Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo/Intro changes proposal: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Osli73 (talk | contribs)
3,704 edits
Osli73 (talk | contribs)
3,704 edits
Line 203: Line 203:




If Ilir is not willing to compromise then I'm not sure there is much more we can do - either we disregard his opposition or we take it to a vote.[[User:Osli73|Osli73]] 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If Ilir is not willing to compromise about Kosovo being, technically, "''a province in Serba''" then I'm not sure there is much more we can do. [[User:Osli73|Osli73]] 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:13, 16 June 2006

Comparison of versions so far

Because this talk page is getting cluttered with a lot of comments, I decided to list here once more the versions for the introduction that have been suggested before. A vote seems not appropriate at the moment, so instead I suggest that people give short comments on each of the versions (under the Comments by others: text). This way we at least can get an idea of how also other users feel about these three options. To prevent this turning into a real vote, I would like to ask everyone who adds an opinion, to give arguments for that choice in your own words (so no comments without arguments or by only referring to another editor who gave a comment please). Cpt. Morgan 18:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Please note that I will remove comments not following the rules above. This is not a vote. Cpt. Morgan 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are creators of other versions allowed to comment here, such as the comment below by Asterion? I thought we were asking for third-opinions here, Reinoutr?! ilir_pz 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The whole point is reaching consensus. Therefore, I would appreciate if you drop the uncivil comments (ie. "Serbian government propaganda") and provide sensible reasons instead. E Asterion u talking to me? 21:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is, as I also stated, not a real vote. Because we surely can use some additional opinions here, I see it also as way to make future discussions easier and as far as I am concerned, anyone can reply as long as a comment is argumented and civil. Cpt. Morgan 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Written by: User:Ilir pz

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is placed under United Nations administration, though de-jure it is still defined as a part of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but runs independently of the latter. De-facto the province is run by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), based on the Constitutional Framework[1] of Kosovo. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service.
Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia[1]. The negotiations are mediated by the international community, and enforced by the Contact Group [2]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006, and indications from the Contact Group show that "the settlement will have to be acceptable to the people of Kosovo"[3] the majority of which seek recognition of full independence for the province.

Comments by others:

  1. Oppose. There is no mention of Serbia. The text also engages in futurology and leading the witness, by a flawed syllogism in the last sentence. E Asterion u talking to me? 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose. This versions is lacking any at all mention of Serbia - a must-have with provinces that are/were rebelling and not fully seceded from their former "liege", to call it. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Agree with the above user. Kosovo is, for good or for ill, currently linked to Serbia, de jure. BovineBeast 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. It describes very closely the very complicated but for now the real situation about the status of Kosova.--Mig11 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose. It does not describe the situation neutral and the history to Serbia can not be excluded. Bad version. Litany 09:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong oppose: since all governments in the world, all major media and international organizations (EU, UN, etc.) and the Encyclopedia Britannica recognize Kosovo as officially a part of Serbia, this version is misleading in that it does not mention Serbia anywhere. Just because Albanians don't want Kosovo to be a part of Serbia doesn't mean that it isn't. This is about facts, not wishful thinking.Osli73 11:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Written by: User:The Tom

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but placed under United Nations administration; in practice the province is run independently of Belgrade by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.
Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been succeeded by an independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia[2]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Comments by others:

  1. Oppose - The second paragraph is against the 1244 Resolution, because it does not cite any such amendments added to the resulution, but merely assumes that the succession is as such. The 1244 UN Security Council resolution is a law, and as such should be updated if any such succession takes place. Until then, assuming something else, that the resolution (nor any amendments to it) refer to, is a violation of the law with highest authority in Kosovo as of now. Furthermore, the version above does not comply with point 3 that Reinoutr suggested in order to reach the compromise: 1) It should state that Kosovo is administered by the UN, 2) it should state Kosovo is part of a larger union/country (either Serbia or FRY) and 3) it should state that Kosovo will most likely become indepedent in the near future. Reminder: the third point is what the media keep repeating all the time, and clearly the Security Council said that in its last statement (if you follow the last line of my version) Regards, ilir_pz 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, ilir, you're making a politicized interpretation of 1244 for nationalist purposes that's at odds with an international legal consensus. In order for the Republic of Serbia to inherit FRY's claim to Kosovo, there does not need to be any amendment to 1244, and I must confess to feeling mildly irritated that after digging around the web and citing the Vienna Convention chapter and verse you're still dismissing my presentation of how international law works out of hand and demanding I supply you with a citation of an amendment that doesn't exist. The Kosovar political apparatus itself has not said a peep about the whole S&M-to-Serbia thing as having any bearing whatsoever on 1244 because it's a non-issue to them. UN news releases post-June-5 refer to Kosovo as legally Serbian. Short of calling up Matti Antissari I don't know how I can make this case any clearer to you. The Tom 23:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought we weren't supposed to comment on each other here, The Tom. Not serving any nationalistic purpose here, no need to offend me. As much as I did politics courses and international law at the Uni, I did not know a law can just be interpreted without any explicit amendment. Respectfully, too, ilir_pz 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support. This version seems best - it's just slightly confusing. HolyRomanEmperor 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. It's the best possible compromise. BovineBeast 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: This version is confusing and cumbersome to read.Osli73 11:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Written by: User:Osli73 and User:Asterion

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is an autonomous province in southern Serbia. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration (UN Security Council Resolution 1244). Although it legally remains a part of Serbia, it is in fact run independently of Belgrade by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.
Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia[3]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Comments by others:

  1. Strong oppose The version mentions the word "autonomous" refering to Kosovo, and furthermore states that it is a province of Serbia, something not mentioned anywhere in the 1244 UNSC Resolution. It merely cites the Constitution of Serbia, which is not taken into consideration in Kosovo, which is administered by UNMIK which has the highest authority in Kosovo, and responds to the UN Security Council only. The third line also violates the 1244 UNSC Resolution, where FRY is mentioned, and not Serbia. The version above is a wording used by the Serbian government, and as such should be flagged because it is a purely Serbian government propagandistic version. Furthermore, the version above does not comply with point 3 that Reinoutr suggested in order to reach the compromise, to which the two users above agreed before submitting their versions: 1) It should state that Kosovo is administered by the UN, 2) it should state Kosovo is part of a larger union/country (either Serbia or FRY) and 3) it should state that Kosovo will most likely become indepedent in the near future. Reminder: the third point is what the media keep repeating all the time, and clearly the Security Council said that in its last statement (if you follow the last line of my version) Best regards, ilir_pz 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support This qualifies as having both neutral and truthful points of view. Version was created by two very neutral and fair editors.Ilir, Kosovo is indeed a province of Serbia, let's quote you above: The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006, and indications from the Contact Group show that "the settlement will have to be acceptable to the people of Kosovo"[4] the majority of which seek recognition of full independence for the province. But then you write: The version mentions the word "autonomous" refering to Kosovo, and furthermore states that it is a province of Serbia, something not mentioned anywhere in the 1244 UNSC Resolution. If it's not a province of Serbia, then who's province is it? Hehe, Regards, C-c-c-c 21:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support. This version seems perfect in all but - seems slightly pro-Serbian. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean because the usage of the word autonomous. Well, I would have no problems taking this off but this is how it is defined by many other encyclopedic sources too. Thanks for the constructive criticism, HRE. --E Asterion u talking to me? 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose: not objective. Noah30 15:19, 10 June 2006
  5. Strong support. I find this one objective, simple and neutral. Very good version. Litany 09:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong oppose. Very pro-Serbian and it seems that the real political and status situation in Kosova of today is absolutely ignored by users who proposed this intro. It is everything else but not a good version. I mean:"an autonomous province in southern Serbia„?! Frankly this sounds like e bad joke to me.--Mig11 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This is not a vote. If you check the bottom of the page, you would be able to read the final compromise version. If you have any problems with it, I would appreciate you give us your reasons and contribute to the debate. --E Asterion u talking to me? 20:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Written by: User:CrnaGora

Note:I don't want to enter a propaganda or anything. Just putting down the facts. Please don't blame me for what I wrote. I think this would be acceptable to write in the article as the introduction. Also, I don't want to enter in these edit wars or clash with Serbs and Albanians because of this. -- CrnaGora Note:: this version was changed by its writer since it was first posted here[5]. Comments might refer to a previous version (see below). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was temporarily placed under United Nations administration (UN Security Council Resolution 1244). By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, Kosovo is placed under United Nations administration and is a UN protectorate, though de-jure it is still defined as an autonomous province as part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but runs independently from the latter. De-facto the province is run by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), based on the Constitutional Framework[6] of Kosovo. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service.
Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia[4]. The negotiations are mediated by the international community, and enforced by the Contact Group [7]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Comments by others (previous version):

  1. Weak oppose This version again uses the word "autonomous" and refers to Serbia, without strictly following the description given by the law with the highest authority in Kosovo, 1244 UN Security resolution. That is the main flaw of this version. ilir_pz 23:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning towards oppose. It's slightly confusing. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Its got horrendous grammar for one. C-c-c-c 16:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose: this version is terrible: it's difficult read, the grammar is bad, it's misleading (Kosovo isn't a region but a well defined province and Kosovo is not a part of FRY but of Serbia) and it's too long.Osli73 11:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others (current version):

Written by: User:Electionworld

I would stick as closely as possible to the present intro.

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a province of the Republic of Serbia under United Nations administration. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia), but in practice it runs independently from the former. Kosovo is presently run by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), while the security is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service. Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia[5]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Comments by others:

  1. Support: seems OK to me. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: Using weasel words to describe exactly what Osli73 and Asterion's proposal states. Thus unacceptable. ilir_pz 11:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: this all looks very correct and NPOV to me. Might make sense to mention that the province came under UN admin following the 1999 Kosovo War. Also, I would propose to reverse the order of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and UNMIK since the latter is obviously the senior of the two.Osli73 11:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise version

Based on the comments that have been given on the options above, I decided to try a new draft version. Before giving the same arguments and opinions that we now have heard over and over again, I would like anyone who comments to bear in mind that I explicitely have included the following statements, based on what we have discussed before here. These are not my opinions, but rather statements that I see fit based on all the arguments we've heard. Please understand that there is no other way out of this dispute than a compromise from both sides. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific choices I've made:

  • Based on the arguments given mainly by TheTom, but also by others, I think it is clear that based on international law and UN regulations, Serbia is the successor state of Serbia and Montenegro, which was the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  • Because the term autonomous is sensitive in this respect and not required for the understanding of the article, I left it out.
  • Based on recent news items and UN publications, I feel it is fair to state that independence of Kosovo is a very likely outcome of the currently ongoing talks. This is not futurology, but an observation of the way in which the talks are currently developing.

With these choices in mind, this is my proposal, which is primarily based on the version by TheTom:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as a province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia, see below) but placed under United Nations administration; in practice the province is run independently of Belgrade by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.
Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been succeeded by Serbia and Montenegro and now the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status and possible independence of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.


The contentious issue is how much you want to deemphasize the link to Serbia. Legally it is a province of Serbia. This is agreed by both UNSCR 1244 and the international community at large.

No doubt, Kosovar Albanians prefer to describe Kosovo as a "territory in SE Europe" and "defined as part of FRY" etc. While not technically incorrect, it's a very roundabout way of saying it that really just panders to those Kosovar Albanians who wish the facts to be different.

So, I will take the freedom to propose the following compromise text:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a majority Albanian province in southern Serbia administered by the United Nations since the 1999 Kosovo War.
While the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999) defines Kosovo as a province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia, see below), in practice the province is run independently of Belgrade by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.
Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been succeeded by Serbia and Montenegro and now the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status and possible independence of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Osli73 11:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Osli, I do understand what your are saying, but was hoping you would not make to much of an issue of this point. In the version I proposed it is already stated twice that Kosovo is part of Serbia, so I would like to ask you to reconsider your point and accept, for the sake of compromise, the region in southeast Europe wording in the first sentence. Similar wordings are being used in other wikipedia articles concerning controversial regions, for example Tibet and Western Sahara. This one of the main issues we have been discussing and we will never find a version that everybody is 100% happy with, so please reconsider. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I'm not overly happy about it but for the sake of compromise I'm prepared to to along... as long as you change the wording "region" to "province" since Kosovo isn't a territory in the same sense as Tibet but a well defined province.

Also, I do think it would be valuable to state in the introduction that the UN administration follows the 1999 Kosovo War.

Let's hope this is the end of it.Osli73 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are differences between Tibet and Kosovo. No comparison is ever perfect. But I am ok with the changes you requested (I think the second one your suggested is a very good idea actually, I should have included that earlier). So the version we now have is this: Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a province in southeast Europe. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in june 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as a province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia, see below), but in practice the province is run independently of Belgrade by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.
Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was renamed to Serbia and Montenegro and has been succeeded by the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status and possible independence of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

And because many people tend to read only the last part of each discussion, again a short list of the choices and compromises leading to this particular version:

  • UN Security Council Resolution 1244 does not mention Serbia, only the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  • Based on international law and UN regulations, Serbia is the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  • Because the term autonomous is sensitive in this respect and not required for the understanding of the article, it is left out
  • Based on recent news items and UN publications, independence of Kosovo is a very likely outcome of the currently ongoing talks.
  • Kosovo is defined as a province (both here and in other related texts), not a region


I'm perfectly content with this version of the intro. Three comments/questions:

  • I just read [8] that FRY and SiM are the same country, only that the name changed. So, technically, SiM is not a successor state (it is the same state), only Serbia is. So it might be worthwhile to remove/change the mention of Serbia and Montenegro in the text. Done (see above)
  • What is the precedure from here on? Do we need to wait for the comments of everyone, someone in particular or no-one before contacting the administrator to unlock the article? Lets wait at least until we hear from Iliz
  • Will we also need to change the template for a lot of other Kosovo-related articles? Yes, but not until this is final

Osli73 14:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes. My objections are mainly about the fact that Kosovo was defined as a province of Serbia before Resolution 1244. This resolution simply recognised the territorial intergrity and sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its member states.
Also, I believe that if we are going to state that independence is a possibility, all other choices proposed should be listed: Double-autonomy (autonomy for the province within Serbia and autonomy for the Serbian and other non-ethnic Albanian communities within the province), self-government within Serbia, substantial autonomy within Serbia, independence as a process in phases, division/partition, "guarantor states" arrangement, condominium, a Balkan Council, trusteeship, or a combination of these proposals. As this would make the intro text incredibly lengthy, I suggest to get rid of all predictions and put together a decent article on the talk process. I have removed, moved and added some wikilinks too, plus corrected UNMIK official name and emphasised its character as a civilian mission (the UN never approved NATO military actions).
Here is my proposed version:
Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a province in southeast Europe. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in June 1999), it is in principle recognised as a province of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia). However, in practice, the province is run independently of Belgrade by the civilian United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the locally elected Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.
Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became Serbia and Montenegro and was recently succeeded by the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia[6]. The outcome of the talks is still unclear but set to be finalised by the end of 2006.
Regards, --E Asterion u talking to me? 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Please note that I use British English spelling. Therefore I wrote "recognised" instead "recognized" and so on. As from the top of my head, I am unable to remember whether US or UK spelling is used throughout the article, minor copyedits may be necessary once the definitive version is agreed upon. --E Asterion u talking to me? 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the changes are fine with me, since they are mainly textual (although I think it would be better to lose the recognised as, it is redundant). I would, however, like to ask from you to reconsider naming independence as an option in the sentence about the talks on the future of Kosovo. Wikipedia is not complete and will never be complete (and most importantly it does not have the intention to be complete), so requiring all the options to be mentioned is not necessary. But I think that leaving that in the article will make this version more acceptable for the other parties in this dispute. You cannot deny that indepence is the what the Albanian Kosovars who are taking part in these talks (and represent 80% of the Kosovo population) are aiming for. So for the sake of compromise, I would like to ask you to reconsider. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think we are getting closer here. Two comments:

  • take out the "in principle" - that it is run by the UN is apparent later
  • most commentators seem to point to some kind of independence (ie not necessarily full independence). Perhaps some wording to that effect could be used as a compromise, perhaps conditional independence (which, in my mind, is also closer to the truth).

Osli73 10:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both fine with me (see below), but before this dispute is solved, we will also need some input from User:Ilir pz. I'll post on his talk page and ask if he is willing to accept the following version:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a province in southeast Europe. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in June 1999), it was defined as a province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia, see below). However, in practice, the province is run independently of Belgrade by the civilian United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the locally elected Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.
Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became Serbia and Montenegro and was recently succeeded by the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status and (limited) independence of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The outcome of the talks is still unclear but set to be finalised by the end of 2006.

With again a list of the compromises made:

  • UN Security Council Resolution 1244 does not mention Serbia, only the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  • Based on international law and UN regulations, Serbia is the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  • Because the term autonomous is sensitive in this respect and not required for the understanding of the article, it is left out
  • Based on recent news items and UN publications, independence of Kosovo is a very likely outcome of the currently ongoing talks, but might be subjected to specific conditions.
  • Kosovo is defined as a province (both here and in other related texts), not a region

Regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, I need a credible source to believe the second point, which international law? Where is that stated? With the last point(your compromise) I disagree also, the term province is not used eversince that status was revoked by Milosevic in 1989. The UN administration referrs to Kosovo as a "Territory under UN administration". Furthermore, using words like "limited" or "conditional" when referring to a (very likely) outcome of the status of Kosovo (independent) is like saying, yeah Kosovo will become a state, but not really. As such those words are contradicting each other. There will be international monitoring of that recognized independence, but it is not going to be conditional as such. Then we have to say Bosnia has conditional independence, too, or many other countries where there is international presence. Best regards, ilir_pz 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small grammatical adjustment and took out the independence (conditional) which I didn't feel worked that well in the text. Hope that is OK.Osli73 11:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Osli, I consider that an important compromise towards the other parties in this dispute, I have put it back for now, but now as (limited) independence. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm completely fine with mentioning it. I just thought it looked odd in the proposed text. First you say "Talks on the future status and (limited) independence of Kosovo started..." and in the next sentence say "The outcome of the talks is still unclear...". I thought it sounded a bit contradictory. But maybe it's not.Osli73 12:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it would be a more sensible option not to list any posible outcome in the last paragraph and create instead a wikilink to the talks (I suggest to create an article named Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo with a header named Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo#Models for future Kosovo, like this:
Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became Serbia and Montenegro and was recently succeeded by the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status of the territory started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the local institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia[7]. The outcome of the talks is still unclear but set to be finalised by the end of 2006.
The advantages are clear as more comprehensive information could be provided on every model being discussed. regards, --E Asterion u talking to me? 18:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This sounds perfectly fine. Are we ready to go to the administration now?Osli73 11:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there hasn't been any more comments on the compromise version, does that mean that we can go ahead and take it to the admin? What exactly is the current plan?Osli73 11:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that neither Ilir nor Mig11 have produced any relevant criticism and alternatives, I would favour to wait till Sunday at the most and then go ahead with the final compromise version (which has been put together based on all previous versions). There have been well over a dozen people involved, we have all put more than enough time and effort on this. Regards, --E Asterion u talking to me? 12:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me, although I think Ilir will have some comments (he reacted on his talk page today). Also, I am ok with a special article on the future status of Kosovo, but might I suggest that we merge that with cleaned up version of Contact_Group? Also, I would like to ask the two of you to contribute (a bit) to that article (so will I), so we at least leave a link to a decent article on the options for Kosovo. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If Ilir is not willing to compromise about Kosovo being, technically, "a province in Serba" then I'm not sure there is much more we can do. Osli73 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/kosovo-metohija/index.php?id=20797 Resolution of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia on a Mandate for Political Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo and Metohija
  2. ^ http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/kosovo-metohija/index.php?id=20797 Resolution of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia on a Mandate for Political Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo and Metohija
  3. ^ http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/kosovo-metohija/index.php?id=20797 Resolution of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia on a Mandate for Political Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo and Metohija
  4. ^ http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/kosovo-metohija/index.php?id=20797 Resolution of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia on a Mandate for Political Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo and Metohija
  5. ^ http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/kosovo-metohija/index.php?id=20797 Resolution of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia on a Mandate for Political Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo and Metohija
  6. ^ http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/kosovo-metohija/index.php?id=20797 Resolution of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia on a Mandate for Political Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo and Metohija
  7. ^ http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/kosovo-metohija/index.php?id=20797 Resolution of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia on a Mandate for Political Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo and Metohija
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo/Intro_changes_proposal&oldid=58936145"