Talk:Republic of Kosovo/Archive 2

Politics
This section, and to some extent the main article on which it is based, is very outdated. ORA has ceased to exist. I think this also the case for the Serbian List for Kosovo and Metohija; in any case it cannot be described as dominating politics in Serb areas. Oliver Ivanovic is now, of course, State Secretary in the Serbian Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija (although I think he still has an office in Kosovska Mitrovica).

I would therefore propose to remove the three sentences about these parties, and in place of the third sentence (about the SLKM dominating politics in Serb areas) substitute "Politics in Serb areas south of the River Ibar are dominated by the Independent Liberal Party (Samostalna Liberalna Stranka), led by Slobodan Petrovic; Serbs north of the river almost totally boycotted the Assembly elections of 2010" --Markd999 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

1990-92 Declarations by the Assembly on "independence"
The article contains the sentence "On 2 July 1990, the self declared Kosovo parliament declared Kosovo an independent country, the Republic of Kosova."

This is incorrect. According to Noel Malcolm, A Short History of Kosovo, pp 346-347, the Albanian members of the Assembly passed three resolutions, one on 2 July 1990, declaring Kosovo a Republic within the Yugoslav Federation; one on 7 September 1991 producing a Constitution which said that laws of Yugoslavia and Serbia would only be valid if compatible with the Constitution, but apparently did not say what its international status was (while this would have made Kosovo theoretically sovereign, in the sense that Swiss cantons are theoretically sovereign, it would have also theoretically allowed Kosovo to remain part of a Yugoslavia transformed into a confederation; and a third resolution in September 1992 explicitly declaring Kosovo to be a sovereign and independent state.

I had thought there were only two resolutions, in 1990 and 1991. But I see no reason to doubt Noel Malcolm unless someone can give chapter and verse.

Incidentally, on 2 July the Assembly of Kosovo was not "self-declared"; it still existed in law (although not for much longer - three days I think!).

I therefore propose to amend this sentence to "On 2 July 1990 a majority of members of the Kosovo Assembly passed a resolution declaring the Republic of Kosova within the Yugoslav Federation; in September 1991 (after the dissolution of the Assembly by Serbia) they passed a Constitution which would have given the Republic effective sovereignty but which would have also been compatible with a Yugoslav confederation; in September 1992 they declared the Republic a sovereign and independent state".

--Markd999 (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a shady area with very little known about the events of the time. My only knowledge is that the Republic of Albania recognised Kosova and the sources seem to agree that this diplomatic recognition came in 1991. I think there's more to it, not that the events listed in "Short History" are wrong, I know they are accurate. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really "shady" at all if one reads the countless books written about this period. I can suggest some if your interested? Ottomanist (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Provisional Institutions of Self-Government
Current version reads: However, since 1999, the Serb-inhabited areas of Kosovo, such as North Kosovo have remained de facto independent from the Albanian-dominated government in Pristina. Local politics in the Serb areas are dominated by the Serbian List for Kosovo and Metohija. The Serbian List is led by Oliver Ivanović, an engineer from Mitrovica. Within Serbia, Kosovo is the concern of the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija, led by minister Goran Bogdanović.[58]"

This is, apart from the last sentence, which belongs elsewhere because (I think) the Ministry for KiM was formed after the Declaration of Independence, very outdated, as argued for the Kosovo Politics Section. Moreover, if I remember correctly, the SLKM was only created in 2004 for the elections, and the "participationist" strand of Serb politicians in Kosovo was previously called something else.

In addition, the current version talks of the "current" government meaning the one which existed in 2007-2010. this needs to be corrected.

The Article should have something about the Ministry for KiM. I shall put this somewhere else, unless someone objects. I would suggest that the final sentence cited in my first paragraph might read: "Within Serbia, Kosovo is the concern of the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija, led by Minister Goran Bogdanovic - former Minister of Agriculture in the Kosovo Provisional Institutions of Self-Government - and State Secretary Oliver Ivanovic, former deputy in the Kosovo Assembly and former leader of the Serbian List for Kosovo and Metohija" --Markd999 (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: ICJ
The President of the Court used the words ascribed to him here while reading the opinion; in other words, it was not just a personal statement.

I propose to edit this sentence to "...did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence': nor did the declaration of independence violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244, since this did not describe Kosovo's final status, nor had the Security Council reserved for itself the decision on final status", citing the advisory opiion itself (pp 3 and 4)

--Markd999 (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Background: Serb Exodus 1999-2001
Current text reads: "Some 200,000–280,000, representing the majority of the Serb population, left when the Serbian forces left. There was also some looting of Serb properties and even violence against some of those Serbs and Roma who remained.[40] The current number of internally displaced persons is disputed,[41][42][43][44] with estimates ranging from 65,000[45] to 250,000.[46][47][48] Many displaced Serbs are afraid to return to their homes, even with UNMIK protection. Around 120,000–150,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo, but are subject to ongoing harassment and discrimination due to physical threats for their safety.[49]"

There are obvious contradictions here. The first sentence says that 200,000-280,000 Serbs left. The third sentence estimates the range at 65,000 to 250,000. 280,000 Serbs leaving would constitute not only the majority of Serbs, but, I think, more Serbs than there were recorded as living in Kosovo in the 1991 census; it is not compatible with 120,000-150,000 Serbs remaining, and (if explicable at all) can only be explicable by including Roma etc in the number of displaced persons.

To try and be neutral (because I do not think that anyone can give exact estimates or judge the motives of everyone leaving) I would replace with:

"Estimates of the number of Serbs who left when Serbian forces left Kosovo vary from 65,000 to 250,000. (X,000 Serbs were recorded as living in Kosovo in the census of 1991. Many Roma also left and may be included in the higher estimates). The majority of Serbs who left were from urban areas, but Serbs who stayed (whether in urban or rural areas) suffered violence which largely (but not entirely) ceased between early 2001 and the riots of March 2004, and ongoing fears of harassment may be a factor deterring their return" --Markd999 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Provisional Institutions of Self-Government II
Whitewriter: you restored the sentence referring to PDK and ORA accusations that the LDK/PDK coalition government of 2004 was corrupt with the explanation: "important thing. dont remove it, it have vast historical importance! corruption in the first government.) (undo)"

It's low on my list of priorities, but you might like to revert. This was the second coalition government, not the first. The first (and all subsequent) governments have equally been accused of corruption. I doubt whether one can find a case in the Balkans where opposition parties do not accuse the government of corruption (in my opinion, correctly, although in individual allegations they may be wrong), or, for that matter, coalition governments in the Balkans where the parties in the coalition do not (in private) accuse each other. I think that corruption should be treated in a separate section.

And - please - remember that proposed edits should be put it on the talk page first. --Markd999 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ок, i will comment on something else. This vast spamming of all kosovo related talk pages have to stop. You opened 10+ threads with controversial edits, and if none respond in 24 h, you just pov pushed your edit. DONT open any new threads, and gather all of your propositions in one thread. Then, wait until someone respond there. This way of "editing" is pointless. I question your edits very, very much, but i cannot run from page to page, and from thread to thread to stop this madness. Please, slow down, this pages are under ARBMAC. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, revert this vast removal of sources, of which you didnt gathered consensus. And that is not optional. You cannot say that you disagree. I dont care. Gain consensus for your edits. This looks like political cleanup to me. Also, you are quite familiar with wiki guidelines, so can you tell me the name of your previous account, in order to follow wiki rules up to the end? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC

Dear WhiteWriter,

In future I will give 48 hours from proposals for edits to doing them,if you agree to doing the same. (OK?). I will NOT open all edits in one thread. Unless they are clearly related, they should be considered on their own merits. I have no previous account. Although our personal views on Kosovo would seem to be different (though not always) I think that the over-riding factor has to be that articles have to have a NPOV. That's not "political cleanup" because articles have to reflect views with which I disagree, to the extent that facts or references may support them.

Pozdrav od mene. --Markd999 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose to delete the last sentence about Serb politics in Kosovo being dominated by the SLKM, led by Oliver Ivanović, beacause they are not. Oliver is now State Secretary in the Serbian Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija, and I think the SLKM no longer exists. Somewhere else in the article, under the current situation, I will put in that Serb politics south of the River Ibar are dominated by the Srpska Liberalna Strana (Serbian Liberal Party) led by Slobodan Petrovic. --Markd999 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, that is old data, need updating. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sovereignty
@ Evlekis: Do not edit war, or I will take the issue straight to WP:ANI, and they will decide what to do. Majuru (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another dramathread on AN/I is the last thing we need. We should discuss changes on this talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You should be reported Majuru, this is 1RR parole per week. Revert your self, or you will be reported for breaching ARBMAC restrictions, again. You have to gain consensus for this highly controversial edit.-- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Further to the sensible remark by Bobrayner, discussion is definitely the solution. Obviously I have no fear of Majuru consulting the admins because it is patently obvious that the comment being inserted is that badly in breach of NPOV policies that its cancellation is imperetive. In theory, Kosovo can only be one of two things: an independent country per Majuru or an intergral part of Serbia per international law. In practice, it is a disputed territory with about one half recognising independence and the other half Serbian sovereignty. To this end, we neither declare the region independent nor a province of another land - we merely explain the facts in the intro and then allow the reader to draw his own conclusion. But no way does a board of incompetent halfheads convene to pronounce Kosovo, or Abkhazia, or the State of Palestine "fully sovereign" or "partly sovereign". If we deduced matters this way, then it would debase the entire structure of careful editing that has taken place over the years to ensure the scenario be treated fairly; furthermore, it would derail every aspect of the article and render it senseless. The most important entity when acknowledging sovereign status is the outgoing host: for example Belgrade's assembly which recognised Montenegro but not Kosovo, and Khartoum in recognising South Sudan. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong on several counts - the most important entity when acknowledging sovereign status is not necessarily the 'outgoing host', since the Kosovo 'liberation' army wrestled control over the territory from from colonial master Serbia without really asking it. Neither did the Algerians ask the French when they started their anti-colonial war of independence. The issue is that Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo articles need substantial rewriting to present reality. It is not as some claim, the work of years of careful editing. Ottomanist (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The so-called "liberation" army wrestled control from nobody, the deed of changing their nappies was done by NATO which provided an airforce whilst its members provided the rebels with arms and tanks. Every Kosovan separatist knows that one on one vs the rest of Serbia and Montenegro and they would not have been militarily successful. The edit by Majuru concerned the term sovereignty and this is something which does indeed involve the overlord in question, because the legislation is international law and not arbitrary de facto standing. Furthermore, we as editors have the task of being neutral and observing all vantage points and most of us have edited carefully to reflect this. The lifting of supervision of Kosovo's governance elevates the region to the chunk of Western Sahara controlled by anti-Moroccan forces and South Ossetia. This does not suddenly award "sovereignty". As far as Kosovar Albanians are concerned, the land was sovereign once it delcared independence. This steering committee business is not a milestone for the international picture. When the Ottoman Empire lost its territories following the First Balkan War, it came to recognise its losses and did this when redrawing its own borders to only include East Thrace within Europe. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * O my god, people, what are you doing? This article is under 1RR per week restriction. That means that no one can revert anything more then once per week! Please, all of you regulars must follow that, despite your personal POV's. I agree that Majuru's adit was wrong for several reasons, but you must not revert this article! -- WhiteWriterspeaks 08:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, wrong again, Evlekis: everybody knows that the Serbs lacked the will to fight in the wars (massively high desertion rate proves this, particularly among the urban educated ones). Comparing Kosovo to Western Sahara only proves your bias. And I agree with the above, you must revert your self or I will report you all for breaking the revert rule, which many users have been banned for in the past. Ottomanist (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ottomanist, I believe you have crossed wires and evidently have no idea who the Serbs are or about their activities during the 1990s. At the precise point NATO began its actions in 1999, FR Yugoslavia (of which Serbia was a part) was at war. Had the war been going smoothly in favour of NATO's chosen belligerent, it would not have needed to involve itself in the way that it did. So desertion or not, it had an army strong enough to fight the KLA fairly in 1999, was showing no signs of slacking, and there was no way the Albanian rebels were going to beat them without external help. I may also add that FRY forces continued to fight even during the NATO strikes and the war was brought to an end by agreement and not decisive conquest as you believe. The way you talk, you make it sound as if the Kosovar Albanians drove Yugoslav forces out of Kosovo with their might and will. You must have dreamt it. They can't even control three municipalities in the north NOW. But this is way off-topic, we were only discussing the definitions of sovereignty within international law and this is very shady, and how we as editors go about tackling the issue. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's beyond the scope of this discussion but I suggest you read a bit more about the war and the massive desertion of troops who weren't willing to die for Milosevic's crazed nationalist dreams. Please read more, enlightenment is the only way forward. Simply put, the nationalists only wanted the rich northern mines and that's it. Only ignorant soldiers in the villages and towns being fed lies by RTS were willing to fight. Ottomanist (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In a war in which every side's news networks were selective and fabricated events, picking on RTS is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, just because it was the only news network honst enough to inform its viewers that the nation was at war with separatists committing atrocities against civilians. No soldier died for "Milošević's crazed nationalist dreams" simply because he never had any where you are concerned, he fought to prevent a portion of his internationally recogniosed territory from separating. You clearly know very little about Kosovo and seem to think that it was an independent country before a neighbouring nationalist attempted to annex it. Please read more, enlightenment is the only way forward..I suggest you examine a few maps and read some books published before 1999 so it sinks deep in that Kosovo was within FR Yugoslavia; if trying to keep your own land is "nationalistic" then what do you suggest is "non-nationalist"? To stand by and let every minor community wishing to break away simply melt your country away? People always desert at times of war but you never find a Serb whether civilian or military that supports Kosovan independence. One wing vehemently cherishes it and believes it should remain at all costs, the other is prepared to lose it merely to see Serbia move forward - they feel that the Kosovo crisis is an obstacle to their development; this is not the same as "not believing in a crazed nationalist dream". I believe the KLA did not have defectors, but then again, they were a voluntary organisation and they couldn't even some recruit members of their own flock. Indeed a fair portion of the Albanian death count in Kosovo is subject to having been murdered not by FRY forces but by enraged KLA agents accusing them of being traitors. So whether the Yugoslav forces lost members or not, they were strong enough to take on their opponents in a fair one-on-one scenario and they were certainly never wrestled out of Kosovo by some ground force. As I said, if this were the case, the KLA would have declared an end to hostilities long before the need for NATO to rush in and change their nappies. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you've just a little too much into this desertion chapter. For the point you are trying to make it is wholly irrelevant. You are claiming that the rebels "wrestled the opponent out" and claiming the opponent "lacked the will to fight" and your reasoning is "desertion". Firstly, soldiers obey commands and their own feelings are not taken into account. Now if some of them lacked the will to fight, it cannot have been very many given that the army was still powerful enough to chase the terrorists back over the Albanian border each times they advanced. When you say "Serbia lacked the will to fight" (proving you know nothing because VJ means Army of Yugoslavia), you sound as if the country itself didn't have the will to fight. This is demonstrated by something by act act called "surrendering", this never happened. And no matter what figure you have for deserters, it is an ineffable fraction compared to the number of loyalists, and by loyalists I mean those who do their job REGARDLESS of personal opinion. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Source dispute
Which part of the sentence "Kosovo to gain full sovereignty" is difficult for you to grasp? You are falsifying sources, the government of Kosovo is mentioned only once in both articles. Sovereignty, on the other hand, is usually enjoyed by states. Majuru (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The part that you evidently do not grasp is the source itself. The Tom, Dick and Harry who proclaimed this comment carry no weight in international affairs. It is not as if China, Russia and India will now scratch their heads and reverse their decisions on recognition based on one committee cancelling its supervisory status. The message you are trying to impart is that Kosovo's governance will no longer be subject to supervision; of course its proponents will use the language "now it is sovereign" but the factors which actually govern this alleged milestone lie within the realms of international law. Look at Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, nobody supervising it and wholly governed from within. Would you like to edit the article to pronounce the region as "sovereign and independent" (by removing de facto)? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tom, Dick, Harry and Evlekis do not have a law degree; Spindelegger, Austrian foreign minister on the other hand, is a Doctor of Law . So if he says Kosovo will gain full sovereignty, then it's a perfect, reliable source to me. Majuru (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is a perfectly reliable source proving that Spinelegger himself deems the region sovereign, nobody else seems to agree with him. It is also the case that his nation deemed the same territory independent years earlier. Let's see now if Spinelegger's wisdom can revise Belgrade's appraisal of the situation and whether he can speed up the process of Kosovo's dream of U.N. membership. You really don't have a clue do you. Thousands of people on this Earth have law degrees, not all agree with Spinelegger; it is not a law degree that deems Sweden independent and Transdniester a rebel state. I think you need to read your own sources back to yourself, possibly a hundred times until it has sunk in. The committee only referred to the supervision of Kosovo's assembly, in that they feel they no longer need to change Hashim Thaçi's nappies for him - he has learnt to sit on he potty on his own. The language they use is "it is fully sovereign" but in reality, the very fact that they were part of a "supervisory" venture only further testifies that these individuals favoured Kosovan independence from the outset. It is not as if Russia's decision not to recognise was down to awaiting this major announcement. To be honest Ottomanist-Majuru, you are making a big deal out of nothing, I have restored your sources, what more do you want? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you told this to Jeremić? Does he know? Majuru (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Does Vuk Jeremić know what? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

INTRO
I take it everyone is happy with the changes to the intro - cleared up massively unnecessary legal jargon yet retained essential

1) Kosovo is self-declared Republic 2) This is contested by Serbia

Any grammatical issues can be brought up here. - Ottomanist (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you've kept essential things considered, a massive edit though wouldn't you say. 3,000 characters removed and some sources were also taken out. I have no reason to play the antagonist here but as the day unfolds, some editors may reintroduce elements of what was taken out. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your additions are welcome. The jargon at the beginning clogged the article, making it hard to follow the text. Now it looks better, not as good as it can be, but better. Ottomanist (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's excellent. Good luck, I hope it remains in this shape. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with you massive remove, and asking for your revert. This lede was created by consensus, and you should create one for this proposal. Again, please revert, and discuss here first, that edit is unacceptable like this. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't remove anything meaningful and the other users made slight adjustments. calm down. you have already been barred 15 times, a lot of the time for battleground mentality in this page. I don't think you're the best judge of a good edit. Ottomanist (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I get the full picture. Calm down, you've been barred 15 times, good idea, provoke other editors whilst you make major changes without consensus because you know a restriction looms over all of us. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis, let us be relaxed here. it's not the end of the world. The changes keep both the spirit and the substance of what was written before. All that was done was removing cluttered, convoluted parts. - Ottomanist (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

All right, but whilst relaxed, let's not raise former issues with editors. It looks like none of us has a clean past. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * None of us? All generalisations are wrong. ;-) Now, can we concentrate on article content? bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. I meant that White Writer, Ottomanist and I have all at some point had our contributions impugned, I just didn't want to keep digging old wounds. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Constitution of Kosovo
Current text reads:

"Kosovo is under de facto governance of the Republic of Kosovo except for North Kosovo, which remains under de facto governance of Serbia.[dubious – discuss] The Republic of Kosovo is governed by legislative, executive and judicial institutions that derive from, and are set-up in, accordance with the Constitution of Kosovo. In November 2001, the OSCE supervised the first elections for the Kosovo Assembly.[65] The last parliamentary elections were held in 2010. The last local elections were held in November 2009, the first elections since Kosovo declared independence on 17 February 2008.United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo has undergone a significant reconfiguration, and no longer possesses the capacity, having handed over its few responsibilities to EULEX, to govern in any meaningful fashion. It will, its head claims, function as a facilitator of contact between Kosovo and those states or organisations which do not recognise it yet.[66] North or Northern Kosovo is a region in the northern part of Kosovo with an ethnic Serb majority that functions largely autonomously from the remainder of Kosovo.[67][68] Ibarian Kolashin, a toponym that pre-dates the political partition, is also used to refer to the area. North Kosovo is by far the largest of the Serb-dominated areas within Kosovo, and unlike the others, directly borders Central Serbia. This has facilitated its ability to govern itself almost completely independently of the Kosovo institutions in a de facto state of partition. Although the Kosovo status process had repeatedly ruled out formalising this partition as a permanent solution, it has been increasingly mooted amidst continued deadlock.[69][70]"

This is, if one thinks about it, very odd. Only the second sentence of these two long paragraphs is anything to do with the Constitution of Kosovo: nowhere is the Constitution described. There is a lot about Northern Kosovo, which only duplicates information elsewhere in the article, and in a less NPOV way. UNMIK has nothing to do with the Constitution of Kosovo; although EULEX and the ICO do, because their roles are recognised in the Constitution.

The section needs a lot of work. But I propose to delete the second paragraph entirely, since it merely re-states in a non-NPOV way what has been stated elsewhere in the article in a way which has been agreed as NPOV.

As a temporary expedient, I propose to replace the first paragraph with:

"The Republic of Kosovo is governed by legislative, executive and judicial institutions which derive from the Constitution of Kosovo, although (as noted previously) North Kosovo is in practice largely controlled by institutions of the Republic of Serbia or parallel institutions funded by Serbia. The Constitution provides for a temporary international supervisory function exercised by the Intenational Civilian Office (ICO), and, in the field of the rule of law, by EULEX. The International Steering Group has announced that the ICO's mandate has been successfully concluded and that the ICO will cease to exist on 10 September 2012 (citation). EULEX, whose role has been separately negotiated with the UN and the Republic of Serbia, will continue to exist" --Markd999 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence
Current section reads:

"On 8 October 2008, the UN General Assembly resolved to request the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia.[52] The advisory opinion, which is legally non-binding but had been expected to carry "moral" weight,[53] was rendered on 22 July 2010, holding that Kosovo's declaration of independence was not in violation of international law.[54][55]"

A previously accepted version has now disappeared from the shortened lead. I propose to edit this passage, with citations to what was in the previously accepted lead, to read as follows:

"On 8 October 2008, the UN General Assembly resolved, on a proposal by Serbia,to ask the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence The advisory opinion, which is not binding over decisions by states to recognise or not recognise Kosovo, was rendered on 22 July 2010, holding that Kosovo's declaration of independence was not in violation either of general principles of international law, which do not prohibit unilateral declarations of independence, nor of specific international law - in particular UNSCR 1244 - which did not define the final status process nor reserve the outcome to a decision of the Security Council" --Markd999 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the changes to be made in the article, though not in the lead as that clogs that section too much. - Ottomanist (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to stir the pot a little bit: everything that you change here, will eventually be needed for the article Kosovo, where this article will eventually merge. Bolerodancer (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge? Are you sure? I didn't know a discussion was taking place on that. I thought the debate about three years ago was to fork two articles; Kosovo was long in existence, many editrs felt Republic of saw enough activity to warrant a separate article so the redirect was replaced with this main article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Bolerdancer, open up a new thread and we can all contribute, definitely seems to be the case that two articles is becoming irrelevant. But let's stick here to the topic at hand, shall we. - Ottomanist (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment delivered by Bolerodancer imlpies that this article will evetually merge with Kosovo. I am curious where this information came from and I am supposing that a talk may have taken place somewhere but without everyone involved with this article knowing. Right now as it stands I am not party to whether there should be one or two articles. Yes it needs assessment and consideration and if the larger chunk of this article is verbatim then it may be that we cut the remaining sections and place them onto Kosovo. But I always thought that the creation of this article was supported by the Albanian editors and opposed by the other party. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the article should go back to the status quo; there wasn't a consensus to fork it in the first place. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Without looking back, I'm relying on memory. I seem to recall two sessions, some considerable time apart. Initially the plan to fork was rejected but many people commented and arguments were both ways; some time later a conversation returned and that time the article split, I think there was less resistance from opponents that time. Either way, if this article really were the result of a user unilaterally flouting consensus then he may find himself in trouble. What people must realise however is that should this material be returned, then the headword on the other article must remain Kosovo with no qualifiers. ROK will need its own section but we can't have an article based primarily on the republic. I doubt we will given that this page is likely going the other way. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the lede
I made some changes to the lede, explained here:


 * I think it is important to mention North Kosovo and the fact that the RoK does not have effective control over it. We do so for other state such as Cyprus and Northern Cyprus.


 * I removed the history section, as this article does not include ancient and medieval history. The lede is meant to provide a summary of the article and reflect its contents, not include material that is not in the article.  Till such a time as this article includes ancient, medieval, Ottoman and 20th century history in the lede, these should not be included therein.


 * I changed the last sentence from "Serbia contests this", as it is too simplistic. Not just Serbia, but many other countries (e.g. Russia, China) contest Kosovo's independence and consider it a Serbian province. Athenean (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You removed sourced material from the Encyclopedia of Islam and then claimed that the sources were not particularly good? I kept your bit about North Kosovo. In the future don't remove sourced material or I'll have to report you. - Ottomanist (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't support Ottomanist's latest revision, a simple copy-paste, as Kosovo is a disputed territory, there is no need for expanding the intro with information is found in Kosovo-article and Republic of Kosovo#History - there should be a summary of the status [and recent history] of Republic of Kosovo. Compare Northern Cyprus - Cyprus. I do think that the interlink to Kosovo should be bolded.--Z oupan 22:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Republic of Kosovo did not come out of thin air. Mind you, your comments above are more and more in favour of a merger between the two pages. I will start this discussion soon, unless anyone wants to beat me to it. - Ottomanist (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

EULEX/ International Supervision
Current text reads: "The European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, also known as EULEX Kosovo or EULEX, is a deployment of European Union (EU) police and civilian resources to Kosovo. This Common Security and Defence Policy mission is the international civil presence in Kosovo operating under the umbrella of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. Serbia and a number of countries had initially strictly objected to the mission and supported UNMIK, demanding approval by the United Nations Security Council, which was rendered in late 2008.[citation needed] After signing a 5-point plan between Serbia and the UN, the UN SC approved the addition of the EULEX as an assistance mission subjected to the UNMIK, rather than outright replacing it, which would be technical in essence and not address the Kosovo status question, also rejected the Ahtisaari plan which the EULEX had originally supported. The mission includes around 3,200 police and judicial personnel (1,950 international, 1,250 local),[54] and began a four month deployment process on 16 February 2008.[55][56] The mission intends to remain in Kosovo until at least June 2012.[57] The head of the mission is Xavier Bout de Marnhac.[58]"

This is not an NPOV, and it is in one respect factually incorrect (the UNSC has never rejected the Ahtisaari Plan, because it has never voted on it). It ignores the International Civilian Office, which of course Serbia did not recognise, but nonetheless had more de facto powers granted to it by the Ahtisaari Plan (and the Kosovo Constitution) than EULEX, which is a specialised mission which so far has not managed to do very much (both Albanians and Serbs would generally agree on this). EULEX does not take the orders of UNMIK and is not "subjected" to it. It is also, of course, outdated. It is, I think, possible to remedy these defects without damaging either the Serbian or Kosovar positions.

I would therefore propose a new heading: "Continued International Supervision" and a text as follows:

"The Ahtisaari Plan envisaged two forms of international supervision of Kosovo after independence: the International Civilian Office (ICO), which would monitor the implementation of the Plan and would have a wide range of veto powers over legislative and executive actions, and the European Union Rule of Law Mission to Kosovo (EULEX) which would have the narrower mission of deploying police and civilian resources (including prosecutors) with the aim of developing the Kosovo police and judicial systems but also with its own powers of arrest and prosecution.

The Kosovo Declaration of Independence and subsequent Constitution granted these bodies the powers assigned to them by the Ahtisaari Plan. Since the Plan was not voted on by the UN Security Council, the ICO's legal status within Kosovo was dependent on the de facto situation and Kosovo legislation; it was supervised by an International Steering Group (ISG) composed of the main states which recognised Kosovo. It was never recognised by Serbia or other non-recognising states. EULEX was also initially opposed by Serbia, but its mandate and powers were accepted in late 2008 by Serbia and the UN Security Council as operating under the umbrella of the continuing UNMIK mandate, in a status-neutral way, but with its own operational independence.

The ICO's existence terminated on 10 September 2012, after the ISG had determined that Kosovo had substantially fulfilled its obligations under the Ahtisaari Plan. EULEX continues its existence under both Kosovo and international law; in 2012 the Kosovo president formally requested a continuation of its mandate until 2014."

--Markd999 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Districts
Does anyone see any purpose in a section which contains no text? I don't; unless there is a reason for this I propose to delete it. By the way, in English a "district" can mean any area, not necessarily with administrative boundaries, within a couple of ke kilometres or so, or maybe forty kilometres (the "Lake District" or the "Peak District"). It's hardly scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Serbian Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija
Current text reads:

"In February 2007 the Union of Serbian Districts and District Units of Kosovo and Metohija transformed into the Serbian Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija, presided by Marko Jakšić, a hard-line nationalist residing in the northern part of the divided city of Mitrovica.[57] It has demanded unity of the Serb people in Kosovo, boycotted EULEX, and announced massive protests in support of Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo. On 18 February 2008, day after Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, the Assembly declared it "null and void"."

Is this relevant any more? Does the Assembly even exist any longer? The article makes clear enough elsewhere that most Serbs (even south of the River Ibar) were against the Declaration of Independence, and that the northern municipalities largely remain outside the Kosovo institutional framework. Of course the Assembly demanded the unity of the Serb people in Kosovo (behind its policies); so too has Bishop Teodosije demanded the unity of the Serb people in Kosovo in a quite different sense, that the northern municipalities stop behaving in a way which damages the interests of Serbs south of the River Ibar (I can't give a written source for this but I've listened to enough sermons in Visoki Dečani).

In my view this is ancient history without present consequences, and I propose to delete unless there are real counter-arguments/ Markd999 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is of course not ancient history and has significant present consequences. Demands of unity, announcements and undue weight given to Marko Jaksic removed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Economy
This section is very outdated, and needs major overhaul.

As a start, however, the current text (under "Trade and Investment") reads:

"The economy is hindered by Kosovo's still-unresolved international status, which has made it difficult to attract investment and loans.[76] The province's economic weakness has produced a thriving black economy in which smuggled petrol, cigarettes and cement are major commodities. The prevalence of official corruption and the pervasive influence of organised crime gangs has caused serious concern internationally. The United Nations has made the fight against corruption and organised crime a high priority, pledging a "zero tolerance" approach.[77]"

The second of the references here dates to 2004. The reference to smuggling of cigarettes and building materials was probably correct at the time: street vendors of cigarettes usually offered packets with Western European packaging. I suspect that smuggling of petrol was already something largely in the past: the heyday of this was in the period 1999-2001 (and what is not referred to in the article is that many of the smuggling methods were an inheritance from the Milosevic era when Serbia including Kosovo were under UN sanctions). By 2008, the main smuggling problem was the absence of effective customs controls on the Serbian boundary in the morth. This too should now be much less of a problem with the 2012 agreement with Serbia on joint border management. Few Kosovars would argue that official corruption or organised crime (often linked) are not still problems, but so they are in most Balkan states and they are not given so much prominence in Wikipedia entries on those states: nor do they obviously deter foreign investment (although the quality of the investments may be lower because of corruption). Kosovo has not sought foreign loans, other than from the IMF. The reference to UNMIK's zero tolerance approach to corruption, which I am afraid was not taken very seriously by either Serbs or Albanians, is no loger relevant since UNMIK does not claim to wield power.

I think the answer is to delete the paragraph.Markd999 (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the existing content is flawed, but it would be really helpful to have some good content on the economy. Probably built from scratch. bobrayner (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'll try. If not perfect, almost bound to be better.

Markd999 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose, as a start, to alter the main part of this section to:

" Kosovo was the poorest part of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), and in the 1990s its economy suffered from the combined results of political upheaval, the Yugoslav wars, Serbian dismissal of Kosovo employees, and international sanctions on Serbia, of which it was then part. After 1999, it had an economic boom as a result of post-war reconstruction and foreign assistance. In the period from 2003 to 2011, despite declining foreign assistance, growth of GDP averaged over 5% a year. It is noteworthy that growth continued during the financial crisis of 2009, and returned to 5% in 2011 Inflation was low. Kosovo has a strongly negative balance of trade; in 2004, the deficit of the balance of goods and services was close to 70 percent of GDP, and was 39% of GDP in 2011. Remittances from the Kosovo diaspora accounted for an estimated 14 percent of GDP, little changed over the previous decade.[3][10] Most economic development since 1999 has taken place in the trade, retail and construction sectors. The private sector which has emerged since 1999 is mainly small-scale. The industrial sector remains weak. The economy, and its sources of growth, are therefore geared far more to demand than production, as shown by the current account, which was in 2011 in deficit by about 20% of GDP. Consequently Kosovo is highly dependent on remittances from the diaspora (the majority of these from Germany and Switzerland), FDI (of which a high proportion also comes from the diaspora, and other capital inflows.[3] Government revenue is also dependent on demand rather than production; only 14% of revenue comes from direct taxes and the rest mainly from customs duties and taxes on consumption. However, Kosovo has very low levels of general government debt (only 5.8% of GDP) [3], although this would rise if Serbia recognised Kosovo and an agreement was reached on Kosovo's share of SFRY debt (which Serbia is currently servicing, though Kosovo is putting money into a separate account to take account, on a conservative basis, of potential liabilties. The Government also has liquid assets resulting from past fiscal surpluses (deposited in the Central Bank and invested abroad). Under applicable Kosovo law, there are also substantial assets from privatisation of socially-owned enterprises (SOEs), also invested abroad by the Central Bank, which should mostly accrue to the Government when liquidation processes have been completed.[3] The net foreign assets of the financial corporations and the Pension Fund amount to well over 50% of GDP. Moreover, the banking system in Kosovo seems very sound. For the banking system as a whole, the Tier One Capital Ratio as of January 2012 was 17.5%, double the ratio required in the EU; the proportion of non-performing loans was 5.9%, well below the regional average; and the credit to deposit ratio was only just above 80%. The assets of the banking system have increased from 5% of GDP in 2000 to 60% of GDP as of January 2012.[3] Since the housing stock in Kosovo is generally good by South-East European standards, this suggests that (if the legal system's ability to enforce claims on collateral and resolve property issues is trusted), credit to Kosovars could be safely expanded. The United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) introduced an external trade office and customs administration on September 3, 1999, when it established border controls in Kosovo. All goods imported to Kosovo face a flat 10% duty.[11] These taxes are collected at all Customs Points at Kosovo's borders, including that between Kosovo and Serbia.[12] UNMIK and Kosovo institutions have signed free-trade agreements with Croatia,[13] Bosnia and Herzegovina,[14] Albania[15] and the Republic of Macedonia.[11] The euro is the official currency of Kosovo.[16] Kosovo adopted the German mark in 1999 to replace the Serbian dinar,[17] and later replaced it with the euro, although the Serbian dinar is still used in some Serb-majority areas (mostly in the north). This means that Kosovo has no levers of monetary policy over its economy, and must rely on a conservative fiscal policy to provide the means to respond to external shocks.[3] Officially registered unemployment stood at 40% of the labour force in January 2012,[3][10] although some estimates have put it as high as 60%.[18] The IMF have pointed out, however, that informal employment is widespread, and the ratio of wages to per capita GDP is the second highest in South-East Europe; the true rate may therefore be lower.[3] Unemployment among the Roma minority may be as high as 90%.[19] The mean wage in 2009 was $2.98 per hour. The dispute over Kosovo's international status, and the interpretation which some non-recognising states place on symbols which may or may not imply sovereignty, continues to impose economic costs on Kosovo. Examples include flight diversions because of a Serbian ban on flights to Kosovo over its territory; loss of revenues because of a lack of a regional dialling code (end-user fees on fixed lines accrue to Serbian Telecoms, while Kosovo has to pay Monaco and Slovenia for use of their regional codes for mobile phone connections; no IBAN code for bank transfers; and no regional Kosovo code for the internet. A major deterrent to foreign manufacturing investment in Kosovo was removed in 2011 when the European Council accepted a Convention allowing Kosovo to be accepted as part of its rules for diagonal cumulative origination, allowing the label of Kosovo origination to goods which have been processed there but originated in a country elsewhere in the Convention. Since 2002 the European Commission has compiled a yearly progress report on Kosovo, evaluating its political and economic situation. Kosovo became a member of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on 29 June 2009." Markd999 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very impressive. Following a couple of recent Economist articles, I could think of a couple of tweaks to the content (particularly around banking, currency, and fiscal stuff), plus a little language pedantry ("It is noteworthy that" is redundant), but it's better to do that once the section has gone live. bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Provisional Institutions of Self-Government
Current text reads: "However, since 1999, the Serb-inhabited areas of Kosovo, such as North Kosovo have remained de facto independent from the Albanian-dominated government in Pristina."

Untrue and not NPOV. Other bits of the article give a much more nuanced and accurate version of the situation in North Kosovo. But south of the Ibar Serb-majority areas could never have been described, even in shorthand, as "de facto independent of the government in Pristina". The Serb mayors of Novo Brdo and Štrpce were attending Government meetings with mayors at least as early as the end of 2004, and their municipalities (with large Albanian minorities) were unworkable unless they came to some accommodation. Other Serb-inhabited areas in the South were until 2008 within Albanian-majority municipalities. A few Serb settlements, such as Gracanica/Čaglavica were large enough to have significant institutions of their own outside the municipal ones, but many more Serbs lived in villages with no such institutions. Since the creation of more Serb-majority municipalities south of the Ibar in 2008, all of them operate as more-or-less normal units of Kosovo local government.

I propose to delete. Markd999 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It should not be deleted, but fixed. North Kosovo is de facto independent from the Albanian-dominated government in Pristina, while other enclaves south are not. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Happy to oblige you, by keeping the sentence and fixing it, but propose to replace "de facto independent from..." with "largely outside the control of Kosovo institutions". The Kosovo Police Service and Kosovo Customs are after all present in the North, and at least one Serbian bank has accepted the supervision of the Kosovo Central Bank.Markd999 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But i already told you, that sentence suggests that north should be under control of Kosovo institutions. You are taking sides in your comment. I didnt told you that North Kosovo beats as a heart of Serbia, but that it work independently, as it is, with RoK trying to forcibly impose their control over north, and most of Serbian services working more or less efficiently. Do you understand my view? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course I understand your view, but I do not think my sentence suggests either that the North "should" or "should not" operate under Kosovo institutions, only that (to a limited extent, agreed by Serbia, those institutions operate there). If you suggest a different NPOV wording I shall be very happy to consider it, of course.Markd999 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Current text includes:

"Following an insurgency by the majority Albanians throughout the 1990s"

But this is nonsense, even from the most Serbian point of view.Where was the insurgency? The KLA's first armed actions were in 1997, I think. I am very tempted to replace this with an Albanian Kosovar point of view, but the simplest solution is to replace with "Following an insurgency by Albanians from 1997-1999, after a failure to produce results from non-violent resistance to Serbian rule from 1990..." Markd999 (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources?? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Noel Malcolm pp 334-336. Tim Judah but I can't find him right now. First armed action (incidentally I have no problem with "terrorist" not 1997 as I thought but 1996). Markd999 (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrative regions
Current text reads:

"Kosovo, for administrative reasons, is considered as consisting of seven districts.[81] North Kosovo maintains its own government, infrastructure and institutions by its dominant ethnic Serb population in the District of Kosovska Mitrovica, viz. in the Leposavić, Zvečan and Zubin Potok municipalities and the northern part of Kosovska Mitrovica. In October 2009, Kosovo signed an agreement to re-adjust its border with the Republic of Macedonia by exchanging some lands[82]"

Maybe this is true under Serbian law (I don't know). But Kosovo law does not see administrative districts above municipalities; it's only municipal responsibilities and central ones (with Serb-majority municipalities able to co-operate with other zserb-majority municipalities, so that for example Parteš could have a faculty of the North Mitrovica University).

Proposal : delete. Markd999 (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Trade and Investment: Debt
Current text reads:

Kosovo has a reported foreign debt of 1.264 billion USD that is serviced by Republic of Serbia.

The amount of SFRY debt (and assets) which are attributable to Kosovo is of course disputable, on various grounds. For example, the punitive interest rate to the IMF/IBRD when the FRY was in default could and would be argued to be unallowable on the grounds that the reasons for the default (oppressing Kosovars, getting into wars with other entities of former Yugoslavia) were not decisions in which Kosovars were involved or in which they would have agreed. At a rough estimate there was a $500 million difference between the two sides during the final status negotiations, and as soon as the Kosovars thanked the Serbians for discussing "sovereign" debt the Serbian delegation obviously got orders to stay away. The current IMF estimates of foreign debt of Kosovo suggest that whereas they would have supported Serbian claims in 2008, they no longer do so.

The potential Serbian claims are mentioned above and how they may be dealt with. I propose, therefore, to delete.Markd999 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, unless you can give some counter source, so we may discus further. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 23:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I do, and I've already given it - footnote 61 of this article, where the IMF say that Kosovo has a foreign debt of 5.8% of its GDP. I do not dispute that, in addition, in the hypothetical and very unlikely event of Serbia recognising Kosovo as a state, Kosovo would have to take on its share of former SFRY debt, and this is treated as a contingent liability. But it is sovereign debt and as long as Serbia regards itself as having sovereignty over Kosovo, I cannot see how Serbia can enter into negotiations on the division of the debt. Although the principles of division of debt when states split up are relatively simple, the detail is anything but. The negotiations on the division of SFRY debt between Serbia and the other former Yugoslav states took years and had to be settled by arbitration. Kosovo would be likely to argue that any debt incurred after July 1990, when the Kosovo Assembly was abolished, was "odious debt" because Kosovars had not been consulted and it was in fact incurred in direct contravention of Kosovo's interests (to fight wars, etc etc). The footnote to the sentence I wish to delete is the claim of the Serbian Economy Minister about the amount which would be attributable to Kosovo if a division of the debt took place. This is not a neutral source. I'm quite prepared to put in the body of the article that Serbia claims this amount to be attibutable to Kosovo, if you want.Markd999 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. We should write that further in order to explain everything you elaborated. That would be improvement of the article, while just deletion would not be that helpful. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would improve the article - it would just make it much longer, and no-one much is likely to be interested in the details. I'm happy to put in the amount that Serbia claims as attributable to Kosovo, and use the same citation as here. Incidentally, I think the Serbian claim is an intellectually perfectly respectable claim by one of the parties to a dispute: it doesn't break the normal principles of debt division. I can't put in an amount that Kosovo would accept as attributable to it, because as far as I know it does not have all the paperwork on all of the debts, and until it gets access to that paperwork it could only make rough estimates. And it would be a brave (and foolish) person who tried to forecast the result of any arbitration.

If you think a longer treatment would be useful, then let's have a separate article on "Foreign Debt of Kosovo". We do not need to clutter up this article with detail that will interest almost no-one. --Markd999 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Constitution of Kosovo
Current text reads: In accordance with its constitution, "the Republic of Kosovo is a secular state and is neutral in matters of religious beliefs".

There is no further description of the contents of the constitution. This is unsatisfactory to put it mildly.

I propose to amend as follows:

"The Constitution provides for a primarily parliamentary democracy, although the President has the power to return draft legislation to the Assembly for reconsideration, and has a role in foreign affairs and certain official appointments. It specifies that "the Republic of Kosovo is a secular state and is neutral in matters of religious beliefs". Like the Constitutional Framework before it, it guarantees a minimum of ten seats in the 120-member Assembly for Serbs, and ten for other minorities, and also guarantees Serbs and other minorities places in the Government.

A wide range of legislation affecting minority communities requires not only a majority in the Assembly for passage or amendment, but also the agreement of a majority of those Assembly members who are Serbs or from other minorities. Although Kosovo is not currently a member of the Council of Europe (and thus her citizens cannot appeal to the European Court of Human Rights) the Constitution enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights in Kosovo law, and gives it primacy over any domestic Kosovo laws. Kosovo's independent Constitutional Court has indeed overturned executive actions on the grounds that they infringe upon the Convention.

The Constitution provides extensive powers to the municipalities; boundaries of municipalities cannot be changed without their agreement. Three Serb-majority municipalities (North Mitrovica, Gračanica, and Štrpce) are directly given powers which other Kosovo municipalities do not have in the fields of university education and secondary health care; the constitutional right of Serb municipalities to associate and co-operate with each other means that, indirectly, they too have potential powers in these fields" Markd999 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Politics
There is amazingly little about Kosovo's politics except in so far as inter-ethnic issues are concerned. I suppose Serbians are not much interested in intra-Kosovar Albanian political issues, but one would have expected many more contributions from Albanians, or indeed internationals.

I propose to insert after the first paragraph:

"In 2010, the Constitutional Court ruled that the first President of the Republic, Fatmir Sejdiu was violating the Constitution by remaining leader of the LDK as well as being President. He chose to resign the Presidency rather than resign as leader of the party, but lost his leadership of the LDK anyway to Isa Mustafa, who campaigned for the leadership on a platform of leaving the Government coalition with the PDK. In the early elections which resulted from this political crisis, the PDK emerged as victors over the LDK, and formed a coalition with Behgjet Pacolli, the Serb Samostralna Liberalna Stranka, and other minority community parties.

The Assembly narrowly elected Behgjet Pacolli as President, but his election was subsequently declared invalid by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional for a Presidential election to have only one candidate. He was succeeded by Ahtifete Jahjaga." Markd999 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw (this is not a proposal for an amendment) has any other country had its first two elected Presidents leave office because of rulings by its Constitutional Court, and this in the space of three years. "Guinness Book of Records", please note. Or perhaps not, if the "Guinness Book of Records" makes this an entry, we are bound to have countries competing to win the title, to the detriment of political stability everywhere.Markd999 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox: population
Should we not have the 2011 census figure (1,733,842) rather than the (higher) 2011 CIA World Factbook estimate (with a footnote that this excludes the municipalities of Zvečan, Zubin Potok, Leposavič, and North Mitrovica, where the census could not be carried out)?

I expect that a population figure which is lower than that of the 1991 census will have surprised most people (it did me), but the census was supervised by and had the approval of EUROSTAT. I'm glad that this article, unlike that of the article on "Kosovo", does not have a long section on Demographics referring to the explosive growth of the Kosovo Albanian population, because we'd probably have had a long edit war.

I think that the census figure should go in the Infobox anyway. But I'd be interested in whether others believe them or not. I can think of some reasons why they may be correct (-ish) despite the obvious sight of new buildings everywhere: people who migrated in 1999 from villages to towns have kept their village houses, lots of emigration, diaspora building or buying so that they can retire from (say) Switzerland to Kosovo on a Swiss pension but to a lower cost-of-living environment, or their children might have somewhere to live if they moved back to Kosovo; etc etc. And municipalities have had financial incentives for over-estimating their populations; the grants from central government were based at least in part on population, so that in 2004, if you added together municipalities' estimates of their own populations, Kosovo would have had a population of 2.4 million people.

All the same, it still seems to leave Kosovo demographics a bit more mysterious than most of us thought.

--Markd999 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Trade and Investment: IMF
Present text reads:

"Kosovo joined the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on 26 June 2009 as the 186th country to join the two institutions. 95% of Kosovars had previously voted in favour of the move. The accession follows a 50% tax reduction implemented in 2008 which has helped double investment in the country, setting the economy for an expected growth of "around 4.0 percent to 5.0 percent" in 2010, according to IMF projections.[77]"

This seems to me a little bizarre - well, to be honest, a lot bizarre. There was no referendum on joining the IMF and IBRD, nor would anyone have expected one. Is a tax reduction and IMF/IBRD membership connected? Unprecedented and not required by their membership conditions. And 50% tax reductions on WHAT? Income? No. VAT? No. IMF and IBRD membership were not the same date, though they were not far apart.

Proposal: delete. Markd999 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. I think the IMF and WB accession are worth keeping, but the "vote" thing sounds bizarre (maybe some magazine ran a poll?). Also, it's hard to digest the tax-cut thing. I'm sure lots of folk would like to draw a Laffer curve for Kosovo, but tax take is pretty feeble and the economy is moved by external factors more than by internal fiscal policy... the initial part sounds like the tax cut was aimed at stimulating FDI (wasn't there a reduction in corporate taxes which took effect at the start of 2009?) but that would be dwarfed by the effects of EU tariff changes, customs agreements with Serbia, &c. bobrayner (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * IMF and IBRD membership are already mentioned, although I think wrongly (to be an IBRD member you need to be an IMF member, so its very difficult to do it on the same date). The tax bit simply baffles meMarkd999 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. In 2009 Kosovo halved its corporation tax, to 10%. I suppose this rates a mention, as do the low income tax rates and low pension contributions. But IMF and World Bank membership are mentioned elsewhere, and the last three paragraphs of this section are all out of date, so I shall delete them and put the tax rates in somewhere else.Markd999 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Groovy. bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Current text reads:

"The remainder of Kosovo's frontier to the north and east is the subject of a dispute with Serbia. It has de facto control over most of the territory of Kosovo, while North Kosovo, the largest Kosovo Serb enclave, functions independently and observes parallel structures and institutions with Serbia."

But this is nonsense.

1) The line of the frontier/administrative boundary/whatever you want to call it is not a matter of dispute; the status of Kosovo is; and whatever hints about partition along the Ibar Serbian politicians may heavily drop, it is not Serbian Government policy, and cannot be under the present Serbian Constitution. This sentence should simply be deleted.

2) "It has de facto control" refers, in English grammar, to Serbia. I doubt whether even the author of this sentence intended to make that claim.

3) The North does not entirely function independently, since Kosovo institutions are present there, and "observes" in this sentence is meaningless in English.

There has been enough discussion in these articles about all this, and I propose to change to the sense in the lead of the article Kosovo (but without all the unnecessary references, which achieved consensus with Serbian contributors: in other words:

"Kosovo institutions have control over most of the territory of Kosovo, while North Kosovo, the largest Serb-majority enclave, is largely outside their control and is run de facto by Serbian institutions or parallel institutions funded by Serbia". --Markd999 (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an improvement to me. bobrayner (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox: EULEX
The date of the establishment of EULEX appears under the heading of "independence". I don't see any relevance or significance for the Infobox. From what I have seen of them, although I've known some quite intelligent and nice people there, their main visibility to Kosovars is breaking traffic rules under diplomatic immunity (in a slightly less blatant way than UNMIK police) and thus sending the message that abuse of power is not just a Kosovo or Balkan phenomenon so people will just have to put up with it.

I propose to delete.--Markd999 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oi! I resent that slight against EULEX ;-)
 * I think it's reasonable to remove it from the infobox. We should probably keep the content in the body of the article (although improvements would be welcome) bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo wine
I am considering whether an article on "Kosovo Wines" is justifiable, and those who are interested can find the article as it develops on my user page. Frankly, I do not rate current production highly and think it over-priced by comparison by Macedonian wines. But the modern technological development of Kosovo wines has started ten years later than in Macedonia, which to my mind produces far better wines than anything other than completely unaffordable wines from France at a far cheaper price, and in 1997 produced complete rubbish. If Kosovar claims for a better climate are true (and if the framework for producing quality wines is in place) this will be worth a proper article in due course, so best to start it now.--Markd999 (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck. I'd considered writing about it before but didn't have many sources. If you can do better, go ahead! I'd happily contribute one or two photos (from my winerack) to Commons... bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll find a draft in progress on my user page.--Markd999 (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Municipalities
Current text reads: "Kosovo is subdivided into 30 municipalities" (which are then listed).

This is not true, although it was until 2007-8. Under Kosovo law, it is now divided into 38 municipalities; somewhere around 90% of Kosovo Serbs live in municipalities where they are in the majority. Because Serbia does not recognise the Ahtisaari Plan and Kosovo's independence, it does not (paradoxically) recognise the existence of many of the Serb-majority municipalities, but the realities of local administrative control (whether they accept the Kosovo Government as most do, or not) correspond to those boundaries.

I propose the following revision:

"Until 2007, Kosovo was divided into 30 municipalities. It is currently divided into 38 according to Kosovo law, in which ten municipalities have Serb majorities (including around 90% of the Serb population in Kosovo). Because Serbia does not accept the Ahtisaari Plan, it does not legally recognise even new Serb-majority municipalities, but the effective exercise of local administration - whether by authorities recognising Kosovo's independence or not recognising it - follows the current boundaries established by Kosovo law".

I would then list the municipalities distinguishing between new ones and old (with ethnic majorities where not Albanian, and making clear which ones are recognised under Serbian law).

HELP NEEDED

Wikopedia (Netherlands) has a map of the new municipal boundaries. For some reason I am unable to transfer this to this article or the article on Municipalities in Kosovo. I do not think that the 30-municipality map should be deleted, but I do think that the 38-municipality map should be added in both articles.

--Markd999 (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, its not currently divided, but Republic of Kosovo created new municipalities. Your proposition is wrong, as it looks like that fact is 38 municipalities, but Serbia is somehow wrong with not recognising that. Oppose this bad proposition. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, wikipedia can only report the reality of the situation i.e. there are 38 municipalities in Kosovo, each with its own mayor and its own administration. That has nothing to do with any kind of view of legitimacy, but with the reality. Btw this article is about the Republic of Kosovo, so only the republic's administrative divisions are relevant.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ооо, yeees, i didn't saw that! Yes, this should be included then! But, instead of "Because Serbia does not accept the Ahtisaari Plan" it should be something like "Because Kosovo is still partly recognised", as it is not because of Serbia, but because of being widely unrecognised. You have constant POV that RoK is great legitimate state, and Serbia is simply refusing to recognise that (without mentioning the majority of the world in the same side), but that is not important, but have to be mentioned. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 23:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is already crammed full of "partly recognised" and "unilateral" and so on, at every place in a sentence where somebody can cram in a caveat. That is part of the solution, not part of the problem. bobrayner (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Until it is like that in RL, wikipedia should follow. When (if) thing change, i will be the first to remove all of those. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 23:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Recognition has nothing with the reality. Abkhazia and other unrecognized states have their own administrative divisions, which exist regardless of their international status.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a reasonable proposal to me. bobrayner (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They do, but only within the Abkhazia... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 00:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, all I am trying to do is say that here is the position under Kosovo law, that the realities on the ground accord with the administrative divisions under Kosovo law, but that the Serbian position is that the legally correct administrative divisions must be those under Serbian law (with any changes made by UNMIK). It's not a question of whether Serbia is right or wrong - it is certainly logical from their view of Kosovo's status and I'm just trying to include their point of view. And other non-recognising states are irrelevant: they don't claim that it is their law which should prevail in Kosovo, and most of them do not claim that Serbia's laws (rather than UNMIK's) should prevail either, so they have no reason to take positions on administrative divisions (though of course municipalities in Kosovo have powers which go a long way beyond what is normally meant by "administrative divisions")

--Markd999 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. The realities need to be recognized - NATO has recognized the independence of Kosovo, and militarily "enforces" the independence.  This is HIGHLY unlikely to ever change.  There is no chance whatsoever of a successful military opposition to this.  Also, considering the ill feelings in Kosovo of its Albanian population, I don't see any sort of reconciling happening with Serbia in this generation.  Therefore, the reality is that Kosovo is an independent state in all but some pieces of paper.  Reliable Sources that point to the details of this need to be accepted in this article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * HammerFilmFan mate, I disagree. Paper or not it is reality.

I can see this have anything to do with Athisaari Plan. I'm unable to find any official Serbian view on new divisions in Kosovo but as far it Serbia and Serbian law concerns, administrative divisions today are same as they were prior 2007-8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladip78 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

--Vladip78 (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Sec of State statements
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/europe/clinton-urges-serbia-to-accept-kosovo-and-its-borders.html HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Haradinaj case
Current text reads (the origin does not appear on my history page):

"The Office of the Prosecutor appealed their acquittals, resulting in the ICTY ordering a partial retrial; however on 29 November 2012 all three were acquitted of all charges"

This is not quite right. Brahimaj also appealed.

I propose:

"On 29 November 2012, the Court of Appeal found all three accused not guilty on all charges; while it accepted that abuses amounting to war crimes (including eight deaths) had taken place at a KLA prison camp, it found no credible evidence for command responsibilty for any of the three accused. On the contrary, the evidence pointed to Ramush Haradinaj trying to prevent such abuses" --Markd999 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not really party to ICTY activity these days, I'm not into fiction! :) But if it is help with presentation you want, then your proposal is fine except for the last sentence. I'd make it, "...for any of the three accused. The evidence suggested Ramush Haradinaj actually tried to prevent such abuses". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

FAQ
Why is the "Frequently Asked Questions" included on both THIS talk page and that of Kosovo, when the articles evidently refer to different things? For example, the FAQ notes - in rather poor English - that this article is "NOT about the Republic of Kosovo"... yes... rightio then. I tried to remove it, but I couldn't find the template anywhere. Could someone please expiate its pertinence here? 124.171.106.90 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The text of the FAQ simply needs to be rephrased. The questions of what is "Kosovo" and why the government(s) are separated from the territory are relevant to several pages. The "what is this article about?" section needs to state that "The Kosovo article is about the geographical territory and history", "The Republic of Kosovo article is about the self-proclaimed state" and "The Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article is about the governmental institutions of Serbia". I couldn't find the template either or I would have taken a stab at fixing it.--Khajidha (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Border
Why the insistence on avoiding any mention of a "border" between Kosovo and Serbia? Reliable sources talk about a border, and our content should reflect what reliable sources say. For instance,. Even the government of Serbia talks about a border. bobrayner (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The source you yourself presented here explains why. This edit (its edit line) explains why. Stop with WP:IDHT.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be the first to admit that this issue is extremely difficult. There is just no easy way around it. The key factor is Serbia's position on its proposed subdivisions had it controlled Kosovo - it still would have existed in its shape as we know it. It would have been far easier if the authorities had other outlines and other names for the units. This way there is no confusion with Croatia when discussing the once breakaway Serbian Krajina; the point being that whatever the outcome were to be, Croatia does not recognise that outline as a specific unit according to its divisions, Serbia does recognise Kosovo per name and shape. That gives every editor here a headache when contributing on any Kosovo-related issue sensitive as it is anyhow. Here is one way I would solve the problem if I can achieve a consensus - I believe it is all right to refer to "Kosovo-Serbia border" if we are talking about the frontier itself on matters post-2008 so long as we use the Kosovo note template on the initial reference to the entity (there will be no need thereafter). We can do this because all sources refer to it as such. It is a different matter however when writing about Kosovo, region or republic, when we state "it borders Serbia to the north". This usage of official sanction authorises editors to discard the sensitive material and treat Kosovo as an independent country, in which case the template on recognition could also be deleted. I hope all editors can see I am not promoting POV here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - and Bobrayner is happy with this suggestion? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Belgrade-Pristina relations 2013
POV pushing by Bobrainer again? Well, i am used to it. This is not even from far neutral wording, this is actually very border of disruptive nationalist editing. Serbia explicitly said that this post is NOT the ambassador, and also, that Serbia WILL NOT recognise Kosovo per this. Stupid OR must not be in this article, also, as usually, unsourced. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 10:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We need to discuss this issue (I have changed the title of the heading for logistical reasons). Many users have used their weekly revert so it is time to get talking. First, it is never a question of one entity appointing an ambassador, high commisioner, consulate or any other term to denote official representatives. It is whether the state opens an actualy embassy - the rest follows as a matter of course. In addition, diplomatic missions are a two-way enterprise: Serbia has an embassy in Zagreb, Croatia has one in Belgrade. The information being removed contains sources, the text to replace it contains none. So - over to everyone else. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If I may clarify, without taking sides:- it is quite possible for a State to have official representation in an entity, and practical relationships with the de facto authorities there, without recognising that entity as a state (examples include the Russsian, Chinese, and Greek missions in Kosovo; or the myriads of "Trade Offices" in Taiwan which are all staffed by career diplomats);    - it is possible (though rare) to recognise a State without having diplomatic relations with it. Examples include when diplomatic relations are broken over some incident because you want not only to withdraw your Embassy but ensure that the Embassy of the other country is closed; but also it may arise when bureaucratic mismanagement where the formal acts of recognition are not accomanied by the formal opening of diplomatic relations; - it is possible (and frequent) to have formal diplomatic relations with another country without having any diplomatic representatives there or even non-resident representatives accredited; - and diplomatic missions are not necessarily a two-way enterprise. It is quite common to find Embassies in London from countries where Britain does not have resident diplomatic representation. Obviously Croatia and Serbia both have Embassies in each other's capitals, because they are neighbours and their relationships are important (if difficult) for each of them. But if for example Swaziland were to open an Embassy in Belgrade, or Pristina, it does not follow that Belgrade or Pristina have to waste their money by opening an Embassy in Swaziland.

79.126.157.127 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A wise observation I grant you, certainly plausible despite me not knowing any instances. I always thought states are only too happy to open diplomatic missions abroad as an excuse for the privileged to quaff more taxpayer money. In the case of Belgrade and Kosovo none of that applies though, it really is that Serbia's constitution recognises the land by its SFRY-period outline. Naturally life has to go on and people's existence cannot grind to a halt because neighbouring entities do not get on. Greece allows perons with Republic of Macedonia passports onto their territory subject to the citizen possessing the correct papers but it does not in any way recognise the name. Belgrade knows that if it wishes for certain things, it has to negotiate with Pristina if it means the relevant dignitaries should swallow their pride. There is a rapport between entities and a list of mutual agreements but declaring recognition is a separate factor. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Geography
This article does not have a "geography" section. The article "Kosovo" does. I hope it will be uncontroversial if I import that section to this article, without change (except that I would propose to add, as I have proposed in the "Talk" page there, the phenomenon of Kosovo containing a river which divides and flows into two different seas, since this is unique in Europe (the Bifurcation of Nerodime River ).

After all, it is about time that someone found a change which has nothing to do with political arguments! Markd999 (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would really oppose that. This article is about political attitude, while Kosovo is about the rest. Please, lest keep the working split. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, I disagree. This article is not about political attitude, according to the disambiguation page. It is about "a partially recognised republic", while the "Kosovo" article is about a "region". If this article is about "a partially recognised republic", it seems to me that its structure should approximate to the normal Wikipedia template for countries, whether one considers Kosovo to be a country or not. Markd999 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is wrong. "a partially recognised republic" is political entity, and following our split proposal, region should not be included, neither in this, nor in Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article. If you want to add it here, you will have to gain new consensus for it, and NOT just to push it after one passed day of disagreement, as you usually do. We had super massive consensus for this split, and its conditions should not be changed without new one. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 15:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, so is Serbia a political entity, albeit one whose status is undisputed. Any political entity contains a lot of things which are not political in nature. If, at the time of disambiguation, this Article was intended merely to record the de facto political situation - whether or not one regards it as being de jure - the disambiguation page should say so, and it does not.

Markd999 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Markd. Sadly this was to be one of the problems which would tarnish any split article. Originally all featured on Kosovo but many of the editors who are proponents of Kosovan statehood wished for this article to be separate. Now the problem is that geography and climate can feature on every Kosovo-based page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Evlekis. I wasn't around, of course, when the article split occurred. But whatever the reasons for it, I think that most of us - whatever our political views - would look forward to a day when one unified article in Wikipedia can be achieved again (which does not necessarily mean that its political status will have been "resolved" in the sense that it is universally agreed). It seems to me that when this reunification of articles is possible, it will be a good deal easier to achieve if politically uncontentious sections are the same, or nearly the same, in both articles. This necessarily involves a good deal of duplication, but I don't see that as particularly bad.

Markd999 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC) If the "Article was intended merely to record the de facto political situation" than why would we add features on geography, climate, etc.?! Perunova straža (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing that there is no evidence at all on the disambiguation page that the article was intended merely to record the de facto political situation, and that in the absence of such evidence we should not assume that this was the intention.Markd999 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you feel the same information should be inserted as a duplicate on Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In principle, probably yes, Evlekis. In practice I wouldn't do it because I regard this as an essentially dead article and I don't want to spend energy on it. To take one obvious problem with the article, the present Constitution of Serbia

says that there will be such an Autonomous Province, whose competences will be regulated by a law; but no such law has been passed by the Assembly of Serbia in the seven years since the passage of the Constitution, so far as I know. Markd999 (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Concerning an integrated Serbian state which is very unlikely, you are right. That article however, dead though it may be, is still drafted to depict a live entity whilst Serbia views the regional status as having continuity dating back to its inception. Be that as it may, I don't honestly suggest we add a geography section to it because I am equally certain that this article was created so as to offload the sheer amount of coverage that would have featured on the plain Kosovo page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To Markd999: You said "there is no evidence at all on the disambiguation page that the article was intended merely to record the de facto political situation". As one of the proponents of the split, I can state that that was exactly my intention. Setting aside the reasoning though, I disagree with the duplication of material on all these pages. I do this out of concern for data drift. Putting sections on geography, climate, etc on multiple Kosovo pages means that any update to one page would need to be made on all affected pages. This is highly unlikely to be done. I find it better to simply leave things as is.--Khajidha (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless you insert the information into a template and only edit that when the need arises. That way, it self-adjusts for each page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Economy
I propose to add the following sentence to the penultimate paragraph of this section: "Nevertheless, Information and communications technology in Kosovo has developed very rapidly and one survey has suggested that broadband internet penetration is comparable to the EU average" Markd999 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: border--made some changes for clarity, want to explain
I rephrased a bit about the border with Serbia or the rest of Serbia--whichever--and I added a couple of links. I did that to make clear what took me quite a while to work out. When I was first reading it, I thought that it was the LOCATION of the boundary that was controversial, and I was trying to glean where the alternative boundary is. It took me a while to realize that it's the NATURE of the boundary that's controversial. It could probably be improved, but I'm trying not to be too wordy.

Since it's a touch matter, I want to make it clear what I was trying to do. For the record, I have no opinion on, or personal interest in, the question of Kosovo's independence from Serbia. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

TR wiki page
Hello. There is a Kosova page in Turkey wiki. Please add this link to languages. Now thank you. Muallim Fatih (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)