Talk:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija

This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

Edit

Regarding this edit DIREKTOR reverted everything despite the fact that some of the edits were technical. That is out of order.

• The flag of Serbia is not the flag of APKIM. There is no flag for APKIM, that is why we don't show one. Just like there is no flag of Northern Ireland, we don't show the UK flag do we? A consensus needs building if DIREKTOR wants to put a flag of Serbia on the article. What is next? Does DIREKTOR want to put the flag of Serbia on the info box of every town, village and city of Serbia which doesn't have it's own flag?
• According to the Serbian Constitution, Albanian is one of two official languages of APKIM so why did DIREKTOR remove the Albanian spellings of Pristina? Why is it ok to show the Serbian spelling but not the Albanian spelling? That is in violation of WP:NPOV.
• It is in great violation of NPOV to say that APKIM is a province/ still is a province, as I'm sure DIREKTOR is aware that is highly disputed.
• DIREKTOR changed the spelling of the word "recognised" to "recognized" despite the rest of the article using the "is" spelling, that goes against WP:ENGVAR as we must be consistent with spelling variations.
• DIREKTOR removed a citation tag for the sentence "In 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was renamed the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. In 2006, Montenegro left the federation, while Serbia became its legal successor." On what grounds did DIREKTOR do that? Why would DIREKTOR object to this sentence being referenced?
• DIREKTOR reinserted the sentence "The official status of the Kosovo province in the Serbian legal framework remained unchanged" despite me removing it because it was unreferenced and because it says that Kosovo is a province which is in violation of NPOV. I have no objection to that sentence being there if it is reworded to be more NPOV and if it is referenced.
• What is so important about the word "unilateral"? Is it to distinguish from "bilateral" and "trilateral"?

I think this revert constitutes as disruptive editing. IJA (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you may think so. However:

• The flag of the country by default represents any subdivision that doesn't have its own insignia (and in most cases, even when it does). I suggest you go over to your local municipality or whatever and have a good long look at the flag there.
• I thought "Pristina" was the Albanian spelling. Either way there's no need for any translations up there.
• My bad re "recognized".
• DIREKTOR objected to pointless WP:OVERTAGGING for WP:BLUE info...
• As explained, the contention that the status has changed is the positive claim that needs referencing. The WP:BURDEN is there. The sentence is long-standing, and, as explained, needs no explicit corroboration. See argument from ignorance.

You were reverted in introducing opposed changes. Now please - discuss. -- Director (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It is the flag of the country Serbia, not the flag of the claimed Province. You have yet to achieve a consensus to insert this flag into the article, I suggest you remove it until you gain a consensus.

It is POV to refer to Kosovo as a 'Province' because it is DISPUTED! It is disputed as to whether APKIM exists.

"In 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was renamed the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. In 2006, Montenegro left the federation, while Serbia became its legal successor. The official status of the Kosovo province in the Serbian legal framework remained unchanged." Is this even true? If it is then please verify it. If it can't be verified then it has no place in this article. Please provide a reference if you want it to remain in the article. IJA (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

In February 2008 the President of then APKIM, Prime Minister of then APKIM and the vast majority of the Assembly members of Kosovo Assembly in APKIM declared the independence of Kosovo. They were all apart of the Serbian Legal Framework for Kosovo and they say that Kosovo's status has changed. It is POV to say that "The official status of the Kosovo province in the Serbian legal framework remained unchanged" because people who were part of the Serbian Legal Framework (and according to Serbia still are) disagree with this. IJA (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It was not disputed when re-inserted now, and had previously been standing in the article for quite a while.

To my knowledge, "Kosovo" is nowhere referred to as a province, but the word "province" is used as shorthand for the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

If you are not familiar with the most basic, recent history of the Balkans region, I suggest you might be editing the wrong articles?

My good man, what are you talking about? The reference is to the Serbian legal framework, i.e. the status of Kosovo in Serbian law. Your argument makes sense only if you're suggesting that Serbia recognized the said declarations of independence. NPOV has nothing to do with this.

-- Director (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And the flag keeps getting removed because it is not the flag of APKIM and because there is no consensus to have a flag on this article. Do not try talk your way out of not needing a consensus. You have made a controversial edit without a consensus. If you want to have the flag, gain a consensus first.

Kosovo is described as a province several times throughout the article, that is POV because Kosovo and the majority of the world say otherwise.

You have no place to suggest which articles I should be editing, Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia for anyone to edit.

The PM of APKIM and President of APKIM were very high positions within the legal framework of Serbia when it comes to Kosovo. They dispute that sentence. They say that Kosovo is no longer a province of Serbia and they say that Kosovo's independence is illegal. I know you personally don't agree with them but your opinion isn't relevant on this article, their opinion is; it would be in violation to disregard their views. You still have not provided a reference. IJA (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

IJA is right - there is no need for a flag in this article, unless there is a flag specifically for APKIM. Also, all contentious sentences should be referenced. Bazonka (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

On another point: There was a clear consensus at Talk:Republic of Kosovo that it's inappropriate to wedge in the "unilateral" label. And, of course, most sources don't use that label. Various editors have removed it but DIREKTOR keeps on reverting. How long will this disruptive editing continue? It's quite tiresome that attempts to bring Kosovo content in line with the real world, rather than pandering to Serb-nationalist POV, are automatically reverted on so many articles. bobrayner (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Re the flag. It is entirely acceptable to use the insignia of Serbia to represent one of its provinces. Whether we want to use it, of course, is up to us. So, if you folks want it out, then I have to yield to the majority view.

"Unilateral" is hardly a "WP:LABEL", and is significant in terms of Yugoslav politics, where republics had the right to secede unilaterally, but not the provinces. It was one of the few major differences in status between the two types of subdivisions of the SFRY. In order for a province to secede, it was explicitly stipulated in the constitution that such a secession needs to be bilateral. And it wasn't. That's why Serbs are hung up on the word. As for the "consensus", pardon me - but isn't that a different article? Though again, with three of you against my position, I can hardly insist on anything (everyone knows our project is really a democracy).

As for your references to me personally, I see absolutely nothing disruptive in my reverting opposed new edits and requesting a talkpage discussion (and facing hysterical ANI reports). You can call it "OWN" if you like, but I've done so few edits here that you may find such a claim hard to corroborate. Also, I am not Serbian. In fact, where I live has been shelled by Serbs. So I'll thank you to refrain from implying nationalist bias. -- Director (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for your understand regarding the flag. It is no different from us not using the Union Jack on the article "Northern Ireland". Another thing is that if someone was completely Alien to Kosovo and the Balkans as a whole and they came across this article, they might think that the Serbian flag was the Flag of APKIM and not the flag of Serbia. It could easily be confusing and misleading for some of our readers/ audience. There is no flag of APKIM therefore we don't show one, simple as that. No point in putting in an extra flag for the sake of it, not to mention it'd pointlessly increase the KB data size of the article. But thanks for your understanding.

Now regarding the Republics which Unilaterally left FR Yugoslavia, they didn't have the right to leave. FR Yugoslavia was a Federation, sub-regions/ territories of a Federation don't have the right to leave; this is why FR Yugoslavia refused to recognise Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia until 1995 after the peace agreement which effectively ended the Yugoslav Wars. The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was a Confederation, sub-regions/ territories of a Confederation have the right to leave hence why Montenegro's succession was recognised instantly. Another example of a Confederation was the Confederate States of America. States could leave and join the Confederacy as they pleased as opposed to the United States of America where States are not able to leave. IJA (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I'm gonna have to go point-by-point for this pile of wrong.

• First of all, clearly we're talking about SFR Yugoslavia, not FR Yugoslavia. No constituent "republic" ever left "FR Yugoslavia". It only had two, and Montenegro left after constitutional changes that reformed the state as the 'State Union of Serbia and Montenegro', which wasn't a "federation" or "confederation", but a "state union" (unspecified).
• Second. Simply because something is a "federation", doesn't mean its constituent states can't have the constitutional right to secede unilaterally. Obviously.
• Third. Constituent republics of SFR Yugoslavia most certainly did have the constitutional right to secede unilaterally. The provinces did not. This is really basic stuff when discussing Yugoslav history.

Clearly your understanding of Yugoslav history is kinda based on the American Civil War :P. And even there, you seem not to know of the contemporary controversy regarding whether the secession of the southern states was legal or not. Even today historians are not entirely agreed on that. You folks really ought to do some reading on basic Yugoslav history before you start getting involved in complex disputes on the subject. Bobrayner doesn't seem to have remembered that the SFRY had Kosovo as a constitutional province of Serbia, etc.. -- Director (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

SiM was a Confederation IJA (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"www.visit-montenegro.com"? :) Sure some people can call it that, but in no official document, no constitutional legislation, is the SiCG referred to as a "confederation". -- Director (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

SiM was a Confederation In a Federation, no-one has the right to do anything unilaterally, that is what a Federation is, everything has to be mutually agreed. But when Cro, Slo, BiH and Mac unilaterally succeeded Yugo along the lines of their Socialist Republics, the international didn't care it was Federated and recognised them regardless. This is why SFRYugo never recognised them and why FRYugo didn't recognise them until 1995 as FRYugo claimed to be the successor to SFRYugo. The 1974 Yugoslavia Constitution stated that the "the nations of Yugoslavia, proceeding from the right of every nation to self-determination, including the right of secession". The 1974 Constitution makes it very clear that there are differences between "nations" (which are people) and the internal "Republics". The Croats, Slovens, Bosniaks ect declared independence and succeeded (which was allowed) on the lines and borders of the "Socialist Republic of Croatia", SR Slovenia, SR BiH ect (which wasn't allowed). This is what caused the Wars as other nations living within them Republics (mainly Serbs) wanted to remain in Yugoslavia and they had the right to do so regardless of which Republic they lived in. Better explained here I never said that the Southern States in the American Civil War had the legal right to leave the United States. I was giving an example of the Confederacy being a Confederation. IJA (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Umm.. No. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about [1]. Neither with regard to what a federation necessarily entails, nor with regard to the SFRY and SiCG specifically. Sure, the Milosevic-controlled rump Yugoslavia did not recognize the right of the republics to secede, based on the disagreement of the Serbian minorities (the war had already broken out), but constitutionally - the republics had that right. It was made explicit in every Yugoslav constitution.

And why do you refer to Serbia and Montenegro as "SiM"? :) The appropriate abbreviation is "SiCG". -- Director (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I just quoted you the constitution which says differently. Nations had the right to leave but Republics didn't. Source: 1974 Yugoslavia Constitution. IJA (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's impossible! They can't unilaterally secede from a federation! :)

What you're expressing is the Serbian point of view on the matter. The Croats, Slovenes, and Bosniak view is that the right to secession was guaranteed through their republics. Its another complicated debate, and this really isn't the place for it. But either way its "same difference" for our considerations. Albanians weren't a "nation" of Yugoslavia (you can tell by the lack of a seventh torch [2] :)), they were considered a "nationality", meaning non-constituent and without the right to secede. -- Director (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Nations (people) aren't a Federal Unit unlike Republics. To be honest, none of this matters. APKiM and RoK are nothing to do with SFRYugo. And yes, Albanians aren't "Yugoslavs" either, ie Yugoslav = South-Slav / a Slav of South Eastern Europe. IJA (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for clarifying that for me :). Well, actually, Bulgarians are widely considered to be South Slavs as well, and they're not "Yugoslavs". And "Yugoslav" (or "jugoslav"), strictly speaking, doesn't mean "South Slav" ("juzni slaveni" is the term); its a composite word that carries its own meaning. Anyway, I was referring to the fact that Albanians weren't a constituent nation of Yugoslavia, which they very well might have been if there was no Tito-Stalin split (Albania was an effective puppet state of Yugoslavia after WWII, and there were plans to have it annexed as a federal republic). There was certainly no prohibition against Albanians becoming a constituent nation. In fact, that's precisely what Kosovar leaders were lobbying for, all the way up to the Milosevich era (late '80s). They enjoyed some success, particularly with the 1974 constitution, up until Milosevic "turned back the clock" on all Albanian progress on that issue (prompting a revolt soon after). Again, strictly speaking, Albanians in Yugoslavia were indeed "Yugoslavs", or could be referred to by that name, as the term itself is very vague and imprecise (it has been compared to the term "Americans"). So again, this is a whole lot of wrong I'm reading.

As regards did the republics have the right to secede, they did, as they were nation states for the nations that had the right to secede. The right to unilateral secession on the part of constituent nations was guaranteed through the secession of the republics. That's the non-Serbian constitutional interpretation anyway. The point is that Kosovo did not have the right to "unilaterally" secede, whereas others did. Hence the significance of the term... -- Director (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree or dispute any of that apart from the Republic bit, the 1974 Yugoslav Constition says nothing about Republics leaving. Many Republics were ethnically mixed, that is why Nations could leave but not entire Republics. Yes the Albanians of Kosovo and the Hungarians of Vojvodina were certainly Yugoslav citizens and were Yugoslavian in the sense that they were associated with Yugoslavia; but they weren't part of the Yugoslav nation. This is why they were referred to as Nationalities as their Nations were predominantly based in other Sovereign states (Albania and Hungary). Anyway the 1974 SFR Yugoslav Constituion isn't relevant to Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence, I think that is something we can agree on.

Bulgaria as a South-Slav nation was invited to join Yugoslavia by Tito and they were going to be given most of Macedonia in return for joining Yugoslavia but after the Tito-Stalin split, Bulgaria sided with Stalin instead. Stalin was personally against the idea of Bulgaria joining Yugoslavia and this was one of several reasons which caused the Tito-Stalin split. There was even Bulgarian interest in joining Yugoslavia at the end of WW1 and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia even sought a Union with Bulgaria but this never materialised as there was still bitterness between the two after WW1 and the Second Balkan War. IJA (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Tito would very much have liked to annex (alongside Trieste and sections of Austria) both Albania and Bulgaria as federal republics of Yugoslavia [3] :). The Bulgarians, however, wanted a state union between Yugoslavia as a whole on one side, and them on the other. Plus give us Macedonia of course. Then conceivably they could secede at some point in the near future and end up with Macedonia ;) (they really really, really want that bit of dirt for themselves).

But my point was that "Yugoslavs" ≠ "South Slavs", and that it is erroneous to assert that non-South Slavs cannot have been included as constituent nations of Yugoslavia, simply because of their national group. The communists were flexible on these sort of things. And I must correct you again along those lines: there was no "Yugoslav nation" in communist Yugoslavia. Some people did indeed declare to be "Yugoslavs" in census, but officially there were the "Yugoslav nations and nationalities". The nations had the right to secede unilaterally, but the nationalities (e.g. Albanians) were not. Hence the significance of the term. And as I said, simply because a state is a "federation" does not mean you can't secede from it unilaterally. -- Director (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

North Kosovo proposed merger

I just thought of something.. shouldn't North Kosovo be redirected over here? Why have two articles about Serbian Kosovo? -- Director (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Northern Kosovo isn't an article about 'Serbian Kosovo'. I wouldn't object to having some of the political content merged. However I'd certainly oppose merging the Geographic and Demographic content as that is specific to the geographical area of Northern Kosovo, not the claimed Serbian province. Also Northern Kosovo is in a limbo between Belgrade and Pristina; if the Brussels Agreement (2013) is implemented properly, then Northern Kosovo will start to come under the institutions of RoK. If this is the case, then I think there should be a new article called "Association/Community of Serb majority municipalities in Kosovo" which will be about the Autonomous Serb community in Kosovo and it will be autonomous according to both RoS and RoK. IJA (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Different entities. Northn Kosovo falls within former APKM, but they are different entities in size and time. --KazanElia (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)