Talk:Kosovo

Place names

I have seen the talk on here but I refer you all to the british foreign office website, which, besides the fact that the U.K. has recognized Kosovo as an independent state, still maintains a neutral stance. I think we should adopt a similar style when naming the cities of Kosovo. I.E. - Prishtina/Pristina (can't do the Serbian one) Peja/Pec, Mitrovica/Kosovoska Mitrovica, Gjakova/Dakova

What do people think, its more mature then this childish, one albanian one serb one, don't you think? Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified some of the innacurate statements of the introduction, namely regarding Kosovo's status within Yugoslavia, hopefully this will go some way in removing that non-neutral tag on top of the page. By the way, the source is Noel Malcolm, the only neutral author on Kosovo's history we have available to us, in English. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Or we could use the English spellings of the native language version. If the native language is Serbian, we shall use English Alphabet translations of the Serbian. IT is simpler just to use Albanian. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Some one is hijacking my edits, this is unacceptable, the sources are being messed around with to make the article look non-neutral. What is going on??? This is the source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/26/kosovo.serbia Any admins around? Interestedinfairness Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And yes Jakezing I would agree with you. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, if Noel Malcolm is the only neutral author when it comes to Kosovo, then one really has to question how some people on this talk page define "neutral". Also, I'd stand clear of such statements as "the ONLY neutral one" as that by itself is not an argument of any kind.

Secondly, the place names should be in Serbian - not just because Kosovo is, according to UN Security Council Resolution 1244 a part of Serbia, and only a minority of countries in the world are ignoring that and going ahead with their geopolitical policies, but because the place names are largely Serbian in origin. The Albanian versions are the same words written differently, in the spirit of their language. --Cinéma C 21:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is just the other way round, the names are from Albanian origins and the Serbs try to slavify them. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't really make an argument. But every one can see that, so I'll disregard your comment about the source. Your argument about Serbian place names is also weak. But I'm not here to discuss history, I'm here to ask for some sort of consistency, and Albanian first, Serbian second seems consistent with the article. Thanks

Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Or we could use the language of the governing body of the territory, which is kosovo. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The governing body in Kosovo is the UN. In case some of you forgot. --Cinéma C 22:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the United Nations hold political power? Does it hold legislative or judicial power? The governing body on kosovo territory is current a mix of some of the european thing, whatevers left of the UN group, and the majority being the republic. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For the specific purposes of our naming conventions, who holds power is mostly irrelevant. In any case, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Thank you, Jake! --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. Most of the place names are of Serbian / Slavic origin, while some are of Roman origin.

Priština - derived from a Slavic form Prišьčь, a possessive adjective from the personal name Prišьkъ

Kosovska Mitrovica - means "Mitrovica of Kosovo", while "Mitrovica" itself stems from the name "Saint Demetrius" or "Sveti Dimitrije" in Serbian

Suva Reka - means "dry river" in Serbian

Podujevo - derives from founder of city Poduj which was an old Serbian name

Peć - known as Pescium during the Roman era, means "furnace" in Serbian

Orahovac - from the Serbian word orah (орах), meaning "walnut"

Kosovska Kamenica - based on the Serbian word kamen (a stone or a rock)

Kosovo Polje - literally "Kosovo Field"or "blackbird field" in Serbian

Istok - from the archaic version of the Serbian word istok (modern version istek), meaning "well, water source" referring to the springs of the Istočka river

Dragaš - named after Constantine Dragaš, a regional semi-independent lord in the fragmenting Serbian realm centered at Velbăžd

Đakovica - either derives from the Serbian word đak (pupil) from earlier d(i)jak or it is named after one of the large land-owners of the area, Jak Vula

Lipljan - in Roman times known as Ulpiana from which the name Lipljan is derived

Srbica - I'll let you guess this one on your own

Uroševac - derives its name from the medieval Stefan Uroš V of Serbia, Saint Uroš, who is commemorated by a cathedral in the town.. the Albanians called it Ferizaj because of some Albanian hotel in the area, owned by Feriz Shashivari

Novo Brdo - means "New Hill" in Serbian

Vučitrn - means "wolf's thorn", the name of the spiny restharrow plant in Serbian, known as Vicianum during the Roman era.

Obilić - refers to Miloš Obilić who is regarded as a Serbian hero of the 1389 Battle of Kosovo

And so on... If you look at the Albanian names "Prishtinë", "Mitrovicë", "Suharekë", "Podujevë", "Peja", "Rahovec", "Kamenica", "Fushë Kosovë", "Istog", "Dragash", "Gjakova", "Lipjan", "Novobërdë", "Vushtrria" or "Obiliq", you'll see that they're all mostly Serbian words "with an Albanian twist". --Cinéma C 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear: for the specific purpose of using names in the articles of the English-language Wikipedia, etymology is absolutely irrelevant. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Long explanation:
The place names used in our articles are decided in accoradence to our general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names. Their main criterion is that we "should prefer [the names] the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize".

Political or diplomatic considerations have no bearing on what names we use. Our Neutral point of view policy is clear on this: it's "Article naming" section currently states that "[w]here proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources."

In this case, double or "segmented" names in the form of Peć/Peja or Peć (Peja) are cumbersome complications that reduce readability. Remember: Wikipedia aims to be an English-language encyclopedia, not an excercise in diplomatic lingo (as the UN, EU and the British Foreign Office website are by their very nature).

Furthermore, the 3rd general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names currently state: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article."

In the specific case of Kosovo, for a number of historical reasons, the English language has usually adopted or used the Serbo-Croatian place names of the region (see English usage related to Kosovo). This usage may change in the future, and Albanian names may become the norm in English texts, but this isn't the case yet. Only when/if that happens should Wikipedia reflect the change, instead of spearheading it.

In short: this article should use the names the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (our main criterion), the names used as title of their respective articles (internal consistecy). In this case, those names happen to coincide with the Serbo-Croatian ones (with the sole exception of the capital, whose article is currently titled "Pristina" instead of "Priština"). - Best, Ev (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, and here is my longer explanation.

In the English language, Prishtina is neither written in Albanian or Serbian, it's actually written as Pristina, (try for example, booking a flight to Kosovo). This solves the issue of the spelling of the word Pristina and also for places like Prizren.

For towns such as Mitrovica it is obvious that Kosovska Mitrovica is not the most recognizable name for the city (our main criterion). EV says in his talk, (see English usage related to Kosovo), This fact should be evident to anyone who has read English-language books, newspaper articles & publications on the Balkans in general or Kosovo in particular. EV uses the example of the Tim Judah book; Kosovo: War and Revenge, however, this book uses Mitrovica, not the Serbian spelling. (see: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0300097255/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-page The other example used is; The Serbs: History, Myth, and the Destruction of Yugoslavia but this also uses the Albanian spelling of the same word (see: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0300076568/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link as do more recent books such as, Contested Statehood: Kosovo's Struggle for Independence (see: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contested-Statehood-Kosovos-Struggle-Independence/dp/019956616X/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242849413&sr=1-7

EV also uses the Human rights watch website as an example for Serbian place naming, yet more Organizations use the Albanian spelling:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3650 ===

http://www.osce.org/documents/mik/2008/04/1191_en.pdf ===

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7520.doc.htm ===

here is a list of contemporary references to Mitrovica in the English language press or other materials most likely to be viewed in English:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7525916.stm ===

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1721389_1547061,00.html ===

http://www.sofiaecho.com/2009/05/15/719174_the-fortunes-of-kosovo ===

Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, what is and what isn't "English" is a matter of opinion. There are many different opinions on when a word or name is English and when not, on when it has entered the English language or remains "foreign". – English usage, on the other hand, is something entirely different and relatively easy to determine: what words or names are commonly used by English-language publications, irrespective of the word's or name's "Englishness" :-) Our naming conventions rely on English usage, not "Englishness".

You're right that Kosovska Mitrovica may well be more commonly referred to as "Mitrovica" alone (but not as "Mitrovicë"), just as our article on Kosovska Kamenica is currently under "Kamenica (Kosovo)" (but not "Kamenicë")... I had forgotten about that one.

In any case, I'm not using any of those books or organization as examples of usage, but as sources directly addressing the naming question, in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers; as sources mentioning that the Serbo-Croatian forms are the ones the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. - Best, Ev (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have shown the sources which use the spellings I pointed out, and not the Serbo-Croat names you mention. Your source's are only from 3 authors who address the naming question, I'm not interested in that. My point is that Mitrovica is the generally used name for the city, in terms of familiarity to English-speaking readers as the numerous sources above show. But lets see how the Wikipedia community feels, they can see our arguments and check out the sources. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That point doesn't change the general picture: "Mitrovica" is the Serbo-Croatian name without the disambiguator "Kosovska" ('of Kosovo'). - Best, Ev (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll change it to Mitrovica. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: this is article about the UNMIK district in Kosovo. For the former district of the Serbian government, see Kosovska Mitrovica District article.

I have provided numerous links to UN organizations in English which use the name Mitrovica. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As is the case of any potentially controversial move of an article placed under probation by the Arbitration Committee, you may want to raise the issue at Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica first, and see what other editors think about it. - Ev (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, you said: Your source's are only from 3 authors who address the naming question, I'm not interested in that.

Our naming conventions for geographic names currently mention that a name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". So, you should be interested in that. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop prolonging the inevetable, first you ask me to start a new talk page then you come back with another argument on here: The sources you provided were just opinions on usage for that particular book- an opinion. The name most recognizable should be used. And that is Mitrovica - neither Albanian nor Serbian. The name Kosovska Mitrovica is obviously a Serbian POV. Thanks, and don't forget; we should avoid conflicts on here wherever possible; Mitrovica is the most neutral and recognizable name for the City. if you can just change the name of the article (I don't know how), that would be much appreciated. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just google for "kosovska mitrovica" and you will get 568,000 hits and googeling for "mitrovica -kosovska" gives you over 3 million hits, almost 6 times as much! Therefore please change into Mitrovica. TIA. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

googling "mitrovica -kosovska" is completely pointless, since the town is called "Kosovska" precisely to disambiguate it from other Mitrovicas such as Sremska Mitrovica or Mačvanska Mitrovica. --dab (𒁳) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Even with "mitrovica -sremska -mačvanska -kosovska" you get over 1,5 million hits, almost 3x as much as for "kosovska mitrovica"! --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the place to discuss the title of that specific entry is Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica. – And everyone, please, before discussing take the time to read our general naming conventions & the specific ones for geographic names. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

EV, you clearly lost the debate, so you tell everyone to go and repeat the same conversation on Kosovska Mitrovica talk, why didn't you talk there when you were writing a long response. Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we please just stop this childish "you lost, I won" discussion? Ev does make a valid point: there should be an internal consistency in wikipedia, where the standards used in one article are also the standards used in other articles - so taking this question up to the Kosovska Mitrovica page is not at all foolish. Indeed, if all wikipedians agree that Mitrovica is the most common English name for Mitrovice/Kosovska Mitrovica, then this should also be reflected in the page of the city itself, and not just here. So this whole discussion shouldn't take place only here, but also on the Discussion page of the city. Khuft (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Then stop spamming and go on the Mitrovica page and discuss. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestedinfairness, my responses were addressing the original topic of this thread, the issue of Kosovo place names in general, not the specific case of a single city. - When it became clear to me that the topic had shifted to exclusively the name of Kosovska Mitrovica, I mentiond that "you may want to raise the issue at Talk:Kosovska Mitrovica". - Best, Ev (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The name Kosova

It has come to my attention that since going independent, the country has an Albanian majority. Albanians call the land by it's proper name "Kosova", not "Kosovo-Metohia" or "Kosovo" which were terms invented by that serial killer Milosevic when he was wooing Serbs with his ideas about nationalizm. Can someone move the page because I cannot do it. We can't go on giving it old oboslete names and I don't have the "Move page" option, even if I log out I still don't have it. Thanx. Metrospex (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is already a redirect from Kosova to Kosovo, so both work. No renaming, moving, splitting, please as this is exactly what the Serbian POV-pushers try constantly to do. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article is Kosovo not because that is what the Serbs call it, but because that is the form of the name used most often IN ENGLISH. Just as we have an article on Germany and not Deutschland, we have an article on Kosovo and not Kosova. IF the majority of English sources changes to using Kosova, THEN Wikipedia should change to Kosova. Unless and until that happens, the name is Kosovo. Notice that this has nothing to do with pro-Serb, pro-Albanian, or pro-anything positions. Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Metrospex, let me show you why your post is completely unreliable.

• "since going independent, the country has an Albanian majority" - wrong, Kosovo has had a clear Albanian majority since after World War II, during which over 10,000 Serbs were killed and between 80,000 and 100,000 Serbs were expelled, while roughly the same number of Albanians from Albania were brought to settle in these Serbian lands. (Krizman, Serge. Massacre of the innocent Serbian population, committed in Yugoslavia by the Axis and its Satellite from April 1941 to August 1941. Map. Maps of Yugoslavia at War, Washington, 1943) Mustafa Kruja, the Prime Minister of Albania, was in Kosovo in June 1942, and at a meeting with the Albanian leaders of Kosovo, he said: "We should endeavor to ensure that the Serb population of Kosovo be – the area be cleansed of them and all Serbs who had been living there for centuries should be termed colonialists and sent to concentration camps in Albania. The Serb settlers should be killed." (Bogdanovic, Dimitrije. The Book on Kosovo. 1990. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1985. page 2428.)(Genfer, Der Kosovo-Konflikt, Munich: Wieser, 2000. page 158.) With stating this, I propose that these facts be added to the article, with the references given.
• "Albanians call the land by it's proper name "Kosova"" - it's proper name is Kosovo, a Serbian word that means a land that is of a blackbird. The word kos means blackbird in Serbian.
• """Kosovo-Metohia" or "Kosovo" which were terms invented by that serial killer Milosevic when he was wooing Serbs with his ideas about nationalizm." Actually, the word Kosovo, as well as Metohija, existed about 7 - 8 centuries before Milosevic was born. Nice try though.
• "Can someone move the page because I cannot do it." - No, nobody is going to move it and please learn some history first.

Thanks, --Cinéma C 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cinema please stay on topic, your rants about how many Serbs were expelled and so forth besides having no historical basis, are absolutely off topic. Thanks. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're calling my well referenced text "rants", after you yourself used quotes from one of the most biased English historians out there... Also, was I off the topic of Kosovo? Or is it just not so convenient for you that I mentioned Serbs being expelled from Kosovo during World War II? I love when people use opinion to try to disprove facts... it's cute :) --Cinéma C 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Cinema, but you don't know your facts. Kosovoa WAS KOSOVA and existed in "Yugoslavia" beside Serbia - not IN IT. Are you blind or can you not read? There is a source from the English GUARDIAN written by a neutral (not an Albanian) journalist by the name of Noel Malcolm who is an HISTORIAN, not a politician. He knows his Balkans history better than you, and better than me. He clearly says that Kosova was 75% Albanian and that the Serbs CONQUERED the land, and other Kosovans (real Kosovans) have told me personally that Metohia (or Methodia) was never part of the land's name, Milosevic added it when he visited Kosovo to rally support from his few supporters by promising them a "Greater Serbia" and Kosova was to be the first front. Like Hitler's Third Reich going into Poland. Eventually, and as we saw, Milosevic invaded all the Yugoslav republics but one by one, they defeated him: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Macedonia. Montenegro, horrified by Serb expansionaizm in the other republics, toed the line for a few more years to avoid bloodshed but this is most probably down to Montenegro only having a population of half a million or so. I know that the language is Kosova was Albanian and that Metohia was not a part of the name, and the article by Noel Malcolm agrees with it. And it was conquest, because Kosova NEVER LEGALLY WENT TO SERBIA, Serbs occupied it, and held it until all were forced into the new borders drawn by the west called "Republic of Yugoslavia" from when Kosova resumed it's self-governing and Serbia was outside it. You wanna learn your facts first, read neutral history, not your shitty "Serb" fascist publications. Metrospex (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Metrospex, I apologise in advance if my humble words do not meet your unique "neutrality" criteria, but in light of the soaring number of enemies you have made, it probably won't matter. Kosovo was legally incorporated into Serbia, this was one of the activities at the 1913 Treaty of London. But you know what they say, "legal issues are open to interpretation" and perhaps Mr.Malcolm and you have detected legal anomalies which were practised in London, if so, I'm sure you could apply the same tactics to announce that the state of Kansas is not legally a US entity!! In addition, there was no "Republic of Yugoslavia" in 1918, it was a kingdom until after the end of World War II, and during that time, there was no Kosovan entity. Even from 1946 onward, Kosovo's powers were limited until they reached their apex in 1974, some years after 1918. In addition, Metohija is a historical name for part of the region which had long formed a part of the local name. In 1990, it was simply reintroduced, not "created". Montenegro was a partner of Serbia until 2006, not a conquered land, and there was no war in - or occupation of - Macedonia. I appreciate that you may have got all this information from the credulous Mr.Malcolm but how can I put this politely? He gets things wrong!! Evlekis (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Look man, it's full of shit what your telling me, means nothing. I don't know what your bringing Kansas into it for but this so-called "Treaty of London" is just another one of your pro-Serb fabrications, it never happened!! Because if it did, it would have said so in the source. You say Noel Malcolm is wrong, where is your evidence?? He writes and earns and you criticize him on Wikipedia, everyone's easiest stadium for "free speech". You talk off the top of your head and make POV statements and I get all my informatio from sources printed by neutral independents. Your story is yours but it's the Noel Malcolm one which is valid, and his is the one which stays. Goodbye. Metrospex (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Metrospex, the level of bias and ignorance displayed in your comments is such that if you don't change your attitude drastically, I will ask you to stay away from this topic. - Ev (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, please remember that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. At the same time, further breaches of our civility policy will lead to blocks.

In compliance with Wikipedia's general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names, this article will use "[the name] the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", Kosovo. – The form Kosova could conceivably be used if at some point in the future it replaces Kosovo as he common English name for this place, or if our naming conventions are changed to prioritize "local names" over common English usage (you'll notice that this is the case the day our article on Germany is renamed Deutschland). - Best, Ev (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I always thought this was English Wikipedia therefore we should have the English name, which is "KosovO", on Albanian Wikipedia you can call it "Kosova". Go on the Republic of Kosovo's website English language page and they spell it "KosovO", no A. Ijanderson (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

conflict

I propose removing this article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies tag. I have cleaned up the article substantially, and think it is now in a presentable shape. Bare in mind, just because Kosovo's status is disputed, this does not mean the article should be. Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed by who?? Serbia? and Russia? And backward dictatorships. Check their records they probably don't recognize half the world's states, I doubt they even recognize Israel, most Al-aeda countries don't. The US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Belgium, Holland, all the rest of eastern Europe and others recognize it, so it is not disputed. Metrospex (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Check your facts. Spain, Greece, and most of eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova) do not recognize Kosovo. — Emil J. 13:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, Serbia and Russia both recognise Israel, and have a full undamaged relationship with the state. Evlekis (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you look at the Ottoman period of the article, you will see it has been substaintily improved and made more accurate. Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it was butchered. I had to go back days to find a version not entirely comprised of fragmentary sentences and bizarre syntax. Please, review your edits in preview, making sure you've got actual sentences, before posting them. ThuranX (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

the unilateral editing has got to stop. "Substantial cleanups" are a no-go. The only way this article will proceed is step by step. You do a single edit addressing a single point, with a clean edit-summary of what you did, and then you check if your edit has consensus.

If people cannot follow this very simple procedure, we'll just revert to a stable version from March or April and your efforts will result in zero effect to article content. It's either the tedious way or nothing.

Also stop trying to stuff more material in the "history" section. Edits to the history section need to tighten things, resulting in a shorter summary, not lenghtening. If you want to add detail, edit the {{main}} articles linked. This isn't the only article dealing with Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides, there are some {{disputed}} tags in the article. It may be a good idea to point out what exactly is disputed since the article has changed considerably since they had been placed. Otherwise, I agree with dab, the history section is too long and edits should be made in a clearer way. --Tone 12:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is unclear what the "disputed" tags are for. So Kosovo is disputed. That doesn't automatically make our article on Kosovo "disputed". It isn't even clear which side is complaining about "bias" here. Probably both. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with dab. I tried to make some sense of the history section last night but gave up (and I admit I didn't do a very good job of it).Brutaldeluxe (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ottoman period requires more information because it is the period that besides lasting 500 years, also provides the most documents, thus more sources for us to use. With regards to the article being butchered I would concentrate more on constructive criticism and less trying to offend. Thanks, Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, finally, no more personal attacks from you :) Good, I forgive you. --Cinéma C 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ottoman period section does not need "more information" because there is a full dedicated article, at History of Ottoman Kosovo. Anyone wishing to learn more, or add more detail, should go there. Now please stop trying to further inflate the history section and start helping cut back the enormous "20th century" section. Details on that belong on 20th century history of Kosovo. Only the bare essentials should remain here, ideally just a copy of the WP:LEAD of the main article. --dab (𒁳) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop the madness

OK, I'm really getting tired of this POV pushing... Wikipedia is not the place to "defend your country" or "promote your views". Frankly, when I look at the Kosovo article, there seems to be too much POV pushing, both towards the Serbian and Albanian sides. I would have nothing against constructive debate concerning certain disputed issues, but when you have unreasonable arguments between editors who don't trust each other or assume good faith, any debate is really pointless. If I say anything that goes against Albanian views, I am automatically a "disgrace" and should be removed from the discussion. On the other hand, those who attack me for that are pushing their own views and simply can't accept that others think differently from them and just because they believe something to be true, doesn't make it true. The same goes for all other editors, Serbs included (though I haven't seen any in a while now), most of which aren't flexible either.

So I propose the following (and please don't read this part before reading the preceding paragraph) - just lock the article and leave it to the administrators to make edits based on consensus on the talk page. And I don't mean for, like, a week or two. I mean until we get only flexible editors willing to make an effort in understanding the other side - something that, right now, can't be achieved in real life, let alone Wikipedia.

Thanks for reading, --Cinéma C 19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a week and if the situation doesn't improve I would definitely support a move towards full protection. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cinema, the problem is that you do not discuss and you blatantly defend your pov. This is precisely what you want, to keep this article in a constant state on confusion. Hopefully the admin can see past this and see which editors are actually responsible for the state of the article. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you're calling yourself one of those editors? You have been accused of POV pushing by several editors, including ThuranX (here), Brutaldeluxe (here), etc. Also, you were warned for this personal attack on myself. I guess you've just shown that you didn't take the warning seriously: "It's better to discuss article content, instead of contributors.". So, stop attacking users and focus on the topic at hand. Thanks, --Cinéma C 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

23 archives for this talk page... I think it is about time to put away the bias, and start controlling this article through edits collaborated by all users. I definitely agree with you, Cinema. --Bolonium (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Work by Sima M. Cirkovic (the great Serb migration) cannot be used instead of work by Noel Malcolm, a respected author. If you check here; [1], you will realize that all I have been doing is removing unreliable material and making the page more neutral. On the other hand, I have been accused by people who seek to keep the page in a constant state of dispute and unreliable. Thank you. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

full protection isn't necessary thanks to "article probation". Uncontroversial edits are welcome, and people making controversial edits get blocked for their first revert without any further warning or decorum. This gives all the advantages of full protection without the disadvantages. The article as it stands isn't so bad. It needs some tightening and copyediting, but there aren't any huge problems. It would be nice if further work could focus on discussing on actual Kosovo, i.e. geography, climate, demographics,, economy, society etc. instead of the obsessing over the Kosovo dispute. This isn't the "Kosovo dispute" article, ok? --dab (𒁳) 20:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed,look I am a Serb,and i DO NOT RECOGNISE the illegal republic,but Wikipedia is neutral,on the English Wikipedia everything is supose to be neutral,on the Serbian site it should be written as the Serbs recognise,and on the Albanian as the Albanians recognise it.Now both you Albanians shut up already and stop the God damn provocations for fights,it is childish and anoying,and Serbs don't be stupid and fight with them,there is no use,ONCE IDIOTS ALWAYS IDIOTS. I propose that nationalist arguments should be banned and removed from Wikipedia entriely!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.29.142 (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

History

• Propose combing the Balkan wars, WW1, WW2 sections of the article, similar to how it is done here
• Also, combining the sections, Kosovo in Communist Yugoslavia and the Disintegration of Yugoslavia

By combining those sections it will hopefully lead to a shortening of the history section all together, as suggested here Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, the 20th century section needs to be drastically shortened. I support any edit collapsing these h3 sections as long as no bias is introduced. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mining

Have added information and sources for the Mining section from here. Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that really the most neutral source for info? ThuranX (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you care to read the homepage, you will realize it is so. Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I had. I was hoping it would induce you to clean up the plagarisms added. You didn't. I did. ThuranX (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting sections. Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Copying verbatim text from another web page is copyright violation. It is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia, and the offending text should be deleted immediately. — Emil J. 13:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations were already mentioned at the "EULEX" section above. - Ev (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks EmilJ. I'll fix it. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Remodeled

• I have changed the order of items on the page. I want it to emulate [this] article as much as possible, since it is one we consider good on here. A problem of unreliable sources continues to haunt this article however, especially for the early period. Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the facts: conquest/annexed into so-called "Serbia"

Why has everyone got a problem with a damn good well written neutral source from a neutral country (UK) free to edit newspaper??? Kosova was conquered, right? It was 75% Albanian, right? It was never legally drafted into Serbia, we know because if there was a real "treaty in London" then Noel Maclom would have added it to his "Is Kosova Serbia?" article. I prefer to use the term "annexed" because it was a completely illegal incorporation into the territory. And as Malcolm said (if you read the source), after 1918, it went back to being a self-governing (by it's Albanians) land within a "Yugoslavia" NOT part of Serbia. I believe Serbia's first ever involvement with Kosova after 1912 was when in 1989 Milosevic made his famous "Greater Serbia" speech in Kosova, started to move Serbs into the county and then send his Serb troops to invade the land and expand Serbia's territory, followed by the ethnic cleansing of Albanians/non-Serbs, and genocide of the rest. It was also then that "Metohia" was added to the name and I know this because as I said before, I have Kosovan friends. BBC/Sky all adhere too. Or are they not reliably neutral? Metrospex (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well my friend, the problem seems to be that if Kosovo was indeed annexed, or conquered, then it smacks the claim that Kosovo has always been Serbia in the face.

Apparently, we're not ready to accept that fact and apparently, our claims are more reliable than the worlds experts/historians...(Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

"neutrality" banner appears twice

That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.106.132 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian boys

Like I told you, Christian boys were taken from the Balkans. Mainly Albanian, Bosniaks and Greeks. The source I used was Ira Lapidus - considered a standard university text. Why is the edit reversed? Isn't it more accurate what Ira lapidus says when compared to "Sima Cirkovic" ?

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

Because you erase big chunks of the article, 5k+ in fact, for one change. You need to bring each and every change here from now on, so that neutral editors can review it and make sure it's neutral, since you seem incapable of neutral editing on your own. Your source may be valid, but changing one thing doesn't require the blanking of massive chunks of the article which have citation already. ThuranX (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not deleted huge chunks, I have, for example, shortened the bit about the persecution of the serbs in the WW2 section. We don't need 5 paragraphs for it, 2 are way more than sufficient, since it is a claim (some say myth) that is not supported either by evidence or renowned scholars. The 20th century bit was far too long, at the request of some editors I have also shortened it. I have not touched the early period (history) because that is too contentious, maybe you would like to edit that bit and provide some decent sources...Thanks (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

Citations/references

Just to let you all know, I'm gonna start looking at all the bits that need a citation, if I can't find it, I'll leave the text as it is (for someone else to argue over).Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The following statements are in need of attention.

Since (I think) it has been suggested that the history section be slimmed down, I'm wondering if they could be deleted without impacting on the accuracy of the article. Perhaps they could be rewritten to include information that is verifiable. After these statements are taken care of, I don't see a reason why the tags at the head of the article should be kept.

• Fully absorbed into the Serbian Kingdom until the end of the 12th, it became the secular and spiritual centre of the Serbian medieval state of the Nemanjić dynasty in the 13th century, with the Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Peć, while Prizren was the secular centre.
• The zenith was reached with the formation of a Serbian Empire in 1346, which after 1371 transformed from a centralised absolutist medieval monarchy to a feudal realm.
• Kosovo became the hereditary land of the House of Branković and Vučitrn and Pristina flourished.
• In 1402, a Serbian Despotate was raised and Kosovo became its richest territory, famous for mines.
• The local House of Branković came to prominence as the local lords of Kosovo, under Vuk Branković, with the temporary fall of the Serbian Despotate in 1439.
• In 1871, a Serbian meeting was held in Prizren at which the possible retaking and reintegration of Kosovo and the rest of "Old Serbia" was discussed, as the Principality of Serbia itself had already made plans for expansions towards Ottoman territory.
• In 1878, a Peace Accord was drawn that left the cities of Pristina and Kosovska Mitrovica under civil Serbian control, and outside Ottoman jurisdiction, while the rest of Kosovo remained under Ottoman control.
• The Assembly has strongly criticised what it calls "the secessionist movements of the Albanian-dominated PISG Assembly of Kosovo".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutaldeluxe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking into finding the references. I can't help but wonder, though, how come you picked all the sentences that lean towards the Serbian point of view. The article is already fiercely pro-Albanian... --Cinéma C 18:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't pick them, someone else did when they added the [citation needed] tag. I'm only doing what I did for the Montenegro article, but in that case I was able to find citations for the disputed paragraphs. I don't really want to see these sentences gone as I suspect that they are true, but since the history section is so long, they should be the first things to go; of course, I'm quite happy to wait a while, and as I said, perhaps they could be rewritten to include information that is verifiable.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this point; "Fully absorbed into the Serbian Kingdom until the end of the 12th, it became the secular and spiritual centre of the Serbian medieval state of the Nemanjić dynasty in the 13th century, with the Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Peć, while Prizren was the secular centre."

• Noel Malcolm has proven this to be false. Noel claims that the actual center of the Serbian Kingdom was not in present day Kosovo, but in Raška. For this reason, I think the statement needs to be taken out completely. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

Welcome back. Well, if you could submit Noel Malcolm's text regarding the issue, or provide a link, I'll get rid of this statement immediately, failing that, it's going soon anyway. Unless someone else can provide evidence to support it, that is. I don't want to set an ultimatum, but let's say that I will delete the disputed sentences after midnight of the 12th June.

For more information, see WP:PROVEIT, thanks to :bloodofox: for providing the link. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Brutaldeluxe, I appreciate your good intentions, but "reviewing" articles on topics on which you do not have any background knowledge will result in your "asking for citations" for undisputed basic stuff. We don't want an article where every sentence and every phrase is graced with some random footnote. The section on medieval history should summarize a topic given detailed coverage elsewhere, and it should cite a single encyclopedic reference at most. This article isn't the place for footnotes detailing how "Kosovo became the hereditary land of the House of Branković and Vučitrn". If you are interested in that, please focus your attention on History of Medieval Kosovo. Developments in that article will be reflected in the "early history" section in this article once they have become fully incorporated there, in best WP:SS manner. Edits like this are a joke and are not helping. Comments like "plus the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is a dead entity." are not really shining examples of a neutral approach to editing here. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice heeded. I recognise that I cannot use other articles on wikipedia but when I wrote "plus the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is a dead entity." I got it wrong, I meant Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946-1974) and its later incarnation(1990–1999). I can assure you that I am neutral on this subject, I've witnessed the chaos on this talk page (and archives), I'm just trying to set the article in a way that will render it stable and immune from future attack (utopia). It's to do with the article as a whole, not just the history section. The thing is, the sentences I've earmarked for deletion were selected by others, and as they are disputed, they could go at any time. If you think they are correct, and as I believe that you are an expert on the subject, go ahead and delete those tags. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

“Its majority is governed”…

It seems like nowadays this information is not true anymore, since beside Kosovo Serb population protests, even North Kosovo today is occupied by the Kosovo Police Service, which is an institution under the control of the Pristina’s government, not Belgrade’s. And the checkpoints in the North are not controlled by Belgrade anymore, too.

So it seems like today the entire territory of the former Yugoslav Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo is under the control of the Pristina’s Republic of Kosovo. I will change the first paragraph to reflect this.--BalkanWalker (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

EULEX does not recognize the Republic of Kosovo, it is status neutral. The international community has control over Kosovo. The North is not governed by the Kosovo government, not even de facto. --Cinéma C 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But the point is that not only EULEX operates in the north of Kosovo; the Kosovo Police is there, too, and the Kosovo Police is an organ of the government of the Republic of Kosovo in Pristina. We should also remember that EULEX doesn’t operate only in the north, but in all of Kosovar territory; so the claims that north Kosovo is outside any Kosovar government control does not reflect the facts on the ground today. We should remember also that north Kosovo is completely outside of control of the military, police and judiciary of Serbia. And the same happen in the Serb-populated enclaves, too.--BalkanWalker (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

League of Prizren

The following statement: The League of Prizren ruled Kosovo until 1881, when it was quashed by Ottoman troops is misleading and is not supported by the facts.

Firstly, at the time of Ottoman suzerainty, Kosovo was actually the Viyalet of Kosova, with much larger borders. The League of Prizren acted more like a pressure group or think tank, born out of Albanian grievances towards the Ottoman state, at a particular time in history. It did not control the territory known today as '"Kosovo". It certainly did not control Novi Pazar.

There was some armed resistance, but this was sporadic, with only a few important towns and cities seized by the League.

I would be glad to reconstruct the sentence. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).