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)

Hypocrisy to the max

There is no information on destruction of Serbian churches. No information on bulldozing Serbian schools. borders stoppage of medical supplies for hospitals. Organ trafficking, drug trafficking, explosive trafficking in Kosovo. we need to live in a fair and free society. G-d know that Serbian side was not heard in 1991 in Croatia, in 1995 in Bosnia, in 1999 in Kosovo, right now on Wikipedia. stop edit warring and look at the Serbian side of this issue.Mike Babic (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Provide your sources and your proposed text right here, and we'll discuss this. Mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a venue for any "sides" to be heard, it is an encyclopedia. Colchicum (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of days ago a new terrorist organization was formed.
http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=208581
A civilian buys Semtex bombs in Kosovo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJSqvP8WZyE
Destruction of churches
http://www.sv-luka.org/Kosovo2000Part1.pdf
The Guardian writes that 40% of heroin in Europe comes from Kosovo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/balkans
This article on Kosovo doesn't tell any of these things. I would like to know, what percentage of horrible things that will happen in Kosovo tomorrow are going to be hidden from me? 5%, 10%, 90%? I want to contribute to the society, my gift is foresight, but I am not a great writer. Mike Babic (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian article is very outdated (March 2000, less than a year after the fighting in war-torn Kosovo), though if there are recent data and they are reliable, they should be discussed. Note that this article is about Kosovo in general, it cannot include every minor fact. The fact that several Kosovo Albanians have done this and that is not notable enough, there are some criminals in almost every spot, in Serbia or the U.S. as well. The information about the destruction of churches should be included, but some more reliable and impartial sources are needed (it shouldn't be difficult to find them). Also note that there is much to add about the other side's horrible actions ([1], [2], [3], [4] and so on). Ok, let's find sources and discuss the wording here. Colchicum (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out this website http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/20/sbm.bosnia.holbrooke/ Its funny how noone mentions that the Serb army arranged buses for woman and children out of Srebrenica. Also, what was the reason for the attack of Srebrenica? Wasnt it Naser Oric who was attacking from there? I'm pointing out the crap that I, as a Serb, have to put up with every single day. All my edits on this article get revesed no matter what the source or content.Mike Babic (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Seriously? Your argument is that the Serbian army should be applauded for ethnically cleansing an area of women and children before brutally murdering every male over the age of 16? Seriously?

Srebrenica happened. It doesn't mean every Serb is evil, or that all Serbs are in some way responsible, but it happened. It doesn't matter why it happened, or how you try to excuse it, the fact is that there is simply no justification for the massacre of 6-7 thousand civilians. You really need to think carefully about what you're saying here. Davu.leon (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That information is stupid. NO! People should start writing from the Serbian side as well. Bosnian men were killed it is true but this still doesnt negate the fact the Serbs arranged transportation for woman and children. Should that not also be incuded on wikiepedia? Why dont we include Jihad flags that are flown in Bosnia today? How about we include the "Fort Dix terrorist story" where 3 Islamic terrorists were Kosovo Albanians? My point is that I know something that you might not know. You dont know it because the powerful dont want you to know it. There is a reason why they are trying to hide this information. So, yes, continue to impede contributions that present a different side. Great job.24.36.52.249 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Serious, dont you think about why they openly bash Jesus on TV? Jesus symbolizes a morality that is not favorable to them anymore.24.36.52.249 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is a country - National Geographic, Oxford Atlas

National Geographic Atlas of the World, Eighth Edition http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/places/countries/country_kosovo.html

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780195374513-0

Full of crisp, clear cartography of urban areas and virtually uninhabited landscapes around the globe, the Atlas has maps of 69 cities and nearly 100 different regions at carefully selected scales to give a striking view of the Earth's surface. Opening with world statistics and then a colorful, instructive 48-page Introduction to World Geography--beautifully illustrated with tables and graphs--this acclaimed resource provides details on such topics as climate, the greenhouse effect, plate tectonics, agriculture, population and migration, and global conflicts. As in years past, this edition includes the latest geographic information: a new flag for Iraq, the addition of the Republic of Kosovo to the map of Europe, a new region in Senegal and two provinces in the Philippines, plus the appearance of the world's newest landmass, Warming Island, revealed by the melting Greenland ice sheet. Current census statistics also help to illustrate tables showing the population of world countries and cities and the popular satellite image section has been refreshed with stunning new images of different regions and urban areas.

Kosovo today is listed as a country. This wikipedia is becoming everyday less relevant. Is Akbhazia or any other regions added on Oxford as countries? No. All Maps have listed Kosovo as a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If they are idiots, why do we have to be idiots too? Nikola (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why has the status of Kosovo not been updated to reflect it is a country, as per the International Court of Justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goochylittlepig (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is over 190 countries in the United Nations. Barely 50 countries have recognized Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state. Just because National Geographic (American) or the American Government want Kosovo to be an independent state does not make it so. I understand the differences of opinion and agree in principal to the concept of self-determination (but forcing out one side of people to do that isn't really fair) and I feel that this article goes some way to satisfying both sides of the Kosovo arguement.--217.203.137.240 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not set any precedences, but it follows those of published atlases and encyclopedias. So far National Geographic is a well known and respected publication. Azalea pomp (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As prestegious as National Geographic and Oxford are, these are mere commercial publications that obviously follow the recognition policies of their national governments, and should not form a basis for article treatment. Unlike those publications, Wikipedia cannot sanction or endorse a POV, it can only reflect the political reality, which is that there is a de facto independent state called Kosovo, and there is currently no global political consensus on its legality, only states that recognize vs. states that do not--wikipedia accurately reflects this condition and should not be modified to categorize Kosovo one way or another until the issue is more clearly resolved and a majority of states take an official stand.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall something about Wikipedia not being meant to reflect "reality", but rather to be a reflection of its sources. I don't know on what basis you are deciding what "reality" is, but it sounds like a clear case of POV, or OR to me. Just a thought... Davu.leon (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean, of course, the reality according to sources. Wikipedia does not serve as a mere respository of data from other encyclopedias, it relies on a multitudinous variety of first and second-hand sources that comes in many shapes and forms. In the context of this article, "sources" has been firmly established to mean official government statements and positions, and not the POV of local publications, conveniently selected from one or two countries. But even if wiki were to just recompile second-hand encyclopedia data, and nothing else, the fact remains that, because the majority of governments don't recognize Kosovo, the majority of encyclopedic sources also don't recognize Kosovo, on a global scale, and not just refering to NG and Oxford, or to the majority of encyclopedias printed in the US and UK. It would be like taking one publication from Serbia and one from Russia, and trying to argue that Kosovo cannot possibly be a country because they say it isn't. The determining factor is consensus, which currently does not exist either way, either in the political or the scholarly sense--that will arise over time. Wikipedia cannot claim any more than the fact Kosovo is a de facto and partially recognized independent state--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

, . The 

It should be called a country. It is de facto 'a country', I haven't seen or heard a 'binding' ruling which stats otherwise. The fact of the matter remains, Kosovo has declared her independence, Serbia has no say overwhat happens in Kosovo, (legally anyways, the North of Kosovo is 'de jure' apart of Kosovo). Resolution 1244 states this. It also explains that Kosovo is apart of Yugoslavia, which does not exist anymore.Realmadrid123 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Civilian Deaths

This is disputed. News articles in 1999 that support civilian killings are negated by witnesses in the ICTY. For example, the pretext that the Račak incident involved civilian killings is disputed by the evidence that "Helena Ranta, the Finnish pathologist who had conducted the forensic examination on the Račak casualties" gives in the court. She says that the Racak was a KLA stronghold. "[She was] convinced that there is enough information to just suggest that there was fighting between the Serbia army and the KLA in the village". Does anyone out there feel like there is something behind these statments? Yes, I'm a Serb but i do feel like the article continues to perpetuate one side of the story and this keep people in the dark. Let the light shine.Mike Babic (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Ranta's report: “No ammunition was found in the pockets. It is likely that no looting of the bodies has occurred, because money (bank notes) was found on them. The clothing bore no identifying badges or insignia of any military unit. No indication of removal of badges or insignia was evident. Based on autopsy findings (e.g. bullet holes, coagulated blood) and photographs of the scenes, it is highly unlikely that clothes could have been changed or removed. Among those autopsied, there were several elderly men and only one woman. There were no indications of the people being other than unarmed civilians.” Yes, you are a Serb wanting to make this article 100 % pro-Serbian. --NOAH (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not Ranta's report, that is her personal opinion. Her personal opinion is her own, and as anyone could see, none of the facts mentioned in the paragraph you cite are indications that the people were not armed terrorists. Nikola (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes your attacking me as an editor because I bring a different side to the article. Yes this article is horribly slanted to the Kosovilian side. BTW GREAT accusation, that is really constructive. Back to the issue, provide a source please. And yes, i do feel bad about flamming on your comment, but there are so many people who are extremely "anti-Serb" and Im just sick of it.Mike Babic (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment, calling them 'kosovilians' (Kosovo-Villains), when they're called Kosovars betrays your bias more than any other comment I've seen by you on this talk page. I've yet to see you actually argue for neutrality. The opposite of pro-kosovo is not pro-serb, but neutrality. Try working ofr that, not for Serbian promotionalism. ThuranX (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is "biased", probably you as well. The question is whether or not the bias effects your judgment and objectivity. Personally, I do not see the connection between "...vilians" and "villains", maybe you consider "civilians" a biased term as well? Also, it does not make any sense for a pro-Serbian editor to "make fun" of Kosovars when many Serbs are Kosovars as well. All in all, a weak attempt at discrediting an editor, try again. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as editors we really shouldn't try to interpret sources, we just report what they state (see WP:OR). I suggest we simply state that the leading theory/view is that the Racak massacre was a killing of civilians (and then present who believes this and why) but then also state that there exists a minority view that this was not the case (and present who states this and why). We don't need to put any more judgemen of either of these 'views' than that.Osli73 (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What is disputed in Following the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia to halt the killings of civilians...? Regardless of whether there were killing of civilians (there were, but it doesn't matter right here), it was the officially stated goal of the NATO campaign. Do you dispute this? If so, man, you have drifted very far from reality. Colchicum (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed to halt the killings of civilians to with its stated goal to halt killing of civilians and removed the tag. The sentence doesn't imply that killings have happened. Hope this helps. Colchicum (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, your deduction is great but sadly I did not aim for the association, it was by accident. So, the Kosovars is what they are called "officially"? I always thought that they might call them "Kosnians" similar to (Bosnians) (Bulgarians) (Russians) etc.Mike Babic (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Here is what I am going to add to the article to make the claims about atrocities that are already there more precise, after all, the ICTY is probably the best kind of source for such things; Mike Babic and others, you are welcome to propose a couple of lines about the Serbian position on that matter, we'll add it right below if it is reliably sourced and is not just somebody's personal opinion:

On May 22, 1999, Louise Arbour, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, indicted Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milošević (1941-2006), Serbian President Milan Milutinović, Yugoslavian Deputy Prime Minister Nikola Šainović, Chief of the Yugoslavian General Staff General Dragoljub Ojdanić and Serbian Interior Minister Vlajko Stojiljković (1937-2002) with crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war during the Kosovo War. Immediately after the NATO campaign, in June-September 1999, the FBI sent to Kosovo two Evidence Response Team Groups upon request by the UN to provide additional forensic assistance to the ICTY. Based on the new information, on October 16, 2001, ICTY Prosecutor Carla del Ponte brought an amended indictment against the five. The charges were that during 1999 they supported, encouraged and directed a deliberate and widespread or systematic campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians living in Kosovo, aimed to expel a substantial portion of them. The campaign was claimed to include displacement, destruction of property, intimidation, assaults and killings. In particular, the indictees were accused of execution of 606 ethnic Albanian civilians listed by name, aged from one to 93, including women, at numerous locations in Kosovo between January 15 and May 25, 1999. The trial is still pending.

Colchicum (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Any news sources, especially CNN, from 1999 CAN NOT BE USED. Its like using CNN to state that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Write about Albanian indictments as well to make it NPOV. To start, write about the indictments of the "Prime Minister of Kosovo". I'm angry at the fact that after i point out the bias, you go on and write more stuff that is clearly biased. I expect people to moral by writing some pro-Serb stuff. I don't have a high opinion on current contributions. To say it discreetly, i think that this information is evil and people who are perpetuating it are evil as well. I haven't met a single hard working editor that is at least a bit pro-Serb.Mike Babic (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Then any Serb government or media source, from the 7th Century to 2008, is - by the same logic -also out of bounds. This may be a good idea. Secondly, I don't think it is a good idea to use indictments to try to prove who did what. By their very nature these are just accusations - unproved. Far better to use the judgments of the ICTY, which we can presume to have gone through some process of critical examination. Davu.leon (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The text presents they indictments as indictments and clearly attributes them. Still it is very strange that they have not been included so far. We cannot be silent about what happened after the war to Milosevic and Co. Colchicum (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC) And no, these are not merely accusations, as they certainly have gone through some preliminary process of critical examination. People do not end up in Belgisch Park because of mere accusations. Colchicum (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big discussion on it, but one of the big problems in the ICTY has been that they didn't properly investigate before indicting, in many cases. In fact Justice Schomberg (sp?) gave an interview I think in 2006 detailing how the OTP were handing in indictments that were little more than a bundle of unsubstantiated allegations. For the record I do tend to believe that Milosevic was involved in decision making that contributed to Genocide, but I certainly wouldn't use an ICTY indictment to justify that belief. Reference to court transcripts would, in my opinion, be far more acceptable. Davu.leon (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Court transcripts are too detailed for a short summary, maybe in a separate article about the trial, and the court has not yet been finished. The ICTY indictment is not used to justify any such belief, it is only used to confirm that an indictment has been made, which is notable and on topic. Colchicum (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you are a serious man. It turns out you are just a nationalist zealot, wasting the time of other editors. It looks like you will still be unsatisfied as long as the article doesn't say that Albanians eat Serbian children for breakfast or some other nonsense. Wikipedia runs on specific policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR are among them. Either you accept them or you'd better go somewhere else. Wikipedia shall not be based on the "truth" you believe it, it shall be based on reliable published sources. Of course we can do without the CNN, other sources say basically the same. Please reconsider your attitude. Colchicum (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I accuse you Colchicum of being an ass and murdering children. Lets put that on your personal page. Lets be fair and reserve judgments. Accusations are unproven.130.113.111.210 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

When you become a prosecutor of a UN tribunal and get me to the Hague, we will discuss this. But I am still at large and you are still nobody. Colchicum (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, talking seriously,

Is the fact that Milosevic and Co. were indicted for war crimes related to Kosovo? Yes.

Is the fact notable? Yes.

Do I represent the indictment as proven accusations? No.

So what's wrong with it? Colchicum (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Include both Serbian and Albanians to the list. Then its fair.Mike Babic (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will be done. Colchicum (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we then mention the results of the trials? i.e. that the ICTY has conclusively stated (in two separate trials) that the KLA never had a policy of targeting civilians, whereas the Serbian military did? That Haradinaj, Limaj, Balaj etc are innocent of all chares? Are the Serbian editors on this page willing to accept that as an NPOV statement of fact? Are Albanians willing to accept that two KLA members were convicted? You see, this is just opening up a huge can of worms. Davu.leon (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should, if they are explicitely attributed to the ICTY. the KLA never had a policy of targeting civilians, whereas the Serbian military did; two KLA members were convicted is of course not a NPOV statement of fact, but the ICTY stated that the KLA never had a policy of targeting civilians, whereas the Serbian military did; it convicted two KLA members is. Colchicum (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps [5] should also be summarised somewhere near that. Nikola (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Its like using CNN to state that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

Well, as far as we know CNN (or NYT, or BBC, or Der Spiegel, or Le Monde) never said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It simply said that the government of USA suspected that Iraq had or was capable to develop these weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.101.36 (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously include that the Serbian paramilitary forces targeted civilians if you have good sources. Check your sources before posting! My point is that CNN at that time had false information that Serbs were killing "hundreds of thousands of civilians". Also, it really bugs me when people talk about civilians killing and attribute it to the "Army". Yugoslavia was extremely corrupt at that time and warlords ruled. Meaning, the "men in masks" don't translate into Yugoslav army, unless your source specifically tells that.Mike Babic (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Many, I think the immense majority of the Western World press reported the actions of the Yugoslav military and paramilitary forces (both acting in coordination and under orders from Slobodan Milosevic) in Kosovo. To judge all of the Western World media in 1999 as unreliable is, sincerely, not a very NPOV attitude. And it's a matter of fact that the Milosevic’s Yugoslav forces in Kosovo were there and not protecting the Albanian-spaking Kosovars, to say the least. The presence of Arkan in Kosovo and the non-signing of the Rambouillet Agreement by Milosevic is a clear proof of these Serbian manouvres at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.97.241 (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, Rambouillet Agreement asked Serbia to let NATO troops in the entire country, that is why it wasnt signed. CNN is full of crap and this is proven time after time. Dont use thier crappy information, use other sources.Mike Babic (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Kosovo page on other languages

The flag and coat of arms needs to be at the top of the page as it is in the German, French, Catalan, Spanish, Albanian, Hungarian, Macedonian, Russian, Japanese, and Chinese pages. Azalea pomp (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets concentrate on making this article more NPOV and not trying to inflame Serbs even more with unnecessary editions.Mike Babic (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

i would agree if the "Republic of Kosovo" was a separate article to "Kosovo (region)", but it isn't, therefore we should try and maintain NPOV Ijanderson (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally by now, the infoboxes are beggining to make more sense.--BalkanWalker (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

These info boxes are neutral now and the article is better for it. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Introduction

"Following the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia with its stated goal to halt killing of civilians".

Stating that point alone does not show the whole picture. A point should be added that these killings were exaggerated in order to remain NPOV. Here is the source behind this claim. PBS states the following, "Opponents to NATO's intervention in Kosovo have claimed that the number of casualties was exaggerated in order to justify the bombing of Serbia. In October, 1999, the Texas-based analytical group Stratfor issued a report called Where are Kosovo's Killing Fields? which claimed that casualty figures were manipulated to serve political ends. Their argument was based on early results of the International Criminal Tribunal investigation which turned up fewer bodies than initially predicted". This is the website where the information came from. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/cleansing/. I propose that the following sentence is added. "Opponents have claimed that the number of casualties was exaggerated in order to justify the bombing of Serbia". Thanks for your time.Mike Babic (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence seems adequate and the proposal sounds reasonable. The numbers were certainly disputed, and the dispute should at least be noted on Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But no numbers are mentioned in the introduction, therefore the dispute should also be noted somewhere else in the article, not in the introduction. Colchicum (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, not in the introduction... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed both sentences from the intro. The reasons why something happened are to be discussed in the history section. Intro is supposed to be brief. --Tone 19:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm happy as long as both sides get heard.Mike Babic (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Information is the most dangerous weapon of all", yet I see kids playing with it. I think many people don't understand how much background knowledge is required to understand the conflict in the Balkan peninsula. Reading books and citing sources is the knowledge of the past. In the modern world, media is as polluted as a word from either side of the conflict. It's like advertising, every ad promotes that which benefits the source, no matter what the cost to the surrounding. Think about your sources, and think well; don't claim accuracy as if you wrote them from direct experience. Just think on your own, and sometimes look at an issue fresh, without being influences by any ones' work. Look at everything, geography, culture, religion and behavior...it will tell you more about the people than any book will, that's why experience will remain the only true accurate source. IF you still choose to go with the scholarly choice, try to prove yourself wrong, look from perspectives of both sides. I don't blame the people, particularly in the West, for their perspectives,as Western media is a great weapon maintaining acceptable perspective locally and dominance throughout the world. But remember, every time you associate an event with a group of people (nationality, religion etc), you ARE offending/supporting a good and a bad person, and if the good to bad ratio was small...this world wouldn't exist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RATNIK1987 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Oh, my… when the absolute majority of evidences, studies and information about the Yugoslav Wars in general and Kosovo War in particular show the realities behind these wars, some apologists begin to say what we see is not what we see and begin to cling to that old babble of “you never been there…” or yet “remember the culture, the religion…”

Come on. Slavs are not superior to non-Slavs, Albanians are not less civilized than Serbs, Christianity is not superior to Islam, Orthodoxy is not superior to Catholicism and objectively the preservation of the life of Kosovars are far more important than the preservation of inanimated, old stone Serb Orthodox temples, monasteries, etc. And, according to UN, ICTY, Human Rights Watch and other serious institutions, most of the war crimes were commited by Serbia, the Serbian Army, the Army of Republika Srpska, the Army of Republika Srpska Krajina, and other paramilitary units like Seselj’s White Eagles, Arkan’s Tigers and Legija’s Red Berets.

I know this is not a forum, but in terms of references, to disqualify them en masse just because they don’t fit your perspective and turbofolkish tales is pure nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.97.173 (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that this month this happened No-one can write about it because we have racist Serb haters who will not premit facts to make it into the article. The worst part is that by censoring information your are creating a possibility of future wars.24.36.52.249 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Those racist Serbs need to be rounded up one by one and ejected from Wikipedia editing. They caused enough trouble in the Balkans and now they spread their propoganda here too. Fuquit (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a stupid comment.Mike Babic (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To say that most of the war crimes of Yugoslav wars were commited by Serbia, the Serbian Army, the Army of Republika Srpska, the Army of Republika Srpska Krajina, and other paramilitary units like Seselj’s White Eagles, Arkan’s Tigers and Legija’s Red Berets is not equal to “racism against Serbs” — or else, the ICTY would be considered a “racist against Serbs” court. And to say that Serbia should conform itself to the territories of Central Serbia, Vojvodina and no square inch beyond that is not “racism against Serbs”, too — or else all the governments of the countries of the world that recognized Kosovo would be “anti-Serb people governments”. When we remember that even majority Slav-Orthodox countries like Bulgaria, Macedonia and even Montenegro recognized Kosovo as an independent nation, we see the size of the political madness behind the Greater Serbian ideology nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.96.212 (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And about the declaration “The worst part is that by censoring information your are creating a possibility of future wars”, well, according to the tested and proved Democratic Peace Theory, if all the governments of the Balkan nations are democratic (ie, fair elections, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of/from religion and civilian control of the military), there is no possibility of new wars there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.96.212 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That theory assumes that people generally don't want wars. When Albanians bomb to ground a 13th century church I'm sure that Serbs are going to be pissed off. Given that Albanians from Kosovo are continuing to go against common sense I'm not sure how long the theory will last. G-d willing Albanians will stop being destructive. However, if they dont I'm sure the International Community, or the people of the West, will go to Kosovo and actually fight for Serbs.24.36.52.249 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Albanians should learn from the past. The Americans supported the Afghanis and after a few decades we all know what happened. The Americans supported Saddam Hussein, and after a few decades hung him. The Americans don't choose their interests according to their friends, they choose their friends according to their interests. An independent Kosovo is currently in the interest of the Americans and that's why they're allowing the Albanians to destroy Christian churches in Kosovo, kidnap and kill innocent civilians, burn down Serbian homes, etc... The documentation is there, it's just being ignored for the reasons I have mentioned. Eventually the balance in power will change and then we'll see what happens... What goes around comes around... --JUSTICE 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Any major event regarding vandalism against Serb Orthodox churches, monasteries, etc. in Kosovo hasn’t been happening since the clashes of 2004. The same cannot be said about mosques destroyed in that eastern entity of Bosnia. And sincerely, from a religion-neutral point of view, ancient mosques are as important historically as ancient churches could be.

The current political structures of the Kosovar state are much more closer to the democratic, multi-party parliamentary democracies of Europe than the tyrannies of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan or Baath-ruled Iraq. Kosovo is not a radical Muslim one-party or no-party dictatorship like Egypt or Saudi Arabia, too. The only thing in common between these countries is that the majority of their populations believe in Mohammed instead of Jesus — but Islam and dictatorship aren’t sinonyms, since the biggest Muslim-majority nation of the world — Indonesia — is a democracy.

To put Hashim Tchaci (or Agim Ceku) in the same plate that Mullah Omar (or Saddam Hussein) is clear anti-Islamic nonsense. And to the situation of Kosovo to revert to the non-autonomous era under the boot of Belgrade of 1988-1999, it would be “de-recognized” not only by the USA, but by Britain, Germany, France, Croatia and the more than 50 nation that had recognized its independence from Serbia, which is highly improbable to say the least.

So, as long as Serbia and Kosove keep their parliamentary systems, the possibility of Kosovo returning to Serbia is the same as the possibility of Istanbul becoming Constantinople again and returning to Greek command — zero.

The pro-Serb biased intro

I noticed that the intro to the particle is pro-Serb and biased because it says "partly recognized". Thats not the point. Its partly recognized because it is new and it takes time as country by country each one recognizes a newly declared state. More and more countries recognize Kosovo every day, and the only country not to recognize it is Serbia for the obvious reason. I mean, if the UK and the USA recognize it, isn't that enough? We're civilized countries you know, we don't go around recognizing rogue states such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia or North Cyrpus. Many countries are partly recognized, the biggest example being Israel that no Arab country recognizes and no Muslim country either. The intro should read Kosovo is a country which it is. It is not dependent, it has its own government and parliament and capital city (Prishtina). It has an official language - Albanian, and is a candidate to join the EU, NATO, the UN, World organizations and the like. I hardly think British peacekeepers will work on missions to defend and protect "illegal countries" will they. This isnt the USSR. Fuquit (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel is recognized by 99% of the world. Kosovo by 54/184 countries. I see no reason to change the wording.24.36.52.249 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What you’ve said about Israel isn’t true, because Israel is not recognized by more than 2 nations in the world. So, less than 99% of the UN member-states recognize Israel as a nation. Check the map:

Israel's diplomatic missions abroad: status of relations. Countries coloured green have full diplomatic relations, grey have never established relations, orange at one point had relations but no longer, and red have no relations and does not recognise the State of Israel

It’s curious to see that as of today there are just two countries that recognize Kosovo but don’t recognize Israel: Afghanistan and the United Arab Emirates.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.96.212 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but Israel is an UN member, Kosovo is not. Israel is recognized by a majority of UN states, Kosovo is not. Thus, you can't compare the two. --JUSTICE 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I do not understand why users are taking unilateral moves when it comes to the infoboxes. We have ALL agreed to have 3 infoboxes, one general infobox about Kosovo, one about the Republic of Kosovo and one about the autonomous province of Kosovo. Suddenly, someone made the "general" box into the RofK box! Considering that the LARGE MAJORITY of the world DOES NOT see Kosovo as an independent Republic, it's simply POV PUSHING to try to suggest that this is an internationally recognized Republic. The previous agreement worked fine, but some users just can't accept a compromise and HAVE TO keep pushing their ONE AND ONLY POV. --JUSTICE 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me because that way Serbian and Albanian views are displayed.24.36.52.249 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The pushing in the English Wikipedia version of this article is to the Serb nationalist one. I suspect nowadays the contents of the page about Kosovo in English Wikipedia is closer to the version of Serbian Wikipedia than to the German, Dutch or French Wikipedias.