Talk:Kosovo

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)

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): [1]

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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: [2][3], which in turn seems to be based on (or has the same source as) this, which is a map published by the Serbian government[4] (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)

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)

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. [5][6] 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."[7]

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)

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)

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)

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)

Template removal

In this edit here [[8]], 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)

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)