning #2, the second meaning #5. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "And, as we all know, all Albanian politicians see independence of Kosovo just as a intermediary goal towards union with Albania" - and you'll be following that wide-sweeping remark with some links no doubt. Most of the people who claim that are curiously Serbs. You would think that it's the Serbs that want Kosovo to be united with Albania. P.S. This page is huge, someone who can follow it should archive it. Dori | Talk 00:55, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * ,,.


 * Before someone starts foaming about the first link without actually reading it, it is translation from Kosova Sot.
 * Thanks for not doubting me. Nikola 01:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Accourding to Nikola's logic, the intermediary goal of all Serbs is it to take out the eyes of the Croats using spoons, because one of their beloved leaders, Seselj, has said so in a television interview. That implies that all Serbs share his opinion? Accourding to Nikola, yes sure! Get this man a doctor soon. -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What you need is surely an eye doctor, because I wrote nicely "all Albanian politicians", not "all Albanians". Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes, two or three politicians mean all, I'll have to remember that. Dori | Talk 01:54, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * And next time when you ask for some links, I'll have to remember that you don't actually read them, for the first link alone mentions three different politicians, all heads of different political parties. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Now, we Kosovars, the people of Kosovo, have learned that Serbs are not very nice people and often do terrible things. That is why we are going to declare independence, just like Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia -- and Serbia can do absolutely nothing about it. Now, you can try and fool yourself in believing otherwise, but you will not fool anyone else.


 * If you have anything else to say, then write at the bottom of the page -- do not interrupted other people's post. -- Kosovar 12:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If I would do that then the conversation would become entirely unreadable. Nikola 00:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It certainly is an interesting world you live in Nikola. Who taught you at school?


 * It depends on the subject. I can reveal that I was taught psychology by Boris Tadic :] Nikola 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh well, that explains a lot of things. The picture is getting clearer and clearer with each passing day. So, did Boris Tadic teach you that people like Austrians do not exist? -- Kosovar 09:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No. Nikola 11:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Since you bothered answering this question, why didn't you have a go at the previous question too. So Nikola, did Serbia or Yugolavia grant independence to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia? Do not hide! -- Kosovar 19:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't thought you were seriously asking. It was Yugoslavia, of course. At that time Serbia was one of its constituent republics so it couldn't grant independence to anything (and still can't). Nikola 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Aha, so that is why the wars in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia started? Because Yugoslavia recognised their independence, correct? So, Yugoslavia granted independence to Slovenia, right? When? Tell us more. So Yugoslavia granted independence to Croatia, right? When? Tell us more. So, Yugoslavia granted independence to Bosnia, right? When? Tell us more. Would you be so kind and elaborate more on the topic. When you do not like the question -- you do not think it is seriously. So, Slovenia/Croatia/Bosnia did not declare their independence? It was all down to Yugoslavia granting their independence. I can see Boris Tadic did a wonderful job. Shame he cannot teach younger generations the same. -- Kosovar 09:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yugoslavia granted independence to Slovenia in 1992. I won't search for other dates, do your homework yourself. Nikola 11:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What a lot of rubish you talk Nikola. Complete and utter rubish. I did not claim that Yugoslavia granted independence to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia. You did, and by doing so you lied. Let everyone know what a lot of rubish you talk. Every thing that you say, every page that you write on has a lot of rubish just like this one. The homework is not mine, it is yours. You lied, and if you could you would happily do the homework and cover up your lies. But you can't. You cannot because you know it is a lie. Is this why all these war crimes have been committed in Croatia and Bosnia because the Croats and Bosnians did not want independence but Yugoslavia "granted" them independence and Serbs tried to make them accept their independence.


 * Now, how did Yugoslavia grant them the independence? Did the parliament of the SFRY exist after the independence wars in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia? Do Serbs have some powers that make it possible to travel back in time and grant independence to other people or what? I see Boris Tadic really did a wonderful job, teaching you have to claim things that cannot possibly happen.


 * Serbs like yourself have made up many, many lies about the history. Everyone can now see your historical arguments and your truths. The same way how you lie here, and cannot admit that you are lying, the same way you lie about the history. The same mentality, the same methods, the same practices, the same people, that is the same lies.


 * If you want to continue lying about the lies that you lied earlier, then please lie at the bottom of this page and do not interrupted other people's posts -- Kosovar 12:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * After this many insults I don't continue conversation. If someone else is interested in answers to this question and ask me, I can answer. Nikola 00:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If there is anyone who is insulting here, then it is you Nikola. There is nothing more insulting that lying, particularly because a great number of innocent people died and you continue lying about what happened. If you had any arguments, you would have answered the questions I raised, but since you were caught lying, you hide and pretend to be insulted. -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, if Serbia is very interested in granting independence to Kosovo, tell them not to bother. The people of Kosovo, Kosovars, will do it themselves.


 * Second, the fact that a person is not an Albanian it does not mean that he or she must not have an opinion, in particular since the encyclopaedia does not belong to you. In addition, do not mislead the people in thinking that a Kosovar Albanian has approved of the order of names. From the first day I found out about how Wikipedia works, I have requested and proved by facts that in English the territory is referred to as Kosovo only. I have repeatedly said that the United Nations, who are in charge in Kosovo, use the name Kosovo exclusively, not to mention the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain... the European Union, the Council of Europe, the OSCE ... endless list.


 * A number of organisations, including OSCE and Amnesty International for the time being are using the neutral form Kosovo/Kosova -- but the Wikipedia community does not seem to be well organised to enforce such a NPOV policy. -- Kosovar 05:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to join the discussion, Kosovar. And I hope you didn&#8217;t misunderstand me. I only said that the Western powers are in a position to grant independence to the territory (or deny it) because they have ultimate control &mdash; again, it is not that they should have control, but that they do. Clearly the democratic will in Kosovo is for independence; the reason it has not happened is because of a Western veto. Virtually every state has a minority territory that would like to be self-governing, and most of the time these states will thwart such declarations of independence elsewhere so as not to encourage their own minorities. Usually their thwarting is limited to diplomatic isolation and refusal to trade, as with Somaliland; but in the case of Kosovo, they have a more effective tool &mdash; actual troops on the ground. The flip side to that is that Serbia, despite Nikola&#8217;s empty assertions, is in no position to deny Kosovan independence. In the meantime, if you were interested in lightening the Serb nationalist influence in the main article (which I agree is pervasive), I would back you up.&mdash; Ford 12:53, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)


 * Serb nationalist influence? The article is heavily pro-Albanian on all issues it covers. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. First - I'd like to say, it's actually very good to see ethnic Serbs, ethnic Albanians and internationals debating these issues openly - it's rare on the ground in Kosovo/Kosova. Let's also be clear that this place we're discussing is (de jure - in law, as recognised by the UN) PRESENTLY a province of Serbia. This is not to prejudice in any way its FUTURE status, which is to be determined at some future point. Nor does this say anything of the will of the inhabitants of this place - the absolute majority want an independent nation state; a significant minorty want to remain part of Serbia. In practical terms (de facto) it is governed by an agency of the United Nations with significant elements of self-government, supported by a degree of democratic accountability. None of these present practical arrangements are to prejudice future arrangments once status has been determined. Can we all agree to this?

On names. I guess in part we have to fit in with Wikipedia. The UN refers to this place as Kosovo in English - as in the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK, the body authorised by the UN to run Kosovo. As with all multilingual places, official bodies will use all main local languages and we should make reference to the Serbian and Albanian translation. That the English name for this place (Kosovo) is the same as the Serbian is a matter of historical precedent and not an indication of a preferred status for this place. Perhaps if it had been independent from the 19th century, we would be calling it Kosova (or more likely, something without a slavic root). And if and when this place becomes independent, it can call itself whatever the hell it likes - but it's inhabitants should be aware that the English name for it might not change (Holland, anyone)? Can we all agree to this?

On place names. These need to be in both languages. I'm in favour of putting Albanian first, Serbian second, again with no prejudice to the potential future offical names of these places. (JD)

Another point. On the Kosovo and Metohija issue. The official name of this place in Serbian is Kosovo i Metohija; Serbian can be written in latin or cyrillic scripts, both are official, but cyrillic tends to be preferred for documents. The translation in Enlgish of this is Kosovo and Metohija; anything else (ie. Metohia) is a mistranslation. The common useage in Serbian is Kosovo, and occasionally (ie. if you're over 50!), Kosmet. The common useage in English is Kosovo. The United Nations refers to this place as the Province of Kosovo (http://www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm). (JD)


 * Metohia is not a mistranslation. It is an older transliteration which gained hold in English language. There's nothing wrong with using it in English, and I might add that there is possibility that old transliteration is used again for Serbian. Nikola 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Nikola on this point (and this point only). But Nikola, I find it bizarre that you have again interrupted my post for your own (above), and said that you were doing so in hopes that no one objected, when I have already objected myself and it was my post that you were interrupting. Don&#8217;t do that again.&mdash; Ford 12:34, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)


 * Dear Ford, I shall no longer interrupt your posts. I was replying to Nikola's posts which were in the middle of yours -- so your comments are completely torn apart now, consequently loose their meaning and it is not fair. For my part, I shall no longer interrupt your posts, even if Nikola continues to do so. My apologies.


 * In addition, I agree with you entirely on the issue of Western powers recognising or putting a veto on the independence of a territory like Kosovo or Somaliland. A complete understanding. -- Kosovar 09:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet, most people discuss in this way, and I believe that it is the most efficient method of discussion and really don't see why it bothers you. But if you don't like any interruption of any your post, then OK, I'll try not to do it again. Nikola 11:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apologies also if anyone feels I'm cutting across a discussion here - all looks a bit chaotic, but hey at least we're having a serious discussion. I'm assuming the aim of the discussion is to resolve what languages we're going to use in the article? I suggested, above, that Kosovo remain the name we use as the English (as used by the UN, and a historical accident not implying any cultural dominance, especially if you think it's somehow referring to yoghurt...). We need to note the Serbian and Albanian language names, plus the more official names in both lanugages (ie. APKiM and Republic of Kosovo). We need to note the three (?) official langauges and other languages used in the parliament etc. We need to note the use of languages by ethnic groups across Kosovo. I think we can all agree on this?

Wow - I've just read your earlier discussions on use of language! Seems you were heading in this direction outline above. The real sticking point comes to towns/cities and places names. Ultimately, they either have one name or more than one name. But, looking back at the article, we don't often do this. Why don't we take it on a case-by case basis? We might (and I'm not looking to open a discussion here, refer to the main town as Pristina, followed by the Albanian, as this common useage). We might refer to Gracanica in that form when relevant as it's entirely Serb. And we might refer to some other village in ALbanian, with Serbian following. Not looking for agreement on the last three suggestions. What do people think of treating place names on a case-by-case basis? (JD)

Separately, Nikola and Ford, whether or not Metohia was a form used in the past, it is certainly neither used nor correct now. Serbian cyrillic has a consistent structure and clear transliteration into latin script - there is no reason on earth to use Metohia over Metohija. In any case, Kosovo is not referred to in English as Kosovo and Anything, just Kosovo, unless we're trying to distinguish between adminstrative structures over time, in which case we might refer to 'such-and-such a policy prevalent in the Autonomous Provice of Kosovo and Metohija' (much as we might, if needed, refer to the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' if needed). Nevertheless, there is not a transliteration problem with Metohija - we're not trying to transliterate (for example) &#1064;e&#1096;e&#1113; (&#352;e&#353;elj) into English Latin script, where we might write Seselj (and note that there are only five letters in Cyrillic, six in Latin); &#1052;&#1077;&#1090;&#1086;&#1093;&#1080;&#1112;&#1072; has eight letters in Serbian Cyrillic and eight in English Latin - Metohija. Doesn't matter if they got it wrong fifty or more years ago, because the word 'Metohia' was never in any kind of common use in English, even among Balkan experts. Unless you can prove me wrong! (JD)

Also, on occupation by NATO. De jure and de facto, NATO and the UN could not have entered and set up administration in Kosovo without the formal permission of the then-FRY. The reality is that we came to a deal where they surrendered and allowed the UN in. The UN could not break its own laws on the protection of sovereignty without the formal say-so of Serbia. That this was achieved by force is relevant only in terms of how it came about. Had Serbia refused to submit, we would have needed to fight a ground war, probably all the way to Belgrade, to gain control and completely remove the Serbian government, much as has been done in Iraq (where the government, after the first Gulf War, in similar fashion had given control over its arispace to the UN-backed US and UK forces). This is not to say that Serbia voluntarily gave control of Kosovo to the UN - the point is that it gave control, involuntarily, as provided for under UNSCR 1244. (JD)

There's something wrong with the discussion when a single section of it grows longer than 32K :) Nikola 00:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Local language
The point of giving local names in the first place is to allow users of the encyclopedia to know the names that are used by the people who actually live there. We do not give the name of Hungary in Swahili, or the name of Argentina in Mandarin. It is true that Serbs do live in Kosovo, but they are a small minority; we can give the Serb name of Kosovo, but to give it precedence over the Albanian name, by which it is known to the vast majority of its residents, is a transparent nationalist action designed to reinforce the Serb claim to Kosovo, which has historical grounds but is in complete defiance of the principle of self-determination. I support the self-determination of both Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo, and in particular would support the moving of the border to allow majority-Serb areas in proximity to the rest of Serbia to remain within Serbia while Kosovo becomes independent. To resist the border shift is simply Albanian nationalism, and is hypocritical on the part of Kosovars; any Albanian who insists that even Serb parts of Kosovo must become part of an independent Kosovo or greater Albania is demanding to be free of Serb domination but demanding the right to dominate Serbs in return. This nationalism on both parts is nauseating. However, the Serb claim to all of Kosovo is far more undemocratic than the Albanian claim to all of Kosovo. Nikola, demanding an explicit expression of something that I have already made quite clear, wants to know why Albanian should come first. My answer is this: the encyclopedia is meant to be a source of information, not a platform for sectarian advocacy. I have rewritten the opening to be as neutral as possible, but since it must be linear, I have put Albanian first. Nikola can say what he wants, but neutral observers will know that his insistence on placing Serbian first is an act of nationalism and advocacy of territorial claim. He has offered no better counterargument; and of the persons who have expressed an opinion on this, only he feels as he does. &mdash; Ford 02:53, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)


 * When listing the different translations on the first paragraph, I usually go by the alphabetic listing (and no, not because Albanian comes first). I've done this in articles where Albanian isn't even involved. Throughout the article is a more difficult matter. As far as I know, we go by the English name, lacking that the official name as set by the government. Here we have the problem of deciding which one is the official government. I like going with the idea of using the name used by the majority of the local population. If that's also considered unfair, we could go by google hits as a last resort. Dori | Talk 03:03, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have never noticed an article in which the names are listed alphabetically or by Google hits. Nikola 03:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Knowing how the local population calls the place is a nice thing, but what exactly is the local population, and why should local population of something should precede local population of something in which the first something is? I believe that the point, besides knowing how the local population calls the place, is allowing users to search for it in literature, and logically there is no literature which describes a place better than local literature. Tough luck finding something about "Ferizaj" in the National Library of Serbia.


 * Serbs are not a minority in Kosovo, and the same way you see giving precedence to Serbian name "transparent nationalist action", I see giving precedence to Albanian name as a not-so-transparent nationalist action, designed to reinforce Albanian claims to Kosovo.


 * It is not true that Kosovo Albanians have the right of self-determination, for various reasons, some mentioned in above discussion with Kosovar.


 * When answering why should name used by most of the population come first, you have basically said "the Albanian name should come first becouse the encyclopedia is meant to be a source of information". I don't see how is this an answer to my question.


 * I believe that your rewrite of the opening was in good faith, but it is simply factually wrong. You wrote "Kosovo is an autonomous province of Serbia" but Serbia does not have such autonomous province. Further, you wrote "where it is officially called" which implies that otherwhere it is not officially called so. Then, you write that majority of the population declared the independence of the Republic of Kosova, but they have declared independence of Kosovo under the name of Republic of Kosova. Finally, I'm not 100% certain whether Albania recognised the independence (I believe it did) but am quite certain that current governement is not continuation of old, or Albanian politicians would not seek to declare independence again.


 * Kosovo is a part of Serbia in every way; and so there is no need for me or anyone else to set a territorial claim to it. I have given several arguments as to why should official name come first. Nikola 03:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not as much a question of the "local" language as it is of the English name. Clearly, the article should live at the English name for a place/town, and also list it first, followed by the official names in the order used by the local government, and then other names. Since the English name will mostly be the same as either the Serbian or the Albanian one, the order for most articles will be set by the choice of the English name. I guess that English names for larger towns and places in Kosovo probably turn out to be mostly derived from Serbian, since they have been in use for quite a time. Less known places will, depending on the spelling, probably settle on the language of the local majority population.

Another thing that I might already have said earlier: Kosovo and Metohija should get its own article, since it is a de-jure territorial unit of Serbia with an operating administration in Serbia proper. There is also the history of the term to write about. As for the geographic region, it's usually just called "Kosovo" in Serbian, though that is felt by many to be a casual use (like "Bosnia" for "Bosnia and Herzegovina") since "Kosovo" doesn't really include all of the province. I think an accurate introduction would be:
 * Kosovo (Albanian Kosova, Serbian Kosovo i Metohija, often simply Kosovo) is a...

I'm not sure where to put the Cyrillic spelling, but please do include the Latin one. Serbian has an official and widely used latin script or transliteration, which ever way you want it, and there is no need to rob the readers of the ease of reading Serbian names in Latinics. Zocky 03:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moving Forward
Looks as if some of the long-winded discussions below are coming to some agreement, at least on the basic principles on which to base the main article. I'm not an experienced user and have no idea how this process is supposed to work, but how about we make a list of elements of the article, confirm where we're happy that a section covers a) the technical reality, b) has a NPOV, and c) covers both 'sides' where that is necessary. What do we think?

Currently we have

1 Geography 1.1 Geographical regions

2 Name 2.1 Former official names 2.2 Adjective form 2.3 Kosovo placenames

3 Flag

4 History

5 Politics and international status

6 Administrative subdivisions

7 Economy

8 Demographics

9 See also

10 External links 10.1 Provisional Institutions of Self-Government 10.2 Pro-Albanian 10.3 Pro-Serb

Can I humbly suggest the following structure:

Intro

1 Geography (where it is, what's next to it, what the landscape is like, main towns and rivers etc in English/Albanian/Serbian)


 * I'm strongly agains using non-English names in this way. This was extensivelly discussed before. Nikola 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2 History (link to other article, brief summary noting the major periods, inlcuding SFRY, and a NPOV sentence on the post-91 period)

3 Demoraphics (noting contradicting and incomplete sources, rough outline of post-WWII, the mass movements on both sides, and where we *might* be now)


 * I agree with 2 and 3. Nikola 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4 Language (noting all main languages, the formal and informal titles in English/Albanian/Serbian and less of this 'is it Slavic or not')


 * No, I don't agree with this. Which article on a teritorry has a Language section? Information about official languages belongs to Politics. Nikola 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5 International status (current technical status, position of UN, desires of the various sides, note on process to Final Status from here)

6 Politics (democratic involvement and main parties in and from Kosovo, inlcuding Serbs voting for Serbian elections and Serb parties)

7 Administration (note on pre-99 APKiM, early UNMIK period, and overview of current institutions, incl relevant ones on Serbia side)


 * Agree with 5, 6 and 7, except that I don't see why there should be a section on Administration, it should be in Politics. Perhaps even International status should be a subsection of Politics. Nikola 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

8 Economy (communist period, war and devastation, rebuilding, currency, privatisation, problems of black economy etc)

9 See also (other articles)

10 External links (International, Albanian, Serb)

All parts of the current structure should fit into this (eg Flag into International Status, Name into Language, Status or Administration) What do we think of this? We can then take each section, propose a paragraph or two, tweak them and build the article back up, bringing al sides along as we do? (JD)


 * The first move forward must be the removing of some of the external links that have been added recently. I did not want to do this because it might start a so-called revert war. It is totally unacceptable that links to individual articles have been added. I can add tens of thousands of links to individual articles from very reliable sources like the BBC that discuss the horrible crimes committed by the Serbs. I could add links to articles how Serbia is unsafe for Serbs, even their prime minister (supposedly the safest person in the country with the highest security around him) was killed in the middle of the capital Belgrade (supposedly the safest place in Serbia) in front of the government building (supposedly the safest building in the country). How can a country provide security for someone else when they cannot provide security for their own prime minister.


 * The external links must be sorted out immediately.


 * I suggest we put a limit to the number of external links. Kosovar Albanians would select the best sites that represent their side, and Serbs do the same. They can then select links to individual articles that talk about Milosevic being an innocent angel or website with information about the current events -- their choice.


 * Finally, the subject of the external links must not be changed to better suite you. -- Kosovar 11:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that new links are overkill, and a lot of them could be removed or moved to specific articles. http://www.euinkosovo.org/pNewsDev.asp?id=169&Lang=2 Nikola 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, so with agreement that we at some point sort out what links we're going to put in, we can start moving forward. Nikola - more than happy to use less sections, perhaps put Status and Administration into Politics, although given the importance of current and future status this seems to me to underrate the issue. And I suppose we could put language into demographics, but we have to account for the importance of language and terminology in the current political debate. Can we agree on:

1 Geography (where it is, what's next to it, what the landscape is like, main towns and rivers etc - language issue TBC)

2 History (link to other article, brief summary noting the major periods, inlcuding SFRY, and a NPOV sentence on the post-91 period)

3 Demoraphics (noting contradicting and incomplete sources, rough outline of post-WWII, the mass movements on both sides, and where we *might* be now; also points on ethnic and religious balances and languages used) 4 Politics and administration - International status (current technical status, position of UN, desires of the various sides, note on process to Final Status from here) - Related issues (official languages, names and terminology, Serbia/Albania/potential new flags, travel documents, - Politics (democratic involvement and main parties in and from Kosovo, inlcuding Serbs voting for Serbian elections and Serb parties) - Administration (note on pre-99 APKiM, early UNMIK period, and overview of current institutions, incl relevant ones on Serbia side)

5 Economy (communist period, war and devastation, rebuilding, currencies, privatisation, problems of black economy etc)

6 See also (other articles)

7 External links (TBC)

For those who may not have seen it above, can I also refer you to the pretty good UK Foreign Office summary on Kosovo.

Can we all begin to agree on some of this? Some of the current structure just seems to exacerbate disagreement (a separate section on flags?!), where we should be looking for accepted generalities, contested actualities and references to the major sides in any particular area of controversy. (JD)


 * JD, you sign and time stamp by typing four time tilde (~). Alternatively, at the top left-hand corner of the edit window you can find 11 buttons to help you in your editing (bold text, italic text, hyperlink text, etc). By pressing the one before last, Wikipedia does the signing and time stamping for you. Let me know if you need any further help. --Kosovar 03:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Your proposals seem reasonable to me. Go ahead! :)


 * I've never seen an article with section "Flag", however some have section "Symbols". As it will be quite short, perhaps it could just become a sentence in "Politics", too. Nikola 04:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christmas and New Year
Dear friends of Kosova,

Just a note to wish you all a Merry Christmas, and may your New Year be bright.

I look forward to discussing with you after the winter break.

From me personally and from all Kosovars. --Kosovar 03:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Happy holidays to you as well. Though I have not participated in the discussions above, I have followed them with interest. It's good to see Kosovars, Serbs, and others actually talking and even working together on this article. Let's hope for a peaceful and happy new year for all communities. Jonathunder 17:41, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Kosovo Map
I don't understand why the map I uploaded earlier was considered "biased" by Ford? I want a clarification from him. That map was sent to me by a Kosovan who happens to be living in Pristina. Menj 05:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The map you substituted was entirely in Albanian &mdash; not just the cities, but the surrounding countries. That is a questionable choice in the English Wikipedia anyway; and any departure from English is certain to be controversial here.  You will note by watching this talk page and checking the edit history of the article that language is a matter of serious contention.  We cannot even get one of our Serb nationalist editors to accept that Albanian, as the dominant language of Kosovo, should take priority over Serbian when the two are mentioned.  If you want to be of help, you can support our efforts to prevent and remove pro-Serb bias from the article.  Anything that tips the balance over the line will just be an excuse for a Serb nationalist response, which we do not need any more of.


 * I would support placing both maps in the article, and noting that the earlier map lists cities in Serbian, and the later map lists them in Albanian. I imagine it would just prove to be one more thing to fight about, though.&mdash; Ford 10:49, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your clarification, Ford. I agree that both maps should be included. Some Kosovans I have met online are already accusing Wikipedia of Serbian bias, and this is not good for Wikipedia. I vote for putting both maps on the page. I hope this can be done A.S.A.P. Menj 04:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you would outline what constitutes that pro-Serb bias. Nikola 11:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If I understood the map well, it showed subdivisions used by paralell Albanian administration, so it is certainly not suitable for Geography section. Otherwise it is very interesting and would be suitable for Politics section, but only alongside map of current subdivisions. Nikola 11:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I detect much Serbian bias in this article, except when strange edits pop up. The simplest way to avoid any bias is to use UN standards where possible. As the only legitimate (or at least, internationally santioned) authority in the territory, we should be taking UN terms, definitions and usages wherever possible. Helpfully, UNMIK has its own map of Kosovo, which you can find at http://www.unmikonline.org/maps.htm, named 'UNMIK map, United Nations Cartographic Section'. Can anyone give a good reason why we should not use this map? (JD) (And a Happy New Year to you all!)


 * It makes no improvement on the bias of the present map: towns in which Serbian is barely spoken at all are still listed with Serbian names.  And that is the most notable pro-Serb bias of the article itself.  Using the diacritics from Latin Serbian is a deviation from standard English practice, which tends to use the Serbian names without the diacritics.  The easiest example to use is the name of the capital.  English uses &lsquo;Pristina&rsquo;.  That seems like a reasonable middle ground between Albanian &lsquo;Prishtina&rsquo; and Serbian &lsquo;Priština&rsquo;, until we can agree on the principle that it is not the right of Serb imperialists to tell the rest of the world what to call places where Serbs are a tiny minority (and in which, incidentally, the Serbian government has no control).  &mdash; Ford 22:04, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Fair points, but we need to find a map which is authoritative. The best solution would be a map showing both Albanian and Serbian names, but none exists as the only cartographic authorities for Kosovo are UNMIK and the Republic of Serbia, and the UN relies on the Serbian maps. The only option remaining (apart from using the UN maps as suggested by me above) is to create our own map using the UN dual-name listing of towns and places. But if no one is willing to put in the time and effort to do this, we should be using the UN maps (unfortunately Serb language, not that this implies any moral claim). Agree that elsewhere we should shoot for an English-usage middle ground for place names, but can't think where this applies except Pristina (and, to note, Prishtina or Pristina are also acceptable in Latin script in Serbian, so none of this is as clear cut as we might think). So, which is it - a whole new map, or the UN ones? (JD)


 * How about the OSCE maps, which use both names? See http://www.osce.org/kosovo/documents/reports/hr/part1/p0ka.htm . -- ChrisO 13:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * UNMIK never officially abolished Serbian place names, but simply added Albanian versions as official ones too (now every place has two official names; usage depends on ethnicity, and who is UNMIK talking to through documents). I nevertheless agree that English place names would be the most appropriate choice for the article map (to avoid a 'Pec/Peje' or 'Peje/Pec' mess for every town, let alone the usage of Cyrillic for the Serbian place names - which would be the right way to do it), but the only place name that has been properly transliterated to English is "Prishtina". Dealing with the rest would simply be an improvisation. In any case, you guys might want to wait with the map anyways - UNMIK is now working on a decentralisation plan which is going to introduce dozens of new municipalities in Kosovo (perhaps as many as 50+), and these municipalities are going to be ethically based (although UNMIK will claim this is not the motivation, but it is evident that it is). (Anon).

Lead wording
Chris' rewrite is substantially better than Ford's nonsense, but I don't like several parts.

First, saying that Kosovo is disputed territory. According to the article, a disputed territory is territory which is in "disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states". Obviously, this doesn't apply to Kosovo.

Second, saying that it is formally a province of Serbia. This implies that factually it is not. Consider the opposite wording: "a province of Serbia formally administered by the United Nations", and note the POV.

Third, "where it is officially called Kosovo and Metohija". This implies that it is not called so at other places.

Finally, saying that the independence is recognised by Albania is not true. Current government is not a continuation of the government which was (I think) recognised by Albania. If not, why would current governement seek to again declare independence in 2005?

And, of course, name order. Nikola 11:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Point-for-point refutation
Sigh. I don&rsquo;t know where everyone else is, Nikola. I tire of this, but until someone else jumps in and helps I suppose I will do it myself.

First, Kosovo is a disputed territory. The wording was an expression in plain English &mdash; not your strong suit, I know, but stay with me for a moment. I did not link to the page Territorial dispute, and I do not think the definition you cite from that page is accurate anyway. Is Kosovo a territory &mdash; a piece of land? Undoubtedly. Is it disputed? Undoubtedly. You have no argument.


 * No. If you don't think that that definition is accurate, why didn't you edited the article? I think that it is accurate. If Kosovo is a disputed territory, which states are disputing it? Nikola


 * The parties to the dispute are, obviously, Serbia (does Montenegro have a view?) and the Albanian population of Kosovo constituted as the "Republic of Kosova". A territorial dispute does not have to be between states. There are plenty of examples from elsewhere - the Palestinian territories, the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka, East Timor before its independence from Indonesia. But for the sake of clarity I think we should refer to it as a "secessionist dispute", as the Kosovo case is about one territory seeking to escape the control of another. -- ChrisO 12:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agreee, how would you phrase that? A province undergoing secession? Nikola 02:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd simply call it a "secessionist dispute". :-) -- ChrisO 19:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Second, in practical terms, Kosovo is no longer a province of Serbia. It is, as everyone else recognizes, a protectorate of the UN and NATO. Belgrade is not running the show in Kosovo, and at most, at most, has been allowed to veto the full independence that most Kosovars want. But your assessment of the implications is just that. The inferences you draw are not anyone else&rsquo;s responsibility. The statement &ldquo;still formally a province of Serbia&rdquo; from ChrisO&rsquo;s version is accurate, and rather than leave anything to implication, it spells out the rest: it is &ldquo;administered by the United Nations, and its final status is as yet undetermined&rdquo;. You have no argument.


 * You are wrong completely, shown to be wrong, and I don't know why you are trying to portray this as an argument. Kosovo IS a province of Serbia, in practical and theoretical terms, and of course it also IS administered by the UN (and NATO under UN auspices). The fact that Kosovo is a province of Serbia is recognised multiple times by both UN and NATO. I don't know how can't you understand as simple fact as "Kosovo is a province of Serbia administered by the United Nations" but perhaps understanding isn't "your strong suit".


 * Chris's statement is accurate but biased. It strongly implies ("still") that one day Kosovo will not be a province of Serbia, and it also implies that it is a not actually a province ("formally"). I can write "Washington is still formally the capital of the United States", and that is obviously true, and the word "still" and "formally" obviously unneccesary there. Nikola 08:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You have a fair point about the "formally", and I accept that it's unnecessary. Kosovo is legally still very much part of Serbia and this will be the point from which the negotiations on its future will have to begin. However, I feel that it's necessary to include "still" to emphasize the point that it is not yet separate from Serbia despite Serbia's loss of control. It may one day no longer be a province of Serbia but to avoid confusion, I think we should make it clear that right now it still is. -- ChrisO 12:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * How is saying that "Kosovo is a province of Serbia" less clear than "Kosovo is still a province of Serbia"? Nikola 02:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Because, as we've seen with the editing of this article, there's some confusion about whether Kosovo is in fact still a province of Serbia. Clearly it is, but I think we need to say that its status as such hasn't changed since 1999. -- ChrisO 19:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * But the word 'still' is only being used in response to the word 'was' in a previous version. For readers of this version, 'still' adds ambiguity.  The article states "Kosovo is a province of Serbia..."  That is clear and unambigous.  "Still" adds ambiguity and speculation as to whether it might not be in the future. -Key45 21:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Third, in fact, virtually no one speaking English calls the territory anything but &lsquo;Kosovo&rsquo;. The full formal name given to it by Serbia is probably not even used that often by Serbs &mdash; it is just too long. Compare &lsquo;Bosnia&rsquo; for &lsquo;Bosnia and Hercegovina&rsquo;, or &lsquo;America&rsquo; for &lsquo;United States of America&rsquo;. Here you have read the implications correctly; it is just that you are misrepresenting reality. You have no argument.


 * Exactly, and this is mentioned in my version: "Kosovo is name most oftenly used for a province of Serbia officially called Kosovo and Metohija...". Your version claims that Kosovo is officially called Kosovo and Metohia only in Serbia ("where it is officially called"), which is not true. Nikola 08:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think your version is more accurate, to be honest (though I would reword it - it doesn't read very well in English). The term "Kosovo and Metohija" has definitely been used outside Serbia, e.g. by the UN . -- ChrisO 12:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've tried to resolve this by saying "Kosovo (known in Albanian as Kosova, in Serbian as Kosovo and Metohija / &#1050;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086; &#1080; &#1052;&#1077;&#1090;&#1086;&#1093;&#1080;&#1112;&#1072;, and in English simply as Kosovo)". Note the priorities here. The English conventional form comes first (not Kosova or Kosovo & Metohija) - this is standard practice on Wikipedia where the local name and the conventional English name are different. Then comes the local names in alphabetical order, followed by a note on which is the most conventional version in English (which is perhaps redundant but might help avoid confusion). -- ChrisO 19:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally, whether or not Albania has recognized the independence of Kosovo under its present hybrid government has no bearing on whether Albania recognizes Kosovo&rsquo;s independence as a formality. Has Albania retracted its recognition? Is it likely to? And if the locally-elected portion of the present hybrid government plans a second declaration of independence, that does not imply that they have abandoned the first. They are obviously hoping to be recognized by more states than one. You have no argument.


 * That is not true. Government which rules Kosovo today is not a continuation of the previous paralell government and so "Independent Kosovo" of tomorrow would not be a continuation of "Independent Kosovo" of yesterday. Albania, AFAIK, did not retract its recognition but it didn't have to precisely because of that (and it was invalid from the beginning anyway because the paralell governemtn didn't have any control of the territory). And yes, planning a declaration of independence does mean that one doesn't exist. Nikola 08:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If Albania has previously recognised Kosovo as independent, then as a matter of international law that still stands. It doesn't depend on whether the government of Kosovo has changed - it's a matter of the relationship between states rather than governments. Albania wouldn't need to re-recognise a future independent Kosovo as far as I know. -- ChrisO 12:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I will change this to "was" since it's true either way. Nikola 02:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your petulance on the language issue is blatant chauvinism. But you do not adhere to any standard of modern liberalism (&ldquo;It is not true that Kosovo Albanians have the right of self-determination&rdquo;) or even factual accuracy (&ldquo;Serbs are not a minority in Kosovo&rdquo;). I do not want to provoke you, but your insistence not only that Serbia does rule Kosovo (obviously not true) but that it perpetually should rule Kosovo falls into one of two categories. Either Serbia will rule Kosovo by force without the consent of its unwilling inhabitants, in which case we are talking about imperialism, or Serbia will rule Kosovo without its unwilling inhabitants at all, in which case we are talking about ethnic cleansing. Which of those two are you advocating? &mdash; Ford 12:24, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)


 * And your insistance on precedence of Albanian is blatant Albanian nationalism. Yes, I do not adhere to some standards of modern liberalism; I don't have to, that is not required for editing Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with whether I am right or wrong. I don't see why is that bad or indeed relevant for this discussion. And even if it would be, it would still need to be proven that right of Kosovo Albanians to self-determination is a "standard of modern liberalism". Serbs are not a minority on Kosovo, Albanians are, and that is factually accurate; read archives of this talk page and also the article on minority to find out why, for I don't want to explain it to you because of your hostility towards me.


 * Also irrelevant for this discussion, but I will answer. I believe that Serbia should rule Kosovo with consent of its willing inhabitants. But if that is not possible, I don't see why would it be wrong for Serbia to rule Kosovo without it. That would not be imperialism because most of the population of Serbia would consent to Serbian rule, and most of the Albanians would not be under Serbian rule. Nikola 08:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * We're straying off-topic here, but I don't think it's going to be practical for Serbia to impose its rule on the Kosovo Albanian population - it would certainly result in a second war, which NATO and the EU certainly wouldn't allow. I can't see the Albanians agreeing to a resumption of Serbian rule, given their experiences over the past 90 years, but I also can't see Serbia agreeing to let Kosovo go. Perhaps we'll end up with Kosovo becoming a sort of Balkan Taiwan, independent in every way except in a notional legal sense. -- ChrisO 12:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Unrelated to the article, but I am curious, what experiences over the past 90 years do you think that Albanians have had? Nikola 02:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we stay on-topic?! I think Nikola has some points, and speaking as possibly the only person here who has had any direct experience of the international politics of Kosovo (as a former diplomat), I don't think you can accuse me of being Serb nationalist!


 * I can claim to have had some experience, on the military side... -- ChrisO 19:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is Kosovo part of Serbia? Yes - Kosovo is, in international law, a part of Serbia, as recognied by every UN member state, including Albania. Though a Republic of Kosovo was announced, the declaration was later (and quietly) rescinded by the major Kosovo Albanian political parties in a deal with the UN (mid-December 1999, for which see the UN's Chronology of events since 1999, http://www.unmikonline.org/chrono.htm#jun99 which I would encourage you all to read). UNMIK continue to block fresh declarations of independence by the assembly; all attempts have been invalidated (according to the laws of Kosovo which all political parties accept). Please provide current evidence to support any claim that a Republic of Kosovo is still claimed, or that Albania recognises such an entity. These statements are totally out of date.

Is Kosovo disputed? No. Serbia thinks Kosovo is part of Serbia, and it's right (under international law). Yes, Serbia wants to administer Kosovo as well, but that's a different matter and Serbia abides by the Kumanovo Agreement under which the UN provides the administration. No Republic of Kosovo is claimed and so does not dispute the territory. Albania does not dispute the status of Kosovo, and does not recognise a Republic of Kosovo, which no longer exists. No one disputes the current position. All Kosovo Albanian parties support the current situation, but would like indepdence. Please provide current evidence of any party which disputes the current UN administration of Kosovo, which remains part of Serbia in law. What we should be saying about Kosovo is that Final Status has yet to be determined.

I'm beginning to think that some people here are basing most of what they say on vague media reports from a couple of years ago. (JD)

- - - - -<BR> You have generally been pretty sensible, JD, but here you are showing your own bias (in favor of diplomacy, geopolitical niceties, and international law), and your statement that Kosovo is not disputed is, frankly, pretty daffy. If there were no dispute, the UN could simply withdraw and leave matters to Serbia. Of course, if the UN withdrew, the KLA would return to arms instantly, and without a moment&rsquo;s thought. The only reason Kosovo is not still experiencing armed conflict between Serbian forces and the KLA is because N<SMALL>ATO</SMALL> and the UN intervened. If there were no dispute, there would be no need for final status discussions, since all parties would all be in agreement &mdash; Kosovo is part of Serbia, let&rsquo;s all go home. But you know that is not true. The Kosovar Albanians most definitely dispute the right of Serbia to rule Kosovo. The idea that all Kosovar Albanian parties support the current situation is hardly accurate, either. They merely prefer the current situation to a return to provincial status within Serbia. And even if, as you wrongly state, no one disputes the current interim status (which you state while admitting that Serbia still believes that Kosovo should be reabsorbed into Serbia, and the Kosovar Albanians still believe that they should be independent), that does not mean that no one disputes Kosovo&rsquo;s status de jure as a province of Serbia. And if all parties in the assembly accept the UN&rsquo;s ban on independence, then there would be no need for U<SMALL>NMIK</SMALL> to keep blocking it, as you describe. If an unresolved political situation following a ceasefire in a war between two parties who still insist on opposite outcomes is not a dispute, perhaps you can use your oft-mentioned diplomatic experience to explain to me what the word &lsquo;dispute&rsquo; means. <BR>&mdash; Ford 03:21, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)


 * Let's not confuse Kosovo's governance with its legal status - they're linked, obviously, but they're not the same thing. Kosovo is governed independently from Serbia. It is legally still very much part of Serbia - IIRC, it still uses Serbia's legal system. The fact that it's still part of Serbia is why there's a dispute over its status in the first place. It's simply not accurate to say that it was "formerly" a province of Serbia. It is accurate to say that Kosovo was formerly ruled by Serbia. -- ChrisO 19:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Take your points, Ford. I do mean that Kosovo is not disputed in the formal sense. There is a dispute (where is there not?) but when we are discussing (and defining) the Status of this piece of land, we should not say that it is disputed (which has a very different meaning). Kosovo is not a disputed territory in the way that the Kiril Islands (spelling??) are disputed by Japan and Russia, it is a small part of a larger State where part of the population (here a majority) seek independence. A single word does not spring to mind to describe this, so we shall have to resort to a longer-winded explanation - a province of Serbia, administered by the UN, where the majority ethnic-Albanian population seeks independence as part of a UN-sponsored process to determine Final Status. No one disputes that Kosovo is a province of Serbia, administered by the UN, (erm, except yourself!) but many people have different ideas about what that Final Status should be. The UN and all sides in Kosovo have worked very hard, and both K Serb and K Albanians have made many difficult compromises (not 'mere' preferences), to get to the current position where all sides agree on the process from here. We (and here I mean you) should not lightly ignore this weight of law and political complexity and blithely decide that Kosovo is not part of Serbia for the purposes of this dictionary - this is partisan and the route to further loss of life. (JD)

Your point on repeated attempts to use the Assembly as a means to declare independence. This does not imply that the Kosovo Albanian political parties in the Assembly accept anything other than the UN-sponsored process (including the compromise status quo). Whilst the parties support the process, they also need to maintain the support of the mass of Kosovo Albanians, and to compete with other parties for votes, and probably more importantly they are mindful of maintaining their current strong position in Final Status negotiations by reasserting their claim for independence, in full knowledge that using the Assembly in this manner is illegitimate and will be struck down by the SRSG. (JD)

Theory and fact
Obviously I am beating my head against a wall here, but the very statement that Kosovo is a province of Serbia in any way but legally is biased and wholly inaccurate. During the Cold War, Ukraine and Belarus (generally then called Belorussia) were members of the United Nations. They were accorded recognition as sovereign entities. Mainland China, on the other hand, was not, and since it was made a member, Taiwan has been excluded. And yet: Ukraine and Belarus were not in any way independent during the Cold War, while Taiwan and China have been separate, functioning states since the end of the Chinese civil war. These are matters of fact.

That is why there exists the distinction between de jure and de facto. One describes a theoretical existence only in law &mdash; in this case, international law. The other describes reality. De jure, Kosovo is a province of Serbia. De facto, it is not. Since we are writing an encyclopedia of facts, not theories, we cannot call Kosovo a province of Serbia. It is not such a thing. We can say that it is a province of Serbia de jure. But if we simply say it is a province of Serbia, that implies that it is a province de facto.

American Heritage: a province is &ldquo;a territory governed as an administrative or political unit of a country or empire&rdquo;. We all (except Nikola, possibly) agree that Kosovo is not governed or administered by Serbia, that it is governed instead by condominium of a locally-elected administration and a UN-appointed administration. Kosovo&rsquo;s actual, not theoretical, governance determines whether it is actually a province of Serbia. It is not. That is why my version states that Kosovo is a territory (bounded area of land) that is disputed. My version is more accurate than the present version. I realize that I have, with Kosovar&rsquo;s recent silence, become Nikola&rsquo;s chief antagonist; but it does not follow that the neutral position is halfway between us. I may condemn Nikola&rsquo;s assertions here on the talk page, but my edits to the article itself have always been carefully factual and neutral. I would ask that other editors consider whether we should be filling the encyclopedia with fact or theory as they continue to favor theory in this article. <BR>&mdash; Ford 00:25, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)


 * Well, Kosovar was at least fed with Albanian propaganda, so he at least had some knowledge of that, but you, you are completely clueless. You say the very statement that Kosovo is a province of Serbia in any way but legally - what other way there is for a province to be a part of a state but legally? May it be a part of a state illegaly? Then a province is &ldquo;a territory governed as an administrative or political unit of a country or empire&rdquo; [interesting, they don't think that an empire is a country] and We all [agree] that [Kosovo] is governed instead by condominium of a locally-elected administration and a UN-appointed administration as if this is in some conflict. Kosovo is a territory governed as an administrative unit of Serbia by condominium of a locally-elected administration and a UN-appointed administration. Nikola 10:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you've got your history in a twist. The Soviet Union was notionally a union of 15 independent states in a voluntary union (yes, I know), and Stalin originally sought UN seats for all 15 republics plus the USSR collectively. Churchill and Roosevelt got him to agree to just three UN seats - the USSR plus Ukraine and Belarus. No other state received this treatment - it was simply the price that the western Allies paid to get Stalin to sign up to the UN. There is no parallel to Kosovo in this instance. As for China and Taiwan, they are still formally one country. The two administrations agree that there is one China, and the dispute is about which is the legitimate government of that one China. If the Taiwanese ever adopt a separatist position then the issue would become comparable to that of Kosovo. Right now, it's not. -- ChrisO 01:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don’t interrupt my posts, Chris. And I do not know what kind of history lesson you think you are giving me.  It does not counter my point.  My point was:  just because the UN endorses a state doesn’t mean it is sovereign.  Just because it doesn’t endorse a state doesn’t mean it isn’t.  I think you have not been paying attention to Taiwanese politics in the last few years.  The present Taiwanese administration does not believe that China and Taiwan are one state, nor did the last administration of Lee Teng Hui.  Of course, you could point to backtracking on Chen’s part, owing especially to US pressure.  But in any case, that is beside the point.  China and Taiwan are separate states.  They have completely-separate governments and each government is sovereign.<BR>&mdash; Ford 04:00, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)


 * To Ford: The difference between de iure and de facto exists with regards to Kosovo, and nobody is disputing that. However, you are contradicting yourself on a number of levels in your expose above. You are arguing in the same breath that Kosovo is a province of Serbia and that it isn't. Well, you have to make up your mind - you can't have it both ways, because that is meaningless when one sums it up.


 * Now let's assume that you actually made up your mind, and concluded that Kosovo is not a province of Serbia (this is the option you are leaning towards as far as I can see, because you give primacy to de facto over de iure). This would imply a Wikipedia article which presents Kosovo as an 'entity' (for the lack of the better word, and not to be confused with entities in Bosnia-Herzegovina) which has no relationship with Serbia.


 * You would then face the following difficulties and questions: a) you would have to define what Kosovo actually is, since a definition of Kosovo as 'a province of Serbia under UN administration' would not apply. Whatever definition you provided would be more debatable and difficult to sustain than simply stating that Kosovo is 'a province of Serbia under UN administration'; b) somebody like me, who likes to ask questions, would show up and challenge you to prove that Kosovo is not a province of Serbia. You would have to show me when Kosovo stopped being a province of Serbia, on whose authority and on what grounds etc. etc. This would inevitably lead to a larger discussion of what has a primacy in international law - de facto or de iure. The discussion would be endless (and in many aspects pointless), and it would be a gigantic task for you to try and prove that de facto is more important then de iure. In other words, the definition of Kosovo as 'a province of Serbia under UN administration' is simply fine, because it has two correct statements in it. I also believe that it is neutral. Anything else would get you in much more trouble. - This comment was contibuted by 216.187.83.61 at 18:47, 21 Jan 2005


 * I can only agree. As for "fact versus theory", I note that Ford hasn't offered a single piece of documentary evidence in support of his position, though there are about a zillion sources to support the statement in the article. Check out our esteemed rivals at Britannica, for a start. -- ChrisO 01:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Documentation for what, Chris? That the article should be about fact, rather than theory? If you disagree, say this: “I, ChrisO, think that the article should ignore fact in favor of theory.”  That Serbia no longer controls Kosovo, as the definition which I cited demands? If you disagree, say this: “I, ChrisO, think that Serbia actually controls Kosovo, administers it, governs it.”  If you want to make either of those statements, and then want me to document the opposite, fine. But if you refuse to make these statements, then I must assume that you agree with me, that the article should be about fact and that in fact Serbia no longer controls Kosovo. And if we agree, I don’t know why you are demanding documentation from me.


 * If there's a dispute about a particular set of facts, it's usually a good idea to quote evidence backing your case (and I don't mean random dictionary definions). -- ChrisO 12:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Didn&rsquo;t I just ask you not to interrupt my posts? Put your comments at the end.  But apparently you won&rsquo;t respect the simplest requests.  The facts are not in dispute here.  It is the use of the word &lsquo;province&rsquo;, in which a dictionary definition is appropriate evidence.  <BR>&mdash; Ford 13:53, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

As for 216.187.83.61’s objections and questions, they are easily dealt with. Didn’t I just say that I do not believe that Kosovo is a province of Serbia? That was the whole point. I am not trying to have it both ways. I am saying that it is not a province of Serbia. I think the definition of a province precludes the idea that a province can be ruled by one power and be a part of another. Kosovo stopped being a province of Serbia when Serbia lost control, during the war. I am not trying to prove that de facto is more important than de jure in law, since ‘jure’ means law (ablative). And I shouldn’t have to prove that de facto is more important than de jure in encyclopedia writing. What is Kosovo? I have already said, it is a territory, an area of land. Simple, factual, neutral. It is a territory under joint Kosovar-UN administration, with the UN having the final say. Easy. If American Heritage’s definition of province is not to your liking, provide another; but then we will just be having a war of dictionaries. As it is, you are just saying, “Everyone considers Kosovo to be a province of Serbia.” Not everyone does, but if they did it would not make it so. If everyone considered that the sun orbited the earth, it would not be any the truer. Of course, if you want to densely ignore the distinction between de facto and de jure, and insist that there cannot be a difference, then you are taking Nikola’s position, that Kosovo is a part of Serbia in every possible way. That position is ridiculous.

As I said, beating my head against a wall. I say: “X is true.”  Someone demands:  “But why don’t you say whether X is true or false?”  I say:  “Kosovo is Y.”  Someone demands:  “But why don’t you say what Kosovo is?”  <BR>&mdash; Ford 04:00, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)


 * To Ford: You are getting something wrong here: the definition of Kosovo as a province in this article has nothing to do with the American Heritage's definition of a province (whatever that definition is). We are discussing here the internal composition of Serbia as a republic. In other words, 'Kosovo as a province of Serbia' in this article is referring to the fact that it in 1999 Serbia had two autonomous provinces in its internal composition, Kosovo being one of them. This status never changed despite the war and UN/NATO presence, and it is still on the books. Thus, if you say that 'Kosovo is not a province of Serbia' in the context of this article, you are stating that its status indeed changed, and that Kosovo is now in fact outside of Serbia's territory. As far as I know, there is no UN resolution or some other document (since we agree that UN is running the show) which unmade Kosovo as an autonomous province of Serbia, and/or according to which Kosovo was excluded from being a part of Serbia as a political entity. Thus, there is nothing wrong with the definition of Kosovo as 'a province of Serbia under UN administration', because the 'province of Serbia' part is referring to the still unchanged status of Kosovo as an autonomous province of Serbia. ‘Province of Serbia' in this article is not referring to the American Heritage's or some third definition of a province, but to the internal composition of Serbia as a republic. - 216.187.83.61


 * The UN itself has dealt with this matter and has explicitly said that Kosovo remains part of Yugoslavia/Serbia. I suggest that Ford should take a look at UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which authorised the creation of UNMIK and does have legal force - see http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm :


 * Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,


 * - this says that the UN does not endorse any change to the FRY's borders, i.e. the separation of Kosovo from Serbia


 * Authorizes the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while establishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic self-governing institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo;


 * - this speaks for itself, doesn't it? Autonomy within Yugoslavia, not independence from it.


 * And the annex to the resolution, a statement from the G-8 Foreign Ministers, says:


 * The G-8 Foreign Ministers adopted the following general principles on the political solution to the Kosovo crisis:...


 * A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region...


 * Establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo as a part of the international civil presence under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to be decided by the Security Council of the United Nations.


 * A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia...


 * In other words, Ford's claims are, to coin a phrase, theory not fact. Kosovo's governance has changed; its constitutional status remains intact. -- ChrisO 12:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why are you quoting the UN at me? I have already said that UN recognition or lack of it has to do with status de jure, not status de facto. The same goes for the G8. I was hoping that one of you might be able to offer some evidence as to why you think Kosovo is a province of Serbia de facto. That the UN Security Council, in which China and Russia can veto any statement they choose, or the G8, which needs Russia for consensus, would insist that secession is impermissible, or even insist that it has not taken place when it it has, is hardly proof of anything. For that matter, every state has an interest in the concept of territorial integrity. They have a conflict of interest; they are inherently biased. You&rsquo;ve wasted a lot of breath countering a point that I did not make, and ignored the point I did. But discussing this isn&rsquo;t going to work, obviously. Let&rsquo;s just all congratulate ourselves on having won the argument &mdash; I know that is what you are doing &mdash; and drop it. <BR>&mdash; Ford 13:53, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)


 * To Ford: Before we all congratulate ourselves, we need to step back for a minute. It is evident that when you see a statement claming that 'Kosovo is a province of Serbia under UN administration', you think about the definition of 'a province' as it is given by the American Heritage's foundation. When I see that statement, I see 'province' as something that refers to the (still) unchanged status of Kosovo as an autonomous province of Serbia - in essence, an administrational division of Serbia. Ford, I am not saying that you are wrong in your perception but if you want to be realistic you will have to admit that most (if not all) readers of the Wikipedia Kosovo article see the 'province' part as something that indeed refers to (still) unchanged internal composition of Serbia as a political entity. It is very unlikely that American Heritage's definition of a province goes flying in people's minds when they see the statement for the first time. As far as the article goes, claim that 'Kosovo is not a province of Serbia according to American Heritage Foundation's definition of a province (the definition is: this-and-that)' is a borderline (footnote) material at best; I am sure that there are other foundations or similar organisations around the globe that have their own definitions like that, and piling them all up in the article would be quite pointless.  - 216.187.83.61]
 * American Heritage is a dictionary, not a foundation; it is certainly one of the most respected sources published in the United States. (The Heritage Foundation is a think tank.  Is that what you are confusing it with?)  Like most, if not all, modern dictionaries, it primarily attempts to describe usage, not prescribe it.  American Heritage is stating that, in the judgement of its editors, the word &lsquo;province&rsquo; is used by anglophones to mean &ldquo;a territory governed as an administrative or political unit of a country or empire&rdquo;.  It is perfectly relevant to cite such a definition when the usage of a word is in question.  How can Kosovo, in your perception, be an administrative division of Serbia if Serbia does not administer it? <BR>&mdash; Ford 17:57, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)


 * To Ford: You are still confusing a generic definition of 'a province' from a dictinary with a status of Kosovo as an autonomous province of Serbia; the latter definition is the relevant one in the context of this article. Nevertheless, if you want to play with dictionaries, here is something for you to think about - from the big Webster's Dictionary:


 * province: a division or unit of a country that has its own administration - (exp. the provinces of Canada).


 * How would you use Webster's definition of 'a province' to show me that Kosovo is not a province of Serbia? - 216.187.83.61

Confusing the generic definition with the specific definition that applies to Kosovo? If Kosovo is a unique situation to which the definition does not apply, then we need a unique word. Are you saying that Kosovo is a special kind of province then &mdash; the kind of province that is not actually a part of the country to which it is supposed to belong? Your definition (and by the way, &ldquo;Webster&rsquo;s&rdquo; is not the name of a specific dictionary; is this Merriam-Webster?) implies that the country in question controls the division or unit. Only de jure is Kosovo in any way a part of Serbia. De facto it is not a division or unit of Serbia. Or perhaps you are saying that Serbia is a special kind of state &mdash; the kind that has two completely independent governments.<BR>&mdash; Ford 02:19, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)


 * To Ford: Lets narrow this down even further (to avoid endless repetition) and focus for a moment on the generic definition of 'a province' found in Webster's dictionary (Unabridged Merriam-Webster by Random House Publishers, if we must). You claim that Webster's definition implies who has to control the division or unit in question (the de facto part) - it does no such thing. Webster's definition is not prescribing the mechanics of governing a province and how this reflects on its status. It simply states that a province is a division or unit of a country that has its own administration. Kosovo is de iure a division or unit of Serbia - if it was not, that would entail that it is either an independent state or part of some other country. Kosovo has its own administration (UNMIK/KFOR + provisional government), and the existence of this administration does not exclude Kosovo from being a division or unit of Serbia (if it did, that would mean that Kosovo is outside of Serbia's borders). Thus, 'Kosovo is a province of Serbia under UN administration' fits nicely with Webster's definition of a province, because it tells you everything there is to know about it - Kosovo is within Serbia's borders and it is controlled/governed/administered by the UN. - 216.187.83.61

I have made my argument, you have made yours. We do not agree. We are not going to agree, clearly. We do not agree on the premises and there is no way that we will come to the same conclusion. I have left the text alone and see no further reason for you to pursue this argument, other than an attempt to make me look like I have no response. I am fully willing to admit that you will have a response to anything I say. But if I respond beyond this, you will respond again with something else that I don&rsquo;t agree with. I am trying to extract myself from this argument. Please just accept that we do not agree and leave it at that. <BR>&mdash; Ford 20:48, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

A long discussion, though unresolved. Whatever the semantics of what a 'province' is or is not, I think the key point is that we are discussing the Status of this piece of land. The only relevant definition of the Status of a piece of land is its legal status in international law (in this case, part of the sovereign state of Serbia and Montenegro), though we should note any disputes or unusual governmental structures (as we would do for Hong Kong or Taiwan). What we can't do is create some other kind of standard for describing the Status of a piece of land: Kosovo might be 'morally' independent or 'practically' not part of Serbia, but these are not relevant except in the wider description of how we got here and where we are going.

To say that Kosovo is 'a province in Southern Serbia' is correct but insufficient and inprecise, and therefore misleading and should be changed. Nor is Kosovo administered by the UN as a 'protectorate' (except in a lose and lazy journalistic sense) and this wording should go - Kosovo is a province of Serbia, administered by the UN as such (hence why the legal system is based on pre-1999 Yugoslav law, for which see references above). The situation many of us are trying to describe is complex but neutral: it does not prejudge Final Status or undermine important principles of self-determination and territorial integrity; it may appear to favour the Serb side only becuase Serbia happens (historically) to have been in control of Kosovo, but as I have stated many times this does not imply a moral claim over Kosovo. To take any other point of view would (in the real world) cause the current delicate balance to collapse, along with the cautious process of deciding Final Status, and could only lead to further fighting and loss of life. Sorry to put it so harshly - some of this diplomacy / international law rubbish (de jure) has practical benefit on the ground (de facto). Kosovo is a province of Serbia, administered by the UN, where a substantial majority favour formal independence. Please quote relevant documents from authoritative sources if you wish to state otherwise in this article.

This whole discussion is also slightly worrying - even when international law, the UN, the government of every UN member state, every major NGO and the bulk of the contributors to this article are saying one thing, there are still people here who want to claim another in order to correct what they see as bias in this article. (JD)


 * While I was reading this discussion page, I had the impression that some object to the statement that Kosovo is a province of Serbia under UN administration because they believe this definition is somehow pro-Serb in nature. I don't agree that the statement is biased. It is correct not only because it portrays Kosovo's present legal status, but also (and perhaps more importantly) because that legal status is the main reason why Kosovo's final status is yet to be determined. In other words, the fact that Kosovo is formally a province of Serbia provides an important context about the place that one cannot overlook. Arguing what is more important - de facto or de jure - is, in fact, a guesswork on what is going to happen to Kosovo in the end. We simply have to wait and see. I am sure that many who visit these pages have their own expectations and wishes in this regard. Personally I think that many will be disappointed one way or another in the end, because Kosovo's final status will not be much different from what we have today. Serbia is most definitely the weaker party in the upcoming negotiations about Kosovo. However there is one thing that Serbia controls, and that is the refusal to grant independence. Legally carving out one independent state out of a territory of another against its wishes would be a first for the UN, and a nasty precedent in the eyes of most UN members (think about Russia vis-à-vis Chechnya or China vis-à-vis Taiwan for a start). In other words, Kosovo Albanians will demand outright independence and Serbia will refuse this: the negotiated position will imply that there is no international border change (a yield to Serbia) and that Kosovo is ruled by Kosovo Albanians. UN and NATO will be replaced by EU administration and some type of European force, to ensure that things remain as they are. In the long run, Kosovo’s border with (formally the rest of) Serbia will remain closed (most likely with Montenegro, too), and the relationship with Macedonia will be strained at best. The only open border will be the one with Albania, a country that is not exactly an economic powerhouse. Kosovo’s economic future looks quite bleak in the long run, so expect a lot of trouble beyond the final status talks as well. (Anon)

Non-Kosovo Albanians in Kosovo? (re: Demographics)
I remember hearing last year about a UNMIK report which claims that a large number of non-Kosovo Albanians (mostly from Albania, but some from FYROM too) entered the province in 1999 together with the returning Kosovo Albanian refugees, following the withdrawal of FRY forces. The report stated that approximately 200,000 non-Kosovo Albanians ended up in Kosovo in this fashion. Apparently a huge number of people entering Kosovo in 1999 claimed that their documents were confiscated / destroyed by FRY authorities, and since NATO forces had no means of verifying this, everybody who showed up at the border got in. The report states that these non-Kosovo Albanians settled in the cities, mostly in the apartments vacated by the fleeing Serbs (in Pristina alone, there were 40,000 Serbs living in the city in 1999; now there are less than 200, but there are no empty apartments). UNMIK eventually issued new documents to all Kosovo Albanians, which means that the non-Kosovo Albanians are now 'legalized' citizens of the province. I believe that this information should be incorporated in the 'Demographics' section of the main article, because the whole affair changed the population figures significantly. However, the issue is politically charged and without the report info as a reference I am not sure if I should proceed. Does anyone know anything more about this report, was the report released by UNMiK to the general public, and how would one find the report (and where?) to reference it for the article?

- - - -<BR> If you cannot verify it (and allow the rest of us to verify it), you definitely should not include it in the article. If you find the U<SMALL>NMIK</SMALL> report and can give us a link, then the article can mention that fact if and only if it is attributed to U<SMALL>NMIK</SMALL>. <BR>&mdash; Ford 13:44, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Yes, allegations exist, but for obvious reasons they cannot be proven. I have quoted several sources which cite the number in Talk:Demographic history of Kosovo. Nikola 10:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me uncover some lies here. I am very curious who is spreading such propaganda here and not signing. If someone could let me know, I would be very grateful.
 * When the Serb troops withdrew from Kosova, they took (read: stole) all the official documents, i.e. birth certificates, citizenship certificates etc., to Serbia. These official documents to this date are in Serbia (the following website of the Embassy of SCG in London explains where they actually are: ). However, UNMIK has access to these documents (digital copies or whatever) and when an official document is issued by UNMIK the information that is supplies by the applicant is compared against the data held in Serbia. Any mismatch results in the application being rejected.
 * For examples, two years ago UNMIK jointly with the Kosovar institutions started issuing Kosovar driving licences. If a person held a driving licence from ex-Yugoslavia (until 1999) the driving licence was 'converted' from Yugoslav to Kosovar. Every such application for conversion took weeks to process since every application was compared with the official data that was being held in Serbia (in Nish, Kraljevo, Kragujevac, Krusevac, Jagodina, Vranje or Leskovac). Not a single 'fake' application succeeded since every driving licence issued prior to 1999 war was recorded and the official data was held in Serbia.
 * The same goes with every other official document that is issued by UNMIK. So much to your 'legalized' non-Kosovar Albanians.
 * Also, the majority of Serb flats in Prishtina were occupied by people from Drenica whose houses were burned by Serb troops. To them, Serbs burned their houses and everything they had, so they took a flat from Serbs in return. It's called 'an eye for an eye'. Not that I agree with it. However, most of these people have been kicked out of these flats by UNMIK HABITAT. Serb owners kept the official documents that proved their ownership of the flats and UNMIK through legal means have kicked these people out. Again, so much to your non-Kosovar Albanians in Serb flats in Prishtina.
 * Any UN document there might be MUST be recent and up to date. Documents issued in 2001-2002 are no good since things have changed since. Next time you try to spread propaganda, make sure you attach references to official, accurate and up-to-date documents. If something cannot be proven, then it is a lie. Kosovar 13:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New ICG Report
For all here with an interest in Final Status process, worth reading. For more general readership, the associated article in the UK's left-leaning Guardian newspaper is informative (JD)


 * There is something quite interesting in the ICG report: "Kosovo's de jure sovereignty, if not achieved by Serbian agreement or Security Council resolution, should be recognized by the whole international community, or at least such of its member states (including the U.S. and EU members) as are prepared to do so. It has to be contemplated that Serbia -- and perhaps Russia as well ­-- will refuse to cooperate with part or all of this. But the proposed process should not be held hostage to that eventuality...". If one reads this carefully, it implies that ICG is recommending a complete disregard for Serbia's sovereignty and the UN system, because some veto countries (Russia; perhaps China) will block the creation of Kosovo as a new independent state against Serbia's wishes. ICG is in fact recommending a further demise of the UN, and a creation of a 'reverse Cyprus' situation - a way to go, ICG! (Anon)


 * Hm. If ICG is recommending Kosovo's independence regardless of what Serbia thinks and wants (and outside of the UN Security Council, for that matter), why are they talking about 'negotiations' with Serbia - what exactly is there for Serbia to negotiate? It looks very one sided to me, especially given the fact that all these years we were told how two extreme positions - reintegration of Kosovo into Serbia and straight independence for Kosovo - are not an option for the Final Status.


 * 13.000 Kosovars killed, 20.000 women raped, 3.000 still missing, over 700 Kosovars killed buried, then unearthed and taken to Belgrade (Batajnica) and reburied there in order to be hidden from international justice Official alleges 17 mass graves in Serbia, Mass grave discoveries shift Serb mood, Serbia mass graves contain 400 victims, Serb mass grave reveals 269 bodies, Serbs say new mass grave found, Kosovan children found in mass grave, Belgrade exhumes Danube bodies, Massacre childrens journey for justice, Serbia Finds Where Bodies Are Buried, and Investigates (you need to log-in to read this story), the stories are endless.
 * Not a single Serb official has said 'sorry', most don't accept it even happened. What is there to talk with this sort of people? Thousands of people have been killed in Kosova, buried in mass graves, then unearthed and driven to Serbia and hidden in new mass graves or thrown into rivers and lakes. Double murders! And you really expect Serbia to have a say? Forget about it!
 * For God's sake, check what the Serbian media (B-92) themselves write: Secret police in Kosovo cover-up. Do you want to discuss the future status of Kosova with these policemen and these politians?
 * I salute the ICG for the sheer courage of coming out and telling what they think is right. Kosovar 14:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * All Kosovo Albanians killed during the war were members of KLA, even the "massacre" at Racak turned out to be that way, a firefight between Serb and KLA forces.
 * Are these children KLA members too? Massacre children's journey for justice Oops!


 * No Albanians have apolgized for anything they have done to Serbians or the MANY historical monuments they have destroyed in Kosovo, not in March 2004, not in Titoist Yugoslavia, more than just not apoligizing they voiced that they wanted to proclaim the KLA, a terrorist organization, funded by Bin-Laden, national heros! WHo's the double murderer...
 * Kosovars did not attack Serbia. I do not recall any Kosovars killing Serbs in Belgrade. Oops! Serbs attacked Kosova, Serb troops occupied Kosova, not the vice-versa. If anyone should apologise, it must be Serbs.
 * If you have any proof with regards to bin Laden and the KLA connection, the provide it. Do not bullshit around. Stop lying!


 * B92 is a Serbian media that is controlled by the West. There is no EVIDENCE to suggest any sorts of mass graves, only a few isolated persons, probably paid off by the West, are making such statements, the sane goes for all the other articles you supplied, they are just isolated statements with no actual evidence, no bodies were found...nothing!
 * "...only a few isolated persons... isolated statements... " -- this is evidence. What do you think evidence is? There are bodies, read and learn: Serbia returns bodies to Kosovo. Next, "...probably..." -- this word has no weight. I can say that you are "probably lying", but it says nothing because I need to prove that. Now, you provide evidence that these honorable people are "paid by the West". My friend, you are paranoid. You need to see a doctor. Who are "the West"? Has the communist propaganda reached you? Really, go and see a psychiatrist.
 * Read the story first, then say something. How can there be bodies if they have been burned and the Hague investigators are not given access to the premises nor the embloyees.


 * The B92 article loses even more say when they state that the inceneration of the bodies occured on the 16th and the 24th of march 1999, after news reporters had freely roamed around Yugoslavia since 1999 deperatley trying to find a pretext to war to no avail. Face it there was no "ethnic cleansing" until NATO came in and it started AGAINST non-Albanians, this is not just in Kosovo either, Albanians are ethnically cleansing Macedonia, southern Serbia, northern Greece and Montenegro.
 * Aha, so the fact that these people have been killed and their bodies burned after the NATO campaign started makes these terrible and inhuman acts acceptable. I'll remember that!
 * Also, the fact that the ethnic cleansing occurred after the NATO campaign started makes it acceptable. Wow, what a reasoning!
 * Any evidence that Albanians are ethnically cleansing Macedonia, or Serbia, or Greece, or Montenegro? Oh I forgot, when a Serb talks we should ask no further questions. I forgot, Serbs need not supply evidence.


 * The ICG is completely ignoring the 1244. resoloution, that Kosovo must remain a part of Serbia.
 * Did you ever read Resolution 1244? Because if you did you would know that it does not say that Kosova must remain part of Serbia. It does mention Yugoslavia, but that country (read monster) no longer exists, so what you are saying amount to nothing. -- Kosovar 16:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro is the successor state of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In international law it's little more than a name change. (JD)

Kosovo offical is a part of YU and is not a part of serbia and Monte

 * 1944 Kosovo i Metohia (FSRJ)


 * 1974 Autonomska Socialisticka Pokraina Kosovo (RSFJ)
 * 2001 Kosovo (UN)

My understanding is that it is widely accepted (outside of Kosovo that is) that Kosovo is a province of the Republic of Serbia under UN administration. This administration is carried out by UNMIK.Osli73 10:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (osli73)

Kosovo is offical a part of SCG (Serbia and Mony) :))
Everything, that has to do with Dardania, Moesia, Serbia, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, Yugoslavien, etc. subjects, put in the articel History of Kosovo. Otherwise I´ll take it as vandalismus. UN members are accepting UNMIK, and UNMIK administration is in Kosovo since the year 2000. Everything before that is History.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Dardania
 * 1500 Kosova Sanxhak
 * 1918 Kosovo i Metohija (Jugosllavia)
 * 1941 Kosova Italia
 * 1944 Kosovo i Metohija (FNRJ)
 * 1974 Socijalisti&#269;ka autonomna pkrajina Kosovo i Metohija (SFRJ)
 * 2000 - ? Kosova (UNMIK)
 * ? KHJHZJKHK (China) - Kosovo i Metohija (SCG+UN) - COSOWO (USA)- 1233455 (112) -  "§$%&/ (%&%&) --Hipi Zhdripi 23:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The UN, the EU, the Council of Europe and most other international organizations acknowledge that Kosovo, de-jure, is a province of the Republic Serbia called "Kosovo i Metohija" under UN administration. Since using the name Kosovo i Metohija carries such heavy political connotations, I suggest using "Kosovo" or "province of Kosovo."Osli73 10:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that "province of Kosovo" should not be used because it implies that it is called that way. Nikola 07:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Name
Its not importend for the World. --Hipi Zhdripi 02:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) Since Vilajet of Kosova (Osman Empire) .... :))--Hipi Zhdripi 05:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everything, that has to do with Dardania, Moesia, Serbia, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, Yugoslavien, etc. subjects, put in the articel History of Kosovo. Otherwise I´ll take it as vandalismus. UN members are accepting UNMIK, and UNMIK administration is in Kosovo since the year 2000. Everything before that is History.

The name "Kosovo i Metohija" has to do with Milosevic´s time before the year 2000. The official name of " Kosovo " in serbian language, which is used in Kosovo as official language, is Kosovo. See UNMIK documents in sebian official language (don´t write here in Belgrad´s Pashaluk dialect ).

Please write the correct name. If you don`t do it, I´ll do. --Hipi Zhdripi 21:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the strict sense, the province of Kosovo is a province of the Republic of Serbia, administered by the UN. This is widely accepted by all international institutions (e.g. UN, Council of Europe, European Union). Thus, de jure, the official name of Kosovo is still "Kosovo i Metohija." However, I realize that using this name has an important political implication. Best is probably to just use plain and simple "Kosovo" and "province of Kosovo" until a (more) permanent solution has been arrived at and ratified by the UN.Osli73 10:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Flag
The province never had an official flag of its own. The Albanian flag is used by the Albanian-dominated administration and the vast majority of Kosovo Albanians. Kosovo's president, Ibrahim Rugova, has proposed an alternative flag of "Dardania" based on the design of the Albanian flag, but even within Kosovo it is little used. The Serb-inhabited area of north Kosovo uses only the flag of Serbia and Montenegro, which is formally the flag of the Serbia. (propaganda:whole of Serbia including Kosovo), although this usage is rejected by virtually all Kosovo Albanians. The United Nations administration in Kosovo intends to establish a new flag for the province, which will undoubtedly be very different from the two national communities' existing flags. The current flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina emerged from a similar process of national reconciliation.--Hipi Zhdripi 22:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UNMIK
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.

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 20:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1244

The Security Council,

Determined to resolve the grave humanitarian situation in Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and to provide for the safe and free return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes,

Condemning all acts of violence against the Kosovo population as well as all terrorist acts by any party,

Raffirming the right of all refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes in safety,

Welcoming the general principles on a political solution to the Kosovo crisis adopted on 6 May 1999 (S/1999/516, annex 1 to this resolution) and welcoming also the acceptance by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of the principles set forth in points 1 to 9 of the paper presented in Belgrade on 2 June 1999 (S/1999/649, annex 2 to this resolution), and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s agreement to that paper,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,

Reaffirming the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo,

1. Decides that a political solution to the Kosovo crisis shall be based on the general principles in annex 1 and as further elaborated in the principles and other required elements in annex 2;

... [items 2-4 on the withdrawl of Serb forces, though some allowed to return later]

5. Decides on the deployment in Kosovo, under United Nations auspices, of international civil and security presences, with appropriate equipment and personnel as required, and welcomes the agreement of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to such presences;

... [items 6-9 on goals of the international administration]

10. Authorizes the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while establishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic selfgoverning institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo;

... [item 11 main responsibilties of the international presence, items 12- 21 various other bits and pieces]

So, UNSC 1244, the document by which the entire UN presence in Kosovo is justified makes it clear that the UN presence does not violate the 'sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' (now, international law, known as Serbia and Montenegro), describes what we call 'UNMIK' as 'the deployment in Kosovo of international and security presences' with the agreement of Yugoslavia, and allows for 'substantial autnomy' for Kosovo 'within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'.

That clear enough for you Hipi? Official enough? Kosovo is a province of Serbia, part of Serbia and Montenegro (formerlly known as the FRY), under international civil administration. So let's have no more propaganda from your side, and no more threats to unilaterally edit this article. (JD)

The Map of SM
The Map of SM has to be replace by the map of Kosovo.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Map Municipalities of Kosovo
The Map Municipalities of Kosovo has to be replace by correct.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with this map ? It is based on the map made by the UK Army. (it was redrawn to avoid hassle with British Crown Copyright). bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 22:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The Map Municipalities of Kosovo belongs to "History of Kosovo" or Kosovo Maps --Hipi Zhdripi 22:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Name
The sectio "The Name" belongs to "History of Kosovo". --Hipi Zhdripi 21:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Politics and international status
UNMIK has so far established a provisional assembly, provisional government and the office of provisional president, which are legislative and executive bodies under UNMIK's control. Control of security, justice and external affairs are still under full UNMIK control. The Assembly of Kosovo was elected in November 2001 and Ibrahim Rugova was elected as president in March 2002. The seat of the assembly, government and president is in Pristina. So far, the parliament has enacted and UNMIK approved a constitutional framework, customs code, and two criminal codes.

UNMIK is issuing travel documents which serve instead of passports in countries which are accepting to recognise them as such; UNMIK is also issuing identity cards and car plates, which again are valid only in countries which are accepting them as such. Kosovo's postal system is also usable only in countries which are accepting to recognise it as such (letters addressed to Kosovo only, or to Serbia and Montenegro have a chance of not arriving; the Universal Postal Union advises correspondents to use "Kosovo (UNMIK)" as the address [1] (http://www.upu.int/post_code/en/countries/KOS.pdf)).

UNMIK has also created a police force (the Kosovo Police Service) with employees from all ethnic communities (Albanian, Serbian, Roma, Bosniac, Roma, etc), and manages the province's railways and airline (Kosova Airlines). The airspace of the province is controlled by KFOR. UNMIK uses the United Nations flag.

The Constitutional Framework enacted by the Kosovo assembly (with UNMIK approval) has adopted a policy of affirmative action in the assembly to ensure that the province's minorities are properly represented. Out of 120 seats, 10 are reserved for Serbs and another 10 for non-Albanian minorities, while the remaining 100 seats are elected through direct voting.--Hipi Zhdripi 22:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(propaganda:Kosovo is still recognised internationally as a part of Serbia.) Its final status has not yet been resolved, though talks on the subject are planned for later in 2005, and considerable difficulties lie ahead in reconciling the apparently incompatible positions of the Serbian and Albanian sides. The Albanians reject Serbian sovereignty; although the fall of the Milosevic government has eased some of the political tensions between the two administrations, most Kosovo Albanians do not believe that the Serbian side will respect Albanian rights. On the other side, Serbia is adamantly opposed to the independence of Kosovo and for historical and religious reasons continues to see the province as the heartland of Serbian culture. The international community is reluctant to see Kosovo become independent, as its independence without Serbia's consent would violate international law (the principles of territorial integrity '''propaganda:and noninterference in internal affairs). It could also potentially provide a precedent for the secession of the Republika Srpska from Bosnia, which could re-ignite the war in that country'''. The most likely outcome is the indefinite continuation of the current situation (with EU institutions taking over the roles of UN and NATO, a process which can be observed in present-day Bosnia)--Hipi Zhdripi 22:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Currency
UNMIK declared the euro to be official currency of the province in 2001 in the course of implementing a currency reform. This was undertaken to replace the previous widespread use of the Deutschmark, which had become de facto currency even before the 1999 war. However,propaganda: the Serbian dinar remains an official currency, though used principally by the Kosovo Serb enclaves; it is only used sporadically outside of them. Most trade is conducted using the euro, Kosovo's administration uses euros exclusively, and all commercial banks use the euro as the primary currency. Of other international currencies, the United States dollar and Swiss franc are the most widespread.--Hipi Zhdripi 22:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Demographics
Main article: Demographic history of Kosovo

propaganda:Albanians comprise an almost 90% majority of the population of the province. Their percentage as a proportion of the province's population has increased steadily over time as a result of a high birth rate, propaganda:immigration from Albania and concentrion of Albanians from areas formerly under the Sandjak of Nish, southern Serbia. Most of the province's Albanian population became refugees during the war but quickly returned to their homes at its end. In the aftermath of the conflict, several hundred thousand non-Albanians (especially Serbs and Romas) fled the province to escape renewed intercommunal violence. propaganda:The non-Albanian population of Kosovo has continued to fall in recent years due to a combination of economic hardship and tension (and occasional violence) in ethnically mixed area.

According to the 2000 Living Standard Measurement Survey of the Statistical Office of Kosovo, Kosovo's total population is approximately 1,970,000 with the following ethnic proportions:


 * 88% Albanians (1,733,600)
 * 7% Serbs (137,900)
 * 1.9% Muslim Slavs (37,400)
 * 1.7% Roma (33,500)
 * 1% Turks (19,700)


 * When talking about numbers one should have in mind the ill-famous document, which all the Serbian rulers of the 20th century followed. It is the document called "Iseljavanje Arnauta". Manuscript in the Institute of Military History of the Yugoslav People's Army (Vojno Istorijski Institut JNA). Archives of the former Yugoslav Army (Arhiv Bivše Jugoslovenske Vojske), Belgrade, 7 March 1937, No. 2, Fasc. 4, Box 69, 19 pp. Retranslated from the Serbo-Croatian by Robert Elsie, on the basis of an existing English version. First published in R. Elsie, Gathering Clouds: the Roots of Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo and Macedonia. Feel free to check details in . Thank you, Mark ma 11:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Albanian
article Kosovo war OR Kosovo conflict'''
 * Kosovareport - A comprehensive blog in english with news from local, regional and international media
 * KosovaLive - Independent news agency with some news in english
 * Kosova Information Center - LDK's news agency (albanian only)
 * Albanian.com - general information
 * Kosovo Crisis Center - Serbian Massacres of Albanians
 * General information from Beqiraj.com (in german)
 * General information from Beqiraj.com (in albanian)

Pro-Serb
'''propaganda: ''' article Kosovo war OR Kosovo conflict No one on this page seems to notice how 200 000 serb refugees havn't returned kosovo?
 * Hugo Roth, Kosovo Origins: a historian's "objective" comprehensive overview
 * Kosovo.com Serbian Orthodox Church's official website on Kosovo
 * Account of destroyed Serbian Orthodox churches in Kosovo and Metohia
 * News from B92 Belgrade
 * News from the Serbian Government
 * News from the Serbian Orthodox Church
 * News archive
 * Coordination Center of SCG and the Republic of Serbia for Kosovo
 * Serbian Government Kosovo-Metohija site
 * The Crisis in Kosovo and Metohia
 * The Emperor's New Clothes: The Serbs Were Not Oppressing the Kosovo Albanians...
 * The tragic blunder in Kosovo
 * BBC: Admiral Gregory Johnson said almost 1,000 Serbs had been driven from their homes after attacks by ethnic Albanians
 * Agence France-Presse: Some Serbs said they had been given 10 minutes to leave their homes or die

Can some pls give me a complete lineage of koso leadership? Kosovo declares its independence from Yugoslavia in oct. 1991 with ibrahim rugo0va as leader from 24 May 1992 - 1 Feb 2000. then it goes: to Speaker of the Parliament 10 Dec 2001 - 4 Mar 2002  Nexhat Daci                       (b. 1944)           LDK President 4 Mar 2002 -             Ibrahim Rugova                    (s.a.)            LDK:23 Feb 2005 are the UN administrators in conflict with Rugova??

I dont think i should add the succesion box without this info. Vital Component


 * Forget Yugoslavia, forget Serbian goverment, forget The Republik of Kosova, forget it. Is only HISTORI. The administration of Kodsovo is UNMIK.--Hipi Zhdripi 20:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read: According to the 2000 Living Standard Measurement Survey of the Statistical Office of Kosovo[2], Kosovo's total population is approximately 1,970,000 with the following ethnic proportions:


 * 92% Albanians (2,733,600) This number is aritmetically wrong, because 92% of 1,970,000 gives a lower result, and also 92% seems too high, and seems just responding to Albanian Nationalistic Agenda!

UNMIK Flag
Hipi Zhdripi, have you actually read this article? Under the flag section is explicitly stated that Kosovo doesn’t have its flag. Why are you then steadily putting UN flag? -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  21:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Nikola Smolenski
Nikola, please don t change it, because you don t have offical arguments. Kosovo, for shure, is under UNMIK - administration.


 * Yes. Nikola

If you still want to write about Kosovo and Metohija, you can do that, but please write it on an other page and put it under " History of Kosovo ".


 * No. This article is about the province of Serbia called Kosovo in general, while article "History of Kosovo" is about its history. Nikola

The articlename is Kosovo and that means, province under UNMIK administration. Everything else you want to write about, like Kosovo and Metohija or Republik of Kosova and their administration and government, please put in the article " History of Kosovo ". If you are a Wikipedian, you ll do that. If you are going on like that, you are just making propaganda and using this encyclopedia for your own intress and national propaganda, far away from the facts.--Hipi Zhdripi 15:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are claiming that Kosovo and Kosovo and Metohia are not the same province. But they are: UNMIK is temporarily administering Kosovo and Metohia, which it calls Kosovo for political reasons, even though that is not it's real name. The province is still the same. Nikola 15:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

212.124.169.39 : Nikola, is that you.--Hipi Zhdripi 17:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Possibly, not sure. Which edit are you referring to? Nikola 15:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

One thing is, that every human beeing from balkan has. ( No matter, if he`s serbian, montenegrian,greece, albanian, romanian, hungarian, moldawian, bulgarian, kroatian, makedoniain (If I forgot anybody,please forgive me).)  This one things is, that they all aren`t frightened to show her own,real face. No matter, if they loose or win. The best evidence for that, is the battle of Kosovo against Sultan.--Hipi Zhdripi 17:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

About the Serbia und Montenegro subject
I ve visit all pages with this subject. All informations, I ve found there, like for example for: popullation, territory etc., aren t correct. Pristina for example isn t a city in Serbia, it s a city in Kosovo. That s offical accepted by UN. Please edit that informations. I ve done some but better you ll do it, because I ve not so much time. I m working in albanish - and german Wikipedia, they need more help there. With friendly greetings,--Hipi Zhdripi 15:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong. These informations are correct. Pristina for example is a city in Serbia, and in Kosovo as well. That is officially accepted by the UN. Nikola 15:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See: diff --Hipi Zhdripi 19:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Info Box
See: ... It was a part of Serbia, but since the Kosovo War it has been administered by the United Nations as a protectorate ... Everything else doesn`t work and is just propaganda.--Hipi Zhdripi 15:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, that is not true. For example, if Kosovo would not have been not a part of Serbia, there would be no need for talks with Belgrade about its future status. Why would Belgrade have a say in future status of some foreign territory? Nikola 15:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Administrative

 * 1) UNMIK = this are the offical divisons of Kosovo.
 * 2) Kosovo Metohija = this is used by NATO . UK Sector (Pristina), France (Mitrovica),Germany (Prizren), Italy (Pec),USA (Gnilan) Since milosovic dissolved the parlament of the Socialist Autonomus Province of Kosovo.
 * 3) Republika e Kosoves = This is used by the office of UNMIK administratio, but it s not offical. this sollution was made by Ex-Yugoslavia - Administration.
 * I wrote all three, because all three are still in use from different organisations. Please don`t change it. If you want to have a discussion, we can have, but first of all you have to accept UNMIK: --Hipi Zhdripi 16:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a map showing all districs and municipalities of Serbia at, on an official site of the Serbian government, and a map showing all municipalities of Kosovo at (PDF), on an official site of Kosovo's transitional government. As far as the maps can show, there have been no changes whatsoever to the municipalities: if there have been, they are too small to be present on the maps. So, same municipalities don't need different articles. Nikola 15:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ...Prema popisu iz 1991  . godine Kosovo i Metohija broji 1.956.196 ljudi... .  History

... ''Kosovo is a small and landlocked territory in the center of the Balkan Peninsula. Kosovo borders Macedonia (FYROM), Albania, Serbia and Montenegro. Its area is 10 877 sq. km. This is about one third of Belgium. Kosovo is at present divided into 30 municipalities...'' --Hipi Zhdripi 18:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC) 
 * Present


 * Well, to use your discussion style... Fantasy Nikola 08:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hipi Zdhripi, this what you’re doing is bordering vandalism. Your mouth is full of UNMIK, but you apparently haven’t read the only currently valid document about Kosovo, UN resolution 1244. In this document is clearly stated that Kosovo is a part of Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro, under a temporary UN administration.

1244
In resolution 1244 is furthermore explicitly stated that territorial integrity of Serbia and Montenegro is intact - ergo if Kosovo was part of Serbia and Montenegro prior to 1999, then it is still part of Serbia and Montenegro. This is a categorical syllogism and if you don’t find a mistake in this line of conclusion, you will have to stop with your stubborn edit war, or you are a vandal. -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t al k  18:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It s not the truth, it s just a interpretation from the serbian governnment, to tell them popullation, that they are loosing nothing.

It´s the same thing, like with UCK. Their point of view, they should put in the article " Republic of Kosovo", but not here. I`ve written an article with the subject "Kosovo and Metohija". Both subjects are one the wrong place here, they can be only in " History of Kosovo " In the article "Kosovo" is just place for present information, not for the past or future. No speculation, no propaganda, just facts. Nowhere you let a place for ACTUELL, CORRECT information from Kosovo.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

shouldn't neutral (i.e. non-serb) pro-serb sources be listed under neutral?


 * Unfortunately, you are wrong. Acording the UN resolution 1244, Kosovo is part of FR Yugoslavia. Since, FRY is now Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo is in it (and in Serbia, too). Please, read resolution 1244, and do changes in article Kosovo than. Unfortunately, you must respect this situation. UNMIK is ofcourse UN administrating service in Serbian Kosovo still. Perhaps, Kosovo should be independent state in future... It is not now! Just see 2nd page of resolution. Than you shell see the words: Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2. --M. Pokrajac 20:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * See this page! Now, best regards, --M. Pokrajac 20:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

see:According to resolution 1244, UNMIK is to:(PRESENT) --Hipi Zhdripi 21:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * is NOT According to resolution 1244, SM is to:--Hipi Zhdripi 21:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1244

The Security Council,

Determined to resolve the grave humanitarian situation in Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and to provide for the safe and free return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes,

Condemning all acts of violence against the Kosovo population as well as all terrorist acts by any party,

Raffirming the right of all refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes in safety,

Welcoming the general principles on a political solution to the Kosovo crisis adopted on 6 May 1999 (S/1999/516, annex 1 to this resolution) and welcoming also the acceptance by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of the principles set forth in points 1 to 9 of the paper presented in Belgrade on 2 June 1999 (S/1999/649, annex 2 to this resolution), and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s agreement to that paper,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,

Reaffirming the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo,

1. Decides that a political solution to the Kosovo crisis shall be based on the general principles in annex 1 and as further elaborated in the principles and other required elements in annex 2;

... [items 2-4 on the withdrawl of Serb forces, though some allowed to return later]

5. Decides on the deployment in Kosovo, under United Nations auspices, of international civil and security presences, with appropriate equipment and personnel as required, and welcomes the agreement of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to such presences;

... [items 6-9 on goals of the international administration]

10. Authorizes the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while establishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic selfgoverning institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo;

... [item 11 main responsibilties of the international presence, items 12- 21 various other bits and pieces]

So, UNSC 1244, the document by which the entire UN presence in Kosovo is justified makes it clear that the UN presence does not violate the 'sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' (now, international law, known as Serbia and Montenegro), describes what we call 'UNMIK' as 'the deployment in Kosovo of international and security presences' with the agreement of Yugoslavia, and allows for 'substantial autnomy' for Kosovo 'within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'.

That clear enough for you Hipi? Official enough? Kosovo is a province of Serbia, part of Serbia and Montenegro (formerlly known as the FRY), under international civil administration. So let's have no more propaganda from your side, and no more threats to unilaterally edit this article. (JD)

To Nikolla for other Serbs
Nikola, please can you explain to the other serbians, that things are moving!? They doesn`t understand why. I know, that`s not easy, because they all are coming from balkan. I m coming from balkan, I know that. This kind of " stoneheads " brought the war to the balkan. --Hipi Zhdripi 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hipri Zhdripi, as you can see, I am ready to talk about everything, because I am not natonalist, and I do not like them. Facts are difrent category! Maybe you are Albanian natonalist, but you must respect those facts, just like EU, UN, CIA... --M. Pokrajac 18:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am an anarchist and I don't like to be involved in discussion about problems between state forms. However, as a member of community at Serbian Wikipedia, it seems that I have to say something about this issue... --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don´t hate Milosevic, bekause he´s Serbian, I hate him, because he´s a looser. And really I don´t hate the Serbs. If he´s a balkan-hero (serbian-hero), he would fight till the end. He would´t give up before. To have a look for real balkan-heros: Skanderbeg,Stefan Dusan,Tito,John Hunyadi,Enver Hoxha... This personse arent´t afraid from the POWER --Hipi Zhdripi 20:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that a group of persons should organize their society as they want. If they want to organize state (or to become a part of some other state) and they have teritorial possibilities to do so, they should do that. When we talk about Balkans, I think that the same rule shoud be implemented for Albanians in Kosovo and southern Serbia, Serbs in northern Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as for Hungarians in the northern part of Vojvodina (in Serbia) etc. Even a lot of that questions are questionable in the sense of "what all people want", even it is questionable in the sense of international politics -- I just wanted to say what do I think. Also, I have to say that (this) my oppinion is forced and that I think that there should not be any state. --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So, in some way it can be said that I support independance of Kosovo. --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * However, the situation today is different. De facto, Kosovo has some kind of questionable independace (I think that high representative of UN has de facto power in the similar way as Jimbo Wales has power here ;) ). But, de jure it is not: people from Kosovo has Serbia and Montenegro's passports, telephone prefix for Kosovo is Serbian (for example, +38121 is Novi Sad, Vojvodina and +38129 is Prizren, Kosovo; +38134 is Kragujevac, central Serbia and +38138 is Pristina, Kosovo), Kosovo is not recognized by any other country except Albania and all other countries recognizes SCG with Kosovo, Kosovo is not a member of UN, SCG is, etc. --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand templates, country templates are about de jure situation, but text iside should describe both: de jure and de facto. This means that I think that until Kosovo is de jure inside of Serbia and until Wikipedia has country-based templates, I think that SCG template is OK there. When/if situation becomes different and Kosovo becomes independent, I think that this article should contain Kosovo template. --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See: diff --Hipi Zhdripi 20:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I`ve tried to be neutral. I`ve tried to find a way, which is accepted by booth sides. Firts of all: UNMIK administration is accepted by the serbian government and Kosovars. The Serbs take UN Mission in Kosovo as a UN-service. But it`s not a service, it`s a mission from UN, according to the resulution 1244. However, the Serbian government has made his own districts, in the time of Milosovic, after he disintegrate the Kosovars parlament . After Milosovic disintegrated it, the Kosovars made them own districts,too. But UNMIK don´t accept both kinds of devisions. (See:  and at  The Map Municipalities of Kosovo).There s no offical page of a present administration in Kosovo, just the pages supported by UNMIK. All informations from the serbian government are old. There s no actuell serbian government in Kosovo, after UNMIK started his work. And I can`t understand, how somebody things, he has the possibility to divide a place in some districts, when he`s not the administrator of this place.Isn`t it unbelievable ?  How he can do ? How can he decide for the name of the citys ? Are you able to decide, that the OFFICAL name of New York is Apple ? What we can do in future, I think, is, that every articel in Wikipedia with the subject: serbia and montenegro, kosovo, and serbia ,- can inform global about Kosovo. But for detailed informations, like districts and citynames etc., everbody has to accept the version from UNMIK. It`s, because UNMIK is the offical administrator of Kosovo right now. If it s changing, it`s a different situation, but NOW it`s UNMIK. I think Wikipedia should be a place for facts, not for personal meanings. In the subject Serbia must be only the information, that Kosovo is under UNMIK administration. Till the status of Kosovo s decided. In an other case, the informations are not according to the resulution 1244, which are signed by the serbian government, too. --Hipi Zhdripi 19:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've copied the above here and added a diff-link for when I archive my talk page. &mdash; Davenbelle 01:30, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, these things are simply not true at all. The districts were not made "in the time of Milosovic". I have a geographical atlas from 1971, and municipalities are still exactly the same. Now, after KFOR has entered the province, district and municipal governments, as well as many companies, institutions etc., were relocated to places outside of Kosovo where they continue to operate, to the extent that it is possible or needed. UNMIK has later created paralell municipal governments, companies, etc. (????,--Hipi Zhdripi 15:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)) UNMIK could have changed municipal or district layout, but it didn't do so. So, to sum it, I don't see why would one municipality or district need two articles: article on a municipality can describe its geography, state where is it relocated and what's it doing, and give facts about UNMIK's municipal government. I also don't see what any of this has to do with this article. Nikola 06:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You folks need to hammer out a common version of this article. The pages Kosovo i Metohija && Republic of Kosovo should be redirects to Kosovo. Kosovo is a province of Serbia and it is also under UN administration. I'd suggest you stay focused on facts and not seek to advance causes. &mdash; Davenbelle 01:30, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * All of those are the facts. However, please consider my proposal described in the next section. --Millosh 02:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Regional templates

 * Also, I think that country templates are very problematic because of such situations. Maybe regional templates are better? --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 *  YES  Millosh, we can have a discussion about that.--Hipi Zhdripi 20:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I ask all people involved in this issue to see m:Balkan NPOV page (to be involved there in general) and to see my proposal for regional template for Balkans at this page and to discuss about that proposal. (Note, this page is on Meta, not on English Wikipedia, so interested people should use Meta account.) --Millosh 23:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

My overview
First of all, I am sorry for not replying to any specific posts, but I have a rather difficult time following this conversation. The way I see it, Hipi Zhdripi wants every page in relation to Kosovo to be formed as to reflect the current situation of UNMIK's presenence. The rest of the involved want to state de jure situation. My proposal, not just regarding this article, but any article concerning Kosovo, is: So, in a nutshell: include information about UNMIK, but respect the fact that Kosovo is not a sovereign nation run by UNMIK. What does everybody think of this? --Dejan Cabrilo 04:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Kosovo should still be defined as a province of Serbia under UNMIK administration. The reasoning is as following:
 * 2) Resolution 1244 did not define nor did it attempt to define the future status of Kosovo. Many think that Kosovo will be independent, some thing that it will remain within Serbia. I personally don't know, but I think that it will be independent. However, my nor anybody else's view is not relevant. We are dealing with factual information that we have, which is: Resolution 1244 does not define Kosovo as an independent territory, be it governed by anyone (Kosovars, Belgrade or UNMIK).
 * 3) Kosovo does not have the international presence as a sovereign state, nor does UNMIK have a status of international government.
 * 4) UNMIK in Kosovo is a temporary solution. I can assume that Kosovo will not become independent nor its status will be clarified as long as UNMIK is running the show. But, once again, my assupmtion is irrelevant. We are dealing with facts, which say that UNMIK is there to administer things - for now.
 * 5) Articles about UNMIK's administration should exist, but as a distinctly separate articles. How UNMIK governs Kosovo is an interesting topic. If Hipi Zhdripi feels like he can write articles about UNMIK's administrative units, thats great. But:
 * 6) These articles need to be separate from Serbian definition of districts in Kosovo. Since Kosovo is now administered by UNMIK, these divisions have little importance for anything, but they do exist. We should not change them, ever - because they will be a valuable source once the final status of Kosovo is known. If Kosovo becomes independent, then every district article will start with: "This WAS a district in Serbia." Of course, every article should include the fact or a link to the fact that this district is not under sovereign control of Belgrade.
 * 7) Stuff dealing with UNMIK administration should be included in all articles, but in a sensible manner. For example: "District so and so is a district in Kosovo, Serbia. blah blah blah Now it is a part of UNMIK's administrative unite So and So".
 * 8) New articles about UNMIK's division would be great, but need to specify that this is UNMIK's and nobody elses division.


 * As I said above, I don't think that UNMIK's and Serbian district and municipal governments should have separate articles. If they are reorganised, then there will be need for different articles, but now there isn't.


 * Anyway, as I also said above, this is not the point. The problem is: Hipi was changing main points of the article in incorrect way, deleting important information from the article, and inserting bogus or irrelevant information. In the last edit, he changed introduction to say that "Kosovo is a country in the Balkans which borders Serbia and Montenegro", deleted section on geography, removed link to History of Kosovo, claimed that Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja are in Kosovo, removed Serbia and montenegro template etc. etc.


 * In short, you have successfully been trolled. Nikola 06:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nikola, I am not sure if my post was clear enough. My point is that current articles regarding Kosovo should remain as they are. However, articles about UNMIK's mission should be welcomed at Wikipedia, or edits about UNMIK's impact on Kosovo, but as long as it is made clear that they deal with UNMIK. --Dejan Cabrilo 07:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Why make a decision now? It appears that the status of Kosov@ will change by the end of the year anyway. - User:Dardan
 * Regardless of Kosovo's future status, I really don't think that anybody should alter the articles to reflect anything but the factual situation. Like I said, when (or, "if", if you wish) Kosovo becomes independent, these articles will still serve a purpose. --Dejan Cabrilo 06:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, the article is in a much better shape than it was six months or so ago, when we had very little even about the UN administration. Though the number of non-Balkan editors seems to have fallen radically, it would seem to me that we have a more neutral article than at any previous point. I'm not sure I agree with Dejan that UNMIK should be a separate article; in most cases we need to record (at least) three separate realities: what the situation was 1999 and how that is reflected today; what the situation on the ground is at present, as reflected by UNMIK; and elements of what the Kosovo Albanian majority would desire (e.g. a new flag). So, for administrational districts, we need to record the pre-1999 set up, the fact that these are operating this moment in some form in Serbia proper, and the UNMIK districts (and if there were parallel K-Alb districts we could record these). And some need to remember that making factual statements about the current situation (e.g. that Kosovo is a provice of Serbia under UN administration whose final status has yet to be determined) is not prejudging what that final status should be. Having seen plenty of Serbian vandalism of this article in the past, the main culprits now seem to be Albanian. No doubt this is because those people perceive bias: can they perhaps suggest a form of article or content which might be acceptable to them and which they think all the other parties would accept? (JD)

Some of the more recent arrivals to the discussion also need to go back and read the history: there was much debate and research about currencies for instance, and it was determined that both the Euro and the dinar are official currencies, but that they are used in varying ways in different locations - so there is no propaganda in this. (JD)

:id
Can someone add id:Kosovo to this article? Thanks. Hayabusa future 07:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly, despite the clutter of warnings on top, a print press outlet cites this our info without qualification
Commercial Appeal (Memphis) Circulation: 157,820 in a May 22, 2005 article used Wikipedia (no particular article cited) as the lead source in a Kosovo overview section.

lots of issues | leave me a message 14:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you provide link to the article? Nikola 06:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect
This series of pages has been protected for some time now. Any objections if I were to unprotect the top two and redirect them here? BrokenSegue 17:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Republic of Kosovo
 * Kosovo i Metohija
 * Kosovo


 * I don't know about the other ones, but this article has been protected for well over a month now. That is far, far too long.  I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've unprotected Kosovo i Metohija and turned it back into a redirect, like Kosovo and Metohia is. It's possible that the redirects themselves may need to be protected, but let's leave that for another discussion. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   08:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've also unprotected Republic of Kosovo now because unprotection was long overdue, but left the content as is. Let's see how it works out. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   08:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV
I thought that the main strong point for this enciclopedia was its neutrality.

Reading the article, I could not beleive my eyes. The obvious albanian position in the article is outrageous, thus destroying any possible argument for neutrality that the enciclopedia might have. I am doing the Serbian Studies course in the University of Toronto, and I assume the neutrality of this institution. I have also documented myself in both sides of the 'issue' in question in order to understand the situation fully, and the reality is far from what we hear in the news.

Firstly, the province's final status has already been dictated by the UN. It is an autonomous province belonging to the government of Serbia and Montenegro.

Then, the article refers very ominously to the Albanians in the province. This is inevitable, for the Albanians have taken over great part of Kosovo, backed unconditionally by their government back in Albania.

The official language in Kosovo is Serbian. Albanian is used by the Albanians who have since 1990 conducted an efficient ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Albanian controlled areas. In fact, this cleansing is so efficient, Hitler would be proud, and he would be attached to the ALbanian people, for they were Nazi collaborators during the Second World War (and yes, immediately after the war they were and still are ultra-communist).

It is an attack on the freedom of expression that this enciclopedia seems to guarrantee, showing this article. It is inevitably a volatile issue, but there is really only one truth.

In Canada, and elsewhere in Western society, the news we receive is very polluted. We only hear what the news agencies want us to hear (that is why I watch more than only CNN, in order to balance my views).

The West in general has always been afraid of Eastern society. Russia and its allies have always been the Great Enemy, with or without Communism. This is evident from the bizarre need that the west has to remove Russia from its long standing allies in the east. This is evident from the urgent need to expand the EU to the borders of Russia, and to date, even with a democratic Russia, the NATO still refuses to invite it into its military alliance. More recently, during the Kosovo crisis, the NATO was quick to deploy its never before used military forces before the Russians had a chance to move in and secure the safety of the assailed Serbian population.

This episode is merely yet another expression of this inexplicable fear and aversion to eastern society. How else could one explain that to date the Holocaust of Serbs by Croatian Ustasi has been censored violently in the West? The Catholic, west-leaning, fascist croatian ustasi have not been appraised, but that brutal episode in Croatian history is not even mentioned in western history high school textbooks.

This article is just mimicking what Sky News tells us. For that reason, I strongly beleive it would be positive to allow two versions of this article, alongside each other, with no preference to either one, and both blocked for the time being. Or simply removing the article. Having this aversion to neutrality present is a contradiction to the essence of this enciclopedia. Either remove it altogether, or have two versions of the same article posted alongside each other.


 * So you are doing the Serbian Studies, right? Well, my friend, you will have to study a lot more before you can understand anything at all about the issue of Kosova, let alone write about it. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the Wikipedia community since I am convinced that this article is profoundly pro-Serb.


 * (1) Who told you that the final status of Kosova has been determined? This just shows that you are a complete alien to the Kosova issue and are currently living in "Serbija do Tokija" world whereby it is Hitler's fault that Serbs have committed genocide as well as the worst war crimes against Bosnians, Kosovars, Croats and others. Since you are studying 'hard' the subject, go study the meaning of the expression "Serbija to Tokija" and contemplate about what it actually says about Serb mentality.
 * (2) Kosovar Albanians make up approx. 90 per cent of the population in Kosova, so you must learn to live with that.
 * (3) Do you actually know why Milosevic and almost the entire political and military Serb leadership of the 1990s is in the Hague Tribunal today?
 * (4) Your English is very unclear. I gather you are a Serb, so that explains a lot of things.
 * (5) So, you don't watch CNN only? Wow! I am left speechless.
 * (6) Your views need a lot of balancing, and I am afraid they might be damaged beyond repair.
 * (7) This article deals with Kosova and Kosova exclusively. It has nothing to do with other European countries. That's an entirely different subject.
 * (8) What on Earth does Kosova and Kosovars have to do with Croatian Ustashi? You are hopelessly confused and I am afraid that you might need a professional person to explain to you that Croatia and Croatians are totally different to Kosova and Kosovars.
 * (9) I have a question for you. Since you are doing Serbian Studies, have you ever studied anything about what happened in Srebrenica, Sarajevo, Vukovar, Krusha e Madhe, Prekaz, Drenica, Podujeva and so on? Have you studies about Arkan and his 'Tigers', or the 'Scorpions'? Have you heard about Mladic and Karadjic? Because, if you haven't then I don't know what you are looking here for.
 * (10) Being brainwashed is a very bad thing. Since you would like to think of yourself as having balanced views, and believe you me, you are as far as it can get from balanced views, then I recommend some medicine that might help: (a) International Crisis Group ; (b) Humanitarian Law Center ; (c) Human Rights Watch ; (d) Amnesty International ; (e) BBC.
 * From Kosova with Love --Kosovar 23:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'''Pro-Serb?!?! Now I'm speechless. What is pro-Serb about it?'''

(1) '''First of all, it Srbija on Serbian and Serbia on English not Serbija(you probably know that but are just typing it as such to spite him). I really don't see how that Serb soccer chant that is occassionaly spray painted on walls have anything to do with the mentality of Serbs as whole, that is a generalization. And even if it were to be taken literally, the same thing can be said of the Greater Albania idea.'''

.....

etc. etc. etc. (Deleted) JDancer 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Serbian minority
My nigtbor Dragan. I have caled him during the war. He cryad and told too my thet my two brothers was killed. I asked him, who was the killer. He told too my. I don t no but the killers was masked. Today I know the killer. I t was Dragan. And if I see him in Prishtina I sware I going too kill him and he know that. But and if I have a chance to go in Kralevo I am going too go and kill him. He is driving the care OPEL from my father. With my mony he have byed a Haus in Kralevo.

''And you can trace back Albanian roots in Kosovo to Illyrians, for me the fact you lived there 2000 years ago means nothing, I suppose if Serbians moved back to the eastern slopes of the Carpathians, and that then they hae the right to start their own country? Or maybe explaoin then why the Serbian Republic in Bosnia isn't independent. Maybe the Jews should claim Egypt is theirs, because after all, they were slaves to the Egyptian people some 4000 years ago...''

Every serb who have his hands with albaniens blood and is traing to comme in Kosovo is going to be death. I garanty you if I see Dragan in Kosovo I m going to kil him. You can says wat you wount that UCK ore sambodi else has done bad think bad my sister was not UCK. It was a normal citisens of Kosova like all ather peopel who are stil ill from serbien terror. The Kosovo citiesens is payeng the mendicen for this peopel. And they wasen t UCK.

Just stop talking please, you are brainwashed beyond belief. I suppose that the thousands of people forced out of Kosovo in March 2004 were terrorists? That what happened in Titoist Yugoslavia in Kosovo was against only "terrorist" Serbs?

And Maybe if they were not supporting and harbouring the UCK I would feel different, but if you're helping a terrorist you are a terorist, its as simple as that. And get that UCK brainwashing garbage out of your head, your so one sided its unbelievable.

Wikipedia is not a place to be making threats against the lives of people.

At first Dragan is not a humane, he is a Serbe minoryt terrorist. We are talkink not for peopel but for another kinde of speci. No army kill pregnant wommen. And you are talkin to me somthing abuot sebien minorty who is working in UNMIK. We are not stupied we know who has don wat. Evrey serb who was a normal citisen of Kosova is a normal citisen of Kosova. Every terrorist from Kosova is going to paye for that what he have don. If you thing that we shuld let the free hand for the terrorist like Dragan than I goig to thing that you have blood in your hand and you are a fried for your life. But, thate is normal. Befor you kill sambody you most think a bout the konsekuncis.

I don't care about Dragan, I'm just saying to bring your little bluffs on to Wikipedia, we don't care if you hate Dragan, or if he killed some one, I dont't care, I want to make a balanced neutral article, not a list of Serbians that are on a black list.

Which way are going to go the Kosovars let they disedie abut that. They have they oven territory, they oven cultur and they wohnt to be indentpendent. Whats wrong in that? They dont whont to be a koloni. The Serb minorty (not the terrorists) are in Kosovas parlament. The serb languige ist officel languige in ther area. Ofcaurse in the time of koloni they hav much more power but every kolinony time have one day The End. Game Over. Thats life.

Serbians have no power in the Kosovo Parliament, and the Kosovar will to keep the Serbian minority in Kosovo was shown in March 2004, if you do get your own country, it will be a country that thrives off of drugs and sex trade, with more than 50% of the people below the poverty line. You arn't ready for your own country, even if you had ANY right to take it away from the Serbian people.

When you decicide to write something intelligent I will read it, until then good-bye.

POV tag
Do we need it, still? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 09:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed POV tag. The article is not perfect, but I think it is far of article with disputed content. In this moment, of course. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Correct translation for kos
It was my understanding, when having this explained to me whilst we mournfully watched flocks of black birds hovering around mass graves, (so emotion may have over-ridden accuracy!) that the "black birds" referred to in the name were in fact black crows rather than the bird actually named precisely blackbird in English. Does anybody know for sure?


 * Yes, it is blackbird. My dictionary said so; also, look at Slovenian interwiki link on the blackbird article (sl:Kos). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone thought that it would be funny to add a million of Albanians on the Demographics to Kosovo and deduct a hundred thousand Serbs and also several other people :))) idiotish vandalism reverted. HolyRomanEmperor 23:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Kosovo now have official flag
According to "Večernje Novosti", a daily newspaper in Serbia from November 27, 2005, the authorities of Kosovo have adopted the official flag of Kosovo. It is the "Dardania" flag proposed by Ibrahim Rugova several years ago. I took the liberty to upload this flag from my personal flag collection in my computer. PANONIAN  (talk)  20:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm reading the online edition (at ) and I can't find it. Anyway, this would have to be supported by UNMIK to be official, so I'd remove the flag until that happens. Nikola 09:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If "Večernje Novosti" reported that Kosovar authorities have adopted the flag proposed by Rugova as the official flag of Kosova, then they are not telling the truth. I don't know where these so-called journalists get these stories. They seem to follow the well-established tradition of journalistic fabrications in Serbia championed for so many years by Milosevic. Kosovar 02:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This is really simple. Once the Kosovo Assembly (as an internationally recognized body) accepts the new flag, it will be official. So, just wait for official sources to come thru, and if it happens, we will alter the article. --dcabrilo 07:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it won't, it has to be approved by UNMIK first. Nikola 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that so? UNMIK says that:

9.1.1 The Assembly is the highest representative and legislative Provisional Institution of Self-Government of Kosovo.
 * Thus, as a body recognized by UNMIK, it will probably deal with the change of flag. Just watch their website for legislations, as easy as that... --dcabrilo 21:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Trust me, that is so. Nikola 20:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The Provisional Insitutions have only those rights given them by UNMIK. This does not include the power to adopt a flag. (JD)

Use of 'Serbia and Montenegro' and Metohija
I've just made edits to the articles better to reflect the standard international terminology used when referring to Serbia or to Serbia and Montengro. The article had made too much use of Serbia and Montengro where in fact Serbia alone is often the relevant subject. The State Union being particularly weak, and lacking any central government, it is necessary to refer to the government of Serbia or of Montengro, or simply to Serbia and Montengro. In some cases using Serbia and Montenegro implies a Montenegrin position on Kosovo indentical to that of Serbia, which is not necessarily the case. Only where we are using formal titles, or referring to 'Serbia and Montenegro' as a subject in international law should the term be used. Nor is the term 'Serbo-Montengrin Federation' ever used.

I've also edited the use of the term Metohija for correct transliteration into English. This is a topic which has been discussed before. As is clear from the Cyrillic, there is a j in Metohija. IF we were to Anglicise the term we might call it Metohia (as we did for Yugoslavia), but this is not a term which is commonly Anglicised. Metohia was once in use but is now archaic. Please see and  for the correct usage. I am unable to edit the use of Metohia in the side panel - perhaps someone could oblige?

I've also uploaded and linked a new map image which identifies the administrative line between Kosovo and Serbia proper not as an international border but as an internal boundary as that between Vojvodina and Serbia proper. UNMIK practice is to refer to this line as a 'boundary'; it is not an international border in law. Technically we should have a separate sort of line for the between Serbia and Montenegro.

On a separate note, as a former diplomat in the region, it is my view that this article is approaching a good standard of neutrality. Perhaps in doing so it lacks some thorough treatment of recent history and present politics, but this is probably an acceptable compromise. (JD)

Major pruning
Having reviewed the regional/country pages of various other localities, I can only conclude that this article is an embarrassment. What was all this rubbish about blackbirds and obscure Ottoman geographical terms?! That sort of stuff is fine for a sub-page if you can work up enough material, but is irrelvant and distracting for an article which should aspire to be a source of reference. I've gone through the article and weeded out all such rubbish from both sides, leaving in only that which is relevant for an international reader. This leaves the article much shorter but much clearer. We still need a short para on 20th C history and the Kosovo War, a through redrafting of the politics section, far more detail on economics and a clearer review of the powers of UNMIK, the process of creating provisional institutions, the parallel Serb adminstrative efforts (there are now two Pristina Universities!), the economics of the UNMIK period and a more solid review of the Final Status process.

There is no reason to revert any the material I've removed. Nor is this an opportunity for either side to throw in a whole load of biased rubbish. Any additions along the lines mentioned above are welcome, as long as these remain balanced and authoritative. And can the guys who've been using this space to carry out a personal argument irrelevant to Wikipedia kindly get lost! Use your energies elsewhere. JDancer 19:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits by User:Kedadi
Even this user is blocked, I can't be sure if the link which he added is valid. It is in Italian and I would ask somone to check it. The same link is added twice with different explanations (the first one for Islamic, the second one for Orthodox monuments: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * - International Observatory for Protection of Cultural Patrimony in Areas of Crisis (situation of Islamic cultural patrimony and presentation of the book: Fabio Maniscalco, Kosovo e Metohija 1998-2000, 2001 ISBN 88-87835-02-0

Alleged Population Changes
The source quoted for the demographics does not support the edits by the unsigned editor regarding large shifts in population. Also, stating that 50% of an ethnic group's population is post-1998 (or pick any other date) is irrelevant. I fear that it was placed to advance a point of view of the legitimacy of the Albanian majority; however, one may say with certainty that 99% of Germany's population of ethnic Germans is post-1850 (barring any 156 year old people), or 50% of same population being post-1930 or whenever, does not imply some illegitimacy of ethnic Germans to be in Germany. Similarly, here. Carlossuarez46 01:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Serious NPOV
I won't be the one to deliver it, considering that I'm not even a registered user, but this article is HEAVILY BIASED against Serbs and is in DESPERATE need of a NPOV. As long as Kosovo is under territorial agreement with Serbia and Montenegro, the foremost official language will be Serbian, REGARDLESS of the Albanian majority. The ethnic population distibution should seriously be re-evaluated (sources??) and other pointless additions, including a flag not recognized by either UNMIK or The government of Serbia and Montenegro should be removed. This image was added on purpose, simply to draw some sort of connection between Kosovo and albania. These happen to be just some of the perplexities noticed while skimming through the article without any real emphasis on my part. I am sure that it is plagued with even more advocative misinformation, and so ask a NPOV to be put into place as soon as possible.

I totally agree! Who ever put english as an official language? It's only serbian and albanian! Their is no official flag of Kosovo and it should therefor be removed. So I suggest that somebody remove the flag or I will. Litany 20:45, 31 January 2006


 * Does anyone have some refernces about official languages of Kosovo (i.e. about usage of English)? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Flag is not official, but it is notable, so it should be inside of article. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This entry wilfully exaggerates the victimisation of Serbs. It talks of 100s of thousands where there were thousands. It ignores the political reality on the ground. It fails to put into perspective the international ostrasisation of Serbia as the main (though not only) perpetrator of crimes against humanity and the impact this has on the approach to Kosovo/a. This entry tends to whitewash crimes committed by Serbs and is reminicent of the worst aspects of recent Serbian history. Of course, it would be wrong to judge Serbs by the 'facts' inserted by extremist (?), ingoramuses (?).Politis 10:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Significant Historic Battles and their After Effects
These paragraphs should be included within the article on the history of Kosovo. More importance is yielded to the battles rather than country's geography.--Pjetër Bogdani III 23:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Geographic Blunder
The opening paragraph states that, “Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë / Kosova, Serbian: KOSOVO is a province of Serbia. “ Then, beside the map on the right the nation is called Serbia and Montenegro and it is stated that there are four proivinces in the nation:  Serbia, Kosovo and Metohia, Vojvodina, and Montenegro.

I suggest that someone was rather sloppy with their wording in the paragraph. Kosovo is certainly not a province of Serbia. Like Serbia, Kosovo is currently a province of the nation of Serbia and Montenegro.

I find it very unfair the way this discussion is treating serbs. I believe if kosovo becomes independant (or joins albania) that, the serb republic (RS) in Bosnia has that very same right to split away. Also i believe since the EU is splitting kosovo away from serbia than the RS should be offered for compensation. - Nick

This site is a joke
Nothing can remain NVOP on this site! The propaganda must stop! - L

NPOV?????
1)..."and Albanians are direct descendants of Illyrians which means that Albanians are one of the oldest inhabitants in Illyrian Peninsula"... 2)"In relative terms, the Slavs, notably the Serbs, were latecomers to the region. They came to the territories of roughly modern-day Kosovo in the 6th and 7th centuries. They come as a pagan and unruly population, with no education and permanent settling"....... 3)"Their penetration into Illyrian Peninsula meant great destruction and masacres. That is why the period of some centuries during this time is in complete darkness"

1)-there are no evidences whatsoever that Albanians are the descendants of Illyrians. See Origin of Albanians. There are no linguistical similarities between the two languages nor names, customs etc that could lead us towards that conclusion. Most scholars would stay neutral on this matter, because it's a matter of dispute, lacking ANY kind of evidences. "Illyrian peninsula"...????....excuse me??????you don't seriously mean Balkans by this do you????? 2)-Serbs have setlled this area led by their tribal leader, the Unknown Archont, together with the Croat tribes. Had they been unruly they wouldn't have listened to their leader when he took them towards the south, and secondly, they respected Emperor Heraclius, which shows a certain level of cultural avareness. They have been given the territories of Dalmatia, Moesia etc to settle, taking that those areas were EMPTY due to constant barbaric raids by the Avars, Gepidae, Goths, Sarmatians and their clashes with the Greeks. Serbs have had their own dinasties ever since they settled in the Balkans (name ONE Albanian dinasty before 15th century!!!). They have embrassed Christianity and Greek alphabet right away, before it evolved into Cyrlic alphabet a few centuries later. Coastal Serbs have been latinised (alphabet and religion-wise). ʙ 3)-Serbs were invited to colonize the Balkans by Heraclius, and in return pledged alligeance to Byzantium, giving its best male soldiers to the Empire. They also got free land and fields, houses and all the rights civilized Byzantines had enjoyed, beeing protected by the law just like any other member of the society. Bulgars, on the other hand, have settled a bit later and were in constant warfare with Byzantium during the following centuries. De Administrando Imperio offers an explanation to many troublesome questions. Demografic history of Kosovo shows the participation of the Albanians in the overall population througout centuries. Albanians have not showed in Kosovo until the great exodus of the Serbs in 1690, when they have arrived with the Turks, colonizing Serbian property and land. This continued througout centuries, up until the late 19th century, when they became a majority in the province, but have not stopped their collonization until 1999. There are no evidences that Albanians have always lived in Kosovo, while Serbian evidences are available for anyone to check them, in hundreds of monasteries, inhabited places, toponyms and the name itself- Kosovo.

There are a couple more quotes that I find redicilous>>>>>>

1)"Other migrations of Orthodox people (Albanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Greek) from Kosovo continued throughout the 18th century"- Albanians have converted to Islam 3 centuries earlier, especially those who lived in Kosovo at that time, because that was the way to severe cultural ties with the Serbs. There isn't any Albanian Orthodox monasteries in Kosovo, because there has never been such a thing as Orthodox Albanians in Kosovo, only Muslims who settled after the Turkish conquest and Serbian exodus to the north. 2)"Kosovo was taken by the Austrian forces during the Great War of 1683 - 1699 with the great help of 5000 Albanians and their leader Archibishop Pjetër Bogdani, while the Serbian Patriarch of Peja escaped into Serbia without any fight at all"- had the Serbs not helped the Austrians to penetrate into Serbia proper in the first place, how the hell would they have reached Kosovo?????Austrians had to pass some 400 km through Serbia to reach Kosovo and Macedonia!!!There have been huge celebrations in all major Serbian cities when the Austrians poured in, because they have been treated as Christian liberators, unlike Albanians who feared them and have eventually forced them out together with the Turks!!!! Does the person who wrote this article know ANY geography??????? 3)"In 1912, Albania declared independence from the Ottoman Empire"- this event happened AFTER the Serbs have LIBERATED this land from Turkey 4)"Serbian genocide against Albanians continued after the Second World War, when three hundred thousand Albanians were expelled to Turkey"- so how than do you explain the huge rise in Albanian population of Kosovo after the war????Check again Demografic History of Kosovo!!! Kosovo was practicly given to you by Tito after you have massacred and expelled 400,000 Serbs during Fashist Albania!!!!

Edit war / protected
I protected the page following an edit war. Please try to get consensus here. David.Monniaux 20:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

= Delete =

-This article should be removed from Wikipedia, from one of the most visited site on internet. This article is clearly anti-Serb article. On the beginning it says that Serbs attempted to purge the region of ethnic Albanians under the auspices of "ethnic cleansing". This is funny.. I can't beleive that someone can write this and noone removes this. Just look: Ethnic cleansic??? There is no need to comment..
 * 1) 88% Albanians (between 1,584,000 and 1,733,600)
 * 2) 7% Serbs (between 126,000 and 140,000)

-It is really anoying that word Kosova is in use for Kosovo. I will not write about meaning of word Kosovo, there is already somewhere something about it. I will just say that it's not compatable to use word Kosova instead of Kosovo. Only this two reasons are enough: 1. "Kosovo i Metohija" is official name for that region. 2. This is encyclopedia on English, and on english Kosovo is... Kosovo!

-In the 'history of Kosovo' Dardans are indetificated with Albanians. I am very interested in archeology, so really there is no any clue that those two races are the same. That is because dardHa means a pear? And Dardanija than means Land of Pears?? Come on.. Dar means Gift on Serbian, Dan means Day on Serbia. So, can Serbians call themselfes Dardans?

-Not only as a modern nation, Serbs are described here as wild, blood-thirsty, as vandals, murders trough whole history. Quote: Their penetration into Illyrian Peninsula meant great destruction and masacres. That is why  the period of some centuries during this time is in complete darkness Yes... That is why Albanians now can not give us clue that thay ar Illyrians or Dardans. BTW: Milos Obilic = Milos Kopili??? I can't beleive... If you find any source that can aprove this, than you can do with me whatever you like.

Trough whole article is claimed that Serbs killed Albanians whole history. How come that there is than so much Albanians on Kosovo and Serbia. For more than 10 centuries.. I think Albanians would dissapear untill today ?

Every single word in this article is wrong. You can't know how I feel while I'm reading this. I feel helpless. Where is the source for such hate?? If you can think with your head, you will understand that this article is full of nationalism, lies, hate and subjective opinion.

I would be for removing this article, even if Serbs created it against Albanians. I respect wikipedia, I am using it for a long time and I truly hope that you will not allow that your site be a way that one nation use you as a propaganda against other.

Peace .....M.N.

STOP ALBANIAN PROPAGANDA
Many of you don't realize how strong and powerful are Albanians in imposing their opinion. Not many of the readers know that Serbia has no lobbyists in the USA (i don't know the numbers for european countries, but even in them, albanian lobbyists outnumber serbian ones with a big difference). That's why many of us percieve albanian view of the things that are going on in the Balkans, particularly in the Kosovo.

Now, I have something to say about this page which is just ridiculous. There are so many lies, and most of them are in the long explanation under the title NPOV, but I found some more. lie)In the aftermath of the conflict some one thousand non-Albanians, particularly Serbs and Roma either followed Serb soldiers as they withdrew explanation) Way more than 1000 Serbs became refugees, and they didn't withdrew with the soldiers. Of Pristina's 40,000 Serbian population, only 400 are left is what is said in the article by Robert Fisk, writen on november '99, so a lot more left Kosovo since then (full article is on the page http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/smurd.htm) So that gives us the number of 39600 that escaped only from Pristina. I just want to repeat one thing from NPOV article. Albanians are not descendants of Illyrians. Dalmatians can claim that they are their descendants, but not albanians. And the part of todays Serbia and Albania had been inhabited with so many different tribes and nations that it is impossible to look for your ancestors in just one of the tribes.

Some things that are said, like ''Serbs come as a pagan and unruly population, with no education and permanent settling. Their penetration into Illyrian Peninsula meant great destruction and masacres. That is why the period of some centuries during this time is in complete darkness. Kosovo was ruled by the Bulgarians from the 850s until 1014.'' This is just insulting and not true. We don't need new Hitlers in the Balkans, why such a hate? And even if your article was true this could be writen in another way, but unfortunalely for you, it is both insulting and a lie.

One thing that you, Albaninans, don't want to understand is that Serbia was founded in Kosovo. And in one period it hold almost all of its current territories (of course Kosovo) plus Albania, Macedonia, big parts of Greece... But, Serbs are not asking to establish serbian as a main language in these regions, that was a part of history. The first and the only time Kosovo partially belonged to Albania was when Ottoman Empire occupied Serbia. But that's it. The first settlements in Kosovo were Serbian settlements. And of course when the Turks left, Kosovo again belonged to Serbia. contact me in case of any misunderstandings.

and I also want to apologize for vandalizing the page, because I'm new to Wikipedia, and I didn't understand how things work here. And the reason for vandalizing was the anger that came out while I was reading this complete junk of an article writen probably by a member of KLA (UCK)or albanian terrorists. -- User:Gianni ita 23:16, 26 February 2006


 * I suggest that you go and read Neutral point of view, which you don't seem to understand very well. I agree that the article's history section is not very satisfactory, but posting this kind of rant and vandalising the article isn't the right way to go about fixing it. -- ChrisO 22:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO what are you talking about? The only thing I did on the article is delete some parts that awoke anger in me because they were a complete bs. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianni ita (talk • contribs)


 * Erm. No. You vandalised the page, removing large sections of the article and writing personal letters to other users in it. Does this seem like an encyclopedia paragraph?


 * Hey shiptar,
 * just don't put lies here anymore.
 * You have to understand that you have to do with Illyrians as much as Serbs do and that you need to be more realistic about the number of refugees and victims of KLA (UCK).
 * Contact me if you need some history lessons.


 * That was written by you. In the article THIS is the talk page. Not the other one. You write the personal letters here, not in the article itself. --HJV 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but did I lie anywhere? I got very insulted when the Albanian who wrote this still official article said that when Serbs came to Kosovo became the period of total darkness. First of all, Serbs were there before Albanians, and the second thing is that, you can't hate a nation and write an official article about a region that belongs to that nation.

Infobox layout
If possible, could an administrator please fix the infobox's layout? Right now the table cell that contains the map of Kosovo doesn't span any columns, so it expans the left column too much while squishing the right column. It's a little frustrating to read the infobox with one word per line. Please change this line:

| align=center |

To this:

| colspan="2" align=center |

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

DO SOMETHING
The Serb: "Ethnic Albanians comprise almost 90% of the population of the province. In the aftermath of the conflict some one thousand non-Albanians, particularly Serbs and Roma either followed Serb soldiers as they withdrew, were forcibly expelled by the Albanian majority or fled the province to escape perceived threats of revenge by Albanians (note:Most of Kosovo Serbs were in the ruling administration of Milosevic's dictatorship in Kosovo). The non-Albanian population of Kosovo has continued to fall since the arrival of NATO and the UN as a result of violence, perceived intimidation, and economic hardship. Many still live in communal camps in Serbia or Macedonia cared for by international relief agencies. However, there have been many attempts by Kosovo's government to resettle Non-Albanians in the region which have largely been successful, including the resettlement of well over one thousand Serbians and Roma from 2004 - 2005. The Kosovo government has been widely praised for paying for the rebuilding of Serb houses in the aftermath of the 2004 riots. This has been marked as the first case of reparations in the history of the Balkans.

Another Serb: I CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT THESE PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH!!!!!!!YOU CANNOT PUBLISH THIS LANGUAGE OF HATRED IN AN RESPECTABLE MEDIA SUCH AS WIKIPEDIA!!!!!MOST OF THE OTHER CASES YOU REACT INSTANTLY- BUT THIS THING HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR WEEKS IF NOT LONGER!!!!YOU CANNOT PRESENT SERBIAN NATION AS A VARVARIC, GENOCIDAL AND SAVAGE, NO NATION IS LIKE THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF EUROPE, ESCPECIALLY THE NATION THAT HAS SUCH A RICHFULL CULTURE AND HISTORIC TIES TO EUROPE!!!!!BY DOING NOTHING YOU ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISPUTE!!!!!I BEG YOU GUYS WHO RUN THIS WEBSITE TO LOOK IT UP ON THE INTERNET, FIND SOME SOURCES YOU CONSIDER VALID AND APPROPRIATE AND REWRITE THIS ARTICLE!!!NOT THE SERBIAN WAY, NOT THE ALBANIAN WAY, BUT THE WAY THAT HAS EVIDENTIAL, SCIENTIFIC AND HISTORICAL SUPPORT! THIS WAR ONLINE HAS TO STOP! 250,000 SERBS ARE AFRAID TO GO BACK TO KOSOVO THAT THEY HAVE ABANDONED FOLLOWING ETHNIC CLEANSING! YOU CANNOT PRETEND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, AND CANNOT DENIE THAT ONLY 3% HAVE RETURNED SINCE 1999!!! 3 %!!!!!!!! I JUST CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT I'M READING HERE, I'VE BEEN VISITING THIS SITE FOR A YEAR NOW BUT NOW I'M DEEPLY DISSAPOINTED!!!THIS INTERNET-VIOLENCE IS SILENTLY APPROVED BY THOSE WHO RUN THIS WEBSITE AND I FIND IT SHOCKING, DISTURBING AND RASIST IN 21ST CENTURY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.169.47 (talk • contribs)

The Albanian: -I can't believe how Serbs hate the truth. -There are 65,000 Kosovar Serb refugees in Serbia, not 250,000!!! Stop the Milosevic-type propaganda. Go read www.esiweb.org a reputable think tank, look for their report Laune Principle and you will learn about the number of Serbs. -Albanians are the descendents of Illyrians, thir language proves that. Unless Serbian chouvinists decide that Albanians are not. But historical, sociological and anthopological studies since 18th century have been proving this. And not Albanian, but western sources only. Serbs don't like it because it doesn't suit them politically. -Kosovo was not part of Serbia, it was a territory of the the Nemanjic Dinasty for a short period of time. Serbia was founded in Raska not in Kosovo! -Jefferson has talked about generational sovereignty. He has said sovereignty belongs to the living people. 90% of Kosovars want Kosovo to become a state, you cannot stop it. You can cry and beg, but no, you cannot stop it. -Albanian Lobbying??? Demonizing Albanians as capable of world conspiracy??? This reminds me of Hitler and the Jewish people??? Stop it! That is inciting hatred and violence. -Kosovo was invaded by Serbia in 1912 because the Ottoman Empire was weak! Yes it was invaded! It's people were not asked whether they wanted to join Serbia. Were they asked, Kosovo would have been part of Albania today and Albania and Serbia would have been allies. Today, we have to live the conflict just because of the big unjustice of 1912. -And yes, Serbia has committed crimes! It was the Serbian government on the name of the Serbian people who committed crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and lastly in Kosovo. Peace, let Kosovo breathe, Stop Serb Chouvenistic Propaganda! We've had enough of it for a hundred years. Wikipedia should be placeo of knowledge not of propaganda! Stop the Serb information terrorism!

The Serb: You poor ignorant troll. lets get one thing straight. We Serbs, we have no reason to lie. How DARE you presume to teach us our own history??? Let me tell you this, the Illyrians were the indiginous people of the balkans until they were absorbed into the Serbs (over a period of time, naturally) and have no link whatsoever with the albanians. What you claim to be true, is Austrian propaganda dating back to the 19th century, since they saw it somehow profitable to arm the enemies of Serbdom. Serb chauvanists? How about the half of the world that is normal? Serbia founded in Raska not Kosovo? Again, whos history is it? Yes!!! albanian lobbying!! good thing you mentioned that. the leader of Kosovo Serbs, Archbishop Artemije goes to Washington DC to petition his case against independance and who is he recieved by? an unknown beaurocrat assigned to take the bishop on a tour nothing more. why is that? because Bishop Artemije is not a drug dealer nor is he a pimp. hashim thaci goes to washington and he gets a reeption at the white house and the secretary of state is there. How dare you compare us to hitler when the albanians, bosnians and croatians were marching with him?!?!?!? Kosovo invaded? LIBERATED!!! invasion came in 1998 by the KLA. Serbia committed crimes? and the kla were angels? when pigs fly!! albanians hate truth..thats what you have shown me now....and anyone with an intellectual capacity above that of a turnip will agree...ohh one more thing, keep talking about Serbian hate crimes and we'll give you something to really complain about.

The Albanian: Exactly! You just prove my point. We shouldn't compare you to Hitler!? Hitler is the symbol of violence incited on false claims. That is exactly what Serbia did and what you are calling for. Kosovo was never liberated until 1999. We had all kinds of invasions since ancient times: Roman, Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Ottoman and Again Serbian, German, Bulgarian, Italian. The first time that the people of Kosovo control their territory is since 1999, albeit with UN supervision. Your Artemije should go to prison like Abu Hamsa in England. In Kosovo we have a law (UNMIK Regulation 2000/04) which comdemnes inciting of ethnic, religious hatred to 5 years of prison. Did you see what he was saying there??? I think he could as well belong to a mental hospital. That guy has nothing to do with God, that's for sure. 'People of God' as religious people are called, do not call for war and ethnic hatred. My governmnet, out of my taxes has paid for what the rioters did in 2004, when is your government going to pay for my house burned down by your military in 1999? And yes, the KLA committed crimes, but not the structure. It was some individuals. The Hague has just acquitted Fatmir Limaj, who was considered a high officer of the Liberation Army. Ramush Haradinaj will most likely be acquitted to. Only one KLA person has been charged, and he was a prison guard. You threaten me? Do you have any idea what the KLA would have done to your army had they not revenged by killing civilians? And don't forget, we didn't touch Belgrade, don't exclude that in a possible future attack. And I cannot tell you anything else, apart from Kosovo is Free! And so it will remain! If you want to visit Kosovo, you pass through a border. By the end of the year, you will need a valid passport. And when you cross the border it will say "Welcome to the Republic of Kosovo". I hope you don't have a heart attack, or even if you have one I don't care that much. (Damn it! If you have a heart attack you will be brought to the hospital of the Republic of Kosovo, which will be spending my taxes on you! Hmmmm... Ah OK, I would agree to that, I like the Republic of Kosovo to treat equally all foreigners. Even those who have ocupied us in the past like Turks and Serbs, Bulgarians or Germans) Peace!

The Serb:You are so full of lies its simply amazes me. If you actually think anyone is going to believe your insane claims and ravings, ie, people of Kosovo, the righteous KLA, you've got another thing comming. Where is the proof, that albanians have been living in Kosovo for 3 millenia? WHERE? Peace will only be be achieved when Kosovo is returned to who it belongs to. And dont try to fool me saying the new government has payed to repair the damage of 2004. What do you think, im insasne?!!?!!? I've seen the churches and monasteries, almosts a 1000 years old. Burnt to the ground. I've seen the destroyed homese. I've seen the desecrated graves. Personally i dont giva a damn whether or not you are serbian albanian, turkish or german, but what the albanians are doing is evil. THEY are the ones carrying out hitlers work. and about me visiting Kosovo. wont happen unless its with an AK in my hand. You go ahead having your delusions of grandeur. one day you'll wake up and find out you were lying in a pile of horse manure.

The third party:Gentlemen. I hope you do realise that you are making a laughing stock of both Albanians and Serbs with this discussion? I can assure you, many neutral editors patrol around here, many having high standards concerning verifiability as well as maintaining NPOV.
 * You would both accomplish much more if you would start arguing with those people in a civil manner, rather than chasing each other around in circles and scaring off other editors who might otherwise agree to your arguments. Cheers, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 14:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Albanian: These Serbs seem never to be able to come to senses. It's the 21st century! You cannot use guns anymore. If Kosovo belongs to Serbia then Belgrade and the north of Serbia belongs to Hungary and the US belongs to the indians... Kosovo belongs to the people who live there. Stop threatening! If Serbia wants a war, it will not have it unless it attacks. If it attacks, then this time it will be all against all! And we'll see where we get. Yes the Government of Kosovo paid some 7 million Euros out of the taxpayer's money to rebuild some 400 houses damaged by the rioters in 2004. The rioters were not incited by the government, it was the contrary. The Government of Kosovo has paid another 5 million for the religious heritage and has organized a donnors conference where another 10 million were gathered. This is unique in the Balkans! Kosovo, the victim for so long, has been the boldest and has claimed responsibility! The ball is on your field now, chetnicks! Let's see how you respond. Your government has killed 12,000 people, has burned down some 120,000 (70% of private property), and has destroyed the Kosovo economy. I'm sure you'll pay for it, sooner or later. There are international legal mechanisms, that Kosovo will make use of. Like Bosnia, you will have to pay for what your government did, with large public support. If you come to Kosovo with your kalashnikov, our police will try to dissarm you, if they can't, they will send you to hell.

The Serb: I said what I said. I'm not proud of my words, but I can choose no other. Also know this: the issue cannot be resolved with words. To the third party gentleman: thank you for your input.

Saying that the land belongs to the people who live there is really stupid. Before, 3 milion years, was created something called civilization. In every state there is a part of the country where lives more ethinic different people than the "main" nation. So, on the world it should be 1000000 states? ;) We are not living in stone age, don't forget. We should not argue about Kosovo independence here. Your(Mine) opinion about situation on Kosovo should not be placed here. Also, wikipedia should not be used to achieve political goals, should not be used for writing farytailes (Dardania¹), for lies giving. So, before you delete this article, better for all. Article should not be written in Albanian point of view, neither in Serbian.. Just a history as it was. Ancient people, Slavs, Serbian country, Turks, Modern Kosovo. Albanians should be mentioned only in Modern Kosovo. I don't care if Kosovo becomes new state, but history can not be changed (I suppose). In this article Albanians are mentioned trough whole article. You can't realize how frustrating that is..

PS: Quote: -Albanians are the descendents of Illyrians, thir language proves that. Unless Serbian chouvinists decide that Albanians are not. But historical, sociological and anthopological studies since 18th century have been proving this. And not Albanian, but western sources only. Serbs don't like it because it doesn't suit them politically. -Kosovo was not part of Serbia, it was a territory of the the Nemanjic Dinasty for a short period of time. Serbia was founded in Raska not in Kosovo!

Few months ago, for the first time in my life I heard that Albanians are descendents of Illyrians. As I said before, I am really interested in archeology and what I know (maybe history can be changed, really) there is no Illyrian descendents nowadays. I don't say that Albanians are not Illyrians because I am afraid that you can claim territory of Kosovo because of your ancient history. That is absurde anyway. It is funny to create farytail about ancient roots on Balkan, and to use that to demand a land... Why don't you give us arcehological clues that you really have connections with Illryians. Again, I don't care how you call yourself but it is reeeeally stupid to claim the territory because of fake ancient roots.

If it is possible few of us should write article and the best article should be putted as a main. ? M.N


 * You said: "Before, 3 milion years, was created something called civilization". For your information, three million years ago, our relatives were still climbing in the trees. For more information, see Australopithecus africanus. I wrote this to remind you to stick to the facts. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. It's not a place to debate whether Kosovo should be exist as a country or not. We're here to tell what the current situation is, NEUTRALLY, not to debate those kinds of things. The fact is that right now it's neither an independent country, nor an actual part of Serbia. We don't need to give our own opinions of what it might be in the future. --HJV 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Before, 3 milion years, was created something called civilization" - lol.. What I wanted to say is 3000 thousand years, before (bc actually) was created something called civilization. Mine mistake.... Everything else is the more-less the same thing I said... About voiting.. I thought, few of us create article, and the most neutral to be chosen. (I am saying this because, two sides will create articles, and again there will be nationalism from both side.)

Suggestion
Make the most simple article about the region, totaly neutral, AND THEN lock it untill discussion is ended. It's not fair this way, you locked pro-albanian version. This is not what Wikipedia should be.

where to start?
where can I start to discuss and oppose Shqiptar propaganda? here it seems a bit too chaotic....--TheFEARgod 15:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe here: Serbian-Albanian Conflict, to analyse the roots of Albanian aggressive behaviour towards Serbs.--TheFEARgod 15:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous
(Giani I think it makes sense to comment on your comments on your text. I hope you agree. The Albanian)

Quote : Kosovo was invaded by Serbia in 1912 because the Ottoman Empire was weak.

Truth: Well, Kosovo belonged to Serbia before the Turks came, so large parts of today's Serbia together with Kosovo was liberated, not invaded. Even some parts of northern Albania belonged to Serbia before the Turks occupied Serbia including the city of Shkoder (Skadar).

The real truth: Kosovo was absolutely invaded as the majority of the people to some 80% were ethnic Albanians. Albanian nationalism had not reached the masses. Kosovo was not Serbian. Serbian nationalism emerged in 19the century. Serbian nationalists used Kosovo in order to gain mass support. This is a case that the political science knows as "ethno-symbolism." While Serbian nationalism was a reaction to it's northern borders, Albanian nationalism was a reaction to the Greek and Serb nationalism and thus was relatively late. When Serbia attacked, Albanians were unprepared to gather mass support. Serbia and Greece were much strongoer. The four Albanian Vilayets (Ottoman Autonomous Regions), where Albanians made the absolute majority had some 94,000 square kilometres. Albania is today 28,000 and Kosovo 11,000. Albanians make the majority in some 8,000 more in Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia bringing it all to some 47,000, slightly over half of what they had under control. Vast regions were ethnically cleansed in XIXthe century in Northern Greece, Southern Serbia and Western Macedonia. The Turkish population of Albanian descent is considered to be between 4 and 12 million today. Albanians made the majority in Nis until 1878, Skopje was virtually Albanian with a very small Serbian and Bulgarian (back then) minority. This all changed in 1912, when Serbia invaded.

The more real truth: That's one of the biggest lies ever. Where did you get all those fake numbers? Albanians became the majority of the population in Kosovo only after the WWII because they had on average 7-8 kids per family.

Quote : It was the Serbian government on the name of the Serbian people who committed crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and lastly in Kosovo.

Truth: The conflict in Kosovo cannot compare with the previous one that took place in Bosnia, and some parts of Croatia. Being half Croatian and half Serbian, I developed a very neutral view, meaning that I understood both sides why they engaged in a war, but at the same time, I was also very angry on polititians from both sides, as they were dividing genetically and culturaly very close nations. Serbs did awfull crimes in Bosnia (Srebrenica), Croatia (Vukovar) and other places in this war. But not a lot of people know that during the WWII more than 200 000 Serbs were killed or forced to escape Croatia. So the bad guys in the WWII were Croatians. But I'm not going to talk that much about this war, as it is not the subject of our discussion. Kosovo problem is a cause of the previous war, and terrible Milosevic's politics, but the problems that provoked the South Slav conflict were much deeper, meaning the history of the regions whose autonomy was disputed.

The real truth: I believe that the conflicts of the Balkans have a mixed origin. I don't buy the historical factor as being an important one. I believe nationalism, that is the aim for expanssion of territory and control, was the main factor. Milosevic was not the founder of Serbian nationalism. Serbian nationalism is deeply rooted in the Serb collective self. Serbian nationalism was a result of the opportunities that Serbia had had for expanssion (bordering two weakening empires). Serbian nationalism is offensive. Albanian nationalism was a reaction to two expansionist nationalism, that is why it is defensive.

The more real truth: OK, I've heard enough about Serbian nationalism. You can say that Albanian nationalism is a reaction to Serbian, but I say that it's vice versa. On the contrary Croatian nationalism was a reaction to Serbian one, but you know that you had a plan to get Kosovo long before Serbian nationalism.

Quote: Kosovo is Free! And so it will remain! If you want to visit Kosovo, you pass through a border. By the end of the year, you will need a valid passport. And when you cross the border it will say "Welcome to the Republic of Kosovo". I hope you don't have a heart attack, or even if you have one I don't care that much. (Damn it! If you have a heart attack you will be brought to the hospital of the Republic of Kosovo, which will be spending my taxes on you!)

Truth: Wow, relax man and breathe deeply. This sounds like a last word from some mad scientist that wants to destroy the planet Earth. Kosovo is not independent, and it never will be. Remember that the Congress of Vienna concluded that changes of borders will not be possible in Europe.

The real truth: If you follow the news, you would know that Kosovo is de-facto independent now. You would also know that the aim of the US, UK, France, Italy, Germany is to grant Kosovo indpendence by the end of the year. You would also know that Russia has said that it will not block any decision reached. You would know that at the UN SC meeting most of the countries supported some sort of independence for Kosovo. I agree that independence is not very good, but it is the best solution for now. Kosovo should have been part of Albania in 1912. Now that is difficult to be done, so Kosovo has to become an independent state. Serbia is no alternative not only because the Kosovars will not accept it, but also because Serbia doesn't have the means to maintain Kosovo as it's territory and does not have any serious plan how to integrate it. Serbian calls for Kosovo to be part of Seria are a result of frustration rather then having any pragmatic aim.

The more real truth: Ha, ha. Funny you mentioned the year 1912, that's when Albania was created, and gained a lot of it's today's northern teritories only thanks to the country of Austria, who didn't want Serbia to have an entrance to sea. And about independence, well it will happen when Russia gives independence to Chechnya, and one other region, i don't remember its name, and if Spain give autonomy to the Basques, so the independence of Kosovo is very unlikely to happen.

Quote: If Kosovo belongs to Serbia then Belgrade and the north of Serbia belongs to Hungary and the US belongs to the indians!

Truth: So here, for the first time in my life I see an Albanian who admits (although it probably wasn't his\her intention) that Serbs were in Kosovo before Albanians, that's a big step forward. I need to give you one more fact in order to explain why it should still belong to Serbia. Albanians comprised the majority of population in Kosovo only few years after the WWII, for the first time! So, if you can get Kosovo, just because of the extremely high number of children per family, than I will marry 2000 women and they will get me 20 kids each, and then I will move to some north albanian city and ask for the independence of it.

The Real Truth: I have never said that Serbs were in Kosovo before Albanians. Ethnic Albanians according to historical facts were in the Balkans before everyone else. But this is not important at all. The world belongs to the living people. Not to the ones who have died centuries or millenia ago. Kosovo is mine, because it is mine, not because it belonged to Albanians before Serbs. What I wanted to say was this. "If you claim that Kosovo was Serbian, why do you also claim that Vojvodina is yours, which in 12th century was Hungarian. If you were to govern Kosovo today, would you give Vojvodina back to Hungary." Another important point: According to Ottoman documents, when the Orthodox priest Arsenije left in another element of ethno-symbolism, the people that followed him were Orthodox and some Catholics. Albanians of Kosovo were both Orthodox and Catholic. And knowing that when he left, the national conscienceness was not there yet, one could conclude that the people that he led were ethnically both Albanian and Serb and probably also Bulgarian. The more real truth:

The more real truth: Do you understand what you're writing? If you compare Serbs with the Native Indians in the US, it definitely does mean that Serbs are the first who lived in Kosovo. And this thing that you wrote --- "If you claim that Kosovo was Serbian, why do you also claim that Vojvodina is yours, which in 12th century was Hungarian. If you were to govern Kosovo today, would you give Vojvodina back to Hungary." Well, wouldn't Albania than be like 5 times smaller. There would be a total mess in the whole world. I'm not trying to say that Kosovo should stay Serbian only cause Serbs were the first people there. It should stay part of Serbia cause of everything that happened on Kosovo since the Serbs came, and because the Congress of Vienna concluded that the borders in Europe will not be changed any more.

Quote: Albanians are the descendents of Illyrians, thir language proves that.

Truth: No it doesn't unfortunately for you. I already said, the only ones who can claim to be of Illyrian descent are the Dalmatians (Croatia)

The real truth: I think there is no point in arguing here. Claiming that Albanians are not descendants or Illyrians, is like claiming that todays Greeks are not the descendants of Helens. Probably both have some truth in them, in that there are Slavic and other tribes melted within both nations but still, the language and the cultural heritage convay elements of the ancienity of both cultures. I think this is not a forum to discuss this as this should be a matter of real historians and anthropologists. I want to repeat that I don't ever want to say that Kosovo belongs to Albanians because it did in ancient times. That is irrelevant. Kosovo it belongs to Albanians because it belongs to Albanians. History is a 'science' of the past and it should in any way project the future.

The more real truth: OK. I'll let the scientists argue about that. But please take a look at the map of Illyrian territories.

Quote: Kosovo was not part of Serbia, it was a territory of the the Nemanjic Dinasty for a short period of time.

Truth: Really? And did you know that Nemanjic Dynasty is a Serbian dynasty? Gianni ita

The real truth: As I said, the national conscienceness of Serbs was developped in the XIXth century. The Nemanjic Dinasty were ethnically Serb (although there are some contraversial claims by Albanians that they had Albanian origin- difficult to prove; I guess it is similar to the Serbian claim that the Albanian prince Scanderbeg had Serbian roots). They claimed to be be the kings of Serbs, Albanians and Vallahians. But this is not important, there were thousands of kings around the world who lived, ruled and died. And I don't want my life, nor yours to be influenced by that. Yes, there are cultural elements that need to be preserved but life has changed today. The legacies of the past are not that important in our lifes or in our collective being.

The real truth: Nemanjic dynasty albanian, wow. That's probably one of the best lies I've heard. Is Goebbels your relative?

In Conclusion: Serbia needs to treat its nationalism. Expanssion is not possible anymore. It is a far more dynamic world. Greece is trying to make economic expanssion as a remedy for territorial one, which, like Serbia, it cannot do now. That is doomed to fail too. The only way out is by education. The form of nationalism needs to be exposed publically and reverted to a positive form. I believe in the present international arrangement of nation-states, there is need for some patriotism. But patriotism does allow for positivism regarding the neigbours. Serbia cannot be good, if Albanians are not good, and vice-versa. The only way towards the future is by being pragmatic, real patriots and Europeans. Mladic is not a patriot, he is a nationalist. Nationalists are more damaging for the nation than traitors! In fact, they are traitors!

In better conclusion: Albania need to treat its nationalism as well as Serbia does. I agree, no expansions, on any side. Please don't mention education, because Serbia is way in front of Albania in that field. Just take a look at any of the indicators and compare them (literacy rates, number of people with hs diplomas, bachelor, master) Mladic is not a part of this story and doesn't have to do anything with it. I already explained you that you cannot compare Kosovo conflict with '90s conflict between Yugoslav states.


 * Sadly none of you two know the "real truth" and even if someone who knows told you it, you'd both reject it as being false, saying things went more like you think they did. The positive side of your anonymous "conversations" is that I (and possibly others) now understand better why the czechs among others didn't seek independence from Austria, when they could have. --HJV 15:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree w/ the suggestion The Serb: I agree, to stop this everlasting dispute this article needs to be rewritten and protected. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for political/ethnic chauvinism and discrimination against minorities...nor political marketing and especially not a subject of an internet warfare....just put it back the way it was a few months ago, it was always kinda pro-albanian but it hasn't been as completely discriminatory and almost rediciously cruel and false concerning Serbs and their historical heritage in that province. NeroN BG

The Albanian: Who should rewrite it? There are two mutually exclusive truths. This needs to be oppened now and people should be allowed to present their view. I think during the status talks there will be a lot of activity around this page.

--- I agree NeroN Bg, the previous article was a lot more neutral. Gianni ita

The Albanian: The previous article was not neutral. It was a Milosevic type propaganda. There was a large portion of racism and it was anti-humane. One sentence was something like: "There was an anticipation for Albanians to be retreated to Turkey," which is an indirect claim for ethnic cleansing.

The Serbo-croato-italian (Gianni ita): Yes, that sentence was part of the article but the article didn't support that policy, it just stated Milosevic's view.

---

The previous article was pure Serbian chauvinism! This one is farely unbiased. We should agree in a forum on what should the article contain. Serbs from Serbia should have no say. Only citizens of Kosovo of Serbian ethnic background.

Previous article was at least based on evidences (censuses, accepted historical facts, demographic statistics etc). This article is a big chauvinist, imaginary, Albanian Utopia, based on Albanian estimates which are nowhere near recognition, Albanian numbers and so on. You consider Serbs the enemies, but you cannot erase their history from Kosovo. It dates back 15 centuries, there are plenty of evidences for that, the name of the province, toponyms and the most ancient medieval temples of SOC are located there. Every bird knows that. During the Nemanjic dynasty it was the cultural centre of the Serbian Empire. Has it ever been included in Albania? Has it ever been your centre before Prizren League and later during the 20th century (when Kosovo was given to you by Tito)??? I'm just asking you to follow the ackgowledged facts not make up ones on your own. This site says that there are like 2,5 million people in Kosovo (give me a BREAK!!!!!!), talks about Serbs as savage tribes (Serbs and Croats are both ancient peoples who got slavicised), posesses an incredible level of discrimination and so on. You cannot make up your history, or you can make up one for yourself, w/o rewriting someone else's history. Serbian history is entirely clear and undisputed at least to the 6th century A.D., what happened before that is not really relevant in this matter. Albanian history is very disputable since your origins are not entirely clear (Illyrian? Thracian? Caucasian???), your language either, you are not mentioned in Kosovo before the 16th century and so on. Serbs have nothing to hide or be ashamed of- unlike you guys who erase Serbian history in Kosovo in lack of your own historical ties to that province. I agree, you're a majority- but Serbs are not dead nor entirely expelled from Kosovo. Kosovo is NEVER going to be Albanian- it's going to be multiethnic., both Serbian, Bosniak and Albanian. Because Kosovo is not a nation state- Albania is. And no matter what happens later on- Serbs in Kosovo will be your neigbours, forever and ever. And you cannot live with them unless you have some basic respect and understanding for their culture. There's only one history, and it's based on the facts. Medieval history of Kosovo is that of the Serbian nation, and you have no right to manipulate with that. History of Kosovo during late Ottoman era is mostly connected with the Albanians, but Serbs have remained to live there, even during Tito who tried to denie them that right. You're a majority in Kosovo- but nobody will take you seriously unless you have evidential support for your claims, which you don't. Kosovo is not some mythical island in the middle of nowhere-it's a country in the middle of Balkans, on the crossroads that lead to Asia and Western and South Europe. Its history is pretty clear, only the question is if the real history really matters in Kosovo, or is it still in its mythical- irracional stage, such were the Balkan states upon the Slavic arrival some 1,500 years ago. NeroN BG

For a multiethnic Kosovo

1st, history is not important for politics. Religion is not important for politics. Once you engage any of the two in your decision-making, you will only bring tragedies. Albanian history is far clearer than the Serbian one. It dates back to the 2millenium before christ. There are enough historical facts, that I am not going to put down here. However, it should suffice to say that Albanian history was not written by Albanians but by Germans, English, Dutch, Italian and French historians. So, the chances that there is bias are much smaller. The Serbian history has been written by Serb nationalist historians. I say nationalist, because we both know we live in the age of nationalism and we both know that historians are producers of history to suit nationalistic goals rather then to find out what has happened in the past. All illyrian toponyms can be explained through Albanian. Dardania, the ancient name for Kosovo, Western Macedonia and Southern Serbia in toda's Albanian would be Dardhania, which means the land of pears (Krusevo). Go to Ecnyclopedia Britanica and seek for the origin of Albanian language and you will see that all names of ancient Greece Gods can be explained through Albanian:

Greek    Illyrian     Today's Albanian     English Zeus     Zojs         Zot                  God Afrodita Afrodita     Aferdita             Early morning (Morning star) This indicates that Albanians and Greek may have a common origin and that Greece was modified while Albanian remained more faithful to the old root. I am not saying this to tell you that Albanians have a historical reason to live in Kosovo. I believe history is not important! History is cration of the past as the facts are so scarce that you simply cannot rely on them. It's the same as religion, the facts are so scarce that a certain religion is the right one that you simply cannot base your faith on facts. You either believe it or you don't and once you believe it then you start making up facts to fit your belief. THat is why history and religion should not interfere with politics.

I agree that Serbs have lived throughout the Ottoman empire in Kosovo, Ottoman documents claim that they were a minority but it doesn't matter. Not the Serbian nation! The Serbian nation is a result of XIXth century, when ethnic Serbs were a minority in Kosovo. I fully agree that Serbs have every right to live in Kosovo. The goal of the institutions of Kosovo is to achieve that aim. Of course this is not presented in Serbia as Serbia is not interested to see the Kosovo Serbs live in Kosovo, Serbia is interested to see them suffering as only in this way can it win over Albanians and erase what has happened in the past 100 years?

-Do you know that the government of Kosovo has paid with the Kosovo money some 12 million euros to rebuild the houses of returning Serbs and the damaged religious property only in 2004-2005? Some 10 more million in the preceeding years.

-Do you know that although Serbs make 6 percent of the population, in the last Parliament they made some 18%? 23 out of 120 MPs were Serb; www.skupstinakosova.org go check the archive for the previous legislature)? In the current one they did't participate but they have 10 reserved seats. There is one Serb minister in the Government of Kosovo. Do you know that 15% of the Kosovo Police Service are Serbian?

-Do you know that Serbian is the Second official language in Kosovo, decided by Albanians. Every official document of public interest is translated into Serbian. All official websites of Kosovo are in Serbian too. Albanian is an official language in Macedonia only in towns where Albanians make the majority and Albanians make some 26% of the population of Macedonia?

-Do you know that some 14% of all employees in the public sector in Kosovo are Serb (Serbs make only 6% of the people)?

-Do you know that Serbs in most regions of Kosovo do not pay for telephone and electricity?

-Do you know that Serbs have more freedom of movement in Kosovo then Albanians? Serbs go to Albanian areas, Albanians cannot go to Serb enclaves, particularly in the North.

-Do you know that in all survays, economic problems are the No.1 problems of Kosovo Serbs? Not political ones?

-Do you know that Kosovo Serbs are a very unfortunate ethnic group? Do you know that they are hated by the people in Kosovo because of what Serbia did over them together with some manipulated Kosovo Serbs? Do you know that Kosovo Serbs are victims of Belgrade too? Do you know that Kosovo Serbs are probably hated more in Nis and Belgrade then in Kosovo?

-What should Kosovo do more? Please give a rational pragmatic and realistic idea here!

Serb Response: - First, do you know that Kosovo is still part of Serbia?

- Second, who "gave" to Serbs all the things you wrote?

!- Greek    Illyrian     Today's Albanian     English         Serbian?? Ζεύς      Zojs             Zot             Zevs             Zevs

I don't understand what do you want to say??

- What is so strange that the second official language on Kosovo, still part of Serbia, is Serbian???

- Do you know that Serbia pays credits for Kosovo?

- Do you know that a large amount of Serbs on Kosovo DON'T HAVE telephone and electricity?

- If Serbs on Kosovo are so free as you say, why then police must cover them to the monastery on some of our holy days. Why police leads them to the cemeteries which they find ruind?

-Kosovo is still part of Serbia, and Serbs are treated as foreign. What can we except when Kosovo becomes independent?

Albanian response to Serb response -Kosovo is not part of Serbia, the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government have no relation with Serbia whatsoever. They are responsible ot the people and the UN SC. They have decided to have Serbian as the second official language because of the Serbian minority. Instead of being arrogand, one should be thankful. It was the Albanians who decided to have Serbian as an official language to accomodate the 6% Serb minority in Kosovo. They could have as well decided for Albanian only.

-It was the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government that gave those to the Serbs. You can check the web-pages of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Prime Minister www.pm-ksgov.nt Assembly of Kosovo www.assemblyofkosovo.org

-What I wanted to explain to you is that the name of Zeus according to British Encyclopeida has the same root with the Albanian word for God ('Zot' Illyrian 'Zoys'). Albanians call Zeus-Zeus. All the names of other Greek Gods are explained through Albanian in the Encyclopedia Britanica. Again this is just an argument that Albanians are an ancient Balkanic group. Howevever, I am not claiming that Albanians have historic rights over Kosovo. No one does! Illyrians inhabited it, Romans governed it, Greeks introduced Christianity, Bulgarians introduced the Orthodox Church, Serbs governed it in the middle ages, Turks governed it for 500 years, Serbs governed it for 100 years. But no one has historic rights over the territory. The right belongs to the living people and those want Kosovo to be independent.

-I know that Serbia says that it pays credits for Kosovo. Thank you for doing that! We would appreciate it very much of other neighbouring countries start to do the same. What I am trying to say is that the fact that Serbia is paying for Kosovo debts, does not make Albanians Serbian loyal citizens. I think it would be good if Serbia follows the example of Kosovo and starts paying reparations, accordint to UNHCR Serbia burned down some 120,000 houses; 65,000 of them unrepairable.

-Telephone and electricity: The Kosovo institutions have moved in some measures to make the people pay for what they spend. Kosovo Serbs haven't paid for the past 7 years, they owe millions to the Kosovo Electical Company and the Kosovo Post and Telecommunications.

-Kosovo Serbs are not treated as foreigners at all, as I explained with the facts of how overrepresented they are in Kosovo institutions. Citizens of Serbia, be they Serb or Albanian, are treated as foreigners. There is a border with check-points in both Kosovo and Serbian side, after all.

-I explained earlier that Kosovo Serbs are over-represented and enjoy some very special rights that no other group of people enjoys in the Balkans. But unfortunately, they are hated by the people for what Serbia has done in the past 100 years. Serbia is not helping in this respect. There has been no appology, the number of trials for war crimes is riddiculously small and there is not talk for reparations. Kosovo institutions have undertaken numerous campaigns and have paid large sums of money to help reconciliation, but Serbia is obstructing it, very successfuly so far. Unfortunately, as I said, Kosovo Serbs overall are more hated in Serbia then Kosovo. While Kosovo accepts them as its own citizen, Serbia treats them as second hand citizen or as citizen of an external colony. So the only solution is, for Serbia to tell them to shift their loyalty to Prishtina and to cooperate with Prishtina in order to ensure they get proper rights and attention.

--- The Serb: Man you definitely are some relative of Joseph Goebbels. You make everything seem as if Serbs are the bad guys, who have no reasons to claim its territory. Just beware foreign readers, of this pure manipulation of your minds by this inteligent albanian.

--- The Albanian response: Hahahaha if anything is false from what I said, and if anything that I said goes against the best of Serbia and Kosovo, then you can call me Goebbels or whatever you feel like. I think I want the best for Kosovo and for Serbia. The independence of Kosovo is the best solution, in absence of a better one. The life in the Balkans would have been much better had Kosovo become part of Albania in 1912. Now, that is difficult to be done, so Kosovo has to become a state. Two million is not much but is as much as Slovenia and Macedonia and more then Montenegro, so Kosovo represents the mean in the scale of sizes of population of the successor states of Yugoslavia.

--- The (half ;)) Serb: Look, I am tired of wars, of politics, of nationalism... I lived in Croatia during the war, and I was half Croatian, half Serbian. Whole my life i have spoken about peace and tolerance, but now I can catch myself thinking as misanthrope. I can do nothing about Kosovo independence. Kosovo will become independent, we all know that, and so be it. Don't think that I aprove that. That is totally illegal. Why don't forces of world give independence in Russia, in Spania..? But...I am one (we are 10 milions...)... What I only want to do here is to help to leave history as it was... You might be Albanian, you might fight for independence of Kosovo, but where is humanity if you say that this article is accurate.. I really doubt in your roots in Illyrians, and I will deny it over, and over because it was declared just few years ago as a goal to claim land of Kosovo which is stupid, with no archeological evidences or anything.. The land of Albania was created after wars on balcan. Albania was in fact Serbian, but great forces created Albania so Serbia could not have sea.. Create your history now, don't try to invert the history. About the facts you answered me...

- I don't know why do you think and how do you know that Serbs for Serbia hate Serbs from Kosovo? OK, it was already said that Serbs hate all people, but that Serbs hate their own nation is too much, don't you think?

- Kosovo is part of Serbia. How can you speak that nonsence??? It is not independent. Why do we then have negotiations? Do you see how you treat Serbs as foreign..? You are talking about giving them some rights in their own land? As I said, what will happen when they lose their land?

- About electricity - Only Serbs haven't paid electricity? Eh, how could it be?.....

- Serbia burned houses?... I should not answer this at all... How many monasteries,just, were burned by Albanians??

- Tell me why Albanians were not indetificed as Illyrians before? Why is the history of people who lived 3000 years on this area so dark and unknown? Please, just without Serbs :)..

..Men you're killing me...

--Mephistophilus 05:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Albanian: I am never tiered helping vanish ingnorance. I believe ignoranace is what makes masses follow leaders like Milosevic. U2 have a song in which they say "the less you know the more you believe." I am not trying to offend, but say that the conflicts of former Yugoslavia have strangled all of us be it Albanian, Croatian or Serb. I will address your points again one by one:

-Kosovo is de-facto independent. It has all a country needs to be independent: institutions, police, army, borders. The negotiations are for the rights of the Serbs in Kosovo and for the international status of Kosovo.

-But of course, Serbia cannot govern Kosovo. It doesn't have the democratic means to do it. Do you honestly believe Serbia can take effective control of Kosovo? But Russia had to let Latvia and Ukraine go where large numbers of Russians live. In Latvia they are even not given linguistic rights. Russia doesn't want to give up Chechenya for strategic reasons... The Spanish Catalans don't really want to be independent, in a referendum some 60% of people would vote te remain part of Spain, with some autonomy. The same with Northern Ireland, 55% of the people want to be part of Britain, that is why they are. The British are sick and tiered of Northern Ireland issue.

-No, it is not only the Serbs who don't pay for electricity. But the Serbian press covers only the Serbs when their electricity is cut. Do you understand, one needs to pay for what one spends. Now, you may be part of a 'heavenly nation' but wait until you die to rip the rewards. In this life we all have to be equal :).

-About burning houses, oh I can tell you: Becuse of the conflict: In 1997-1999: Some 120,000 houses were burned, some 600 Albanian religious buildings too In 1999-2003: Some 2,000 Serbian houses were burned, some 80 Serbian religious buildings too I think both sides should take responsibility for what they have done. Kosovo has started in a very good vay, by paying for reconstruction. Serbia should do it too soon! Hey by the way, do you know what is expecting Serbia? The UNHCR have all the data for the burned houses, and you know that reparations are a normal thing in Europe since WWII. Let me do a little calculation: So, Serbia burned down 120,000 houses at let's say... erm.... what 30,000 Euro per average? OK so 120,0000 x 30,000 = 3,600,000,000. NICEEEE!!!!! Let me predict you will start paying in 2015 and you will finish some 30 years later. And yes, this was only the private property. And this happens only because Serbia is unlucky, it is situated in Europe! If it were like you say somewhere close to Russia, then it probably would have never paid.

-It was known since the middle ages that Albanians were the descendants of Illyrians. THere are numerous documents from the Vatican that prove that. There are countless western records of the 18th, 19th and 20th century that prove that with facts. Kosovo is an archeological gold-mine. (We found an Illyrian tomb of the third century B.C. in my grandfather's property).

--

You are talking about multiethnical Kosovo, and you are writing like the Albanian country is Kosovo, and Serbian Serbia. I don't understand.. Quote: I think both sides should take responsibility for what they have done. Kosovo has started in a very good vay, by paying for reconstruction. Serbia should do it too soon! It is funny how you treat Kosovo as independent and sovereign country. Does it have constitution? Borders?? passport.. Army? Kosovo has army?? It is funny that you treat Kosovo as it was never part of Serbia. Actually, every your word is funny..

Quote:It was known since the middle ages that Albanians were the descendants of Illyrians. THere are numerous documents from the Vatican that prove that. There are countless western records of the 18th, 19th and 20th century that prove that with facts. Kosovo is an archeological gold-mine. (We found an Illyrian tomb of the third century B.C. in my grandfather's property).

Please give me some evidence... I mean, if you are really Illyrians..you should have something written for 3000 thousand years. Give me some document, anything that will prove you are right.. Don't just speak nebulosity, please...

Anyway, you are skipping the main thing. We are here to discuss about article, not about should Kosovo be independent or not. Tell me, honestly, do you really think that this present article is 100% accurate? Do you really think that on this article should be Albanian history? Do you really think this article is neutral? If you say yes than there is no point for discussing anymore. --Mephistophilus 13:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Albanian response: Yes, Kosovo has constitution (read it at http://www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm). Kosoovo has it's borders and the Kosovo Border Police supported by KFOR troops and UN Police Check the borders and there are 8 border-crossings with Serbia, Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. Kosovo has an Army in the process of creation, Kosovo Protection Corps (check http://www.joinkpc.org/), by the time Kosovo has its own army, it will continue to have the NATO-led KFOR. Kosovo has passports, although they have the UN Logo presently since Kosovo is still not internationally recognized. And yes, Kosovo was a Serbian colony for almost a hundred years. Indeed a colony as the people of Kosovo was invaded and never agreed to live under the Serbian state.

What evidence do you want? Go read the Gjon Buzuku's 'Meshari' (1555), read also the Marin Barleti's "Hisotory of Scanderbeg" (1502) and you will find enough information about that. I could do a thorough research but it's not worth it here. What is left from Illyrian is the toponyms. They used Latin in administration and writing. Albanian did that unitl recently.

I think that there are different views to history. Rather, different interpretation. I am sure the history of Bulgarians or of Turks about Kosovo would be completely different. However, I believe that the people of Kosovo have the right to their own history. The people of Serbia have the right over the history of Serbia. If you tell me that you think that the History of Serbia is true, then there is nothing we can talk about either. I am fully certain that this version of history takes into considration both Albanian and Serb points of view, to a large extant. There is always room for improvement. But I believe Kosovo belongs to the people who live there, and it should reflect their interpretation of the past.

Trust me I haven't checked the entry about "Serbia". Why do you care about Kosovo or Albania? Be a nice neigbour and mind your own business... ;)

The view of a neutral third party
First, all of you, Albanian and Serb alike need to realize that two wrongs don't make a right. This situation is more complex than any outside party, particularly in the US, can comprehend. However, I have to state that if 80-90% of the Population is Albanian, why should they not have their independence? This situation and the long slew of retaliations, counter-retaliations, etc. could have been avoided if Serbia and the international community would just accept the right of the 80-90% majority to have their way. It's called democracy. Anything else would be as futile as Native Americans calling to control the US. Except that the Native Americans would probably be more justified in their claim than the Serbs to their claims over the Albanians.

Unprotecting
I see nothing on this talk page but the usual partisan shouting match. Please take it to a forum site or somewhere. This is an encyclopedia. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is totally wrong. First of all the US destroyed their Native American Populations in the 1890s and second of all Kosovo is the heartland of serb culture. Serious NPVO -Lazar

How can Kosovo be the heart of a culture which makes up 10% of the population? - confused asian reader

On Kosovo there are one of the oldes churches, built by. Kosovo was Serbian, and Serbs lived on Kosovo trough whole Serbian history. While country was under Titos reign, he particulary evicted Serbs from Kosovo, and gave Kosovo to Albanians... --Mephistophilus 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sure the confused asian reader is even more confused after Mephistophilus enlightened him with the history details which none besides the heavinly nation (read: Serbs) believe in...regards, ilir

I agree with Lazar; it's true that Kosovo is 88% Albanian today however that huge shift in population has taken place during the course of the 20th century alone. They consisted some 50% of the population at the beginning of the century but Serbs have consisted some 40% at that time, which you cannot denie. Turks did not succeed in expelling the Serbs from Kosovo but Albanians surely did. I bet that some parts of New Mexico could ask for independence taking that it has an overwhelming Mexican majority. It was the same between Mex-Usa as it is with Serbia (Kosovo) and Albania; Albanians were attracted towards Kosovo by a much higher standard of living, exceptionally big freedoms (given to them by Tito) and Tito's policy itelf, which were all at a far better level than those in Albania, that was at the time a xenophobic, extremely impoverished and isolated country. Kosovo became an Albanian Uthopia during 20th century and the large scale colonization from Albania and an extremely high birth rate has enabled their dream. During all that time Serbs were stagnating population wise. Today there are less Serbs in Kosovo than there were during medieval period, upon the Turkish conquest, 600 years ago, but their culture still remains there (churches, frescoes, UNESCO protected monasteries, imperial cities in ruins, toponyms etc). You cannot just erase someone's 1400 year old history and rewrite a new one. Serbian history in Kosovo has a strong evidential, cultural and historical backing, unlike Albanian history in that area (or in general?). There are still debates over the Albanian origin which are no where near its final solution (Thracian/Illyrian/Caucasian theories???).... p.s.Kosovo is not meant to be a Second Albania, nor its realistic to believe that the world would support such a claim (escpecially after refusing to support the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia, Ukrainians in Transdniestria etc). Kosovo should be a multiethnic land, independent or not. The world cannot afford to see Greater Albania materializing in the middle of Europe.NeroN BG


 * Neron BG, playing with statistics and history is what loosers do. If you think like that USA should belong to Indians. But non-heavenly people think of today, and leave history and old statistics aside. I agree with you that Kosovo should be an independent country and multiethnic. That is clearly stated by all democratically elected governments of Kosovo. Nobody is talking about great or greater Albania. That has clearly been erased as a possible solution for Kosova's status, that said by the Contact Group. At the same time all other options which Serbs are dreaming about (read: Kosovo to have any relationship with Serbia) are off the table. More and more self-determination is being supported by the International Community, as the last Contact Group stated in their last meeting, and more openly US and UK govt officials said during their last visits to the region. It is better for all if we instead not call back on some historical and old statistical data from the past, but instead move forward and try to make Kosovo a country worth living in, for all nations. Greetings, ilir

If Goebbles was alive, he would be so envious to some Serbs who spread propaganda all over! It's absolutely unbeliveable. I would feel rage if I knew that they're doing that on purpose, but I would feel really sad if they actually believ in that posionous tapestry of lies taht hey write here. I won't make it long, but just a few points that I noticed above on the discussions. -If Serbia claims Kosovo because of a couple of mediveal churches, then why not claim Greece, where their oldest Serb church of Hilandar is located? Plus, the authnticity of the churches is unknown, due to the fact that Kosovo Albanians before the Ottoman conquest were mostly orthodox christians who adhered to the Serbian Ortjodox Church! -Kosovo was never a cradle of Serbia! The first Serbian state was formed in Raska and Zeta as we all know. How did yu make Kosovo a cradle then? -How do you claim neutrality ehen all the links that you provide are either Serb or Serb-biased sites. What about links from world renowned media? Claiming that KLA was ever considered terrorist is a plain lie, Goebbles-style. KLA was a NATO ally during the bombings, as we all know. If you believ otherwise, put up a link to the document that states that they were terrorists ever! But don't bring leftist antiwar-com type of sites as sources as they are all biased. I said world renowned. -Where in earth does it say that Kosovo is a part of Serbia??? Except in Serbia, of course! UN Resolution 1244 which governs Kosovo plainly states that Kosovo remains a part od Yugolslavia (present Serbia & Montenegro) and nowhere does it say that Kosovo is a part of Serbia. -It's useless to tak about statistics. Everything you quote is Belgrade-produced and we now hw neutral and unbiased was that. -Finally, why do you keep talking about 600-700 years ago history. Yes, Kosovo was a part of Serbia at that time, as man parts of Albania, Greece, Macedonia and Bulgaria were, too, but that doesn't make it a part of Serbia today. Why don't you claim the other states, too? And especially Greece becayse of Hilandar church? Even if Kosovo was part of Serbia, before that it was a part of Byzantine empire, before that of a Bulgarian empire and before that it was Albanian-Illyrian. It might have taken a lot of centuries, but now the record is being set straight, so if you look back in history then look back to the oldest records and that tells you that present Kosovo was Illyrian Dardania and there are unlimited resources who prove ALbanians's Illyrian descent (e.g. read renowned scholar Aleksandar Stipcevic - a Croatian, not an Albanian!).

I could go on and on, cos there is just so much pro Serbian propganda here, but I'll stop now. After all, I gues the best solution as suggested above is that a very basic neutral article is written and locked to editing, until the Kosovo stauts talks end later this year. Then a proper article can be written. Otherwise, this article is gonna be a battlefield of distasteful propaganda from both sides; and that doesen't do honor to a respectful resource as Wikipedia.

--- Quote: Claiming that KLA was ever considered terrorist is a plain lie, Goebbles-style. KLA was a NATO ally during the bombings, as we all know.

Yes, KLA was NATO ally, but they were terrorist army ;) Why can't I create army in my city and fight for its independence? :)

Quote: -Finally, why do you keep talking about 600-700 years ago history. Yes, Kosovo was a part of Serbia at that time, as man parts of Albania, Greece, Macedonia and Bulgaria were, too, but that doesn't make it a part of Serbia today.

Serbia don't claim anything. Serbia don't need to claim anything. Kosovo is not part of another state. It is part of Serbia for last 50 years. Medieval Kosovo is just the prove that Kosovo was Serbian trough whole history, but that is not important. Important is situation in last 10 (50) years. Now, the things can not be same as before. Kosovo will never be part of Serbia like before, but it should not be independent.

Quote: Why don't you claim the other states, too?

As I said, we don't claim Kosovo. Kosovo is part of Serbia. I can't beleive you say that Kosovo is not part of Serbia. What is it than?

Quote: Kosovo was Illyrian Dardania and there are unlimited resources who prove ALbanians's Illyrian descent

I would try to find something about it. But, I don't understand that nation who lives 3000 thousand years on the same place don't have any written document. It's really funny :))

Quote: I could go on and on, cos there is just so much pro Serbian propganda here, but I'll stop now. After all, I gues the best solution as suggested above is that a very basic neutral article is written and locked to editing, until the Kosovo stauts talks end later this year. Then a proper article can be written. Otherwise, this article is gonna be a battlefield of distasteful propaganda from both sides; and that doesen't do honor to a respectful resource as Wikipedia.

Here, I agree. Just, offcourse I would say pro Albanian (interesting,he?) (maybe both). peace;))

Hey Ilir, I've never said that Kosovo should become independent, and if you asked me I would tell you that Kosovo shouldn't EVER gain independence. But it's not my decision to make, the international community will decide. Do I need to remind you that both Republics of Srpska and Krajina were in their respective teritories 90% Serbian but they never gained independence nor they ever will!!! Think about it... NeroN BG.... p.s. If Kosovo becomes independent, Greater Albania is reality, maybe not today nor tomorrow but sometime in the future it's certain. Noone could expect that 2 German states exist side by side for a longer period of time, so why would the two Albanian states do that???? And, btw, all that Illyrian propaganda, I agree, it's just redicilous. Instead of repeating like a broken record it's about time u started to think about your real origins. Serbs have 2000 years of VERIFIED history, you only have proof that Illyrians lived on ur teritory, like they did elsewhere in the Balkans upon Slavic arival....name one respectable world class scientist who supports the Albanian- Illyrian theory. There are NONE cause it's simply not true and even if it did, it doesn't change the fact that Kosovo was the heartland of Serbian culture between 12th and 17th centuries. It was clearly more or less one nation territory, core of Serbian/Byzantine world.

You Serbs are really something, unbeliveable! Just a feq quick answers:

Quote "Yes, KLA was NATO ally, but they were terrorist army ;) Why can't I create army in my city and fight for its independence? :)" You don't make sense here or like most of the Serbs you're callin NATO and NATO countries terrorists, same as you call KLA and ALbanians. You can't create an army in your city, cos nobody is killing you there on daily basis and your city is not occupied by a foreign illegitimate army. If it were, you would form an army and fight to liberate your city or country. That's what KLA did.

Quote "Serbia don't claim anything. Serbia don't need to claim anything. Kosovo is not part of another state. It is part of Serbia for last 50 years. Medieval Kosovo is ..." Actually Serbia claims Kosovo day and night! Don't you read nay news, or watch the TV at least? Listen to your leaders and hear them claim the Serb rights to Kosovo. You've been misinterpreting the myth of mediveal Kosovo to enforce such claims and you've repeated it so much that you actually believe in it now. Therefore, you should claim Greece if you really love the churches. Hilandar is in Greece and not in Kosovo and it is the most sacred Serbian church, isn't it? And no talk about Raska and Zeta? They are the real Serbian heartlands and not Kosov. Serbia occupied Kosovo after it became a stronger state in Raska and surroundings; emphasize the word OCCUPY! Cos it wasn't yours by default, was it?

Quote "As I said, we don't claim Kosovo. Kosovo is part of Serbia. I can't beleive you say that Kosovo is not part of Serbia. What is it than?"

Well, show me one document that proves that Kosovo is part of Serbia. It was recognized as a part of Yugoslavia by the UN, but there's no word of being part of Serbia in the Un Security Council Resolution 1244 which governs Kosovo. Kosovo was re-occupied by Serbia in 1912 after the Ottoman Empire was crumbling. Nobody asked the Albanians for that, otherwise Kosovo would have long been a part of ALbania, as it was years before. However, your propaganda of a Greater ALbania threat presently is unsubstantiated and nonsense. In both countries, more than 90% of the people want to live in separate states, so that idea is a myth.

Quote "I would try to find something about it. But, I don't understand that nation who lives 3000 thousand years on the same place don't have any written document. It's really funny :))"

Nothing funny about it. Albanians have been occupied and re-occupied by different states and empires who pillaged and destroyed everything they saw in front of them. Only in the time of the de-centralized Ottoman Empire could the Albanians develop their writing thoroughly and it wasn't destroyed cos the Ottomans stayed for 500 years. Everything that existed before them was destroyed by the various armies who oppressed Kosovo. There are no written documents of many other nations and peoples, Dardans/Illyrians are not an exception.

And actually, you all know now that Kosovo will become independent by the end of the year. The West, although with almost 100 years delay, is correcting a big wrong that they allowed to happen in Kosovo, when they legitimized the Serbian occupation at the Treaty of Versaille.

To end with this very funny quote from the other guy: "Serbs have 2000 years of VERIFIED history..." Where on earth did you find that to be true? I'm so curious to know then, whre were teh Serbs in the First Century AD, at the time when the Albanians were accepting Christianity? Where did you exist, what did you do?

I still think that this article should be very basic, unbiased and locked for some time... - Dear chetnicks, Your vodja is dead now. Why don't you all make a consensus that he lost your war and save some face. By making this type of propaganda none will believe you. You will also only harm yourselves. Don't play with numbers. You say that Serbs were 40% at the begining of the century and that Albanians a strong minority was able to expell them, although they were a colonized people of Serbia. Thanks a lot, that gives us a bit more credit than we have. I don't want to repeat things for you. But I can tell you, find something better to do. Stop the propaganda because for as long as you do, you will get reactions

Propaganda? Don't speak about propaganda when you write about Albanian Milos Kopilic? When you write about ethnic cleaning in every second sentence? When in every article about Albania you write about Albanian roots in Kosovo, about Dardanians, and Dardania.. On some Albanian forum, Albanians call Kosovo Dardania... omg..

Quote: Well, show me one document that proves that Kosovo is part of Serbia. It was recognized as a part of Yugoslavia by the UN, but there's no word of being part of Serbia in the Un Security Council Resolution 1244 which governs Kosovo.

I asked you, what is it than?

Quote: To end with this very funny quote from the other guy: "Serbs have 2000 years of VERIFIED history..."....

It's not 2000 years of history, it's 1400. But again, you quote him, and just after that you write that Albanians received Christianity in the 1st century.. :)))) Was Christ Albanian?:))

Quote: Nothing funny about it. Albanians have been occupied and re-occupied by different states and empires who pillaged and destroyed everything they saw in front of them. Only in the time of the de-centralized Ottoman Empire could the Albanians develop their writing thoroughly and it wasn't destroyed cos the Ottomans stayed for 500 years. Everything that existed before them was destroyed by the various armies who oppressed Kosovo. There are no written documents of many other nations and peoples, Dardans/Illyrians are not an exception.

As we can see, no evidence about Illyrian origin.:) All old people who "dissapeared" have merged with other nations. You claim that Albanians are direct descendents from Illyrians! See...

Quote: Actually Serbia claims Kosovo day and night! Don't you read nay news, or watch the TV at least? Listen to your leaders and hear them claim the Serb rights to Kosovo. You've been misinterpreting the myth of mediveal Kosovo to enforce such claims and you've repeated it so much that you actually believe in it now. Therefore, you should claim Greece if you really love the churches.

Again, Kosovo should not be Serbian because of middle age, but because of modern age.. It was part of our country for last 60-70 years. Why should it be other country now? ;)

Quote: You don't make sense here or like most of the Serbs you're callin NATO and NATO countries terrorists, same as you call KLA and ALbanians. You can't create an army in your city, cos nobody is killing you there on daily basis and your city is not occupied by a foreign illegitimate army. If it were, you would form an army and fight to liberate your city or country. That's what KLA did.

First, I don't judge people according to nation, religion etc. No, I don't call NATO countries, countries of terrorist (STUPID!). I just can not understand that you say that KLA fought against FOREIGN ILLEGITIMATE ARMY!!! KLA is legal army than??? You are so good in skewing the facts.. War was not created because Serbs waked up one morning and said "Hey, let's kill Albanians"... We both bare guilt, and we will be free when we both admit our own guilt. KLA fought for Kosovo independence from Serbs, it was not "self-defence" army. Kosovo was not occupied by nobody. Kosovo was Serbian land with major Albanian people. There is "Kosovo" in Kanada, "Kosovo" in Spania, in Croatia...etc...

Quote:Dear chetnicks, Your vodja is dead now.

Chetinicks? Nice(Bad) sense for humor;) Why not partisans???? Our vodja is alive (Boris Tadic). Men, please don't live in history. peace,again;)

-Facts: Albanians comprised a majority of population only after the WWII because of a very extreme birth policies, every family had around 5 kids on average. That's one of the reasons why you just can't say, 'this is democracy, let's give'em a country because there are so many of them now', why basques can't have independence, why serbs in bosnia can't have independence and their own republic (in the case of bosnian serbs, they have a bigger right to ask for the independence because they were always in Republika Srpska (part of Bosnia and Herzegovina), and have always been the majority there. But, the UN, and the Congress in Vienna after the WWII decided that there will be no changes of borders anymore, so let's respect that.

One more thing the policies of Joseph Goebbels are found in Albanian media and politics and not in Serbian, as I mentioned a long time before some albanian accused serbian media of being goebbels-like.

a humble question
I know this is a mildly heated subject but still... The following section of the history-part doesn't coincide very well with other parts of the wikipedia describing these events:

"After the Dayton Agreement and numerous atrocities committed by Serb security forces inside Kosovo, the disillusioned Albanians organized into the Kosovo Liberation Army and started a guerrilla war for liberation. The Serb reaction was stiff in plundering Albanian villages and executing civilians."

Is it possible that whoever wrote this/agrees with this interpretation support some sources? Thanks, andreas_td 00:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC+2)

response
Yes, Serbs DO have a 2000 year long history. Their history in the Balkans is indeed some 1400 years long but that is not when this nation was first mentioned nor formed. Tacitus (ca. 50 AD): described the Serboi tribe near the Caucasus. Pliny (69-75 AD): "... beside the Cimerians live Meotics, Valians, Serbs (Serboi), Zingians, Psesians." (Historia naturalis, VI, c. 7 & 19 Leipzig 1975). Ptolemy (150 AD): " ... between the Keraunian mountains and the river Pa, live the Orineians, Valians and Serbs." (Geographia V, s. 9). Ptolemy also mention the city in Pannonia named Serbinum (present day Bosanska Gradiška in Republika Srpska). In the third century Roman emperor Licinius referred to the Carpathians as 'Montes Serrorum' ("Serb mountains"). It is accepted among most scientists that Serbs as well as Croats are of Iranian origin since the evidences that mention these two people are located in Iran, Afghanistan, Caucausus and Southern Russia (unlike Albanians who have no written proofs of their origins before 12th century). NeroN BG

GOD HIMSELF IS IN THE SIDE OF ALBANIANS. FORTUNATELY, THEY WILL SOON GET THEY'RE INDEPNDENCE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrit Augustini (talk • contribs)

This god you talk about, is he very busy? Albania has been independant since 1913 and it was still there last time I read a history book... Litany

Regarding ALbanian POV pushers...
Article might not be perfect but your provocations make it worse. Wikipedia is not meant to be an Albanian mouthpiece. I have provided references for all my edits. It is not enough reason to delete them simply because they do not benefit your version of the events. Where are all the Admins when you need them? Asterion 21:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oooooo C(pi)C guy is getting frustrated. Is it because the rat (i.e. president of your party) died in a cell with none to say a prayer for him? I wish I could feel a bit sorry. Don't ask for sysadmins, ask for some brain to fall in your empty skull, as still being a member of SPS is one that has milligrams of brain. as of POV, isn't your insane leader the one who tried to impose that on every nation of ex-Yug??? I will keep reverting, as long as it takes, as many times as it takes, with as many usernames as necessary. Everything for my loving country. Peace! Ilir pz 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am Spanish, not Serb, and have no time for your insults. Hope you get banned soon. Regards, Asterion 22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not say you were a Serb, but a supporter of the most insane Serbian party ever founded. Oh, but you support Chavez as well...and peaceful reunification of Yugoslavia? I am sorry to waste time responding to you at all. Ilir pz 22:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, very few people support Milosevic in Serbia, and you know that. Not all Serbian patriots are from his party (most of them are not). The average age of people who support Milosevic is around 60, so it is very unlikely to find anyone of that age here discussing the issue of Kosovo with us. Gianni_ita


 * I want to believe that. Honestly. Because we are going to be neighbours with Serbia, and want to be good neighbours. I am in one hand sorry for the people of Serbia who, if not Milosevic, support Seselj's party, in large numbers. I heard of figures like over 30% and rising?! As of future status of Kosovo, that will affect very little: relations with a neighbouring country. As of discussing with a supporter of Milosevic, that is User:Asterion. And I was addressing my abovementioned comments to him/her in particular. Cheers, Ilir pz 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And regarding the "patriotism" issue in Serbia, most of those who call themselves a "Serbian patriots" are greatest enemies of the Serbian people, because their goal is to drag Serbia into new wars, which would cause great suffer to the Serbian people. What Serbia need is peace, better economy and more jobs, and not those so called "patriots", which is another word for MAFIA in Serbia. The reasons why wars in the former Yugoslavia started at all is because MAFIA saw these wars as an opportunity to get rich (and war is a perfect opportunity for that indeed). PANONIAN  (talk)  21:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, I am not supporting the independence of Kosovo. That would be just ridiculous. Gianni_ita
 * Nobody is asking anyone, but the will of the majority in Kosova, to decide about its future. Especially your opinion is not needed at all, Gianni_ita, in order to determine that :)). Ilir pz 00:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbian propaganda machinery
Litany, Asterion and e few other editors amaze me with their prompt reverts. I don't know why they are not banned from Wikipedia. Serbian nationalism and expanssionism has cost Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Kosovars, Macedonians and Serbs so much that it just doesnt make any sense anymore. I would suggest to you two, dear colleagues (and others on your side) to bury Serb expanssionism and extreme nationalism with Milosevic. Kosovo is becoming independent this year, and there is nothing that can stop it. I suggest a pact: Let us work on the Kosovo article. We will let you work on the Serbia and related articles. If you do not agree with the version of the hisory of our country, Kosovo, then we will have to help you improve the entries on Serbia and Serbian history. I believe it's time for all to work together for a better Balkans in the world. Let's leave the past behind. Let's help each other acquire a better image internationally. If we continue with destructiveness, then we pay tribute to Milosevic and the alike. I am kindly begging you, to leave Kosovo to Kosovars. If you stop your obstructiveness, soon I will write a version that will satify both sides. If you want to continue this Wiki-war, I will have to sadly participate in it.

I was never interested much to edit Kosovo article, and I am not interested in it now as well, but I quite often read this talk page usually to laugh about this Serb-Albanian arguing. It is bad that both, Serb and Albanian users who participate in this edit war think that Wikipedia is a best place for propaganda wars. I do not know who you are, but I do not like your threat that you will "help" about Serbia-related articles, because some Serbs "helping" you about Kosovo article. First, you can see that these Serbs who "helping" you did not edited much these Serbia-related articles, but most of their edits are related to Kosovo, while most of other Serb users who had much edits in Serbia-related articles, mostly did not edited Kosovo article. My point is that if you vandalize Serbia-related articles as you threat, you will not vandalize the work of these editors with whom you have edit war here, but work of other editors which did not participated in edit war with you. So, you first learn with whom you have dispute here and with whom not, and the second thing is that vandalizing any article on Wikipedia only because you have personal dispute with somebody is not quite accetable behaviour here. As for Kosovo article, the only solution for it is to be permanently locked until the final status of Kosovo is solved, and that only administrators edit this article, and to post in it only NPOV sentences about which both, Albanian and Serb users who participate in this dispute will agree. Opinions about this proposal? PANONIAN  (talk)  00:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Albanian propaganda machinery
Why don't we talk about the other side a little bit more. Are you aware of the Albanian extreme nationalism (which is from time to time closer to terrorism). It had already claimed hundreds of thousands victims only in Kosovo. Mostly Serbs, but also Roma (Gypsies), and others. It killed numerous Macedonians, and is threatening to do the same with Greeks in northern Greece.

The idea of Great Serbia, was Milosevic's horrible idea that had many followers in the beginning, unfortunately people became aware of the atrocities of these wars started by Serbian forces only too late. Although I sympathize with all the families who lost someone in these wars, one thing must be mentioned, and it is that Serbs had at least 20 times more killed by Croat and Muslim forces in the WWII. But I do not want to measure how much someone is guilty by subtracting these numbers, both sides should be ashamed equaly.

Now, let's go back to the Albanian terrorism. It's origins are much deeper in time, and because of that it has many more followers in Albania and in Albanian population in Kosovo. Since the end of the WWII Albanians used the goodwill of ex Yugoslavian president, Josip Broz Tito, who opened the borders of Serbia to all the Albanians, and gave this Serbian province autonomy. Albanians came in huge numbers because the living standard in Serbia at that time was about 3 times that of Albania. In the end of the WWII there were as many Serbs in Kosovo as there were Albanians. In the '60 the number of albanians rised and they started rioting and asking for the independence, the life for the Serbian population was a hell. And now here we are, we've got 88% of albanians and around 8%of Serbs there. Why? Maybe because of shortlived Serbian nationalism. Or maybe because of the a long time ago planned Great Albania.

And just one more thing. Being Kosovar is not anyones nationality. It just means that you come from Kosovo. There are only kosovar albanians, kosovar serbs.... Gianni_ita


 * anyone checking these unnamed additions? are these allowed? additionally they provide no sources for their speculations, like "Serbs had at least 10 times more killed by Croat and Muslim forces in the WWII." or "Since the end of the WWII Albanians used the goodwill of ex Yugoslavian president, Josip Broz Tito, who opened the borders of Serbia to all the Albanians, and gave this Serbian province autonomy." and offences such as "Albanian terrorism"? I propose to erase such comments. Ilir pz 00:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear albanian reader, here come the facts, although you were aware of them even before. The official site of Jasenovac http://www.ushmm.org (concentration camp in Croatia for the non croatian population, majority of them were serbs) says that the number of serbs killed by the croats was from 330,000 to 390,000.

Why would the word albanian terrorism offend you, both serbian and albanian regimes turned to paramilitary terrorist forces.

And about Tito, I don't know what is not clear to you. Read history a little bit more from any western book, and you will see. Gianni_ita

Working for a less biased article
Quite clearly anything that contradicts your views will be deleted. I have provided references for all of my edits, which any non-partisan wikipedian could follow up if interested. I don't feed trolls'. Best response to inflammatory remarks is to ignore them. Your threats have been noticed too. Regards, Asterion 22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)