Talk:Kosovo

• • It seems the main entry has been defaced. It must be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dardania to Kosovo

Correction needed where is writen: "Kosovo was liberated after 1944 with the help of the Albanian partisans of the Comintern and became a province of Serbia within the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia." - Yugoslavia was not democratic.

--Znghv91 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please can someone reverse edits made in Kosovo article, page has been vandalised by MK013 by removing the historicall part of the Kingdom of Dardania. Ballkanhistory 3:17PM, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The article Kingdom of Dardania is redirected to Dardani and there is no such kingdom mentioned. Perhaps you should fix that article first, if this kingdom indeed existed. Until then, I am removing the statement from Kosovo article because the lack of sources. --Tone 13:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, a "kingdom" in the Iron Age means simply a tribe with a tribal leader. There are "kings of the Dardani" mentioned (Monunius), but the Dardani never had any stable political entity. In fact, they appear to have invaded the region only a few decades before the Roman conquest, but this is uncertain, because it is essentially part of prehistory, and we have no idea of the ethnic identity of the peoples listed under "Illyrians" by classical authors. There is no reason whatsoever to burden the introduction to this article with speculation on Iron Age tribal geography. dab (𒁳) 13:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Some nationalists over-emphasize certain historical entities, embuing them with the status of some kind of early states, as if to legitimise today's territorial claims. In reality, there is no proof at all that ALbanians are the descendents of Dardanians or Illyrians; or that the Dardanian "kingdom" was anything more than a tribe. Hxseek (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Albanians are Illyrians there are many facts and soon will come more facts belive me, and the Kingdom of Dardania or ancient Dardania was from Nis to Skup wich tells about the lands that Albanians had and that they are a nativ balkan people. Ballkanhistory 12:33 AM, 12 MAY 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but your above statement only shows your ignorance on the topic. Please feel free to acquaint yourself with some real history rather than regurgitating nationalistic folklore Hxseek (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

indeed. "Albanians are Illyrians there are many facts and soon will come more facts belive me" is pretty much a textbook example of the attitude we are talking about here. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That is true. The very first State in the region was the Roman Empire.

BTW, the Dardanians were Thracians as much as Illyrians, if not more. Some sort of direct claims of heritage are identical to the by now almost extinct SerboSlavonic Autochtonous School, according to which the Serb ethnogenesis occurred in the 4th century in the Balkans themselves. It's mostly based on archaeology and linguistics and yes, if you start reading it (e.g. Jovan I. Deretic) you would say how everything fits in perfectly!!! It must be true as if it's some 9-11 book.

The precise heritage of the Dardanians cam freely be claimed by Serbs and Greeks, if not more than Albanians. There are a lot of Dardani remains amongst the Serbs (the name of the major City of Nish, etc...). Of course, Albanian nationalists would come and claim the entire ancient culture for themselves, meaning that they would claim most of Serbia as of Albanian heritage, and not Dardanian-Thracian-Illyrian in specific.

Actually Hxseek, though there is no strong & concrete proof, we could conclude that the Albanians were most probably Illyrianized; compare that to the possible slavicization of the Serbs from the Caucasus. The Roman findings definitely depict an ancient Albanian tribe in the vicinity of the region of Kroja in central-north today's Albania, which was Illyrianized with the migration of Illyrians southwards.

Yes, but the ancient Albanoi tribe does not neccesarily equate as the ancestors of modern Albanians. It could be a transfer of name due to geographical approximity Hxseek (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Illyrian tribes

And in precise, the Albanian tribe - if Illyrian - was only a tiny and extremely small part of the massive Illyria (the Liburni, etc... see List of Illyrian tribes). There were some Albanian nationalists claiming all of this depicted in the image as Albania, but that is nonsensical. A good hypothetical comparison would be this one: Russia disperses as a state, and the Serbs claim Vladivostok, called Vladingtau by the Chinese (which own half of the globe). The Serbs emphasize that "Vladingtau" was originally (before the City was nuked by the Chegussetians - a new mixture people of the two Caucasian civilizations - in WWIII) "Vladivostok", and claim the Far east as ancient Serb land, or better said when they populate it, use it for a political effort of historical nationalist justification (as if it would really matter). Joking aside, according to a very popular theory (at least historically), the name "Serb" was the original name for all Slavs - because as we know the name "Slavs" draws its origin in foreign origin, Rome. In the end, only the Serbs and Lusatian Sorbs that kept this name to the 21st century (also Croats probably, as hrb/srv/whatever was possibly just a different interpretation of the one same word). This, naturally, doesn't prevent some madmen to claim you-know-what... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the God Dardanus and the Asian Dardania - especially in conjunction with Ancient Greek mythology, and more so the documents of the Roman writers on our European Dardania (migration of the dispersed Trojans to the central Balkans and degradation of the civilization), implying that the Dardanians were most probably under first Thracian and then Illyrian influence both Illyrianized and Thracizied, altogether are very hardly a coincidence. In any case, assuming a direct civilization of the Thraco-Illyrian Dardanians and Illyrian(ized or not) Albanians is evidently impossible to any historical eye, and serves primarily to the admixture of nationalist and political purpose. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It is a possibility the Venetians and other Italians were of Illyrian origin, or at least Illyrianized...thus, if one starts to research the whole Balkans and all Illyrians in general, he or she will realize the national-romantic mythologies almost immediately (Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were in the 19th century overobsessed how they were Illyirians and the "most autochtonous peoples" when compared to the others - Ottoman and Habsburg *occupiers*). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So what shall we do with Kingdom of Daradnia now? The article says nothing of the kingdom, just of the tribe. If we are to mention this kingdom in the intro, then we should at least have a decent article (from the history I see that there's been some mess about this recently). Any suggestions? --Tone 16:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, don't mention any Kingdom nonsense. :) Beam 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your decision to remove the reference to the Kingdom of Dardania is arbitrary. This is not a discussion about the indigenous people of the Balkan Peninsula, but about efforts to maintain a bit of neutrality in this article that is essentially an original research of some Wikipedia users. The Kingdom of Dardania did exist and this is common knowledge about the history of the region. As to the discussion, it is clearly being controlled by people of Slavic ancestry and this is not helpful as long as they stick to their point of view.--Getoar (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Getoar, we have already talked about these Barbarian "Kings". And there was especially no such thing as a "Kingdom of Dardania". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You (I do not mean "you", but almost all who write hier about history) are one of the Wikipedia "historians" educated at the Google University! Please, do not be ofended, this is just a joke with 99% truth in it. I will never understand why, after having so thoroughly explored the Internet sources, don’t you guys turn to the classical sources that are certainly given as references on some sites, read the books and find the answers. There were many classical authors who wrote on Dardania, like Justin (in Prologue 24), Polybius, Livy and then contemporary authors, like may be Fanula Papazoglu (The central Balkan tribes in pre-roman times) who has a full chapter on Dardanians, pages 131-170, and who confirms that the “kings” certainly existed. She even names some. I am certainly not going to give you these names and will not give you any citations because you will then misuse them pretending that you read the books, as you permanently do. The history sections on Wikipedia, gives often very good row data, I mean dating and isolated details, without understanding and historical meaning that may be reliable. This is because the amateur editors as you here, just look up at other Internet places and list what they found without any understanding whatsoever. You can not become “historians” without reading the sources. This is just not possible!!! This is why the history pages on Wikipedia are full of good details and then, at the same time, complete nonsense.Draganparis (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well "Google University " is good, but you exaggerate. May be "Goowik University"? (abr. for Google-Wikipedia). But I wanted to say something else more serious. How crazy is all of this what the people write hear in the discussion! The Serbs first just can not understand history. And Albanians fail in logic. Kosovo AND Metochia have been Serb for long time and obviously a lot of churches were built. Showing only Orthodox churches illustrates that fact. A very recent fact in spite “Muslim occupation” during 500 years!!! If we want to illustrate some other fact, we can try to present other picture, one of Muslim religious objects, for example. Or Catholic or what so ever. If Mr. Beam wants to present them all, let him present them all. But he must then say that these are all, for example. Since it is newer “all” he would have to say that this is “all what he could do”. But the reality may be completely different. One may say that it will be always unfair; anything that we do will be unfair and false. So if that Serb Babic?) put a picture where just Serb churches are and called them “just Serb”, it is correct to do like this. The land may have been Dardanian – long time ago. There is ZERO proof that today’s Albanians have something to do with Dardanians, as well as the Illyrian hypothesis is equally strong, i.e. has no meaning. During Ottoman empire Albanians, or whoever they may be (Turk military allies brought from Caspian regions? Who knows?) They seam to speak an ancient language that could be just Caspian enriched with the Greek and Roman influences), profited by adopting Muslim religion (not all!) and were advantaged population during the Ottoman times. This is not a pejorative because a lot of Balkan and Greek and Mediterranean people arrived probably from the Caspian regions also. The Arian, proto-Arian language probably had the same destiny.

So they (Albanian newcomers) probably, tried to extend their territory to the extremes exterminating the defeated Serbs. The Serbs were very religious people and many churches were built; as all Muslims are in principle very religious (not separating religion from the state) and they built a lot of mosques too, but later. Kosovo was strongly populated by the Albanians already at the end of the Ottoman empire and the retreat of the Turks coincided with the relative majority of the Albanians in Kosovo. The ethnic pressure (exaggerated mechanism of ethnic expansion – the way how we all Europeans in fact arrived where we are here) – continued very fast. In the Yugoslavia, this had extreme influence on and was running together with the violent means so that the Serbs left Kosovo. It is today 90% Albanian. What it will be in 100 or 500 years we do not know. And he/she Mr Beam should stop playing an arbiter here, because he is NOT one.Herodotus1A (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that Kosovo was populated by Albanians during Ottoman regime and you say that the churches witness the presence of the serbs. This is nonsense, as the Albanians were Christians prior to convert in the XVIIth century and they attended masses together with the serbs in those times. The fact that the Serbs had a stronger orthodox church and the Albanians had no national church is due to the fact that Albanians were either catholic or orthodox, whereas the serbs were all orthodox. Furthermore Albanian orthodoxy has always been under strong influence of Greek orthodoxy (and still is). The fact that Albanians converted more than the serbs indicates you that they were in charge of Kosovo: Why would a poor person convert? Poor families didn't have to pay "jihaz" tax at all! But wealthy families who risk to lose money and power convert much more promptly in a religious state such as the Ottoman Empire. That is why Albanians converted more than serbs.--Sulmues 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about one thing. Are/were ever Albanian Orthodox in Kosovo or the surrounding territories? Nope. Those Albanians are/were Roman Catholic Christians. The Orthodox Albanians were far to the south. And yes, there were Catholic Serbs, but those were very isolated. Serbs converted to Islam en masse too, just because the Slavic Muslims were pushed to extinct (except in Sanjak) with the passing of Ottoman power doesnt meant that they never existed, and majorily populated all cities. Prior to the XVIIth the Albanians were Christians by the greatest part, but they had yet to settle Kosovo back then. --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wrong, but you are in both your claims. First, there were many Albanian Orthodox people in Kosovo until the beginning of the XXth century. After that time the very few ones remained got slavicised. But I can guarantee that there is plenty of proofs to show that part of the Albanians were orthodox 3-4 centuries ago. For example, even today Saint George and Saint Demeter are celebrated in Kosovo by the Albanian catholics following the Julian calendar and not the Gregorian one. This is a very strong proof to say that they were originally orthodox and converted to catholics at a certain point of time. In addition, the style of construction of many churches has been done on the model of the Albanian "kulla", which is completely unknown for the Serbian tradition. A serbian author, Pero Slijepcevic, recognizes that "out of the many serbian church in Kosovo only a handful is built by them. The serbs did not have neither the tradition of construction nor that of the icons for the orthodox churches found in Kosovo". Second, Albanians were the original inhabitants of Kosovo for at least 3000 documented years: serbs have been documented in the Balkans from the VIIth century, and much later (XIth century) in today's Kosovo.--Sulmues 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But the Albanians being muslim and Turkish allies only naturally favoured their settlement of Kosovo from wherever they might have originated from. This is not propaganda, or bad-mouthing of Albanians (we have moved on from the days where we consider everything Turkish/Muslim as backward/primitive/nasty). But represents logical fact. There was a constant cycle of Serbian uprising (supported by Austria and/or Russia). Then the Austrians would sign a peace treaty with the Turks, leaving the Serbs at the mercy of the Turks. After 5 centuries, most Serbs in Kosovo were killed or migrated to the north where it was less Turkicised. It is only natural that the Albanias- being the favoured Turkish pawns- then moved to occupy Kosovo more completely as the years went by. No one is accusing them of being evil or anything, this is simply what anyone would do . It has happened for thousands of years in every continent. Hxseek (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. But I can not see where the problem is. I was refering to the 18th-19th century. The Turks stayed there I think untill 1912, so there was enough time for this. You mentioned 17th century as the conversion time (to Islam). Could you give some sources please? There is little doubt that the churches were built by the Slavs and these could be just the Serbs. The churches were used probably by all who lived there. I read somewhere that the Turks organised census on at least two occasions where they distinguish Albanians from the Serbs and other nations. Does anybody have some data about this? Herodotus1A (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes there was earlier on either in this article or the History of kosovo article, but might have been removed by someone. The first charter was the Decanski charter in the 12th which recorded (rough figures) as > 90% Slav, 2 % Albanian households. The Turks held quite good censi even from early on, as far as the 14 th century. These censi clearly document an inversion of demographic ratios, progressing steadily during the centuries of Turkish occupation, with Albanians growing from a small minority to a large majority. Interestingly, i have come across theories that Serbs in Kosovo started to speak Albanian becuase of 'the large numbers of Albanians, and therefore many Kosovar Albanians today are in fact "Albanianized Serbs"- but dont quote me on this. Hxseek (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion of Albanians to Islam has been steady and gradual since XVIth century and has strongly increased in the XVIIth century. After that Albanians held very strong positions in th administration of the Empire: The Albanian Quprilli family gave 35 prime ministers to the Empire during the span of 3 centuries. At a certain point the Turks realized that converting Albanians wasn't that profitable because there were less christians to work for them. That is why there was a certain stop of conversions in the XVIIIth century. The XIXth century had again a raise in conversions (especially during the 1840s), because of the Tanzimat reforms, which increased the "jihaz" tax (tax to christians) sixfold. Furthermore, the Empire started to hire christian solders for the many wars they were doing: the Albanian christians were already giving money, now they should give blood too for the turks, so they thought "what the hell, we're going to fight but let's at least not pay these christian taxes anymore", hence the conversion restarted. In Kosovo, many albanians that were pious got slavised and converted to the Serbian orthodox church. The others became muslims. When you say that the serbs built those churches, you make the mistake to fall under the serbian propaganda, because many of those churches belonged to Albanian families. Many of them were catholic Albanian and converted to orthodox churches. The whole Antisari plan is a sham for the Albanians because it treats the lands where they stay as christian lands occupied by muslims. This would be the same as claiming to put under Saudi Arabia the (few) Belgrade mosques.--167.219.88.140 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If we talk about slavicization of Albanians, we must also talk about albanization of Serbs, and that in fact most Kosovo Serbs were albanized through Moslem faith, and only a small number remaining Serb through Orthodox faith. --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is astonishing. There is so little written on history of that region. Could you give me some literature, some references where that peace of history can be read, please? In particular the Ottoman times in these regions. Simply the sources where you learned all of this. Please in English if possible. Thanks! (and log in next time, so that your IP number will not be wisible!)Herodotus1A (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is little literature on the history of the Albanians as Albania has been a closed country during the cold war. In addition Albania has been a poor and a dangerous country to live, so not many travallers have spoken about it. I am Albanian and the sources of my knowledge are mainly written history books of my school, written by Albanian scholars and historians.--Sulmues 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)

I see. You're saying all those "Serbian" orthodox churches in Kosovo from the 10th, 11th, 12th century were built by Albanians in the 17th cenutry. That IS amazing ! Hxseek (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Now where did I exactly say that? And why are you taking care of a discussion page of wikipedia? I agree that dislexy is a good reason to keep reading but wikipedia is heavy stuff. All I said is that Albanians have been Christians until the 17th century. The churches were built earlier.--Sulmues 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)

The bottom of the line is we are going to be neutral, no matter what. That policy will be enforced here. Beam 19:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo "is currently a disputed territory in the Balkans" should be changed to "a partly recognized republic in Europe".

This would be a much more correct description since over 40 nations now have recognized Kosovo. Besides, all know that Kosovo will never be a part of Serbia again since over 90% of the population are kosovars and are strongly opposed to be a part of Serbia again.--Ezzex (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I really hate arguing against this suggestion but there's 100+ countries that haven't recognized and some 10s of countries that said they WON'T recognize. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball etc... Beam 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

that's like saying "Jesus is a partly recognized Son of God". dab (𒁳) 19:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But... I love Jesus. He, and I mean He, loves me too! Wait, are you agreeing with me or not? Beam 19:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

what I am trying to say is, we might as well put it as "Kosovo is a partly recognized province of Serbia". Both variants are equally biased. --dab (𒁳) 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"A partly recognized republic" is the truth since they are in fact recognized by over 40 nations. The sentence "disputed territory" sounds silly and little accurate after February 2008. --Ezzex (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read what dab said? We should just put "a partly recognized province of Serbia" according to your logic, because 160 countries HAVE NOT recognized. Beam 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should stick to the reality of 2008 and not become too philosopically. --Ezzex (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. And the reality is that it's a disputed territory. 160/200+ countries don't recognize Kosovo. It is biased to say it's a "partially recognized Republic" or a "breakaway region", "separatist province", "partly recognized province of Serbia." Sorry, we have to stay neutral. Beam 20:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What about "A partly recognized republic and a disputed territory in the Balkans? --Ezzex (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No.Beam 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Only 16 nations don't recognize Kosovo while 43 do recongnize them --Ezzex (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

so long as we don't become adverbs (Ezzex's comment), that sounds fine :p ninety:one 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ps. glad we're agreed here, but Pristina says 'is the capital and the largest city of the newly independent Balkan nation of Kosovo'! ninety:one 20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow...wow. Well...wow. That's not right. brb. Beam 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, while this article is relatively neutral, the rest of Kosovo-related articles are heavily biased in favor of either the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia. Colchicum (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Pristina. Where else isn't it neutral? I'll have to go on an NPOV spree. Beam 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rambouillet Agreement looks particularly bad, though I don't know how to fix this. Many other articles in the History of Kosovo series are also very biased (sometimes in both directions at the same time). Colchicum (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if there is anything I'm good at regarding Wikipedia, it's neutrality. I will attack each and every problem you bring to my attention. Sorry for the French but Fuck Nationalists and POV Pushers. Beam 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How about, "Kosovo, a territory in the Balkans is disputed amongst Republic of Kosova and Republic of Serbia" Ari d'Kosova (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is supposed to be concise and summarized but I like that language, you should incorporate in the article in an appropriate section, perhaps as an opening sentence to a section. Beam 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should be "a partly recognized country in Europe, but disputed by its neighbour, Serbia". It would be more correct. Simply saying "a disputed territory" is very little. Even the moon is a disputed territory.--Sulmues 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

do you know, or care, what we had to go through since February in order to arrive at the current, extremely neutral, lead section? Its phrasing should not be fiddled with idly until there is some substantial change in status quo. "Kosovo, a territory in the Balkans is disputed amongst Republic of Kosovo and Republic of Serbia" would in principle be equivalent of course, but then some people objected to keep Republic of Kosovo as a standalone article separate from that of the territory, so the first link simply redirects back to this page. dab (𒁳) 17:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

dab, there would is nothing wrong with the intro I introduced. The Republic of Kosovo would take you to a different article and not Kosovo. Those people that object to having a standalone article of Rep of KV is simply POV..but for the time being all Kosova|Kosovo|Kosove|Kocobo need to be directed to Kosovo and in the future this will change (possibly >> Republic of Kosova). Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

you just totally changed the topic. We do not want to open the split discussion again. dab (𒁳) 20:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with dab. So much effort was put into finding consensus on how many articles there would be for this situation (hint: we decided on one - this one), and restarting it will most likely bring the same results. It will just deter from discussion to improve the article. BalkanFever 03:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I truly wish that people would put half of the emotion and effort into improving the article in places that don't have to do with the RoK or the DoI. It would be so awesome, I'd probably orgasm. Beam 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there is NOTHING, and I mean absolutely nothing controversial with having an article about the REPUBLIC of KV. POV is when Kosova / o search leads you to Republic of KV article although. I am going to inform you and everyone that I am for an article split, I loved the way that Kosova search took you to disambiguation page, I wish that would still happen. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Kosovo. Don't you see that nobody cares for your suggestion? If you must re-open it, do it through the proper channels, not in a completely unrelated talk section: that leads to no result except cluttering an already busy page. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be rude, you don't own WP. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely it must be immediately changed back to partially recognised republic for moment 'cause

Kosovo in every new day is waiting for a new recognision ( that's sure 100% it's gonna happend.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triimm.z (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"'cause Kosovo in every new day is waiting for a new recognision ( that's sure 100% it's gonna happend."

Your own POV is not a vaild reason for it to be changed. Pro66 (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is a cessionary territory of Serbia which has achieved de facto independence and substantial international recognition as an independent republic. It remains a disputed territory, claimed by Serbia, while Serbia’s actual loss of control is not disputed. Some countries recognize Kosovo’s formal independence, some reject it, many have taken no stand as yet.

In truth, its status can be analogized to the Republic of China/Taiwan, the former German Democratic Republic, or better yet, Rhodesia under the UDI. These countries were de facto independent (with some outside assistance in the first two cases), but with mixed recognition. Kosovo has and probably will continue to fare better at racking up recognition (ROC is at 35 or so countries). Kosovo got its independence the same way the GDR did and will very likely have similar long term success and very widespread recognition. Criticality (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Autobush

I believe the user Autobrush needs to be blocked from editing Kosovo as his editing is unconstructive and he is refuses to ackeknowledging what other people had said. He has recieved warnings from another user for vandlising another article, he has from what i seen a small form of hatred against serbia and also another user has accuse him of sockpuppetry so i like for admins to take into account of what to do with the user autobrush thanks. Pro66 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, just revert him, but be weary of 3RR. I'll step in if you get to 3 Reverts. If he then reverts me..well, he gets banned. Beam 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I also support Autobrush being banned if he makes one more negative edit. Autobrush has claimed that Kosovo is legitimately independent because "Milosevic is gone and so is Greater Serbia". This is declaring that Kosovo was only part of Serbia due to Greater Serbian nationalism which is not true, as Kosovo was established as an autonomous province of Serbia during the Communist and anti-nationalist regime of Joseph Broz Tito (himself a part-Slovene and Croat), it was only until the reign of Milosevic that violence exploded between Albanian and Serbian nationalist forces that Kosovo's legitimacy in Serbia began to become under dispute.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Violence exploded between Albanians and Serbian? Could you please provide a source for this wild claim? There was a conflict after the Serbian government expelled all Kosovar institutions and brought in the Serbian forces (police, paramilitary, and Army) to make Kosova more Serbian. When the Serbian forces started beating and killing Kosovar civilians violence started between MUP and UCK. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

R-41 does not have to provide any source for anything. His remark comes on a talk page and he is rightly concerned about a certain individual who is blatantly using Wikipedia to repeat the rhetoric of the major players who in 1999 stood against the Belgrade government in the Kosovo crisis. The violence did not so much "explode" after Milošević took stage but intensified. The entire affair had been slowly escalating in the years leading the end of the 1980's. No individual from either side of the conflict wall can be held fully responsible for everything which happened. When two nations within a single country have diametrically opposed views on self-determination, only the clerics who drive them to feel that way can ammend the notion. Be that as it may, it is a reciprocal approach: one nation cannot oppose another unless that other nation also opposes it. There had been reports of abuses by local Albanians throughout the 70's, 60's, 50's right back to the days that today's regions became internationally recognised as Serbian sovereignty (Treaty of London 1913). Likewise, there have constantly been reports on how the central government in Belgrade, throughout all its phases, performed abuses towards the Albanian population. There were times it was plain violence, and other times, it was just provocation caused by unkept promises and a failure to fully integrate the nation. For one who advocates all-out independence for Kosovo, nothing else is naturally enough, so it was easy to find fault with the system throughout the 1960's and early 1970's when autonomy was gradually increasing. There were often reports of dissidency and dissatisfaction by the Albanians, citing abuses by Belgrade. Local Serbs too had long filed complaints about treatment and abuse of power by Albanian authorities within Kosovo. A conflict can only exist if it has a minimum of two opposing sides. And the suggestion that either side was completely innocent until the other one struck, or one is "more right than the other" is pathetic. Evlekis (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There was never ANY violence against Kosovar-Serbs from Kosovar-Albanians from anytime in the 20th century; those are lies made up by SANU that got Milosevic into power; pure propaganda. I think you should do some searching about SANU's work such as how "kosovo albanians are genociding the serbs in kosovo". Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on Ari, don't be like that. Beam 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can because I have sources, and facts. I can prove that SANU (Serbian Academic something science) was a Serbian Government tool that was a think-tank for anti-Albanian fears and propaganda. I can prove that there was no ethnic violence between Kosovars (albanian on serb, or serb on albania). Can you prove them wrong Beam? I'm leaving for now but please reply in my talkpage, I don't want WP to be more cluttered. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To say that there was NO violence of that sort in the 20th century is just silly. Beam 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, it is impossible to "prove the negative", and that is when the negative is true in the first place. For example, to prove that there no Norwegian has ever lived in Brindisi, Italy, I would need to compile list after list of endless population statistics and censa based on Brindisi from every corner of creation, and still I would prove nothing; whilst one who knows differently need only give the address of some Norwegian who lived six months there in 1981 and my whole testiment is refuted. With regards to Kosovo, there had been reports of ethnic unrest dating back to the first days, all be it few and somewhat isolated. Serbs throughout Central Serbia, Vojvodina and other places who originated from Kosovo were publishing notes of their experiences many years before the SANU documents. SANU was a mid-1980's publication, a recent chapter, but the independently authenticated reports by anti-Kosovo independence persons including a number of ethnic Albanians go back long before the SANU memorandum. Evlekis (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Evlekis you are talking NONSENSE. There was no ethnic violence and please don't give us Norwegian examples, this is about Kosova not Norway. If there was any unrest in Kosova from Albanians against Serbs please document me 10 cases and I will drop this. I find it fascinating that there are people from Norway or wherever you may be that are trying to tell me that they know better about my country which I was born and raised in. There is crime in France between French and English...but that's called everyday crime, you CANT conclude that there is "ethnic unrest" in France. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well if I am talking nonsense. Here is a list of compiled reports from the New York Times dating back to 1981 (before the SANU memorandum), and definitely not everyday antisocial disorder but 110% political [1]. Read it all. Evlekis (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I replied in your page. Enjoy! Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Who's talking nonsense? I dare say, Albanians try to pass the notion that they are wholly innocent in the kosovo affair, and they are only victims of Serb nationalism. Any person who has lived in the Balkans can testify against this (and even suggest the complete contrary); be they Serb, Macedonian or even Greek. It seems like you are trying to convince yourself of a reality which does not exist, Ari d'Kosova.Hxseek (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point Kosovo2008, the New York Times is just a "blog." If that is your opinion then I cannot argue with it. I'm just curious to know how even a blog could produce lies years before it ever became known that they would one day be relied upon. The Kosovo riots of 1981 were reported in all western media. What you fail to realise is that even they were only a responce to other activities. I know that the Albanian nation had its reasons to feel dissatisfied; I know that Yugoslavia's federal authorities mistreated them at times. You don't need to tell me this! My only point is that from 1990 onwards, the situation worsened, but it did not just "develop from nowhere!" Now am I being anti-Albanian? I don't think so! Evlekis (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I called the "The new emperors clothes" a blog. Calling me "Kosovo2008" is an insult when you know my username is "Kosova2008" and a very cheap one at best, not to mention immature. I see that your mind is set as stone, there is no changing it, so believe what you want. Ari, out!! Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop being childish, It's not an insult at all, Would ANY Swede or for that matter any other person be insulted if their username was Sverige2008 and he called them Sweden2008? NO because It doesn't make any sense. It just sounds like you want to bring more hatred into the discussions. — chandler — 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The website listed is a blog but the references are all genuine. The New York Times did report the Kosovar riots of 1981. Here is another source for it - [2]. Balkantropolis (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That wesbite is a BLOG, it was written by ONE PERSON and so was the one you gave. I watched CNN (neutral) and Sky (neutral) during the Kosovo campaign and EVERYTHING was peaceful before the butcher Milosevic assumed presidency. Albanians were ALL happy and there was no terrorism. Milosevic knew that to create his Greater Serbia, he would first have to send his troops to invade Kosovo and thus began the ethnic cleansing, genocide and rapes. NO WAY did new York Times report nothing about no so-called "Kosovo riots" in 1981 because there was no MILOSEVIC to try for Greater Serbia that year. I am so glad that Ari d'Kosova knows what he is talking about. Autobush (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes he does, but you obviously don't. Apart from the fact your views are shared only within an anti-Serb environment, you don't appear to accept a general concensus. The only person who has altered the text to "Kosovo is independent" is you! For one claiming to be from Surrey, you seem more dangerous than many of the Albanian heavyweights we already have here. Atleast they respect concensuses; atleast they can stand and argue on the talk page rather than making constant reverts. Evlekis (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Look here. You are a Serbian nationalist and you cannot accept that you have lost Kosovo. It's good people didn't want to be under your Communist rule and didn't want to be a part of your plan to exterminate them and cleanse them. You say it is ONLY ME who says it is independent. What about the politicians in democratic countries? When George Bush states "I RECOGNIZE KOSOVO", and he keeps KFOR troops there to hold back Serbian communists and "Greater Serbia" enthusiasts, how much more evidence do you need that it is INDEPENDENT? Evlekis is a Serb nationalist and should be blocked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Autobush (talk • contribs)

Autobush, I strongly recommend that you read WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:Consensus and WP:NPA before you continue editing Wikipedia. Your latest edits were disruptive and I must warn you that Balkan-related topics are under a strict probation which determines that disruptive users may be easily banned from editing them. So please follow my advice and read those policies in order to understand how we function. Thank you. Húsönd 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Autobush is currently accused of being a sockpuppet of the blocked user DW Celt. Anyone with evidence either for or against this accusation might want to go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DW Celt and speak up. I personally do not claim to know whether Autobush is a sockpuppet or not; I'm just reporting a complaint that someone else has already lodged. Richwales (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The user has now been blocked for being a sockpuppet. Pro66 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the democratic (somewhat) country of serbia is communist, and greater serbia was only the dream of 1 man, ye,s makes sence to me...--Jakezing (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not you aswell. No Serbia is not communist, nor is it one-party rule. Its democracy may be questionable but then the same can be said of anywhere. If Greater Serbia had been the dream of one man as you say, then nobody would have heard of it, he'd have been advised to keep it to himself. I think our former friend Autobush read too many books by Noel Malcolm and got just a touch too absorbed by BBC reports, his facts were so out of place that you'd have to start from the beginning of time to set him straight. Good riddance to him. Evlekis (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The article

No one is really paying attention and this article is being changed every second. This article needs to be locked, everyday it's getting messier. I hope an admin is reading this and he/she will take proper action and re-revert all these "new" changes which have only de-contributed; lots of perspectives going on. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, at least it would be semi-protected... I've never requested a protect, but you do it at WP:RFPP — chandler — 05:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me some diffs! I'll check out the history of the article, I have about 10 million articles on my watchlist, it was easier when I only edited the Kosovo article ;) Beam 14:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it back to the consensus version we has last week, you're right ari it's been kind of demolished since then. Beam 14:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this revert made by you. With regard to your watchlist, it is possible to remove articles from the watchlist. --NOAH (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Also, I know you can remove them, but then I wouldn't know what was going on! Beam 16:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that the phrase "disputed territory" in the opening sentence should be linked, not to the general "Disputed territory" article, but to the "Political status of Kosovo" article. Even if "disputed territory" is eventually changed to "partly recognized republic" (as some have suggested), that phrase should still be linked to the article talking specifically about the political status of Kosovo. Comments? Richwales (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In the forseeable future I do not see partly recognized republic being in the lead. And the Political Status article is already linked in the lead, is it not? Beam 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The "political status" article was indeed linked to the phrase "disputed territory" until just a short time ago. Your (Beam's) most recent edit reverted that link and made "disputed territory" link to the generic article. I wasn't sure if that was intentional on your part, so I didn't want to just change it back and look like I was engaging in an edit war. Richwales (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that it was linked elsewhere in the lead, but as it isn't I have made your suggested change. Beam 17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag

The earlier version of the flag with a yellow map of Kosovo must be restored. This is only an alternative version, which I have never seen in use by the institutions or the people themselves. We must restore the coat of arms and all other images using the Kosovar flag.--Getoar (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Can you be more specific as to exactly what the correct flag looks like? The flag I see on the page right now is dark blue, with a dark gold (almost light brown or tan) map of Kosovo, and an arc of six equal-sized white stars above the map. This is the same flag as that shown on the "Flag of Kosovo" page as being the current flag. Is this not the correct flag? If not, what flag is in fact being used in Kosovo today? Richwales (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not the color GOLD. It looks brownish to me. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ari and Geo, have this addressed at the Flag of Kosovo article, and then we'll follow suit here. Beam 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against the incorrect flag. It has something to do with colors (CKY vs non). My digital screen is showing a non-gold color, not that big of a difference. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't undertstand. Yellow is yellow no matter of screen. It seems like the institutions are using two different flags. One with yellow Kosovo map and another with golden Kosovo map. Take a look at the Swedish flag. They have the same colors but I don't see many versions of that flag --NOAH (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the correct flag, flag. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right --NOAH (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking around on ks-gov.net (I think/hope that's the governments website). And have probably found the solution. http://www.ks-gov.net/pm/Fillimi/tabid/36/EntryID/782/Default.aspx as you can see there they link to both the flag and emblem in .pdf form flag emblem. Same colour on both flag and emblem

Colour scheme	Gold		Blue		White
HTML		#d2ac67		#0c4da2		#ffffff

The current version of Image:Flag of Kosovo.svg has the right Gold (and white) but a bit of blue, #005bab should be #0c4da2. And by doing a simple overlay of the current flag and the one found on ks-gov.net I can see that it's a bit off, both the stars and Kosovo, it's also not as high. — chandler — 15:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty to upload correct versions of both the flag and coat of arms. — chandler — 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful for you contribution but I think the Kosovo map should be in yellow and not gold. Unfortunately different institutions in Kosovo are using different colors and I don't know why, but so far I have never seen any Kosovo flag with gold . Take a look at this picture with PM Thaci: 1 --NOAH (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ks-gov.net/ appears to be the official RoK government homepage, and if we cannot take their pdfs as authoritative as to the "correct" colour, I don't know whose word we should take instead. dab (𒁳) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

yes but they too uses two different flags, on the top of ks-gov.net you have blue with yellow and if you go into PM website they have blue and gold. As I said before I have never seen in real the flag with gold map on the middle. --NOAH (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If they do use two different colour version it might either suggest that there actually are "two" flags, one which would be like the civil flag, and the other state flag, similar to what Flag of Serbia and Flag of Poland and others i suppose, though I don't know if I've seen with colour differences. One explanation might just be that when they decided on the flag it was said, something like "this layout with a blue and yellow colour" or "blue and gold colour" and flags were produced, maybe not on a "official" colour scheme. Which might have been made some days or weeks later to be the official. But flags with the more normal colours #0000ff and #ffff00 maybe are out there and recognisable. Just on a side note, I think the gold colour flag is cooler ;) — chandler — 04:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for everyone's knowledge, there exist a yellow version Image:Flag of Kosovo (yellow).svg & . There might (if its possible without OR) be reason to add that flag in Flag of Kosovo with something like this section Flag of Germany#Gold or yellow? and that it's the more common used flag by the population (at this time at least). — chandler — 04:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth the effort to invest too much research in this at this point. The flag is just a couple of months old, and like everything connected to the RoK is still very much in flux. We'll just have to see how things turn out in a year or so. It's not a big deal either way. The authoritatively prescribed version appears to have "gold", while it is obvious that many flags in actual circulation have yellow. These flags are probably turned out by some factory in China and are hardly authoritative, but they of course affect the status quo by their being in actual use. dab (𒁳) 07:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it might or might not be worth, a Kosovo TV news show (from RTV 21) gets shown every evening on the SCOLA satellite station (which I get on my cable TV) — and I'm looking right now at a screen shot with somebody giving a speech in front of a "yellow" Kosovo flag and a "gold" coat of arms. If anyone cares, let me know and I'll see about doing a capture of this shot and putting it up for all to see. I'll understand, though, if the consensus is that it's not really that important and wouldn't resolve anything. Richwales (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As was widely reported on its declaration of independence, Kosovo adopted a flag intentionally using the colours of the EU flag. While some may call the colour of those stars 'gold' it is always rendered yellow. The current sludgy brown version of the Kosovo flag used on this article looks very wrong and it should be reverted to what was used in earlier versions of the article. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, ITS FROM THE PRIME MINISTER, there is no other more official source that exist. — chandler — 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, I believe the "somebody" speaking in the screen shot I mentioned last week (in front of a "yellow" Kosovo flag and a "gold" coat of arms) is Hashim Thaçi — a bit more than just a random "somebody". Take a look at the accompanying image Image:Thaci with Kosovo emblems.jpg. I don't think, though, that we can assume this translates into official approval of either colour scheme by the Kosovo government. Chances are the PM was going to make his speech anyway, and even if he didn't care for the shade of "gold" on the coat of arms, he wasn't about to waste his valuable time throwing a hissy-fit over it. Richwales (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Richwales (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an updated economy section and infobox?

I'm of the opinion that the economy section is outdated and not written very well. It doesn't contain much information, and what it does, is mainly from a couple of years ago (GDP per capita, for example, is from 2004). I think we need to re-write it. What do you guys think? --alchaemia (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I already rewrote an introduciton with the help of Dab and BalkanFever. No one else wanted to help and I got lazy. It's in the archive, maybe the last one or the one before that. Beam 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking {{sofixit}}. dab (𒁳) 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking that you need to read the instructions above. It clearly states that any major change should be discussed first, and only then implemented. I meant to do a gutting of the article, not merely minor changes. --alchaemia (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, sorry, I did not mean to be rude. I think it is fair to say that most bickering here focusses on the lead section and on placename spelling. If you embark on improving the economy section, everyone will thank you, and there will still be time to sit down and talk once you find one of your edits was reverted. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I'll embark upon this enterprise as soon as it is humanely possible. I'm thinking of expanding the section a bit as well, as I think the average reader has a lot of information on political/legal mumbo jumbo but not enough on everyday things, like the economy. --alchaemia (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Map shown in top infobox

Kosova2008 (talk · contribs) switched the top map without any edit summary on 1 July[3]. In spite of later assertions in edit summaries[4], I can see no discussion on the change, let alone any consensus. I for one object to the change. I apologize if I am missing any actual consensus, but there is ostensibly no discussion on this page leading up to the 1 July edit. A brief look at Kosovo2008's userpage, username and edit history shows that this user is about as partisan to the topic as it gets (WP:COI). His edits can be taken into account as a defense of the pro-independence stance, but cannot for a minute be taken as contributing towards NPOV. dab (𒁳) 14:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

why am I opposed to the map? It's by the CIA, and as such implicitly takes the pro-independence stance of the USA (yes, and of 7 out of the G8, and 43 states in total, etc.). It's the US view, which in this case diverges from the UN view. dab (𒁳) 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed at length at Talk:Kosovo/Archive_20#Comments. And there was nothing in the map which could suggest that Kosovo is an independent sovereign state or not. I don't understand what you are talking about. BTW, "the UN view" is merely another POV, just like the US view. Wikipedia is not an official UN body either. Colchicum (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is the current map (defended by you) which is not neutral, as it uses the Serbian names only, even when an English one is available (Pristina). And what is more important, I can't see a thing there if it is not enlarged. Colchicum (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I think you should unconditionally apologize to Kosova2008. This was far beyond the pale for a talk page on probation. Colchicum (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just one question... Why are there even names on, if any there should only be English names. But still... Why not have a map without names completely? Whether you look at countries, regions, states, provinces. You never see any names. — chandler — 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would propose something along the lines of Image:Kosovo in Balkans.png or Image:LocationKosova.PNG, maybe a little more zoomed in, maybe even without other country boarders. — chandler — 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, sorry for missing the archived discussion. However, it doesn't show any "consensus". It shows a majority of 5:3 votes for the political map. If you add my opinion, it's 5:4. That's not a consensus by any stretch. We do not want a political map in the top infobox, because the top infobox concerns the territory, not any political entity. The CIA map presents Kosovo as an independent state, listing "Serbia" on an equal footing with the other neighbouring state. It's not an extremely big deal, but I do strongly recommend we keep the topographic map (any topographic map) over any political map. And yes, we want a map with English (anglicized) labels. That is, we want to ask Sémhur (talk · contribs) to adjust a few spellings on his "English" version of the map. That's really it. dab (𒁳) 15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To adjust all the spellings, not just a few (Priština => Pristina, the rest => double Albanian/Serbian names, as minor towns have no English names). And to make the names much larger. As of now the map is difficult to read even when enlarged. Colchicum (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah - I'm open to any topographic map. My point is just that we don't want a political map. Or at least one that shows the disputed border in some highlighting colour, like our maps of India show the Kashmir border as disputed. dab (𒁳) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a compromise and consensus map that we have now. I gave my blessing, and do not see it as independence affirming at all. The area "Kosovo" has Serbia to the north. That's a fact whether it's a state or not. Beam 15:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

um, no. Kosovo has Central Serbia to the north. Whether Central Serbia is Serbia is very much a case of dispute. Maps: these [5][6] would do fine, but they aren't free of course. To the anti-independence position (which I am happy to accept as the minority one, and which I in no way endorse myself), you sound like saying "Texas borders on Mexico to the south and on the USA to the north". The crucial point is to get some graphical means of distinguishing the disputed border from the undisputed ones. That isn't difficult to do, just see Image:Map India.png. dab (𒁳) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT - let me edit or i'm going to flip kittens) There is no disputed border, at all. Call it Central Serbia, edit the map. As to what disputed border you refer to, I can't figure it out. Beam 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

sigh. it is disputed whether the border between Kosovo and Central Serbia is (a) a mere provincial boundary, or (b) an international border. Depending on which opinion you hold, you're going to render it differently on a map. Google Earth shows it in red like all other disputed borders. --dab (𒁳) 06:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

@dab, you don't want a "political map" yet you want the "UN map" to be in the infobox? What's the UN if not a political organization with political maps? Your rejection of a CIA map and your support of a USAID map just shows how unnecessary of a request this is; one the one hand you don't want a map from a US agency because "the US supports independence", but on the other hand you offer a map from a different US agency. Anything to further your POV, ha? --alchaemia (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

what "UN map"? The map will need to show the borders of Kosovo, political or not, and I am saying that the border towards (Central) Serbia will need to be shown marked (dotted, dashed, etc.) in some way. That's all. dab (𒁳) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What about stripping Image:Kosovo map-en.svg of all names and upload it, maybe with the Europe map a bit larger so i can be seen in a infobox? I or anyone can probably do this pretty easy in Inkscape — chandler — 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the childish disputes over spellings should prevent us from labelling places at all. We just need to figure out the most common English spelling and stick to that, per plain WP:NAME. Of course poor Semhur could not anticipate these decisions, and we'll just have to ask him politely to re-label things. dab (𒁳) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

hold it, what we want, of course, is a blank map after all, and use {{Image label}} (as in e.g. {{Iranian Plateau}}). That way, we'll always be able to dynamically edit, add or remove labels as we see fit. dab (𒁳) 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the easy reason for not having names is, no other map in a infobox has them. — chandler — 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dab it is not our foult you were away and could not take part in the discussion. The change of map was agreed and until a new agreement, the current map should stay. --NOAH (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What about something like Image:Kosovomapsmallpreview250px.png (I have that in SVG form but as 250px is what will show in the infobox i just uploaded in like that so people can see preview.) Anything can be changed though, from the Europe map to the colour of the ground etc etc. Is just shows the location of kosovo in line with most other regions/countries/provinces/states etc, even though this has a high detail level — chandler — 17:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

that's excellent. Let's see:

I'm sorry for the premature revert, but I am raising a valid concern, and I am presenting a suggestion for genuine improvement. It's never too late to improve an article. --dab (𒁳) 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Still don't think the names should be shown in the infobox ;( — chandler — 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The physical maps without labels we now have is perfect. --dab (𒁳) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That map is retarded. Beam 23:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that map (The green one with no names) Let's use it. BalkanFever 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not just use a single pixel? It will be just as informative and RETARDED. Beam 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If anything is retarded its the current one, as you don't see or understand where Kosovo is in the World, it also uses names, which NO OTHER country/province/state/you name it — chandler — 04:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment, Beam? Why a "single pixel"? This is a physical map, with a locator inset. I am not aware we are using the CIA Factbook maps as locator maps anywhere else. These aren't locator maps by any stretch, they are simple overview maps showing political borders and major settlements. dab (𒁳) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Beam 12:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See now I WAS AWAY, and didn't see this uproar that Beam caused. First of all, that was a CHEAP and IMMATURE gesture to call me "Kosovo2008" when you know my username is "Kosova2008". Secondly, the change was agreed because it showed Kosova as a disputed country/territory..all names are Alb/Ser as they should be. I don't think its' fair of you to not assume AGF, but do asyou might, I can't say I trust you because you show a real anti-albanian attitude. I won't allow this new map because it just shows lines...it has bad referencing qualities and the reader will have ABSOLUTELY no clue where Kosova is..btw one of the maps where it shows Kosova in Europe I proposed that but I think it was Beam who opposed it. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Uproar that I caused? You need to chill the fuck out and read stuff again before you hit submit. Thank you. Beam 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

please, grow up. the normal spelling in english is "Kosovo", it's understandable for someone to make a mistake like that. an attitude like that is what inflames consensus-building discussions like these. ninety:one 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

any other comments that aren't immature rants? Otherwise I suppose we'll move to the unlabelled map. It is clearly superior because it (a) includes a locator map and (b) has no labels (which, as noted above, is desirable for locator maps). dab (𒁳) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason for not having names, (Especially not Albanian or Serbian) is, as i've said, if you look at any other map showing a location it does NOT have labels. — chandler — 16:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to place a dot at the location of Pristina, as in the example above, but I don't think {{Infobox Country}} allows for this... dab (𒁳) 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Current map is wronz The previous one was just fine. Folks like torcino and other proserbian have truly found heaven in distoring info. shame shame shame on wikipedia. shame on the abusers of democracy...

please revert to previous maP.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.156.157 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

any reason why you think a physical map of Kosovo is "pro-Serbian"? --dab (𒁳) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

to be fair, Infobox Country maps usually have no labels because they are pure locator maps. Since we present a physical map instead, I am not sure whether an entirely unlabelled map is preferable. Compare the template at Moldavia (not a great choice I admit), Abkhazia (shows a labelled map together with a locator map of Abkhazia within Georgia), South Ossetia (similar), Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (a complex locator map with a lengthy caption). dab (𒁳) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant dab caused an uproar not beam. Also some of you need to act a little civil, firstly with DAB for putting a new map without a consensus. I don't like it, the map locater sucks, if it was a little better perhaps if you edit it yourself than it would be okay. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

uh-huh, an up-front nationalist zealot like Kosova2008 is up in arms because of design elements like "the map locater sucks" (interestingly in favour of a map that has no locator whatsoever) I hear you... I mean, thank you, I couldn't have made the case any clearer than that: the fact that our resident pov-pushers try to go back to the CIA map really drives home my point that it isn't neutral (nor does it pretend to be neutral. The US government, unlike Wikipedia, does not have a "npov" policy. Kosova2008 is trying to go back to a map published by an entity ostensibly taking a pro-independence stance. Peace to the USA, they are free to do that, but we aren't). --dab (𒁳) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This and this are over the top, Mr. Bachmann. You come here and throw wild accusations around. IMHO Kosova2008 is relatively neutral compared to some others here, including yourself. Well, I am neither a Serb nor Albanian, but you don't seem particularly impartial to me either. Also please keep in mind that you are not exempt from WP:CIV, WP:NPA etc. and that this article is on probation. Colchicum (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to act mature with you but you make it harder by every keystroke. If you think I'm a "nationalist zealot" that is my personal opinion and prerogative, that is none of your business. My objections are clear and not political when I ask that I want a map that a person who is visiting this page for the first time does NOT get confused and can clearly point out where Kosova is. If you feel so against that map you should add a locater, or better yet design a better map with names in your map locater. Just for an FYI, I will not reply to your childish posts or accusations of being nationalist or POV-pushing when you are yourself ranting about anti-America and CIA this and that, keep WP out of your politics. Ari out, Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, " IMHO Kosova2008 is relatively neutral"? Are you reading some parallel Wikipedia? The behaviour of Kosova2008 (talk · contribs) has been blatant nationalist pov-pushing from the beginning. He throws temper-tantrums over the spelling Kosovo, which is otherwise completely undisputed as the English language form. He rambles about "locaters" (God knows what he means by that precisely) when his concern is defending the CIA map, which ostensibly constitutes a prejudice in favour of the US pov. I don't know what to say except that it seems you are not talking about the same user. dab (𒁳) 11:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the map, here are my thoughts:

• I'm forced to acknowledge that most current Wikipedia articles on countries do not have maps of this sort (political maps with locations of cities). I'm not sure I understand why that's the case — and from an information standpoint, I'm not sure I agree with the current state of affairs (I think a map showing a country's key cities is a good thing to have) — but the people who are saying that maps like this are not the norm do seem to have a valid point.

• If city names are going to be included on the map — something which I would prefer — then I do think they ought to be in both Albanian and Serbian for NPOV (and, at least in the case of the capital, also in English). In this regard, I would wonder if the capital, currently labelled only as "PRISTINA", should perhaps be labelled as "PRISTINA / Prishtina / Priština". And is there really a need for the redoubled label "Prizren / Prizren", rather than just "Prizren"?

• If a close-up map of Kosovo is going to be included in this article, I think it might make more sense to move it farther down, into the "Republic of Kosovo" infobox, just above the existing map showing Kosovo's location in Europe. That seems to be more in line with other country articles which may show a regional view plus a wider view of a country's location. Or maybe the close-up map could be included elsewhere in the body of the article — along the lines of what the Montenegro page currently has.

• For the sake of NPOV, I would propose that the boundary between Kosovo and Serbia (or, as some would prefer to say, the rest of Serbia) should be shown as a dashed or dotted line. I imagine one reason why some people are objecting to the existing map may be because it has a solid line around Kosovo's northern/eastern border — strongly implying in their view that Kosovo's independence from Serbia is a settled matter — whereas neutrality requires us to acknowledge (in maps as well as in the text of the article) that Kosovo's status is still in dispute.

Richwales (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In reality the map probably most suitable is Image:LocationKosova.PNG as it goes more along the lines of other countries, regions, states, provinces, not zoomed in at all, but to locate it in Europe and in the World — chandler — 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's it. the entire point of the first infobox is treating Kosovo-qua-territory, without endorsing either pov. Consequently, the Kosovar-Central Serbia border needs to be marked specially, dotted or dashed or something. That's the issue I had raised, reasonably, and for which a solution has been presented. If there are yet better solutions than the present suggestion, let's hear them, as long as they don't revert to a biased presentation. --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---

So, dab, you just felt like the map wasn't good enough for your tastes and decided to change it - even though there was consensus for the previous map? Listen, just because you were away and did not participate in the debates does not mean that you can change the maps now here. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your "edit" and call the new map terrible. RoK is tiny in that map, it's not even a zoomed map. Just terrible. --alchaemia (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

nope, I gave my reasons, proposed a new solution, discussed it, and found support. I am not sure what "new map" you are talking about, the one I included is shown above: it is a map of Kosovo. I do not understand what you mean by "it's not even a zoomed map". Briefly, you are not making sense and appear to be barking up the entirely wrong tree. dab (𒁳) 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A "zoomed map" means a map that does not show the whole of Europe - in that context, Kosovo is small and cannot be seen clearly. --alchaemia (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

wait, are you referring to Image:LocationKosova.PNG? Is it too much to ask that you pay a little bit of attention to the debate before spewing your vitriol at the wrong people? The current map was neither suggested, nor endorsed nor introduced by me. It was introduced by Chandler in good faith, but I have to object to it on the same grounds that disputed borders aren't shown as distinct from undisputed international borders. It is also pointless seeing that we now have two maps showing "Kosovo within Europe". --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The previous map was just fine, until you marched in, having missed the previous debate and consensus and wanted to change it. Also, not sure what you mean by "disputed borders aren't shown as dinstinct from undisputed borders international borders." Do you means Serbia's borders are undisputed international borders? Because they are, and by some major players I might add. --alchaemia (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I favor Image:Kosovo in Balkans.png, or something like that but more zoomed in. The CIA map was implying that Kosovo was outside Serbia, which is no surprise given that the official CIA position. We must be careful not to make such an implication. Superm401 - Talk 11:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not? By "not making such an implication" we are making another one; namely, that Kosovo is inside Serbia which is disputed by no less than 44 states (including Taiwain) and, of course, Kosovo itself. --alchaemia (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Make this implication. You are happy enough to use CIA sources, on English language Wikipedia, and all English speaking countries recognize Kosovo don't they. But I still think that if you place the map on a bigger scale, such as to include the whole of Europe then you'll struggle to find Kosovo, it is so small. Can I ask Ari d'Kosovo do please use the English name for the disputed province which is Kosovo with o thank you. Balkantropolis (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Claim sovereignty" vs. "support territorial integrity according to international law"

I have a problem with this edit by Elk Salmon. In my view, the new version is slanted way too far towards an assumption that Serbia's position is correct. I think both sides of this dispute are claiming international law is on their side, so saying that Serbia's position (but not Kosovo's) is "according to the principles of international law" would amount to a POV judgment on our part favouring the Serbian view. The original wording was more neutral, in my opinion, because it even-handedly mentioned both sides and merely stated (without taking sides) that Serbia still claims Kosovo as part of its own territory. I was inclined to simply revert this change, but given the heightened sensitivities over this article, I thought it would be prudent to bring it up here and ask for other people's opinions first. Comments, anyone? Richwales (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I believe that as far as international law goes Serbia may be right. Of course there are far greater legal minds debating that. Anyway, I've made an edit to assure NPOV, so consider your concern alleviated. Beam 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe that? "International law" (whatever that means, it's a very vague term) recognizes self-determination, and for all that matters, that's exactly what happened in Kosovo. --alchaemia (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

International law has become a mantra for Serbian politicians but they do not specify which international law. We know that we do not have any book that contains the international law, where we can search and find an article that says what Kosovo did was illegal. We have to interpret both written and unwritten sources, agreements, memorandums, practice. I think both Albanians and Serbs will be able to find good arguments that their standpoint about Kosovo is according to international law. What is most interesting is that Serbia keep mentioning international law when it favors them, but completely ignores it when it says they are hiding and supporting people who have committed genocide, Mladic and Karadzic. Should a country that does not respect international law be allowed to use it when it is in its interest?? --NOAH (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It's not just about Serbia, it's about point of view of Serbia allies. And it's not you who should define in which way international law for territorial integrity should be applied to Serbia. UN will decide. Elk Salmon (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not the UN either. Fortunately the UN is not a world government or a world court, and fortunately there are none. The UN is just an international organization (which is quite recent, utterly ineffective and probably will not last long). Actually there are no global supranational judiciary and law enforcement. You are forced to obey the UN only as long as you recognize the UN authority. To put it short, there is no single authority in international law. Colchicum (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

so? this just means Wikipedia has to go along with UN resolutions as a guideline until there is a "world government". If the UN doesn't have jurisdiction over "international law", how much less authority, do you think, lies with Wikipedia, or with Wikipedia user Colchicum? --dab (𒁳) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. Absolutely not. Why should we stick to the opinion of UN at all? Being sourced by a government or by something "official" has nothing to do with being good, reliable, true, impartial etc. I believe there will never be a world government, you can wait forever, but this is not relevant here. In Wikipedia we have policies such as WP:NPOV which require Wikipedia to be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. As a matter of fact there are different significant interpretations of international law and we cannot afford to pick up a single one as the ultimate truth. The UN opinion (has it produced any, by the way?) is neither better nor worse than many others in this respect. Colchicum (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the old pre-Elk Salmon version was perfectly fine. This is too pointy and not an improvement at all. I'd suggest to revert the change. Colchicum (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Of course this isn't about "truth". Yes, the UN position is relevant. Go figure. --dab (𒁳) 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Beam 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Now i've truly fixed it. Fixing my fixed fixes. Beam 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the phrase used in Abkhazia article to explain why and how exactly Georgia allies support of Abkhazia being a part of Georgia. That all goes to this point as well. It should be explained how and why Serbia allies support Kosovo being a part of Serbia and article should say about a right of Serbia for territorial integrity per WP:NPOV. Elk Salmon (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in the Abkhazia article, the references to territorial integrity and international law occur a bit later on (in the "Political status" section), not in the intro. I can certainly imagine more material about the Serbian position being added to the "Constitutional status" section of this article, but it would need to be done in an even-handed fashion that acknowledges the ongoing dispute, doesn't give undue weight to either side of the argument, and avoids saying or implying that either side is obviously right or wrong. Richwales (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Map Consensus

Resolved

Right now the article has no map because someone took it off, well a revert by DAB but I don't see a map. Last time I started a consensus for the map, the discussion was open for maybe a month, and the change was made. Here is what needs to be established,

the map must:

• Clearly make Kosova easy to find on the map

and

• Either have both Alb/Ser names or none, BUT, must have Pristina

Now since some of you feel that I took it under my liberty to change the map without their input here is a great time to nominate a map or two; we'll discuss them and whatever the community here decides it will be our map.

I want this the CIA map to be on here. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You claim "the article has no map." This is nonsense. The article has two maps in the lead (apart from several more maps in the body): one showing Kosovo within Europe as you request, and one showing Kosovo within Serbia. The only thing missing at this moment is a physical map. --dab (𒁳) 16:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, a physical map is needed. This page ([[7]]) has something similar to the CIA map, I think it's the Polish Wiki. Anyways, I made this so we could discuss the map since you were so displeased; I can't say you had a mandate to remove the map altogether, but you should contribute and tell us what map isn't POV, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a map WITHOUT names, that shows where Kosovo is located, NOT zoomed in to only show Kosovo like the CIA map. This is what every other country/state/region/etc has. — chandler — 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

diff I'm not going to get to a second revert over this person. Someone else should be nice and do it. Beam 16:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea: We move the map being used in the RoK infobox up to the top. Serbia is grey, so it shows the dispute, and that seems neutral enough. It also addresses Chandler's point about the zoom. Then we can put that CIA map in the RoK infobox, where it's actually relevant. BalkanFever 03:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is also disputed, but we don't show PRC in grey. Why should we show Serbia in grey? --alchaemia (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The map should in no way show Kosovo as part of Serbia because we are then supporting the Serbian point of view. Take a look at the articles about Northern Cyprus and Republic of China. I can not see any dashed lines, even though these countries are disputed. Kosovo is even more a country, being recognized by USA, Japan and most EU-countries. We should have a map that shows Kosovo alone/independent of any other country, and adresse the issue of recognitions in the text, as we already have done.--NOAH (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Screaming is hardly productive. BalkanFever 09:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that all you can say?--NOAH (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it strange that you are so against "supporting the Serbian point of view" but so for supporting the independent point of view, while forgetting this article is suppose to be supporting the neutral point of view. — chandler — 09:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not saying we should support the independent point of view, but we can present Kosovo alone (without dashed lines) since we have already stated in the intro that independence is contested by Serbia. I support independence for Kosovo but when editing I do my best to avoid let my feelings control my edits here. I always try to be as NPOV as possible. Sometimes the debates may be very polarized and I may say things I should not have said but I try to never make POV edits, I don’t think I have either. --NOAH (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Real discussion

When you people want to stop SCREAMING, yelling and SHOUTING about your respective neutrality (or lack thereof), or about your respective states of existence, please edit here and respond to my proposal. I'll restate it

• I have an idea: We move the map being used in the RoK infobox up to the top. Serbia is grey, so it shows the dispute, and that seems neutral enough. It also addresses Chandler's point about the zoom. Then we can put that CIA map in the RoK infobox, where it's actually relevant. BalkanFever 12:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus has now been reached: Use CIA map in RoK infobox and "Europe Locator KOS" in territory infobox. -- 20000 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"2 billion €"

Several times in this article the Euro symbol is used with an (in my view) odd positioning.

"2 billion €"

This makes no sense to me, I had to stop to make sense of the sentence particularly as it was followed immediately by another numeric figure. Surely it should be formatted "€2 billion" or at very least "2€ billion". In my view it is confusing and should be changed. --86.111.162.127 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)