Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Kosovo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

This article is protected since May 30 because of disputes on its introduction. Please refer to /Archive 9 and /Intro_changes_proposal for more information. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected now. -- ChrisO 07:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the lists of former Presinents and Prime Ministers? We don't do this anywhere else in Wikipedia and it emphasises the Albanian viewpoint without a balanced discussion of political leaders from the minority communities: why not take the list back to before 1999? (JD)

Finally the good editors of Wikipedia came to their senses. I remember a time when Kosovo was a part of the FRY even though it was 2005. I'm glad that it really does say that it is part of Serbia. Peace. --Косово 04:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been no agreement whatsoever. The dispute continues!Ferick 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been agreement. If you continue revert warring, POV-pushing and inserting original research, action will be taken against you. I suggest that you accept that a majority consensus has been reached and move on from there. -- ChrisO 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with this version, at all. ilir_pz 11:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

We all know why Ilir, give it a rest. Litany 11:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think I can bear it. Thanks for the piece of advice. ilir_pz 11:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be worth reminding people of the basic rules of Wikipedia. A lot of the arguments over the previous version of this article were, I think, largely due to these policies not being followed. I've rewritten the article to make it strictly wikipolicy-compliant, and I intend to ensure that those policies are followed on this article:

• Don't add partisan commentary, and ensure that your contributions are written in a neutral tone. We're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a partisan screed. (WP:NPOV).

• Any additions must be sourced, cited and verifiable. (WP:CITE, WP:V).

• Any sources must be reliable. Newspaper reports, government documents, books and reports from well-known international organisations are generally regarded as good sources. Commentary on ersonal websites or the personal views of individual editors are not. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR.

If we follow these policies we should be OK. -- ChrisO 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the version that I just inserted, and is being blindly reverted by Litany does comply with all the points above. The source I provided can't be more verifiable, reliable, and the most important document. I will have to revert back to that, as it is more legitimate than any newspaper claim that some people like to cite here. Regards, ilir_pz 11:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to jump into this discussion, but the term "province" is, at best, misleading and, at worst, inaccurate and biased.

The encylopedias cited here are (generally) out of date or incorrect. "Province" refers to an administrative unit within a larger country. UNSCR 1244, however, makes clear that Kosovo is not administered by Serbia, even through "FRY" sovereignty and territorial integrity is to be respected. Serbia is permitted no role in Kosovo's governance, therefore it cannot be administratively a part of Serbia. Most (but admittedly not all) serious international documents on Kosovo avoid the word (for example, go through the last six years of Contact Group public statements) for this reason. Every once in awhile it slips into a UN document. Most media outlets are too lazy to get this one right.

More problematic, however, is that the term suggests bias. Belgrade officials at the high-level talks in Vienna last week made a point of repeatedly calling Kosovo their "province," knowing it would annoy the Kosovars (it did!). Plus, the mere fact that we are having this discussion demonstrates that the term is controversial. Since there are a hundred other good ways to refer to Kosovo without using this term, it is good usage to use something that is neutral (region, UN-administered territory, etc.)

I have no problem with noting that Kosovo is still part of Serbia (something the Kosovars like to forget!). Per UNSCR 1244, Kosovo is legally part of Serbia (as the successor state to the FRY), at least until the political process to determine Kosovo's future status is concluded. Ideally, this important distinction should be referred to in the introduction more accurately.

I disagree with the previous comments, with good grounds. Please see the section below. (JD)

For the record, I think it's worth mentioning how other reputable and reliable encyclopedias describe Kosovo's status:

Encyclopedia Britannica

Kosovo, region within the republic of Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia, 1929–2003), occupying the southwestern portion of the republic...

Britannica Student

The province of Kosovo is part of Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia), a country in the Balkan region of Southeastern Europe.

Britannica Junior

The province of Kosovo lies within the republic of Serbia, in eastern Europe.

The Oxford Dictionary of English

Kosovo, an autonomous province of Serbia ...

The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable

An autonomous province of Serbia bordering on Albania ...

Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names

A geographic, and predominantly Albanian-populated, region under Serbian sovereignty—but, in effect, a European-run colony or protectorate under UN administration since mid-1999 ...

World Encyclopedia

Autonomous province in s Serbia ...

The Macmillan Encyclopedia

An autonomous province of S Serbia, in the Union of Serbia and Montenegro.

The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia

Province of S Serbia...

The Columbia Encyclopedia

Albanian Kosova, Serbo-Croatian Kosovo i Metohija and Kosmet ... S Serbia and Montenegro, in Serbia.

The Hutchinson Encyclopedia

Autonomous region 1945-1990 of southern Serbia ...

In short, there isn't a single reference source that I can find that describes Kosovo as anything other than a province in Serbia. This emphasizes just how far outside the mainstream Ilir pz and Ferick's position is. -- ChrisO 12:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Two more examples below: --Evv 04:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• National Geographic Atlas of the World, Eighth Edition, 2004: The Serbian province of Kosovo (known as Kosova to Albanians) continues to be administered by the United Nations as an international protectorate.
• BBC, Regions and territories: Kosovo: Kosovo, a landlocked province within Serbia... The province is administered by the UN...

Eh - that's what I've been trying to say for a long time... Please skim the Archives. The same thing (...Province of Serbia...) is stated by the CIA World Factbook, as well as by several sites dedicated to the "Countries of the World", Brockhaus Encyclopedia, LaRousse, etc. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And all these sources are more reliable than Kosovo's Constitutional Framework adopted by the UN administration, and approved by UN's Security council???? Am I saying something wrong, or the Constitutional Framework of Kosovo is the most important law, and especially over any Encyclopedias that you have cited here? I do not think my mainstream is far from the truth, yours is, definitely, because it ignores this main document. Greetz, ilir_pz 13:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of legal documents and resources. Encyclopedias contain interpretations of laws and documents. If all big news stations, international organisations and encyclopedias interprete the Constitutional Framework as Kosovo being a province of Serbia, why should we disagree? That would come close to original research, which is not allowed (Wikipedia:NOR). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you be allowed to misinterprete a Constitution just like that then? NOWHERE does this UN approved document state what some people are speculating above? I am all against speculation, dear Wikipedians. Should anyone have a political reason to push for that, I am the last person who cares about that pushy way of misinterpreting a law. Regards, ilir_pz 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, am I correct that it is your opinion that all encyclopedias above [1] and in addition the BBC, CNN, the IMF, the UN and the EU [2] all misinterprete the Constitutional Framework? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Interpreting" a document is original research. We go by what our cited, verifiable and reputable sources tell us. Our sources tell us, unanimously, that Kosovo is a province in Serbia. Therefore we also say that Kosovo is a province in Serbia. It's as simple as that. -- ChrisO 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to jump into this discussion, but the term "province" is, at best, misleading and, at worst, inaccurate and biased.

The encylopedias cited here are (generally) out of date or incorrect. "Province" refers to an administrative unit within a larger country. UNSCR 1244, however, makes clear that Kosovo is not administered by Serbia, even through "FRY" sovereignty and territorial integrity is to be respected. Serbia is permitted no role in Kosovo's governance, therefore it cannot be administratively a part of Serbia. Most (but admittedly not all) serious international documents on Kosovo avoid the word (for example, go through the last six years of Contact Group public statements) for this reason. Every once in awhile it slips into a UN document. Most media outlets are too lazy to get this one right.

More problematic, however, is that the term suggests bias. Belgrade officials at the high-level talks in Vienna last week made a point of repeatedly calling Kosovo their "province," knowing it would annoy the Kosovars (it did!). Plus, the mere fact that we are having this discussion demonstrates that the term is controversial. Since there are a hundred other good ways to refer to Kosovo without using this term, it is good usage to use something that is neutral (region, UN-administered territory, etc.)

I have no problem with noting that Kosovo is still part of Serbia (something the Kosovars like to forget!). Per UNSCR 1244, Kosovo is legally part of Serbia (as the successor state to the FRY), at least until the political process to determine Kosovo's future status is concluded. Ideally, this important distinction should be referred to in the introduction more accurately. Envoy202 10:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

EW, well most still call Kosovo a province, since that is what it still technically is. However, I could settle for just saying "Kosovo" instead of "the province". As for the status of Kosovo, the article does say that "since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations with little direct involvement from the Serbian government" which is correct and, in my opinion, appropriate for an introductory text. The UNSCR 1244 stuff and other details should be set out in the main body of the text.Osli73 12:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Osli -- yup, that's my point exactly: why use a loaded controversial term when there are other ways of saying the same thing just as accurately?

I do have a grumble with the line on "little direct involvement from the Serbian government." The Serbian government has *no* direct involvement in Kosovo's governance. UNMIK reigns supreme. That was the whole point of UNSCR 1244 -- Kosovo is still technical part of Serbia, but Serbia has no role governing it. U.S. Department of State lawyers like to refer to it as a "suspension of Belgrade's exercise of sovereign rights." Saying that Serbia has a "little direct involvement" begs a question: in what ways does Serbia govern? UNSCR 1244 and seven years of practice have demonstrated that Serbia does not. --Envoy202 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Envoy, your point about the use of "province" might be valid if the term was no longer used. But it clearly still is. Take a look for example at the BBC's latest profile of Kosovo, published on 25 July 2006 - it starts "Kosovo, a landlocked province within Serbia..." [3] The fact that some may regard it as a POV term is not a good reason to not use it - we're merely reflecting current common usage. As for the issue of the Serbian government's involvement, it does still have a presence - it subsidises some social services in the Serb-populated areas of Kosovo, presumably in addition to whatever the Kosovo government provides. Hence the wording "little direct involvement". -- ChrisO 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Although you are absolutely right, I see no harm in showing a bit willingness to compromise and change The province is the subject of a long-running political... to Kosovo is the subject of a long-running political.... It does not change the meaning, context or interpretation of the sentence, but would satisfy Envoy. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris -- You're right to note that "province" is still used by some media outlets. However, instead of following just media sources, I would proposing following instead international diplomatic usage. Most diplomatic sources studiously avoid the term because a) it's not technically correct (yes, I know this is a hyper-wonky argument!) and b) it's inflammatory. I'd point you to the Contact Group's public statements from the last year, as well as the most recent UN Presidential Statements. I'm sure that the word "province" has crept into some diplomatic communique over the years, but it's always left out of the more important documents (e.g., the CG's Guiding Principles from November 2005 or the January 2006 London ministerial declaration). Would you think I was a rabid pro-Albanian sympathizer if we changed it to just "Kosovo"? *grin* --Envoy202 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris -- You are quite right that Serbia does send subsidies to Kosovo Serb communities, with estimates running as high as $80 million a year. I do not think, however, that sending assistance qualifies as a "direct involvement" in governance. USAID also sends subsidies and assistance to Kosovo Serb communities -- does that mean the United States has at least a "direct involvement" in the governance of Kosovo? Another key point is that the parallel institutions (e.g., in health, education) this money finances are operating extra-legally in Kosovo, outside of the legal remit of the Constitutional Framework and UNSCR 1244. For example, there is evidence Serbia has numerous interior ministry (MUP) personnel in Kosovo, in violation of UNSCR 1244. The Contact Group, in its July 24 statement from Vienna, publicly expressed alarm over an apparent increase in such personnel in northern Kosovo. This state of affairs has been tolerated by UNMIK, largely because it would be too difficult to dismantle the parallel institutions entirely. I would further note that the issue of parallel institutions and the Serbian role in Kosovo is a major issue in the Ahtisaari's Vienna decentralization talks now underway (next meeting will take place next week). Belgrade wants to legalize and legitimate its role sending assistance to K-Serbian communities. I think the final decentralization deal will allow such assistance (provided it is transparently funded), but at the end of the day will not allow for direct Belgrade involvement in governing the municipalities. Bottom line: I continue to believe it is inaccurate to characterize Belgrade's provision of assistance to K-Serbs as "direct involvement" in governing Kosovo. UNSCR 1244 and seven years of pratice have been unequivocal on this point. Question for you: other than Belgrade's subsidies, do you have any other examples of Belgrade's "direct involvement" of Kosovo governance? --Envoy202 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Envoy202, with good grounds. Our discussions shouldn't confuse the necessities of the language used in diplomatic negotiations with hard fact. The administration of the Serbian province of Kosovo by the UN and the establishment of provisional institutions of self-government thereby do not change the fundamental constitutional position of the territory: a province of the Republic of Serbia. The UN is prevented by its own charter (article 2) from challenging the territorial integrity of a member state, and the integrity of Serbia (then part of the FRY) is recognised in both UNSC 1244 and the Rambouillet accords. UNMIK has been delegated certain powers by the UN in it's agreement with FRY/Serbia on the administration of Kosovo; the ability to prejudge final status is not among them. The UN charter and international law have primacy in this, not UNMIK or the constitution of the provisional institutions of self-government.

Certainly UNMIK (as distinct from the UN itself or the body of international law) and much of the international community in Kosovo go to great lengths to avoid the use of the term 'province' for fear of upsetting the ethnic albanian community; this does not alter the point of fact the Kosovo is a province of Serbia (under UN adminstration, subject to final status negotiations). There is no need to show direct involvement by Belgrade in the administration of Kosovo to assert this fact: Kosovo is a province of Serbia administered by the UN. US State Department lawyers might well be of the opinion that the exercise of Serbia's sovereign rights has been suspended but this serves only to confirm the existance of those sovereign rights, even where they are not being exercised. Present usage in the wider world outside Kosovo by media and government alike still calls Kosovo, correctly, a province, whilst hedging the technical issue of whose province it is. So: it is technically correct to refer to Kosovo as a province, and more correct to call it an autonomous province. For the purposes of Wikipedia we need to use terminology sensitively (so naming this article Kosovo and not Kosovo i Metohija, and not making it subsidiary to the page on the Republic of Serbia) but also be clear and precise in our presentation of the facts; unlike the international community in Kosovo we do not need to hedge those facts to avoid the displeasure of Kosovo Albanian politicians or former-KLA freedom fighters.

Perhaps we should be more concerned that UNMIK is willing to distort the clarity of the UN Charter and UNSC 1244 and hide the fact of Kosovo's constitutional status from the Kosovo Albanian community. The impact of this is to persuade that community that independence is inevitable, when in fact final status must be the subject of negotiations and where even the Rambouillet accords (not even agreed to by Belgrade) call only for democratic self-government. (JD)

It is not completely clear to me what the official languages of Kosovo are. Until the 24th of May, the article named only Albanian and Serbian. That day, Turkish was added [4] and today even English [5]. This link [6] names only Albanian and Serbian, so that is what I changed it to. Maybe somebody can clarify? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think only Albanian and Serbian is the official languages in Kosovo. But Turkish and perhaps even Romany for Roma people is official in some municipalities or it is semi-official? Albanian is of course official due to as many as 90% of the population speak Albanian, and Serbian (or Serbocroatian or something simulare)is the language for Serbs, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Janjevci and Goranis.

According to the link [7] "English is the official language of UNMIK. The texts of legislation created in Kosovo since the beginning of the UNMIK administration exist in English, Albanian and Serbian." So I wouldent say that English is an official language of Kosovo since it is only offical for UNMIK. Litany 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure either. I am just following my own guideline on reverting any edits which have not been discussed (by new users and/or sockpuppets). As far as I know, Turkish used to be official but not sure what the situation is after 1999. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 16:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The addition of turkish was done from an anonymous account, the addition of english was not very seriously I think. Until somebody shows otherwise, we will leave it at Albanian and Serbian. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkish was an official language in Kosovo until UNMIK administration was installed. Not sure about the official languages as of now. Will check that again. Not sure that Serbian will be an official language either, they are a minority of less than 6%, and in Macedonia Albanians do not get that even though they are around 20%, but can use it only in the cities where it is official. We'll see how that works. ilir_pz 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the USAID: "Because Kosovo is not a country, it does not have an official flag—residents often use that of Albania—or an official language. English is used for official business, and all traffic signs are in both Albanian and Serbian." Official documents are copied in local languages, but de jure none of them are official. TSO1D 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can ayone find another official source that contradicts this one? TSO1D 14:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The website of EU in Kosovo clearly states that "The official languages in Kosovo are Albanian and Serbian. The majority of the population speaks Albanian. Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian are spoken by minorities. A very large number of people also speak English, German and other European languages. English is the official language of UNMIK. The texts of legislation created in Kosovo since the beginning of the UNMIK administration exist in English, Albanian and Serbian." Regards, ilir_pz 14:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also saw this page, so I agree that for now the two languages can be kept as official. This matter is really bizarre though. I cannot understand how various official sources can contradict each other on this point. This should not be a subjective matter, either the languages have been declared official or not. TSO1D 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the so-called Constitutional Framework, paragraph 9.3.17: Meetings of the Government and its bodies shall be conducted in both the Albanian and Serbian languages. All official documents of the Government shall be printed in both the Albanian and Serbian languages. [8] So I suppose its Albanian and Serbian. According to this website: [9], Turkish was considered but not approved as an official language. And English is the official language of UNMIK.[10] Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. TSO1D 19:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ferick keeps removing the sentence that describes the Pro-Serbian site listed at the bottom of the page as "with the aim of reminding the foreign public once more of the gravity of situation of human rights facing Serbian and other non-Albanian populations in Kosovo-Metohija.", which is simply what the site is doing.

May I remind everyone that every single Pro-Albanian link has an explination of what it's about and it is not fair to let an Albanian, Ferick, delete sentences that describe Pro-Serbian sites, especially when they are harmless like this one. I rather think the descriptions of the Pro-Albanian links are very inflamatory, like "Save Kosova", and everyone knows it's Kosovo in English, and not Kosova which is in Albanian (Imagine if someone wrote Kosovo in Serbian, imagine what the Albanian users would do...), or maybe "American Council for Kosovo, increasing the awareness of the recognition of Kosovo's independence in the American society.", which suggests that Kosovo is already independent and what is left is for it to be recognized, and that is also inflamatory. But I'll stop here, because I don't care much about how the Pro-Albanian links are described, and I would appreciate the same amount of respect when regarding the Pro-Serbian links. Please don't erase descriptions. --serbiana - talk 00:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, without discussing like I have, Ferick erased the sentence describing the Pro-Serbian link, he even wrote "Staying on gurad against Serb vandalism.", which I find extremely nationalistic, considering that the sentence I added is clearly harmless. I will not revert, but rather allow others to give opinion, and I ask Ferick to explain his actions. --serbiana - talk 04:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bormalagurski, first of all I must say I appreciate it a lot that you came here to discuss this matter. Indeed a lot links contain descriptions, but all of these are neutral descriptions. When you say remininding of the gravity of the human right... you also make a statement there, rather than give a neutral description. I added a more neutral description to the website link, namely focusses on the human rights situation of Serbian and other non-Albanian populations in Kosovo-Metohija.. I hope that is ok with both of you. Regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the Albanian links, Save Kosova is the name of the website, not a description, Free Kosovo is a translation of the name of a website and I agreed with you on the description of the American Counsil on Kosovo, so I also changed that one. The rest is harmless in my view. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be devising our own descriptions of external websites - if you put in a link to google.com would you call it "Really big search engine"? The convention is to use the website's own name for itself, in this case "Serbian Government for Kosovo and Metohija" (as appears in the title bar of the English version). -- ChrisO 07:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I am very surprised by this comment. A lot of wikipedia articles contain descriptions of the websites under External Links, see for example USA. Also, why did you then remove only that one description, an not all descriptions in that section? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I felt that the website's self-description was enough - it's the official Serbian government website on Kosovo, just as it says in the description. As for the others, I'm very pushed for time right now! I'll go through them later today. -- ChrisO 08:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I do understand that you are busy, selectively removing a description of a Serbian site, but not of the Albanian sites is potentially very inflammatory here. I suggest we go through all of them on the talk page here and then change them all at once. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW: The convention is not to use only the name of the website. The Wikipedia Manual of style says this on External links: External links should summarize the website's contents, and indicate why the website is relevant to the article. (See:WP:SG#External links). So I am not in favor of simply removing all descriptions. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Cpt. Morgan and his views. --serbiana - talk 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting you say verifiability. A lot of Serbs have verified that they were the victims of 1999 wars. If you ask, they will produce a ton load of documents proving that they were the victims. It's also interesting to note that the Serb regime went out of its way to hide crimes, believing, I guess, that if the crimes were not verified, they didn't occur. Very interesting theory you have....Ferick 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "Theory" (please refer to the article) of mine - I was simply quoting Wikipedia's policy. I must add, though, how strange is your reply. It seems as if you interpreted my answer as if I attacked something Albanian and you used the ol' saying Offense is the best defence... That was very needless, and will much more damage you, rather than me. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, Ferick. Why would Serbia do anything about Kosovo if there was no reason to do so? Did they just not like Albanians, or did the Albanians organize a separatist organization bent on achieving secession from Serbia? Well, if you look at other countries that have separatist movements, you'll see that the government of the country at question would go to extreme lengths to stabilize the situation and stop the constant terrorist attacks. Thousands of Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo, you can't fake the documentation, it's there, and the Serb population of Kosovo confirms it. I think that you have to understand that us a crime is not verified, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, but you can't present it as a fact. Thats all. For example, Serbs were ethically cleansed from Kosovo, thats a fact. Serb forces cracked down on the KLA, a CIA-confirmed terrorist organization, thats a fact. Serb forces wanted to rid Kosovo of all Albanians? Well, maybe, who knows, but untill you find a signed document where President Milosevic wrote "kill 'em all", you can't really claim anything. But then you have Albanian guerilla leaders saying that Kosovo is for the Albanians, and similar things, so their aim is obvious. Belgrade only wanted Kosovo not to separate. Thats a fact. Ethnic cleansing organized from Belgrade is not. --serbiana - talk 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Woaaaa………you are wrong on every sentence. Literally every sentence has inaccurate information. Congrads on that achievement!

You ask: why would Serbia do anything about Kosovo if there was no reason to do so? Nobody ever said Serbia did things without a reason. Serbia had her reasons pretty well laid out: a total and complete elimination of any Albanian traces in Kosovo. When you come to thing about it, it wasn’t a stupid reason after all. They consider Kosovo the heart of their nation, yet the majority of people living there were not Serbs. So in way Kosovo was sticking out and destroying the Serbian dream and myth. The only way to solve the problem was killing and expelling. Various Serbian governments had tried every other way to subdue Kosovo Albanian for decades, so killing and expelling them was the last and only hope. You know what happen after that………..

I appreciate you understanding that Kosovo is the heart of Serbia. This is a good step, but you're still wrong on most of your points. Albanian separatism started long before Milosevic. In 1981. riots in Kosovo caused instability in the region and the stench of secessionism left it's toll on Yugoslavia. For 8 years after that, Serbs did nothing, they had to be quiet about the Albanian-organized protests, secessionism and even terrorism. It is the Albanians who started the ethnic conflict by asking for independence of an autonomous province, something which was illegal in every way, according to international law. The Albanians knew what Kosovo meant to Serbs, so they provoked, provoked and provoked. They didn't vote, pretending to be separate from Serbia, the police were biased toward Albanian crimes against Serbs, and the list goes on. Then, Milosevic took away it's autonomy, to preserve the peace. Serbian army forces targeted terrorists' homes, and in such operations, there were civilian deaths too. Also, I'd like to remind you how Albanians appeared in Kosovo in SFRY in the first place - Albania, supported by Fascist Italy, ethnically cleansed Kosovo of Serbs and settled Albanians in the province. Tito, however, decided not to kick the Albanians out of Kosovo after WWII, and even gave therm self-rule. But that was not enough for Albanians, they wanted an ethnically pure Kosovo.

Serbia tried to subdue Albanians way before the KLA ever came into being, so you are wrong on this one as well. And by the way, I haven’t seen any other instance in a world since WWII when a country has tried using physical elimination of entire people (by either killing or expelling them) as a political tool.

This is a lie. There is no way that Serbia could've tried to subdue Albanians before 1990 (around when the KLA was formed), because the police force was Albanian, and Serbia couldn't send the Yugoslav Army to Kosovo. Not a single Albanian was ethnically cleansed from Kosovo by Serb forces. --serbiana - talk 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of Serbs were ethnically cleansed? How about this: Million Albanians were ethnically cleansed? How does that sound to you, equal deeds? There is no doubt that some Serbs were cleansed from Kosovo, but about 60-80% of them left Kosovo way before anybody could even tell them to leave. They left together with Serb forces, you know. I say this because I was there and I saw them. Did they have good reason to leave? You bet! They were smart enough to realize that people are going to seek revenge from them. By the way, they are all welcomed back anytime to live in their properties.

As I've said, more Albanians fled Kosovo in 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, then 1990-1999, when Serbia was comitting the alleged "ethnic cleansing". When Serb forces cracked down on the terrorist KLA, Albanians fled to Albania, because their dream of a Greater Albania was crumbling in front of their eyes. The "million" digit is a fairy tale, it's just funny. Now, your claims of Serbs being welcome in Kosovo is just an arrogant lie, and everyday stoning of busses with Serbs in them, and a murder there and then prove my claim. Also, the Unrest in 2004., the burning of 15th Century Orthodox Monasteries and entire Serbian communities show how extremist Albanians in Kosovo can be. --serbiana - talk 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

KLA, a CIA-confirmed terrorist organization? Baloney (another words, you are factually wrong….again?)

CIA has confirmed that the KLA is a terrorist organization and it is. Go to the CIA website. --serbiana - talk 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Serb forces wanted to rid Kosovo of all Albanians? I think for most of the world the camps in Albania and Macedonia were enough evidence. NATO didn’t intervene just for the heck of it, did they? But I digress, you are right we will never see a piece of paper signed by Milosevic showing that he ordered the total elimination of Albanians. So you won on this one…………. Well, in a way. Here is something new to you: Actions speak more than words!

NATO intervened in 1999. not to help Kosovo become independent, but to get rid of their old weapons and try out their stealth technology. They also wanted troops in the Balkans to control the region. I think we all know how much we can trust the US's motives (Ahm, Iraq.. WMD?), and I'm sure the US didn't do this for the "poor Albanians", because Kosovo would be independent today if that were so (the US always gets what it wants). Did you know that "Actions speak more than words!" was a Nazi slogan? Here's something new to you. --serbiana - talk 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Albanian guerilla leaders saying that Kosovo is only for the Albanians? Baloney (Another made up fact, incidentally not verifiable)J.

You speak Albanian, you should know. You probably listened (and worship) people like Hashim Thachi and similar terrorists, and I'm surprised you didn't hear the part about Kosovo being for the Albanians, ONLY for the Albanians. Or maybe you didn't want to hear that. --serbiana - talk 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing organized from Belgrade is not a fact? Insane and very much false statement! Go to www.google.com and type ethic cleansing (don’t even type Kosovo or Serbia) and see for yourself.

Well, I have a website, and I'm sure Albanians have even more websites, and I'm also sure there are international websites that attach Albanian writings on them. So... I could write that Kosovo is a part of China, and then we would have to write "some claim Kosovo is a part of China..." :-) --serbiana - talk 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Facts are out there, around the corner, in front of you. They are calling your name. Help yourself and look at them, even once, and truth shall set you free! Sincerely yours, Ferick.

Ferick 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I say the same to you. Sincerely yours, --serbiana - talk 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohh boy, you have a very strange view of the world. How do you manage to live in the real world where you have to accept things as they are? Just curious…….Ferick 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

People, just a reminder that talk pages are there to discuss the Wikipedia articles, they are not a chatboard to discuss political opinions. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I find this ongoing argument quite tedious to follow. You are not going to convince each other, obviously. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I was just disproving Ferick's lies, but I will stop now. He actually disproves himself if you read his messages carefully :-) --serbiana - talk 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You still didn’t answer me: how do you manage to reconcile you fantasy world with the real one? Perhaps we can learn SOMETHING from you…………Ferick 23:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not dignify this with a response. --serbiana - talk 23:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the world has, by now, agreed that Milosevic's regime was repressive. So the word repressive is not a matter of personal opinion but a descriptive word that accurately describes a regime. I am surprised that, of all things out there, you have taken upon yourself to defend a Repressive Regime. Salon – Rage against the regime[11] US Congress [12] The Financial Times-Milosevic turns screw on news[13] US Office in Pristina- Kosovo,Irag and the values we share[14]

Contrary to your believe, the word repressive has been used by just about every media when describing Milosovics administration. It may pain you to learn this, but it’s a matter of fact not an opinion.Ferick 20:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you make yourself acquainted with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It does not matter whether prominent individuals and establishments called the police force repressive, you still cannot simply use that adjective directly as fact, as there are others who disagree with it. For instance, you can say the police force which has been described as repressive by .., ..., and ...., but you cannot simply state that the police force is repressive. TSO1D 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can...and I just did. You can open your own website if you like to defend repressive regimes. And by the way, it’s not up to you to interpret what is NPOV and what is not.Ferick 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Official policy states: "We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." I don't see how you can interpret this in any other way. The idea that the Serbian police force was repressive is just that an opinion, no matter how firmly you or even the majority of people might believe it. TSO1D 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I am inclined on adding here: saying that Miloshevich's rule was a dictatorship is slightly, pretty much a fact - and that his reign was authoritarion would be true as well. However, one must understand that although Slobodan Miloshevich was/is a hero to many, he did use means of oppression to stay in power (nothing nationalist/racist/ethnic, only as a means for power). THAT is a fact. Ever heard of the Otpor Serbian resistence? For a good understanding, compare him with the current authoritarian dictatorial Premier of Montenegro, Milo Đukanović - a well-known War Criminal, Smuggler, Vote-buyer, Propaganda spreader, Abusive-means politicians and Mafia Boss. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

...is that User:Ferick admittedly and openly refused to follow/read Wikipedia's policies. I know that they are not a necessity - but it is to my opinion that they should be honored, or at least read for Wikipedia's sake.

==Hello==

Could you please read up (if you haven't already) WP:POV and WP:NPOV? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No,thank you very much!Ferick 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

...posted from User_talk:Ferick#Hello. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is expected. Ferick doesn't respect anyone or anything, and should be banned forever. He who denies to go by the rules is not welcome at Wikipedia. --serbiana - talk 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

To the above user: enough with your ranting!Ferick 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two users above... Wow... --serbiana - talk 22:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you need clarification: I was talking about the above teenager. Please grow up and don’t waste other people’s time. When you grow up, perhaps we can discuss issues as two adults. Right now the debate is very lopsided: between an adult and an emotional adolescent. I found a good side where you can put your two cents: Teen Advice.org [15]. Talk to you in a few years.Ferick 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Now who's the immature person here... --serbiana - talk 20:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to open up pandora's box, but is there any chance a small note could be inserted that the word province is not being used in the common sense? At first glance it could appear to some readers (e.g. me) that Kosovo and Vojvodina are the only two administrative divisions, rather than the only two of a special type. Maybe a reference to "Administrative subdivisions" on the Serbia page. Just to make it clear that Serbia has districts as well. echalon

The correct way to put it would be "Kosovo is one of two autonomous provinces of Serbia...", but the Albanian loby wouldn't like that... --serbiana - talk 23:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the implications of changin the current text, the present version is indeed confusing. When I first read it, I could not fully deduce its meaning either. I will be bold and change it and if opposition arises, we can seek a compromise later. TSO1D 02:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice, I wouldn't have the guts to change it, or else Ferick, Ilir and the Albanian gang would be on my back. This is a step towards neutrality and resistance towards the Albanian loby. Good job, TSO1D! --serbiana - talk 02:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to take a side in this dispute, I just wanted to make the text more comprehensible. I don't believe that my change had an inherent POV, and I don't believe either side will advocate reverting to the previous version which was clearly misleading. TSO1D 17:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for the above reason to pretend as if he is neutral. You have proven yourself many times to be very biased and the above congratulations from the Serbian user is just another example. Neither version is correct. The sentence that describes the situation correctly is the current one.Ferick 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to pretend that I am neutral, however I don't believe you are in any position to assess neutrality. You have a strong bias as do other users on both sides. I came here with few preconceptions and ready to try to improve the article. As I said if you do not like my edits you can explain your disagreement and we can try to find a solution. For example, in this case you reverted my edit and completly removed the part of Kosovo being one of two autonomous provinces of Serbia. I assume that is because you don't like the fact that Kosovo is de jure part of Serbia, but there's no need to change the text so drastically. As for the UN administration, the following paragraph explains it fully. TSO1D 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I used this as an experiment. Adding autonomous to the article changes very little, to be honest, but I made it sound like it was a huge step towards neutrality, which it isn't really that much. Well, I congradulated TSO1D, and as soon as I did, Ferick started calling TSO1D biased because of the "congratulations from the Serbian user". This shows how nationalistic Ferick is, and how, to him, every Serb is biased. Good job Ferick, you proved my point. --serbiana - talk 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see how adding the word "autonomous" in any way changes the meaning of the sentence other than to make it more clear. If nothing else, can a word other than "province" be agreed upon? Maybe the word in the original language (of whatever document it derives from) rather than this unclear translation? --Echalon 02:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not about that, the change did make it more clear, but it was not a dramatic step towards neutrality as I've described it. I wanted to see if Ferick will turn against TSO1D the moment I congradulate him for doing something that I made Ferick to believe to be pro-Serb, but was actually exactly how you described it. The experiment worked, Ferick is extremely anti-Serb. He clearly hates ALL Serbs, and some might call him a nationalistic racist. --serbiana - talk 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the word "autonomous" is definitely justified, as it's how Kosovo is formally defined in terms of its legal status as a province of Serbia (which of course is recognised by every UN member, as far as I know, including Albania). However, we do need to be careful that we make clear that it's only a de jure status and that de facto Kosovo is not now administered as a sub-unit of Serbia. -- ChrisO 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet, you continue to lump Kosovo with Vojvodina.Ferick 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Because, as all of our sources say, Kosovo has the same legal status as Vojvodina, i.e. it's an autonomous province of Serbia. The difference is in its administrative status as a UN-run territory. -- ChrisO 19:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I like to ask all of you, what is wrong with the following wording? This describes the situation as it is. It says nothing about Kosovo being independent. On the other side it does say it is a UN run province, de jure part of Yugoslavia ( now Serbia). Help me out here! Does anybody here know something different from what is described below? If so, please enlighten us!

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is located in the south-east Europe, bordering Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. The mountainous province's capital and largest city is Priština. Kosovo has a population of around two million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs and other ethnic groups. The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's Albanian population. Although by the UN Security Resolution 1244, it is de jure and regarded as a part of Former Yugoslavia (now Serbia), since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations with little direct involvement from the Serbian government. Kosovo is governed by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the locally elected Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, with security maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service. Negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo.Ferick 18:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that the first sentence does not refer to the province's legal status and completly ingores Serbia. If it were independent you would not say that Kosovo borders the other countries, but exclude Serbia, but that is not even the case because formally it is part of Serbia, so it makes sense to say that in the beginning. The CIA factbook for instance states that Kosovo is an autnomous province of Serbia albeit nominally. So I insist that we keep that in the first sentence. Regardless of POV the former version is simply confusing. TSO1D 18:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick and Ilir are consistently ignoring a key requirement: we report what our sources tell us. Our sources tell us, literally without any exceptions, that Kosovo is formally an autonomous province of Serbia under UN administration. See the list under #What other encyclopedias say above, and as TSO1D says, the CIA World Factbook too. Ferick and Ilir have consistently failed to provide any reference that says that Kosovo isn't de jure part of Serbia. Their claims that it isn't are pure original research and simply aren't admissible in the article. -- ChrisO 19:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The comments above show once again that the above users are trying to push their own personal opinion. Who is arguing that Kosovo is not de jure part of Yugoslavia (now Serbia)? The above paragraph clearly states that, but once again you don’t care what the paragraph says: if it is not YOUR PREFERED version, then it must be wrong.

The paragraph is factually correct, and no one cares if the version is to your liking or not. Wikipedia was not developed to please neither of you. As long as there is no objection to the facts of the paragraph, I will insist on this version.Ferick 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, I don't believe the dispute that you have with Chris is about the content, but rather the style. I have to say that the version you have sounds a bit awkward. That could of course be corrected, but I don't see the need at the moment the need to change the text. TSO1D 22:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a content issue - three distinct problems:

1) Ferick's version claims that Kosovo's status as part of Serbia is "by the UN Security Resolution 1244". This is simply wrong: it's recognised as part of Serbia because that's what was set out in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. The resolution states this explicitly: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2."

2) Ferick keeps removing the phrase "internationally recognised". This is a very important point. No country in the world recognises Kosovo as anything other than a de jure province of Serbia - not even Albania.

3) Ferick claims that Kosovo is "part of Former Yugoslavia (now Serbia)". That's misleading; it's part of Serbia, which was part of the former Yugoslavia. Kosovo was a subordinate unit of a Yugoslav republic, not a republic in its own right as Ferick's wording implies.

Ferick and Ilir have consistently tried to push the POV that (a) Kosovo was part of Yugoslavia, not Serbia; (b) it's not part of Serbia now; and (c) it's only regarded as part of Serbia because of a UN Security Council resolution seven years ago. We've already been through this at length in Talk:Kosovo/Intro changes proposal. Neither Ferick nor Ilir have provided any evidence to support their claims and they've consistently failed to explain why they are right and every other source - encyclopedias, books, newspaper reports - is wrong. Without sources, their claims are simply unverifiable and constitute original research, which are disallowed under two of Wikipedia's fundamental policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. -- ChrisO 22:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

1. This is getting ridicules. An amateur “Balkan Historian” wants to tell the world that legal judgments about European countries can only be drawn from the Helsinki Act, agreed upon 30 years ago. This just shows that you have no clue what you are talking about, and makes people even more determined to oppose you views. According to you, countries such as Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia should not exist because the Helsinki Act reaffirmed the sovereignty of Yugoslavia. Right? That’s one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen. In addition to that, the Helsinki Act does not even mention Serbia. Even more, any act agreed upon by nations after the Helsinki Act and which contradicts the Helsinki Act, takes precedence. That’s normal International practice, and as a matter of fact it’s a practice that every nation uses when laws are changed. Just to remind you, laws are not written in stone to never change, and your proffered law does not take presence over the latest law. So contrary to your believe, UN Security Resolution 1244 is indeed the latest law about the legal status of Kosovo, and therefore takes precedence over any other law that may have been passed in Belgrade or Helsinki in the last century. Incidentally, there is only one other person in the world that uses the Helsinki Act to bolster Serbia’s argument over Kosovo: Kostunica. How coincidental that you agree with him!

OK, I'm not going to do your homework for you this time. You're making claims without bothering to provide any evidence, as usual, so here's a challenge for you: find a source that says that the Helsinki Final Act no longer applies. For bonus points, find an explanation of why UNSCR 1244 explicitly references the Helsinki Final Act. I have sources and explanations for why the HFA does apply, but I'd like to know what your source is for claiming that it doesn't. -- ChrisO 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

2. This is RUBBISH- I have never claimed that Kosovo is not de jure part of Yugoslavia (now Serbia). This is a big time lie in your part.

You constantly make that claim implicitly by deleting any reference to Kosovo's status as a sub-unit of Serbia. All of our sources (see above) say that it is. Systematically omitting a verified fact is a rather underhanded equivalent to making an explicit claim that the fact is wrong. -- ChrisO 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed in several other occasions that you argue points that nobody disagrees with just to make a point and make the opposing party looks as if they disagree with trivial facts- essentially make them look disruptive. Somebody should be made aware of this- we do not need ROUGE ADMINISTRATORS in Wikipedia.

Yes we do! There's even a page on ROUGE ADMINISTRATORS and a logo for them (see right). -- ChrisO 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Per Resolution 1244, Kosovo is part of Serbia and Montenegro which is now inherited by Serbia. Never said Kosovo was a republic, nor implied it. This is part of your smear campaign against users you disagree with. Kosovo was a Constituent part of Yugoslavia per 1974 Constitution with the same voting rights as all other republics. I think Vojvodina did not have this right [16]. Regardless of what Kosovo was in the last century, that’s part of History. What we are arguing here is the current status of Kosovo. Even if you want to go with the Serb Law, Kosovo cannot be said to be an autonomous province of Serbia because that autonomy was revoked by Serbia and it has never been restored by the Serb Parliament.

No, Vojvodina had an equivalent status and voting rights - see the Vojvodina article. Both provinces were sub-units of Serbia, with equivalent voting rights to the republics but not with equivalent political or legal status. As for what happened in 1989, Kosovo's autonomy wasn't abolished outright but was greatly reduced and its parliament and government were suspended, not abolished. Milosevic abolished the practice of Kosovo's autonomy but not its principle. He replaced Kosovo's Albanian-led government with his own cronies (as he did with Vojvodina too) and so took control of their votes on the federal presidency, which of course was his objective all along. The ICTY's indictment of Milosevic spells out what happened to Kosovo's autonomy - read paragraphs 79 onwards. --

ChrisO 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news. Accroding to the state department :"Serbia abolished the political autonomy of Kosovo in 1990"[[17]]Ferick 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

4. More rubbish here- please don’t copy and paste your previous arguments many times over.Ferick 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The autonomy wasn't "revoked" as often reported in the media. Please read the conversation here for proof of this. Phildav76 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was-all but in name.Read the 1974 Constitution and then 1990, and you will see.Ferick 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But not in legal form. That's the whole point. Kosovo is de jure an autonomous province of Serbia which the United Nations is administering. -- ChrisO 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don’t cherry pick which arguments you respond to. There is no reason for me to respond for as long as you keep doing this.Ferick 05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Over the next few days, I plan to make some major changes to the history section of the article and to the related History of Kosovo article. This article's history section is way too long and detailed for what's supposed to be an overview article; I intend to replace it with a much shorter and simplified version. As for History of Kosovo, it will probably be necessary to rewrite it from scratch. It's almost entirely unreferenced and very badly written in places. Unfortunately the lack of references will most likely mean that much of the content will have to be dumped until people can find proper sources for the assertions it makes. -- ChrisO 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Will it be more of what we seen from you so far, or a sincere attempt to make the article better? We shall see……….Ferick 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, I noticed you've been causing a lot of trouble. If you love Kosova, go there and help the 50% of the population that don't have a job and are starving to death. Stop wasting your time here, please. --KOCOBO 21:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The history section seems slightly biased against Serbian history in Kosovo whilst freely associating present-day Kosovo Albanians with historical communities who may or may not be their descendents. (JD)

Why is this article not called Kosovo and Metohija or Kosovo and Metohia? Thats the official name of the province. --Svetislav Jovanović 21:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Who told you that? Milosevic?Ferick 23:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know Milosevic. --Svetislav Jovanović 01:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. are all the users jokers like you, or is there anyone that will take my argument seriously? --Svetislav Jovanović 01:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sure people will take you seriously when you bring up a serious argument.Ferick 03:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The CIA article on Serbia defines the administrative province of Kosovo as Kosovo and Metohia. Is the CIA not a good enough source? --Svetislav Jovanović 03:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed a long time ago (it's in the archives somewhere). On the English Wikipedia, we use the English version and spelling for non-English names. Hence Koln is Cologne, Timor-Leste is East Timor, etc. The official local names are noted in the relevant articles but are not used for the article titles themselves. A similar principle applies to Kosovo, as neither "Kosovo and Metohija" nor "Kosova" are widely used in English. See Wikipedia:Proper names#Place names for more guidance on this. If you look again at the CIA factbook, you'll see that it also follows this convention - it mentions "Metohia" once in a section which gives the official local names of administrative divisions, but everywhere else it uses "Kosovo" without the "-and Metohia" suffix. -- ChrisO 09:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Two further examples for Jovanović: the article on USA is at United States, not "United States of America" and the article on the UK is at United Kingdom, not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". For article names we often shorten the official name if the shortened form is more common. —Gabbe 10:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I agree now. And thank you for taking my opinion seriously, I appreciate it. --Svetislav Jovanović 02:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, I don't understand the new version of the introduction that you are trying to introduce. You de-wikified several of the words for no apparent reason, but that is a minor change. But you removed the fact that there is another autonomous province in Serbia, why? Then you said that there is no direct Serbian involvement although Resolution 1244 does stipulate that "4) Confirms that after the withdrawal an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serb military and police personnel will be permitted to return to Kosovo to perform the functions in accordance with annex 2;" and always emphasizes Kosovo's autnomous status within Yugoslavia/Serbia. Then the part about internation recognition should not be removed. Although you might consider it redundant, it emphasizes the fact that the international community views Kosovo as a territorial unit of Serbia which is an important matter. TSO1D 14:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what de-wikication you are talking about. As I have said many times before, Vojvodina will have no place here whatsoever. There is no reason or logic for it. Vojvodina is part of Serbia, and you can make that assertion there. It’s a matter of personal opinion of yours and some others to keep Vojvodina here, but it will not happen. That’s all I have to say about that.

As to your second point about Resolution 1244, it does say that an agreed version of Serb forces will be allowed to return. So what? There has been no “agreed number” and they have not returned-therefore Serbia has zero-nada-influence over the running of Kosovo institutions. Just because it might happen in the future it doesn’t give you the right to say that it is happening now. This is an absurd argument. The article describes the current situation in Kosovo, not its future.

Your third argument about including “de-jure” and “internationally recognized” in the paragraph. Can you define de-jure for me? Of course it’s redundant in addition to being a preferred version of yours and some others here. Next time don’t revert the article and invite me to a discussion page if you have no legs to stand on. Thanks.Ferick 15:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You said that Vojvodina is different from Kosovo because the former is a part of Serbia. I don't understand that argument. You yourself agree that Kosovo is part of Serbia, and it is an autonomous province of the second, thus it makes sense to include that information in the introduction. As for resolution 1244, you yourself cited that as an example proving that it strips Serbia over any direct control. I just showed you that the resolution does explicitly state that Kosovo will be an autonomous province within Serbia and it lists the duties of Serbia in aiding the process of restoring normalcy in the region. I agree that in reality this influence has been marginal, nevertheless, it is not completely absent. And as for de jure, I already explained that above. TSO1D 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy...Where did I say "Vojvodina is different from Kosovo because the former is a part of Serbia".? Nowhere- therefore your inability to understand the argument! All I said is that you can put Vojvodina all over the page in Serbia- Not here. See Missouri for example. Serbia has no influence over the running of Kosovo institutions-not marginal, a little bit, a tiny bit-but zero-null.Ferick 06:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I should add that de jure is in two senses. Domestically, the Serbian constitution defines Kosovo as part of Serbia; internationally, the Helsinki Final Act and USNCR 1244 both maintain the "territorial integrity" of all the former Yugoslav states. As for Serbia's involvement in Kosovo, I was under the impression that the Serbian government is still significantly involved in Serb-inhabited areas of Kosovo (especially the far north): "On the ground, Serbian areas of Kosovo still function as if they were part of Serbia, outside the framework of government established by UNMIK, in terms of courts, schools, health care, pensions, telecommunications and most importantly security forces." [18] Is this no lonegr the case? -- ChrisO 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Helsinki Act, as I have said before, says nothing about Serbia, or Kosovo or Vojvodina........We need some sources here that says nothing has happened in Europe since 1975 that contradicts the Helsinki Act. USNCR 1244 does not maintain the "territorial integrity" of all the former Yugoslav states and nor does Helsinki Act. If so, source please. Your source dos not say anything about Serbia’s involvement in the north- it merely says the north operates as it were part of Serbia, which is not the same (perhaps the north is emulating Serbia). In addition the source should be checked for verifiability because it says security forces in the north operate outside the framework of the government- a false assertion. Kosovo police with KFOR enforce Kosovo law everywhere in Kosovo, including the north.Ferick 06:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, do you have difficulty reading UNSCR 1244? "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2." The words are right there in the document. As the US State Department says, this "mandated that the territorial integrity of the FRY be provisionally preserved pending a future decision on Kosovo's political status". [19] -- ChrisO 08:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Again,cherry picking what you like to answer. But I ask again: we need some sources here that says nothing has happened in Europe since 1975 that contradicts the Helsinki Act. Can you bring Helsinki Act and anex 2 for everybody to see it? ThanksFerick 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if one article is about "dog" then you should not write about "cat", right? This is article about Kosovo, not about Vojvodina or about Subdivisions of Serbia. What if Serbia for example have 10 provinces? You would mention all of them here in the preface part of the Kosovo article??? This is clear violation of the basic literary principle that if you have one subject you should not write about another in that article. Besides this, it is in fact 3 regions about what we speak here: Kosovo, Vojvodina, and Central Serbia, but if article is about Kosovo, why we should write about other two? I see no logic there. PANONIAN (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Central Serbia is not a province, it is just the territory between the two provinces. Sencond of all, Kosovo has a de jure status that is the same as Vojvodina, but while the status functions de facto in Vojvodina, but not in Kosovo, it's practical to mention Vojvodina. Also, it's not as complicated as you present it, Serbia only has two provinces, mentioning the other in each of the two articles does little harm. And unlike dog and cat, Vojvodina and Kosovo are de jure the same, but de facto different, and it does no harm to mention that (if you don't mention it in one of these two articles, where will you mention it then?). --KOCOBO 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if Serbia had 10 provinces it wouldn't be practical to mention them all (except perhaps in an infobox). But since it only has two such subdivisions I honestly don't understand the harm of mentioning one in an article about the other. Think of it as a convenience link for the user. There's no other mention of Vojvodina in the Kosovo article, even in the infobox. Incidentally, the current infobox is problematic too - if Kosovo is still part of Serbia this should be shown (compare the Vojvodina infobox). Right now it isn't. -- ChrisO 08:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, your personal opinion.Ferick 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, status of Kosovo is NOT SAME as that of Vojvodina. Autonomous status of Vojvodina is defined by the Omnibus Law from 2002, while the autonomous status of Kosovo is defined by the 1244 resolution. Vojvodina and Kosovo have very different levels of autonomy, Vojvodina for example have no president, army, police, etc, as Kosovo have. Besides that, even the proposal made by Serbian government about future status of Kosovo has defined Kosovo as autonomous state within Serbia, not as autonomous province. Also, status of Kosovo is same de jure and de facto, because Serbian government accepted 1244 resolution and UNMIK administration, thus Kosovo is de jure autonomous province of Serbia only through UNMIK, not apart of UNMIK. PANONIAN (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but as you will see, this caries no weigh here because it contradicts a paradigm held by the other user.Ferick 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While nothing is so good that it can't be improved, it feels like it wasn't long ago that we agreed on a compromise introduction. Osli73 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Panonian is correct to say that the legal status of Kosovo is not identical to that of Vojvodina. Each has different powers under the Serbian constitution, and Kosovo has (additionally) a set of provisional legal documents pending final status. The constitutional status of both Vojvodina and Kosovo is nevertheless the same: they are autonomous provinces of Serbia. The administrative status of each (and this is no doubt Panonian's point about armies and so forth) is, of course, radically different. And UNMIK in all this is only a means of delivering administration, not a constitutional factor in itself.

Panonian is right (in a way) in asserting that the de jure and de facto status of Kosovo are the same. De jure (UN Charter and UNSC 1244) Kosovo is a province of Serbia, and de facto Kosovo is a province of Serbia (under UN administration). I suppose you could argue that Kosovo is de facto an independent country, but any number of instances of UN power over the provisional institutions of self-government would show this view to be incorrect. You might argue that Kosovo is de facto a UN protectorate, but then the UN itself would tell you that Kosovo is (in fact) a province of Serbia under UN administration. Perhaps you could argue that Kosovo is de jure administered by Serbia but de facto administered by the UN, but even Serbia will tell you that it does not administer Kosovo and has abrogated (provisionally, pending final status) it's de jure rights to do so under the terms of UNSC 1244. So I think we should agree with Panonian on this and agree that, de jure and de facto, in constitutional terms, Kosovo is a province of Serbia.

As to Vojvodina, a casual reader would (in my opinion) be better equipped to understand the present status of Kosovo given the addtional information that Kosovo is one of two autonomous provinces of Serbia. Similar reference is made, for instance, in the Wikipedia articles on Wales ("Wales is one of four constituent countries of the United Kingdom") and Republika Srpska ("The Republika Srpska is one of the two political entities that together constitute the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the other entity being the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina."). Serbia is somewhat unusual in having a constitutional structure which gives some part of it's territory a federal structure whilst keeping the rest ('Serbia proper') unitary; we should make reference to this in giving context to Kosovo. (JD)

Can some of the admins please add this sentence (alter it in any way you see fit): "Kosovo is a transshipment point for Southwest Asian heroin moving to Western Europe on the Balkan route; the economy is vulnerable to money laundering" CIA reference, I think it's important to put in the article, but I don't dare to add it, because Ferick or Ilir will remove it... --KOCOBO 03:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the evidence so far, I am quite confident you can gather the courage to do it.Ferick 06:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Will you remove it? --KOCOBO 06:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's worth mentioning. I've added a paragraph on the black economy to put the drug issue in the broader context. BTW, I found an even better source for the drug trafficking issue, in the shape of the UNMIK Police themselves. -- ChrisO 07:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought so.Ferick 13:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

But I am removing it promptly for two reasons: original research: your source says nothing about "an extensive black economy has developed with significant organized crime and official corruption". That's your own conclusion. The source actually says: "Significant progress has been made in creating economic structures". Second reason: Your second source [UNMIK Police] is a 5 and a half year old press briefing (not a police report) being used to describe the current economic situation. Obviously this is ridicules and with no precedent and goes to show your highly biased view.Ferick 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Shut up, Ferick. --KOCOBO 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to read this Sunday Times article from three months ago: [20]. -- ChrisO 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I did. You have found a very reliable source indeed. It’s almost laughable. Tom Walker-among other things, has written: "Kosovo goes to hell", "CIA aided Kosovo guerrilla army", "Islamic Terror in Kosovo" (this last one he witnessed!).These titles speak enough about this "journalist”. Above all, it fails on verifiability. As the UN Administrator says: the accusations are “entirely unwarranted". Your true skin and purpose is becoming more evident every day.Ferick 22:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on the reliability of an individual journalist are, of course, your own personal POV and have no relevance to this article. You've also made a very dishonest misquotation of the Sunday Times piece. It says: "On Friday the UN’s internal watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight, accused Jessen-Petersen of turning a blind eye to widespread fraud at Pristina airport. He protested that the accusation was 'entirely unwarranted'." Note that there's absolutely no refutation of the wider concerns about the black economy. The fact that it exists in the first place isn't disputed by anyone with any credibility. As for your final comments, no personal attacks. You're heading for a block if you continue in that vein. -- ChrisO 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Then provide a reliable source. There is a difference between "concerns about the black economy" and the concrete conclusion you are are comming up with. Your main goal here appears to be: push your biased views using unverifiable and unreliable sources, dated data and mixing it up with your unsubstantiated conclusions. Not a recipe for success! I have every intention of amending your edits ( if you don't do so).Ferick 03:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I would refer contributors to the 2005 report of the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee [21] and in particular to the sections of people trafficking and the economy. Choice quotes: "The FCO wrote in its submission on the subject: 'In the past five years, Kosovo has become a major destination and transit country for trafficked women and girls forced into prostitution'", "The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) wrote in a report in July 2004: 'Trafficking in women and girls is now the third source of income after arms and drugs for the Kosovar-Albanian mafia network'", "We heard in Pristina that the problems facing the economy are manifold. They include endemic corruption in the publicly owned enterprises (POEs), slow movement on the privatisation process by the UN authorities in New York for fear of legal challenges, and a corrupt and undeveloped judicial system. Professor Pettifer told us that 'economic crime is all pervasive, for three reasons. It is partly because of very high unemployment. Secondly it is because of where Kosovo lies: as a central point on the transnational route, particularly of heroin, from the East to Europe…Thirdly, there is a very anti-authoritarian political culture in the Kosovo-Albanian world which was built of years of resistance to regimes like that of Milosevic; co-operation with the police does not come easily.'" (JD)

For God's sake, I like to ask everybody to answer this question: in your reading about Kosovo, in which phrase have you come across most often:

1.Although de jure part of Serbia, since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations

2.Although it is de jure a territorial sub-unit of Serbia and internationally recognised as such, since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations

I have never seen the second one. If one has, please provide source-I like to see it.Ferick 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you wouldn't find those two exact sentences anywhere, otherwise it would be plagiarism, but this is certainly not a factual dispute, just one about wording. I prefer the second version for the reason that saying that Kosovo is de-jure part of Serbia simply means that in principle Kosovo is part of Serbia, but the second part emphasizes that the entire international community views it as a territorial sub-unit of Serbia, eliminating the vagueness of the beginning. I am not enamoured with the wording, so if someone wants to change it again, I'm not going to revert. But Ferick reverted the entire page to his prefered version, instead of just removing the reference to Vojvodina, which more users agreed to. You also changed the de-jure part where more users declared themselves against your version, as well as adding the "no direct involvement by Serbia" which I believe is too categorical. TSO1D 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I did have objection to the Vojvodina reference as well as de jure confusion. And no, it's nor plagiarism-it's called a common expression.Ferick 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If a fact is common knowledge, then it will obviously be found in multiple sources, but using the exact same sentence as in another source (i.e. a word by word copy) would be considered plaagiarism. TSO1D 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In English there is a difference between a) common expression and b) common knowledge. Saying United States is a Democratic Republic is not considered plagiarism even if this same expression is found in 1000 other articles. The fact is that the U.S is a republic and this is the clearest way to say it in English.Ferick 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

About the no Serbian involvement: "The rest of Kosovo's Serbian enclaves are run by the UN, but in reality, the Serbian Government retains considerable control over local services." from the BBC. Thus the Serbian government actually manifests real influence over the areas, it is not as if the local Serbs just emulate Serbia. And add to this the numerous, albeit small areas where Serbia has been allowed to act in Kosovo, I would say the "no involvement" statemetn would definitly not be justified. TSO1D 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Legally and otherwise, Serbia has no control over the running of Legal Institutions in Kosovo. Are they involved in running illegal organization in Kosovo? No doubt about it.Ferick 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Ferick, I looked over you version again, and I see that you made more changes than I previously thought. The minor changes are not important (although I don't understand why the languages are dewikified, maybe that was added later). You removed a paragraph abouot the economy that was adequatly sourced, though once again that might have been added later, in any case I don't know its history. But then some of the interwikis are also messed up, look at the Bulgarian one. And I think you didn't close the ref tag, so that all of this history section got moved to the footnotes. Please do not revert but rather look at what you want to insert, and do it manually (ideally discussing the more controversial changes beforehand). TSO1D 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied from a section above: Panonian is correct to say that the legal status of Kosovo is not identical to that of Vojvodina. Each has different powers under the Serbian constitution, and Kosovo has (additionally) a set of provisional legal documents pending final status. The constitutional status of both Vojvodina and Kosovo is nevertheless the same: they are autonomous provinces of Serbia. The administrative status of each (and this is no doubt Panonian's point about armies and so forth) is, of course, radically different. And UNMIK in all this is only a means of delivering administration, not a constitutional factor in itself.

Panonian is right (in a way) in asserting that the de jure and de facto status of Kosovo are the same. De jure (UN Charter and UNSC 1244) Kosovo is a province of Serbia, and de facto Kosovo is a province of Serbia (under UN administration). I suppose you could argue that Kosovo is de facto an independent country, but any number of instances of UN power over the provisional institutions of self-government would show this view to be incorrect. You might argue that Kosovo is de facto a UN protectorate, but then the UN itself would tell you that Kosovo is (in fact) a province of Serbia under UN administration. Perhaps you could argue that Kosovo is de jure administered by Serbia but de facto administered by the UN, but even Serbia will tell you that it does not administer Kosovo and has abrogated (provisionally, pending final status) it's de jure rights to do so under the terms of UNSC 1244. So I think we should agree with Panonian on this and agree that, de jure and de facto, in constitutional terms, Kosovo is a province of Serbia.

As to Vojvodina, a casual reader would (in my opinion) be better equipped to understand the present status of Kosovo given the addtional information that Kosovo is one of two autonomous provinces of Serbia. Similar reference is made, for instance, in the Wikipedia articles on Wales ("Wales is one of four constituent countries of the United Kingdom") and Republika Srpska ("The Republika Srpska is one of the two political entities that together constitute the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the other entity being the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina."). Serbia is somewhat unusual in having a constitutional structure which gives some part of it's territory a federal structure whilst keeping the rest ('Serbia proper') unitary; we should make reference to this in giving context to Kosovo.

In reference to 'parallel structures' in Kosovo: these quite clearly exist, and in contradition of UNSC 1244 if you read it that way. But exist they do, with the Serbian government providing health care, education, pensions and so on to a significant minority of the population of Kosovo. Belgrade also has other, less visible influence over the administration of Kosovo: privatisation has made little progress because of the threat of legal challenge from Serbia and Serbian former owners of industries; the Serbian state electricity industry provides regular and emergency provision of electricity for Kosovo from Serbia proper; UNMIK and Serbia have to share the management of air traffic control over Kosovo (the relevant international body not recognising Kosovo as anything other than part of Serbia); UNMIK and Serbia discuss the provision of security in Serbian enclaves; Serbia and UNMIK agree the means of allowing Kosovo Serbs votes in the both Kosovo and Serbia electoral systems. UNMIK is in constant and detailed discussion with Belgrade on all elements of the adminsitration of Kosovo, as all elements touch the lives of that minority of the population of Kosovo which see Serbia as sovereign, and all elements of administration touch on the past and shared elements of that administration; it does not (quite sensibly, given the sort of response we see even here on Wikipedia) publicise the extent of these discussions. (JD)

The point is not that the parallel structures don't exist, but that the parallel structures (and the other measures you mention) do not constitute "direct governance." All of the measures you mention -- are, at best, indirect governance. Providing assitance or otherwise influencing events doesn't constitute "direct governance." If it did, then one could credible claim that the United States, EU, UK, or any other donor had a role in "direct governance." "Direct governance" implies a degree of legal legitimacy that Belgrade would like, but does not have. --Envoy202 22:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with your point, Envoy202, though I think I've responded to it elsewhere. We're describing direct 'involvement' in Kosovo not direct governance. Serbia has no direct role in governance, only the indirect sort which each UN member state has. The UK and US also have a direct involvement in Kosovo though this is a part of the broader 'international community' involvement whereas Serbia operates parallel structures and asserts influence over a substantial minority of the territory and population of Kosovo. We should make reference to this in the introduction. (JD)

I was wondering if there is a provision in wikipedia that exempts Serb users[[22]] from the 3RR rule. Any help would be highly appreciated. Ferick 20:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course there isn't, but by my count KOCOBO has reverted three edits in the last 24 hours. This is within the 3RR limit. -- ChrisO 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood the rule then-I thought 3RR meant 3 edits gets you blocked.Ferick 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:3RR. —Gabbe 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Why are you deleting the links to other articles (namely Albanian, Serbian, Serbia, Vojvodina, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and Albanians) in the first paragraph? What possible problem could there be with inter-article links?

2) Why are you deleting Category:Disputed territories when it's universally acknowledged that Kosovo is, in fact, a disputed territory?

3) Why are you deleting interwiki links to the Albanian, Alsatian, Bulgarian, Latin, Polish and Slovenian versions of this article?

You haven't provided any explanation of your reverts other than that they're to "remove unreliable & unverifiable claims/sources" (which plainly can't apply to inter-article links, interwiki links or the category). What is your explanation for the three points above? -- ChrisO 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are talking about.Ferick 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem here seems to be the way people are reverting. I'd suggest that people (on all "sides") please just change the individual points that they think are wrong. This way, we may gradually stop "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and losing innocent improvements in the process of lazily reverting. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed the problem. Ferick, I made the same observation one paragraph above, but I believe you didn't see it. Your version has a number of flaws caused by lack of links, an open ref tag, wrong interwikis, and others. Once again I urge you not to revert to that old version as it has some incorrect changes, whether because you accidentally introduced them while editing, or because they existed previously. If you have some changes add them manually, and as always if they are controversial, please explain them beforehand. TSO1D 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=63368417&oldid=63331772 to see all the changes that you made with your reversion. If you don't know what you're changing when you revert, that's a very good reason for not reverting in the first place. -- ChrisO 07:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, since this is a sensitive issue for all sides, I will not make changes myself. However, I propose we put this map from Commons in the article, if not at the top, then somewhere in the middle or bottom. It shows Kosovo's position in Serbia, and the municipalities that are in it. What do others think about this? --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this picture should replace the current infobox map, however it can be a useful complement to the history section. Perhaps it could be added to the "Kosovo in the Second Yugoslavia" section, although the names of all localities are only in Serbian. TSO1D 02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the names are that important, the purpose of the map is to show the location in Serbia. My proposal would be to put it next to the blue map at the top, so as to show the position of Kosovo in Serbia, and next to it, Kosovo as a separate province. Plan B would be to place that map lower in the article, because at the moment there is not map showing Kosovo's location in Serbia, and this image is an accurate represantation of that. Do you agree? --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, putting it on top would make some users very unhappy, I have noticed this after looking at the history of the article. Better not to start a conflict, maybe the map should just not be in the article for the time being. I see that there's been a lot of problems over this issue in the past, better not to open Pandora's box if it's not neccessary. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need a map showing Kosovo's position within Serbia, but I don't think this is the ideal map to use - it's too detailed for our purposes. There's no point in showing all the municipalities outside Kosovo, for a start. Also, all the place names are in Serbian Cyrillic, which is problematic both alphabetically (the map shows no Latin transliterations) and politically (no Albanian names are given either). Instead, I suggest that we use a large-scale locator map showing where Kosovo is plus a more detailed map of the province's political boundaries, giving both both Serbian and Albanian municipality names in the Latin alphabet. What do you think of the one on the right as a general locator map? -- ChrisO 07:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good map to me, ChrisO, I suggest you just put it in and we'll see what happens (unfortunately). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The principle is OK, but the colors are making too big of a contrast (hurts my eyes :)), I've made a map that resembles some of the more popular maps in this encyclopedia, like the England and Scotland articles. Below it, I propose this next map I am showing you, which shows Kosovo's position within Serbia, with no municipality names or anything like that. The municipality names map should go down to the section called "Subdivisions". As I've seen on Wikipedia, the purpose of the top map of any article is to show location, and nothing else (which is why I changed my opinion about the first photo I proposed), so maybe the next map I'm proposing should go below, like in the other more popular articles. What do others think? --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the position-within-Serbia map but I really don't like your proposed European locator map - the colours are far too indistinct (dark green and slightly lighter green?). I deliberately chose red and green as high-contrast colours. Kosovo is a small entity in what's a fairly small country, so it won't occupy many pixels on the map - it needs to be very visible if it's going to show up clearly on that scale. -- ChrisO 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In accessibility terms, red and green are a disaster for (certain types of...) colour-blind people. We should go for excellent contrast, not two bright colours. How about increasing the contrast in the second version, but sticking with just greens? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I'm glad you like the second map I proposed, and I appreciate your honesty. Kieran, I aggree that making the contrast bigger is a better idea, maybe the colors should be the same as in the other map that Chris likes. Plus make the light green even lighter and dark green even darker to make it more distinct, without hurting my eyes ;) What do you think? --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Kosovo in Serbia" map has sufficient contrast and uses relatively neutral colors. The new "Kosovo in Europe" map also is the best version in my view. TSO1D 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both too - good work! -- ChrisO 07:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please restore Kosovo map. There is no reason to remove it. Ferick 20:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's redundant - we already have a very detailed map immediately below the contents box. What we lacked was a locator map, which we now have thanks to Bože pravde. See Catalonia for a comparable infobox. -- ChrisO 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Restore map or I will do so myself. Your reasoning is pathetic. Ferick 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So why do we need two maps of Kosovo? -- ChrisO 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are three maps right now-so I don't understand what you are talking about. The arguments is not how many maps,but which maps.22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Its good to see this article has improved over the last period of time. There is one thing that is still really bugging me here, though. The external links section contains a pro-serbian and a pro-albanian section. Many of those sources are in Serbian or Albanian, so of little use to English Wikipedia users, the headings (pro-....) are inflammatory and the sources (as evidenced by their grouping in pro-.... sections) are probably not neutral or independent. My first hunch is to simply delete both sections and all the links in them, but I considered that too drastic to do without discussion. Another options is to mix all the external links together, keeping only the ones linking to english language site. Any other ideas on how we could deal with this? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth going through the criteria at Wikipedia:External links and identifying which links don't qualify for inclusion. I note that foreign-language links are listed on WP:EL under "Links normally to be avoided". -- ChrisO 19:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for the article to be protected temporarily while we resolve once and for all the issue of the intro. I believe we have an unofficial broad consensus on the wording (except for Ferick, of course), but to demonstrate that, I'm proposing the following poll. Please state whether you support or oppose the proposals set out below, and it would be useful if you could provide your reasons as well. I'll keep the poll open for a few days and post a notification to Wikipedia:Current surveys.

Note: the poll is now closed as of 28 July 2006. See #Thanks - poll now closed below.

There are two questions to be decided:

• Should the intro contain the line: "Kosovo has been under Serbian sovereignty since 1912"?

Propose and support. Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Lead section states that "the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow." The fact that Kosovo is under Serbian sovereignty currently and has been so for nearly a century is critical to understanding the Serbian claim to the territory. This line serves as a very short preparatory statement for the history and politics sections of the article. -- ChrisO 07:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, that part of the history of Kosovo is so important in understanding the current situation, that it deserves to be mentioned in the introduction. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Support TSO1D 12:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC) That is a key part of any summary about Kosovo. TSO1D 12:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Qualified support: I support this, but I strongly feel that the mention of UN/NATO involvement should be in the first paragraph instead of, or in addition to, the second para. I find it impossible to vote on either of the current questions here, without a proviso that the paragraph must also mention the current situation; otherwise a casual reader of the introduction (admittedly a strangely ignorant one) might believe that the sovereignty/independence issue had been resolved. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kieran, the intro is based on the model adopted for other subnational entities - see Catalonia, Northern Ireland, etc. The usual approach is to give basic geographical and demographic information in the first para, followed by a brief political outline (broken out into one or two further paragraphs if necessary). The Kosovo intro follows this standard pattern exactly. Political stuff is certainly important but it's relatively transient info, whereas fundamental things like geographic location are never going to change. Hence the standard approach of putting the fundamental details first. I hope this makes sense - please feel free to raise it on my talk page or elsewhere on this page if any of it seems unclear or illogical to you. -- ChrisO 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for the info. I like the idea of adopting standards across Wikipedia, but not at the cost of misrepresenting things (again, presuming we may be writing for an uninformed reader). The argument you put forward means that to be consistent we should oppose including "Kosovo has been under Serbian sovereignty since 1912" – because that's "political stuff" too. So, in all good faith, and taking your point on board, I continue to feel the current situation is significant enough, and non-transient enough (>5 years) to be a sensible inclusion. It's the same story with the second point, below; yes, in official terms, Kosova has very similar status to Vojvodina, but actually in reality, on the ground, it's different. And Wikipedia should tell people the facts. It's a fact that the two areas are... different. On an entirely trivial point, note also that "1912" is not a useful internal link... – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I Strongly Support this proposal. My reasons are similar to ChrisO, most people know there's a conflict going on in Kosovo, the reason why people come to an encyclopedia is to find out why. Now, the introduction of an article is the most important part, because it "hooks" the reader into reading on. I would also mention that Kosovo is the cradle of civilization of Serbs, it's Holy Land, what Jerusalem is for the Jews - Kosovo is for the Serbs. Things should be put into perspective, and only then can people understand the core of the dispute. --KOCOBO 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, I agree with KOCOBO, not only do I think that ChrisO's sentence must be in the intro, I think we should also add some information about why Serbs feel so passionate about Kosovo and what it represents. I think the 1389. battle of Kosovo should be mentioned in the intro, because it is basically the corner stone of Serbian history. No single nation in the world is so conscious of it's history, like the Serbs. --Svetislav Jovanović 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - history, not basic facts, so not for the intro. Pickleflyer 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC) THIS IS THE FIRST EDIT THIS USER HAS MADE --KOCOBO 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support, we are here to state facts, and this is what the sentence is doing. Furthermore, I also support the idea to mention the Battle of Kosovo of 1389 in the intro, it is an important part of the history of Kosovo and Metohija. --serbiana - talk 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, per TSO1D. --Evv 11:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, this is the truth. I agree with KOCOBO. This is an encyclopedia and must state the facts. The history should never be erased or restrained. That is very dangerous. Litany 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Should the intro state that Kosovo is "one of two autonomous provinces in the country (the other being Vojvodina, in northern Serbia)"?

No Kosovo is nt a province of Serbia but a UN Protectoriat betwen this two countris is a reguler Border and you need a Passaport to crose thate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.254.169 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 25 July 2006

Propose and support. Ferick has provided no rationale for not including this statement other than stating repeatedly that it "will have no place here whatsoever". In understanding Kosovo's political status, it's important to note that while its administrative status is unique, it's one of two similarly constituted political entities (i.e. autonomous provinces within Serbia). -- ChrisO 07:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral, although mentioning Vojvodina puts things in a broader perspective in my opinion, the province has little direct involvement with the Kosovo situation and the introduction is perfectly understandable without this sentence. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Although the two provinces might differ in their de facto situations, formally they are both autonomous republics, so it's logical to mention Vojvodina in order to produce context. TSO1D 12:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Qualified support: per my reasoning in the other question, above; I support this but only if the rest of the paragraph covers the other parts of the situation. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've struck-out my own vote because I'm increasingly suspiscious of this whole section and really don't want anything to do with it. Please consider this an abstention, not a conversion to opposition. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Support - Officially, Kosovo has the same status as Vojvodina. Vojvodina has it's own government too, it's President, it's Prime Minister, just like Kosovo. I'd like to point to a similar example, not too far from Kosovo - Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the Republika Srpska article, the intro mentions "the other entity being the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina", and in the Federation article, the intro mentions "the other entity is the Republika Srpska", which is logical, people want to know these things, and it hurts not to put them there. --KOCOBO 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support, as per ChrisO, Vojvodina officially has the same status as Kosovo. Since there is only one more autonomous province in Serbia, besides Kosovo, it does not harm to mention it there. --Svetislav Jovanović 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, If we had 20 other provinces of Serbia, I guess it wouldn't be practical to mention all of them, but since we only have Vojvodina and Kosovo-Metohija, its very practical to mention both, because it helps people to understand the status. --serbiana - talk 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, per TSO1D & KOCOBO: it's much clearer. Evv 19:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, since this is also true. It should be included since it is much more neutral not excluding any facts. Litany 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this Belgrads Parliament???? No body from you are neutrale. I have talk with most from you and I know thate you are not neutrale. In fact you are part of the serbian propaganda incitive wicht it hase stardet since one year in "Sava Center", —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.178.10.219 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006

At first you must answer the quesqen : Is Kosovo part of Serbia or is Kosovo UN-Protectriat? All the time you are saying Kosovo is part of Serbia. The fact is that Kosovo is the only one UN-Protectoriat. Something what is potecdet belong only to the power wicht is protecten. Nevermaine how I say here is like in Belgrads parliament and in Belgrads parliament are not presante kosovars like in this article. Nobody from you dont know nothing about Kosovo and you are voting about the Kosovo? For all of you Kosovo is Black Box. At the end all of you are serbians and you get money from Serbian govermante. Arguments are easy you ate voting for the Kosovo in 1912 and you dont know in witch time they have taket unter control? You are voting for some sulution wicht was maked from Sovjet Union and was never acceted from the Kosovars. You are War makers beacose you are falsing the realty.

Cann somebody from you talle me a history of Kosovo since 1945. Wicht are the exte poit if since this time? You dont know hat was happen since 50 years and you wount to vote or omthing befor 100 years. This is my argument. You dont know how it cames to the War in 1999. You dont know how many times the serbs and kosovars have maked war since 1945? How I say this article is 100% serbian propagander witch is reasenting Kosovo as part of Serbia and every albanian user was bannet or his opinion was bloced from this usere administrator coorporation witch in fact is a part of the serbian propagander War to winn the media agains Kosovo indenpendent.

TUNG from Prishtina

upsss!!! In Kosovo wenn you wount to go in is writen "Welcommen Kosovo" this is the Realty and you cann vote and winn a media War witch was stardet in "Sava Center". I know is hard when you dont have monye for "New York Times" or BBC and you use this form to winn Media War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.254.169 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 25 July 2006

Thanks for everyone who contributed to this poll - we have a clear consensus in favour of both propositions. Reinoutr does have a good point though, so I've attempted to find a middle ground by modifying the infobox to match that of Vojvodina - showing the map of Kosovo next to some navigation links generated by the {{Serbia 2}} template. -- ChrisO 07:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A poll determined by partisan reasons will have no bearing and no obligation. This is the second time you are doing this: Whenever you realize there are more active people that support your partisan view, you introduce a poll. This solves nothing- in two weeks the balance of power may change, and I can introduce the same poll and win it. When will the cycle stop? Polls do not determine facts. And for God’s sake stop protecting pages in which you are heavenly involved. What’s even worst, you protect pages when they are reverted to your preferred version. Very unethical behavior indeed! Ferick 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Polling is very much a standard way of obtaining community input on disputed issues. As for "determining facts", this poll deals with two facts which even you haven't disputed - i.e. that Serbia has had sovereignty since 1912 and that Kosovo is de jure one of two autonomous provinces in Serbia. Do you dispute these facts? -- ChrisO 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ferick,

1. This poll is not about what is fact, but about which facts should be included in the introductory paragraph.
2. The poll is not designed to obtain consensus, but to get an idea of what is the prevailing view, therefore it will run for a few weeks and independent editors are encouraged to vote.
3. Currently, the Kosovo article is not protected.
4. It is your good right to start another poll after some time.

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reinoutr, thanks for picking up a point that I missed. Ferick, you've misread what I posted above: "I've asked for the article to be protected temporarily while we resolve once and for all the issue of the intro." The request is posted under WP:RPP#Current requests for protection. It hasn't yet been actioned yet and I've certainly not protected this page myself. -- ChrisO 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's funny- When I tried to edit it says you have been banned permanently because my nick name is "Kosovo"-apparently an inflammatory name. It also says my account has been used by Shareman.Production@Gmail.com. Since my account name is not Kosovo, I got confused and I thought the page was protected, but I guess I am the only one blocked from editing for some reason. Interesting…..Ferick 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's very strange, Ferick. I'm happy to look into it if you like. Could you provide more details on my talk page? -- ChrisO 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know it is not possible to block specific pages for specific users. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not, which is why I'm so puzzled by it. I suppose it might be possible that Ferick was temporary collateral damage from a block on an IP range. -- ChrisO

23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what’s going on either, but the message said that I was auto blocked because my user name “Kosovo” ( which is not my username) was an inflammatory name and needed to be changed. It also said something about my account being used by a certain Shareman.Production@Gmail.com. I am really puzzled, and of course I cannot pull the message again because the page has been blocked now for real.Ferick 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is more: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by RadioKirk for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Rappy30V2". The reason given for Rappy30V2's block is: "vandal from 216.164.203.90". Your IP address is 64.xxx.xxx.xx. I am getting lost& i have no clue what is going on here........Ferick 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, I like to know why did you block me in wikipedia with no prove whatsoever? I never talked to you, don't know you & I have never crossed roads with you in Wiki and you block me because "I am a self admitted sock puppet". What evidence do you have for this sir? This is highly inflammatory accusation and I like an apology. You also said I send you an email? What on earth are you talking about? I have never send you an email- I have never crossed roads with you. Next time check your facts before you make these inflammatory accusation and block people. I have to go through all this hassle just because of your unprofessional behaviour. I am highly disappointed in wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia when people accuse you for something with no prove whatsoever. Are you a new administrator?

Last thing: I connect to the Internet via wireless network and my external IP address is 64.233.173.81 (This is a none static address ). If need be I can provide the internal IP address as well. Please unblock me ASAP.Ferick

•  Minorities in Kosovo

A documentary by the Government of Serbia about the position of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, and attacks on their civil and human rights from March 17th to 19th in 2004.

•  Destruction of Orthodox culture in Kosovo

A documentary by the Government of Serbia about the Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries demolished and destroyed by extremists from 1998. to 2005.

How to do envisage including movies in the article? Besides that, the movies are clearly not from a neutral POV, so that makes them unsuitable. Also, the topic that they are about is already included in the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Serbia? Just do it! make a place for the serbian propagander. Peace! Wikipedia it was and is now part of Serbia (propagander). Just do it! a copy from serbian wikipedia [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.178.10.219 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006

Cann sommebody check the administrator. The users accounts and the voten is exstrem serbian propagander. I dont need to talk about users souch als serbiana everybody who hase taket part at Kosovo Edit Wars in Wiki know him. He dont have right to vote for somthing about Kosovo after all thate what he hase don. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.178.10.219 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006

What exactly is it you want? TSO1D 14:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The administrator who is controling this article is not neutral, He or She is pro-Serbian propagander. This must be checket. If no body dont do it the articel is going to be like this and Wikipedia is going to be a part of the Serbian propagander. I am only a user and I dont have the power and time to make somthing agains the organisedet propagander. They have a large bugget. They get money for working here. I dont get money, I am only wikipedian. Sorry but this is big problem, is not a normal Wikipedians agains Wikipedians conflict, but Wikipedians agains a state propagander. For this problem we need help from the administrators and burokrats. A normal user dont have a chance to do agais this oranisedet propagander.

TUNG from Prishtina

As far as I can make out the rather convoluted complaint above, this anonymous user seems to think that I'm working for a well-funded Serbian government propaganda campaign (I presume I'm the administrator he's complaining about). Since I'm not even Serbian, I don't think I need to dignify that claim with a rebuttal... -- ChrisO 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tung, try to be more positive and assume good faith. And why do you attack the Serb users in particular, I though you yourself were from Serbia? TSO1D 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are a Wikipedian then you know thate this article is full of propagander. But the fact abt what you are voting is prufing thate or you are a part of serbian propagander or you are stupied. Sorry but is not my foul the arguments are clear for every body witch know somthing about Kosovo. And you dont need to worry. The albanians and the user witch know the situation they dont wount nothing to do with this article. (You are serb my fried and nothing else)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.254.169 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 25 July 2006

You know, I've always wandered what my nationality was, I guess this finally settles the question. TSO1D 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I don’t think anybody needs to worry about the outcome of this useless poll. Per reasons explain above, it will have no bearing on the article and no obligation on the users (to conform to the outcome of the poll). Ferick

Well, look at Wikipedia:Straw polls. The poll is certainly non-binding, however if concensus can be identified through them, then that is. You have to admit that most users (even excluding the potential socks) voted in favor of the proposal, thus I believe it should be taken into account by all editors. As for your statement that the votes of some users should be ignored because they hold a certain bias, I disagree with that. Everyone has his own convictions, and you cannot arbitrarily discount those you do not agree with. TSO1D 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this kind of poll, as opposed to those on AfD discussions and the like, is that the attention of the community is not drawn to them. Many editors with opinions, knowledge, and most relevantly, with reference material appropriate to the article, will not know the poll is happening. It's a consensus amongst an incredibly unscientific minority of people; most of whom – and I mean no offence to anyone in particular here, this just seems blatantly obvious – are likely to be those who regularly bat the article back and forth for partisan or other reasons, and are somewhat incautious in their editing approach. There must be a better way! Perhaps some sort of peer review, which could be "advertised". – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your general assessment of polls. Only on rare occasions do polls not become battlegrounds between partisans who try to rally others to their support and overcome their opposition through a purely numerical advantage. For that reason, discussion is the prefered method for choosing an appropriate mode of action and to reach a concensus. Nevertheless, in this case, I believe that there was a high level of agreement among active users with few exceptions, thus the poll only reinforced that point in order to avoid future conflict rather than seek to implement new changes. TSO1D 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I should note that the attention of the community was drawn to this poll; it's posted at Wikipedia:Current surveys. I should also note that I started the poll because Ferick was repeatedly deleting the two lines in question from the article. If you check the edit history, you will see that Ferick was the only user who was disputing the two lines, and all of the other users had no problem with them and restored them. An informal consensus already existed; this poll was intended to get that on the record. -- ChrisO 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, I was unaware that it had been posted there. :) On the specifics of this poll, sadly, I don't trust the informal consensus because there seem to be people who come, get peed off with the edit wars, and go. Thus, the community isn't really following the article. I'm acutely aware that I'm just having a whinge rather than offering a solution. I wish I had one to offer. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course, and I also wish there was an alternative solution. Since there doesn't appear to be, I'm afraid we're stuck with what we've got. -- ChrisO 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could maintain a separate register of editors who have an interest in or knowledge of the topic and would like to be consulted in the event of a poll or such like? Or perhaps even go through the Talk pages and see if any of the former contributors would like to comment? (JD)

"But whatever the force of Serbian feeling or strength of its attachment to Kosovo, things have moved on. In the real world, Kosovo is no longer part of Serbia". [24] Interesting take............Ferick 01:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the author is suffering from the same confusion that you exhibited earlier, i.e. not understanding the difference between control of a territory and sovereignty over it. In the real world, of course, Kosovo is under Serbian sovereignty (hence the current talks on independence) but Serbia has no control over it. -- ChrisO 07:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A comment to both: This is not about the real world or about confusion. It is about what is the prevailing view. This is just one journalist, but if the vast majority of reputable journalist sources (e.g. CNN, BBC) would talk about Kosovo like this, Wikipedia would have to follow that view (per WP:NOR and WP:RS). The question is not about what is real or what is true, but about what is verifiable (per WP:V). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your believe, the goal of any encyclopedia is to portray the real world (not a mythical or imaginary world). And if something is real, logic leads us to believe that it is verifiable. Of course the author is “mixing” things up- glad you are here to straighten everything up. What would we have done if it weren’t for you?

"[In reality] Kosovo is no longer part of Serbia, Kosovo will not be ruled by the Serbs, Serbia has lost its state integrity and all that should be explained to the people", Miodrag Vukovic, advisor to Montenegrian PM Milo Djukanovic [25].Ferick 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I can not disscuse so good in English, but I can understande and the problem hier is thate the artikels about Kosovo in en:Wiki (not only this one) are far a way from realty and are traing to make to the userse some "realty" with some papers (documents) from the past and from serbian proagander. Of corse thate this papers are importen for the history, but they are not so importen how in the articel are presant, the presante time is more importen. If it was so easy to say thate Kosovo is part of Serbia, would somebody talle me way they dont control this area. Take a look the articels about somme places like Kosovo. There are meany places part of one "Suveren" state but controled from sombady els. But all this places dot have this status "proectet" from UN. This argument is REALETY every intepretation of the Rez. 1244 is speculation, beacose from the same state SFR Yugoslavia we have a state and a protectoriat this is "de facto" and "de juro" for the term "suverenitet" you can speculete so longer as for "is Kosovo part of Serbia or not" but the only officel status is this paper Rez. 1244 and the inro from this paper is only one acceptet version from UN (from Wikipedia too. The articel Kosovo must be seperetet as part of Serbia, and most be prasent like this protectoriat comtry, places, teritory, provice about this we cann have a disscusion). OK you are going to say "this and thate" , the fact is thate this paper cann be intepretet from both saids. The only one neutral intro is the intro from this paper.

THIS :Kosovo, We dont need to comment, we have here Kosovo and Vojvodina as part of Serbia and the realty is not ipmorten. Peopel ther is a territory protectet from every "suverenety" the only suveren power in Kosovo is UN.

This discussion will soon become archaic anyway. Within a few weeks the final status of the region will be definitely determined, so there is really no point in discussing it's exact status at the moment. De facto it is more independent than not, but de jure it's still part of Serbia. Just leave it at that and wait for the final verdict. TSO1D 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cpt. Morgan is right. Please read carefully "Wikipedia:Reliable sources": As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, [the Real World] is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. Have a nice day :-) --Evv 14:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And if something is real, logic leads us to believe that it is verifiable. There is no such relation between reality and verifiability. There are many things that are neither real, nor verifiable (take for example the Wooglie Mooglie Monster I just made up). There are also a lot things that are verifiable, but not real (e.g. Homer Simpson) and similarly there are things that are real, but not verifiable (I could start an article about my rabbit Spoekie, but nobody could check whether he does exist). Finally, and luckily, there are many things that are both real and verifiable (there is a country called The Netherlands, for example). Because of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR of these only Homer Simpson and The Netherlands belong in Wikipedia, because they are verifiable.

Contrary to your statement the goal of any encyclopedia is to portray the real world, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (direct quote from WP:V). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me that you missed the philosophy classes in college. Your conclusion cannot be drawn from those premises. If you say you have a rabbit, and he actually exist (not because you say so, but he exists on his own), then he does exit and there is no need for someone to verify. To verify whether you are laying about having the rabbit, some needs to come there and see it. So, if someone wants to verify whether “In the real world, Kosovo is no longer part of Serbia” they need to go there and inspect its borders.Ferick 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. How we approach this issue is determined not simply on the basis of "the prevailing view" among the general public or the media, but on the prevailing view among the experts. As we've already seen, the unanimous view of reference sources is that Kosovo is "an autonomous province of Serbia" which is under UN administration. That's what we should and do reflect in the article. BTW, say hello to Spoekie for us. ;-) -- ChrisO 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, experts and people who have been there can verify whether Kosovo, in reality, is no longer part of Serbia. However, I don’t count you as one of them.Ferick 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He sure loves those :) and thanks for pointing out the importance of expert opinions, I forgot to mention that. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, editors must follow Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. Please read carefully Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

Therefore, as long as Spoekie's existence (or the current status of Kosovo being anything else than an autonomous province of Serbia) is not published by a reliable source, it's considered original thought or original research and can not be published in Wikipedia. Have a nice day. :-) --Evv 12:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That Kosovo, in the real world, is no longer part of Serbia has been published many times and can be verified as such. So I don’t know get what you are arguing against? I am all for verifiability and reliability.Ferick

I'm arguing that you may have misinterpreted the meaning of "verifiability" in the context of Wikipedia's official policy. Per WP:V & WP:NOR, verification is only possible through reliable source, and not through original research. Regards. --Evv 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, I don't see why this should be very difficult.

1. 1 Everyone agrees that Kosovo is technically/de jure/officially a province of Serbia (ie that Serbia has sovereignty over Kosovo). That is why all encyclopedias describe it as such.

So what? That’s already in the paragraph. Most experts also know that in reality Kosovo is no longer part of Serbia, so this also should be put into the intro paragraph.Ferick 13:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 2 All also agree that Serbia does not have de facto control over the territory. This is also what the article describes.

Bingo!!!! Another word, Kosovo, in the real world, is no longer part of Serbia just as Taiwan is no part of China.Ferick 13:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what it is that you object to. Do you want to describe Kosovo as an internationally recognized "independent" and "sovereign" state over which Serbia happens claims sovereignty?Osli73 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. Merely that Kosovo is not part of Serbia in the real world. And, it’s not a matter of what I want- It’s a matterb of how it is.Ferick 13:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But the text does say: "However, since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations with little direct involvement from the Serbian government." How specifically would you want to change it? TSO1D 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, you would help us a lot by providing one single reliable source stating that Kosovo is not part of Serbia. Best regards :-) --Evv 13:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you follow the discussion-That way you will know where the links are.Ferick 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the archived parts, but in this page i find no references to any reliable source stating that Kosovo is not part of Serbia. Please, indulge me and provide just one. Best regards. :-) --Evv 13:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it’s not my problem if you cannot find them. It just shows that have not followed the discussion. I have no intention of directing every new user to what has been discussed and where the links are- don’t have time for that.Ferick 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, what do you mean by the Real World (wasn't the Real World the name of an MTV docusoap a decade ago)? Today the article intro says that Kosovo is a province of Serbia administered by the UN since 1999 and with considerable autonomy (or something to that effect). What is wrong with that description? Osli73 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that-It’s just missing the most important part: “In the real world, Kosovo is no longer part of Serbia.” [[26]

Real World MTV is a current program not a decade old program-what world are you living in? Bun in any case, "real world"(since you need an explanation fur such an obvious term) means "the practical world as opposed to the academic world" per dictionary.com Ferick 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Serbia without Kosovo is an editorial, thus expressing an opinion and not stating a fact. Furthermore, it seems to match the description given in this article, as described by Osli73 and TSO1D. Regards. --Evv 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again what exactly is it that you would want the text to say, just give a sample sentence that you think represents the situation best. TSO1D 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"We believe Kosovo is independent in many ways at this time"[27], Dimitrij Rupel-Slovenian Foreign Minister. Hmmmm.........Ferick 13:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

B92's article Rupel: Serbia must not be the loser, mentioned above by Ferick, quotes Dimitrij Rupel supporting Serbia's position: "We believe Kosovo is independent in many ways at this time. I do not meant to say technically independent, but self-sufficient, under international guidance." (In that, he agrees with the current wording on Wikipedia, as described by Osli73 and TSO1D.)

The last paragraph: "The Slovenian minister said that his country does not wish to see a situation where Serbia would be an apparent loser, and Kosovo Albanians winners, because that would, in his words, be detrimental to both Serbia and Kosovo." Regards. --Evv 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying Kosovo is technically independent, but in reality it is- just like the foreign minister said. I am sorry-supporting Serbia's position? Not so much: "We have no objections to some sort of a conditioned independence"- I must have missed something. But in any case, this argument is not about the future status-so I don't know what you are arguing here!Ferick 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Ferick 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rupel is quoted: "We have no objections to some sort of a conditioned independence, if that meant tying the conditions to the solution of the Western Balkans problem as a whole. We believe that the whole of that region should join the Union, but Serbia first and foremost."

I'm not arguing, but only contextualizing the quotes you provided, for he wording could have been misinterpreted.

Anyway, as TSO1D said yesterday, what exactly is it that you would want the text to say ? Just give a sample sentence that you think represents the situation best. That way we can reach a consensus and remove the article's protection. Regards. --Evv 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intentions of repeating myself a hundred times. When the page is unblocked you will get a chance to see it.Ferick 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, I suspect that you are ready to go ahead and unilaterally change the article to your own liking once the page is unlocked. Is that the case? If so, why are you unwilling to compromise with other editors?Osli73 17:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Ferick, be polite, and let's work to solve editing differences here, in the Talk page, where wording and sources are easier to agree on, instead of having pointless edit wars on the article itself. The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

So, just give a sample sentence that you think represents the situation best. That way we can reach a consensus and remove the article's protection. :-) Regards. --Evv 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise? I am not sure what you have in mind, but I have no intention of compromising at the expense of distorting reality. If the goal of the compromise is to represent the situation on the ground as closely as possible to the actual reality, then that is acceptable.Ferick 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The goal is to describe Kosovo as objectively as possible, in accordance to Wikipedia policies. Let's do it. :-) What change/s would you do to the opening paragraph ? --Evv 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(There shouldn't be any real problem as long as we follow WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:NOR. The only possible obstacle could be some wording issues, as we try to follow WP:NPOV; but even that could be easily dealt with using the dictionary and good faith). --Evv 19:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the goal is to represent the situation on the ground as closely as possible to the actual reality, in accordance to Wikipedia policies. :-) --Evv 19:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the goal is representing the majority view of the situation on the ground, as represented by our reputable and verifiable sources. Ferick appears to believe that we should disregard what these sources say and instead present his own personal POV, based on sources which he won't cite. This is of course a textbook example of original research. We've been over this point a thousand times before, I'm afraid - Ferick's perfectly aware of what the policy is. -- ChrisO 21:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough that Ferick has no intention of discussing his preferred version or providing sources. Agreement amongst all users but one is a consensus, as far as policy is concerned: "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith." (Wikipedia:Consensus) Ferick has refused to participate in the straw poll or quote sources, which I don't think indicates good faith.

When will you stop lying so bluntly? Everything I have said is backed up by reputable sources (read above). But I should not be surprised, as I have caught you many times lying and misrepresenting facts.Ferick 01:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has been locked for long enough. I've unprotected it now so that we can move on. If Ferick continues to go against consensus, as I expect he probably will, we'll deal with that separately. -- ChrisO 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, why do you insist on changing the intro? The current intro already says that Kosovo "is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's Albanian population" and that it's administered by the UN "with little direct involvement from the Serbian government". What is it you object to? And, why can't you accept a clear consensus among the editors of the article (none of whom are Serbs, by the way)?Osli73 02:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Same question to you!Ferick 04:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if Serbia had NO control over the status of Kosovo, it would be made independent immediately and without discussion. But it does have SOME control, as final status has to be the result of an agreement between the various parties (though with reference to the need for democratic self-government). The only authority here is international law and the agreement between the UN and the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (succeeded now by Serbia) in which, whilst respecting the territorial integrity of Serbia, administration of Kosovo is given to the UN and preparations are made for an agreement on final status. It might be worth noting somewhere (a section on the status negotiations?) that the position of Serbia has shifted decisively against independence for Kosovo; previously, parts of the Serbian government were willing to acquiesce in independence but not condone it, but all parts of the Serbian government are now seeking actively to resist independence. Given that the UN cannot undermine its own Charter (which protects territorial integrity), and as UNSC 1244 (and the Rambouillet Agreement) refer only to democratic self-government and substantial autonomy, the UN will find it impossible to impose independence; the presumption that indendence is the most likely outcome is beginning to slip and we should be covering some of these (pretty important!) discussions. (JD)

Can someone add a label/listing for Central Serbia or Serbia proper between those for Vojvodina and Kosovo? It seems to me that it would make the map much clearer, being that the map has three subdivisions and only two labels. Or if that is a problem, at least add an arrow showing where Vojvodina is. Right now it is pretty ambiguous (to the uninformed user).

--Echalon 18:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense, and I think it would cause more confusion? If you check Vojvodina article you can see further details. There aren't three subdivisions, there are two autonomous provinces within Serbia. --Lowg 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but right now there is no distinction on the map to indicate that there is any difference between Vojvodina and Central Serbia. Right now the map does have three subdivisions/delineated regions (I wasn't referring to legal subdivisions, I mean literally separate areas on the map). In other words, being the same color on the map, you can't tell which part the Vojvodina label is referring to. So either change the color or add some other indication. This way it will be clear which areas of the map are the two provinces. --Echalon 03:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The text of the article's first paragraph has been modified to address Echalon's concern. Thanks for your contribution. :-) --Evv 04:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for listening :-d It's nice to see that huge political debates don't stop minor improvements. --Echalon 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the changes in the introduction to keep it concise, adequate for users who read only the introduction and not the article. Besides, a major unsourced change had been introduced:

• with little direct involvement from the Serbian government. became
• Belgrade has had no direct role in governing Kosovo since 1999.

I moved part of Envoy202's edit to the Politics section, without merging it with the previous text already there. However, i omitted restoring unsourced claims (Contact Group countries declared in January 2006 that a future status settlement must be, inter alia, acceptable to the people of Kosovo and fully respect the rights of Kosovo's minorities) and a general perhaps unintentional pro-Albanian POV (per WP:NPOV#Undue weight).

I don't object to the facts themselves, but to the lack of sources and the wording: keep in mind that this is a rather controversial topic, making Verifiability and WP:NPOV indispensable. Regards :-) --Evv 01:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo it was disputet teritory betwen Serbien Goverment and Kosovars. In the past it was called KSA Kosovo now is officel only Kosovo (in UN in Serbia Kosmet NOT IT! In Serbian Languege is Kosovo ). The Kosovars are "de facto" and "de juro" independen. Germany was independent since after secend Word War, but in this time it was controled from USA, UK, SSSR ect. Betwen Serbia and Kosovo is a Border like betwen Canada and USA. This is not only "de facto" but is "de juro", the same borders are with Macedonia, with Albanaia and Motenegro you can cross more easy, they wount "You in the Adriatic" (Durrës,Ulqin...). This is "DE FACTO" and "DE JURO". {{Subst:unsigned|172.173.145.107|03:05, 30 July 2006}

Durres, I sorry to have to say that I have quite a hard time following your argumentation (a bit like the Hippi Zdrippi of old). However, as has been shown in clearly many times before on these talk pages, Kosovo is very much de jure still a part of Serbia - ie under Serbian sovereignty. This is what all nations and international organizations agree on. However, it is under temporary UN control. That is the legal status of the province.Osli73 19:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Durres is his name. That was an example he used to illustrate his point, though I honestly have no idea what that is. TSO1D 20:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Per UNSCR 1244, Serbia is permitted no role in governing Kosovo. For example, its security personnel are not permitted in Kosovo, its laws do not apply, etc. While Kosovo remains legally part of Serbia, UNSCR 1244 gives UNMIK total authority to govern/administer Kosovo so long as the resolution is in effect. That should be reflected in the introduction. Envoy202 10:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Envoy202 is wrong on a number of points. Serbia security forces are permitted in Kosovo, and are in fact present, for the purposes agreed and outlined in Annex 2 of UNSC 1244; at present their numbers are restricted but UNMIK believes many more are present without UN authority, providing some security for Kosovo Serbs and supporting law and order in the majority Serbian areas. The laws of Serbia do apply to Kosovo, as all law in Kosovo is based on 1999 FRY law, though as amended by UNMIK since then (going into Kosovo and starting with a totally blank legal slate seemed a bit risky!) and without reference to present Serbian government or courts. UNMIK does not have total authority, only that given it in the agreement reached between the UN and the FRY (under duress, of course, but agreed nevertheless) as outlined in UNSC 1244 and elsewhere (e.g. the military techinical agreement); that authority gives UNMIK the power to create only certain provisional institutions and laws, subject to final status. As I've noted above, the 'soft' power Belgrade has to influence the administration of Kosovo is quite pervasive: privatisation in Kosovo is delayed over threat of Serbian legal claims, airspace must be administered by agreement, ballots of the Serbian minority (for Serbia or Kosovo elections) are carried out after discussion with Belgrade, and returns, security, the economy and crime are all discussed (and common approaches agreed) between Belgrade and UNMIK. Perhaps all this should be reflected in the introduction. (JD)

As he has indicated on these talk pages before, Ferick has now started to unilaterally make controversial edits to the introduction. I'm not sure how this should be dealt with. It would be preferably if a protection of the article could be avoided. Osli73 20:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I second Osli73's comment. --Evv 20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has been protected for long enough. This isn't a content dispute any longer - it's purely a user (mis)conduct dispute, as Ferick is violating a number of fundamental policies and general wikiquette. The problems aren't limited to this article, as he's been editing abusively on other articles as well. I'll be posting a user-conduct RFC on Ferick in the next couple of days, with a view to taking it to arbitration if he fails to change his behaviour. I'd prefer not to have to take it to arbitration, but if I do it's likely to result in Ferick being banned from editing Kosovo-related articles - at a minimum. I'll certainly be recommending such a ban if it comes to it. - ChrisO 21:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the article intro is becoming too long again as various aspects are specified. For example, much of the text on the ongoing independence negotiations could be moved to a separate section in the Politics section.

Remember, the introduction should be a short summary of the main text.Osli73 13:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did that, but I made a reference to that section in the introduction. If you want the intro to be shorter, please move information to the appropriate section rather then deleting it. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you moved the text to the Politics section which I think looks better. Though I don't see any need to state in the intro that the reader should read the main text for more information as the intro is the summary of the article. So, I took the liberty of removing this last text from the intro.

Sorry about deleting instead of removing your text. No offence meant.

As the 'independence' negotiations seem to have moved up a gear it might be worthwhile to create a specific subheading dealing with them and leave the main Politics sectin do describing how Kosovo is governed.

Cheers,Osli73 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that reference to the politics section was superfluous. I do not know enough about the current negotiations to expand the politics sections, but it sounds like good idea to be done. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. Maybe we could ask Ferick to do it? Although I don't agree with his interpretation of a lot of what is going on in Kosovo he seems to be knowledgeable and up to date. What do you think?Osli73 12:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to ask him specifically, he knows about this talk page and if he reads this and feels like adding information, I am sure he will do that. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To make things more informative to editors who not do not regularly edit this article, I have moved the large infobox to a separate template page: Template:Kosovo-InfoBox and transcluded it in the article.

In addition, I have added a warning (only visible when editing) that major changes to the introduction would be better discussed here first. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job :) --Evv 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As discussed, I have added a section on the Kosovo future status process. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to look up citations for everything in this section, but I'm confident all assertions can be verified through either a web search or some other minimal digging. In fact, I'd be grateful if people could help me add some citations and links -- UNOSEK has a decent website, plus there have been lots of media articles over the last year about the status process. Because the Kosovo issue and the status process will heat up in the fall, I think there is merit in having an ample and accurate section on what's going on. --Envoy202 15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Envoy202's suggestion. I too am a former diplomat, having worked in Belgrade and Kosovo. The section on final status is sufficient for present purposes, though gives little weight to the requirement in international law that Belgrade must agree to any change to the status of Kosovo; UNMIK likes to claim otherwise, but this clear fact (see UN Charter, Article 2) needs to be underlined or the reader might give too much weight to the generally accepted opinion. This opinion was based on the former state of affairs that opinion amongst politicians in Belgrade was divided as to wether or not independence could be resisted; opinion has shifted decisively towards resisting indepence, as is clear from Belgrade press (see Politika or NIN for a relatively balanced view). We should note that UNSC 1244 and Rambouillet refer only to substational autonomy and democratic self-government. We should note that UNMIK have nevertheless done little to disabuse the Kosovo Albanian political class of their belief that independence is inevitable, and that all observers of Kosovo have identified a growing trend of physical attacks on the international community on the part of (organised or disorganised?) Kosovo Albanians. Looking forward to seeing these elements in the review of the status process, or else we end up with a summary of UNMIK press releases... (JD)

JD, it is true that Belgrade opposes Kosovo's independence and will likely cite international law (UN Charter, Helsinki Final Act) to bolster its position. This not change the fact that independence is still considered by almost all experts and almost all international diplomats to be the most likely outcome. That fact is easily verifiable.

You're right to note the disturbing shift in the wind in Belgrade, which has been deeply troubling to many of Serbia's international friends. Perhaps that could be usefully pointed out.

I guess I'd advise against too much independent analysis on the Kosovo future status process, including independent legal assessments. I think a "just the facts, ma'am" approach to the status process is best. As you well know, international law is a squishy thing and will be cited by any party that thinks it can score a debating point.

You note a "growing trend of physical attacks" agains the IC. Which events are you referring to? I am not aware of any serious incidents in recent months. In fact, my understanding is that overall violence and Potentially Ethnically Motivated Incidents are actually down in 2006. Some have ascribed this decrease to K-Albanian extremists being told to be on "good behavior" so long as international events seem to be moving inexorably towards independence. --Envoy202 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

--Envoy202 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC

• Kosovo is more or leas independent in realty and in "paper".

Kosovo has oven ekonomy, politic, borders, police, president, ..... , Kosovo is traing to be regotnesed from Serbia in demotratic way (This is for the future ekonomy of Serbia and Kosovo importen). If Serbia n politicans dont have there folk under cotroll we dont need to sacrife Kosovo about thate. Kosovo has traid more thate 6 years to give them a chance to comme back to Europen family and at the end to make a bilance with demege from Milosevic. This big problem in Serbia, is a same think with somme Rusian peopel witch think thate the Sovjet Union is super power and Coca-Cola is Rusian product beacose in the back side of the bothel is etiket with "Made in Rusia". - Hipi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.173.212.154 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 August 2006

--Envoy202 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, this intro presents such a big target. It will inspire editing mischief so long as it 1) uses politically-loaded terms like "province," 2) emphasizes (rather than simply notes) that Kosovo is part of Serbia and 3) does not mention the transitional UN administration in the first sentence. While I agree that the first paragraph is not the place for getting into the finer details of UNSCR 1244, A more balanced, factual opening will attract less attention and be less liable to be edited by those with ethnic axes olor="#006600">contribs]]) 16:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the problem is that the type of Kosovar Albanian editors who have caused problems on this page before (also with the introduction, back in June) don't seem to accept any text which states that Kosovo is still legally a part of Serbia but under UN administration. Instead, they prefer to present it as a semi-independent country on which Serbia has an illegitimate claim which is not recognized by anyone.

I would welcome if you put together another proposal for an introduction. I floated the US State Department text (though I think it was by the Congressional Research Service) before and it was rejected by the Kosovar Albanian editors of the time. But good luck!

Cheers Osli73 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a good plan to be, although I would propose a sentence like:

Kosovo is an international protectorate in the Balkan that has been under United Nations administration since 1999, although it has legally remained a part of Serbia.

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reinoutr, we've been through all of this before, back in May-June, remember? The problem is that while every government, international agency and encyclopedia (you've seen the list) describes Kosovo as a province in southern Serbia presently under UN administration this is not accepted by the Kosovar Albanian editors. They have rejected any text which states that while Kosovo is administred by the UN it is still legally/technically/de jure a part of Serbia. And most likely wil continue to do so in the future. I don't see how you cannot say this in an introduction. How far can you bend the facts to appease uncompromising nationalists? This would open up for all kinds of text regarding territories such as Abchazia, Chechnya, West Bank, Gaza, Tibet, etc.

Abchazia, Chechnya, West Bank, Gaza, Tibet, etc ae not Protectect from UN.- Hipi

Cheers Osli73 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is impossible to have all users fully agree with any given version especially in an issue as controversial as this, and for this reason, the best alternative is to be as objective as possible and model the article based on what other reputable and neutral sources have. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the current version is fully supported by other popular encyclopedias and presents the facts truthfully while preserving balance. Saying something like: "Kosova is a protectorate under the jurisdiction of the UN after NATO in conformity with the unanimous desire of the Albanian populace liberated the region from the grasp of the Serbian barbarians, and the region is now awaiting the independence promised by the international community, although de jure it remains of Serbia." although it would appease one side of this dispute would be going to far. TSO1D 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Reinoutr's language is perfect.

I guess it's an question of where to hold the line. I agree you absolutely have to mention that Kosovo is legally a part of Serbia. This is clearly a fact and we should push back vigorously on those who seek to take out that section. That being said, I believe the best path forward is to avoid provocative language. Why have language that hypes or overemphasizes the Serbian line that "Kosovo is part of Serbia"? The reality is that UNSCR establishes a complicated reality (including by its provisions calling for a political process to determine Kosovo's future status) and to simply say "Kosovo is a province of Serbia" is misleading and implies that its governance is roughly analogous to Vojvodina. Therefore, why minimize the fact that Kosovo is under transitional UN adminsitration (currently it's several paragraphs into the intro)? Let's stick to a short, factual, balanced opening sentence -- nobody will ever be happy, but it's a step in the right direction!

And I have to restate my belief that the loaded term "province" is provocative/biased/inaccurate -- it's like waving a red flag (perhaps the Albanian flag?) to a bull! Last week in Vienna I was struck by how the entire Serbian delegation made it a point to use that word repeatedly, knowing that it would goad the Kosovars. No international ever used the term, certainly not Ahtisaari (you can check the transcript of his press conference). Elsewhere I pointed out that you will not find the term "province" in any Contact Group statement or UNSC PRST of the last year. I think it's better to cite current international diplomatic usage instead of a handful of outdated reference books or, even worse, lazy journalists (!). Furthermore, Belgrade's use of the term as a polemic device -- something that really kicked into overdrive this year -- is making the term ever more problematic by the day (this isn't capture in five year-old reference materials). Plus, there are a thousand ways to refer to Kosovo without using saying "province" ("place," "region," "territory," "international protectorate," "land," etc.). --Envoy202 17:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite of how the Serbian delegation might have given a political connotation to the term and how this was resented by other parties involved, formally and de jure, Kosovo is a province of Serbia, so I do not belive that we should attempt to omit the word because of its colorful usage in diplomatic circles. I mean the goal of the encyclopedia is to inform the reader of a situation objectively and directly, a task that would be nearly impossible if its writers had to resort to the purposefully vague and amibgious elements characteristic to diplomatic discourse. TSO1D 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree that legally / technically, Kosovo is a province of/in Serbia. Just becuase Kosovo Albanians dislike this (and Serbs use it to goad them) doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't tell its readers the straight truth. Otherwise, maybe Serb editors could object to discussion about ethnic cleansing in during the Kosovo War. It is precisely this type of compromising with fanatics which gives Wikipedia a bad reputation in certain comparisons with other 'real' encyclopedias (where the editors don't have to consider the sensititives of fanatics). Osli73 17:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys make some good points.

First, however, I do not agree that Kosovo is legally/technically a "province" of Serbia. Merriam-Webster defines a province as "an administrative district or division of a country." Per UNSCR 1244, Serbia's laws -- including its administrative divisions -- are no longer valid. UNSCR 1244 reaffirmed the territorial integrity of the FRY (meaning Kosovo *is* legally/technically part of Serbia), but it did not reaffirm Serbia's internal administrative divisions. This is the standard interpretation among international diplomats and most experts -- this is why the term is generally not used in technical documents (for example, UNSCR 1244 itself!). Yes, TSO1D, diplomats often do use purposefully vague language (very good point!), but I'm arguing here that international diplomats/experts generally avoid the term because of their deeper understanding of the exact legal context. When it is used, it is generally because either 1) someone doesn't understand the situation fully or 2) there is an attempt to use the term to score a political point (as Belgrade does).

My only recommendation is to follow sources like the U.S. Department of State or, barring that, Contact Group usage, or, barring that, usage from senior international figures involved in the Kosovo issues (e.g., Ahtisaari). To merely cite old reference books seems inadequate.

As a final point, I think the burden of proof is on the person who believes the word "province" should be included, particularly when other words can be used without sacrificing accuracy. What is the value added of including a word on which there is genuine disagreement and contradictory patterns of usage, especially when that word invites so much mischief, is considered provocative and has a history of being used as a polemic device? --Envoy202 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what I have been arguing with these editors for about six months now-it’s hopeless (see history). They will never allow you to write the article in way that leads the reader closer to reality: that is to say, Kosovo is part of Serbia only nominally. Their outlook is mostly pro Serbian with clear hostility towards any Albanian claims. It’s ok to be pro Serbia, but it is not ok to spread your view as if it is a reality.

Some examples: I made a modest attempt to change the Kosovo info box here [28], but they keep changing it [29] to make sure the user gets an impression that Kosovo is part of Serbia more than nominally [30].

And, here is what I proposed for the introduction, but they kept reverting it because “it is not accurate”:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a disputed province in Serbia. It is located in the south of the country, bordering Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. The mountainous province's capital and largest city is Prishtinë/Priština. Kosovo has a population of around two million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks and other ethnic groups.The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's Albanian population. The province is de jure part of Serbia, but in reality it functions independently of the Slavic state. Since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 Kosovo has been administered and governed by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the democratically elected Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service. International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo; it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence.

Draw your own concussions: Do you think this opinion is somehow pro Albanian? Hardly! Yet, there is been a revert war for this because, in their eyes, it is way too pro Albanian and somehow reduces the Serbia claim to Kosovo.

There are virtually hundreds of other instances where these editors have refused to allow being included in articles anything that may reduce the Serbian claim to Kosovo or may portray them in bad light.

Here is the sad part: these editors have a very limited knowledge about Kosovo. Based on what I have been able to observe, they use search engines to learn trivial things about the region. Not trying to be condescending, but it’s a fact.

Another thing should be pointed out that some of these editors (including an administrator) have lied in numerous cases by accusing me, i.e. “Albanian editors” (I have been the only serious editor in the last couple of months to represent a non Serbia view) of refusing to acknowledge that Kosovo is part of Serbia nominally. I have never done such a thing, but of course they can care less (see discussion above).

Normally it is good to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, but once you know them for a while, you would be foolish to do such a thing. Why? Because you will waste your time. They have a clear agenda: make the article as close as possible to how a Serbia government official would have written it. Their strategy: gather as many like minded editors as possible to agree with them and declare consensus (see history). In other cases a like minded administrator (heavenly involved in the Kosovo page editing) would set the page to his liking and block it from further editing violating wikipedia ethical standards.

Of course this will lead nowhere as I have no intention of allowing their Wikiality to be represented as if it is an actual reality. The result of this all is a constant edit war.

It is close to impossible to reason with these editors (they will not accept anything that they perceive as being anti Serbian), but maybe you will be able to reason with them from a different corner. I suspect it won’t happen, but as they say: the proof is in the pudding. We shall see! (Didn’t mean to welcome you to wikipedia this way, but had to give you heads up so you don’t have to waste your time). Good luck.Ferick 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, how about something like:

Kosovo is province in southern Serbia. While it is legally a part of Serbia it is administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War.

We have to call it something, saying that it is a "territory" or "area" is stretching it a bit.Osli73 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrm...what you propose is vastly superior to what is there now. I still object to "province," but how about saying "international protectorate" (as in the formulation below)?

"Kosovo is an international protectorate located in southern Serbia. While it is still legally a part of Serbia, Kosovo has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War."

--Envoy202 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Envoy, well, technically Kosovo is a province, which is why all encyclopedias call it that (I wouldn't say they are outdated, since they all are published after 1999). How can this be controversial? I'm OK with taking out the reference to Vojvodina though, since it's not really comparable to Kosovo. If you want, we don't have to refer to it as a "province" thereafter, we'll just say "Kosovo" instead.Osli73 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what Envoy202 is saying is that if one accepts the UN Security Council resolution 1244 (and I don't know whether or not the Serbian government currently does accept it?) then the precise word "province" is not correct – unless somebody fulfils that "burden of proof" by providing evidence showing that precise word to be correct (not simply stating that it is.) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Kieran, UNSCR 1244 reiterates Serbias sovereignty over Kosovo, ie no change in its official status. All that UNSCR 1244 stated was that Kosovo would be administered by the UN until a final solution could be worked out. So, from an technical legal perspective, Kosovo is a province of Serbia. This is also why all governments and encyclopedias define Kosovo as "a province of Serbia under UN administration" (or something to that effect). Of course, you can have a different interpretation of UNSCR 1244, but that doesn't change the fact.

All this was discussed back in May-June.

Finally, I don't believe we can or should accomodate the nationalist sensitivities. Otherwise, where would that lead us here on Wikipedia. If I was a Serb I could claim that statements about ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo during the 1999 war should be shrouded in some other language, or that the Srebrenica massacre should be called "incident" and that no reference should be made to the term "genocide" since that is used to allude that Serbs somehow are comparable to Nazis. And so on. Let's just tell it like it is.Osli73 20:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we're not disagreeing in principle (insert smiley ;) but we're not quite meeting on the subtleties. Yes, Kosovo is confirmed, by the UN, to be a part of Serbia, and I for my part accept that, and even Albanians who want independence pretty much agree this point – after all, that's what those people are trying to change! But from the point of view that Serbian territory was invaded/occupied/protected or whatever one calls it, by NATO and then UNMIK etc., the point is that it's no longer a functioning administrative unit. I'd be perfectly happy to say Kosovo is currently a "part" of Serbia; that much is fact. I just fail to understand (yet) why some of we editors feel the essential need to use the controversial word "province". Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to fight a particular corner here; what I'm saying is, here we have an opportunity to remove one tiny element of controversy. This is not shying away from telling it like it is, and it's not pandering to extremists. It's just tact and diplomacy.

One other thing: things which were discussed in May and June are perfectly eligible for re-addressing if new information or significant new opinion comes along. And here, we're not changing facts, but seeking best possible presentation. The same thing goes on in entirely apolitical articles, so I don't think we should be afraid of tweaking here – so long as it doesn't become trivial or petty, which this point isn't. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For my part I believe that the word province should be used because it is the best term to serve for its purpose in the introduction, regardless of what subtelties might exist below the surface. For instance in the Oxford dictionary, a province is defined as: "a principal administrative division of a country or empire." This satisfies the de jure status of Kosov, even if de facto it is a protectorate of the UN where Serbia exercises little real control (as the introduction goes on to explain). TSO1D 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I quite like the wording that Envoy202 proposes, but I would suggest saying that "Kosovo, while still legally a province of Serbia, is an international protectorate that has been under United Nations administration since 1999" to reflect our sources more accurately. Whether we like it or not, Wikipedia policy mandates that we have to use the terminology that our sources use (see WP:V and WP:RS). Wikipedia:Verifiability specifically states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

The fact of the matter is that our sources almost unanimously call Kosovo a "province" (1,300 uses of the term in the media in the last 3 weeks alone! [31]). Envoy may well be right in stating that the term deliberately isn't used among international diplomats and most experts, but unless we have a source that says this explicitly we can't accept it as the basis for the introduction. WP:NOR specifically excludes "an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position". Envoy hasn't provided any source for his argument; I don't disagree with it, but without a source we can't use it. Can you provide a source, Envoy?

As for the introduction providing "too big a target", unfortunately we have at least two abusive users editing this article in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies - the problem is not the introduction but their deliberate refusal to abide by the most basic policies of Wikipedia. The term "province" may be loaded to them but it's only "loaded" in the same way that, for instance, "evolution" is a loaded term for creationists - it may offend their POV but it's verifiable from an overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Their position is essentially that every major encyclopedia and news organisation is wrong. Note WP:NOR: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." -- ChrisO 10:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to be a bit bold and change the intro to the last suggestion by Osli73, which appears to be at least midly acceptable to most here. It still includes the word province, but makes a clear statement on the UN administration. In addition, I moved Vodvjina to the Geography section. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Reinoutr, I think it looks fine - concise and neutral in tone. Only thing I would want to change is the second paragraph text: "Kosovo has been under Serbian sovereignty since 1912 but since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations with little direct involvement from the Serbian government." Since we already state that it is administered by the UN in the first paragraph, no need to have that info. in the second paragraph. Better to talk about the ongoing Contact Group negotiations instead, since that is what a lot of readers (I imagine) will be interested in.Osli73 11:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to fall on my sword over the word "province." I think the intro looks much, much better now. I'm pleased!--Envoy202 22:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt that there are conflicting views with regards to this Article between different camps. However what really surprises me is how some people have developed their own stubborn versions of "reality" and tend to guard at any cost.

Lots of editors that have contributed have used Encyclopaedias as "reliable" sources to describe Kosovo, although it is very obvious that Encyclopaedias are outdated and do not reflect the present reality on the ground. Prior to the 1999 war, I would have agreed 100% with the views expressed by ChrisO and Osli73 on the status of the province, however the reality on the ground and the inevitable course towards independence (widely expected by the end of this year) make the whole article look somewhat short-sighted and quite misleading.

As discussed above, Kosovo had been taken out of Serbia's sovereignty following the 1999 war, and that is a fact. On paper it remains a part of FRY as per 1244 resolution, however there's no mention of it being part of Serbia, and it does not explicitly NOR implicitly mention that should the FRY disintegrate, the territory of Kosovo considered as a part of Serbia.

The cynics would say that the recent adoption of "the continuity" of the defunct S&M state by Serbia, is a deliberate political act to cover the hole in the 1244 Resolution which mentions Kosovo as a province of FRY. This of course may not be true, however it highlights the sensitivity and the complexity of the current status-quo, where every little detail is seen as potentially influential political message.

What people need to realise is that Kosovo is only just legally of Serbia (although this statement can easily be discredited depending on the interpretation of 1244 and the reality on the ground). The reality is that it is governed by an international community and will soon inevitably achieve some sort of independence.

Saying that Kosovo is a southern province of Serbia, is highly political, this is why no western diplomat ever uses the terminology. I would suggest we remove all such references in the introduction and instead adopt a more realistic objective approach instead of the current rigid-cum-legalistic approach, that serves no purpose to a neutral reader.

Perhaps something along these lines: "Kosovo is an autonomous province, whose final legal status will be known by the end of the year. Although legally still part of Serbia, it has been an international protectorate since 1999. It is governed by the United Nations and the locally elected government".

And I also agree with one of the anon users argument that the the Kosovo Info box is very offensive to Kosovans because it shows Kosovo within Serbia. This should be changed as soon as possible, becasue in all fairness this article is about "Kosovo" and not "Kosovo in Serbia". It is highly political and unnecesary.

tonycdp 22:30, 6 August 2006 (GMT)

We've been through this a million times before. We describe Kosovo as a province of Serbia because that's how our reliable and verifiable sources describe it. Wikipedia policy requires us to reflect what our sources say, not come up with our own descriptions (see WP:NOR and WP:V). The fact that the overwhelming majority of our sources use a formulation which a minority disagrees with is not a valid reason for ignoring these fundamental policies. No doubt creationists would find descriptions of evolution offensive as well, but we don't dilute the Evolution article because of creationist objections.

Your claim that "no western diplomat ever uses the terminology" is simply not accurate, by the way - the British Foreign Office's official profile of Kosovo states: "Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia and Montenegro (SaM) but has been under interim UN administration pending a settlement of its status in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 since 1999." [32] It also has a map which shows Kosovo within Serbia. We've had a succession of editors visiting this talk page and declaring that Kosovo isn't a province of Serbia, but somehow failing to provide any sources to back that argument. Funny how that works... -- ChrisO 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp, Thank you for making some good comments on this very controversial topic. Some comments below:

1. Outdated encyclopedias: You state that the encyclopedias referred to are outdated (ie older than 1999). This is incorrect, as far as I can see all of the major encyclopedias which have been referred to have been updated since the end of the war. So, their states are based on all of the information which is available today (since nothing has changed regarding Kosovo's legal status since then).
2. Independence: you write that Kosovo is on an "inevitable course towards independence". While I agree that Kosovo is extremely unlikely to come under Serbia's de-facto rule again, it is not certain that Kosovo will become "independent" in the way that a country usually becomes independent. Most likely it is going to become a form of conditional independence (and how independent are you then, is a question). It is, for example, not certain that Kosovo will become a member of the UN. So, to just write that Kosovo will be independent, is to misrepresent the present view by most analysts.
3. "By the end of the year": you write that Kosovo's "final legal status will be known by the end of the year". This is speculation based on the ambitious targets set by the Contact Group. It will not necessarily be so.
4. Sovereignty: you write that "Kosovo had been taken out of Serbia's sovereignty following the 1999 war". As Wikipedia writes on Sovereignty, it can be both de facto and de jure and finally says that it is what other governments recognize that matters. Well, all governments in the world (except Albania's I believe) recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia that is administered by the UN (per UNSCR 1244). That is also precisely what the article states.
5. Legal continuity of FRY: you state that "however there's no mention of it being part of Serbia, and it does not explicitly NOR implicitly mention that should the FRY disintegrate, the territory of Kosovo considered as a part of Serbia". Well, Serbia is the legal continuation of FRY (eg it has it's seat in the UN and has 'inherited' all of its international legal treates as well as its telephone country code, everyone else had to apply for new ones). All international governments and organizations recognize it as such. So, legally, whatever treates pertained to FRY now pertain to Serbia. This is a legal fact. As to the question whether this was all "a deliberate political act to cover the hole in the 1244 Resolution", well, I've never heard of that theory before (probably for a good reason).
6. rigid-cum-legalistic approach: you describe the present version as a "rigid-cum-legalistic approach, that serves no purpose to a neutral reader". That it serves "no purpose to a neutral reader" is very much in the eye of the beholder. I say that it does becuase (a) it presents Kosovo the way others portray it, which is, as ChrisO says above "Wikipedia policy mandates that we have to use the terminology that our sources use (see WP:V and WP:RS)".
7. international diplomats: that intl. diplomats don't use the word "province" is precisely because they have to account for the sensitivities of all parties involved rather than the truth. So, the language of diplomats isn't necessarily something to emulate in an encyclopedia.
8. international protectorate: well, I'm not sure exactly what an international protectorate is. What, exactly, is it's legal status? I think the current version "is a disputed province in southern Serbia. While it is legally a part of Serbia it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War." is both more correct, less ambigous and more concise.

Finally, what it all comes down to is that all other encyclopedias describe Kosovo as a disputed province in southern Serbia administered by the UN (or something to that effect), so why shouldn't Wikipedia?

Cheers Osli73 22:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I'm sure that if you tried as hard you would find lots of official sites with a picture of Kosovo on its own. Whats wrong with putting something like http://www.axisglobe.com/Image/2005/11/16/Kosovo/2-Kosovo-map.gif

You can still see a thinner border with Serbia which indicates that it is still somehow linked to Serbia (to reflect the current legal status), but it zooms into Kosovo. The map of Serbia in a Kosovo entry is political. I'm sorry but it is, and it appears as if you are intentionally trying to find an excuse to insult the Albanians and provoke vigilante edits whilst you still can, because by the end of the year you will have run out of reasons to do it.

Osli73 please don't insult my intelligence with petty arguments, please!! Tonycdp 00:20, 7 August 2006 (GMT)

Tony, please don't assume bad faith on the part of other editors. Osli73 has gone to some trouble to answer the points you raise - you could at least do him the courtesy of responding to them rather than just dismissing them as "petty". Osli73's final point is absolutely right: if our sources describe Kosovo in a particular way, why should we not do the same? Wikipedia articles are based on what is reliably verifiable, not on what is considered "true" or "false" by some (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Please go and read Wikipedia:Verifiability - I'm afraid you clearly don't understand what it requires, and until you do, frankly, your arguments aren't going to hold water. -- ChrisO 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp,

• I made no comment about the map. I could definately envisage something along the lines of what you linked to.

• Whether including Serbia in a map of Kosovo is seen as a political statement isn't really a reason to not do so. The maps of Catolonia and the Basque Country both include Spain, the map of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus includes southern Cyprus, the map of Republika Srpska includes the rest of Bosnia, and the maps of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all include the rest of the UK. So, since Kosovo is still recognized by all governments to legally be a part of Serbia, it's not so far fetched to include Serbia in the map.

• No, I'm not trying to insult or provoke anyone, I'm trying to give a truthful and concise description that is in line with how other encyclopedias and media describe Kosovo. It is not my fault if certain nationalists are provoked by this. Should we change the name of the Srebrenica massacre to the Srebrenica incident just because it might provoke Serb nationalists?

• Could you please explain exactly, specifically, which of my arguments are "petty" and why. Belive me, it wasn't my intention to "insult your intelligence", I only wanted to counter the long list of arguments you provided above.

Cheers, Osli73 23:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it worth stating quite clearly that the legal status of Kosovo is not 'international protectorate'. No such status exists in international law (and has not done since after the First World War). It is a province of Serbia administered the UN by agreement with the then-FRY, as part of the ceasefire agreement with NATO, as outlined in UNSC 1244. This is the status of Kosovo in international law. Nor is Kosovo anything but a 'province' of Serbia - UNSC 1244 gives certain but limited powers to the UN and to UNMIK in relation to Kosovo; changing the status of Kosovo is not among them. In strictly technical terms the formal title of Kosovo is still the Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija, whether it is administered by the UN or not; I think we can all agree that we need not go so far as to emphasise this reality, but simply and succinctly to note that Kosovo is a province of Serbia under UN administration.

This being a dictionary, we need to present the facts. Diplomats are free to present a more nuanced viewpoint, and need to do so to play the role of neutral arbiter, but we would be descending to the level of amateur journalism if we pretended that Kosovo was anything other than a province of Serbia, administered by the UN in agreement with Serbia until such time as final status has been determined. These facts have indeed been underplayed by the international community of late. Have they been underplayed: a) because they are no longer true; b) because the interational community seeks to play the role of neutral arbiter; or c) because the international community fears the consequences for the physical security of its presence in Kosovo? I think I favour b), though c) is likely in their thinking, whilst a) is clearly not the case, nothing having changed the status of Kosovo since UNSC 1244.

This is a dictionary and record of verifiable facts, not a means to present the cosiest view of hard facts, nor to take 'an opportunity to remove one tiny element of controversy' as Envoy202 would have us do - the controversy exists, it is our job to present the facts of it, not think we can use a dictionary to change those facts (unless perhaps you have a 1984 outlook on things); much is done in this article to avoid causing offence to Kosovo Albanian opinion, and the reference to continued Serbian sovereignty occurs only in the rightful place; this dictionary has a duty to inform.

Envoy202 is also wrong to say that the status of Kosovo is a 'complicated reality'. The administration of Kosovo and the prospects for final status are complicated: the status of Kosovo is not. It has the same constitutional status as Vojvodina but very different administration. Nor should we avoid stating this fact simply because (in Envoy202's view) the Serbian position is that 'Kosovo is part of Serbia'. This is not the entire Serbian position; the (generalised) Serbian position is that 'Kosovo is and should remain part of Serbia despite the wishes of the majority of the population'. They are right in that it IS still part of Serbia but (arguably) wrong that it SHOULD REMAIN part of Serbia despite the majority wish. Belgrade have their position and desired outcome and so use particular language (rightly or wrongly, with more or less emphasis than is warranted); but so to does the United States in seeking the outcome it desires; as an official of that Government, Envoy202 will be more than aware that the US will seek to underplay the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo in order to achieve the preferred US outcome of independence.

Interesting also that Envoy202 feels that the Serbian side used the term province in reference to Kosovo, 'knowing that it would goad the Kosovars', when his report of the final status negotiations makes no qualification to the statement that, 'Ahtisaari later told the press ... that the parties generally listened respectfully to each other's position'. We need to avoid presenting the final status negotiations as a happy and congenial progression to inevitable independence, which is not the reality of the talks between Belgrade and Pristina. Again, we would do well not to use the language which any particular party in the discussions would prefer, but to present the discussions as neutrally as possible.

Not using a map of the whole of Serbia, identifying the position of Kosovo within it, would fly in the face of standard Wikipedia practice and mislead readers with the sole purpose of presenting an incorrect state of affairs to affoid offending a particular group of people. Did we separate East Timor from Indonesia whilst the UN was in charge? Do we show a map of only the northern half of Cyprus for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? What about Lebanon? (JD)

First of all, thanks to all of you for your contributions in this Talk page :-) As far as I understand it, the idea of Wikipedia's articles is to provide basic information for readers ("users") with little or no knowledge on the subject and the diplomatic subtleties surrounding it. This is especially true for first paragraphs and introductions.

Per WP:V, that information must be a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. It doesn't matter whether it offends someone or not. In fact, a good article should offend those who dislike the current consensus: as Don Quixote said, If dogs bark, Sancho, it's a signal that we're doing it right. A diplomatic article may leave all editors happy, but it won't be of much help to readers/users unfamiliar with the subject. The goal is to provide facts to over a billion English-speaking readers from the whole world, and not presenting a diplomatic paper for 11 million Serbians and 7 million Albanians.

So, we shouldn't spend more than a few seconds thinking about how someone in the Balkans will react to the vocabulary, and focus instead on how to describe the situation best to an ignorant 15-years-old Philippine trying to impress his first girlfriend with his mastery on world affairs.

I may be wrong, but i think that the best way to introduce that 15-years-old to Kosovo is to divide the first paragraph in two sentences, using the first to state the de jure situation and the second to state the de facto one:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of the two autonomous provinces of Serbia, and is located in the south of the country (the other is Vojvodina, in the north of the country). However, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War, with little direct involvement from the Serbian government.

Second paragraph for brief geographical description, third for "long-running dispute", as it is now. End of introduction.

Usually, for almost any other country, is a Serbian province would suffice. But Serbia is different, being not composed of three normal provinces but one "central part" and two "autonomous provinces", which makes the mention of Vojvodina unavoidable for a clear understanding of the issue (and of the map).

Other encyclopedias and sources use this kind of description not because they're outdated or lazy, but because it's the best way to explain Kosovo to the uninformed reader/user.

Because of the sensitive nature of the subject, i would prefer to have the article semi-protected for the next year or so, to avoid vandalism from anonymous IPs. The intro would remain a big target, of course, but for people with accounts only.

Diplomacy is a good thing in public forums, like this talk page, in political life and in some books, but not in concise encyclopedic articles. Best regards to everyone :-) --Evv 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Osli,

With regards to your second point, well, in the end you said what I would have ultimately told to you = “Kosovo is extremely unlikely to come under Serbia's de-facto rule again”. The fate was decided the day NATO decided to go into a war against Serbia to prevent an occurring “genocide”. Now I put the word ‘genocide’ in quotes to save you the trouble of giving me another lesson. Proving genocide legally is very difficult, I know that, but most mass media at the time did refer to it as genocide.

Now that we have come to that, you have drawn all sorts of parallels comparing Kosovo to Catalonia, Northern Cyprus, Republika Srpska, Scotland, Wales and etc etc.

1. One thing that sets Kosovo apart from all these regions is that the western forces had to intervene to forcefully take Kosovo out of FRY’s control because of the dreadful policies of ethnic cleansing employed by Serbia.

2. As you have noted yourself, Kosovo is due some form of international political recognition that would formally detach it legally from Serbia. None of the other regions are, nor have the support of the international community.

3. Republika Srpska never existed as a separate entity in the former SFRJ, and as such was not an equal constituent of the former Yugoslavia. More so, it was carved out as a result of ethnic cleansing.

4. If Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Catalonia wanted independence and voted for it democratically, I don’t think anyone in the democratic world would oppose it. In reality, although all these countries have strong national identities they are more or less happy to be where they are. Kosovo has suffered 13.000 casualties and is not happy being in Serbia, in fact it hates it so much that should the international community fail to recognise their right to self determination, it would happily explode into another war. This is why Kosovo is different from all these regions, and to treat it the same is patronizing and petty

We all know what the current legal status is and that it is on a ‘death-row’, due to be finished off by a lethal Security Council injection; Readers should know about it. I suggested a neutral introduction to the subject in my earlier post:

"Kosovo is an autonomous province, whose final legal status is expected to be resolved by the end of this year. Although legally still part of Serbia, it has been an international protectorate since 1999. It is governed by the United Nations and the locally elected government".

What is wrong with this, status is mentioned but with references to the inevitable status definition by the end of the year.

Tonycdp 21:06, 7 August 2006 (GMT)

Tonycdp, that paragraph would place Kosovo in a limbo, and it inacuratedly gives the impression of no Serbian influence whatsoever. Actually, it's an interpretation of reality, and as such it represents original research. :-) --Evv 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow...there are a bunch of smart people on here! I've been quite impressed with the level of knowledge and the quality of discourse.

So back to the "province" debacle --

So I did a straw poll among friends who have lived/worked in Kosovo or are working on the future status process. I will gladly concede that there was a genuine disagreement about whether it was accurate to use the term "province." Some argued (as was done here) that this was its status under the FRY and will remain so until that status is decided. Others argued (as did I) that this administrative status was superseded by UNSCR 1244. Others argued that the legal/adminsitrative situation was ambiguous and that therefore the term should be avoided because it has become associated with those peddling a particular point of view (namely, the Serb perspective). I think this latter stance best reflects what I've come to believe.

I still find it odd to cite various reference documents / dictionaries to "prove" that Province is the right term -- we're talking about a fast-moving and legally-complex issue that isn't captured in such documents. Here's an interesting question: What will history books call Kosovo's status in this interim, the period between UNSCR 1244 and resolution of status? They'll probably fudge and use some less-than-perfect term like "international protectorate."

I did want to clarify a point: I didn't mean to come on so strongly saying the term should be avoided simply because it is controversial. That would be a disservice to truth, I admit! My point -- as it has evolved -- is more subtle. I'm arguing that since Kosovo's status is somewhat ambiguous (by design!) a term should not be used that is associated with one POV. Remember, UNSCR 1244, like any great diplomatic document, had all sorts of built-in contradictions. On the one hand, it temporarly suspended Serb exercise of sovereign rights over the territory of Kosovo. On the other hand, it envisioned the limited reintroduction of Serb security personnel into Kosovo, something that UNMIK/KFOR have never seriously contemplated. So ambiguity reigns.

JD wrote that the "official" name of Kosovo is the "Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija." I am assuming that is from the Serbian constitution? I think a better source should be the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government, which is the current source of law in Kosovo. It can be found here: Constitutional Framework

Here is how the CF describes Kosovo:

1.1 Kosovo is an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes. 1.2 Kosovo is an undivided territory throughout which the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government established by this Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government (Constitutional Framework) shall exercise their responsibilities.

So when confronted with two documents -- the Serbian Constitution and the Kosovo Constitutional Framework -- which of the two carries more legal weight in Kosovo today? I think the answer is clear: the CF. Pointedly, the word "province" never appears in the document. Saying it's a province, complete with all the legal/administrative status provided under the Serbian constitution, still strikes me as misleading since the Serbian constitution is not in effect in Kosovo. And relying on Belgrade to be the arbiter of truth is just about as unwise as relying on Pristina!

Furthermore, I still think it's extremely odd to mention Vojvodina in the same first sentence. While the terms used to describe them in the current Serbian constitution (which, again to note, has no legal weight in Kosovo today) may be the same, it's misleading to group them together now. Even Belgrade acknowledges a difference -- the Belgrade negotiating platform proposes a radically different constitutional status for Kosovo than Vojvodina.

And, for the record, neither the United States nor any Contact Group country has yet stated a preferred outcome to the Kosovo future status process.

--Envoy202 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, both the Serbian Constitution and the Kosovo Constitutional Framework are primary sources, and editor's interpretations of those documents are original research. We have to limit ourselves to repeat the interpretations given in reliable secondary sources. Of course, this means that sometimes any article will be a little outdated, but that is the current policy.

Again, we should aim at clarity, explaining the situation to readers with no previous knowledge about Kosovo. Diplomatic language usually is just the opposite (for good reason). Regards. :-) --Evv 21:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Envoy202 has made a fair point. The CF is internationally accepted, and its contents should be used to complement the introduction. There are no interpretaions in the facts presented above, I believe they are clear-cut.

--Tonycdp

Thank you both very much for your contributions in this talk page, it's been both helpful and interesting to read. Sorry i didn't say this above: the fact that i'm quite busy right now shouldn't excuse my bad manners.

However, for the purposes of Wikipedia, the Kosovo Constitutional Framework is a primary source: In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material.

Besides, the word "province" doesn't appear in it mostly for diplomatic reasons: it would aggraviate the Albanians. Such subtleties are precisely why primary sources should be avoided, relying instead on already published interpretations of them.

Furthermore, the Kosovo Constitutional Framework states:

1.4 Kosovo shall be governed democratically through legislative, executive, and judicial bodies and institutions in accordance with this Constitutional Framework and UNSCR 1244(1999).

UNSCR 1244 is generally interpreted as confirming Kosovo's status as an autonomous province of Serbia. So, altho the word "province" doesn't appear in the document, it's implied.

Regards. :-) --Evv 22:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh no no no matey. You’ve got it all wrong. Constitutional Framework needs no interpretation whatsoever, it is Clear-Cut, and it states exactly what Kosovo is and how it should be governed. It is you that is drawing assumptions from it.

The sentence you’ve uttered: “Is generally interpreted as…” is what qualifies you as an ‘Original Researcher’.

Giving us all the b******t about whether primary or secondary sources should be used is very cheeky. I would support your argument if the description was ambiguous in the slightest, but it isn’t.

Whether the wording in the CF was influenced by the fear of annoying Albanians or not is irrelevant in this case, because that Framework is set in stone (albeit only until the end of this year) and is accepted by the highest international body, the good old mother UN.

--Tonycdp

I'll admit to not knowing the finer points of Wikipedia theology. If primary sources don't make the cut, then so be it. I guess what's bugging me is that it will always be easier to find documents/research/media reports that use the term "province," but it's harder to prove that an equally significant number of reports (most more reliable and better informed) do not use the term. That's why I suggested that the burden of proof on this issue should be on those who insist using it, especially when other terms could be used without sacrificing accuracy.

Futhermore, it strikes me that if there is inconsistent usage -- and the fact that we, a bunch of smart people, are having this vigorous chat proves there is -- then what should be the authoratative tie-breaker? How about the foundational law of Kosovo, i.e., the Constitutional Framework. The CF does not use the term. How about UNSCR 1244, the undisputed source of Kosovo's current legal status? UNSCR 1244 does not use the term either. How about diplomats, the people working every day on the issues? No, they generally avoid the term and it appears in no major Contact Group statement. So who is left? Only the following "authoritative" sources: a few random journalists (often lazy!), a number of refererence books (most not regularly updated or else very superficial), and Belgrade politicians.

That being said, I have pledged not to fall on my sword on this one. My only priorities are that the intro immediately, and preferably in the first sentence, note two things: 1) Kosovo is technically de jure part of Serbia, and 2) Kosovo is under transitional UN administration pending a determination of its status. I'd note, however, that so long as people insist on using the word dubious word "province," there will be legitimate criticism that the article is both inaccurate and reflects a certain POV. Fortunately, this whole issue will be moot when status is finally resolved!

For what it's worth, I have also really enjoyed this discussion. I've worked Balkans issues since the war in 1999 and am always fascinated by the emotions that can be generated by these discussions. --Envoy202 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Evv makes a good point about using our own interpretations, though clearly we're putting in a sight more analysis than virtually any other source! I also agree wholeheartedly with Evv in his analysis of how we should be presenting this issue. The facts of the present status of Kosovo are neither complicated nor fast-moving, nor do they require the fudged language presently used by the international community.

Neither the Constitutional Framework nor UNSC 1244 are the 'founding law' in Kosovo. The primary source for the constitution and law of Kosovo remains that of Serbia, underlined by the Charter of the UN (chapter I, article 2 [33]). UNSC 1244 is an agreement between the then-FRY (and it's successor state, the Republic of Serbia) and the UN to suspened (as Envoy202 has pointed out) Serbia's <exercise> of her sovereign rights. Nothing in UNSC 1244 changes the legal or constitutional status of Kosovo, nor is the applicability of Serbian law removed; powers are given in 1244 for the administration of Kosovo, including provisional institutions of self-government (PISG). Any laws created by either UNMIK or the PISG are a) provisional of final status and b) additional to Serbian law: if I were to commit a crime in Kosovo which had not been legislated upon by UNMIK or the PISG I would be tried, as many are, under the laws of Serbia as they existed in 1999. More specifically, the constitutional framework is not a constitution for Kosovo, a founding law, but an agreement between UNMIK, Belgrade and the political parties in Kosovo on how to set up and run the provisional institutions; it can be overriden by the SRSG [34] in reference to UNSC 1244 or to Serbian law as unmodified by laws backed by 1244. UNMIK and the UN under its own charter has not the authority to alter the constitutional status of Kosovo or to alter Serbian constitutional law beyond that either a) necessary for the proper administration of Kosovo, in line with the responsibilities laid out in 1244 or b) that achieved by prior agreement with Belgrade. This is not interpretation: Regulation 1999/1 [35], the first legal act of the UN administration, states:

Section 3 APPLICABLE LAW IN KOSOVO

The laws applicable in the territory of Kosovo prior to 24 March 1999 shall continue to apply in Kosovo insofar as they do not conflict with standards referred to in section 2, the fulfillment of the mandate given to UNMIK under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), or the present or any other regulation issued by UNMIK.

This regulation is clarified and succeeded by those of 1999/24[36] and 2000/59[37], each making reference to the source of all power of the SRSG to make these regulations being, "pursuant to the authority given to him under United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) of 10 June 1999".

UNMIK regulations or constitutional frameworks are not basic law in Kosovo, but provisional modifications of Serbian law, valid to the extent that they conform with the UN Charter and the powers given UNMIK in 1244. This is not relying on a Belgrade interpretation or a Pristina interpretation, but on the fundamentals of both the UN Charter and the Serbian law on which all law in Kosovo must be based (with provisional amendments made by the SRSG under the authroity of 1244). The constitutional framework agreed between UNMIK and Belgrade is not a constitution and the UN has no power to make it so. If anyone can provide a more coherent, verifiable outline of the position of law in Kosovo, I look forward to hearing it.

To address Tonycdp's points, which are important: 1. The consitutional status of <all> of those territories is the direct result of military intervention, including that of Scotland. 2. Kosovo has not been offered indepedence by any international body; the UN Charter (Article 2) prevents it from doing so and UNSC1244 offers only "substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration". Interesting you think that (say) Scotland is due no form of international recognition. 3. Republika Srpska did not exist at the time of the SFRJ, but neither was Kosovo a republic of the SFRJ, just an administrative subdivision of Serbia and the creation of Tito. Interesting that you see the politics of the communist Yugoslavia as most relevant to the status of Kosovo. Kosovo, as much as the RS, has been shaped by enthnic cleansing by both sides. 4. Scotland and Wales could easily seceed from the United Kingdom, and have voted not to do so. Catalonia and Northern Ireland, however, might vote to do so now or at some point in the future, but the rights of the majority community to self-determination would be modified by their present states and the international community: Northern Ireland would not be 'allowed' independence were it not to protect the security and rights of minority communities living there, and would almost certainly be the subject of a negotiated settlement, based on the weight of the international community, which prevented it from joining the Republic of Ireland, again to secure the rights of what might then be a minority Protestant community. The parallel with Kosovo would be the same: Kosovo has not proved itself capable [38], even with UN administration, of protecting minority communities and so the right to self-determination is restricted, as is clear in the UNMIK policy of 'Standards before Status'.

Further, we may not pick and choose the administrative boundaries which are permitted self-determiniation: the AP Kosovo i Metohija is a construct of Tito's Yugoslavia, the Republika Srpska that of present-day BiH; if either wished, democratically, to seceed, we may only limit that right by reference to other basic human rights; we may not pick and choose these boundaries to suit our cause. If Kosovo looks to be set to gain independence, then their is a good chance that the RS will demand the same and the intnational community might look to mitigate than proposed independence (which is not promised in either 1244 [39] or the Rambouillet Agreement[40]), even if we thought Russia would allow a Security Council resolution on this [41].

I think the introduction proposed by Tonycpd is: a) wrong (Kosovo is not an 'international protectorate'); b) misleading (Kosovo is administered by the UN, his formulation giving a much stronger impression). As to inevitable independence this year, we need to be careful not to fall into the same trap of adopting the language of diplomacy for use in Wikipedia; I refer readers to a recent IWPR report: [42]. Can we reference this in the Final Status section?

I disagree most strongly with the argument that we should deliberately avoid the use of the term province because 'it has become associated with those peddling a particular point of view'. Serbs may overstress this reality, but reality it is. Equally, to not use the term province would be to become associated with those peddling a pro-Albanian point of view, so we really are getting into dangerous territory. Interesting that it is thought that this former point is the sole reason we should not refer to Kosovo as a province; this is not relevant to the purpose of this encyclopedia. The legal status of Kosovo is neither fast-moving nor complex. The history books might say in future: "Kosovo remained a province of Serbia under UN adminstration until the Final Status negotiations of 2008 resulted in a complex form of autonomy paralled by that of Hong Kong within the then-People's Republic of China".

The status of Kosovo is only deliberately ambiguous when used in Kosovo or in the presence of Kosovo Albanians or their supporters. The UK Foreign Office [43] states: "Legal Status: Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia and Montenegro (SaM) but has been under interim UN administration pending a settlement of its status in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 since 1999." The CIA WOrld Fact Book [44] states: "the final status of the Serbian province of Kosovo remains unresolved and several thousand peacekeepers from the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) have administered the region since 1999, with Kosovar Albanians overwhelmingly supporting and Serbian officials opposing Kosovo independence; the international community had agreed to begin a process to determine final status but contingency of solidifying multi-ethnic democracy in Kosovo has not been satisfied". Evv is right that we should look to authoritative secondary sources to interpret complex primary sources (though the primary sources are clear). Let us use these US and UK sources to agree that Kosovo should be described as a province of Serbia under UN administration. For us to refer to Kosovo as other than a province of Serbia would not be subtle or ambiguous, simply wrong and demonstrative of an unbalanced POV. (JD)

NB a further description from the UK Foreign Office, which is clearly content to report accurately and without feeling the need to compromise this for the sake of any given viewpoint [45]: "Geography: Kosovo lies in the south-western corner of Serbia, bordering Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania." Anyone have a reason why this shouldn't be the description we use? (JD)

Wow, JD, you said you spent time working in Belgrade? It barely shows! *grin*

Seriously, though, I think you'll find your legal interpretations of UNSCR 1244 to be somewhat unconventional. As you know, Chapter VII gives the UN Security Council all sorts of wacky powers to do stuff -- to say that UNSCR 1244 and the Constitutional Framework are simply interim agreements, subject to review at any time, between the UN and Belgrade is reaching a bit.

The reality is that this issue *is* complex, both legally and politically. For proof, just look at all these smart, well-informed, honest people coming to different conclusions! Furthermore, these issues, including the exact meaning of UNSCR 1244 and Serbia's exact role in Kosovo, are the subject of significant international disagreement. For example, last winter there was a big brouhaha with the ITU over UNMIK's application for a new mobile telephone code. UN Office of Legal Affairs, supported by virtually every other country, argued that UNSCR 1244 gave UNMIK the right to regulate telephony in Kosovo -- Serbia, however, made a stink about it and caused a major headache for ITU lawyers who usually operate by consensus. The issue ended in deadlock and Kosovo had to continue paying a fee to use an interim telephone code from another country (Monaco). My point here is that several months were spent with dueling high-paid international lawyers reaching exactly opposite conclusions. I guess that's why I'm not too worked up over people who want to use the term "Province." I disagree with it, but there are more egregious violations of truth out there! --Envoy202 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the <legal> status of Kosovo is fairly simple. The administration of Kosovo, and the conflict between the vague terms of 1244 and simplicity of existant Serbian state rights, are complex. I haven't sought to interpret 1244. Nor do I think 1244 is subject to review: it's fixed, but an agreement, a contract, between the UN and the FRY nevertheless. Any activities within Kosovo must either be supported by 1244 <or> be negotiated with Serbia, as you point out in reference to telecoms. The problem is that 1244 is vague and it is unclear how much power it gives to the UN, the clear position being that any right not given to the UN by 1244 remains that of Serbia. I nowhere suggest that 1244 is temporary: it is the body of law, the institutional structures which are provisional of final status and, in legal terms, have only the legitimacy given them by 1244. The constitutional framework is a bit of a hybrid as it has roots in 1244 but was achieved with the further agreeement of Belgrade, giving it legitimacy beyond 1244 through this Serbian acceptance.

I'm not quite sure how the difficulties over telecoms and the interpretation of the powers given by 1244 mean that Kosovo is no longer a province. A province it remains in law, and I'm awaiting any proof, or even a reliable secondary source, suggesting it is not. All sympathy to the frustrations of working in Pristina *grin* (JD)

I remain convinced this is mostly an argument about semantics. I think we're virtually in agreement about Kosovo's legal status, but are arguing in circles about the terms used to describe it. As you well note, UNSCR 1244 is vague.

I don't, however, agree with your assertion that UNMIK has a legal requirement to "negotiate" arrangements with Serbia (e.g., Constitutional Framework, telecom, etc.). UNMIK has pretty consistently asserted its right to *not* have to do such a thing; UN OLA has supported them in this. UNMIK holds consultations with Serbia for three reasons: 1) for reasons of courtesy, 2) to improve coordination of services (e.g., coordinate security in K-Serb communities), or 3) because Belgrade has the ability to block something UNMIK has a right to do (e.g., regulate telecom) so that UNMIK has no choice but to work with Belgrade on a solution. The telecom thing was really obnoxious -- Belgrade made such a big stink about the issue in the ITU, which spooked some conflict-averse lawyers who made decisions in contradiction with UN OLA. The end result that Kosovo got stuck in a ripoff contract with Monaco for the provision of mobile telecom services.

My point: at the end of the day, Chapter VII of the UN Charter is where UNMIK's authority comes from, not a putative "agreement" with Serbia. Chapter VII makes UNSCR 1244 binding on Serbia (and other UN members), whether Serbia likes it or not. And usually Serbia does not like it! --Envoy202 01:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't say anywhere that everything (or anything) has to be agreed with Belgrade. UNMIK has the power to do anything which is authorised under 1244 (which was agreed with the FRY). But anything beyond 1244 requires the agreement of Serbia. And that this is because sovereignty remains with Serbia except where 1244 has agreed a suspension of the exercise of those rights. And that ultimately Serbian law is the 'bedrock', alongside the UN Charter, but that new and provisional law can be created by the SRSG as long as it conforms with 1244. And that this means that Kosovo remains a) part of Serbia and b) a province of Serbia, as 1244 gives UNMIK no right to change these facts. The constitutional framework <was> agreed with Serbia though it could probably have proceeded without that agreement; having the agreement simply gives it more weight in international law than being authorised 'only' under 1244.

This is only an argument about semantics if you believe that terms such as 'province' and 'of Serbia' give some meaning beyond the description they give of the present 'condition' of Kosovo. You make your point well that all communities in Kosovo do attach such deeper meanings and that Serbs and Albanians will stress certain usages for their own benefit. The argument of many here is precisely that we are <not> supposed to be giving weight to the semantics of the terms. We should be describing Kosovo and the situtation it finds itself in, without fear or favour as they say. This should be an argument about terminology, not semantics, and I think that's where you and I are talking at cross purposes.

I also think it very important to state that describing Kosovo accurately <does not> favour a Serbian viewpoint, not does it imply that I or anyone else is for or against ultimate independence. Some facts favour the 'Serbian' side (Kosovo is still legally part of Serbia) some favour the 'Albanian' side (Kosovo is administered by the UN and is in a final status process which seems likely to end in independence). The desire to prevent the use of certain terms or descriptions, though correct, because they are seen to favour an argument you dislike is pretty distateful (Hello, Big Brother!) and far beneath the standards required of this encyclopedia.

I've enjoyed the discussion, nevertheless - thanks. And it says good things of Wikipedia and this article that we've gone to such lengths over one or two words! (JD)

I'm "un-smart", ill-informed and more dishonest than I usually like to admit :-) However, I must say that until this Talk page came to my attention I thought that only Kosovar Albanians considered Kosovo as anything different from a Serbian province. I knew of no "controversy" whatsoever. Why ?

1. Because everything I had read or listen to always referred to Kosovo as a Serbian province (TV, newspapers & magazines, encyclopedias, maps, atlases).
2. Because I had never had any sort of contact with any person seeing Kosovo as anything different from a serbian province.

As far as I'm aware of, only in diplomatic circles is this a sensitive issue, for obvious reasons: diplomatic documents are carefully worded to avoid hurting Serbian or Kosovar Albanian sensitivities. But all other media, free of that "diplomatic constraint", refer to Kosovo for what it is: a province of Serbia under UN administration.

Here just a sample of this general consensus on non-diplomatic sources:

• National Geographic Atlas of the World, Eighth Edition, 2004: The Serbian province of Kosovo (known as Kosova to Albanians) continues to be administered by the United Nations as an international protectorate.
• BBC, Regions and territories: Kosovo: Kosovo, a landlocked province within Serbia... The province is administered by the UN...

Best regards. :-) --Evv 19:36 8 August 2006 and 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm "un-smart", ill-informed and more dishonest than I usually like to admit :-) However, I must say that until this Talk page came to my attention I thought that only Kosovar Albanians considered Kosovo as anything different from a Serbian province. I knew of no "controversy" whatsoever. Why ? - This is not true, many non-Kosovars have the same opinion. In this talk page Envoy202 is also somewhat uncomfortable with the use of the term 'province', his earlier posts explain why.

I personally from my point of view, as you have seen from my previous comments never disputed that it was a province of Serbia (albeit with great reservations). What really bugs me is the lack of information clarifying its current state on the ground. Simply saying Kosovo is a province of Serbia (without clarifying the true relationship to Serbia) to a neutral reader sounds like 'Kosovo belongs to Serbia'. It is a subtle yet a very important difference, which is further enhanced by equalling it to Vojvodina.

The Introduction is the most important part of an article and 80% of people reading it would not bother reading beyond it. I yet again push the compromise solution forward which is a Secondary Source [46]. I would love to see it being changed so that it sounds more encyclopedia friendly, but I believe that the substance is neutral and should not be modified with other unnecessary data. --Tonycdp 11:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The secondary source you quote states: "Legal Status: Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia and Montenegro (SaM)". With the inclusion of a statement that it has nevertheless been under UN administration since 1999, I think we've all agreed that this is the line to take, being correct, fair and balanced. (JD)

No the secondary source I quote says:

Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia and Montenegro (SaM) but has been under interim UN administration pending a settlement of its status in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 since 1999.

There is no fullstop, you're just hand-picking the words that suit you.

--Tonycdp 14:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a problem of English language here? My point was that you had suggested that your secondary source supported the view that Kosovo is not a province of Serbia. I chose selectively from that source to illustrate that it did not support your argument; to copy out the entire FCO Kosovo web page might have been a little excessive. As I've been arguing all along (against your objections), Kosovo is a province of Serbia, though has been under UN administration since 1999 with little direct involvement by Serbia. I'm glad that you now support this viewpoint and that we've achieved a consensus. (JD)

Hey, gang, is everybody cool with my new sections on Future Status and Politics? Again, I was nervous about the lack of citations -- I'd really appreciate the help, however, to dig up weblinks and other references. Most of the information, however, is utterly non-controversial (famous last words!).

--Envoy202 18:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the section is a good summary of the ongoing resolution process of Kosovo's status and is necessary to the article. I wouldn't worry about the lack of citations, as time goes by the gaps will quickly be filled, espcially given how controversial this article is I am sure some users are checking every sentence and in the process sources will be found. TSO1D 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nice work! Thanks for the excellent contributions you've made so far. -- ChrisO 10:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very nice. Since the Contact group discussions are very much a current event and, I can imagine, one of the key interests of those reading the article, I think it is a good idea to put them in a separate section. Makes it easier to update as well.Osli73 11:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think we need to do more than repeat UNMIK press releases. I'll see what I can come up with. (JD)

Fair enough, JD. But be careful! This crew is pretty vicious when it comes to edits. *grin* Independent analysis or other perspectives is probably bound to be problematic. A "just the facts, ma'am" approach is best. --Envoy202 22:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As many of you will have noticed, this article and the related Template:Kosovo-InfoBox have repeatedly been messed around by someone using a series of anonymous IP addresses. Whoever it is is using open proxy servers, which is an instantly blockable offence - I've been going through them and blocking them as they appear. Unfortunately it may be necessary to semi-protect the article at short notice to keep out the anonymous vandal. Apologies in advance if this causes any problems. -- ChrisO 10:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a user-conduct request for comments on Ferick following his latest bout of edit-warring - it's time to put an end to it. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick. -- ChrisO 01:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In the first two paragraphs of the intro, there is too much repetition of facts.

First paragraph: "While it is legally a part of Serbia it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War."

Second paragraph: "Kosovo has been under Serbian sovereignty since 1912 but since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations with little direct involvement from the Serbian government."

Notice that the Kosovo war and the UN administration is mentioned twice in the intro? Now, when I remove one of these sentences, someone always reverts me, why? --KOCOBO 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

--Envoy202 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, especially for readers not familiar with Kosovo (as i explained previously in Talk:Kosovo#Intro is too big a target, 20:08, 7 August 2006, UTC), i propose more or less to restore the previous first paragraph, rendering it:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of the two autonomous provinces of Serbia, and is located in the south of the country (the other is Vojvodina, in the north of the country). However, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War, with little direct involvement from the Serbian government.

Second paragraph for brief geographical description, third for "long-running dispute", as it is now. End of introduction. Regards. :-) --Evv 21:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I again note my serious problem with the phrase "with little direct involvement from the Serbian government." I have asked for examples of Serbian "direct involvement" in Kosovo's goverance, but I've only heard examples that are of a distinctly indirect nature (e.g., sending assistance to K-Serb communities, holding regular consultations with UNMIK, UNMIK's previous usage of pre-89 FRY law in Kosovo, etc.). My concern is that saying Serbia has "direct involvement" in governing Kosovo makes it sound like at least a few current administrative/legal acts coming out of Belgrade would had legal effect in Kosovo. They don't.

I'd prefer the sentence to say "with no direct involvement." As a fallback, however, I'd be willing to consider the formulation: "with Serbia permitted no direct involvement in Kosovo's governance." This second formulation covers those people who consider Belgrade-funded parallel institutions (e.g., health/education) to be "direct involvement." UNMIK has long considered these institutions illegal, but, for obvious reasons, nobody in the international community has had the heart to shut down Belgrade-funded schools and clinics that benefit Kosovo's beleaguered Serb community. I'm sure there are ample sources that can verify this, including a great series of reports the OSCE did a few years ago on the parallel structures. As a final point, I'd note the July 24 Contact Group statement that pointedly referred to the "illegal parallel security structures," which have been a particular source of concern due to the delicate situation in northern Kosovo.

Can people go along with either of my formulations? If not, I'd appreciate a better argued case about how/where/in what manner Serbia currently exercises "direct involvement" in administering Kosovo. --Envoy202 01:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, and you may be right, in which case I would be very happy to change that phrase. :-) However, I understand that some Serbian personnel are legally present in Kosovo, mainly in the Serbian enclaves, in accordance with UNSCR 1244 (1999) (Annex 2, points 6 and 10):

6. After withdrawal, an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serbian personnel will be permitted to return to perform the following functions:

• Liaison with the international civil mission and the international security presence;
• Marking/clearing minefields;
• Maintaining a presence at Serb patrimonial sites;
• Maintaining a presence at key border crossings.

10. [...] A military-technical agreement will [...] specify additional modalities, including the roles and functions of Yugoslav/Serb personnel in Kosovo.

Besides, from what I see on TV and read in newspapers it seems that Belgrade does have a say at least in the Serbian enclaves.

BBC on Mitrovica: The rest of Kosovo's Serbian enclaves are run by the UN, but in reality, the Serbian Government retains considerable control over local services.

As JD stated above (in De Jure), "parallel structures" clearly exist [...] with the Serbian government providing health care, education, pensions and so on to a significant minority of the population of Kosovo. Belgrade also has other, less visible influence over the administration of Kosovo: privatisation has made little progress because of the threat of legal challenge from Serbia and Serbian former owners of industries; the Serbian state electricity industry provides regular and emergency provision of electricity for Kosovo from Serbia proper; UNMIK and Serbia have to share the management of air traffic control over Kosovo (the relevant international body not recognising Kosovo as anything other than part of Serbia); UNMIK and Serbia discuss the provision of security in Serbian enclaves; Serbia and UNMIK agree the means of allowing Kosovo Serbs votes in the both Kosovo and Serbia electoral systems. UNMIK is in constant and detailed discussion with Belgrade on all elements of the adminsitration of Kosovo, as all elements touch the lives of that minority of the population of Kosovo which see Serbia as sovereign, and all elements of administration touch on the past and shared elements of that administration.

Those factors are what I wanted to reflect with "little direct involvement", thus avoiding a categorical "no involvement whatsoever" (which would deny a clear, although maybe indirect, Serbian involvement).

Possible solution:

If I'm wrong on this (and I may well be), how about dropping the "direct" part and stating simply with little involvement from the Serbian government ?

Or a more elaborated with Serbia permitted no direct involvement in Kosovo's governance but retaining some influence over the administration ?

I feel that simply stating "with no direct involvement" would be inaccurate and a possibly misleading simplification. Regards. :-) --Evv 03:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

ow about dropping your version altogether Evv. We have discussed why mentioning Kosovo in the same breath with Vojvodina is wrong. In fact the only thing I can just about agree with you is using the term 'province'. I am very much in favour of using the CF as the basis for the intro, and I also suggest that there is strong emphasis on the fact that the political status is only temporary. Tonycdp

A few points in reponse:

-- There are no Serbian security personnel legally operating in Kosovo today. UNSCR 1244 envisioned that, but UNMIK/KFOR have always prevented it, arguing -- quite understandably! -- that the reentry of Serbian security personnel would be destabilizing. Occasionally Belgrade has grumbled about this and Belgrade probably has a point. That being said, UNMIK, Belgrade and the international community all have a long and illustrious record of picking their favorite parts of UNSCR 1244 and forgetting the rest.

-- There are, however, Belgrade security perseonnel present in Kosovo illegally. Serbia has infiltrated quite a few MUP (Interior) and BIA (intelligence) into Kosovo, especially the north. Belgrade has never acknowledged them, but has usually been coy when asked about their existence. As the situation in northern Kosovo has gotten more tense, the Contact Group made the unusual move of publicly expressing its concern over these personnel in its July 24 statement. My relevant point is that the presence of illegal personnel does not constitute "direct governance," but, at best, some sort of illegal "indirect governance" that could be described later in the article.

-- Yes, Belgrade-funded parallel structures, particularly in health/education, do exist. They have been a thorn in UNMIK's side for years, but nobody particularly wants to dismantle them -- these structures provide important services to the Kosovo Serb community, which has gotten a pretty raw deal in recent years. Nevertheless, they are illegal and UNMIK and the international community have considered them disruptive. That is why the 2004 Kosovo Standards Implementation Plan listed their dismantling as a priority Standards Action Item (section 2, action item 17). Put all these facts together, however, and I would maintain that the existence of these structures does *not* constitute "direct involvement." Belgrade-funded funciontaries do not enjoy legitimacy vis-a-vis the UN administration of Kosovo and are not operating legally. At best, it is some kind of indirect involvement.

-- Yes, Belgrade and UNMIK consult frequently. As they should. My understanding is that there have been frequent and regular consultations over the years. Does consultation equate to "direct involvement" in administering Kosovo? Probably not. UNMIK consults with many states on issues affecting governance and security in Kosovo -- do all these states therefore have "direct involvement" in administering Kosovo? At best, it is some kind of diffuse indirect involvement.

-- Yes, Belgrade has threatened legal challenges that stalled to UNMIK's management of privatization in Kosovo. As a result, after much wrangling with the UN Office of Legal Affairs, UNMIK moved to a novel "emminent domain" model for privatization that leaves the staff of the Kosovo Trust Agency less vulnerable to Belgrade legal action. KTA has since moved ahead with privatization and the process is continuing apace. Does the fact that Belgrade's threats of legal action stalled the privatization process equate to "direct involvement" in administering Kosovo? I'd argue that the fact that UNMIK was able to circumvent the threat suggests that Belgrade's threats do not constitute "direct involvement."

-- Yes, immediately after UNMIK arrived it declared that the laws of pre-99 laws of Serbia were valid. This was to avoid a legal vacuum, not to make some sort of statement about Serbia's "direct involvement" in Kosovo's day-to-day governance. This declaration was largely put aside in 2004 when UNMIK and the PISG promulgated a set of Provisional Criminal Codes and Provisional Codes of Procedure, plus the large body of UNMIK "law" that has been accumulated through regulations and laws passed by the Kosovo Assembly (and subsequently promulgaged by UNMIK). In any case, the central conclusion is this: Belgrade cannot pass a law today and have it take effect in Kosovo. My conclusion is, therefore, that Belgrade does not have "direct involvement" in passing laws that affect Kosovo's governance.

My point here is relatively small: namely, that "Belgrade is permitted no direct role in administering Kosovo" is the most accurate way of describing the state of affairs. Arguably, the whole point of UNSCR 1244 was to strip Serbia of any "direct role" in administering Kosovo (umm....since they were doing such a great job of it before June 1999!). But even if you argue that this was not the purpose/effect of UNSCR 1244, the last seven years of practice have effectively brought about this state of affairs. UNMIK, the legal authority with a Chapter VII mandate to adminsiter Kosovo, does not now and has not ever permitted Belgrade a role in "direct governance" of Kosovo.

But I'll gladly concede that Belgrade's role in Kosovo is complex, if often below-the-surface and often based more on its influence than a legally-authorized role. That is why I would propose adding a few sentences under the 'Politics and Governance' section that tries to explain in a neutral way the things that Belgrade does and does not do in Kosovo today. This could outline the intense consultations that Belgrade/UNMIK have carried out over the years, as well as cite various reports about the role illegal parallel structures play in Serbian communities.

As a final note, I'd point out that even Belgrade is not seeking a "direct role" in governing the whole of Kosovo in the future. Their status negotiating platform would largely allow the Kosovo Albanian-dominated central government do its own thing, while Belgrade seeks to preserve the right to exercise that "direct role" only in Kosovo Serb-majority municipalities.

--Envoy202 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd probably agree most with the 'little direct involvement' formulation. Envoy202 makes cogent points: Belgrade's actions and rights are often at variance and Serbia is formally allowed no direct role in the administration of Kosovo. I think it does, however, have considerable 'involvement' in Kosovo. Whilst I think we should agree with Envoy202's points on the quality and legality of Serbian involvement, paying pensions and salaries in Mitrovica or Gracanica must be a 'direct' invovlement in Kosovo, must it not? Given that these sorts of interactions apply to up to 10% of the population, calling this 'little' direct involvement is if anything understating the case: which I think is proper as we need to present a view in the summary which underlines the present primacy of UNMIK in administration. We certainly need to present the remaining complexity in a politics section somewhere.

We have discussed the value of including a reference to the other province of Serbia in the introduction, much as is done for other countries (eg. England in the UK context). The weight of argument seemed, for me, to be with keeping the reference to Vojvodina to put the constitutional position of Kosovo into perspective.

Some other points. Serbian law does have (illegitimate, from UNMIK's point of view) effect in the Serbian areas of Kosovo, most clearly in post-1999 legislation on health services, pensions and the like. The progress of privatisation is erratic and slow with serious impediments posed by existing Serbian rights over private and State assets in place in 1999 (see recent IWPR reporting on Trepca [47] or this from the Financial Times, "But Bujar Dugolli, Kosovo's trade minister, presses a forceful case for change, outraging officials in Belgrade and causing Unmik discomfort. In an interview he questioned Mr Ruecker's promise of swift privatisation, accusing Unmik of overseeing 'cosmetic' economic reforms and an 'ineffective' KTA."); we need to avoid repeating the rose-tinted line which UNMIK officials would naturally prefer. The constitution and laws of Serbia remain the foundation of law in Kosovo; were UNMIK to legislate for every single area of law covered by Serbia in 1999, the legislation (including the constitutional framework) would remain provisional and built on that bedrock, legitimised only by UNSC 1244. We might find this uncomfortable, but having come to a ceasefire arrangement with Milosevic which did not ceed Serbian sovereignty, this is the situtation which we must report. (JD)

How about we compromise and say this: "...with Serbia only having indirect involvement in the administration of Kosovo" or something to that effect. Sound good? --Envoy202 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Or "...with Serbia's involvement in the administration being restricted chiefly to the areas inhabited by Serbs" – isn't that how it actually works? My initial instinct was "enclaves" but I think "areas" is probably more neutral, especially in reference to the complexity of neighbourhoods in northern Mitrovica. We could add "currently" before "being restricted" if people prefer to emphasise the transience of the situation. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I really like KieranT's proposal: it's the perfect explanation to give to someone unfamiliar with Kosovo. --Evv 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"The constitution and laws of Serbia remain the foundation of law in Kosovo" - This is pure fantasy. Show us the proof to substantiate your arguments.

"We might find this uncomfortable, but having come to a ceasefire arrangement with Milosevic which did not ceed Serbian sovereignty, this is the situtation which we must report. (JD)" - This is fantasy too. I like the way you've just put it accross matter-of-factly and saying how "we" must accept it eventhough "we" find it uncomfortable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that you WOULD be quite comfortable with that statement.... ahh only if it were true.

This is the truth: Noone ever reached no agreement with Milosevic, the solution was imposed by NATO, like every other winning party in a war does, they lay their own rules down, Serbia had no choice but to accept it.

The Kumanovo agreement does not guarantee sovereignty of FRY in any way (not even nominally). Although it recognises it, it is purely a military "agreement". UN 1244 and the Constitutional Framework of Kosovo (internationally recognised) define the governance and the temporary status it enjoys.

--Tonycdp 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think User: Tonycdp may have deleted my comments following those of KeiranT and replaced them with the above rant. That's not on, surely?

For the record, I think Kosovo should be independent, but not without conditions concerning the rights, return and safety of minorities, and not without reducing tackling organised crime. Nor do I think we should pretend that any of this can be done without reference to the UN Charter and international law. But my personal opinion should not matter. The legal status of Kosovo is as it is and we have to deal with that reality to move forward. The UN presence in Kosovo is dependent on prior FRY acceptance, under duress or not, and no UN authority could function without this agreement without violating the Charter.

To cover Envoy202's point (again): we're describing direct 'involvement' in Kosovo not direct governance. Serbia has no direct role in governance, only the indirect sort which each UN member state has. The UK and US also have a direct involvement in Kosovo though this is a part of the broader 'international community' involvement whereas Serbia operates parallel structures and asserts influence over a substantial minority of the territory and population of Kosovo. We should make reference to this small element of direct involvement in Kosovo in the introduction. This does not legitimise the Serbian position, simply describes it. There's a worrying line of argument which would seek to present reality other than it is to further a particular point of view or restrict another, including making attacks on personal motivations. I think there's a consensus here that 'Kosovo is a province of Serbia, governed by the UN with little direct involvement by Serbia' or some such. (JD)

A few thoughts

First of all, a note to Tony -- chill out, dude! Let's keep the tone collegial and respectful, OK?

Now on to the RS/Kosovo comparison. I, too, bristle at this quite a bit. I think people should be very careful in making this comparison. We've already seen some Serb politicians raise this specter (most notably Tadic), much to the disapproval of the international community.

The cases differ in major ways:

-- RS's final status has already been determined. It was agreed to by the warring parties in Dayton, to which Serbia was also a signatory. That status has been confirmed in subsequent UNSC resolutions.

-- Kosovo's final status has not defined. To the contrary, a UNSCR explicitly has called for a political process to determine that status. That UNSCR deliberately excluded no options, including independence.

-- The RS, lacking any historical status, possesses borders that were created through a war in the 1990s. Kosovo's borders, however, have been stable for decades and were quite significant legally in the SFRJ up until Milosevic revoked Kosovo's autonomy through force.

The reality is that the Kosovo future status discussion is happening in a unique legal and historical context. The overarching context is the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia, which created a threat to international peace and security that required international involvement.

JD, you noted that "Kosovo's claim to independence is based solely on some earlier administrational existence" -- well, if you recall, that was exactly the basis of the claims for independence by Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, etc. in the 1990s. As you know, the Badinter Commision said that those entities that possessed republic status in the SFRJ had the right to go their own separate way. Was the SFRJ status of those places the best or the fairest way to divvy of the former Yugoslavia? Maybe not, but it worked at the time and was better than the alternatives (e.g., redrawing new borders from scratch).

Now this process of Yugoslavia's disintegration is coming to a close. Kosovo is making three claims:

1) A LEGAL claim that its quasi-republic status in the SFRJ gives it the same right to become independent as was granted to all the other peoples of the former Yugoslavia (even the Montenegrins chose to exercise their right to go their own way!).

2) A MORAL claim that the undeniably awful things that Serbia did to Kosovo's Albanians in the 1990s -- actions that necessitated international intervention, albeit on a questionable legal basis -- diminished Serbia's right to rule Kosovo again.

3) A PRACTICAL claim that the trauma of the 1990s, combined with the fact that for seven years Serbia's rule has been suspended in Kosovo, makes it unsustainable to forcibly reunify Kosovo with Serbia without threatening regional stability.

You're right to note that Serbia has a strong legal argument: namely, that it is the sovereign and that sovereign states do not generally have independent countries created on "their" territory. That's a powerful claim, upon which Belgrade will/has invoked the Helsinki Final Act and the UN Charter. But the legal issues involved in Yugoslavia's disintegration go beyond facile claims like this. As a side note, Belgrade's negotiating platform -- an oddly undemocratic offer to let Kosovars do their own thing in Kosovo, but deny them any central representation in Serbia or engage in Serbia's defense or diplomatic relations with the word -- has not impressed anyone with its moral sincerity.

At the end of the day, the UN Special Envoy will carry out the status process envisioned in UNSCR 1244 and try to bring the parties as close together on as many issues as possible (including the sovereignty question). In the event of deadlock, Ahtisaari will then make his recommendations to the UN Security Council, which is granted far-reaching powers under the UN Charter to make decisions to ensure international peace and security. As has happened throughout history, the Great Powers (now called "the international community") will make decisions based on a mix of legal, moral and practical issues involved. As has been well-documented in many places, the international consensus has been for some time that Kosovo's independence, subject to a lengthy transitional period of heavy and robust international supervision to ensure minority rights, is the only viable status outcome. It's not necessary a good outcome -- in fact it's a very lousy outcome in many ways! -- but it's the only one that is seen to be viable. Serbia has been aware of this consensus for some time, but lacks courageous leaders to admit reality and focus Serbia's people not on the past but on Serbia's future in Euro-Atlantic institutions.

OK, enough of that. My intention was not to argue the Kosovo status position. My intention is to put to rest the dangerous comparisons with the RS. When Kosovo becomes independent, there will surely be nationalist voices trying to draw legal/moral/practical parallels with the situation in the RS. I think we all have a responsibility to point out the differences (noted above) and seek to calm the situation. Reopening Dayton sounds like a pretty miserable idea to me! --Envoy202 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I am going to rest my case (for now) with Kosovo with what Envoy202 has written and take a chill pill. But before I do that I have to say one more thing.

To JD: I do respect your position even though I believe that it is un-informed at best, but I can't accept you saying how you support the Kosovan independence in principle, and in the same breath claim that it is a creation of Tito (like the RS is a creation of Milosevic). I don't know a single supporter of Kosovan independence who thinks the same.

If indeed I am wrong about you and you really do support the independence of Kosovo despite it being some artificial creation, created by ethnic cleansing then you need to question your morals.

I wouldn't support the independence of such country... well... at least not as a diplomat, it would ruin my career.

Chill pill taken ;-) Envoy202 thanks for making a good case.

--Tonycdp 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confident that either of you are really reading what I have written. I don't say that Kosovo is a creation of Tito, I say that the Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija was a creation of Tito: this is true, as is the fact that Kosovo as an administrative and regional description has a much older provenance. Nor do I ever say that Kosovo has only a claim based on the SFRY administrative boundaries: I say that you <must> think that this is the only basis of the claims if you deny the RS such claims only becuase it was <not> a entity under the SFRY. Kosovo has valid claims for all the reasons you state, as I make clear (repeatedly) in my comments. Please read my comments with more care; you only do yourselves a disservice.

As a supporter of the UN and it's role in the world I find it pretty scary that you find claims based on the UN Charter 'facile'. I also find it scary that you feel that arguments should not be made because they are 'dangerous'. Please, argue against my position, but do not seek to gag an argument because it is seditious: that's the tool of dictators, my friend. Nor should you suggest that I should not make an argument simply because some politician or other also makes it, if that argument is valid and meets that standards of Wikipedia. The feeling might be that you're trying to silence these arguments because you want to support a given position, in this case that you dislike the Serbian positon. I, on the other hand, am trying to present a position based solely on verifiable facts or the interpretation of reliable second sources, and founded entirely on international law. If you dislike the outcome of those arguments, then you're effectively telling us that a) you prefer the Kosovo Albanian side of the disagreements over Kosovo and b) belive that (if my arguments are valid) the Kosovo Albanian position is in fact weaker than the international community in Kosovo would like to present.

The use of a comparison of Kosovo and the RS is valid. As I've said repeatedly, this does not mean that I believe that the RS should seek independence if Kosovo does, or that Kosovo should not gain independence. I note that the RS and Serbia will use this tool (which does not mean I support them doing so) and that the international community will have great difficulty in presenting a case against RS secession from Bosnia without being seen to give different rights to Kosovo Albanians and Bosnian Serbs. There is nothing 'scary' or morally insincere for me to make these arguments. I am not Boris Tadic and I do not support his position, though the facts may. And that's what you want to supress. (JD)

And please never again question my morals. We're trying to write a encyclopedia and debate the facts. And if we were trying to debate the Kosovo question then I would certainly look as unfavourably on the rights to independence of a Kosovo Albanian community which has abused the rights and lives of an ethnic minority as I did the rights to sovereignty of a Milosevic regime which also abused the rights and lives of an ethnic minority. The rights of a Kosovo Serb are not less than those of a Kosovo Albanian. (JD)

to JD: Unfortunately I don't have a great deal of time to respond to every comment you have made, at this praticular moment, although I do promise to come back an tackle them more thoroughly when I manage to get a minute. Especially with regards to the UK nations (which is where I am from) and the rather ridiculous parallels drawn with Kosovo, not to mention Hong Kong and China which is even more ridiculous.

Important things first:

Its funny how you've chosen that particular text from the Foreign office site (Geography Section), when you could as easily have chosen the Legal Status section, which states the following:

"Legal Status: Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia and Montenegro (SaM) BUT has been under interim UN administration pending a settlement of its status in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 since 1999."

Now how about you and Evv send an e-mail to the Foreign Office and ask them to stop putting emphasis on an inevitable status resolution by the end of this year. And also tell them that S&M is now Serbia, I would love to hear their reaction.

I think I've made my point, current legal status should be in the Inroduction but with strong emphasis on the pending permanent status. Constitutional Framework needs to be taken into account too, and unnecessary political maps (like the one with Kosovo within Serbia) should be removed, because as I stated before you couldn't possibly compare Kosovo to any of these regions, it is plain misleading.

P.S. The following has nothing to do with the discussion here it is just a plain observation on my part, so please spare yourselves the breath: Note on the Foreign Office site at the top of the page how they refer to Kosovo as a country not as a province:

"BASIC INFORMATION Full Country Name: Kosovo"

--Tonycdp 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing before I go. You said the following: "

3. Republika Srpska did not exist at the time of the SFRJ, but neither was Kosovo a republic of the SFRJ, just an administrative subdivision of Serbia and the creation of Tito

"

Now by saying that Kosovo was a Josip Broz's creation you are opening a can (no in fact a Barrel) of worms, and that would probably require a new discussion page on that subject alone.

Let me tell you how I percieve Kosovo: Well for starts not a creation of Tito, but an entity known since the Ottoman empire, "Kossovo Vilayet" ring any bells, in fact Kosovo has an even older identity in the form of the ancient Dardania. Now if you want we can study the SFRJ constitution of 1974 (the most complex and the longest constitution ever written for a country) and then determine what status Kosovo had within SFRJ. From the few bits I can remember whilst reading it, I believe Kosovo had their own representative in the presidency (8 members in total), doesn't that make it an equal entity in SFRJ.

No, it doesn't. See SFRJ's Administrative divisions. --Evv 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You keep hanging on to the original legal status of pre-1999 (which you claim it is still valid). I suppose you also know how that legal status was achieved. Well, Let me remind you: Milosevic imposed it forcefully in 1989, which prompted Slovenia to seek independence (and the rest we know).

Please please please don't compare Kosovo to Republika Srpska. 100,000 (mainly innocent) people died to carve out the latter, and it never ever existed as an entity until the 1995 Dayton accord.

You have clearly been influenced by Milosevic's doctrine, which to this day haunts Serbs, and still keeps them in denial.

--Tonycdp 14:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some confused logic here. The question as regards the RS is this: do we take the view that Kosovo's claim to independence is based solely on some earlier administrational existence? And if so, why choose a particular communist constitution, rather than, say, that of the preceeding Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, or of the Nazi puppet states? If past administrational boundaries are acceptable when seeking self-determiniation, why are present boundaries (such as that of the RS, forged in blood perhaps but legitimised by the international community) not equally acceptable? The point is that having or having had a distinct administrational existance gives a region, where controlled by a majority of such a mind, the opportunity to express a wish for self-determination. But the right to self-determiniation comes as a result of democratic opinion, modified by a due regard for the rights and security of minorities <and> by the right of existant nation states as enshrined in the UN Charter. If a democratic Kosovo has the right to seceed from a democratic Serbia, why should a democratic RS not choose to seceed from a democratic Bosnia? There is no answer to this which does not involve applying different rights to those of Kosovo Albanians and Bosnian Serbs: and to apply rights in such a way is precisely the doctine of the Milosevic/Tudjman/Karadzic era.

I do not believe the system Milosevic created to be right or morally defensible or superior, quite the opposite. In all ways that system was deficient and we were right to use all available force to remove that regime and it's cronies from the administration of Kosovo. As a British diplomat and having workd on matters Yugoslav from 1999 onwards, I am proud to have contributed to international isolation of his regime and it's ultimate downfall. But international law is international law and pretending that it is otherwise does a disservice to the readers of this encyclopedia and to all communities in Kosovo.

And I <will> continue to compare Kosovo and the RS, and rightly so: these are valid examples of distinct administrative areas with large ethnic majorities at variance to the nation states of which they are presently part. Kosovo as much as any other region in the Balkans has been formed by warfare and bloodshed, right up to 1999 and March 2004. If you are concerned that making these arguments and demonstrating their legitimacy in some way supports or stregthens some generalised 'Serbian' position, then perhaps you need to face the possibility that the Serbian position has more legitimacy than you would like. Do not quote war dead to me in an effort to supress legitimate argument. (JD)

First of all, spare us of all the unnecessary rubbish, like I am a diplomat and I did this and I did that. You being a "diplomat" adds no weight to your claims, although what could help add weight would be a dose of clear judgement on your part, especially when making comparisons.

But saying that I am proud of you too for all that you did to isolate Milosevic, It obviously worked :-)

Second, I'm quoting you again: " If a democratic Kosovo has the right to seceed from a democratic Serbia, why should a democratic RS not choose to seceed from a democratic Bosnia? There is no answer to this which does not involve applying different rights to those of Kosovo Albanians and Bosnian Serbs: and to apply rights in such a way is precisely the doctine of the Milosevic/Tudjman/Karadzic era"

Why do you still compare RS to Kosovo Mr Diplomat? Kosovo had an equal legal status to all the republics in the former Yugoslavia. RS was created as a result of ethnic cleansing, and as such no-one serious enough will contemplate its "right" for self-determination.

And I will tell you why not: Well it is because Dayton agreement IS the final agreement (serbs signed it) and it does not offer provisions for future self-determination of its constituent parts. The "current" status of Kosovo was imposed, there was no agreement nothing was signed nada. International community has no choice but to accept that it is legally part of FRY but on the other hand had already made up its mind on how to settle the issue back in 1999. It gave Kosovo its temporary constitution, and subsequently eliminated all Serbian control. All the other control that it tries to impose on serbian enclaves is deemed illegal by the UN, and there are many documents to support this fact. Kosovo governs itself, but it is in a legal limbo.

--Tonycdp 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"You can't go claiming Supreme Executive Power just because some watery bint lobbed a scimitar at you!" Monty Python

Nor is the SFRJ constitution a very good basis for self-determination. Kosovo did not have equal status, not being a republic. And more importantly, Republika Srpska now exists as an entity within BiH in the same way Kosovo is an entity within Serbia, as much shaped by ethnic cleansing as Kosovo. If you believe that the RS has no right to independence because of international agreements, then Kosovo has a right to independence based only on international agreements, but in that case independence looks impossible as UNSC 1244 speaks only of substantial autonomy within Serbia. I don't believe it right that the RS might threaten to secceed, but it has that right as much as Kosovo has. The decision made by the international community in 1999 seems not to be that which you believe: all that was offered was UN administration and a final status process. Serbia lost the right to administer Kosovo but retains sovereignty over it. If peaceful independence for Kosovo is to be achieved then we have to begin with accepting these facts. If these facts cannot be accepted by the Albanian community then there is a real risk of increased violence against both the international community and minority groups. (JD)

First

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one region in Albania, and is located in the north of the country . However, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War, with little direct involvement from the Albanian government.

Secend

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of the two autonomous provinces of Serbia, and is located in the south of the country (the other is Vojvodina, in the north of the country). However, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War, with little direct involvement from the Serbian government.

real paragraph

You are not going to find it. You are clear serbian nationalist. - Hipi

---

All of you are a member of the serbian goverment and serbian church Project Rastko wicht user some account to speek in the name of Albaners.

This is an archive of past discussions about Kosovo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15