Talk:Kosovo/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

POV shift

Ok, I woke up this morning to an article that had references to the Republic of Kosovo as mere decoration. NPOV doesn't mean that we have to shun disputed content. The Republic of Kosovo was by far the most relevant infobox and should've stayed at the top. Húsönd 12:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

hm, I thought you wanted to merge this into an article on the region in general, Abkhasia style? The most relevant infobox is at the top, the ones further down merely contain the disputed items (flags, government, etc.). The majority position is that Kosovo is autonomous within Serbia. A notable minority position is that Kosovo is an independent republic. See WP:WEIGHT for how to deal with this situation. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not actually, I barely noticed Abkhasia. My position there was for the merger, not specifically Abkhasia. I'll strike it to avoid confusion. Kosovo is a de facto independent, de jure recognized as such by many countries. I dispute that a simple region infobox would be more relevant than the Republic's. But, I won't make a fuss out of it. The important thing is to keep this article NPOV. Húsönd 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

you've got it. de jure recognized by 36 countries, not recognized by 156 countries. A.k.a. "partially recognized". It's a dispute. Is it true you are a Wikipedia admin? You must have heard of the concept of Wikipedia not taking sides in disputes. I am sorry to be forced to defend the Russian/Serbian pov here. I would defend the US/Albanian one just as much if this talkpage happened to be flooded by Serbian instead of Albanian trolls. For some reason, there is an eerie silence on that front. dab (𒁳) 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Following your above comment I shall henceforth refrain from engaging in a discussion with you on this matter. I have a strict policy against feeding the trolls and I open no exceptions to admins. Húsönd 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond, you've pretty much almost ruined the article single handedly, but the Good News is that Tube will love you. Beam (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No reason to be jealous! *LOL* --Tubesship (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) BTW: If you have to shorten my name you better say "Ship" like in "Shiptar". ;-)

How convenient is it to just strike stuff out after the article has been merged? What a joke. Beam (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I barely edit the article, how did I almost ruin it? Húsönd 02:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Exaggerations aside you're not helping.Beam (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam in all the article that ive seen you, you have been a pain and counter-productive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.180.146 (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Beam and Dab. Leave, for you are no help. Jawohl (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we make small articles/sections about the Republic of Kosovo and Serbian Province - Volunteers?

Although myself and others have finally accomplished the merging of Geopolitical Region and Kosovo, I think we need to do more major moves.

I propose two additional articles/sections to compliment our Kosovo article. The reasoning is simple: to avoid the intro/entire article of Kosovo to become POV. If in all other places within the Kosovo article we minimize the RoK and Serbian Province views we can present fuller/detailed view of each respectable and real claim in distinct secitons/articles. If we want sections we add two sections under Govt to RoK and Serbian Province. If we want small articles we make two articles and link to them from the Kosovo main article. Right now we are discussing the NPOV option of two infoboxes. This is swell but next comes the rest of the article. For the sake of NPOV we shouldn't make the article Kosovo completely to one way or the other, sections/articles in detail about the RoK and Serb Provinces seem like an idea.

Just to make this clear, I hope we can do it within the article. I just don't think it's NPOV to have one dominate over the other. Things like the intro in which Albanian Patriots demand that Republic of Kosovo be the first words can NOT be POV like that. We have to work it out, we have to do it right. Beam 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think there's no need for on a Serbian province yet as we already have articles on UNMIK and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, so those two could just have little additions mentioning the present dispute and how Serbia and many others consider UNMIK to be the only legitimate administrative authority in Kosovo with the Autonomous Province simply being the name for what is considered the de jure entity in Kosovo. The only new article which would be needed is on the Republic of Kosovo as a partially-recognized state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And you favor a new article as opposed to a section within the main Kosovo article? Beam 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"yourself and others", ahah, while I am glad the topic finally settles down into reasonable shape, I don't recall your involvement as particularly constructive. You have done your best to make this more difficult than necessary. And now you decide to advocate splitting again? WTH, this is the very scenario you have been attacking before. Beam, I have come to realize that you are indeed into this in good faith, but sadly, it appears you have no idea what you, or others, are even talking about half of the time. It would be a great help already if you just knew when to sit back and let people handle things who do. dab (𒁳) 14:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We've only just started carrying out the un-split, so let's not be contemplating re-splitting; this strikes me as quite unconstructive at this point. Conceivably, re-splitting could occur at some later point, but only as long as the split articles remain firmly anchored as detail articles related to this here as the main/summary article. What I would definitely not want to see again is a factored-out RoK article that then grows again into a full-blown country style article with its own POV-forked history section, demographics section, culture section and the like. All of those should firmly remain here, since they are clearly common to both political perspectives (or they could be factored out individually, independently of the Republic/Province POV distinction). But first of all, let's get this article here written properly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Geopolitical Region and ROK are not the same thing, firstly. Secondly, I say sections within the article. That's all. I want one Kosovo article. That's it. Beam 15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We merged to avoid POV (supposedly) so I don't you to make other articles where your POV imagination can run wild. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understand, Beam has just expressed his believe in one article. Why do you (Kosova2008) attack him that he wants to make other articles? Please focus on the matter and not on people. Tomeasy (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No he hasn't. Go read his comment again, he says explicitly, "propose two additional articles/sections to compliment our Kosovo article. The reasoning is simple: to avoid the intro/entire article of Kosovo to become POV. If in all other places within the Kosovo article we minimize the RoK" Kosova2008 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you notice ALL of my merging comments about the NEW KOSOVO ARTICLE included minimizing RoK and Serb Province differences, and I always recommended dedicated articles or sections. I say sections now. I recommend that people who don't find this true than look through the talk page. Beam 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, this talk page is a mess, and various rather confusing discussions took place simultaneously at different places. It's not that easy to keep track of it all. Raising the possibility of a split immediately after a merge just adds to the mix. Misunderstandings are bound to happen. - Ev (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of misunderstanding, you misunderstand me. I am not proposing a split, please read what I'm saying. Thanks. As part of my merge proposal I have always stated that minimizing the RoK and SerbProvince is the best action to take, and as part of my merge suggestions I ALWAYS suggested having dedicated articles to RoK and SerbProvince. However if we can pull it off, I think it would be best in one article. Thanks for reading. Beam 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Beam, may I remind you on your own writings: "Wait, what? This article is on Kosovo. Kosovo has declared independence as the RoK. That's it. That's all that needs to be said. I think Republic of Kosovo should redirect to Kosovo. For now. Beam (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)" Now I understand why you said at the end: "For now." I do not think your turncoat behaviour is helpful and must agree to Ev and others that you only mess up things by doing so. --Tubesship (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your ignorance is amazing. Read what I said. As part of the merge proposal in which you AGREED was the fact that RoK would be minimized within the article about Kosovo. As the you've quoted, all we have to say is that Kosovo declared its independence as the RoK. Do you get it? There's no need to go into details. And if the reader wants details they simply click a link to a section or article about the RoK. Which you agreed to. So keep spitting lies and bull**** about me being a turncoat and, as I've done on my talk page, I will keep pointing out your lies and deceit. It would be fun for me if it wasn't so pathetic. And Tube, I'm not attacking you, I'm simply pointing out your repeated stating of ridiculous fallacies. Beam 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord... everyone, please, let's avoid entering into who said what when. If what you want to say is not directly related to improving this article, meditate carefully on the karmic benefits of keeping quiet. - Ev (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I try my hardest, I truly do. But I can't let Tube out and out lie about me, as if she knew what she was talking about. She agreed to the merge proposal, within my proposal was minimization of the RoK. As she quoted, all we have to say is that they declared independence and that's it. If the reader wants more information, than they goto a more detailed article/section. I hope I don't have to explain this many more times. It's tedious. Beam 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a girl, stop dreaming of me. --Tubesship (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This disruptive uncivil bickering ends here, or else. - Ev (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, let's try to focus on this single article first, and once it's in shape we can discuss about creating proper sub-articles (not separate parallel ones). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That was always part of my proposal, I don't understand Tube's and Kosova2k8's sudden suprise at the idea. Beam 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You do not understand? Then let me cite the administrator who stopped your attempt doing so: "It will be a POV fork; I can see that from a mile away." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beamathan&diff=202726971&oldid=202714435 Maybe you should not only listen to compliments given to you by user Ev. --Tubesship (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a terrible habit of taking things out of context. And you agreed to that move way before I tried it. You agreed to my proposal to merge. Go look at my talk page, you LOVED me and THANKED me for my work on the merge, which included minimizing the RoK. Or did you only do that so you could eventually push your POV? Again, stop lying about me and I'll stop making you look bad with the truth. Beam 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This disruptive uncivil bickering ends here, or else. - Ev (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Ev. Tubessip, you should not use my wording like that. As an administrator, my views on the article do not take precedent over anyone else. I am just a regular editor with a little more experience here. That is all. My view was exactly what I see here: creating a split of an article after an immediate merge, with another AFD and given the rapid change, it just seems like too much to do right now. I was aggressive exactly because of the very specific issues this set of articles has had for a long time. Beam, if you wish to suggest it again, why not create a new section focusing just on the possible content for a new article, with different subheadings if people want to argue different focuses. I think would be the most effective way to go about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bravo to Wikipedians on ending the edit war, plus new ideas to further improve the page

This is exactly how the Kosovo page should be, showing both sides claims. I congradulate Wikipedia on finally solving what to do about this controversial issue. There will always be those who will try to undo this, but a major step forward has been made. On the Kosovo (geopolitical region) page, there was information on Albanian and Serbian culture in Kosovo which should be included on this page, as well, there is a need to find information about modern culture in Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, here is a link to that Culture section. - Ev (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we are going to start reparing Serbia article, a box with Kosovo and Vojvodina, a box only with Vojvodina, a box of Serbia itself. Bravo Wikipedia--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahm? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bravo on creating a mess. Now we have to start all over again. This is such a POV article. You are even afraid to name it acording to the facts. Republic of Kosovo. Get that. It's a fact. Happy with the compromisse? I do not have to remind you that there can not be any compromise between serbs and albanians as much as you wanted or try it. So many have tryed before you and failed. Stick to the facts and keep it clean. This is pure GARBAGE. Jawohl (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are biased. I have read your comments on other Kosovo articles and it's very apparent. I recommend hat you don't disrupt our work on this article. It may be best for you to try to limit your presence here. And to downplay the serious commitment of time and energy that many editors have endured for this article's benefit is too bad. I'm sorry for you. Beam 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, look who is talking, guess what, I am also able to read. You are the guy who stated that will go and fight some albanian POV pushers. Is that how you understand wikipedia. Fighting. And you will not threaten me, by telling me to limit my presence nor do you need to be sorry for me. Be sorry for waisting your own time on this mess that you have created. I am here to stay and present facts. This article should start with the proper heading: Republic of Kosovo. And dont tell me how you think that this is a timeline. I dont fall for such crap. There are five articles scattered all over enWiki on Kosovo and you want to tell me that you are doing a good job. Hmmm. If you want to make the article better I will be here but do not patronize me with your advices. Jawohl (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC) BTW, I forgot to mention some facts to you Mr. stalker: 1. Kosovo Parliament declared independance and named itself Republic of Kosovo 2. Republic of Kosovo is not independent but under supervision 3. Republic of Kosovo does not have all of its teritorry under controll. 4. Not only Kosovo Albanian parliament members declared the Ind. but also Turks, Bosniaks and Romas. See you around. Jawohl (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe your reply speaks for itself. I only say that to say this: This article will strive for NPOV and to be a Featured Article if I can help it. The editors whom you belittle are truly good people and I am sorry for you, sorry that you can't get past your bias to admire the hard work we have put in. If you have any neutral suggestions for the article, please by all means stay and help. If not, than you have my advice. Beam 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if the only people upset are the fanatic partisan nationalists of the Albanian and Serb camps and a few nitpickers, I'm satisfied. People with fanatic partisan nationalist agendas will never be satisfied with a neutral point of view. Fanatics can never compromise, they can never understand an opposing point of view because they are unwilling to put themselves in that position, and just neglect it as "wrong". Because of that they can contribute little or nothing other than bickering and attempting to push their agenda without a care for those opposed to it. If such people are disatisfied, then so be it. Once again, bravo to all those moderate Wikipedians for solving a key problem with this online dispute.--R-41 (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. There are a few nationalists who, although begrudgingly, when given to discussion is willing to compromise. That is to say that there are both Albanian and Serbs and others of all backgrounds who look past their patriotism and can produce neutral work. Don't let a few bad apples around here spoil that. There are nationalist here who work hard on neutrality. Beam 03:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

@ beam & beamathan: "I believe my reply speaks for itslef". What, which, how?. Believe is not enough for me, facts yes. I do admire hard work, especially one that leeds to long lasting results. This hard work here, however, will not last long because it is not based on facts but compromises. You may think whatever you want of my POV, I am only telling you that we are here not to play diplomats. Jawohl (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jawohl, there used to be an article on the Republic of Kosovo. Albanian nationalists insisted that it be merged. So we now have merged it into the article on the Kosovo region. Which means, we do not have any article dedicated to the RoK. If you believe we should have one, you need to place a {{split}} tag and seek consensus. I support the split, since the RoK does after all have some notability, and we have articles on "Republics" that had far less recognition. Nevertheless, until there is consensus to split off a dedicated article on the RoK, the RoK is only a marginal subtopic of this article, which treats Kosovo in its entirety. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not the way it was intended to be as the article was merged. It was intended that Kosova should be about the newborn state, instead some Serbian-POV nationalists avoided that, although every other major Wikipedia has dedicated Kosovo to the Republic. And no, to do so is absolutely NPOV and I do not understand the fanatism of dab as he seems to think, every other Wikipedia is ruled by Albanian trolls. Maybe his own point of view is wrong? I guess so. --Tubesship (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tub, you're wrong. This is the exact way it was intended when we merged. I even suggested a dedicated RoK article when we merged. And Dab, Geopolitical Region does not equal RoK. Just so you know. Beam 12:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The merge was about dealing with Kosovo's complexity in one single article, written from a neutral point of view. It was not about having the resulting article reflect any particular position. — In any case, let's remain civil and remember to focus on the content and not the contributor. - Regards, Ev (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for the merge, but the way it is done is very POV. First of all dedicating such an article to a region which recently created such a stir with its UDI implies that the UDI and the implications thereafter are not so important and are being ignored. The region of Kosovo is much less important to the community (inside & outside of Wiki) then the RoK itself. There are a lot of people that use Wiki for research and writing and article about the region by minimizing as much as possible the existence and the presence of RoK is ignoring facts and plain POV. RoK is there and is more important then the region of Kosovo. How can a region have such clear administrative borders is also beyond me. This is pure serbian POV just as it is pure albanian POV to claim the RoK government has its whole territory under control. I think we all do agree on the importance of Wiki and on the fact that wiki should not be used to manipulate and fabricate facts. How can there be an article on Republic of Kosova outside of this article is also beyond me and it is pure POV and manipulation. That article should be deleted and the information should be incorporated here. Jawohl (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed impressed with the merge so far. I didn't think it would be viable to have a NPOV article this way, but I think I've been proved wrong. Superm401 - Talk 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not impressed at all and do not agree. The article contains snippets of larger articles that already exist in Wiki. It does not have a clear structure and intention, aside from fighting by ignoring the Serbian and Kosovar POV. Jawohl (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jawohl, if you were to rewrite the article on a Wikipedia Sandbox page with the content that you think it should have, you could directly show us how you want it to be, and others will be able to more accurately understand what you are proposing by reading it, and be able to evaluate what you are proposing. It is difficult to at least for me to understand exactly what you want changed. I recognize that the page is poorly written, but I don't know what to keep, what to add, what to remove, as I don't want to accidently give a POV to the page. I don't believe that fanatic partisan nationalists from both the Albanian and Serb camps will ever be satisfied with this page. Kosovo has indeed become a country, but the issue is that it is not universally recognized that the word "Kosovo" refer to the state, that is the real dispute on Wikipedia, or at least it should be. It is a very tense issue, and there is not a strong enough endorsement to define the word "Kosovo" as defining the state alone.--R-41 (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Territory

Is Kosovo a disputed territory as this article claims? Disputed territories usually include at least two countries which have claims on the same territory. If this is the case please do explain us which countries claim this territory. As far as I know, the only disputed thing about Kosovo is it's independence. Jawohl (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. --Tubesship (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, RoK government says it is a part of RoK while Serbia says it's a part of Serbia. Therefore, disputed. --Tone 12:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo, the territory is being disputed between the government of RoK and the government of Serbia. Is that what you are saying. That would imply that Serbia recognizes the government of RoK but not its authority over the region. You see the articles heading is a bit misleading. Kosovo is run by UNMIK and the RoK government, and Serbia so far has denied to have institutions in Kosovo, which means that they are not running it, which means that RoK can not dispute something that is running unless it has a dispute with UNMIK. Jawohl (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are trying to imply that it is disputed whether Kosovo is, in fact, a disputed territory. Would you kindly stop trolling now, thanks. dab (𒁳) 12:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I am not trying to imply anything, all I want is an answer for a simple question, which if accepted should be put on the article. The article states that Kosovo is a disputed territory. All I am asking is to write down the involved parties. Is it disputed between Serbia and Kosovo, between Serbia and UNMIK?. Which parties are engaged in this dispute?. You do want to make this article better so please give me an answer if you have one. If not please do cooperate so we make the article better. Claiming that I am implying something, while all I did was to raise a question, does not make this article better. Jawohl (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

you are asking, "between which parties is Kosovo disputed?" and I am telling you to read the bleeding article, or if that is too much to ask, go and try WP:RD. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am asking you which are the countries involved in this dispute? And please bare with me, there are so many parties mentioned that have governed or are governing but that does not say anything about dispute. The word dispute is mentioned three times in this article. At the very beginning, where it fails to mention the countries/parties involved. At the section about the IDP where it states that the number of IDP is disputed and at the and as a link for the disputed territories article on Wiki. Which mentions a dispute between Kosovo, Macedonia and Serbia on a small piece of land but not the whole country. Let us assume that I am a student doing a research on Kosovo, among different sources that I use Wiki is one of them. And here I find a fact which says that this territory is disputed. Fine, but I want to know who is disputing the territory. Surely, editors who wrote this article knew but forgot to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawohl (talk • contribs) 13:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaw it's insulting that you won't read the article. And Dab, I'm starting to see that you might have been right all along. I still stand by the merge though. Beam 13:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, an assembly under UNMIK, declared the territory's independence as the Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës, Serbian: Република Косово). Its independence is partially recognized but is strongly opposed by the Republic of Serbia which continues to claim it as its Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Now if it is not obvious from this who are the parties in the dispute, I don' what else to do. --Tone 13:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tone for the input. Beam you do not need to feel insulted by someone who tries to improve the article. The only disputed issue here, as Tone points out, is Kosovo's UDI, it's government and it's recognition by some countries and the interpretation of the international law based on which that recognition was or not granted. Again, claiming that Kosovo is a disputed territory between RoK/PISG/UNMIK on one side and SERBIA on the other side is simply misleading and might imply that Serbia has recognized Kosovo, which has not and I don't want to discuss here. Disputed territories exist between countries which recognize each other. Check out the wiki article or google about it for all I care. This dispute over the dispute is going on to long I will invite some fresh thinkers :). Jawohl (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If by fresh thinkers you mean more Albanian Nationalists or Serb Pov Pushers, please don't. Beam 14:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You really make me laugh. Honestly. It is unhealthy to have such a distrust and prejudice for people you do not know. Not once you cared to say, these are the countries and this is the reason. If you agree with Tono's explanation then I suggest to add the text that "the territory is disputed between UNIMIK/PISG/RoK and Serbia". Agreed?, if not give me a reason or other suggestions but do not patronize my or call me a troll. What do others think or suggest? Jawohl (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really wondering who wrote this blunt type, "an assembly under UNMIK, declared the territory's independence.."? So it was an UNMIK assembly? Only the territory was declared independent, and not the people? It does not matter, it's a great feat by admins here to push POV through so called NPOV. This article makes no sense, and I agree with Jawohl. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to make it better, but beam has an issue that his hard work will disappear by the albanian nationalists and the serb POV pushers, while he does not understand that this article is still nowhere to be called good. If beam thinks that he has achieved a good result by minimizing to parties which are important in the article, he has just created/fabricated an illusion of an NPOV. Nothing else. This article needs a lot of rewriting. And Beam, calling albanians nationalist and serbs POV pushers does imply that you tend towards serbs, since nationalism has a bad connotation. Maybe you are not as fit for the job as you think. Jawohl (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As Tone mentioned, the countries/parties that dispute it are Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo itself (or, if you prefer, the Serbian state and the local Albanian population in the process of being organized as a Kosovan state with the help of UNMIK): both claim sovereignty over that territory. The current introduction explains it by mentioning that "the [PISG] declared the territory's independence as the Republic of Kosovo[, an act] strongly opposed by the Republic of Serbia which continues to claim it as its Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija."

Yes, the introducion could be improved. Please, do propose an alternative text, so that we can all consider it. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This complaint is based on a (intentionally?) faulty premise. "Disputed territory" simply means there are disputes about the status of the territory, and that is obviously the case here. Superm401 - Talk 04:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well disputing the status is completely something different then disputing a territory, now isn't it?. That has been my claim all along. There is something else being disputed in the article however, namely the territory, but the gentleman fail to mention who is disputing this territory, that is if they want to keep the article their "NPOV" way. Which ever the case might be, I want verifiable sources to back those claims up. Jawohl (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the following Wikipedia definition and article on the border disputes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_dispute. In addition, take a look at the generally agreed list of territorial dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes. Given these definitions, it would be illogical, if not factually wrong, not to consider a full-scale article on the Republic of Kosovo, rather than spending vain time on a pseudo-disputed territory, which you subjectively define breaking the rules of Wikipedia neutral viewpoints! --_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 06:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input arber. I am afraid it will not help cause this guys are stuck in a loop. They fabricate reality an facts. Let us assume that it is a disputed territory. Who is disputing it. Tell us and write it down. ????

Now guys, consider the laws of logic, for one. Kosovo has declared independence from Serbia. Unlike Northern Cyprus or Taiwan, it has been recognized by 37 countries of this world we unfortunately live in, and according to Ms. Di Carlo, the US Assistant Secretary of State, it will be recognized by many more countries. Given this fact, it should be logical to have an article on the Republic of Kosovo, rather than a little insignificant section inside this false article we're gobbling about. Now, it may hurt some POV pushers, but the reality is what it is... Therefore, I would like to restart a petition with the intention of separating this illogical merger and creating a stand-alone, complete, factually correct article on the Republic of Kosovo.--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 11:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Fully Agree. This is anyway a compilation of existing articles on Kosovo, wether it is history, geography or other issues aside from the current developments which users need. An article on RoK is a necessity. Jawohl (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Intro

Here is the draft proposal: Jawohl (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo or Republic of Kosovo, has a disputed sovereignty over the territory of Kosovo with the Republic of Serbia. The territory is situated in the Ballkan Peninsula and has historically been part of the Roman empire, Byzantine empire, medieval Serbia, the Ottoman empire, the Kingdom of Serbia, Yugoslavia, and the Republic of Serbia. Following the Kosovo War in 1999 the territory came under the ad interim control of the United Nations based on the resolution 1244. In February 2008, the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, an assembly established by UNMIK, declared the independence from Serbia as the Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës, Serbian: Република Косово). Its independence is partially recognized and is strongly opposed by the Republic of Serbia which continues to claim it as its Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova), short for Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës) is situated in the central part of the Balkan. In the Southwest, it is bordered by Albania, in the West by Montenegro, in the North by Serbia and in the East and Southeast by Macedonia. The territory extends within longitudes 41° 50’ 58’’ and 43° 15’ 42’’ and within latitudes 20° 01’ 30’’ and 21° 48’ 02’’ Kosovo covers a surface area of approx. 10,908 km² and is characterised by an average altitude of 800 m above sea level, but showing vertical changes of relief and morphology. These morphological changes are a consequence of the geological setting. The lowest point of Kosovo is located at an elevation of 297 m (Drini i Bardhë/Beli Drim, at the border to Albania). The country rises up to the highest point in the South of Kosovo – Djeravicë/Gjeravica at 2,565 m.

Politically, Kosovo is de-facto sovereign under the rule of Republic of Kosova Government which is in dispute with Republic of Serbia who claims Kosovo as part of its' territory. The Kosovar Government proclaimed independence in 17 February 2008 under an extraordinary session. Currently Kosovo is governed by the Republic of Kosovo under the supervision of UNMIK and later possibly by EULEX. Kosovo's sovereignty on the territory is recognized partially, and is highly criticized by Serbia's allies such as Russia and China but accepted by Kosovo's allies such as America and EU.

Everyone tell me what you think, I based my intro (modeled) like Italy. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You both are doing a great job, Kosova2k8 and Jawohl, I want to express my satisfaction about your work. Thank you! :-) --Tubesship (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

why do you even keep trying, Kosova2008. Unlike Italy, the Kosovo is a disputed territory, and there is no way we can merely state "Kosovo, short for Republic of Kosovo". Just, you know, forget it. It won't happen just because you keep repeating yourself. dab (𒁳) 21:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you like anything in the intro or are you just going to complain? Besides the political stuff is there anything else? This is a proposed section so I'm not sure why you are jumping the gun. We can work on this and find a solution. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosova2008, I find this intro extremely POV. Right for starters, the definition of "Kosovo" is not "short for Republic of Kosovo". I wonder how could you come up with such thing. Húsönd 13:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can disagree with the first part since it is as neutral that it will ever get. The politcal part or the second part is disputed. But, Kosovo, is not a "disputed region/territory". Kosovo or Republic of Kosova is a supervised-independent nation currently under UNMIK and soon (June 15) by EULEX. Kosova2008 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Kosovo" is the name of the region, hence the name of the country (not the other way around). Wikipedia articles start by the definition of their respective subjects, therefore this one could never start with "Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova), short for Republic of Kosovo", because that's blatant misleading of the primordial definition of "Kosovo". Húsönd 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is the name of the region..just where did you get that information? A region is a, "a large indefinite area or range of something specified" --- calling the 'region' Kosovo is POV because it the name given by Serbs wherease Kosovars have called that area/region Dardania or present day Kosova. Kosova or your "kosovo" is not a region because it has a definitive area (which I specified in my intro) and is under the sovereignty of Republic of Kosova. Her Prime Minister is Hashim Thaçi, you can contact him here [1]. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo2008, nice try. I could go around the name of the region forever, but I'll just point to the fact that Serbs call Kosovo the region that Albanians, according to you, call Dardania. And the rest of the world I may add, also calls that region "Kosovo". If that's news for you, well, what can I add. So, if the entire world calls that region "Kosovo" and not "Dardania", it seems to be that it would be rather blatant Albanian POV to deny that Kosovo is a region, instead just short for "Republic of Kosovo". Implausible to say the least. Húsönd 20:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Dab, just so you know, you are not being very helpful here either. Is the territory (Geopolitical region) of Kosovo then in dispute with the government of Serbia according to you. Tell us? My question is simple. Stating one is wrong is simple, I want an answer to the subject above. No: you are wrong, forget about it, NPOV and other stuff it not enough, just formulate the sentence on who is disputing what. Jawohl (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, Albanian POV pushers and Serb Nationalists. Sound better to you? Seriously. I don't care if I get banned forever, I will not let this article be ruined. What is wrong with having a section about RoK and having a section about Serb Province? Answer me! Beam 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you have an urge to insult, if it is not albanians then it is the serbs, and you expect us to work with you? On top of that you do not care if you get banned. Why stay here in the first place, to insult?. No one has an intention of ruining this article. We just want to make it better. You want to divert from my question by asking me why not a section about RoK and about the Serb Province? Before I give you an answer to that I deserve an answer to my question. And you as the writer of the article should know who is disputing the territory, so tell me? Jawohl (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC) soveregnity No urge to insult, I do urge for reality though. And we already have the sections on Serb Province and RoK. So that's fine already. Why don't you MOVE ON. You can't help an article when you've only read the first few sentences buddy. Beam 12:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that there are plenty of articles on everything that you are trying to write about, in this article. They are extensive and include, geopolitics, history and everything else through the different periods. The last article being the one on UNMIK, then SAP (socialist autonomous province), Kosmet, SKS Kingdom, all the way to the roman period. But there is no article which deals with RoK and which is a reality, a complex one albeit. If you are trying to create an article on the region of Kosovo it is already here on Wiki, so you will be simply copy pasting or rewriting existing material. You ask me "What is wrong with having a section about RoK and having a section about Serb Province? ". My answer is, there are already articles on the province of Serbia, i.e SAP and Kosmet but there is no article on RoK. And you can not neglect that fact. You can also not deprive people from having informations about this complex issue. You want to have a short section on a country which is soon to have a constitution, passports, military, several ministries, is governed by three governments with a fourth one joining soon? How do you plan to have a short section on all this things tell me. Blocking an article on RoK won't happen because RoK is there, if you want to block something then block yourself, because so far you have not proven capable of working in a team. All you say is no, troll, leave etc. Answer to my question: Who is disputing the territory and let us move on. Give us a different intro and let us move on. All you can do is protect your little article which is comprised with snippets of existing articles. You claim to have succeeded to create an NPOV article by minimizing RoK and the Serb province. Again, there is an article on serb province Kosovo but non on RoK. If you want to have a long lasting article deal with reality: Kosovo's (RoK) sovereignty is disputed. This country is being administered by UNMIK, RoK and RoS. But now, this would require from you to actually work and come up with proposals, why not instead just write an article on the geopolitical region of Kosovo where we could have a little bit of everything and nothing. RoK is the only article missing on Wikipedia if we discuss the geopolitical status of Kosovo through History. Jawohl (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to have an article on Kosovo, with short sections about everything, please rename it onto Kosovo for Begginers or Kosovo for Dummies, then I will MOVE ON with the albanian and serbian nationalist to create an article on RoK. I do not exclude people nor knowledge. Buddy. Jawohl (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon Jaw, be reasonable please. Beam 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, is that all you have as an answer. I will repeat. 1. Who is disputing the territory? 2. It was suggested to have a better intro. What is your proposal ? Jawohl (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the Article for your #1 and read the Talk Page for your #2. See? I'm very helpful. Again, I stress, be reasonable Jaw. Beam 10:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the article and it is full of fabrications and mistakes.

• 1. The article states that EU is undecided, while EU actually decided to send a mission and left the recognition to the individual member states. EU does not have a common foreign police en Bloc, just like OIC or UN.
• 2. Under Administrative Regions it says: Kosovo, for administrative reasons, is considered as consisting of seven districts. North Kosovo maintains its own government, infrastructure and institutions by its dominant ethnic Serb population in the District of Kosovska Mitrovica, viz. in the Leposavić, Zvečan and Zubin Potok municipalities and the northern part of Kosovska Mitrovica.
  • is considered. What is this considered. It either has or has not. Which actually is a serbian POV. On top of that the disputed Region of Kosovo seems to have a smaller region in the north called North Kosovo, which maintains its own government. Sources please. Pronto.
• 3. Last time i checked a normal book, Islam did not equal ethnicity and also not culture but RELIGION, still that sections starts with islam. That should be changed.

 Ethnic and cultural diversity
 Islam (mostly Sunni, with a Bektashi minority) is the predominant religion, professed by most of the majority ethnic Albanian population, the Bosniak, Gorani, and Turkish communities, and some of the 
 Roma/Ashkali/Egyptian community. The Serb population, estimated at 100,000 to 120,000 persons, is largely Serbian Orthodox. Approximately 3 percent of ethnic Albanians are Roman Catholic.[64][65][66]

Now stop claiming that I have not read the article, be cooperative by suggesting factual things to make the article better and not by trying to make me look bad. You are accusing me of not reading the article and therefore not being capable of suggestions. Give it a rest and work with me. Who is disputing the territory? Jawohl (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah... circular logic. Jawohl deflects anything that might stick by sticking his fingers in his eyes and shouting lalala till he can't read it anymore. Then he reopens the question, forcing everyone to start over. THEN he says, but there's no dispute, because the self-declaring government isn't recognized by the other side, thus there's no dispute if there aren't two sides acknowledging it. Then someoen points out all the other groups working on resolving the dispute between the RoK UNMIK (alphabet soup groups) and the Serbian Government, and he says, but there's no 'region' to dispute, which gets deflected, so he says, well, IF there's a dispute, who's on First? (Third Base!) and we're back where we began. This trolling with false logic is getting tiresome to read. The region's sovereignty is under dispute. It's a simple fact, one which has been answered repeatedly in this section, dozens more times on this page, and by now, an order of magnitude more in the archives of this talk page. As such, I propose that Jawohl be ignored until he can discuss without blatant trolling. ThuranX (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What is disputed, is the existence, legality and sovereignty of the Republic of Kosovo. And not the region. The region could be disputed if the RoK was a territory just like Kashmir. My fingers are on my keyboard. Jawohl (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed dabs splitsection template

@ Dab, who said, there should be a split? Maybe you misunderstood me again, like so many times before? Or you misunderstood user Jawohl? Or you misunderstood Beam? Or... --Tubesship (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)BTW: Please discuss here before reinserting the split template. Thanks.

just see the discussion above. I don't have to play "broken record" just because you'd like me to. WP:AGF doesn't work like that. dab (𒁳) 21:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

@Dab, I guess you also assume good faith about my involvment, Jawohls involment, Kosova2k8s involvment and so on. And because I did AGF, it does not mean I do not read the comments on this discussion site but believe you blindly. No, there is no consense about splitting. You do not have to believe me neither, just read the comments on this site like I did. This has nothing to do with WP:AGF. --Tubesship (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tub, Jawhol, and Kosova - Are you ok with the respective sections we have on RoK and Serb Province? Yes/No? Beam 23:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Some call me Kosova and some Kosova2ks, both take longer than actually writing my name. just call me ARi. Now Beam what would be different about these 2 article that you want? What does the "Serbian Province" have that the Rep of Kosova? The search Kosova would take me to which article? You need to clarify. Also you took my comment as POV that I said "I will something something turn Kosova into a province" I meant I won't allow POV to turn Kosova into "Kosova is a cradle of Serbia" sorry I wont allow that. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking here about the region of Macedonia which is in Greece and in the republic of Macedonia, that is why there are three separate articles on each subject. Nor are we talking about the historical Palestine and the Palestinian Authority because the article on Palestine is clearly only on the history of what was known as the historical Palestine. The historical Kosovo does not exist as long as this article claims. And claiming that you want to have an article on the Gjeopolitical Region of Kosovo (which happens to have the same data, borders, issues ) is a waste of time. The historical region of Kosovo has already few articles like the one on the vilayet of Kosovo so I really do not understand what will be the purpose of this article if Kosovo starts to be mentioned only later in the history and those subject are pretty much covered. I am NOT ok to have a section on RoK within this article but rather the other way around. A section on the geopolitical region. And I have explained it more than once why. If an article on RoK comes up elsewhere then this article will be very small, unless you manage to make one like that on Palestine. But so far this one is a mix of everything.. Either way it is RoK as the main article. Jawohl (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make my point more clear. I would love to see an article on Kosovo like the one on Palestine, but that would be named the History of Kosovo or the Region of Kosovo trough history. The article, now, has a little bit of everything and amounts to nothing, on top of that you ignore facts. Every meeting that Bush and Putin have they mention Kosovo, one says RoK the other one Autonomous Province in Serbia, and what do you do? you invent a solution, a region. But the issues are still there and need to be addressed. But you refuse. Jawohl (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Then go make those articles. What are you doing here if that's what you want? Go make one! This article is about ALL OF Kosovo. Thanks. Beam 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? Jawohl (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

this isthe "article on Kosovo like the one on Palestine". Just as the Palestine one is entitled "Palestine", this one is entitled "Kosovo". I agree that Republic of Kosovo doesn't need to be split off for now: the section is very short and it is no problem keeping it here in context. The Republic of Kosovo would just be a WP:SS article rehashing content already discussed elsewhere anyway. So as long as nobody insists on the split, I am perfectly satisfied with the current solution. --dab (𒁳) 08:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy with the current article. And no, I do not need to request a split since that would imply that I am basing my article on your article but you my friend are writing about something completely different, that is the region of Kosovo. Therefore no split is needed, RoK is a different article and you can continue with your experiment here, let us see how far you will get. Basing an article on Abchazia model. POV pusher. Jawohl (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

your problem is that you are biased. That's fine, but as long as you fail to recognize the fact, you'll have no joy on Wikipedia. In your place, I would seriously consider finding another forum for airing my views. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am biased and you are withholding and denying users a very simply information. Who disputes the territory?. Last time I checked, people who denied information and knowledge to others, would burn books. Are you also one of those types? Jawohl (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

wow. So I'm the one withholding from everyone the intelligence as to who is even involved in this international headlines territorial dispute. I'm expecting the KFOR to kick down my door any day now to extort this crucial bit of information from me. dab (𒁳) 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Useless. You keep repeating the territorial dispute, while it is a dispute on sovereignty of RoK respectively Serbia regarding Kosovo territory. Just stop posting untill you realize that there is no territorial dispute. Jawohl (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaw...please read the following sentence and let me know if you have further questions. Kosovo is a territory, this territory is disputed resulting in Kosovo being a disputed territory. Thanks! Beam 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, please! I understand the Kosovo is a disputed theory territory, according to the sentence. What I want to read from you, and in the article, is who is disputing it? RoK, Serbia, UNMIK, Albania. Is it so difficult to write it down. And please, don't tell me to read the article again. Jawohl (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Section on RoK (non-)recognition

Please avoid turning this into a full duplicate of the information at International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. "Foreign relations" is supposed to discuss actual Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo (embassies, diplomatic missions, etc.), not to rehash the recognition issue already discussed to death elsewhere. See also WP:SS. dab (𒁳) 10:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's deleted / changed. How come this article isn't locked? That way we could discuss things before changes are added through consensuses. Kosova2008 (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

well lock it, cause we are not moving anywhere anytime soon. Jawohl (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on the foreign relations of Kosovo already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo Jawohl (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

good - I have linked it with {{main}}. dab (𒁳) 08:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that you linked it, tell me how can a region have foreign relations on embassy levels? Mister contradiction. Or are you implying that Kosovo is a unique case therefore it needs a unique, full of contradictions, non factual, fictional and funny article. Jawohl (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

you will kindly note that the article is linked from the "Republic of Kosovo" section, which is a level 3 section of this article. More precisely, "Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo" is a h4 section, in turn a subsection of "Republic of Kosovo". Any questions? dab (𒁳) 16:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Priština/Pristina

We should spell Pristina the same way the Republic of Kosovo's Constitution does as that makes sense. Kosovo's Constitution spells it as "Pristina". Please read Chapter 1 Article 13 Kosovo's Constitution Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a final copy of the constitution Kosovo's Constitution FINAL COPY. This too spells the city as Pristina. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

At least, we should be consistent on one use within the article. The main criteria to decide which to use is the prevailing use in English language, not what form is used in the constitution. But you should discuss this at the article's talkpage. I see the request for move has been declined a month or two ago, in order to wait and then decide what to do with all Kosovo placenames. I suggest we wait for some more time (half a year?) since this very question is not something where we should rush. --Tone 19:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an English copy of the constitution, therefore translated into English meaning the correct spelling of the city is Pristina.

The constitution has been approved by the EU and according to news it will be adopted tomorrow in Kosovo parliament. It's a done deal. There will be no further changes. Therefore you can not disagree with the spelling. Now we must update the articles accordingly Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Cradel 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong disagree - NOPE, it's Prishtina. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop it. Prishtina is the Albanian spelling and until it is prevailing in English we use either Priština or Pristina. By the way, English copy of the constitution, therefore translated into English meaning the correct spelling of the city is Pristina is an improper logical conclusion (though I won't have any hard feelings if we use Pristina). --Tone 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Face it Kosova2008 , the constitution says it --Cradel 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

@Kosova2008: Your Government has said it is called "Pristina". There is nothing you can do about it, its final. Go complain to your government if you have a problem with the English naming over the capital city, however im sure they have for more important things to do Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pristina Common English. Húsönd 20:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1. My government hasn't done anything. Until that draft is passed with a 2/3 vote it will become valid in June --- until that time it is a draft.

2. Tone, Prishtinë (Al) and Priština (Sr)

3. LJANDERSON, I will not allow you to change Prishtina --> Pristina on the count that Pristina is the easier spelling of the Serbian pristina; the special s; it's POVish in my opinion.

4. Husond, Kosova (Al) Kosovo (Sr), it became "common" because it is easier to spell. Common doesn't mean correct. If you are basing facts on such a manner than all USA articles need to read AMERICAN.

Let's not be hot headed and change anything until this constitution is passed. Even so, does the constitution say that it is the supreme law of Kosova? Doesn't matter, let's wait first. LJANDERSON, copy and pasting the same thing in multiple articles is TROLLING Kosova2008 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ijanderson actually. And what you are doing is a personnel attack on my language, which is a part of my culture. Therefore i find what you are doing is extremely offensive. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize I honestly thought your name was LJ not Ij, from now on I will call you as your name is Ijanderson977. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also you are hypocritical as you claim it POV to spell it Pristina (even though this is english), well it is POV to spell it Prishtina too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me all of you ask a question: Did you ever heard an native Albanian speaker saying the name of the city? It sounds like "sh", this is not only how Albanians but also Serbs pronounciate it. Therefore let us write "sh" because an "s" could be mispronounced. --Tubesship (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen, if the constitution declares it as "Pristina" then that is the way it is, nothing we can do about it. Believe me I would really want to see "prishtina" much more but that isn't up to me or you , it is up to the heads of the Republic. if the parliament approves that constitution (unless it changes it) the name will be Pristina. You may not like it but that is the way it is --Cradel 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an English Wiki. Pristina is correct. Beam 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On English wikipedia it is irrelevant how native Albanians and Serbians pronounce the cities name. It is important however how the majority of native English speakers pronounce it and that is without the "H" therefore is "Pristina". Use the Albanian version on Albanian wikipedia and the Serbian version on Serbian wikipedia and the English version on English wikipedia this seems logical to me. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But that is not true, listen here to a native english anchor woman of CNN: http://youtube.com/watch?v=K7P5i5pFaeI You hear her pronunciating it with "sh" 14 seconds after the video starts. --Tubesship (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

CNN is a private news company. So what is your point? It has no official status. I could find a news broad casting with a news reader saying "Pristina". At the end of the day "Pristina" is the official English name of the city and should be spelled like that too on english wikipedia. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So tell me which proof you need that english speakers do pronunciate it with "sh". You do not accept CNN, so tell me which source I should provide and I will do. How about MSNBC? Or CBS? Or FOX-News? Or make another suggestion, please. They all say Prishtina and not Pristina. --Tubesship (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tubesship, this is not a matter of how the word is pronounced. I also watch some of those channels regularly and some reporters say "sh" while others say "s". But as you can see here, even when they pronounce "sh", they still write "s". Húsönd 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Huso is correct. Can we move on? Does it really hurt an Albanian that much to have it spelled Pristina? Beam 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait to see what the published map companies, encyclopedias, and atlases do in 2009. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ijanderson977, please stop crossposting this discussion across half a dozen talkpages. Central discussion of this question takes place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles) please. dab (𒁳) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be an argument here. It's Pristina. It doesn't matter if everyone in the world except for English speakers called Cookiepottamus. It would still be Pristina. Beam 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Kosova Serbian? NO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is disgusting and needs to be deleted ASAP. The Map of Kosova is a Serbian map which shows Kosova as part of Serbia; every city name is in Serbian, as if Albanian culture and people have never existed or visited that part of the world. Secondly all the names are in Serbian, and all official names, borders, and everything else is based from Serbian; complete and utter POV. Furthermore if the article is about the region it should have its' name not in Serbian.

Name of Region: Dardania Albanian: Kosova Serbian: Kosova (short for Kosovo Polje) WP name: Kosovo

Last time I checked Kosova only has 4% serbian minority, how are Serbian names and ideas allowed to be official is beyond me and astounding.

To quote

internationally, localities in Kosovo are most often known by Serbian names, often spelled without diacritics in English-language publications (e.g. Pristina rather than (S) Priština). The prevalence of Serbian names in non-Serbian sources is due to mapping usually being based on Serbian sources, which used the Serbian or Serbo-Croat forms of Kosovo placenames

This is how WP doesn't present the facts but only reports propaganda. You are not presenting facts like an encyclopedia would but only re-reporting. Arber, a WP user made this argument:

We should be careful not to commit the famous logical fallacy - argumentum ad populum. That is, the fact tha 98% of the world believes in some supernatural form (i.e. God) does not mean that God exists. The same way, the fact that Google returns four times as many hits for "Kosovo" as it would for "Kosova" does not mean that Wikipedia should accept the former in favor of the latter. It should, in fact, accept the correct name, the official name, which is (according the the Kosovan government) - Kosova.

WP in no way should it base its' "facts" on populist ideas. A popular idea is that a person from Kosova is a Kosovar, he or she is a Kosovan. Kosovar is the Albanian term for a person from Kosova.

I hope I have made my point, in return I wish not to have others think that I am ranting like a mad man. I'm adding a smiley face, my way of saying I'm being civil and calm. :) Ari, thank you. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

um, until last February, Kosovo was undisputedly part of Serbia? How is it surprising that the article shows traces of Serbian influence? The current situation, as you may have heard, is that it is disputed whether Kosovo is still part of Serbia. Wikipedia obviously takes no position on that, but again, it is not surprising that when reporting on both positions, "Serbia" should be mentioned a few times? I frankly don't see your point. If you want to discuss the preferred spelling of toponyms, please go to Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles).dab (𒁳) 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I nominate this section for prompt deletion. We don't need more nationalist drivel. Beam 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not deletion, just add in a Albanian/ Kosovar version of the map of Kosovo too. This should neutralise the article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are already sections in this talk page about that issue, if not, start one. We don't need this type of crap on the talk page. It only incites more crap, which leads to unhappiness and eventually suicide. Beam 21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@beam

Kosova does have "traces of Serbian" culture, that is not disputed. Also the word you are trying to spell is "indisputably" not "undisputedly". If Kosova is disputed than why is only the Serbian side being presented?

Disputed: to engage in argument or debate.

In WP only the Serbian side is being presented thus in WP Kosova = Serbia. This is POV. The article should be called Kosova/Kosovo. All redirects should lead to Kosova / Kosovo. All city names should be named as officially (Albanian/Serbian). Kosova2008 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're wrong. To say WP Kosovo = Serbia is pretty ridiculous. Beam 21:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be resistant to facts. A disputed region should present BOTH sides not just Serbian. If Kosova is disputed between Rep of Kosova and Rep of Serbia than WP should present all facts from both sides starting with the name. This article practically empowers Serbian Propaganda which claims that Kosova is the cradle of Serbian civilization by explicitly presenting only Serbian stance. I smell DELETION. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I smell BIAS. This is an English Wiki. The name of the territory is Kosovo. Kosovo the Serbian Province, or Republic of Kosovo. Just to let you know I'm not Serbian. I'm netural, and with this being true and with me having a hand in creating this article, I assure you that WP Kosovo does not equal Serbia. Again, the only thing that should be deleted is this section of talk you have created. It is a tired argument with no to zero helpfulness present regarding the article or the improvement of said article in an NPOV way. Can you just remove this section yourself? That would be pretty cool of you. Beam 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How is the name of the territory Kosovo? Based on what fact? It is DISPUTED remember? WP doesn't take sides on disputes, remember? I agree with you, we need to delete this article. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosova2008, our naming conventions WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:ENGLISH are clear about this: we go by whatever is most common and intuitive in the English language. In the English language, the territory is commonly known as Kosovo, not as Kosova. Unless you can prove that Kosova is now more common than Kosovo, we go by Kosovo. Albanian language rules do not apply to us, and the "officiality" of a country name is irrelevant. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Aecis. Can you delete this section now k2k8? Beam 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be deleted? Why can't it simply be closed? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I am talking about this section of talk. It's a repeat of what he and others of his ilk have said again and again and again. There are ample talk section topics in which specific complaints are already present. If there isn't a section on an specific issue he does have that isn't pure bias, than I encourage him to start one. This section (Is Kosovo Serbian?) is needless though. Beam 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In english it more common to say America than USA. It is more common to search Italia than italy. This sounds like a double standard. I read in MOSKOS saying that the rule should be Al/Sr.

Beam, I deleted all of this but someone reverted my move. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually in English the most common name is United States, which is the title we use for the article about the country. In the English language, the country is commonly known as Italy, which is what we use there. Italia is a disambiguation page for the various uses of Italia. What part of our Manual of Style states that the rule should be Albanian/Serbian (assuming that this is what you mean with Al/Sr.)? I reverted your blanking, because it removed the entire discussion. If there are no objections, I will close this thread soon. In due time, it will be moved to the archives, where it will remain visible for future reference. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

America is use predominantly rather than USA. I am an American not a United Statian or United Stater. I will use Google as a reference tool. They have a neat program called Google Trends which shows what is commonly searched by region, language, and day (month & year).

Results of America vs USA (search only from America): Here Uptade: note to the right of this link by language (English) America is used more than USA

Results of Italia vs Italy (Whole World): [2]

Kosova2008 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In how many hits was "America" part of the term "United States of America"? And in how many hits did it refer to the continent instead of the country? And did you notice the division of Italia vs Italy by language? It shows that Italy (blue) is used far more than Italia (red) in the English language. Your point was? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, your being American instead of United Statian is the same as my being Dutch instead of Netherlandsian. The demonym doesn't say anything about the country name. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't look at all, the link is here again CLICK ME the RED is used way more than the BLUE. In Italy, in the Italian language, and world wide. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it, but did you? Did you see the three lists to the bottom? The first says Regions, the second says Cities and the third says Languages. Then take a look at the third list. The first language you see is Italian, where Italia is obviously used much more than Italy. The second language is English, which we are talking about, since this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Italian language Wikipedia. It shows that the term Italy is used about six times (rough guess) as much as Italia. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

no, Kosova2008, I was not "trying to spell" indisputably. I was spelling undisputedly, an English word with a meaning distinct from what you suggest I was "trying" to express, thank you. dab (𒁳) 11:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

EU on Kosovo

here is the url to the website of ICO which Peter Feith heads. He is the EU special representative of the International Civilian Office. http://www.ico-kos.org/english/index.html And here you have the chart of the future EU presence in Kosovo. http://www.eupt-kosovo.eu/new/home/docs/EUINKOSOVO.pdf

Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-declared?

To begin with, I'm neither Albanian nor Serb and don't have any particular stake in these arguments. One thing that's always bothered me in this article, however, is the wording "self-declared." My question to the editors here is, why is this description even necessary? I mean, what else would Kosovo be? By definition, every territory that considers itself independent is "self-declared" - it's not as if independence is imposed upon territories to any significant degree. I can't help but feel that these two-words were put in there to make the independence seem even more illegitimate (oh no! they were ::gasp:: "self-declared") rather than to contribute to a reader's understanding of the text. - Toolazytosignin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.185.220 (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-Declared?

I believe, in 1776, the United States Declared its Independence. Wasn't it self-declared?

the adjective is inappropriate to the very subject....It is a rather strong bias, solely attempting to use words that would rather illegitimize the statehood of republic of kosovo.

I am neither ALbanian nor a Serb. The adjective self-declared is misfit. Must change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the term "self-declared" indicates an Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), made without the consent of the parent state and whose validity is questioned by some relevant parties. As mentioned above, this was also the case of the US in 1776.

The same term, or an equivalent, is often used in reference to Kosovo:

• Britannica: "Kosovo [is a] self-declared independent country in the Balkans region of Europe."
• The BBC's profile of Kosovo: "Kosovo [...] unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in February 2008. Status: Declared itself independent 17 February 2008."
• Google News search.

Regards, Ev (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is simple to account for. I could declare Kosovo to be independent of Serbia. Which is different from Kosovo itself declaring independence. Beam (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's silly that the article reads "self-declared". Kosova declared independence, as in the whole entire country of Kosova. The politician's such as Hashim Thaçi who read out the DOI had a mandate by the people of Kosova therefore you can't say it is "self-declared". Here is some info about DOI,

"Declarations of Independence are typically made without the consent of the parent state, and hence are sometimes called unilateral declarations of independence (UDI), particularly by those who question the declarations' validity." "SELF-DECLARED" sounds rhetorical, I am guessing the POV editors are trying to push a "self proclaimed" agenda. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am no POV editor, thank you very much. How is "unilaterally declared" to you? Sound good? Beam (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's me again (guy who started this topic here). Unilateral makes a lot more sense, because that just implies (correctly) that they did this without the support/recognition of Serbia. - Toolazytosignin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.185.220 (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Beam, I don't like "unilaterally declared" because that implies it was one sided. It should read DOI because it was a unanimous vote 109:0. Did the United States of America declare independence or issue a unilateral declaration of independence? One look at [United States Declaration of Independence] talks about a DOI not a UDI. I'm sure you question that validity of the DOI so you are trying to label it a "unilateral independence", that's your POV. Kosova2008 (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

of course the US "self-declared" independence back in 1776. The US are also recognized by the international community. While the American Revolutionary War was ongoing, we would naturally have considered the USA "self-declared" or "unilaterally declared" in the interest of NPOV. That's some time ago. The RoK at present has only partial recognition. Thus, its independence is "unilaterally declared", and not recognized by the entity it declared independence from. This may be different in another 30 years. If so, please come back in 30 years. Also, I find it practically pointless to debate with accounts named "Kosova2008" or similar. This screams "WP:COI pov warrior single purpose account". We have no use for such editors, sorry. dab (𒁳) 07:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, Kosovo self-declared independence. On the other hand, Montenegro's declaration of independence in 2006 wasn't "self-" for an example. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

SO are we good on "unilaterally declared"? And Kosova2008, I honestly don't care about Kosovo, I'm intrigued by this article. I believe that a bunch of strangers from varying backgrounds and countries can make a NEUTRAL article about a very POV subject. That would be something! Oh, and the Continental Congress of the United States definitely "self-declared" independence. Britain sure as hell didn't declare it for the US.Beam (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to understand, how it is easy to understand everithing here: Propaganda for the primitiv people or children under 12-years.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hipi, what do you really want? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To make a Serbian and Kosovo related article relevant to the Englishh people.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all true that all independence is self-declared. The Montenegro example is valid, and there are many more, such as how the Europeans divided Africa into arbitrary blocks, then eventually granted independence to the blocks (even though in many cases, the natives actually wanted a whole separate division, or none at all). Superm401 - Talk 05:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to participate in the wider argument over Kosovo, but it is my understanding that the only country to have declared independence without having declared it for itself, was Singapore, when it was expelled from Malaysia. That is all I have to say on the matter. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Italian WP as a compromise

Let us make only one info box that contains both sides in the sake of npov and readability: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo --Solidjohn (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

interesting solution. But the RoK flag and coat of arms would need to be moved down to the "status de facto" section of course.

Hmm, I don't think it's a good idea. Just one glimpse and I saw controversy all over the infobox at it-wp. First, the flag and coat of arms right at the top will prompt accusations of Albanian POV. The map on the other hand, showing Kosovo clearly associated with Serbia, will prompt accusations of Serbian POV. Then as a final killer, I saw inaccuracies, such as stating that Kosovo is de facto independent but de jure Serbian. Well, Kosovo is indeed de facto independent, but when it comes to de jure, it is not just de jure Serbian, it is also considered de jure independent by all the countries that have recognized its independence. Húsönd 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just have two infoboxes? I know people like k2k8 and tube and jaw and such demand that RoK be represented first.... that doesn't bother me. One has to be first. I wish we could do side by side though. Really, Province or RoK first, doesn't matter to me. If they can't be side by side than one has to be first, it's as simple as that. Beam 19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a fine solution. I would also support putting RoK first, not for ideological reasons, but because it is closer to the de facto truth. - Revolving Bugbear 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

can we PLEASE avoid using "truth" as a reason for any of this? Really. Let's find better reasons. The New government should be first as it seems more likely that they will, eventually, be 'THE' government, and in the interest of forward-thinking editing, should be presented first. ThuranX (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, it should be presented first but administator dab is avoiding this by abusing his admin status, threatening others to block and ban them. --Tubesship (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok Bugbear, stop twisting my words. The TRUTH is that one of them has to go first. While there are claims that the RoK is de facto truth, that's not the truth, is it? No, it's not. And here's an excerpt from "truth": Normally, unreasonable people can be placated by making up some unreasonable arguments, and to make sure that you don't just have a boring old fact, this should be tried. The Truth, however, will be vehemently opposed by nearly everyone, making large amounts of opposition from many people clear evidence of being The Truth. Here's another truth for you. It has been a Province for many years, and the current claim for RoK has only been for months. So out of seniority the truth is that the Serbian Province infobox should go first because the RoK is just an attempt to dissolve such a province, but it hasn't happened yet. That's a truth, to be truthfully truthful with you. Beam 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have considerable doubts about the legitimacy of the Serbian occupation of Kosova in 1912 and therefore I plea emphatically for the Ottoman flag in the info box instead. dab for sure would call this NPOV. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

?!? Húsönd 03:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't you understand that as Beam emphasizes the fact that Kosova was for many years a province and only for a few month the RoK I have also to emphasize the same way that Kosova was for almost half a millennium an Ottoman province? Is that not much more valid compared to the few years of Serbian occupation? --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't you understand that TRUTH article? I was just pointing out the funny in what you were saying. Went over your head, my bad. Beam 17:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why the RoK and UNMIK templates need to go to the top. We have sections dedicated to these entities, and the natural thing would put the infoboxes within the relevant sections. But the present solution is also satisfactory, no big deal. The "Italian solution" would just mean we merge the current three infoboxes into a single frame. This would be a minor improvement in terms of layout, but pretty much equivalent to what we have now in terms of content. dab (𒁳) 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"we merge the current three infoboxes into a single frame. This would be a minor improvement in terms of layout" - Dab.... I agree, let's do it. It will be NPOV. More so than it is now, with infoboxes appearing before another. I think it's fine as is, just so you know, but others wouldn't complain if we merged them. Beam 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling all REPUPBLIC OF KOSOVO experts

We should have 2-5 paragraphs about the RoK in our article on Kosovo. There are a lot of you here who are very knowledgable about the RoK, and some of you (i'm sure) live there. Heck, I have a suspicion that a couple of you are actually in the government of RoK. ;) Anyway the current Kosovo article has the following:

Republic of Kosovo

Further information: Constitution of Kosovo

A new constitution for Republic of Kosovo has been drafted and is expected to be ratified soon.

That's it!!! That is so weak. How can we ever have a decent article about Kosovo when the article has almost NOTHING about the result of one of the bigger recent events to happen in Kosovo! So this talk section was made to initiate the improvement of the RoK section. How about an outline to start? 5 paragraphs could be enough to accurately represent the basics of the Republic of Kosovo. Also, as discussed, people who are reading about Kosovo or looking for information about Kosovo might want to know at least a summary of the RoK. Of course we can't go overboard, but it's necessary, and with all the Kosovo Scholars present, why not? Beam 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes, our "Kosovo experts" are happier to make noise about flags and infoboxes and phantasize about Thraco-Illyrians that to (gasp) actually provide some encyclopedic coverage on the prosaic reality on the ground. Any decent expansion of Constitution of Kosovo is most welcome. Once we have some detailed material on the real Republic of Kosovo, there might still be an actual article dedicated to the Republic of Kosovo. At present, we'd just be glad to learn how the constitution draft is coming along. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to make noise how search-words Kosova or 'kosovo' should lead to a disambigious page where the user picks what he wants to read not this article. The map, history, and names are all Serbian, you say this is neutral but this is something I'd read from the Serbian govt website. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be the difference between article A and article B if this were to happen? Please read Wikipedia:Content forking. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So our local Kosovo people refuse to actually improve the article? This has to be a joke. I can't believe that after all the bitching and moaning and basically whining that they refuse to help. Wow...just wow. I'll do some research myself and try to work on it if the Kosovo crowd won't. Beam 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can speak for myself. I am not refusing but just don't have time right now. The article will have to be improved but when I come back and that will happen in June. But people here should not forget that it is mental strain to edit Kosovo related articles. You have like 50 Serb wikipedians and only two-three Albanians, it is not easy, and many of the Serb wikipedians look down at the Albanians and use all their time to push POV on Kosovo-related articles. I have spoken with many former Wikipedians and they just gave up. Fortunately now we are not seeing so much of it but some months ago coordinated edits among Serbs wikis were quite common and they discussed strategies on email outside Wikipedia. Wish you a happy spring and I will be back very soon. --Noah30 (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah, Beam, that's quite normal on nationalist/ethnic topics. You may want to look at Talk:Kannada literature for an impression for just how far this attitude can be taken on Wikipedia (see also Wikipedia:Anti-elitism). The good news is that while this tends to disfigure talkpages into an exasperating mess, it never has any actual effect on the article content as long as there is some supervision by editors interested in maintaining encyclopedicity. The wiki system works out fine in the end. dab (𒁳) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. Beam 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

DISPUTED ARTICLE!

I am hereby tagging the article as DISPUTED on the grounds of its lack of neutrality. As long as it fails to recognize Kosovo as an independent state, it is inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles, such as the one on the Republic of China, and therefore deserves a welcome warning for all readers. The article should describe Kosovo as an independent country, for it is one, and then proceed with explaining Serbia’s claims.--Getoar (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have REMOVED your Disputed tag, as you have no idea as to what has occurred regarding the editing and creation of this article. If you add the tag again, or make any other ignorant and malice filled edits I will report you for vandalism. Beam 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed introduction

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Kosovo), officially the Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës, Serbian: Република Косово/Republika Kosovo), is a landlocked country in southeastern Europe. Its declaration of independence on February 17, 2008 has been recognized by 37 sovereign nations, while it is disputed by Serbia, which lays claims over the entire Kosovar territory. Kosovo is home to an ancient pre-Roman civilization, has played a central role in the economy of various states and empires during the history, and has recently come out of one of the direst post-WWII military conflicts and genocides. It was liberated after a NATO bombing campaign that forced Yugoslavia to withdraw its troops from Kosovo. Administered by the United Nations for almost 9 years, Kosovo has established a democratic form of government and has greatly recovered from the consequents of war.

Kosovo is bordered by Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro. Its capital and largest city is Prishtina.

Kosovo is a parliamentary republic, whose principles value the multiethnic composition and its cultural heritage. Ethnic Albanians make up 92% of the population, Serbs around 5%, while other communities add up to 3%. Albanian and Serbian are national co-official languages, while other minority languages enjoy official status at the local and municipal level. Though one of poorest economies in Europe, the youngest population in the continent, vast mineral resources, as well as foreign aid from the West are prospective assets in Kosovo’s aspired economic development and its accession into the European Union.

--Getoar (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You have no clue what's going on. Please read the talk page in its entirety. Also, please DO NOT edit the article unilaterally as you are apparently ignorant regarding Kosovo. It was pretty rude and cruel to come to this article which many have worked hard on and make foolish changes. Beam 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Just so you know that I'm not trying to be an asshole, we could use help on the Republic of Kosovo section. Please goto this section and correctly contribute to the article. If you want to help, do it the right way. Thanks a lot. Beam 22:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your tone does not adequately describe my efforts and my knowledge about Kosovo; you communicate in such a way because you’re unable to carry out a conversion of higher standards. I will continue to challenge the current biased article and offer the proposal above as a more balanced introduction to the article.--Getoar (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My tone is in response to your blatant disregard of a Wiki policy named NPOV. You represent a RoK Nationalist POV. Please change your POV before further editing. How is that for tone? Maybe you're tone deaf ;) But when you say "officially known" that's pretty much crap. It's a disputed territory, disputed by Serbia and the RoK Govt. If you wanted to argue the term "officially" someone could say that it would be officially a Province of Serbia until the world decides otherwise. But instead of using the phrase "officially a Province of Serbia" the article features the phrase "disputed territory" to maintain NPOV. In this case NPOV is actually reality, which is great when those two are the same. And this is why I asked you to read the talk page in that tone. And your tone of "you don't know my Kosovo skills" and "you suck at a higher standard of conversation, stupid" towards me is nifty and all but maybe you want to change your tone as it seems your "efforts and knowledge" on NPOV are lacking. Thanks! Beam 04:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No offence Getoar, but that proposal is blatant POV. There are so many things wrong with that there's just no point in discussing it here. Beam, I suggest you calm down a bit; even if you are right about the proposal you aren't really helping. The current intro is the collaborative effort of many editors, and it is definitely neutral. BalkanFever 04:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - landlocked country, bordering Serbia and liberated by NATO.

Also it bears no mention of UNMIK & KFOR. Hmm...to think of it, the current one misses NATO in the intro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

why do you even keep trying? That's blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We've been through this. "Kosovo is independent" and "Kosovo is part of Serbia" are both biased positions, and Wikipedia will endorse neither until there is a notable change in the real world situation first. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

distribution of churches

"The image is original research".

No, it's not. It's a translation of another, previously published image. Where is the research in that? Your claim, on the other hand, that "me who have lived in Kosovo for whole my life knows", is original research. - Revolving Bugbear 19:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Find the original published image, where was it published? By whom? Who made it? I think the image should be in the article. Just get it sourced properly! And Noah, you as well as Bugbear need to STOP editing the article with controversial additions/revisions without talking on this page first. It's getting annoying. Beam 22:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The original image (which may be copyrighted, I'm not sure) is linked as the source from the image's page.

For the record, I think lumping me in with Noah is a little disingenuous, as I was simply restoring an undiscussed removal (not mine originally) with what appeared to be a misinformed edit summary, and then, after that, I immediately brought it to the talk page. I don't really think I need to be reprimanded for "getting annoying". - Revolving Bugbear 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am 100 % sure the image does not reflect the reality. Therefore we need a verifyable source to confirm the accuracy of the map added by Mike Babic that as I said before in his user page displays anti-Albanian sentiment. --Noah30 (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You being 100% sure doesn't count for much at all. You are not a reliable source. As far as I can tell, the image is sourced. BalkanFever 07:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, that was the reason you edited it Noah? Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please be careful in the future.

Sir, you misunderstand. I'm not saying you're annoying. I'm saying that not coming to the talk page FIRST is annoying. That's all. And we should try to see if we can find a fair use of the original or something. I really would like this stuff in the article. Let's see what others think. Beam 23:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)And to be honest I praise you for trying to further this article. We need more honest people, and assuming good faith, I think you may be honest. If we can look past our personal bias and act based on neutrality there is no reason this article can't become featured article material! Beam 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize. It looked a mite strange, though, since I didn't think my revert looked all that different from yours. But I see now what you're saying, and I don't disagree in principle. To be honest, I can assure you I have fairly little bias on this issue, since I know relatively little about it and have no personal connection to that region of the world. - Revolving Bugbear 09:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

ahem, as far as I know it is undisputed that Kosovo is full of churches. The map at present is referenced to a "semi-reliable" source, viz. a 1999 article published on a Serbian goverment website. I see no reason why the map's accuracy should be doubted, except perhaps a tendency to include dilapidated churches in order to make the map look more impressive. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have a better source for the map. dab (𒁳) 10:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

e.g. in Prishtian, the largest city you do not have more than three Serbian churches as far as I know. Most of Kosovo is inhabited by Albanians and you only find churches in Serbian villages. --Noah30 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The topic is, of course, touchy, because the Serbian side uses the (undisputed) presence of Serbian Orthodox churches to back the claim that "Kosovo is part of Serbia", and is accusing ethnic Albanians of systematically destroying Serbian churches. Now, a mere map of churches doesn't prejudice any of this. Of course, claims to the effect of the Serbian position will need close attribution. [3][4] The claim is that

"During almost ten years of NATO/UN occupation none of the provisions of Resolution 1244 have been carried out. In fact almost all of the non-Albanians have been expelled from Kosovo, 150 Christian churches and monasteries have been burned and crime, corruption and violence is endemic in the territory."[5]

Now I don't know if this is what has in fact happened, we'd have to dig up WP:RS on it. Kosovo certainly does seem to have problems in the rule of law department, but I don't know if the 150 number is tenable. But at leats that's what's at issue here. dab (𒁳) 10:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You have presented some links that only contain propaganda, e.g. most of the Serbs that lived in Kosovo before the war still live in Kosovo. Next time dig up some reliable sources and don't come with propaganda websites. --Noah30 (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean propaganda? Is any site that disagrees with you propaganda? Beam 15:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. I accept that someone disagrees with me but I speak out when I see obvious propaganda.

Noah30, you {{rpa}}, if you read my comment you will note that I am fully aware that the sites I link are (gasp) partisan, that I do not endorse them, and that I did not push for their inclusion in article space. If you're going to complain, next time, try to complain about something that isn't granted from the outset. dab (𒁳) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear that. I apologize if this hurted you --Noah30 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't anyone try to pull off immature nationalist stunts here. This discussion has turned from being about the distribution of churches to some angry dispute about propaganda. Very immature, a twelve-year-old would be ashamed of this. Neither side is innocent in the crisis in Kosovo, that is one fact that should be accepted, anyone who doesn't accept this is either ignorant or has an agenda.--R-41 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What crisis are you talking about? I would agree that neither side is totally innocent, but it is clear for everyone who has eyes and ears that one of the nations in the Yugoslav wars committed most crimes. --Noah30 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen Noah, I try to be civil and whatnot, I really do. But you really, REALLY, need to chill out. "everyone who has eyes and ears"??? Get that crap out of here. Thank you very much. Beam 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a expression used in different languages in Balkans and is not offensive. --Noah30 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

can we just cut to the chase and try to document the distribution of bleeding churches in Kosovo? There is no need to turn everything into a vitriolic shouting match, just focus on content and verifiability. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits of a Controversial Nature

Before you make an edit to the content of this article please remember that a lot of people have worked on it, and a lot of people have put much effort into it. WikiPedia thrives on being BOLD, and I think that's one of its best features. But in the case of this article being BOLD regarding the actual content can be literally ignorant. I try to assume Good Faith but some times it seems like POV Pushing.

So to make this brief, I am encouraging editors, and would-be editors alike, to discuss any possibly contentious edits PRIOR to making them. This will save reversions and help save face. Most people here are reasonable. Just state your concerns, and we'll work it out. Beam 22:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. "Art imitates life; life imitates art" does not hold for encyclopedias. The situation on the ground on Kosovo will be what it is, no matter what this article says. So it's really not worth getting worked up over. - Revolving Bugbear 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of disussing you just revert edits that you don't like. I started a discussion but you refused to take part in it, therefore I am asking you to not revert my edits otherwise I will complain to the admins. Remember Wikipedia is neither mine or yours and using labels such as "would be editors" is not going to help your case. --Noah30 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you took offense, maybe you should look at your editing habits. Also, I don't need "Help" for my case. You have ignored my pleas for you to actually discuss changes. The last time I tried to assist you in becoming a contributing editor, you said i was joking and being immature. Please see Talk:Kosovo#Sentence_that_should_be_removed. You ignored the discussion and just repeated your edits for a second time. You should actually read these discussions instead of claiming that they didn't happen. Good luck man, I'm hoping you can get over the hurdle and start helping! And Revolving Bug, I'm glad you get it. People keep taking offense, when they should just try a different approach. I look forward to working with those who are interested in following procedure. Beam 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wonder what this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Sentence_that_should_be_removed. It was me who started the discussion but the answer I got was a link to a help page that I considered offensive. --Noah30 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You insulted me, and you're offended? What? We had been discussing the quote you have a problem with in prior sections, and per those discussions it was noted that it was properly sourced, and relevant to the sub-section of the article. A spokesman from the UN is a pretty good source. You really didn't provide anything that called the quote into doubt. That's why I linked WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simply disagreeing with an opinion, a cited opinion from a reputable source (UN Spokesman), is not enough of a reason to have it removed. Deleting cited quote from a reputable source because it doesn't match your view point is again, not a reason to remove it. That's why I linked that for you. I don't want to fight with you, if we could put this energy that is being spent being dramatic on the article, we'd probably be done by now. Beam 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"following self-proclaimed and partially recognized declaration of independence"

Aren't the words "self-proclaimed" here tautologous? What "declaration of independence" is not "self-proclaimed"? (Do others declare independence for you?) Surely "following partially recognized declaration of independence" would be enough? Or even "following the declaration of independence" -- we've already pointed out that it is partially recognized, do we need to endlessly repeat ourselves? --SJK (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, this is a case of excessive zeal for npov resulting in broken english. What we are trying to say is that the declaration was unilateral and was in turn partially recognized. Don't try to stash everything into a string of adjectives. dab (𒁳) 12:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just enlighten us dab how is a unanimous decision "unilateral". It was not one sided as the word unlateral conveys but unanimous 109 votes vs 0 votes against. Kosova2008 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral as in the Serbs did not allow them to do this. Beam 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have NEVER heard of a case where the parent country allows the secessionist country just to let you know. And the Serbs did allow it considering they didn't come to vote against. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to have to butt in here and say that the independence of Brazil was granted through a petition to the King (who agreed without argument). 209.6.243.42 (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why it's unilaterally. And the Serbs didn't vote because they feel it's completely illegal to even vote on such a "blasphemy". Beam 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia, split of Soviet union, Czechoslovakia, ... several colonies as well... Just for your info. --Tone 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't POV? America does it, it's called a DOI, Kosova does it, it's called a UDI. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, than change it. Beam 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree "self proclaimed" is a bit odd. Instead I think it should be clarified that the "Kosovar Albanian government declared independence" and that this was "opposed by Serbia and the Serbian minority in Kosovo". That way we are clear and avoid strange wording. How about that? CheersOsli73 (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

“Kosova” (can we change the name with real Albanian Kosova name) has broad backing of international community and the independence was not so self -declared , but i agree with "declared independence"--Maloku (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Thank you. THis is an English Wiki. Beam 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Early history section

I would add that Albanian is defined as Thraco-Illyrian and in “The coalition against Ottoman Turkish” Albanians participated very actively    Maloku   

Yes. And they actively supported it also. Hxseek (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Albanian is not "defined as Thraco-Illyrian", don't be silly. Observations on Ottoman Kosovo go to Ottoman Kosovo please. dab (𒁳) 18:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me, you are smart is not Thraco-Illyrian-Epiriot Albanian language ?! Next the reason that you are allow to change staff in the article here(why i do not know ??), does not mean that you must change anything as you wish . Because you are the same nationalist guys that made the Balkan wars covered with “Christian” umbrella .No it is not true the Albanian Muslim and Christian instance Arvanites (they formed the Greek nation ) fought against ottomans more then any other Balkan nation , else they( the ottomans ) could do nothing to them but made them leaders in the empire and a part of them they receive the religion as pride. Albanian in Balkan have not only one religion almost 50 percent are Christian and most of them are not religious .So please where are you again stop telling false staff, your next genocide ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.246.183 (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of a Thraco-Illyrian-Epiriot Albanian language and neither have you. You may want to edit the Origin of the Albanians article, but this is the Kosovo article. dab (𒁳) 17:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you have met the banned User:Dodona :) --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sentence that should be removed

I think this sentence should be removed. "In June 2003, a spokesman for the UN police stated that Kosovo "is not a society affected by organized crime, but a society founded on organized crime." There is disagreement regarding the extent the situation has improved since 2003". Why? 1: We don't know who this spokesman is and maybe someone is putting words in a UN police, 2: We haven't used any quotes in the article other places, why do we use quotes here, 3: This i rather an opinion than a fact, 4: The refernece for the quote is an article written by to Swedes and the article in genereal is anti-Albanian/Kosovo. There is no doubt that the author of the article where the quote is taken are anti-Albanian or maybe better to say anti-independence. --Noah30 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you create a new section for this? Also please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks. Beam 20:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of joking please try to be a little bit more polite. Your immature behavior says more about you than me. --Noah30 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't think he was joking. Also, two wrongs don't make a right, so calling people immature probably isn't going to help your case. - Revolving Bugbear 20:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that two wrongs don't make a right but this Beam is trying to make fun of my edits and discredits my edits by adding links to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am to be honest offended by this kind of behavior and I am certain this is against the Wikipedia rules. Unfortunately I don't speak English very well but I know a lot about Balkans and that is why I am here contributing for almost three years. My answers are short since I don't have much time right now but I will come back in a few months and continue to improve Kosovo-relates articles--Noah30 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not joking. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, I am being more than polite towards you. Your comment about immature behavior is uncalled for as it doesn't make any sense. I am trying to help you understand what's going on. Again, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I honestly hope it provides you with some guidance. And WP:AGF could help you to. It may prevent you from making silly insults towards me and other editors in the future. Beam 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So you removed the sentence anyway? That's pretty ridiculous. Could you revert it? I'm having trouble finding the reference that was used. I'd like it reinstated asap. Thanks. Beam 00:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

it is undisputed that authorities in Kosovo have little to no grip on organized crime. Hence EULEX and all that. Kosovo is a mess in terms of rule of law. That's not surprising seeing the recent history of the region (warfare, ethnic rioting, etc.), it's simply a sad fact that we need to reflect, and that will hopefully turn to the better with all the millions the "West" is burning to rebuild some infrastructure in Kosovo. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you that organized crime is a problem in Kosovo as in many of the neighbouring countries like Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania etc and I am not against mentioning it in the article. I have proposed to a sentence saying "Organized crime continues to be a significant problem". What I want to remove is a sentence taken from an article published by two people from Sweden and they say a UN spokesmen has said that Kosovo is a society based on organized crime. The statement by the UN spokesman can not be verified since they have not provided any name in the article. This is why I believe the quote should be removed. Maybe the quote is just a fabrication to support their negative article on Kosovo? We have not used quotes any other place than in the "Rule of law" section and for me it seems like the quote is included for propaganda reasons. I don't really know who was the first to include the quote since as I sad before I have been away for many months. But know we have a chance to make this section neutral by removing the quote and writing about the problems Kosovo have with the rule of law in a neutral and objective way. Remember that we are talking about Balkans and all the countries in the region have problems with rule of law and there are diffrenet reasons for that. I am very busy right now and have unfortunately not time to get involved in any long discussion but when I am back 100 % in June I will be able to provide more facts, documents etc. The money the West is sending to Kosovo are unfortunately not being used well. According to a study 50% goes back to the West in terms of wages and salaries, many percent is spended on adminstration (renting offices, buying cars, fuel etc). The rest that remains is used on different projects. I know that very much money is used on seminars and I don't really think this has resulted in a better life for the Kosovars. Enjoy the spring! --Noah30 (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo redirect

Users Beamathan and Dbachmann have set out to change the target of this redirect (until now redirecting to Kosovo) to Kosovo#Republic of Kosovo, thus leading to a tiny section of this article. In my view, this is just another POV disruption, as this move pretends to alienate the republic from the region, as if users searching for "Republic of Kosovo" were supposed to be searching for a small note on what would be an unimportant detail about Kosovo. Not the case. Every matter regarding the Republic of Kosovo is related to Kosovo itself, like it or not, therefore users searching for "Republic of Kosovo" should be redirected to the top of this article. Furthermore, I don't think there's ever been a consensus for this re-targeting of the redirect. Feedback is welcome. Húsönd 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you that Beamthan is acting like he owns the Kosovo article and he is the one who decides what the article should contain, where it should link etc etc. Nice to see that I am not the only one who has seen the bias and is speaking out. Have a nice evening. --Noah30 (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah, I'm so sorry that your edits haven't been reasonable. Good luck in the future buddy. And this article, Kosovo, is about Kosovo. We have a section about RoK. This section should be expanded, I have asked our Kosovo experts to help us on that, but to no avail. I hope it gets done shortly. Beam 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have asked the Kosovo experts? Maybe you don't know that since according to your edit log you entered Wikipedia a few weeks ago, but you should know that I consider myself a Kosovo/Balkan-expert and have contributed in Kosovo-related articles for almost three years. In the end I repeat that I still consider your edits biased --Noah30 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone to comment on the edits, not on the editor and to remain civil and maintain etiquette. This applies to everyone and is not optional. - Revolving Bugbear 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah, I have no bias. You obviously are an ROK supporter, and are as a result biased. It's pretty evident. However this doesn't mean that you can't rise above it. Please, assist us in the Republic of Kosovo section of the article. We need people who are knowledgeable on the RoK, and the situation on the ground. Just remember to use proper sources. Goto this talk section Talk:Kosovo#Calling_all_REPUPBLIC_OF_KOSOVO_experts and discuss your proposals. We need the help and if you are as you claim, you could help us. Beam 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, you don't need to tell other editors what to do and how to do it. This "calling on Republic of Kosovo experts" (if there's actually such thing since the subject is merely 3 months old and that's hardly enough time for someone to get a PhD on the matter) is not how we function. Calling others biased also not how we function. Húsönd 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond, I am not telling people how to do it. I am simply presenting the best way to edit such a contentious article. Do you disagree with discussing a content change prior to making it, if it has a chance to be controversial? I think that's common sense. Also in the case of providing the WP:IDONTLIKEIT link I was just trying to assist someone. Then after being insulted, I linked WP:AGF which would have prevented my insult if good faith was assumed. I don't see how providin information on WIkipedia is "telling people how to do it." And as far as the RoK section goes, we really need some RoK experts to help with the section. I'm no expert, regardless of how much reading and studying on the subject I've done. We have editors that live in Kosovo, that may be able to form the section in a better way than I would. Beam 23:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, a user living in Kosovo would not make him or her an expert. A Kosovar's personal experience on the ground would equal to original research, which we are not looking for. Húsönd 00:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read what I said. Perhaps those people who live there, or are very well versed in the area would be better suited to help form this section. Cited reliable sources are of course necessary, and an NPOV is of course needed as well. However, I figured these people would want to help with that particular part of the article. Beam 00:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop with the experts thing, please? Beam, I know what you are trying to say, but this petty discussion on who is an expert is absolutely useless. Back to the problem: Husond, I disagree with you. The majority of people that type in "Republic of Kosovo" would be looking for the partially-recognised state, which is why they are being specific, as opposed to only typing in "Kosovo". Ideally, Republic of Kosovo would be its own article, and we would not have this problem, but I am reluctant to start a split discussion for fear of bringing back the nationalist rants, among other things. BalkanFever 08:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't agree. Users searching for "Republic of Kosovo" could be searching for many different aspects e.g. the population of the Republic of Kosovo, or maybe the history of the Republic of Kosovo long before it became a republic. So many things really, and all of them are covered in the article as a whole. Limiting the search to a sub-section with basic notions about the republic really doesn't make sense to me. On a related and very relevant note, I find it quite inconsistent that some users are pushing for Republic of Kosovo to redirect to Kosovo#Republic of Kosovo, whereas Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija still happily redirects to Kosovo and not to Kosovo#Autonomous Province under UN administration. I was not surprised with this blatant lack of neutrality. Húsönd 09:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree once again with Husond. Most of the people will not search "Republic of Kosovo" but only Kosovo BUT expect to find information about the Republic of Kosovo. Most countries have the prefix "the Republic" but this is not used by Wikipedia, e.g. Croatia instead of Republic of Croatia, Albania instead of Republic of Albania. For me and for most people of the world there is no difference between Kosovo and RoK. --Noah30 (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to me, this whole thing is a bit on the WP:LAME side, since redirects are cheap, but you guys can have your arguments. I'd just rather that this didn't escalate to incivility. BalkanFever 10:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

? Húsönd 10:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, your (all of you) edit summaries weren't very productive, especially over a fairly trivial issue. Even though I disagreed with you, Husond, I am content with a redirect to the top of the page, just as I am also content with a redirect to the section. I fail to see how it makes that big a difference. BalkanFever 10:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo is (at present) a redirect to this article. This article contains a section called "Republic of Kosovo". It is thus a section redirect ({{R to section}}). Don't turn everything into a big drama, there is no cabal. Sheesh. I'm still waiting for Husond's first constructive contribution to the Kosovo topic. dab (𒁳) 11:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am appalled at your comment. First, I've made many constructive contributions to this topic, regardless of what you consider "constructive". Second, even if I hadn't, I am still within my right to discuss and be involved in this topic or any other topic whenever I wish. Third, you are turning this into a drama more than I am, everything was fine until you've decided to modify the redirect without discussing it first. Fourth, "drama" as a matter of fact is not my definition of a complaint. Your attitude dwells into WP:OWN, and by not even commenting on my bringing up the fact that Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija redirects to the top of the article and not to a section, which by the way you have redirected yourself and which constitutes obvious double standards, I think that you are also dwelling into WP:POV. Húsönd 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you, Dbachmann. After reading many of Husond's answers to you and other people here at the Kosovo article, I am convinced that Husond is a very constructive contributor and his help and contribution to make Kosovo-articles more NPOV is more than welcome. Until now all Husond's answers have been very reasonable. --Noah30 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete it all. This article on accuracy and quality is a 1/5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.162.135 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes quite, when someone agrees you with it's easy to say that you are "convinced they are a very constructive contributor." I'm tiring of people putting their POV above the article. Beam 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Whereas someone who does not agree with you, is not. That's not a good philosophy. Please stop disrupting the redirect, trying to enforce your changes without consensus and then accusing users reverting them of also going against consensus is not a good philosophy either. Húsönd 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I should be reading now and not discuss but I just have to answer you. I believe, maybe because of the short time you have been here, you have the wrong approach on how to edit, and maintain NPOV on this article. You can say other people are putting their POV above the article, but the same can we say about you. Without wanting to insult you, I can say you are not the most neutral editor on this article. Again, without wanting to insult, based on what I have seen of your edits I am seeing a pro-Serb or maybe anti-Kosovo independence bias. You have still not given a reasonable answer why we should not remove the sentence I proposed under "Rule of law". You say discussion first before edit and than you don't discuss. How should e interpret it? --Noah30 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given up. You don't care about the facts, only your POV Pushing. Does having it redirect to the article in general make the RoK more legitimate or something? Are you really that sick with bias? I can't describe how disgusting such a strong bias is. Really. I can't put into text how maddening it is to deal with your POV Pushing. If you want to try this over the phone, I can email you my number and perhaps with the facts and logic actually spoken to you you'd understand. Or you're being malicious and no revelation can change that. I'm all done with that redirect. As BalkansFever says, I'll have to choose the instances of NPOV to fight for, instead of each and every little one. Good luck with your POV Pushing. You seem to have a great ally in your cause in Noah. Have fun! Beam 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am nobody's ally. This rant was really unnecessary, aggressive and overdramatic. I can't really see how do you plan to have any credit on fighting for NPOV after comments like this. Húsönd 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Me, and based on what I have read, also Husond, are fighting for NPOV. While some others (from now on I will try to not use names) are using what us Wikipedians call "Trolling" to disrupt developing Kosovo article towards NPOV. --Noah30 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Husond, my credibility comes from my actions. And I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your intentions. I'll let your actions stand for what they are and comment no further on the redirect. It's really too bad though.

And Noah (I will use names to be specific), what isn't NPOV? I told you SEVERAL times. Discuss anything you think isn't NPOV. Other than deleting credible sourced items, and trying to add biased content to the article I haven't seen you "help" much. I'm looking forward to it though. Beam 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you continue to offend other editors. Have you read what I have written until now on this talk page? The quote that is included in the "Rule of Law" section is not conform NPOV rules that Wikipedia have. The quote is included mainly for propaganda purposes but you have never discussed and instead just reverted my edits. But if no one is against removing the quote I will go ahead with the edit where the quote will be removed. Please don't act like you own Wikipedia. It belongs to all of us. I would also like to know when did I add biased content?? Apart from removing the propaganda quote I updated the constitution section and is this what you are calling POV? The only thing I did was to write the constitution was approved. With personal attacks instead of discussiing the topic you are only proving I was right when I used some adjectives you did not like to describe you. This is my last answer to you. --Noah30 (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As this has to do with the redirect. Taiwan has two articles, one about the region, and one about the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Taiwan is recognized by far less countries then Kosovo (not that it makes Taiwan less important), further more on that point Kosovo is recognized by the majority of the worlds most powerful countries. Therefore I suggest there be a similiar situation as Taiwan, where we have one article on the region that has been historically considered Kosovo and another article on the Republic of Kosovo. -IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 03:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been many long discussions about this, and apparently the situation now was the consensus. I actually agree with you, so if you want to formally propose a {{split}}, by all means go ahead, but it will take a while to reach a consensus. Not to mention the possibility of incivility and nationalism from some users returning. BalkanFever 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm not so sure I know how to do that, I'm not exactly a major contributor, just a minor editor. -IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 05:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The biggest contributers on all Kosova or Kosovo articles seem to hate having to share the power of editing. They get offended if someone points out the fact that the article lacks credibility or neutrality. Husond I'm sure you've noticed this yourself, a split would be a great way to let the user decide if he/she rather read about Republic of Kosova or Kosovo (geography). Kosova2008 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

37th Country recognizes the Republic of Kosovo

Now it's 37/193. The Republic of the Marshall Islands has just recognized an independent Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just read the whole wiki on the RoMI and that is one pathetic country. It's basically on US Welfare. It has 60,000 people! Geez. I don't think Kosovo Nationalists should exactly celebrate although, it does help in the raw number sense. Beam 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK then. Burkina Faso and Nauru recognized it today. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now now beam,, don't be rude, not all countries our powerhouses--Jakezing (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Template removal

In this edit here [[6]], the template for Kosovo as a province of Serbia was removed without adequate explanation. It seems to me that in the interests of maintaining NPOV, if the Republic of Kosovo template is to be included, so should the above template. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there would be no need to show any reason, for Kosovo is supposed to have its own template. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia, remember?--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 08:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arber. Kosovo should have its own template. --Noah30 (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't have been done. That template should be there. If you can do it properly go ahead and put it back. Beam 12:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to discuss it first. --Noah30 (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all the supporters of Kosovo independence are going to say "to hell with it". But we already knew that. Kosovo can declare independence all it wants, as long as there is controversy, the template needs to be there in the interests of maintaining NPOV. As long as Kosovo's independence is disputed, we need both templates (Republic and province). It's as simple as saying "NPOV". --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No way the template is going to be included. The template would make the Kosovo-article the most POV article in Wikipedia. Serbian Kosovo is not recognized by anyone. We should have the Republic of Kosovo according to Kosovo parliament and the will of the people of Kosovo and UNMIK according to 1244. Both templates are included and there is nothing more to include. YES the independence is disputed and that is why the UNMIK template has been included in the article. According to 1244 Serbia has no control over Kosovo.--Noah30 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah... it was already discussed which is why it was there to begin with. The removal should have been discussed but putitng it back the way it should be doesn't. I don't have time right now, but if anyone would like to put it back that would be great. Beam 18:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No way the template is going to be included. The template would make the Kosovo-article the most POV article in Wikipedia. Serbian Kosovo is not recognized by anyone. We should have the Republic of Kosovo according to Kosovo parliament and the will of the people of Kosovo and UNMIK according to 1244. Both templates are included and there is nothing more to include. YES the independence is disputed and that is why the UNMIK template has been included in the article. According to 1244 it is UNMIK who have control over Kosovo, not Serbia. --Noah30 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that the template will be reinstated. I'm sorry you have your own POV, but the NPOV that Wikipedia strives for means we must include the template. Are you the one who deleted it without discussing it? I hope not. Anyway, I'll be putting it back in asap. Please do not remove it. If you do, it will be vandalism. Thank you. Beam 19:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are revealing your extreme bias. The template was inserted in the article without any prior discussion and was removed by someone else than me. I can see that the template was made by Boze Pravde and his edits have been reverted by many including Tone. By the way DON'T act like the owner. --Noah30 (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You weren't here my friend. We discussed for a few weeks. We need to present the prevailing POVs to achieve NPOV. The Serbians have a claim to Kosovo as their Province, and the RoK is claiming it as an independent state. If we represent one in a template we must represent the other which is what our detailed discussion resulted in.

And for you to say I'm biased is ludicrous, have you read your own comments? As a quick clarification, just because someone stops you from POV Pushing doesn't make them biased. Beam 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You say YES without exception to anything coming from the Serbs or anti-Kosovo editors. I just wonder how could you discuss the template for several weeks when the template was made yesterday? Yes the template was made yesterday by a user who have attempted to add biased info in the article but his edits were reverted by Tone, an admin. --Noah30 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, cool down. What's that mess again? The templates presently in the article are the geographical one, RoK and UNMIK. The last approximately fine version I remember had only those templates. My revert, previously, has been made just because of some edits that were towards one side or another. If we want to keep this article in shape, every potentially controversial change should be discussed here first. Be constructive and stop edit wars. --Tone 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I am an admin is irrelevant regarding my revert. It would be relevant only when I implemented some sanctions because this article is on probation. But don't worry, I am not going to do it (some other may, though). --Tone 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't here yesterday buddy. And my pal Tone and I have been working on this article for what seems like years, as well as many other users before us and during that same time. I'm very happy that Tone is around to help out. The intent of the templates is always to represent NPOV. NPOV in this case is to represent the valid POVs of reality. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, are Serb's Province, and RoK's Independence. If you represent one, you must represent the other. Go look in the archives for WEEKS of discussion. When the dust settled it was agreed that for NPOV we must represent those POVs. I believe at one point we had 3 infoboxes. If the Serb Province POV was just added yesterday, than that's a shame as it should have been there the whole time. And just because that user has made some suspect edits that myself, tone, and others have removed doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong in this instance.

Do you not agree that if we represent the RoK view we must represent the Serb Province view? Or are your biases too strong? Have you read the archives? Beam 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Off course I agree that all views should be represent and I can tell you that this article now is much more NPOV than it was some months ago but there is still some edits to be done that would make the article completely NPOV. Both views are represented in the article now. You have only RoK and UNMIK. According to 1244 Kosovo is under UN administration and Serbia say they respect UN SC resolution 1244 which transfers powers over Kosovo to UN. You can not have another template for the same reasons as we could not have a template on RoK before February 17th. I ask you to read the article and you will see that both views are represented, Kosovo as a republic and Kosovo as a province. The UNMIK template reflects the situation before 17th of February. Adding a new template would be POV. Once more I remind you that the template was created and not edited, yesterday so it is not possible you have discussed this template before many weeks ago. --Noah30 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see how the article can be NPOV if only the template for the Republic of Kosovo is included. The Serbian POV may be anathema to some users, but that is irrelevant. Emotional arguments aside, it should be included in the interest of presenting all POVs. Simple as that. Oh, and by the way, UN Resolution 1244 explicitly recognizes Serbia's territorial integrity and Kosovo as a province of Serbia. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about the templates. Two templates are included. The UNMIK template reflects the situation before 17th of February and as if the indepednece did not happen. We can not have a third template since accodring res. 1244 UN through UNMIK have control over Kosovo. --Noah30 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read what Tsourkpk said? Or what I said? Please also view your talk page. I tried to explain the situation here a little bit. It may help your future actions. Beam 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If I remember, the argument at the beginning was that RoK template presents the independence view and that UNMIK template presents what resolution 1244 says (the resolution Serbia agrees with). Someone pointed out that Serbian flag and CoA is inappropriate for KiM template, since the flag is for the whole country, not just for a region (in comparisson, Vojvodina has a special flag.) --Tone 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How can we ensure that the Serbia POV is represented adequately by the UNMIK template? That's my main concern. Maybe a title of UNMIK/Serb Province? I'll take a look at that. I just don't want the Serb Nationalists coming in here and whining. You know how bad that was before Tone. Recently it seems the RoK Nationalists are the loudest. But we'll make it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamathan (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But UN Res 1244 explicitly recognizes Kosovo as part of Serbia. There is no doubt about that. It's only fair that the Serbian POV be included, WP:IDONTLIKEIT notwithstanding. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read UN Res 1244 and Serbia is not mentioned...but Yugoslavia yes. --Noah30 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly. Honestly, a Serb Province box would be better than the UNMIK. Or we should reinforce the fact that UNMIK also represents the Serb Province view. The ROK Nationalists won't like it, but it is only right. Suggestions Tsour?Beam 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The most stupid thing we could do is to replace UNMIK template with a Serbian one. UNMIK is a result of Res 1244 and Serbs claim they respect 1244 (but only when it favours them). The UNMIK template reflects the situation before 17th of February and together with RoK template after 17th of February. I hope you are not using the word nationalist about me because if.... I hate the word nationalist because it was the nationalists who started the wars in Balkans that tooks more than 200 000 lives... I am totally against them --Noah30 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So what if precisely 'Serbia' isn't mentioned? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think I'll ask for a peer review of this article. Among other things, we can get some good suggestions what else to improve. Always a good thing to do when you start running out of ideas...--Tone 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Tone, but I hope biased editors will not have the opportunity to influence this review. I don't know how the weather is in Slovenia but I hope you are enjoying the spring.--Noah30 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah if the Serbs don't agree with UNMIK that's even MORE of a reason to present the Serb Province POV. You're not helping your case. And your constant OT comments are not helpful. Tone, go for it! Although I'm not out of ideas for this article, but out of ways to try to convince some very biased people to drop that crap and come to neutrality together. Beam 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbs agree with resolution 1244 since it is unclear on many issues and was supported in the UN SC in 1999 by their strong ally Russia. In 1999 all Serbian forces withdrew from Kosovo because of the resolution and they use 1244 as an argument against Kosovo's independence. UNMIK is a direct result of 1244 and is recognized by all the countries of the world(members of UN). Serbia all the time say they support 1244 but it is true that they many times don't respect what the resolution says. --Noah30 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You can do that in the Serbian WP, not here. I find it ironically humorous that you say "some very biased people [need] to drop that crap" when your POV is sticking out very clearly. No Serbian Province POV, thank you. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What the heck? This article is not on the RoK. That's the only way to achieve NPOV, thank you. Beam 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely think a peer review or request for comment is the only way to go. The article will get nowhere otherwise, as there is simply too much passion form one of the sides. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To much passion from all sides...hehe --Noah30 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be at most two templates. There can even be one template with all data integrated, there is no need to put mass templates on this article. Hobartimus (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, two templates: One for the Republic, and one for the Serbian province. Very simple really. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Two templates, one for RoK and another for UNMIK Kosovo. Very simple. Remember that according to 1244 Kosovo is a UN protectorate. --Noah30 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

...which is a part of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I also support a peer review. BalkanFever 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just make it clear that I support a peer review. But reserve the right to disagree with it afterwards ;) Beam 14:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But of course. Peer review is supposed to give suggestions, not final solutions. --Tone 15:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

@Pax, Please read or re-read Resolution 1244. Nowhere does it say, mention, that Kosova is part of Serbia. The word Yugoslavia is ubiquitous whereas Serbia is rarely mentioned. A peer review would be a great idea, a new fresh perspective. Honestly whether you have passion from one side or not, you are automatically POVing bc you took passion on a disputed article. People edit things they like or are passionate, if you hated this article you wouldn't be here, you would in another article..eh? Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry k2k8, you're very wrong. I am passionate, but for NPOV. That's the way it SHOULD BE. And BalkansFever is right, and I get a little too passionate, but that's the way it is. Neutrality shall conquer all Fanaticism. Beam 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can't spell my name...don't reply to me. Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. How many are you experts on Kosova (kosovo)? The only experts would be those that live there or have lived there ---- narrowing this down to only Albanian community here. BTW you can't "disagree" with a peer review, it's called peer review for a reason. Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not serious about what you just said. That's precisely the kind of attitude we don't need here. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the UN Resolution which supposedly doesn't mention Serbia, but only mentions Yugoslavia - that's totally irrelevant, as Serbia is the successor state to Yugoslavia (i.e. after Montenegro declared independence, Serbia retained Yugoslavia's seat at the UN, while Montenegro had to apply as a new member). Therefore, Serbia is now the successor counterpart to all agreements signed by Yugoslavia. Khuft (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

To k2k8: If you can't lose your bias, you're not needed here. Go start RepublicOfKosovo2008.com or something. Seriously. You're starting to appear as some sort of hilarious fanatical joke. At least that's how I see it. Beam 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

currency of kosovo

The official currnecy of Republic of Kosovo (which is the euro) is not included in any of the info boxes. I think it will be useful to add it especially to the "Rep. of Kosovo info box".Wikiturk (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If it goes in one, it would probably go into the Serbian Province, since it's the same physical place. Beam 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

why? an "official currency" is nothing physical. The official currency according to the Serbian pov is, of course, the Serbian dinar, only we don't list "official currencies" for provinces. The official currency of the Republic of Kosovo is the Euro. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great point. You're definitely right. What do they actually use on the ground though, in Kosovo? If they do use Euros than it should go in the Serb Province Box as unofficial currency, right? Beam 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On ground it is used Euro in southern parts, and Dinar in northern parts.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks Iric. Beam 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries (Ethnic and cultural diversity section)

Kosovo and Metohija comprises a relatively small geographical area but is nevertheless densly covered by numerous Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries. The map to the right contains the most important holy sites which either exist today or are preserved in ruins. The greatest concentration of the Orthodox Christian sites is in the western part of the Province known as Metohija - the land of Monasteries.

The above content was added as the 2nd paragraph in the "Ethnic and cultural diversity' section by User_talk:Mike_Babic at 09:10 today (4.17). I have added a {{Fact}} tag because it is not curently cited. I think it's a fine addition and would like to see it cited. I hope Mike Babic or anyone will cite it so I won't delete it in a few days, I think it is good content. Thank you. Beam 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

worse, Image:Manastiri u Kosovu i Metohiji.jpg is completely unsourced. It will need to go until properly referenced. The source appears to be this: [7][8], which in turn seems to be based on (or has the same source as) this, which is a map published by the Serbian government[9] (1999), so that it may be considered a quotable source (if not a neutral one, but I suppose a map of monasteries isn't subject to a terrible lot of dispute). --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah removed it with no reason other than Mike Babic has supposed anti-albanian sentiment in his talk page. I'd reinstate it if there was a reference for that image Beam 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is biased. It seems that all the churches are Serbian orthodox. Many of those churches were Albanian before being brought into the Serbian Church. Some of them were catholic and later converted to orthodox churches. The paragraph is way too much questionable.--Sulmues 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What would you want for content in a Cultural section for the Kosovo article? We could always use a sourced and neutral contribution! Beam 23:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

proposed added information in the intro...

Hi all, I was going to change this and see what people thought, but with the warning at the top of the page-edit screen, I thought I'd better post it here first:

At the moment the article reads "[Kosovo's] independence is recognized by some countries and opposed by others", that's a pretty bland and uninformative statement, I was just wondering if it could possibly read: "...independence is recognized by most Western countries and opposed by most others", because as far as I know that's literally true. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I should add, before anyone points out that just because a statement is true doesn't make it worthy of inclusion (which is perfectly correct, of course), I don't think it's an irrelevant distinction in this instance, given that 'the West' often does act to an extent as a group in the international arena (cf the Cold War). Jonathanmills (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The other thing is, without this information, I believe the reader gets an inaccurate and essentially non-NPOV reading of the situation, particularly because the map reads "Independence has only been partially recognised internationally" (strictly true, but it's a distinct minority who have recognised Kosovo's independence). Jonathanmills (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh. 3 people died over the current intro, and the conflict that led to it. I say no to your proposed change. Beam 17:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a fairly poor reason to oppose it, no offence. Unless the specific edit I'm proposing was discussed and rejected. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care, I don't think there is anything wrong with the intro as is, and I think polarizing those countries that support or do not support the DoI as East vs West doesn't really help the article. Beam 17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The description *reflects* the polarisation; also it's not about East vs West but West vs everyone else (or rather, the West pushing one way and the others simply immobile).

As for there being nothing wrong with the intro, regarding this sentence it's completely bland and uninformative, and even arguably POV, given that it (IMHO) suggests a roughly equal number of countries for and against recognition.

You sound like a man wearied by much edit-warring, and while I totally understand that (and relate to it personally!), I'm not sure why you're taking a pre-emptive stance against any change, especially as I don't see why my proposed edit would be unacceptable. Why not just let the torrent of abuse rain down on my head (if indeed it does)? I'm not going to waste my time if I can see that's what's happening, don't worry. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want, you can describe your east vs west idea either somewhere else in the article or within the International Reaction article regarding the DoI. The intro is not to be bogged down by the countries for or against which is why that sentence is the way it is. The intro is supposed to be just that: an introduction. Beam 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's not 'east vs west', neither is it 'my idea'. I just see it as a more informative sentence than what's there currently. I don't understand why you're taking a stance against it on the grounds that it will cause conflict; why not wait and see if it actually does?

As for being 'bogged down', my proposed edit was extremely concise, and only amounts to a slight lengthening of one sentence. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not bogged down as in length but as in content. If the reader wants to know which countries feel what way, they click and goto the corresponding article. Beam 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly 'bogging down' the content, it just adds a bit more information to what is currently a totally insipid and uninformative statement, by adding about two words. Why don't we see what everyone else thinks..? Jonathanmills (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean it isn't bogging it down? You further the details about the international reaction. That's not what this article is about. You need to go work on a different article perhaps. This article is on Kosovo. Not specifaclly on the RoK or its international acceptance. You do realize that right? This article IS NOT about the ROK or its Declaration of Independence. If this was the intro to the article on International Reaction to the DoI than yes it would be Insipid and Uninformative. Seeing as it's the intro the Kosovo Article than you're plain wrong. Thanks. Beam 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not 'bogging it down' because it's an utterly minor change which doesn't bog anything down in terms of length or readability. Furthermore, the article already mentions that some countries recognise it and some don't, so to argue that my proposed edit is somehow 'irrelevant' doesn't make much sense. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jonny, but the Kuft and Envoy agree. You can try to garner some support, but I don't think it's happening. Not only is East vs West wrong as Khuft tells you, but as Envoy says it just doesn't belong in the intro. Beam 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see it's not going to fly :-)

However, I have responded to the points you have raised below (I never said 'east vs west', and the topic is already mentioned in the intro, so I can't see how making it slightly more informative 'doesn't belong'). Jonathanmills (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This East vs. West dichotomoy is totally useless. After all, Japan and Korea (which are certainly rather Eastern) as well as Taiwan (which itself is not recognised by many states) have recognised Kosovo. What about Senegal and Burkina Faso? Would they count as Western or Eastern? Maybe Southern? A similarly useless description would BTW be: "...independence is recognized by most rich countries and opposed by most others" (a description that would at least include S Korea, Japan and Taiwan). Khuft (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For the second time, I never said 'East versus West', I was simply pointing out that most Western countries have recognised Kosovan independence while most of the rest of the world had not. This is simply a fact.

I agree with the point that such differences in opinion might be totally irrelevant (good example you raised of 'rich countries vs poor countries'), but I hardly think it is in this instance. The West often does act as a more-or-less unified political bloc, as it has here. Basically, I think you would be much more likely to read my proposed edit in Britannica or a 'real' encyclopaedia than 'Some countries recognise Kosovo's independence, some don't'. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with everything Beam has said in this section. I appreciate your interest, Jonathanmills, but your edit is subjective and probably inaccurate. Either way, it does not belong in the intro. Envoy202 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit is subjective and probably inaccurate?? It is an objective fact written in a neutral tone and it is undeniably true. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, I'm not going to hang around banging my head against a wall. I do think this whole thing shows up very clearly Wikipedia's glaring weaknesses (I don't mean any offence to anyone here, I just mean the way edit warring on controversial topics results in an inability to make reasonable improvements). Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article

This article needs work on all the areas that ARE NOT the Intro and does not have to do with the RoK or Serb Province. Any takers? Beam 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit. You may provide valued contributions to any areas you believe need to be worked on. Húsönd 23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's focus, as far as editors go, has been the intro, and infoboxes more often than not. We recently had a lot of great contributions by Superm401 to the SerbProvince and RoK sections. It was really good of him to that. But other than him, and some limited edits made by a limited few, the "rest of" the article has become stagnant. I fooled around with some of the Economy section and found some very poor grammar. As I reread the whole article it's quite obvious that we, the Kosovo article editors, have neglected the majority article by focusing on the RoK saga. And of course, this isn't a new problem for the article. Reading through the Arbitration it's obvious that this article has always been stuck on certain aspects.

The intro and infobox have both recently been made with consensus. After years of bullshit the article has an intro that is NPOV and almost has the ridiculous infoboxes acceptable. The history sections aren't bad at all, and even have *gasp* citations. But the Politics, Economy, Trade and Investment, Energy Sector, Mining, and Unemployment sections need work. They need citations for starters, and some grammatical upgrades as well as "flow" in general. Some updated and more detailed info would be nice as well. The culture section is also weak.

I will begin working on these sections, at the least providing {{Fact}} tags as necessary to give some guidance. By urging editors to work on these sections as opposed to the Intro and Infoboxes the article will finally start moving towards not only my personal, but our collective goal of an article resulting in feature content quality. Regards, Beam 03:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the other parts need attention as well but the lead(intro) and the templates are very prominent so it's no wonder that many editors are intrested in questions relating to those. It's hard to get someone to write about the Economy or Energy Sector if they are simply not intrested in those. Getting the article to featured status is a nice goal and that could motivate people to write about ecomony to help the article reach FA but that's a very ambitous goal in this case I think one of the criteria for FA is stability (no edit wars) of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, recently me and a couple of other editors have instilled some stability. And I agree that of course the intro and infoboxes are of the most interest. But if we start doing the work on the other sections ourselves, I'm sure other editors will help us. I'll start asap. Beam 04:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good call, Beam. I've worked on controversial-topic articles before and it appears to be not uncommon that while huge amounts of energy are spent discussing/arguing a few bones of contention, the article as a whole can end up being of fairly poor quality, basically due to neglect. (I'd give you a hand, but I really don't know anything about Kosovo, apart from the current-conflict aspects!) Jonathanmills (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to have to study up on the sections myself, but I understand the basic idea of how the economy and related topics are playing out in Kosovo right now. But your support is appreciated. I of course will lead by example here (hopefully) and i'm not just trying to get others to do "hard work." Beam 15:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Template of how over 150 countries see Kosovo

Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохиja Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija
Capital	Priština
Official languages	Serbian, Albanian
Government	Autonomous Province
Autonomous Province
• Established	28 September 1990
• UNMIK administration	10 June 1999

This is my proposal - to put this template above the "Republic of Kosova" template, since less than 40 countries in the world recognize Kosovo as a Republic, while over 150 recognize Kosovo as an Autonomous Province of Serbia. Not only do the majority of countries in the world recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia, but UN Security Council Resolution 1244 also states that Kosovo is a part of Serbia (then FR Yugoslavia), so it's illogical to first state what a minority claims, and then what international law and the majority of countries in the world claim. As far as Kosovo itself is concerned, yes, they did declare independence, and I would NEVER vote in favor of removing the "Republic of Kosova" template, but we neet THIS ---> template as well. --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article for that.--Jakezing (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Kosovo article. Beam 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also an article called Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1999-) which includes the same infobox. nat.utoronto 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF? That article IS NOT supposed to be there. That is why we have a Kosovo article. I'm going to mark it for Speedy Deletion. This template in this section should be in this article anyway. There are two sections within the Kosovo article that deal with the Province and RoK. And the intro states them as well. That article is BULLSHIT. That was the whole point of this freaking merge. Beam 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was a little hasty. I'm a little confused as well as to how this should be done because it is dated (1999-).... The point of this Kosovo article is to have an all encompassing article on Kosovo. We should stick to the sections within the article. Beam 00:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I like that template (needs the currency as Dinars), but it doesn't have to go first. RoK can go first, that's fine. It shouldn't matter. Beam 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing, may I say that I don't see how you consider it neutral to have an article called "Kosovo" that practically describes the POV of the Kosovo Albanians and less than 40 countries in the world that recognized Kosovo's so-called independence (even though there is nothing really independent about Kosovo, which is occupied by foreign troops, mostly from the countries that recognize it's "independence"), and claim that any mention of the fact that over 150 countries that clearly adhere to UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and consider Kosovo a part of Serbia (then Yugoslavia) doesn't have a place in this article, because there seems to be a separate article which doesn't present ANY POV, except maybe Serbian nationalists which still dream that Kosovo is under Serbian administration. International law is clear, and I think that ignoring what is said in UNSCR 1244, the highest legal document concerning Kosovo (NOT it's declaration of "independence" it's so-called Constitution or anything else), and the fact that over 150 states respect this document, while a minority has decided to put their national interests above international law. This isn't the UN, but Wikipedia must present the realistic situation of Kosovo. I would even agree to put the "Republic of Kosova" template before this template, if that'll make the Kosovo Albanians happy. The order is not necessary, but all the facts need to be present. --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Drop some of that rhetoric buddy. I almost just deleted your whole comment. We are having a discussion not a rant fest. Beam 00:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam was right about that article. The consensus was a merge. I have redirected it. BalkanFever 00:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So, ipso facto, we need a template that represents the province... amirite? Beam 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAICT, yes. So do we (Bože Pravde, Beamathan, and BalkanFever, and anyone who isn't trolling) agree to place the template in? BalkanFever 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We could always combine the UNMIK and this template. I think that's the best way to do it, but I'm open to ideas. Oh and I think Boze IS trolling btw. Not with the template proposal per say, or even his justification, but his anti RoK rhetoric pansy ranting. Beam 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Combining the UNMIK and province template seems reasonable. Superm401 - Talk 02:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just dropping my view. First, it is not right to assume that all the countries that have not issued an official declaration recognizing Kosovo, do not effectively recognize it as independent. Many countries haven't provided any statement on the matter. In fact, many countries just don't care about Kosovo/Serbia at all, and their silence in the dispute should not be seen as unquestionable support for Serbia's position. Take Montenegro for example- still many countries have not officially recognized its undisputed independence, but that doesn't mean those countries are against it, it's just that they're not bothering to declare their recognition. Therefore, calling all the countries that have officially recognized Kosovo a "minority" just because 50 or so African nations haven't said a word about it seems hardly a good point for me. When it comes to the order of the infoboxes, I think it makes much more sense to have the Republic of Kosovo one on top, as that's the entity recognized by most democracies and English speaking countries (this is the English Wikipedia). Furthermore, we'll obviously have more and more countries recognizing Kosovo's independence in the future, not less and less, so that adds up to common sense I guess. Húsönd 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the order doesn't matter that much. If you guys come up with a compromise, great, but don't you agree the template should at least appear in the article? BalkanFever 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crabsauce Husond... do you really care about the order THAT much? How about order of appearance: AutoProvince than RoK? LOL I mean geez. Do you at least agree that it should appear? Beam 01:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, I do not troll, I state facts. Concerning national interests, several countries have openly said that it is in their national interest to recognize Kosovo's "independence", that's not me "ranting", it is a fact. Second of all, would anyone like to prove to me how a territory can be an independent republic when the "government" has no control over the territory, but is administered by a foreign body? I'd really like to hear you try that. Is it a rant to say that recognizing Kosovo's independence is something a minority of countries has done and, by doing so, violated UNSCR1244? If you think so, read the Resolution. All of these things are simple facts, but people don't like to state facts that go against their OPINION. Well, guess what, Wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion, but does care about facts. Trying to discredit facts by discrediting me hasn't worked so far, and I've been here for a long time now.

Also, to comment on Husond's opinion. "...it is not right to assume that all the countries that have not issued an official declaration recognizing Kosovo, do not effectively recognize it as independent...". Assumption is not necessary when facts are in question. If a country hasn't issued an official declaration to recognize Kosovo as independent, we can safely say that that country doesn't recognize Kosovo as independent. I know it sounds stupid to even say it, but it's amazing to which lenghts some people go to present facts in a way that suits them best. Oh, and your mention of Montenegro really makes me question if you have any idea of what you're talking about. "Take Montenegro for example- still many countries have not officially recognized its undisputed independence, but that doesn't mean those countries are against it, it's just that they're not bothering to declare their recognition" - there is a HUGE difference, in that Serbia signed a deal that Montenegro can separate, and it was automatically accepted into the UN, which demeans the necessity of individual recognition by UN Member states. There is also no UN resolution that states that Montenegro is a part of Serbia, or has to be a part of Yugoslavia, or whatever. Nice try, but Montenegro, other than neighboring Kosovo, has nothing to do with it. "Furthermore, we'll obviously have more and more countries recognizing Kosovo's independence in the future" - obviously, eh? Since when is personal opinion important in Wikipedia discussions? We're talking about facts here, not if we think that Kosovo should be independent or not, but what Kosovo is according to the facts: 1. UNSCR 1244 declares it as a part of Serbia (then Yugoslavia), 2. more than 150 countries adhere to that, 3. less than 40 countries don't (and this has been explained in length, which is also perfectly fine), 4. Kosovo is also de facto not independent, since it has no control over it's territory, but is run by the UN and NATO forces KFOR (soon EULEX). No opinion, only facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bože, I was speaking strictly about official recognition of independence when I mentioned Montenegro, so it was unnecessary to bring up all the differences between the separation procedures of Montenegro and Kosovo, which I am well aware of but still find irrelevant for the point I was trying to make. Which was merely and simply that countries that are silent about a country's newly declared independence do not imply a refusal to recognize it. Furthermore, recognizing a country's independence is an act of sovereignty that is independent of UN decisions, or the deal between Serbia and Montenegro, or the no-deal between Serbia and Kosovo. When I said that "we'll obviously have more and more countries recognizing Kosovo's independence" I was not expressing a personal opinion, but a fact instead. It's being that obvious for the past few months and it doesn't look like the recognition tendency will ever reverse. Again, 150 countries do not adhere to the UNSCR 1244 on Kosovo being a part of Serbia. Kosovo has declared its independence since the UNSCR 1244, so the panorama has changed. Countries that have neither recognized Kosovo's independence nor reiterated that Kosovo belongs to Serbia are not to be assumed as being on the side of Serbia. That's just political marketing that I have been reading in Serbian media lately. Quite a warm illusion for the Serbian readers, but from the diplomatic point of view this cannot be taken seriously. Only countries that officially recognize Kosovo's independence do so, and only countries that officially do not recognize Kosovo's independence, so do not. Pushing all the so far neutral countries into the Serbian side is rather pointless. Húsönd 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"it doesn't look like the recognition tendency will ever reverse" - Prove it, then state it. Looking at the past few months don't allow you to predict the rest of the future. Your predictions are your opinion, things can always change in a few years, decades, Wikipedia is not here to predict anything, and neither are you.

"Furthermore, recognizing a country's independence is an act of sovereignty that is independent of UN decisions" - OK, prove to me how UN Member States are allowed to go against UN Resolutions, the UN Charter and the Final Helsinki Act of 1975 (which was signed by most European states and even U.S.A. and Canada).

"Again, 150 countries do not adhere to the UNSCR 1244 on Kosovo being a part of Serbia." - Prove it, I'd really like to see you try. Tell me please, I'd love to hear how countries can pick parts of the Resolution they want to adhere to.

"Kosovo has declared its independence since the UNSCR 1244, so the panorama has changed." - So, you want to say that Resolutions are made to be broken? Pff, that's your opinion, and leave it out of the discussion.

"Countries that have neither recognized Kosovo's independence nor reiterated that Kosovo belongs to Serbia are not to be assumed as being on the side of Serbia" - Nobody said they're on the side of Serbia. They're simply on the side of international law, according to the UN Charter, UNSCR 1244 and the Final Helsinki Act. But this page isn't for discussing Kosovo in general (which is what you've turned it into), but rather discussing how we're going to state all the facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 07:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to prove anything. If you're going to dispute and distort every single thing I say, which is sadly a common yet futile practise by many Serbian/Albanian users when it comes to this topic, then I'll simply stop providing my feedback. Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a laboratory for mixing international law with angry nationalist pride and sentiment. There are many places where users may paint their own interpretations of UN and other international resolutions as they like. Luckily, this is not one of them. Húsönd 15:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The order in which the templates appear does not really matter, but the Serbian province template needs to be there for the sake of NPOV. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that it's impossible for you to never troll or break some guideline. And

agreed, I think think the original plan was to have a kosovo pov article and a serbia pov article, right?--Jakezing (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

One Kosovo article... that's the final solution. Thank you. Beam 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but i think one of the original idea's was the make a 2 articles, one that has

the serbian pov and one that has the kosovo pov, right? then that fell through to alot of arguments--Jakezing (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason being that it could possibly be a POV Fork. The arguments were quite heated about that, check out the archives. I was one of the people fighting for one article for the sake of NPOV. Beam 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents to the Infobox discussion: A) I don't mind adding the "Kosovo and Metohija" infobox- however that makes me wonder whether we still need the UNMIK one (after all, there are two legal interpretations of Kosovo: either it is the independent Republic of Kosovo, or it is the Autonomous Province of K&M; there is nothing like an UNMIK Kosovo...). B) Secondly, as for both cases Pristina is the capital, is it really necessary to mention that in both infoboxes? C) As Albanian is also a national language in the the Autonomous Province of K&M, the Infobox definitely needs to contain the translation of "Autonomous Province of K&M" to Albanian. D) As a Reply to Boze Pravde: the fact that the EULEX force is stationed in Kosovo does not imply that the Republic of Kosovo has no control of the territory. After all, the whole administration (incl. schools, police, etc.) is run by the Republic of Kosovo (except in the Northern Serb bits). E) What is the "exiled" government of "the Autonomous Province of K&M"? Surely, if it is an autonomous province of Serbia, there must be an autonomous government somewhere - e.g. in the case of Abkhazia, there is a pro-Georgian one hiding somewhere too - it would be interesting to mention in the Infobox. The infobox of Voivodina also includes the important members of regional governement, and surely we should treat the infoboxes of both Serbian autonomous provinces the same. Khuft (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this infobox, firstly because the UNMIK infobox has the same information (in fact more), so why do we need to have 4 infoboxes, or if the idea here is to replace the UNMIk one then this proposal is only suggesting removal of information, or if it is suggesting adding it as a fourth one, then what it is suggesting is adding the same information twice -- Cradel 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the "UNMIK Box" be renamed or replaced by Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Beam 22:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija Krahina autonome e Kosovës dhe Metohisë Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija
Kosovo within Serbia
Capital	Pristina
Government
• Special Representative	Joachim Rücker
• President	Fatmir Sejdiu
Autonomous province  UN administration of Kosovo, an autonomous province of Serbia
• UNSCR 1244	10 June, 1999
• Joint Kosovar/UN administration	May 2000
• EULEX	16 February, 2008

Taking into consideration some of the comments, here is the slightly edited version of the UNMIK template :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 07:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets not forget the official languages and add albanian ("Krahina autonome e Kosovës dhe Metohisë/Dikagjinit") to the title and then it would be better, even though I think the current map is better I dont care much about the map, but anyway I wouldent mind replacing after that -- Cradel 11:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How about just Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija? Forget the native name. Beam 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - Cradel 18:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why get rid of the native names?! Because it looks better? That's not a reason to hide facts. I added the Albanian version. --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They aren't needed Boze. Those "facts" are in the Auto Province section of the article. Beam 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I will agree only if the translations are removed from the "Republic of Kosova" template as well. --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap... honestly I think the "native translations" shouldn't be in infoboxes anyway. In or out, I don't care. See what everyone else thinks. And that recent edit you made to the intro isn't helpful imo. It's in chronological order, as a method of neutrality. Beam 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I take that back, we will keep the native names in all infoboxes, GoJ is right, it does look better - Cradel 20:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Boze, you can do it now I think. Replace the UNMIK box with the Serb Auto Province. Leave the native translations per Cradel, and let's move the freak on. Make sure you include all the info that is in the UNMIK box. And add Dinars (sic?) as the currency. Ok? Beam 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the template. Before I add the currency, I believe we should put both Euro and Dinar on there. Comments? --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I say Dinar as the official currency and Euros as the unofficial currency. Beam 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But I don't know which is the official currency, according to UNSCR 1244. --GOD OF JUSTICE 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not specific. But this is the AutoProvince template, which while it is governed under UNMIK, retains the Dinar as the official currency as far as I can tell. However, in the page section where it is discussed I found out that on the ground Euros are used in the south, and Dinars in the north. So Euros as unofficial currency for the province, and Dinars as official. Beam 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

intro - It has historically been part of...

Hi, I think the intro text starting "It has historically been part of the Kingdom of Dardania..." is not very good. I don't see a lot of other articles on countries/territories/regions where all the political constellations which that region has belonged to since antiquity are counted off in the second sentence of the intro. This can hardly be a defining aspect of Kosovo.

• Kingdom of Dardania - this can hardly be relevant. Aslo, I think it was more of a group of tribes rather than an actual 'Kingdom'.
• Roman empire - most regions in southern and western Europe and certainly all in the western Balkans belonged to the Roman empire, yet that is not a defining aspect of the country/territory/region which needs to be included in the intro.
• Byzantine empire - same as above.
• First and Second Bulgarian empires - again, how is this relevant to understanding present day Kosovo?

However, given the present conflict between Serbs and Albanians over Kosovo (and that the Serb's claim to Kosovo is based on their medieval heritage) I do think it is relevant to state (though not necessarily early in the intro) that Kosovo was the center of medieval Serbia, was part of the Ottoman empire and subsequently included in Yugoslavia, etc. This helps the reader understand the present day conflict. The first four do not. Any thoughts? CheersOsli73 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good the way it is. Emto (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about the current conflict. For Christ's sake. This article is on Kosovo. Thanks for the input though. Beam 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Osli. An obvious wish to avoid any edit warring (how can the current conflict be somehow irrelevant to an article about Kosovo?) is simply resulting in a second-rate article (and again, I honestly don't mean any offence; I understand what edit-warring does and actually feel for the editors who have been in the trenches this whole time!) Jonathanmills (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. This whole article is about Kosovo, not solely the recent conflict. That being true than why would the intro be catered to the current conflict? Beam 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's you who don't 'get it'. The way you're talking about it, it's as if because the article isn't *specifically* about the current conflict (rather, Kosovo as a whole topic), the current conflict should somehow be needlessly played down. By your reasoning, *nothing* would really belong in the article, as the article is 'about Kosovo, not about [whatever aspect of Kosovo]'! Jonathanmills (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On rereading that, I see I may have somewhat misrepresented your position, as it looks like you're referring to the intro specifically (rather than the whole article). However, I can't see why a mention of the current conflict doesn't belong in the intro -- it's a very important aspect of Kosovo, surely? Jonathanmills (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes exactly I am talking about the intro, no hard feelings meant. I agree it's important, but the intro is just that: an introduction. Considering the whole article is on Kosovo, I feel that the basic idea of the current conflict that we do touch on currently is enough. If this article was about the RoK or DoI than of course more information would be needed. I think that some info like the whole East and West support factor could be mentioned in the RoK section. And this whole thing on just focusing on the important historical aspects as they affect the current conflict won't work for this article's intro. Beam 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, no hard feelings at all. The people who do get on my wick are those who are blatantly biased and (more importantly) don't have any interest in writing balanced, NPOV articles, but you're clearly not in that category.

I do (respectfully) still disagree with your apparent stance regarding this -- I think what Osli was proposing, and as he said 'not necessarily early in the intro', would be an improvement on what is there now, and I don't think it entails 'just focusing on the important historical aspects as they affect the current conflict', as you put it -- however, I can certainly understand an unwillingness to make significant revisions in the context of a history of severe edit-warring. (Not that that is necessarily your reasoning, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was playing some part in it!) Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It has nothing to do with edit wars. It's just simply that the Kosovo article about Kosovo as a whole and throughout history, is not going to focus on the RoK Saga. And the intro being the intro to an article on all of Kosovo in all time won't be catered to the saga either. Beam 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and I'm sorry for second-guessing your motivation. However, I still think Osli has a point, and while I agree with you that it would be a mistake to make the current conflict the entire focus of the intro, I believe it would be an improvement to include a line about how Serbia and the Albanians came into conflict about it (after all, the first sentence of the existing article points out that it is a 'disputed territory', so it would only be making this a bit clearer -- IMHO). Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Islam vs Christians

The section is very, let's say polictical. It boils to: "Valiant serbs didn't convert, scummy Albanians took the Christians' land. " Serbs didn't convert? (You no longer call them Serbs, but they did conert and Serbs were vassals. And what is "Christian land"? What was before it was "Christian"?

Why not write "Serbs came in hordes and took the native's land"

be fair and stop the nonsense —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Term to describe Status

Currently the introduction states Kosovo as a "disputed territory", however upon clicking the link it uses Kashmir as an example - the archetype of a disputed territory. In the conflict over Kashmir, all three of the main players recognize eachother (China, Pakistan, India), however there is dispute over the borders of the territory of "Kashmir". This seems to make sense. However this is not the case for Kosovo. Serbia does not have a "dispute" with the Republic of Kosovo, Serbia doesn't recognize the Republic of Kosovo's existance..

For clarification I include the definition that Wikipedia uses for "Disputed territory" (at this time)

"A territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states, or over the possession or control of land by one state after it has conquered it from a former state no longer currently recognized by the occupying power."

Again, note the mention of "states" - there cannot be a "territorial dispute" between two states when one of the states claims the entirity of what the other state considers it's borders. (Furthermore if you use this definition it seems to be saying that Serbia recognizes The Republic of Serbia to have the dispute with - its circular.

Overall, the way its set up makes it look like Serbia has a dispute with another country over the territory of Kosovo, however this is certainly not the case, so for me this definition was lacking

I then looked at how other articles dealt with similiar issues. There seem to be two things that define the situation for Kosovo, that it is not a member of the UN, but it is recognized by at least one other country with UN membership. And that it has control over the vast majority of what it claims within its borders.

I make the assumption that UN membership is the de facto delineation between what we can call a country in a NPOV way, and something that need to be defined differently.

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is "partially recoginzed state" [By 45 UN members]

Republic of China [Taiwan] is a "multi-party democratic state with limited international recognition [By 22 UN members]

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a "de facto indepedent" republic [By 1 UN member]

The Republic of Kosovo has recoginition by 39 UN members.

The two that are closest to Kosovo situation include the word "state" with qualification. (limited or partially)

This seems to me that in order to be consistent, and keeping within a NPOV that Kosovo should be described in a similiar fashion - acknowledging its control over the majority of its territory but with the qualification that it is not fully recoginized (via UN membership)

Hence I propose using the same definition for Kosovo as Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as it seems to be in the closest situation. (similiar recoginition numbers)

So Kosovo should be defined as "partially recognized state" (with the partially recognized as a link directioning to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#States_which_formally_recognise_Kosovo_as_independent

(Madrone (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

"Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo" are not the same thing. Kosovo is a disputed territory - the parties to the dispute being Serbia and the (partially recognised) "Republic of Kosovo". BalkanFever 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" is disputed yet it has an article, so is the macedonian language and the macedonian people. The territory of Kosovo is not disputed but the sovereignty of the government of RoK over that territory. Or is wikipedia trying to be objective only selectively? Jawohl (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that nobody disputes the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, and the government of the Republic of Macedonia has undisputed sovereignty over that area. It's a very different situation, one that isn't relevant here. BalkanFever 05:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And that is exactly my point. sovereignty. While here you are constantly referring to the "territory" and refuse to name the article "Republic of Kosovo". Should we also name the article on Macedonia "FYROM" instead because 120 countries have recognized it by that name. And please tell us what is the difference between Kosovo and RoK. I still have not figured it out. Thanks. Jawohl (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In case of Macedonia, only the name is disputed; in case of Kosovo, everything is disputed. Nikola (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ups. Wikipedia knows better then the rest of us again. Have fun with your virtual reality. Jawohl (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

glad to be of service -- after all, it is the job of an encyclopedia to present knowledge. dab (𒁳) 07:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the logic which is followed in this article, it is also disputed wether wiki is an encyclopedia since a very small amount of the world population recognizes it as such. But thanks for the efforts anyway. Jawohl (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Brewing edit war in Albania article, about the status of Kosovo

People working on the Kosovo article may want to be aware that there is a dispute in progress on the Albania article over how Kosovo should be described in a list of Albania's geographical neighbours. Some want to say "Kosovo", but others are insisting on calling it "Serbia". People on both sides are digging in their heels, and it definitely has the potential to turn into an edit war. Anyone who wants to weigh in on this discussion may wish to go check out the Albania article and its talk page. Richwales (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This will probably create more trouble than solve anything.People vandalise articles all the time.Urging more people to join the edit-war won't help.Amenifus (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hupchik

Pardon my ignorance in not understanding the greatness of this reference but could someone explain what is it all about?And about: On the whole, "Albanians had little cause of unrest" and "if anything, grew important in Ottoman internal affairs",I don't know if it's original research but it IS the editors own conclusion.Someone act accordingly.Amenifus (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It is quoted as such, is not OR and is not anyone's own conclusion except that of the historian's. Hxseek (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's Dennis Hupchik we're talking about.Throwing a last name is not exactly proper referencing, and the original quote is nowhere to be found.Amenifus (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will fix the ref. Hxseek (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro is pro-Serb. That's a fact

It is sooooo sad Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda tool by colorful Serb Wikipedians. E.g in the intro it is stated Russia is against Kosovo's independence but it is not stated that USA and EU support independence. The article is biased against Albanians in Kosovo. --Noah30 (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just undid your POV edit. Please leave the intro alone. Any further edits of that nature will be reported as vandalism. Thank you. Beam 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Let me say something, the intro puts out both prevailing views on the DOI and the state of Kosovo today, how is that not NPOV? Also, we've worked hard on this article for months, and you come in and change it out of no where, it's not appreciated. Please discuss the article prior to editing it. Thanks again, your cooperation is not only appreciated it's the right way to do it son. Beam 23:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is you who are making POV edits. I just added that USA and EU support Kosovo since Russia is mentioned and not Kosovo. I am going to incorporate this in the intro. Why not? --Noah30 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the only country that should be mentioned explicitly in the intro is Serbia. So I will remove mentioning of Russia, one can easily see all teh countries in the appropriate article. --Tone 12:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam no doubt is pro Serb. WP has been turned into a Serbian Propaganda Machine --- they use explicitly Serbian names for cities, people, and history. So Kosova was part of all these Serbian empire/state but never part of Albania or part of an Albanian tribe? What BS. The intro reeks with POV. One look at Italy or United States of America you will see that POLITICS comes first than History comes last. Republic of Kosova needs to be talked first, and its' government, thannnnn history. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused. on the United States article, History is the 4th section, Politics is the 5th. On Italy History is 2nd and Politics is 4th. And to Noah30 the EU does not support Kosovo, nor does it not support it. It is up to all member states to make own decisions, and there are both pro and against countries сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..who are you? I think I know who you are...Osli73! Why did you change nick? This kind of editors are called sock puupets. --Noah30 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And you calling other editors "pro Serb" is just trowing stones in glass houses. You're one of the most obvious pov pushers сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite. I have fought for NPOV for months now k2k8, and I take offense to your false and baseless accusations. Beam 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

really? What do you call this, "The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. The country is situated mostly i.." Those are the first words in the article. Hey beam, I'm sorry you feel offended, I'm also quiet distressed that you can't spell my name correctly to begin with. I am not a POV pusher as you claim, I am not AN EDITOR like you guys, I use something known as firefighter policy. I sound the alarm when I see something severely wrong. You guys use the cop policy, you always patrol a beat (edit,change,etc) and keep information new. Last thing, beam I've heared a lot of people talk about how you screwed them with your pov---can you also get a new catchphrase, this whole glass house isn't working. Kosova2008 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're not an editor, what are you? And can you link to the firefighter policy on wikipedia? As for your name, he abbreviated it, not misspelled it. If you don't like it, tell him so politely. Finally, this all started with yet another in a seemingly endless litany of POV vs POV messes. try to de-escalte, not inflame the situation, mr. Firefighter. ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not misspell your name, you misread that apparently. Also, you seem to confuse mew with someone else who pointed out your POV, I never mentioned a glass house. I guess I'll forgive you for the rest if you just misread someone else's comments as mine. That's no problem. And your firefighter policy is more like fire starter, to be honest. You keep pushing fort Albanian POV which like I said before is understandable. I have no problem with you saying that stuff, I just won't let that POV into the article if I can help it. Beam 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can everyone please try to not feed the trolls? A posting as obviously intended as a flamebait as "It is sooooo sad Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda tool by colorful Serb Wikipedians" should be removed on sight, not answered. dab (𒁳) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dab, are you such a nationalistic Serb? No? So please do not act like Milosevic or even Seseli but please refrain from Kosovo related articles. After I read your writings I am shocked about your hate. You must really hate Albanians and Western world from the bottom of your heart. Even novelist Peter Handke was not so full of hate like you are. Is that your motivation? It seems so. I hope you get banned soon. --Solidjohn (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Are you really comparing DAB to Milosevic? LOL! I'm sorry to laugh but this is getting unbelievable. Both Serbs and Albanians need to realize that this article is going to be Neutral and WILL NOT favor their particular personal view points. Beam 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan, may I once again point you to WP:DFTT and WP:DENY. Answering such postings isn't helpful. The correct reaction is removal on sight. dab (𒁳) 11:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

@beam, the chances that this article will be neutral are slim to zero. It is already POV whether you believe it or not. Just because you believe that your version of POV is neutral it isn't neutral no matter how many times you write it, say it, or think it. 128.206.48.13 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What isn't neutral about it? Just saying it's not neutral, no matter how many times you write it, say it, or think it doesn't make it so. Beam 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that user. First of all search words Kosova and/or 'kosovo' should redirect to a disambigious page where the user picks what he/she wants to read (not this article). Secondly, the map, the history, the names, are all SERBIAN. We need to have another concensus for what the redirects of Kosova or 'kosovo' are. One article should be this and the other about Republic of Kosova. I think everyone would be happy that way. Kosova2008 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The names are the ENGLISH names. And there shouldn't be a RO Kosova article because the name in english is Kosovo. And some weeks ago or whenever it was, there was a split proposal but I don't think it was followed through. Chandler ♠ TALK 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

k2k8, They are English. I wonder why you keep saying this article is Serbian and what not. Kosovo up until this year was Serbia within recent history, don't you know that? Beam 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

b3am you're funny LOL. Have you ever been to Rep of Kosova or do you believe what Serbianna and Tanjung tell you? Kosova2008 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not supposed to be in Albanian or Kosovo dialect. This is an English wikipedia. English is my first language, I read all my historical research and current event sources in English, I attain my knowledge in English (sometimes Latin haha). I have asked you to use your unique knowledge and experiences to help further the article. There is an open invitation for you to help write parts of this article. Go to this section and contribute to the article. I think you have some knowledge that could help us k2k8. Beam 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We should add in the intro that Kosovo was part of Albania in WWII. This happened from 1941 to 1944. --Sulmues 18:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)

I am Albanian .... i think the intro is pretty neutral. I have lived in Kosova/Kosovo and in the spirit of neutrality I would appreciate it if wikipedia could put the names of locations in Serbian as well as Albanian. I was somewhat disatisfied with the arguement that the names are written in English... they are not. They are a English forms of the Serbian name... It would be greatly appreciated if the name Kosov"a" were mentioned since it is the official name through which the country identifies itself in its new constitution. Apart from that I just want to thank Wikipedia for maintaining an failry neutral article on this country especially because it is so contraversial and because the previous versions were indeed as you would say "Pro Serbian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.149.235 (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone stop argueing right now. I am not refering to the post above but to this section's discussion in general. There is no point in accusing each other of being "pro-Serbian" or "pro-Albanian". This pathetic arguing only makes this article of even lower quality. Anyone can access Wikipedia, I hope that no 12 year old children ever accidently come across this page, for they will see grown adults visciously insulting and attacking each other. Think about what kind of atmosphere you are setting for Wikipedia when you post your comments, this is a controversial topic, there is no clean cut answer for a lot of issues on this page, so please, no one pretend that they know the "truth" about Kosovo. It is very complicated and experts themselves are not unanimous on many of the issues debated. This page should stick to well-sourced information from neutral sources and seriously scrutinize any source that are from either written Albanian or Serbs. I know that there are Albanian and Serb writers who are not biased, but there are also many who are. This is the unfortunate consequence of the violence between the two peoples which has brought out alternate histories of the events in both countries, each side claiming to have been more victimized by the other side, as it is natural for governments in many parts of the world to push for the minimalization of material that casts negative judgements on recent history of the government or group of people involved. This article should be highly scrutinized and controversial claims should have to be backed up by multiple sources.--R-41 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pristina/Prishtina/Priština (again and again)

In light of the ongoing and still unresolved† Wikipedia debate on which spelling should be used for Kosovan/Serbian locales, chiefly the capital as well as the main city in the Serbian-inhabited region of northern Kosovo (I'm purposefully not naming either :)), I introduced in the article what I consider to be the absolutely NPOV and complete way of referring to them, namely, linking to the name under which the article of the city is lodged, and using the other name or names in parentheses that follow.

This has the benefit of not taking any position on which name is correct and in fact mirrors what UNMIK does in its official use, where Albanian/Serbian names are always presented together, separated by a slash. Well, using the alternative name (names) in parentheses is in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style of style and disambiguates for those readers who may have come across one but not the other version, depending on where on the planet they are. For example, in the capital of Kosovo, on the ground, one English spelling predominates. The same spelling is used on web pages of American universities which mention collaboration with the Kosovan state university located in the capital and the capital itself. A different spelling is used by the BBC and the US State Department (generally, US government). Yet third spelling is used by those English-language media which take pains to represent local diacritics properly.

Instead of taking a Point of View and using that biased choice, even as far as deciding which of the three English spellings of the Kosovan capital city we should hold as more English than the other two :), I propose to simply list/use all three. The linked representation is always made to where the page resides, without prejudice as to whether it is the right choice or an arbitrary choice. In the mater of Kosovska Mitrovica, its article is parked under Mitrovica, Kosovo, but no one will use that string verbatim, so piping the link with either Kosovska Mitrovica or Mitrovica makes sense, while using the other name in parentheses. Nearby in Serbia, there is another Mitrovica, which makes disambiguation that much more necessary.

I also refer you to the Wikipedia article section link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles)#RfC_on_the_Prishtina.2FPristina.2FPri.C5.A1tina_naming_dispute (Request for Comment underway), which is the place for considering this issue. It was announced on this talk page in its time, but this announcemement got archived since then, and the RfC remains out of site of local "policemen". So I am revisiting that announcement, since there has arisen a suspicion, that I am making edits without discussing them first. In point of fact, this issue has been discussed on Wikipedia for years, and continues to be discussed, and no binding guideline as to contextual use has emerged yet.

I consider my edit to be a) in accordance to the guideline known as WP:NPOV, and b) correctly linking to articles while avoiding redirects. I hope that both considerations speaks for themselves. Your comments, please --Mareklug ^talk 19:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL @ starting a section after I already had. But anyway, we had a huge discussion on this in the past, and now it seems a lot of editors are walking into the article and making changes regarding Pristina.

As the Kosovo article says at the top, when you goto edit it, Pristina was the result of our discussion previously, it was the resulting consensus.

The way I see it is that Pristina is the most common and predominant way that English speakers spell the name. I believe the CIA spells it this way, and news agencies have reported on it using Pristina as the spelling.

Pristina is how we spell it in English. Seeing as how we don't have that "s" character in one of the proposed spellings, that's a pretty good sign that we don't use it in English, obviously. And Prishtina, well, I think it's wrong. Beam 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

STOP MAKING THIS EDIT WITHOUT DISCUSSION/CONSENSUS. STOP. PLEASE STOP. THANK YOU. Beam 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are making comments on frankly low-brow end of the merit scale: "Pristina is how we spell it in English". Arrogance of the "we" aside, this is clearly not how many others spell it in English. My citing and sourcing these uses in the appropriate space (the RfC) go completely unacknowledged by you. Furthermore, you set up yourself as some sort of a policeman, and for an unfathomable reason, seem convinced of your superiority all the while posing as representing some mythical consensus. In point of fact, no consensus has emerged. You can at best speak of neglect. I have been involved in the Kosovo articles in other places, and do not need to present my credentials as Wikipedian to you. Kindly direct your browser to the requisite RfC as well as the talk page for the city and its university, and you will be presented with several running discussions on this very topic. To talk of consensus here is to misrepresent the situation. Furthermore, you really don't have to be obnoxious, forcibly, repeatedly reverting, and shouting and emboldening while not listening to reason. My edit did not remove any information, but provided a neutral way to reference the city impartially. While at it, I fixed some other things and performed updates. But your knee-jerk repeat reverts undid all that. We don't have lots of characters in the common set of 26 glyphs known as the English alphabet, but that does not mean diacritic use even in native English words is unheard of. The practices of typography are varied and continue to diverge between popular and scholarly. In matters of reference, Wikipedia tends to side with the accurate and the scholarly, as any casual perusal of ethnic place names be they Polish, Turkish, Czech or Portuguese will show. Arguments based on ignorance are paltry arguments. --Mareklug ^talk 21:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

this isn't "unresolved". The various spellings and its implications may be discussed at Pristina, not here. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is unresolved, as there is no biding policy in effect. Or do you know any different? And while editing the section title you could have chosen to fix the spelling, but you didn't. I don't think that was a particularly friendly or impartial edit, circumstances being what they are. And your linking to a redirect in your comment amply shows bending reality, as the city continues to be lodged at Priština. So, I submit, pushing things under the rug and telling me to shove off to another talk page is hardly indicative of consensus, either, especially as another reverting gentleman is insisting that it be hashed out again on this page and agreed to, before any reasonable NPOV improvements can be introduced. In all, what I see here is forcing the issue of spelling "Pristina", opposition or other evidence be damned. --Mareklug ^talk 21:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

this isn't the right place to begin edit wars about spelling preferences. This article has to bear enough tension as it is. It is also under arbcom probation, and any disruptive editing may result in immediate blocks. You are free to suggest a compromise for Kosovo-related toponyms, but this simply isn't the right page for that, even if you did not edit war about it. I frankly don't care how the name is spelled. The important thing is to discuss it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština, not here. Come back once a consensus has been established there. dab (𒁳) 10:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are distorting my contribution and what I said and did. Not only did I provide a link to the same place you indicated, but identified it as the place where discussion on this is ongoing, and the correct place for it, in those words. Furthermore, there is no consensus, which you misleadingly maintain there is, as does Beamathan. There is simply localized (by article) de facto usage. Finally, I proposed not a compromise but a NPOV way of accomodating all viewpoints when identifying the captial city in this articcle, and this talk page is for that. So please addres the suggestion on its merits already. I would further suggest that accomodating all viewpoints goes towards reducing tensions and strain under which this article finds itself, not the opposite. Furthermore, I assiduously avoided any spelling preferences, as you put it. --Mareklug ^talk 02:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No he's not. Please view the actual series of events as they happened at User_talk:Beamathan#May_2008. You're very in the wrong here, and unfortunately when I defended NPOV and Consensus I was wrongly blocked. Dab has represented edits you tried to make correctly. Read this for the reason why. Beam 02:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan, you are ignoring the April 9 2008 Request for Comments, where this is being hashed out, and are not even participating there, while the discussion there remains completely openended, without any imminent convergence. How you can maintain all along that there has been achieved consensus on this issue is beyond me. And why you at all oppose representing all POVs in this article, when it comes to mentioning the name of Kosovo's capital is also beyond me. And why you chose to alter names of institutions which happen to contain a reference to the city spelled idiosyncratically is also beyond me. Somehow you have experienced a short-cirtuit that admits "Pristina" is the only way to spell under all circumstances, whether referring to the city, context be damned, or to some institutional name incorporating the city. This is completely bogus and against Wikipedia policies or common sense. --Mareklug ^talk 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it! Until you've reached a consensus over there, than the consensus we reached HERE stands. It's Pristina within this Kosovo article until there is general consensus on Wikipedia otherwise. Ok? That's why your edits WILL NOT be let to stand here. Do you understand now? Dab told you, this isn't the place to discuss Pristina further. Ok? Beam 03:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is you who does not get it. Consensus is agreement by all, and we clearly have no such agreement. You are referring to localized patterns of entrenched usage. And, frankly, you and others have created such an unfriendly environment on this talk page, that many users, including me, have been avoiding it altogether. This is hardly an endorsement of any consensus-building. My edit will of course stand here, as soon as you attain enlightment and consider it calmly on its merits, as representing all viewpoints and naming contexts admitted by the English language, without favoring any one, which is the thing to do in a general article on the subject of Kosovo, and also, my usage is in accordance with the content of the Wikipedia article about the city, where as first bit of information the reader is told that the city name is spelled in English three different ways. Yes, this talk page is very much the place to discuss how the city is referred to in this article, regardless of what you or Dab may have told me. So, do you understand already that you are blocking NPOV improvements by adhering to some "this is my turf and I have settled it already" principle? Please consider what I proposed to add to the article calmly, on its merits, and please convince yourself that your editing names of institutions to suit your worldview is completely prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Yet, that uncalled for edit is what brought me here, as I had the article on my watchlist. --Mareklug ^talk 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring the simple fact that we had a consensus. And that we already had an NPOV which was reached from consensus. I can't even fathom how you keep arguing. I'm sorry but you need to just stop. Follow Dab's advice please! I'm done with you. I'm pretty sure that other editors will prevent you from breaching consensus here so that I won't have to get blocked doing it. Good night sir, and good luck with your life. Beam 04:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And I have blocked Mareklug and Beamathan for this silly edit war. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan was defending the consensus version, as is evident from your "rv to before the edit war" being minimal. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, question of defending the (nonexistent) consensus aside, Beamathan's initial edit improperly reverted another, third editor's correction introducing exact own institutional names for certain institutions which represent themselves in English idiosyncratically, and it just so happens that the name of the city forms part of these names. Per administrator user:ChrisO, it is Wikipedia policy that we represent institutions exactly as they represent themselves. Furthermore, that Beamathan's edit caused my intervention, where I restored the correct institutional names, while introducing a catholic (as in, all-encompassing) indication for the city itself throughout the article, thereby removing any POV biases instilled there temporarily, under, might I add, your care. --Mareklug ^talk 03:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Marklug, you're being ignorant. We have an existing consensus. That's where the comment on the edit page came from. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT describes your argument perfectly. Beam 04:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just standard operating procedure. Plus, remember, this article is on ArbCom probation and we been asked to be harsh on users who cause problems. Locking didn't work, so blocking has to come. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Beamathan#May_2008 Beam 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

whatever. The current upshot at the relevant discussion page is that the preferred spelling is Pristina. It is a very clear-cut case as these things go (much clearer than the Danzig vs. Gdansk or Zurich vs. Zürich precedents). There is no need to have the discussion spill on this page, we have other things to discuss here. I suppose we could agree to give all three spellings in the infobox, but the article body should definitely have Pristina. Regarding the "University of Priština", the article needs to be disambiguated. the University of Pristina is confusingly a different institution from the University of Prishtina. I grant you that special care is needed here to avoid confusion. dab (𒁳) 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You wrote on March 4 "I suppose we could agree to give all three spellings in the infobox", so can this be done already, or will such edit be perceived as disruptive? I don't fully understand the motivation for effectively hiding the fact that "Prishtina" and "Priština" abound both on Wikipedia and in real life English, in proper names of institutions also. Why should an average reader be weirded out by alternative spellings - the first infobox of Kosovo, whichever it happens to be this week, is a right high visibility place to restate this info for popular consumption, as it already is enshirned as the first line of the article about the city. The present controversy cum enforcement makes me think of Spanish Inquisition/Monty Python, and when the local linguistic police spells a la "rediculous", the erudition in the local ambient appears a bit dodgy. --Mareklug ^talk 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Beam and Dab: (Albanian) Prishtinë/Prishtina (Serbian) Pristina/Priština

All articles will be disputed if you use Priština over Pristina because they are both POV. Now the argument used is that Pristina is more commonly used...okay, what if I start calling both of you Josh from today and get everyone to call you Josh ---- does that mean that your name is Josh because that's what people refer to you? No, your name is still Beam/Dab. Even though I am against "Pristina" I will allow it, but "priština" is a serious red flag. Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You can call me Josh if you want! Beam 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From the other Kosovo articles I been asked to look at, folks have been discussing this issue and I mostly see Pristina. I don't know if this is being used because it is mostly used in the English language papers or due to the lack of ability to type the proper accent marks. But if I can put my own opinion, I like Pristina. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons that I think it's obviously not "Priština" in English is because...(dramatic pause)... we don't have the "š" letter in our language! lol, I don't see how people don't get that. Beam 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Josh how do you spell the serbian S? I hate discussing this because I always have to copy and paste. Kosova2008 68.187.142.80 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste. It's rediculous to think that on an English Wiki we'd use letters that don't exist in English. Why doesn't Marklug get that? Beam 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made some comments on the issue. - Ev (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Beam, this doesn't belong here, but "It's rediculous to think that on an English Wiki we'd use letters that don't exist in English" is sadly mistaken. We even have articles about "letters that don't exist in English" (ᛦ, ﺽ, Ψ, 𒌷 etc.) The question is, "is there a commonly used anglicized spelling in English langauge sources?" In the case of Pristina, the answer is yes. dab (𒁳) 06:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm saying that why would we use a version of Pristina with a letter that we don't have in the English language when there is an anglicized version. I still love you, don't worry. Beam 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The point you are consistently ignoring is that Pristina is not a uniquely appropriate or uniquely deemed proper spelling for the English language, and, in view of many knowledgable people, only a half-assed corruption of Priština, albeit popular, but not suitable for encyclopedic use. The proper Wikipedian modus operandi given justified dissent would be to include all viewpoints in the main space use, not ostracize some, or edit-war over them, or heaven help us, impose a usage through vote. --Mareklug ^talk 20:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense but you're wrong, it is the appropriate and deemed proper spelling. Oh, and you misspelled "knowledgeable", that's a little ironic. Anyway, go check out CNN, or the CIA. Beam 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But I am offended, no less, sir. In part, I am offended by your ignorance and smugness. To wit, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledgable plainly allows "knowledgable" as an alternative spelling for "knowledgeable", listed so in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, year 2006.

And I am not wrong, kind sir.

You might think better than find fault with another editor's spelling, having yourself left an uncorrected "rediculous" earlier on this talk page. "Rediculous" is widely perceived as a common error among the uneducated, no two words about it; it is not a typo, which a generous person might suppose an omission of an "e" in "knowledgeable" to be. Or not, as I have sourced its dictionary presence. But perhaps you were just being ironic writing "rediculous", creating a convivial, easy-going atmosphere of half-assed langauge use, as it were? To make us all feel at ease?

Please don't send me to the CIA or the CNN, after I have found "Prishtina" in the published formal English letters of the President of the Republic of Kosovo, or lodged as the main entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica 1905 for this city, or on the scholarly web pages of Harvard University, University of Iowa, University of Illinois at Chicago, Princeton University, Yale University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dartmouth College, European Union, and notable NGOs, such as "A.I. Prishtina", or the international air traffic control agency, CARO, to name a few.

In sum, not only am I not wrong, but it is you who are blithering while being dismissive, impervious to reasoned persuasion, unwilling to include justified alternative viewpoints, all the while abridging the Wikipedia process. --Mareklug ^talk 03:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We have the Serbian version Priština
We have the Albanian version Prishtina
Then we have Pristina which is neither Albanian or Serbian, therefore I believe this to be best as it the most neutral and isn't pro Serbian or pro Albanian. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me basically close out this topic by saying that if Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština forms a consensus to anything other than Pristina I will be surprised, but I will be happy to see that consensus represented here. Beam 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, sir. I will not let you basically, or acidicly for that matter, impose your one-sided say (and will) on this talk page topic, or the article content it affects, by letting you close out this topic, as you would have it.

It ain't over, until the fat lady sings; for us, until we resolve it by consensus. So far, your editing on Kosovo includes:

• being glib and dismissive on this talk page,
• not being receptive to other editors' presentation of evidence,
• edit-warring and being blocked for it,
• being topic-banned for Kosovo topics,
• presuming to close off the debate, which is acting the part of 61 small furry animals gathered together in a cave (U.S. Senate) and grooving with a Pict.

Not only is all that not the Wikipedia way, but you, as a relative newbie, are abjectly failing at building consensus, if that is what you think you are doing. Your talk page conversation here has been insensitive, alienating, and has -- so far -- built no consensus. Your opposing a more inclusive content also makes no sense:

Why do you fight tooth and nail the concept of including alternative spellings -- even a mere mention that there are such -- for the capital of Kosovo in the article "Kosovo", when the Wikipedia's article about the capital itself lists 3 alternative spellings in English, without passing judgment on the fidelity or applicability of any one? Please explain, for it is a mystery, sir. Why is it ok to do over there, but over here, to quote Jane Siberry?--Mareklug ^talk 03:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, you have my support and I hope for the sake of the article that user Beam and user dab aka "Dbachmann" will be banned as they have taken this article into hostage avoiding any improvement and as long as they are not banned I and many others refuse to get involved in the article. --Tubesship (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

oh yeah? It's "beam and dab" now? You want to be careful yourself. WP:CONSENSUS is between bona fide editors who understand and subscribe to policy. Mere "I don't like it", "la la I can't hear you" or "Kosovo will always be Serbian/independent, it's a fact" will not stall consensus: you aren't even participating in collaborative debate. All you have done here is trolling, and while I can understand Beam's temporary topic ban, I protest that it is unacceptable to ban Beamathan, but not the half dozen nationalist trolls that keep turning this page into a battlefield. I am happy to discuss the placement of alternative spellings of Pristina with Mareklug, after the air has been cleared and the trolls have been slapped with topic bans or blocks. dab (𒁳) 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dab, just stop it before you get banned. Only racists call me a nationalist as I have an Albanian Father AND a Serbian mother. So how can I be a nationalist? Stop fighting facts as it is a fact what Mareklug is saying. Please leave this article, you have done no good and so I hope that next time not Mareklug but you will be banned. Forever. --Tubesship (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

what do your parents have to do with this? I have never met you man. The User:Tubesship account is used to troll Kosovo topics on Wikipedia. That's all I know, and that's all anyone needs to know for the purposes of Wikipedia. I have no desire to second-guess your motivations. Your very logic that I should be banned ... because you have strong opinions on a topic, and "an Albanian Father AND a Serbian mother" speaks for itself. --dab (𒁳) 05:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, you were revert-warring over the Pristina thing[10] You should be careful about that, and seek consensus first, respecting article probation. Now, you insisted on giving "Priština (Prishtina, Pristina)" every time the city was mentioned. This is awkward and silly. If you are looking for a compromise, I'd say it is no problem to give "Pristina (Prishtina, Priština)" once, in the infobox. But we should certainly stick to simple "Pristina" in further mentions in the article body. dab (𒁳) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe you me, I am painfully aware that my 2 reverts of User:Beamathan's obliterating my introduction of an all-three-versions NPOV scheme of rendering the captial's name so that everybody's viewpoint would be represented at once (and restoring the two university institutional names he mangled in the same edit), a gesture of inclusion, not POV pushing, was construed as edit-warring, even though such was not my intention: my 2nd revert was made after the other party suggested on my talk page to first post here, before making the change again. Which I did, both parts, but which wasn't well received, either part.

I am being careful about it, so much so that I have not touched this article since. However, I continue to seek consensus on this talk page, having amply annotated the RfC before it was closed, while helping with consensus as a primary consensus-builder -- and implementor -- at the conflicted article University of Priština and international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and other related pages. My edits make up much of the texts on these articles, and I hope that speaks for my contributions on that score.

So. Would you please quit saying what would be reasonable compromise (you said the same thing on March 4 already), and actually deliver on it? As in, make the change in the text? This would go a long way towards my not having to harp on it while continuing to, heaven help me, try to persuade editors on merit and evidence. --Mareklug ^talk 06:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow you. I said I would endorse giving "Pristina (Prishtina, Priština)" once in the infobox. Are you saying you agree with this? In this case, I cordially invite you to implement the change. But I do ask you to refrain from inserting the list of spelling variants throughout the article body. If we agree on this, I don't see why you should feel compelled to keep "harping on it". dab (𒁳) 07:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with that, I don't want to hide the different spellings from the reader. But to clutter up the whole article with multiple spellings just doesn't sound ok. And Markel, i was unaware of the multiple spellings of knowledgeable, which of course shows how knowledgeable I am. Beam 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And Markel, when I say close the topic, I basically mean for me. I've said my arguments against multiple times and I don't want it to degrade into personal attacks. However, if you want to continue our discussion, feel free to start a talk section at my talk page. Beam 10:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)