Talk:Serbia/Archive 4

Edits Need to be made
The caption of the map of serbia says "Serb and few international position on what Serbia consists of." I belive it should be changed to "Serb and some international position on what Serbia consists of". because at the moment Serbia is more recognised (by international countries) with Kovsovo than without (16 recognise Kosovo as independant 18 don't). Also when we say some it keeps everyone reasonably happy. Thanks and any more ideas on changes need to be made put a subheading under this and suggest somthing. Cheers ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mladenrox69 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take this into consideration, and stop being NAZI's http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/26/kosovo.serbia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.199.64 (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We should take care not to imprison our intellect just to favor certain neo-nazis and neo-fascist. Read this article by a Greeco-Turkish academic to understand why Kosova deserved its independence and more: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53269 --ArbërLet's talk 10:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbia owned Kosovo for 250 years after violent invasion and later were forced out by a better Turkish army and kept out by Indigenous inhabitants the Illyrians (Albanians), it's a statement of fact. There is nothing mythical about that. Acting like bad losers or wannabe empire which failed will just dirty Serbia's face.. while all of the world's media reports that Serbs owned Kosovo for 250 years only in fact. By the way this can be verified via physical analysis of the churches in Kosovo which confirm reported history in Non Russia/Serbia's history books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.191.29.67 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah the main map needs changing, Wikipedia is starting to look like a Russian history book, where Serbs own Kosovo and Russia didn't kill anybody in Gulags. 77.78.197.18 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Geography
Who wrote this?

"In the southeast, the Balkan Mountains meet the Rhodope Mountains, connecting the country with Greece." As a matter of fact, the Balkans don't meet the Rhodopes and Serbia doesn't connect with Greece.

74.66.234.61 (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

CHANGE THE MAP...It currently includes the Republic of Kosovo as part of Serbia; the Republic of Kosovo is now an independent state (hence the official name). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.97.98.37 (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo does not connect with Greece either, and the Balkans still do not meet the Rhodopes. The author has obviously forgotten the existence of Bulgaria. 216.254.71.25 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Population
How is Serbia's projected population to be over 10 million? Its population is listed at 7.4 million, but over the course of those 5 years, it has grown by 3 million? Not a chance. Serbia even has a negative birth rate, the population should be declining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.251.197 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

why aren't kosovan figures included? kosovo is part of Serbia; just because all the big countries insist this isnt the case doesnt make it so; Kosovo is a Serbian province because it is a Serb province, no matter what foreign non slavic powers have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.182.86 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the events of February 17, 2008 invalidate your statements. 250 years of tyranny down the drain. But your slavic comrades can retaliate with more violence; send the world a few more reminders of the of the atrocities committed by Serbia against the Kosovars in the 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.97.98.37 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow i post a population that is from CIA world factbook from 2008 census, and it gets changed while some idiots can slander and post useless info on here and get away with it? Nice job wikipedia editors. learn some math, 10 million people - 2 million (population of Kosovo) = 8 million, not 7.6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.33.48 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody can give me the source of census 2008. I can found only this CIA Factbook (Serbia: 10,159,046 ) 2008 est and CIA Factbook (Kosovo: 2,126,708 ) 2007 est. than means: 8,032,338 and not 8,023,557 thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.59.235 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be rewritten in English
Unfortunately, there's a significant amount of not-quite-English in the text, e.g.: "For centuries shaped at cultural boundaries between East and West, a powerful medieval Kingdom, later Serbian Empire, has been born, taking up much of the Balkans."; "inconvinient"; "Scholars today agree that Serbian name did not derive from the word servus."; "As a result of internal struggle between the rival noble families, and heavy losses inflicted by the Ottomans in the epic Battle of Kosovo, the Serbian Empire has dissolved into many statelets by the beginning of the 15th century."

Ludwig X (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the maps of Serbia should be changed now as Kosovo is an independence state. Here is a link for the new map [] How much you wanted it Kosovo is still part of Serbia so new map is not needed,Until proven othervise it is integral part of serbia and please keep it that way.Thank you Thank You for the understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.159.133 (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigne

Banat
I see an anon ip removed any reference to the fact that part of the Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat proclaimed itself the Banat Republic, and was then partially annexed to Serbia in 1918 after Serbian troops entered the state. I havent any intention of getting into an edit/revert war with this "editor" so will not revert the material but this kind of POV whitewashing makes this a worse article. Borders were fluid after the Great War and similar actions occurred accross the Balkans and East-Central Europe - so its not unique to Serbia. Sweeping stuff like this under the rug just makes other wikipedians suspicious of articles like this in my opinion. Bigdaddy1981 21:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That part of the article speak about Vojvodina region that include Banat, Bačka and Srem and historically also Baranja. If you check the map, you can see that Banat Republic with capital in Timisoara was mostly located in Romanian Banat and that it did not included Bačka, Srem or Baranja. Contrary to this region of Banat, Bačka and Baranja (also known as Vojvodina) with its capital in Novi Sad included most of modern Vojvodina and is considered a predecessor of current autonomous province. Also, it is not correct that "Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat proclaimed itself the Banat Republic" because this voivodship was abolished in 1860 and Banat Republic was formed in 1918 + voivodship included Banat, Bačka and Srem, while Banat Republic included only Banat. 81.18.59.27 11:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True the Banat Republic did not include Bačka and Srem. However, it did include Serbian Banat part of the region Banat, Bačka and Baranja which - as you say - is Vojvodina. A glance at a map of the Banat Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Banat_Republic_bgiu.png) shows that although its capital was in Timisoara, its boundaries include part of Banat, Bačka and Srem. I really can't see why you wish to delete this information. Bigdaddy1981 22:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But Banat Republic is not significant issue of Serbian history, thus I do not see why we should include it into introduction section of this article. There is separate article named History of Serbia where you can mention this republic in the text. 81.18.51.123 12:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Article protection
To better protect this article from vandalism and abuse I will be requesting a lock for semi protection from Admins to be placed, therefore only members with accounts will be able to edit. This is only to better serve this page from possible (and likely) vandal attacks from anonymous accounts and not exclude others from contributing. Thank you -- Bluewings 3:27, Sept 2 2007 (UTC)

Too many pictures
While the pictures in this article are pretty and all, they are beginning to seriously pile up. More and more have been added in the past few days/weeks, while the length of the text hasn't been expanded to match. It's reached the point where they are overpowering the actual information. Either several need to be removed entirely, or they need to be spread out more (which means they'll most likely end up in unrelated subsections). Which ones are actually necessary, versus being simply nice to see? Are they all in Commons so they'll still be easily accessible without being shown in the article? -Bbik ★ 09:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is too many pictures on the Serbia article and it shouldn't be regarded as an issue. We could even say there is not enough. Just look at some other countries, like for example Bosnia & Herzegovina, who has far more pictures than Serbia. Boris4c 12:58 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris4c (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because other articles do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea. That aside, while I also feel Bosnia has too many pictures (now that you've pointed it out), they're at least not overlapping as much.  They create a wall of images, which isn't very good, but they don't cram the text into a narrow column like many of the images here do. -Bbik ★ 10:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sections all whacked-out
I'd fix this myself, but as my laptop which contained upon its hard disk my 500+ character password has died, I can't log in. Could someone that has access to their account format it properly? Oc t ane  [ improve me ] 21.09.07 0014 (UTC)

Semi-Presidential Republic
It's very hard to explain. It's something that it's generally known personally to me, so practically the source that I can give you is the Constitution of Serbia, which's authorities put the state as a Semi-presidential system republic. I learned that in the High School as a component part of the subject called The Constitution. If you said that Serbia was a Parliamentary or Conventional Republic, you'd get a 1. If you just said that it had a Presidential system, you'd get a 3. If you said Serbia's a Monarchy you better not appear in class ever again. Just come over to the Political Sciences Faculty and ask anyone.

But if you want something concrete, take a look at Slaviša Orlić's (a Political Science professor) Polupredsednički sistem i partijski sistem Srbije, u Političke stranke u Srbiji, struktura i funkcionisanje. If you just skim around and take a look at the web (Google is rich of it, just type Polupredsednicki sistem and Srbija; in a quick skim I found this), you'll see that Serbia has adopted the Semi-presidential system in 1990, and this Constitution effectively keeps it, albeit according to some weakening the status of President, making him "slightly more" Ceremonial than Executive. But it's a mixed system - so there's no real standard as with other cases.

The reason why I got this weird is because I thought that everyone in Serbia knew that it has a Semi-presidential system. ;) Sorry. --PaxEquilibrium 16:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends; the problem is that grey has many shades: the country which is a model of Semi-presidential system is clearly France. Now, the presidential ingerentions in Serbia are far weaker than that, but then, far stronger than in e.g. Germany. Even the analysts and politicians don't seem to agree: Goati claims it is semi-presidential, Vucic claims it's parliamentary. OK, I did perform a web search myself and I think I found a reliable source which confirms it... ...which doesn't mean, Pax, that you should have removed the Fact tag if you explained it on my talk page... Footnotes is behind the corner. Duja ► 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I apologize. I know it's difficult, that's why semi-presidential systems are no where practically defined because of their "flexibility". --PaxEquilibrium 13:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet TLD
.rs is active! http://www.rnids.rs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.65.111 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I updated the .rs article somewhat, but frankly, I can't get through the entire legalese and tecnhical gobledygook. Duja ► 12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

HDI
I'm curious where did data for Serbia's HDI come from? There is no source, and on HDI page Serbia is listed as n/a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.198.195 (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Math error in economy population data?
The reported population for 2007 is 10.1 million; the reported GDP (PPP adjusted) is 54.5 billion; thus per capita GDP should be about $5400, but the reported per capita GDP is $7,265. One of these can't be right! Whose job is it to look up the sources and fix it? 67.101.79.159 02:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vlad Dracula (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be your job, young Padawan, if you choose to accept it.

The reality is that both of them are around half. The problem is education in Serbia. Serbs keep doubling their numbers and are proud of their lies without shame for some misterious reason. I suggest that Serbs collectively visit a psychologist. Although a more realistic way to fix the problem is to let them lie and loose more wars and battles untill they see the problem of lies and attrocities. 77.78.197.133 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Music
First time it entered the competition as a sovereign nation, Serbia won the 2007 Eurovision Song Contest in Helsinki and will thus be the host to the 2008 Eurovision Song Contest. The winning song was "Molitva" ("Pray" in English) sung by Marija Šerifović. Three years before (2004), Željko Joksimović won the second place with his song "Lane moje", while representing the abolished union of Serbia and Montenegro.

Cinema
Serbia has a growing film industry. Directors such as Emir Kusturica and actors Velimir Bata Živojinović, Dragan Nikolić, Lazar Ristovski, Vesna Trivalić, Milena Dravić and many more form the core of the Serbian film industry. Serbia’s local production of movies has expanded greatly in the last five years. Films Sutra ujutru (Tomorrow morning), Odbačeni (Left out), Profesionalac (The Professional), Šejtanov ratnik (Sheytan’s warrior), Ivkova slava (Ivko’s feast) and Mi nismo anđeli (We Are Not Angels) are some of the recent popular movies which have come out of Serbia. The large amounts of Serbian film festivals around the world help promote Serbian cinematography in various countries. The Serbian Film Festival in Australia and the Serbian Film Festival in Vienna are one of the longest running Serbian films Festivals.

Theater
Serbia has a well-established theatrical tradition with many theaters. The Serbian National Theater was established in 1861 with its building dating from 1868. The company started performing opera from the end of the 19th century and the permanent opera was established in 1947. It established a ballet company.

BITEF, Belgrade International Theater Festival, is one of the oldest theater festivals in the world. New Theater Tendencies is the constant subtitle of the Festival. Founded in 1967, BITEF has continually followed and supported the latest theater trends. It has become one of five most important and biggest European festivals. It has become one of the most significant culture institutions of Serbia.

Belgrade forms the centre of Serbian theatre with the National Theater and many other theater's like Pozoriste na Terazijama (Theater on the Terazija) which is the Serbian equivalent to Broadway that has produced many musicals such as the Serbian version of Chicago and Gypsy: A Musical Fable. The most famous Serbian actors currently on stage include Predrag Ejdus, Vanja Ejdus, Milan Lane Gutović,  Radmila Živković, Aleksandra Nikolić, Sloboda Mićalović, Ivan Bosiljčić, Boris Komnenić, Mihailo Lađevac, Ljiljana Blagojević.

Is this added to Culture of Serbia and other relevant articles? Sorry, this entire stuff suffers from a) too much recentism: most of the above refers to the quite recent events b) too narrow and arbitrary selection: picking up one set of examples while completely disregarding other aspects. Being a native, I've barely heard about some stuff & people, like "Šejtanov ratnik", Mihailo Lađevac, Gypsy: A Musical Fable.

It's all quite inappropriate for the main article about the country, and I'd argue that the music section containing only of Eurosong smells like fandom. Yes, it's hot news. Does it have long-term relevance to the music of Serbia? Hardly. Duja ► 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep
I don’t see why it should be taken out. Many countries listed on Wikipedia have such information on their main pages. The films are recent and it is stated that they are recent popular films. If you are a native I don’t know how you haven’t heard of Šejtanov ratnik, one of Serbia’s first fantasy films, Gypsy: A Musical Fable is the English name of the extremely popular (and constantly sold out) musical Cigani lete u nebo and Mihailo Ladjevac is a popular actor and has featured in many movies, he is the actor at Narodno Pozoriste Beograd and the winner of the best actor prize a couple of years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukaP (talk • contribs) 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not against such summaries per se, but I have to argue that this one is written badly — sorry to be blunt. Take a look at (first that crossed my mind) Hungary. The people and other items (dishes, sports, inventions) listed there are world-famous; when one mentions some of those, people think "Hungary". I've heard for 80% of those, and I'm a foreigner. I haven't heard about, or only barely so, about half the stuff listed above, and I live in Serbia. Let's face it, we're not famous for cinema and theater, except for Kusturica, and possibly Biljana Srbljanović and Dušan Kovačević: I'd expect to see them rather than Chicago or Cigani lete u nebo. Why does BITEF have half a paragaph, but Sterijino pozorje none? What do Serbian Film Festivals in Australia and Vienna have to do with Serbia? No, I haven't heard of Šejtanov ratnik, nor any of actors playing major roles therein. Why is only Eurosong pertaining to Serbian music? Yes, such information as above has a place in Wikipedia somewhere — but not on Serbia page. Duja ► 13:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WW1
This sentence:


 * Most of its army and some people went to exile to Greece and Corfu where it healed, regrouped and returned to Macedonian front (World War I) to lead a final breakthrough through enemy lines on 15 September 1918, freeing Serbia again and ending the World War I on 11 November.[20]

seems to imply that WW1 was ended and won by Serbia. Not that I mean to minimise the efforts of Serbs, but I'm not sure that it is historically entirely accurate. Fainites barley 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * sofixit. Duja ► 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was the last notable battle/event of the war then yes, it ended with that battle, just like WW2 ended with the atomic bombings of Japan. The atomic bomb didn't win ww2, it was merely the last act. Vlad Dracula (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac
You Serbs are trying to rewrite history by including how Serbia was occupied by all those kingdoms (blaming them indirectly) and mentioning Jasenovac (victimization /we couldn't possibly be bad because...) and going as far as suggesting that it was setup because Serbs didn't like the Nazi policies. Come on. What happened happened, stop trying to rewrite it. Serbia supported the Nazis even before you got invaded and Draza was more focused on killing Non-Serbs than Germans and Serbia became the First Judenrein city in the world--thanks to local cooperation. Should we put that there too? it is an achievement, just as Draza killed some 100,000 Muslims and how he fought the partisans, they only real force fighting the Nazis. Keep it Fake (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC) --

NeroN BG reverted with not-so-good-faith-assuming edit summary "do not alter the history". Well, I'm not: however: So, I "altered the history" by reducing the POV language and removing the figures not corroborated by the source. Your revert also erased the sole sentence on Partisans and Chethiks, who weren't even mentioned in the article. Duja ► 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, Jasenovac is not in Serbia. Why it is covered in the broad article about Serbia with 2 paragraphs?
 * You know that the victim count in Jasenovac is a disputed and sensitive issue: Jasenovac concentration camp lists a huge range of estimates.
 * Picking one extreme victim count estimate, stating it as given fact, is not exactly the best way to solve whatever edit dispute at Jasenovac concentration camp there is. If you agree that e.g. JVL is a neutral source, it does not corroborate the numbers you put in the article.

World War II and the Serbian genocide

Where is the refrence where serbian genocide is mentioned??? There is no such document or conformation exept the ones in Serbia. (GriffinSB)

Why did someone erease the fact that 12000 Croats died at Jasenovac?
Should those people be forgotten?And where are the refrences with NPOV?((GriffinSB) (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC))


 * seven-hundred-thousand dead, in jasenovac alone. todays ustashi have shamelessly divided
 * that number by 10, should we put 1200 croats dead in jasenovac? :)  -.(Labomba)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.255.101 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First ,learn the English grammar. Second,there is no proof of 700.000 killed Serbs at Jasenovac. Third,not 1200 but 12000 Croats died there.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Foundation of Serbia
I would like to discuss the year of the foundation of Serbia. I think that the article should mention the foundation of the state called Serbia which was 1217. The previous states were not called Serbia although they were populated by Serbs. It is like Spain - the article mentions the foundation of Spain, not of Asturias or Castilla; it is the same in the United Kingdom as well. So I think we should begin with 1217. --Gligan (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Name of the province?
Why is the southern province of Serbia in most cases designated as "Kosovo" and not as "Kosovo and Metohia"(Kosovo i Metohija)? The official name of the province is "Kosovo i Metohija", why denying the "Metohija" part? If it's used to save space or for the simplicity of reading, there is a short name of it - "Kosmet", but not "Kosovo" alone. Free from any biases i propose that the name of the province is changed to its official name(use "Kosmet" for short). I myself am a Serb, but that has nothing to do with the official name of the region, now does it? On the side note - the single term "Kosovo" is often used by Albanian minority denying the "Metohija" part, which signifies the "orthodox church lands", what's seen as a threath to the teory that Serb have no rightfull claim on the province. Good day. PrimEviL (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Kosovo i Metohija is the official name of the province of Serbia in Serbian. However, it is only de jure a Serbian province, as it is under the UN protectorate and as such it uses the name Kosovo. The acronym Kosmet is far worse solution, as it is not a true word at all, but a made-up word used in the previous socialist regime, which indeed had an affinity toward inventing new words and verbal abbreviations when you think about it (Agitprop, Comintern, Nolit etc.). Almost like Orwell’s Newspeak, isn’t it? ;) I see insisting on "the Metohija part" as Serbocentric to be honest. Only in Serbian the province is called Kosovo i Metohija, and this is the English Wikipedia. --George D. Božović (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but is this an encyclopedia or an journalistic article? I have allways thought that the encyclopedias use official data instead of "popular" one. You may call it "serbocentric" as much as you want, but the official name stands and i see no reason why should there be a "popular" one... Unless you care to show me a reason. PrimEviL (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just like "Vojvodina" isn't "Vojvodship" or "Dukedom", just like "Lombardia" isn't "Longobardy", just like "San Marino" isn't "Saint Marin", just like "Belarus" isn't "White Russia" - "Kosovo i Metohija" shouldn't be "Kosovo", speccialy if there is no apparent reason for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimEviL (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, "Kosovo i Metohija" is only officially used to name the province of Serbia in Serbian. On the other hand, simply "Kosovo" is most often — and even officially I’d say — used to name the UN administrated province in English. This happens to be the English Wikipedia. :) --George D. Božović (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, using "the Serbian name", even though it may be the official one, can cause endless edit wars. It is much safer to use the "shorter" name. After all, the name Kosovo is most often used. You see, the problem with the official Serbian name is that it may be seen as pro-Serbian propaganda by numerous editors, and it is the best for the sake of not obstructing the whole encyclopaedia project not to use it. It’s a simple compromise for the sake of Wikipedia itself. --George D. Božović (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a simmilar(although with much less political tension) issue on the Novak Đoković page, where some editors have the problem with the man's real name, simply because it's being presented as "Djokovic" in western media. I wouldn't like to be missunderstood - i have no back intentions by opening this issue - i simply hate that things aren't named properly... PrimEviL (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That’s somewhat different. "Novak Đoković" is the correct transliteration of that name, while "Novak Djokovic" is the incorrect but more often used version. This is not about transliteration, i.e. which characters to use (the name is either way still the same), but the question is rather which name should be used. Simply "Kosovo" is better exactly because of the political tension — some editors may find the name "Kosovo and Metohija" an example of pro-Serbian propaganda and may start an endless edit war. In any other case, the name "Kosovo and Metohija" would certainly be both more correct and more official, but the shorter name is used because of such problematic political issue... :/ It’s sort of a "win-win" solution in which both sides should give up on something ("the Metohija part", or the Albanian version "Kosova") for the sake of compromise and avoiding edit wars... --George D. Božović (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A similar issue happened on the Slavic languages template, where all Central South Slavonic languages had to be grouped together under the "Central South Slavic" label in order not to cause edit wars over the status of those languages (if listed separately, some editors would argue over the "equality" of Montenegrin or Bunjevac languages with Serbian or Croatian and so on — see ). --George D. Božović (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing - even though this IS english(worldwide) wikipedia, this also IS the page of the Republic of Serbia, whose constitutional part is the province of "Kosovo i Metohija". Official names can not be looked up as propaganda, mainly because those names stand for themselves. I don't defend the name of the province here. I am just saying that it's very wrong to use any other name(other names should or even must be noted in the heading) except the official one. To a certain extent i can comprehend the neccessity for compromise on free encyclopedia, but neutrality of the official titles shouldn't be disputed. You, for example, are Ђорђе Божовић, and you shall never be George Godly nor Giorgio Divino, or am i wrong? --PrimEviL (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue has popped up periodically on the Kosovo page. Every time it is discussed, the outcome is the same: "Kosovo" is the standad usage in English and should be favored over the Serbian version "Kosovo and Metohija" or even the preferred Albanian version "Kosova." Just check any recent English-language newspaper article and you'll see that they use "Kosovo" with extreme consistency. Furthermore, both UN Security Council resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework -- both of which are the authoritative documents outlining Kosovo's current interim status -- use the traditional English-language form "Kosovo." In my experience, the only people who use "Kosovo and Metohija" are generally Serbs who are trying to prove a point. Similarly, you'll see that Kosovo Albanians often insist on putting "Kosova" in English-language documents to make their own point. Best to stick to the neutral, near-universally accepted "Kosovo" formulation. Envoy202 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned before - on the Novak Đoković page there was an issue of simmilar origin - his name is as it is, but it's presented in western media as "Novak Djokovic", but the article name is still as pointed out. I'm aware of the wrongfulness in the international documents, but I'm not suggesting anything without a basis - the name of the region in fact IS "Kosovo and Metohija", and that can't be disputed. The excuse of "endless edit wars" are just worthy as a reason just like "the need for independence of Kosmet, to prevent Albanian extremists to harras Serbs or to destroy any more churches or monasteries" - ridiculous... The native English speakers should be taught that the proper name is in fact "Kosovo and Metohija", and that the name itself isn't part of any propaganda. Maybe should the wikipedia article help with that education. The worth of encyclopedia is also based on its persistant, even spiteful, dedication to the truth and justice. (I'm not a Calimero, btw :P) --PrimEviL (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On a side note - you can see by the fact that I haven't edited the page so far that I won't try to enforce my judgement(rightful as it may be). I'm just trying to put some sense here... --PrimEviL (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is not our job to determine "truth" ourselves, but rather to rely on reliable sources to guide editing decisions. I don't think I've ever seen "Kosovo and Metohija" used by any reliable source (e.g., other encyclopedias, international documents, press articles, etc.) nor is it common English-language usage. The use of the term "Kosovo and Metohija" in English has been exclusively an ethnic Serb phenomenon, generally in a context where Serbs are trying to make a certain political point about Kosovo's future status. Envoy202 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If I could throw my two cents in here, I think the appropriate analogy is western use of "Bosnia" rather than the proper "Bosnia and Hercegovina". It's not that people are trying to downplay the influence of Croats, but that the shorter version is easier to use. What if we just wrote "Kosovo and Metohija" the first time, and pointed out that for brevity's sake, Kosovo would be used in the rest of the article. Dchall1 (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concirned, I could consider it partialy in order if the main article name would be "Kosovo and/i Metohi(j)a", and then "Kosovo" used further on. Offcourse, "Kosovo and Metohia" used in whole "Serbia" page should be used mainly because it's article about Serbia and in Serbia's legal documents region is named "Kosovo i Metohija". Cheers. --PrimEviL (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bosnia analogy is not apt. Numerous reliable, non-POV sources DO use "Bosnia and Herzegovina," even if they often use the shorthand "Bosnia" later on. Our reliable sources generally do not do the same thing for the Serbian form "Kosovo and Metohija." You can do a little experiment to prove the point -- I typed in "Kosovo and Metohija" and "Bosnia and Herzegovina" into Yahoo search. On "Kosovo and Metohija" the entire first page of search results included: two sites from the Serbian Orthodox Church, two or three Serbian government sites and two rather inflammatory sites arguing against the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia (not exactly a non-POV lineup!). By contrast, a web search on "Bosnia and Herzegovina," turns up: the CIA world factbook, tripadvisor.com, the U.S. State Department, the New York Times, UNESCO and Human Rights Watch. If someone can point to a large number of reliable, non-POV sources that use the "Kosovo and Metohija" formulation, then I'd be more open to using it in the Wikipedia article. After having worked in the Balkans for eight years, however, I can say that I've never heard the "KiM" formulation used in English EXCEPT when coming from Serbs or Serb government officials who were trying to make a point about Kosovo's future status. It is for this reason that our reliable sources stick quite consistently to "Kosovo" (the official title in English), rather than using the "Kosovo and Metohija" formulation or the Albanians' preferred formulation of "Kosova." Envoy202 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that the name "Kosovo and Metohija" isn't preffered one, but official one. In fact, the term "Kosovo" is used by Serbs alongside of "Kosmet", for shortening. And exuse me, I've allways thought that the encyclopedias serve to educate people, not to reprint "popular" facts(those facts are mentioned, but their existance isn't obligatory). Is the constitution of the Republic of Serbia from 1990 NPOV enough? On the english page of constitution of Serbia from 2006 it's written "Kosovo and Metohija". The fact is that I can't and I won't change any part of any page wich would involve me into political discussion... I, although politicaly aware, usualy try to avoid topic about Kosmet(or Yugoslav Wars, while mentioning), because it's realy hard to say what is or what isn't the truth. As far as the truth(only thing that should guide us, right?) is concirned, proper name of the region IS "Kosovo and Metohija", because the legal documents say so. Until they're changed(if they change at all in the first place), only proper name is legal name. -- P rim E vi L 17:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is tough jumping into these articles fraught with Balkan intrigues! I myself try to be as careful as possible, remembering how strong emotions can be from the recent conflicts. Let me just respond to your point about "encyclopedias serve to educate people." That is true. But if you read through Wikipedia's various standards and guidelines, you'll see a strong directive that editors must not conduct "original research" or otherwise determine "truth." Wikipedia -- as opposed to journal articles, academic sources, news pieces, etc. -- is based on the principle of citing reliable sources. As I wrote above, I've yet to see any reliable sources use the form "Kosovo and Metohija." Furthermore, the argument about "official documents" opens up an entire new can of worms: the official documents that now govern Kosovo's interim status (UNSCR 1244, Constitutional Framework) probably have a stronger claim to being "official." As you probably know, per 1244, Serbia's constitution has no legal effect in Kosovo right now. Either way the argument is moot: the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources uses "Kosovo" as the proper noun to describe the place and that should be our only standard. Envoy202 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also known as WP:COMMONNAME. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I might add that in the current state of the article title "Kosovo and Metohija" is used 4 times(excluding templates at the end). I just don't see why the others can't be in such form... One more thing - "Kosovo" is the name of northeastern area of the province, and thus using it to name the entire province is just wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimEviL (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Use of common name is OK, but there are places when its use is not appropriate, such as this. We should use official name in the lead of this article, in Subdivisions of Serbia, etc. Common name of the Republic of China is Taiwan, and of the Republic of Macedonia is Macedonia, yet these common names aren't used throughout Wikipedia.


 * Envoy, you have been presented a reliable source that uses the form: the constitution of Serbia. As for your claim that Resolution 1244 somehow suspends the constitution of Serbia, I suggest that you actually read it - it doesn't mention the constitution of Serbia in a single word. Nikola (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WWII & genocide
I changed the section header as well. I can see how the previous wording is confusing ("Serbian genocide"), but "genocide over Serbs" is grammatically incorrect. I think the way it is now, the header is neutral, and anyone reading the article can clearly see that Serbs were the victim of this round of ethnic cleansing. Any objections? Dchall1 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I could live with it, although it should get a somewhat better header. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimEviL (talk • contribs) 17:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Genocide, victim counts and pictures
There is no international organization or states which has accepted that Serbian genocide has happened during WWII. On other side they accept that there has been persecution of Serbs in NDH. Similar to that victims count we need to look from international and not Serbian or Croatian data. Numbers of 700 000, 1 000 000 or more Serbs killed are funny part of Serbian mythology. For evidence I will use census data of Bosnia and Herzegovina for 1931 which clearly state number of 1,028,139 members of ortodox faith. On other side Serbian POV site srpska mreza clearly state that in 1948 in Bosnia and Herzegovina is living 1,136,116 Serbs. If we believe serbian body count for WW II this is real miracle because Ustaše has killed 1 000 000 Serbs and Serbian numbers has gone up for 108 000.

Miracle !!!!

I really believe that nobody from ex Yugoslavia can think that "Jasenovac memorial picture" is made in Croatia ??--Rjecina (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but your data is incomplete. We are talking about 17 year timespan between censuses there and natality rates among agricultural population in Yugoslavia back then was rather high (I myself have a lot of uncles and aunts, but only a single sibling). There is also possibility of displacement and migrations from other parts of Yugoslavia (perhaps from some destroyed villages in Croatia proper) into Bosnia and Herzegovina. For instance, I have several friends, Serbs from Slavonia, now settled in Bosnia and Herzegovina, after the 90's war in Croatia. Even though the war ends, some people nevertheless fear returning to their original settlements, if they were minority there. Serb population in B&H at the end of WWII was, and still is, bigger then one in Croatia (proper), which could had attracted some poor souls fearing their former neighbors.

In short, you may be right, but more research is in order, to be certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.41 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have used word Miracle like irony on claims of 1 000 000 Serbs killed. I only want that we stop using Croatian and Serbian POV source and use internationally accepted sources for victims count--Rjecina (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Internationally accepted? Do you mean American and European? (ally) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.248.18 (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am mistaking but accepted sources for Holocaust time period are Jewish Virtual Library, USHMM and Yad Vashem .--Rjecina (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing Kosovo
You guys, I just took a look at the map of the People's Republic of China. Taiwan is not on the map as a part of the PRC. Neither the UN (nor the EU ;-) recognise Taiwan as an independant republic, so I think we should put a map with Serbia as it really is today, that is without Kosovo. Most of the western developed nations recognise Kosovo, and they are reading this English-language article about Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.108.61 (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be revised with the independence of Kosovo. Maps should be re-drawn excluding the Republic of Kosovo. Population and Area figures should be adjusted accordingly ( minus Republic of Kosovo)

Wikipedia is a neutral platform for knowledge And not a place for Serbian/Russian Propaganda to further keep an Iron grip on the Republic of Kosovo. I understand this will take time and that this is a sensitive issue.

I call upon all experienced Wiki's to help update this article after the 'recent events'

(Umbongo91 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Whether you like it or not, wikipedia is full of propaganda and bias. Like your biased opinion to have Kosovo recognized as a independent country. XcepticZP (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A Map showing Serbia without Kosovo is available here: Image:Serbia without Kososvo in Europe.png, but I think a map with Kosovo higlighted in a different shade to the rest of Serbia would be best. Abc30 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for the independan ce to be recognised by the UN. It would be better is an administrator could protect this article for a while.Mrpouetpouet (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Kosovo cannot be recognised by Wikipedia as an independent country until it has b

een recognised by the United Nations. There are many territories around the world claiming to be independent countries but cannot be internationally recognised as a sovereign state until the United Nations recognises it to be so. Signsolid (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would recommend waiting until either UN admittance or EU+US recognition, before then a map showing Kosovo lightly shaded should be used. Afterwards a non-Kosovo inclusive map should be used, for then the majority of the powers of the world would have recognized Kosovo. Cyprus is shown coloured in full, despite Turkish recognition of the TRNC, so Kosovo should be recognized in full despite Russian non-recognition. Russia is only one nation, and not a very important one for the English Wikipedia either. When the majority of the English-speaking world recognizes Kosovo, the English 'pedia should react. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest using the image from the Kosovo article but have Serbia in orange and Kosovo in a darker shade of grey - that is correct NPOV. Take Israel for example, it is recognised by the United Nations, and Palestine is recognised by many countries, but Israel is in red and Palestine is seperate - even though the UN does not recognise Palestine as a country. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate  11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hexagon1, this is the english wikipedia so russia doesent matter much .In the russian wikipedia kosovo could appear as part of serbia but not in the english one -- Cra del  12:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You guys are really being over enthusiastic about all this. Why is it so important for you guys? Seems like too many western countries are overly eager for an example of a supposedly democratic people being freed from tyrannic rule(riiight). Neither China, nor Russia are ready to recognize Kosovo, yet. Just because all the western, or "english" as the guy above me liked to call them, countries want this to be, doesn't mean it will happen. I think that Wikipedia should not recognize Kosovo as independant until the UN votes and recognizes it. XcepticZP (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, first, a couple of observations: So, for now, in the Serbia article let's just stick to including Kosovo in the map but giving it a different shading or outlining it. I.e. no change to the map.Osli73 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Serbia doesn't recognize Kosovo's independence, so from a Serbian perspective it is part of Serbia
 * 2) Neither the UN nor the EU will (most likely ever) recognize Kosovo (because of Russia, maybe China, in the case of the UN and because of Cyprus but also Greece, Spain, Romania and Slovenia in the case of the EU).
 * And from a Kosovar perspective, it's not a part of Serbia. Just because the article is about Serbia doesn't mean it should be written from a Serbian perspective. Wikipedia aims to be written from a neutral perspective, and my suggestion on the issue of the map is to have Serbia and Kosovo both highlighted in orange with the border between. &mdash; AM K 1211 t a lk! 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just like the Serbs stole Vojvodina from Hungary, now the Albanians taking away Kosovo from them. By the way, the map is a real shit, how can be Finland bigger than Turkey? LOL
 * Vojvodina was Serbian part of Austrian-Hungarian Empire. As well as whole Slovakia was Slovakian part of it, Croatia (region) and Slavonia Croatian, and Transylvania, Mures and Eastern Banat Romanian. People seem to forget that Kingdom of Hungary was a multinational territory that included not only Hungarian ethnic territories, but Croatian, Slovakian, Serbian, Romanian and Ukrainian as well. Btw., the very term Vojvodina is Serbian, and it means Dukedom (of Serbia); in Hungarian it means nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.196.202 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hungary has never been divided into ethnic territories, except from Croatia, but Croatia never was part of Hungary just part of the Hungarian Kingdom. Transylvania: Romanians run from the turks and settled down in Transylvania where they found protection. While the hungarians were fighting against the turks, the romanians started to multiply. Vojvodina: Some Pre-Serbs lived in Vojvodina even before Hungarians came, but they never had a state, and were really few. After the Landtaking of Hungarians they became minority. More hundred years after: Serbs run from the turks and settled down in Vojvodina where they found protection. While the hungarians were fighting against the turks, the serbs started to multiply. Hungarians do not use the word Vojvodina, we have our word Vajdaság, so your argument means nothing. Slovakia has never been in history before Hitler made it. Ukranians never lived in Hungary, they were Ruthenians. Like ukranians aren't russians, the ruthenians aren't ukranians. And so to say: After WW1 from the 11 million ethnic Hungarians 3,3 million found themselves outside of the Hungarian borders. So loosing 100000 ethnic serbs from more then 7 million is nothing compared to Trianon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Örsvezér (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Decisions
At some point we are going to need to make decisions about this stuff. First of all we need to ask, at which point does wikipedia recogonize a nation? Palestine and Taiwan are excellent examples and we should look at how wikipedia reacts to them for guidance. Secondly, should we have a different reality based on language? IE should Kosovo be a country in english and albanian but not in russian or serbian? Should we preface the article "If you live in the US, then kosovo is a country, but if you live in Russia, it is not"? When should we update these things?

My first proposal is to lock the article to all users for 7 days. This will allow the world the time to react and stop any petty bickering that may occur before then in wikipedia. Following the week, we can unlock it, and hopefully we will have a better understanding where we are on the issue after we reach a concensus.

Thoughts, comments? Nickjbor (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I think we should lock the article - it is very likely that by then the UN, the EU or more countries would have reacted. As for Palestine and Taiwan, both maps show no outside control. I would say that the map for Serbia should not include Kosovo, but for NPOV and to avoid a dispute, I think that the map should show that Kosovo is in some way seperate from Serbia - partially maybe? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate  21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that neither Palestine nor Taiwan have declared independence, and Palestine is under substantial control of Israel. So the cases aren't directly comparable. I doubt anyone can deny that Kosovo is de facto independent, so the issue is about de jure independence. It seems pretty clear that this will be in dispute for quite some time and there are quite strong arguments on both sides. I think leaving Kosovo in the Serbia map with different shading is the right thing to do. GaneshSittampalam (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Be Rational
The whole fuss about whether to keep Kosovo as part of Serbia or not looks to me like it is just a fight between fanatics. I’m pretty sure that if you go to the Serbian or Russian edition of wiki, you would see 'Kosovo is an integral part and the heart of Serbia'. Too bad it hasn't been under Serbian control for the last ten years. I think the republic of Kosovo should have its own page because 3/5 of the Security Council members and 5/8 g8 members have recognized it. As for china and Russia, I don't think they can do much to avert this at all. I think wikipedia merely informs people of what the majority think and I think if the Security Council’s majority are in favor, the world is in favor. As for Serbia, I think it should have a separate section showing Serbian claims over the territory, but shouldn't show it as having control over the territory. Finally, two reasons for why Kosovo is different from Abkhazia and Ossetia.

1. Articles on wikipedia state that Albanians are most probably an ancient people and descendants of Illyrians while Serbians are a migrating people that only came to the Balkans in the Christian era. The Serbians never sprang out of Kosovo. They just replaced the existing people by force or assimilation something the Albanians could have done. And if you look at it historically, Albanians were there even before Serbians. If the people who held sway over a territory two centuries ago should have rights over a territory then Afghanistan should have half of Pakistan, Azerbaijan should be part of Iran, and Germany should get western Poland etc... Let's change ALL those maps. Irridentism has its fruits.

2. Let us not confuse Kosovo with Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno Karabakh. We need to assess every country and territory's conflicts on a case to case basis. Isn’t Russia supporting Abkhazian, South Ossetian, Nagorno Karabakh and Transnistrian independence? Then why are the rules any different for Kosovo? Forget about the fact that half of the prewar population of Abkhazia and the majority of the population of pre-war Transnistria were Georgian and Romanian and not Abkhazian and Slavic while Kosovo’s majority population is Albanian. Georgia never tried to ethnically cleanse Ossetia like the Serbs were doing with Kosovo, as a matter of fact; South Ossetian and Abkhazian actively cleared the territories of Georgians using terror tactics. As for Nagorno Karabakh, Russia actively supplied arms to Armenia during that conflict. The reason why it is not being resolved is because of Russia itself and because Armenia currently has troops in a sixth of Azerbaijan. Transnistria was carved out of Moldova with the same Russian rhetoric. Even now, Moldovans form a plurality in the territory if not a majority.

Finally, please don't portray Russia as the savior of international law here. We all full know how important international law is to Russia. Peace 74.37.119.132 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point -- Cra del  21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just wanted to clear things out about. Casimiri (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yay, another genius with the case-by-case approach. First of all, Transniestria was part of Ukrainian SSR before the war, and populated by (surprise!) Ukrainians. Stalin made it into Moldavia for future reference in order to claim Bessarabia later. Learn your history. As for lack of ethnic cleansing in post-soviet countries... Baku riots for Karabakh, the whole reign of Gamsakhurdia (please don't claim he wasn't a crazy fascist) for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is precisely the type of double standards Russia and China will not accept.

PS. And yeah, Russia isn't a savior of international law. What "you all know" is nice, but unlike US and NATO modern Russia NEVER broke international law. Ever. IDiO (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, well then please give Crimea back to the Crimean Tatars and Karelia to Finland oh and the Kurel Islands to Japan... All I am saying is Russia only holds onto international law when its own national interests are at stake. Let's face it, in today's world, no nation wants democracy, civil liberties or human rights, it's all about national interest. But sadly, the cold hard truth is that Kosovo declared independence, it has an overwhelming majority that supports that and a majority of the world's powers accept it as a nation. :) 165.196.139.16 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to get solved though concensus (rather then an arbitrary vote) then we are going to need to accept that not everyone sees the world from the same viewpoint. No "everybody knows" stuff for one, and no trying to argue uncertain facts. This is not some kind of Serbian VS Albanian debate, nor is it the Kosovo War Part II. This needs to be approached with a cool head and logical thought, which is one of the reasons I made the silly statement in my earlier posting that we should preface the article by saying Kosovo is a country if your in the US but not if your in Russia. That's just silly, and it goes to show where this argument is headed. Please, no more bickering, and lets focus on the issues here.

I think the argument at this point is based on what of maps. Should Kosovo be part of Serbia? If so, should it be different somehow, perhaps a unique shade or with a unique border? I say we should look at other conflicts over land and territory and see what we can apply from them. Neither Taiwan nor Palestine are included in most China or Israel maps, however they ARE included in some of them, using a unique colouring scheme. Pakistan and India both have maps showing the line of control in Kashmir, but both have maps that show Kashmir as a whole, as disputed. Many places have "breakaway" provinces of various success rates. Spain, The UK (not very successful), Georgia, Moldova (a little more successful). Anyway, the precedent I see in general is that the country's wiki page should include a map of it's maximum claim, but also include that certain areas are disputed. Does this sound reasonable for this, the serbia page? Nickjbor (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - that sounds reasonable - it's NPOV (not pro-Kosovo and not pro-Serbia). We can disagree about whether Kosovo should be indpendent (I think it should be, but other editors will not), but we can agree that Kosovo's independence is currently disputed. Once Kosovo is recognised by the UN then we can consider basing the Kosovo article on Israel - but until then, I would say change the map as I have suggested above and lock the article for seven days to see the international reaction. Does anybody agree with this or have anything to add to this? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate  15:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the map needs to reflect the reality. The reality at the moment is that kosovo claims to be independent and has at least partial international backing so its inclusion into Serbia outright would be meaningless. However, having a gray map of Kosovo to Serbia - showing Serbia's claim over the province - I think is a better decision. Casimiri (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, it doesn't have to be that complicated - just show a dotted border between Kosovo and Serbia and state that Kosovo has declared independence but that has not been accepted by Serbia. No need to make a decision either way. Take a look at the map of Azerbaijan which includes Nagorno Karabakh although it has declared independence or that of Cyprus with its Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. In both these cases the disputed area is marked off separately. I suggest using a dotted line on the border between them. Osli73 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

UN decision is: Kosovo is a part of Serbia
Have you heard latest news? Косовска Митровица (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, be as bold as you can. We need a neutral point of view in Wikipedia, not a Serbian one!--ArbërLet's talk 14:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * UN point of view seems very neutral to me, as well as for the rest of the world..and guess, UN seems to agree with Serbia on Kosovo issues. Косовска Митровица (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are a Serbian, I am an Albanian. There would be no neutral discussion. BUT, the fact is that Kosovo has declared independence and is not part of Serbia anymore (thank God!). And you should accept the reality, my enemy's friend, although it hurts at the beginning!--ArbërLet's talk 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did UN ever listed Kosovo as other than integral part of Serbia? No. Get your last news then. That 'independence' is nothing else than a joke. I don't worry about it since Serbia is much richer and powerfull now than it was few years ago. Do you know the wages from Serbia and those from Albania/Kosovo? Косовска Митровица (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What the UN thinks is neither here nor there. What matters are the opinions of the following countries: United Kingdom, United States, France, Germany and Italy. They are the Great Powers and they decide on issues such as these. And guess what? They say Kosovo is now an independent nation with its own sovereign government. We all know that sooner or later the world's remaining countries—even Russia and Serbia—will eventually recognise Kosovo. Let's just get on with it. Imperium Europeum (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK so only the U.K., U.S., France, Germany, and Italy matter now? How arrogant. So nations such as Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Vietnam, who've all declared that they will not recognize Kosovo's independence,  are insignificant (expect this list to grow in the coming days)? This is not even counting nations such as China, India, Greece, Indonesia, South Africa, Bosnia, New Zealand, Mexico, the Philippines, etc. who've expressed concern over this unilateral move and are likely to side with Serbia. Kosovo, who's economy is already a shambles, cannot survive with over half of the world boycotting them. The so-called Great Powers you've mentioned have not thought their actions through and the situation is only going to get worse. --Tocino 05:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And your conclusion regarding the question of whether Kosovo is part of Serbia or not was what, once again? Since you haven't taken any stand, I assume your argument is based on an appeal to feelings. That's unacceptable for WP:NPOV :). Anyways...--ArbërLet's talk 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My conclusion is that Kosovo is still part of Serbia according to every international organization and 165 of the 182 nations of the UN. But's that's not what I'm arguing about. I took issue with Imperium Europeum's comments that only the so-called Great Powers of the United Kingdom, United States, France, Germany and Italy decide on issues such as these. The only Great Power out of that lot is the U.S. these days, because the UK, France, Germany and Italy are weak (compared to the U.S., China, Russia, India, etc.) and haven't been "Great Powers" since the end of World War II. --Tocino 05:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the UN is concerned, Kosovo remains de jure part of Serbia. Different countries have different views. I believe the most straight forward thing to do is simply to show a map with a dotted line or something along the Kosovo/Serbia border and then in the text state that Kosovo has declared independence but that this has not been accepted by Serbia. For the rest of the story people can turn to the Kosovo article. Pls, it really doesn't have to be more complicated than that.Osli73 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Osli73, it's a matter of factual correctness. And the facts speak for themselves - Kosovo has declared independence from Serbia. I don't really see what the complication with it is...--ArbërLet's talk 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To some extent I agree, although the Serbian government has had no authority in Kosovo since 1999. It is therefore factually inaccurate to state that Kosovo is in any way subject to Belgrade. Imperium Europeum (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused about what people mean that "the UN" believes, recognizes or considers Kosovo to be anything. Are people talking about the Security Council? If so, then the Council is clearly divided on this question, with a number of its members (including permanent members) believing one thing and a number of its members (including permanent members) believing something else. This does not give any guidance on what Kosovo's status is. Is it the UN Secretariat (e.g., the Department of Peacekeeping Operations)? If so, then it is pretty clear that the Secretariat, including the Secretary-General, is struggling to remain "neutral" and not express an opinion on Kosovo's status. I only raise this point to reinforce the idea that we're dealing with a subjective reality and in such a situation have to do our best to report the controversy and present the differing points of view. Envoy202 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the UN doesnt recognize Kosovo - but the UN doesn't recognize Taiwan either - and the wikipedia map of PRC does NOT show Taiwan to be a part of mainland China. This map shouldn't show Kosovo as a part of Serbia either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.27.21 (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If wikipedia is editing Serbia from Neutral perspective then it should edit it from UN perspective... UN hasn't recognized Kosovo so the self proclamation should be ignored. Yes, this is an English wikipedia, but English isn't about UK, USA, Australia etc. it is Universal language the UN made it so... so this is Universal part of the wikipedia that means all people from all over the WORLD(UN) comes here, so if the WORLD(UN) still doesn't recognize Kosovo, Kosovo should stay in Serbia's map as it was... or at least a bit darker then rest of the Serbia. But not in a totaly diferent collor... never...--Kosovo was, is and will be Serbia (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, one should strive for exposing the FACTS. This is the very first step to reaching a neutral point of view. The fact is that Kosovo has declared (unilateral) independence from Serbia. Therefore, the only country that cannot immediately recognize independence is Serbia (who wouldn't let Kosovo declare independence). Hence, I don't see why you have to appeal to your emotions (which is a logical fallacy), thus needlessly complicating the issue at hand :)--ArbërLet's talk 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my catholic god: I'm really now fed up with those Serbs. They're annoying. --Mike551 (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous WWI map
The map with the caption "Military alliances in Europe, 1914" used in the history section is not completely correct. It shows Romania and Italy--both neutral in 1914--as allies of the entente. However, both joined the entente during the war--Italy in 1915, Romania in 1916.

What we need to do here is (i) change the colors in the map or (ii) edit the caption. In any case the file name of the existing map should be changed. Since the map is not a vector graphic I am unable to perform action (i), which I favor, because it appears more reasonable to show alliances at the beginning of a war, than at an arbitrary afterwards. Therefore, I am waiting if someone wants to take an initiative. Otherwise I will simply perform option (ii) at a later stage. What would be better to change 1914 to 1916 or to 1918, the latter refers to the end of WWI? Tomeasy (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The map and caption say "alliances in 1914", you yourself have said they were neutral in 1914, therefore the map is correct and I see no reason to change it. 128.227.104.106 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, have a look on the map again. The color for neutral is yellow and these countries are light green, as so they were allied powers. Tomeasy (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on Kosovo
Is there consensus by now, as to whether this article should consider Kosovo as a part of Serbia or not? I do not want to advocate for either option, I am just not happy with the upcoming inconsistencies. Just as an example: maps versus international borders in the text. It might be difficult to achieve, but having consensus would give neutral people the chance to improve the quality of the article. Tomeasy (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we have to say at this point that Kosovo, as far as much of the world is concerned, is now an independent nation, for good or bad, and not a part of Serbia.-- Rob NS  17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kosovo is a part of Serbia, UN said so. Косовска Митровица (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Provided this view is going to consolidate in the near future, what do you think about the "breakaway province" formulation? Isn't that too emotional? Something like "former province" sounds much more encyclopedic to me. Tomeasy (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see that the issue of Kosovo's sovereignty is going to be one that could spark edit wars. For now I would suggest that we wait to see if the U.N. makes a decision if any on Kosovo. If it recognizes Kosovo's independence while other countries like Russia and Serbia itself do not, Kosovo should be represented as a disputed area on maps which show or represent Serbia and in order to avoid inflaming tensions on Wikipedia, Kosovo should be considered a disputed neighbouring entity with Serbia.--R-41 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Should Xinjiang, Tibet, Chechnya and all the other unrepresented countries and territories be also put as disputed then? I think keeping a gray map of Kosovo attached to Serbia and giving Kosovo it's rightful country page is the best. Has anyone seen the Russian wikipedia's country page for the Republic of Transnistria? 165.196.139.16 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are committing a reductio ad absurdum. Tibet has never declared independence. Kosovo did declare independence from Serbia and has been recognized by many countries as sovereign. Therefore, the map must be modified accordingly. That way, we will preserve a neutral point of view.-- A rbë r ( Let's Talk ) 08:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The UN will not answer this question for us. The UN Security Council is divided and deadlocked on this issue. The Council will not declare Kosovo's declaration of independence void (what Russia wants), but nor will it endorse it and admit Kosovo membership in the UN (what Europe and the United States want). Envoy202 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case it's not for us to answer the question - to quote WP:NPOV, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." That means that we have to state that Kosovo is regarded by Serbia as part of its territory and by a large section of the international community as an independent state. As far as the map is concerned, I suggest that the issue should be taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps for input from the experts on how disputed territories are conventionally represented on maps. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's far too early to pick a side (I think the map showing it cut out is a touch premature as well). Only a dozen nations out of roughly 160 have recognized its indepence. That includes many nations in the EU as well. The declaraton should be acknowledged, but it's too early to tell what the final outcome will be. Kosovo can possilby be divided (the north is still marjority Serb), there could be further violence and perhaps another war (and if a newly emboldened Russia truely backs Serbia, how firm will NATO stand, particularly since some NATO nations are not behind independence for Kosovo). I think Kosovo should be treated the way it was prior to the declaration - nominally part of Serbia, but set off in some way. JoZeppy (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As of right now, 16 out of 192 UN member states. Having said that, that figure does include three of the five UN Security Council permanent members, so we're talking heavyweights, not Burkina Fasos. Kosovo is clearly more than just "nominally part of Serbia" but less than a UN member state. Right now it seems to be more akin to a European Taiwan than anything else. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's a lot different from Taiwan, as Taiwan has not formally declared independence. NN 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Presevo region and (north) Vojvodina
The article fails to address the issue of the Presevo region and North Vojvodina where the Serbs are in a minority, which have autonomist movements and are likely to eventually join Kosova and Hungary respectively. Trompeta (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there isn't any autonomist movement in North Vojvodina.


 * No original research is the official policy of Wikipedia. --Avala (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Albert Daci
Former President of Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.222.155 (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protected
Since multiple editors are edit warring, I have protected the page. Please consider resolving disputes by seeking consensus here instead. -- slakr \ talk / 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is essentially the same edit war as Kosovo's edit war, and both articles should be treated jointly. Same cause, too: Kosovo declared independence, and the Serbs and advocates are denying it's a country, whereas the Kosovars and advocates are asserting it's a country. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and Serbia
I have put the following notice on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement:

The 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence a few days ago touched off (or reignited) a ferocious edit war on Kosovo that spilled over to Serbia, the reason being that some asserted that Kosovo was an independent state, while others said it wasn't. It is my understanding that Kosovo was already under Arbcom probation at the time (whatever that means), and that Serbia was likely under the same probation, because of earlier assertations along the same lines. Currently, both pages are protected for a week. I'm not at all sure that this was the right thing to do (I am NOT an admin, so don't ask me), and I'm not at all sure that a week's protection is enough (or too much, for that matter). What says Arbcom? &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 06:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I did that out of concern that the Serb/Albanian/Kosovar edit war was getting out of hand again. Please stick to NPOV. Thanks. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 06:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

According to CIA world factbook Serbian GDP per capita is $7700 not $8300.


 * ✅ Happy‑melon 15:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, folks!


 * I please you to add the correct political map of Serbia: Image:Serbia2008.png. All major english spoken countries have formally recognized Kosovo as an indepentent state. So en.wikipedia.org must provide the correct status. It's untolerable that we ignore this important fact. (The Russian and Serbian wikipedia sites may still leave the old map of Serbia)


 * Thanks. --Mike551 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not my understanding of NPOV. Views of governments of anglophone countries should have no more of a voice in English-language Wikipedia than those of other countries. A solution to the mapping question must be found on other grounds - this is honestly a ridiculous argument. --Dzordzm (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dzordzm you have no right here just the right to read. It's enough, you serbs are using wikipedia in all mayor erueopian languages to make propaganda for your gerater serbia. Please stopped this! Kosovo is an independent state recognized by the mayor europian states - and that a fact, as the declaring of the indepentent's on February 17th is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.95.124 (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * English-speaking people on this Wikipedia will kindly note that I have not argued one way or the other - I merely noted that it is not acceptable to make an argument that decisions of anglophone governments have more bearing on English Wikipedia, decisions of Slavic-speaking governments on Serbian and Russian Wikipedias, etc. That is simply flagrantly against WP:NPOV; other arguments must be used to decide about maps. --Dzordzm (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dzordzm, indeed you are right. And here are the arguments as to why the map needs to be changed to take heed of the fact that Kosovo is now an independent state:

(1) All the major western powers—UK, France, Germany, Italy and the USA—recognise Kosovan independence.

(2) The EU has accepted the new reality, even if it has not explicitly recognised an independent Kosovo; this is evident due to recent statements from the Council of Ministers and the fact that 2,200 EU forces are being deployed in Kosovo.

(3) Serbia has had no control over Kosovo for almost a decade.

(4) Serbia has no means to regain Kosovo.

(5) The new country is under European and American supervision and therefore protection.

(6) Serbian wars of aggression, including genocide, in the 1990s, have completely alienated the Kosovan population, meaning that the two perspectives—Serbian and Kosovan—are irreconcilable.

(7) Many other countries will eventually recognise Kosovo, including most European countries.

Time to accept reality, everyone! Kosovo is not, and will not be again, part of Serbia. Imperium Europeum (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

KOSOVO I METOHIJA will always be read ALWAYS an integral part of serbia as long as WE don recognize it so new maps are not needed
 * Exactly-per Imperium Europeum --Cra del 14:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ...And so the history was written (and foretold in (7)) by the Imperium Europeum, who being from United Kingdom values the voice of Western people much more than the voice of Eastern people, like billion+ Chinese, billion+ Indian, or Latin people, like 160+ million Brazilians, etc ... You know, all these nations are part of this world. West has done no good on Balkans in last few decades, except selling arms and training paramilitary and terrorist organizations, and sanctioning 10 million people for years, and allowing ethnic cleansing of 400,000 Serbs from Croatia. Please stop with your pro-western agenda. There is already enough Western bias in reality, and you really need not add yours imaginary. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ❌ Please establish consensus for a content change such as this and re-add the template once a clear decision has been reached. Happy‑melon 15:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are clearly two mutually-exclusive points of view: Kosovo is part of Serbia; and Kosovo is independent from Serbia. Some people are going to disagree with whichever version of the map we show.  This is not a black-and-white situation - so surely the solution is to show two maps, each showing different opinions of the "truth"; one labelled, "Serbia as defined by the Serbian government", the other as "Serbia as recognised by much of the international community" - or something along those lines anyway. Seems a sensible compromise to me.  Your thoughts? Bazonka (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken infobox code
editprotected Please take a look at the "references" in the infobox. Somebody has modified the content so severely that it broke the reference links. Reference no. 7 has been messed up with no. 5 and no. 6 is completely dead. The infobox on seems to contain the same information but with correctly working reference links. The broken code is due to an edit made to the line beginning with " | footnotes " which should be returned to:

| footnotes = 1 All spoken in Vojvodina. ² Spoken in Kosovo. ³ Second term in office 4 To the Ottoman Empire and Kingdom of Hungary 5 Does not include the figures for Kosovo 6 The Euro is used in Kosovo alongside the Dinar. 7 .rs became active in September 2007. Suffix .yu will exist until September 2009.

This request is not made due to any preference either way regarding the actual content of the infobox. I just hate seeing messed up reference links. 83.89.43.14 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. Sandstein (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused - Can we bring the two articles together
So after watching the protests on TV I came to see this article and I'm confused. According to the map here Kosovo is part of Serbia. But that does not match with the map in Kosovo. Which one is it? Mineralè (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the Serbs are saying Kosovo is part of Serbia and the Kosovos are saying that Kosovo is not part of Serbia. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Kosovos" aren't saying Kosovo is there's, the Albanians are. 67.41.118.68 (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, can we decide on something ? We can't have two competing maps it sends the wrong message, the exact one that critics want to see, wikipedia is not a neutral source of info, but more like the bickering at the local bus station. This has to fixed. Mineralè (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we cant have two maps , look at People's republic of China , China claims Taiwan but it isnt on the map there --Cra <font family="Times new Roman" color="red">del 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A question
so...now...What is the area of Serbia?
 * That's logical - The new are of Serbia = The area of the Republic of Serbia less the area of the Republic of Kosovo.--ArbërLet's talk 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. That's true. We should put it to the article. Örsvezér (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Therefore the area is 77.474 sq km. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simion Eugen-Andrei, Bucharest, Romania (talk • contribs) 06:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe
Hello ! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FINAL STANCE ON KOSOVO!
Kosovo is recognized by half the world, but not by the other half. More importantly Kosovo is not a member of the UN, so it cannot be said Kosovo is independent, nor can it be said Kosovo is a part of Serbia. So for now, Kosovo is a NATO state, i think we should agree on that.


 * Vatican State is also not a member of the UN. Does this mean Vatican is not independent? --Mike551 (talk)


 * Vatican State or rather corectly The Holy See do not want to be part of UN. It has only observer status. Its relations is only with some UN Agencies. Just like Switzerland- Vatican do not want to be part of this organization becouse it is all in all also military alliace. Switzerland joined UN finally in 2001. Kosovo want to be in UN but it has no chnce. Country ruling by mafia and with one side declaration of independence do not have chance to be part of UN. Im affraid that you do not know nothing about Vatican's mebership or not-membership in UN.--Siekierki (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, 160 of the 182 member states of the U.N. have not recognized Kosovo as of March 1, 2008. --Tocino 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also no international organization currently recognizes Kosovo as an indepedent state. Kosovo will not be emitted to the UN because Russia and China have veto power, even though it looks like the vast majority of nation states will not recognize unilateral independence. It's also unlikely that Kosovo will join the E.U. either because there is considerable opposition amongst states such as Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, and Cyprus. --Tocino 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hhahahahahahahahahah- Kosovo is recognised by 23 countries (including Taiwan)! If Etiopia or Angola do not say anything about Kosovo's independene, it does not mean that they support it! Kosovo cannot be part of UN or EU not becouse Russia has a veto power but becouse Kosovo independence was against ALL international trites and international law ! --Siekierki (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kosovo is not part of Serbia and will never be part of Serbia and your Serbian government will never have any control over Kosovo, so whatever you say is just blowing the wind. Who cares about UN membership, Kosovo will be part of the EU. The most important part is that Kosovo is not under your control. Bosniak (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If besides bold you also try CAPITALIZING maybe we will start believing you. Specially as you classified yourself as a prophet. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

//  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 02:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is true that ...we all expect from Serbs..., and maybe it is true that ...all generalizations are false, including this one...Lakinekaki (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I care about UN and law! Acording to UN and international trieties Kosovo is a part of Serbia and becouse its "independence" is against UN Charter it cannot be part of UN and EU as well--Siekierki (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

MAP OF SERBIA INNACURATE
Here is the map of Serbia we should use. It's listed at CIA World FactBook. As you can see, Serbia is smaller and Kosovo is not part of Serbia. Therefore, I will be removing current map of Serbia because Wikipedia should be based on facts, not on somebody's wishes. Kosovo is not Serbia, and the map of Serbia should match the map from CIA World FactBook. Bosniak (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Kosovo is Serbia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.196.59 (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Good idea. The majority of the EU and UN permenant members recognise Kosovo as independent. 2007apm (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct Map of Serbia looks like this
Correct map of Serbia looks like this:


 * But it doesn't. Only couple of states recognize Kosovo's independence, since UN and 200+ countries don't we should keep the current map. (BTW, Wikipedia doesn't follow US or Western European POV, nor it should). Man with one red shoe (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha... You are in denial stage, which is fine. No matter what you say and no matter what God says, Kosovo will never be part of Serbia, and that's a fact. Everything else is irrelevant, including Serbia. Bosniak (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * get your views on a forum, not here pal-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you confuse a fact -- that more countries recognize Serbia with Kosovo than countries that recognize Kosovo's independence, also the fact that no international organization recognizes Kosovo, with my personal opinions (about which you frankly have no clue). Man with one red shoe (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually really like that map. The dotted line (the "UNMIK line") conveys the fact that Kosovo is not universally recognized and that Serbia rejects its independence. Envoy202 (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe just add the color? 212.62.54.246 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello folks! Can someone please upload this map to Wikimedia Commons? I presume other Wikis would also have such a 'correct' map. (I gladly would do that but I'm unfamilar with the copyright tags.) Thanks in advice. Mike --Mike551 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Updated maps (without the "UNMIK-line") are uploaded as Image:Kosovo-map.gif and Image:Serbia-map.gif, with correct PD-tags. --Camptown (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is wikipedia.Wikipedia should be based on FACTS,not your wishes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.195.191 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputes
Some thing tells me that we are going to see a lot more of these types of disputes play out on wikipedia and English wikipedia will probably bear the brunt of it. Oh well it makes life a lot more fun for me. This proves English is the only language you’ll ever need to Know!--J intela (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't think there will be any more disputes because it's clear that Kosovo is definitely an independent and free country. --Mike551 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not according to international laws and treaties. There are a handful of countries that recognize its independence, but that has no relevance when it comes to UN, Serbia is part of UN, Kosovo by itself is not and will probably never be, unless they manage to reach an agreement with the Serbs. I think Wikipedia should clarify its policy regarding these issues, what is the criteria used for maps and the like, UN recognized countries? Countries recognized by majority of other countries, or countries recognized by US? (Basically, is Wikipedia US/West-European centric?) Man with one red shoe (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that pro-Serbs will push for the UN recognition criterion as Russia will certainly block Kosovo's joining for years, no matter how many other countries recognise Kosovo. However, this just shows that the UN is not at all a neutral organisation, but is obviously controlled by the 5 veto powers. Anyway, Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002 - does this mean it wasn't a sovereign country before? The Vatican City is still only an observer to the UN and not a full member... Khuft (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not talk about pro-Serbia or pro-Kosovo supporters because I'm sure each side has supporters, what objective criteria should we use in your opinion? Man with one red shoe (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Inserting two maps. (One with and the other without Kosovo as it was several days ago.) That's my opinion for a good solution. --Mike551 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree - we should have both maps. Khuft (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the map of Morocco: Maybe Serbia's territorial dispute could be handled in the same way? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I believe the map of Serbia should include Kosovo (inside the international border of Serbia, that is) but with Kosovo shaded/highlighted to indicate it is disputed. The comparison with Morocco/W Sahara is not entirely correct since neither the UN nor most countries recognize Morocco's annexation of W Sahara. The comparison with Switzerland is completely irrelevant since its borders or sovereignty were never disputed.Osli73 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From todays text...

[edit] Climate The Serbian climate varies between a continental climate in the north, with cold winters, and hot, humid summers with well distributed rainfall patterns, and a more Adriatic climate in the south with hot, dry summers and autumns and relatively cold winters with heavy inland snowfall. Differences in Bogota, proximity to the Adriatic sea and large river basins, as well as the exposure to the winds account for climate differences.[3]

Differences in Bogata? What the heck is that? -The source article asserts differences in ELEVATION.

I hope this is not controversial ;-) 75.45.5.43 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bogotá is the capital of 🇨🇴 colombia, but I don't know what it has to do with this... (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Language
The one thing I was looking for on the page was the languages spoken in Serbia & whether the correct term for the main language is serbo-croat or not. I found what I wanted on the 'serbo-croat' page. Any chance of adding something here? Dublinblue (Simon in Dublin) (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The common Serbo-Croatian standard of the former Yugoslavia has dissolved in 1990s. Currently there are three standard languages that have developed from the Central South Slavic vernacular and have passed through a common Serbo-Croatian phase of 1850s-1990s, and these are Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. Due to their common origin and a common period in their history, they share a large extent of mutual intelligibility. The term "Serbo-Croatian" is, however, still used sometimes as an umbrella term for the three current (and a possible fourth — Montenegrin) Central South Slavic standards. --George D. Božović (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary republic
Serbia is not parliamentary democracy. It's government system is parliamentary republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gggh (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

FactBook 2008: Map of Serbia does not contain Kosovo, and Vice Versa
1) FactBook 2008 lists map of Serbia without Kosovo, see map.

2) Also, FactBook 2008 lists map of Kosovo *without* Serbia, see map. I recommend we use these maps in the article. 24.82.181.243 (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree! 213.112.155.138 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed. Kosovo is regarded as a province of Serbia according to 159 of the 192 U.N. member states... that is why the map is currently what it is. --Tocino 05:44, 24 March 2008 UTC)

Does this mean that when the majority of U.N. member states recognizes kosovo (which will happen in a couple of months) than wikipedia will change all of the maps to include kosovo too? 213.112.155.183 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it means - and hardly it's gonna happen in months (maybe years though). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Who cares about majority of UN countries? It's the quality of recognition - not quantity. The US, Britain, Western Europe... all major powers recognized Kosovo. Get a doze of reality. Serbia and anti-Western countries claim that because UN SCR 1244 refers to the “territorial integrity” of Yugoslavia, Kosovo cannot declare independence without a new security council resolution. However, because UN 1244 Resolution's reference to “territorial integrity” is mentioned in the preamble and is thus not legally binding, and because nothing else in UN SCR 1244 says Kosovo can’t declare independence, Kosovo can declare independence without a new security council resolution. Thust far, Resolution 1244 has never prevented Kosovo from becoming internationally supervised country with limited independence. Therefore, Republic of Kosovo is not part of Serbia and will never be part of Serbia. 209.53.181.45 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "all major powers recognized Kosovo" -- You forget about Russia and China, they are permanent members of Security Council and major powers too. Also, I am not sure the power of the countries is a criterion that's used on Wikipedia. Second, the fact that a resolution doesn't forbid something doesn't meant that that thing is permitted under UN rules. Third, we don't decide here what's the legal status of Kosovo, we just follow what the majority of countries recognize, and as of now the majority of countries don't recognize Kosovo, when that changes, we will change the map too (unless there's a Wikipedia policy that says that Wikipedia should follow USA or Western Europe POV) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Man with one red shoe (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

U-turn: Serbia formally proposes partitioning Kosovo
On March 24, Serbia formally proposed partitioning Kosovo along ethnic lines, asking the United Nations to ensure that Belgrade can control key institutions and functions in areas of the newly independent country where Serbs form a majority.(see e.g. International Herald Tribune) This is interesting, as it seems like a devided Serbian government is starting to realize that it actually lost Kosovo... --Camptown (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The map in Infobox
Kosovo state, is formally recognised from 36 states, this is meaning Serbians old borders are not any more recognised from 36 states. Serbia can choice to be recognised i new borders or to be not recognised from this 36 states. No body cane recognised two states in same land. You must chanche the maps of Serbia. Corrently the Serbian State and Kosovo State LAW are equivalent.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dsputed Borders
The borders of Serbia are dispudet in UN, from the UN members argument is here.

The political map of sebia since UNMIK is in Kosovo are without Kosovo political map. This is esay to understand. Serbian state goverment since thate time dident have no resposebelity over the Kosovo. You can make every map you will, bout this is not corect, and you are desinformation the opinion. --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

One teryory two states
One teritory two statest, thate is meaning disputed. You can not have two state goverment for one teritory. In this case, or this govermend´s recontnase each other ore bothe are disputed.

You have a State (Serbia) with old borders witch is not anymore recotnezed als souch from 36 members of the UN. This must be clean for each iuser.

This 36 states dont recotnes Serbia in old borders anymore, this is meaning if Serbia refuse there ofert to be regotnaed in new borders, is going to lose the "recotnesen" from 36 states. This is like 1+1=2 OR 2-1=1--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Upss!!! Till now, Serbian govermend has protestit bout diden´t say thate they don´t wount to be recotnased in new borders. In same time, in witch one State recotnes Kosovo als State, is maken Serbia a offert to be recotnased in new borders. Serbian can refuse this offer, but they dont do this, they protes only.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For more see the history of Germany, it was a same sitution. And the German govermend left the Liga of Nations. This is not protes but, they diden´t wountit to be recotnesed als govermend in new borders oly in old borders.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thise mackes perfct sens. man with one red shoe (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to ...
If you (Mr. User talk:Man with one red shoe) want to protect your theory, go to your government and say to them that "they don´t want to be recontnesed in new borders and go a way from UN". But this is not your government, this is a Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My government recognizes Kosovo. I don't have a theory. I don't have any other thing to add to this discussion until you explain why the POV of 30 something countries has priority in Wikipedia over the POV of 150 or so of other countries (big and small, important and less important) -- man with one red shoe (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well since this is English wikipedia, the boarders should relate to English speaking countries. Since US, UK, Canada, Australia amd Ireland have all recognised and they are the majority of English speaking nations we should follow what them countries believe the boarders to be. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * India has more population that all these countries combined and English is official language. Not sure if India recognizes Kosovo, but you get my point, it's not only there country who speak English, plus, this encyclopedia is for all people who speak English not only to the countries that have English as official language (as we witnessed in previous rants on this talk page) man with one red shoe (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying to change the information in Russian or Indian Wikipedia, but in English Wikipedia. Here, for the people of the English spoken countries Kosovo and Serbia must be present as two Stats. This is the logic of this 36 Stats.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The US, GB etc. Embassy in Prishtina, don't accept this map anymore!!! In US, GB School they don´t use anymore this map!!! If you want this map you can find in Russian school.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are an idiot. Please learn some decent English or stop posting you writings in albanian-english with some elements of german. In mid-time leave this discussion to English speakers. Better yet write all your crap on albanian page, I think you will be understood there, after all you had the same English teachers. Dualnature (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC) @Dualnature. please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, you are the idiot for not following wikipedias rules. You should not discriminate someone over their language, this can be seen as racist Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

SERBIA HAVE TWO AUTONOMOUS PROVINCES !!!
People,Serbia have two autonomous provinces Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija.Wikipedia should be neutral,if we have article in which we can read that Kosovo and Metohija is not autonomous province of Serbia than Wikipedia is clearly pro-albanian.In Serbia's constitution Kosovo and Metohija is considered as Serbian autonomous province and in Serbia article this should be respected.We should write in the article that Serbia have 2 autonomous province but Kosovo have declared independence and it is partialy recognized as independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

History section
The history section is out of control 15 headers in total most of which is basically the same as History of Serbia --<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> (Contribs)  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">(Talk)  14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

THE SOLUTION TO THE KOSOVO PROBLEM
Until Kosovo is admitted in to the UN the map of serbia stays this way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.98.19 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then how about People's Republic of China? Similar to Serbia's claim to Kosovo, PRC claims Taiwan as part of it. However, Republic of China is the one that really controls Taiwan, but it is not admitted into the UN either (since 1971). So according to your theory, if Serbia's map includes Kosovo, PRC's map should include Taiwan too.--216.254.164.81 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, interesting solution. But it's a logical fallacy.--ArbërT • ? 10:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Taiwan is a part of China! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.212.90 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland has been independent since 1039 and joined UN in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.195.250 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So Kosovo Albanians are going to wait 1000 years for U.N. membership? --Tocino 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we include the dotted UNMIK line on the map until they leave Kosovo. Its just been announced that they are staying for longer. Then when UNMIK finally leave Kosovo, we can re-discus the situation? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that sounds logical...

One may find some commentary about western Balkans events from Arirusila´s weblog [ http://www.arirusila.wordpress.com ]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arirusila (talk • contribs) 12:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Motto and flag
First, official motto of Serbia "Samo sloga Srbina spasava" doesn't officially exist, it's just how some interpret the four S on COA, which are not even S, but ognjila.

Second, several other countries also have both a state flag and a civil flag, but only in this article is state flag used (and not civil), which is, well, unexplainable. See flags on articles Austria, Finland, Germany and articles about their flags. --89.216.37.84 (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not true. Check e.g. Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina or Spain, where the state flag is also used instead of the civil flag. In these cases, as in the case of Serbia, the state flag is the more commonly used one, so it makes sense to include that flag on the country's page. Khuft (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
There were a few links difficult to disambiguate, someone could like to look into them, I have marked them in the article. --Ruziklan (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Demography data
The current text of article says (bolding by me): Something is definitely wrong here. Please, somebody with sources, check and correct this part. --Ruziklan (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Total: 7,498,001
 * Serbs: 6,212,000 (82.86%)
 * Hungarians: 293,172 (3.91%)
 * Bosniaks: 136,464 (1.82%)
 * Roma: 107,971 (1.44%)
 * Yugoslavs: 80,978 (1.08%)
 * Croats: 70,602 (0.94%)
 * Albanians: 61,647 (0.82%)
 * Slovaks: 57,900 (0.89%)
 * Yeah, something wrong, here the sources: http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/en/Zip/CensusBook1.pdf Population by national or ethnic affiliation(2002 Census). Someboby can correct this part. Next problem is in the infobox:(2008 census 	8,023,557), Please, somebody with sources, check and correct this part, becouse the link number "6", doesn't working. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.59.235 (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Inserted picture as reference
Hi!

I think that this picture as 8th reference don't belong here, whatever it contains. It looks really awfull. It's my first time to see (such big) picture as reference (along with other text written references) in any encyclopedia. I use Firefox (3.0b) and there are other references written above that picture. Mess!

Could we make consensus about deleting it or moving it or do something other?

--Čikić Dragan (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Population of Serbia without Kosovo IS 8 MILLION NOT 7.5 million
Who the hell keeps putting in population information from 2002? i had CIA factbook population from 2008 so why was it changed. If you wanna include population of Serbia without Kosovo its 8 million. Population of Kosovo 2 million, population of Serbia with Kosovo is 10 million. 10 million - 2 million = 8 million NOT 7.5 million, get a f*cking calculator or go finish grade 5 math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rza90 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

More information for culture would make the article better
If some more information on culture, especially modern Serbian culture is added and a picture or two of modern Serbian culture is added, the article would be more up to date.--R-41 (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and UN Security Council
"Serbia's government, as well as the UN Security Council, have not recognised Kosovo's independence." The UN SC cannot recognize the independent of other countrys, she only can give a legal basis. Only each country can deciced one his own to recognize the indepentence of another country. Like Montenegro, the UN SC only confirmed the independence of this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.245.115 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

About the map of Serbia


In my opinion, as the same way that happens with other disputed and separated terriories in other countries, like Kashmir in India (and Pakistan and China), to show Serbia on a map as like the Kosovo question did not exist is POV, as the same way that to show Serbia completely separated from Kosovo.

So, I think a good solution would be show Serbia in the map with Kosovo, but with the Kosovo territory marked with a different colouring or shading as a disputed territory, in the same way that happens to the maps of India currently on Wikipedia.


 * The good solution is to shade Kosovo in the map of Serbia, just like in the map of Morrocco, where the shaded area is Western Sahara.--207.112.34.108 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust/Genocide over the Serbs in NDH
This is POV. Holocaust is a term used exclusevly for Jewish suffering in the WW2. Roma people also suffered during ww2 yet that is not classified as Holocaust.

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it isn't quite, but the info is not corresponding. There are other articles for that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In this part of article problem is user:NeroN BG which is refusing discussion and deleting again and again statement confirmed by international accepted sources with statements confirmed by Serbian lobby groups.
 * About Holocaust and Serbs my only comment is that many Serbs think that they are last tribe of Israel (example:Vuk Drašković) or that Jews and Serbs are brothers with similar history. With knowledge that NPOV editor can't fight this nationalistic extreme right thinking my only comments are laughs.--Rjecina (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many pictures, too little content
This article is cluttered with many pictures while having little reliable content, often sourced from websites which can be dubious. To make this article of better quality, either significant more reliable referenced content (i.e. scholarly sources) must be put in to give space for the pictures now on the page. If this is done the number of pictures will be acceptable. However if editors wish to keep this article minimal in size, then unnecessary pictures must be removed.--R-41 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)