Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crackajack Mac (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 10 February 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Milan Milutinović

Can someone update Kosovo War section Milutinović was found not guilty in tribunal, here is ref but you can google-it too http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/legal-procedures/milan_milutinovic_519.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telephood (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNMIK Country infobox

I note that their are three info boxes in this article: 

- The Republic of Kosovo
- Kosovo, UN administration
- Kosovo

I understand that these were inserted to reconsile the difference of opinion between those who consider that Kosovo is independent and those that support the Serbian claim and consider that Kosovo is part of Serbia, albiet outside the control of the Serbian Government.

As its more than 18 months since UNMIK passed its last law, I think we can safely delete the "Kosovo, UN administration" infobox. http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/02english/E2008regs/E2008regs.htm

What does everyone think? 2007apm (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read the archives why there are 3 infoboxes. And don't change their order as you did on 27th December, such behaviour will only result in a block. --Tone 15:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I think it would fair to change the UNMIK box into an EULEX box. Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I think that that's a good NPOV compromise. 2007apm (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support 2007apm, but first off we need to wait for more support. Once we have enough support we can change it to an EULEX info box IJA (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I would support such a change.Khajidha (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree + my support for the change. kedadial 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree Don't change it. Thanks! Beam 01:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please say why? IJA (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree Per Tone argument. Kosovo is still very disputed province. --Tadija (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 is still in force and Kosovo is still technically under UN administration. This is one of the few things both sides agree on, the template should not be removed from the article.--Ptolion (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree UNMIK still exists and works, even if it doesn't pass any laws. EULEX is in Kosovo only with UNMIK's and Serbia's permission. (BTW, is this some new voting style?) Nikola (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree Per above arguments.--Andrija (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we cannot vote this. Per United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, this box is crucial, so it cannot be deleted. --Tadija (talk)

no Disagree The final status is not solved, until then it must stay. As Tadija says, somebody like it or not, the resolution 1244 is still active. FkpCascais (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree Per Tone and Ptolion. --Athenean (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - agree with the reasons above, and the box is not crucial since it doesn't contain any information that the boxes above don't have (like capital city...) and the resolution can be mention in the article anyway-- CD 23:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree The fact that 18 months have passed since NMIK passed its last law and since Kosovo declared independence doesn't mean anything, because the resolution 1244 is still in force. As per United Nations, Kosovo is under administration of UNMIK, and it will stay like that until the resolution is changed. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree leave it alone please. This has been discussed enough. The territory remains under UNMIK control de iure. EULEX is just a police force, it does not pretend to have any politial jurisdiction. EULEX is an international aid package if you like, providing a resource not available in the country (rule of law). EULEX is not an occupation force and its presence is entirely dependent on UN sanction (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244). --dab (𒁳) 17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree also per Tone's and dab's arguments. According to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, UNMIK has de jure control over Kosovo, and this resolution is still in force. --Cinéma C 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree UNMIK has very tiny, to say the least, control over Kosova therefore it's info box should be deleted.--Poltergeist1977 (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree, its simple. Eulex is not in Kosovo to govern or rule, only to support (official site). There hasnt been a formal transfer of powers from the United Nations. No matter how insignificant the actual rule of UN is, its still the legal governing authority, and it should remain so until the status is decided by the world court. So, its too early for this motion. FC Toronto (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be unrealistic to condense the three boxes into one? Unofficial flag next to the UN one with location of Kosovo below, map of Kosovo in the main body of the article? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Fully. Human Rights Believer (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Invalid vote, Blocked user, Balkan related articles banned. -Tadija (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree I think extremely strong arguments against the removal have been given, while I haven't really seen an argument against removal. Also, I wished to contact user 2007apm, but it's a sock puppet. This entire argument is apparently a troll. Should we delete it? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minister Samardzic was succeeded by Bogdanovic

Serbian minister for Kosovo Samardzic was succeeded by Bogdanovic. Please update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanese76 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

The information is outdated. The GDP for 2010 is 4290 (EUR), according to the same source being cited. The population is not at 1.8 both that AideMemoire (source) or Statistical Office of Kosovo both state population is at 2.2 mn.

Can someone look into this and update it for me? Please & Thank You. 216.106.61.194 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Kosova2008[reply]

De Facto control

Excuse me, but Kosovo government does not have de facto control. Look up the meaning of the term. UNMIK, EULEX and KFOR have what could be termed "de facto" as well as other forms of control over the region. You could say the Gov't of Kosovo has about as much control of the area as the Gov't of Serbia, certainly not "de facto" 99.236.221.124 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. Serbia, UNMIK, EULEX have de jure control. Look up your own link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, 99 is correct. The RoK government does not have de facto governance over Kosovo. It would probably be correct to say that nobody does. De facto control of Kosovo is divided between the RoK, UNMIK, EULEX and various unknown crime lords. It is a fallacy to imply that somebody must have de facto control. --dab (𒁳) 13:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also include North Kosovo, over which RoK does not have almost any kind of control. --Tadija (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that's what I am saying. Who has "de facto control" over North Kosovo? Serbia? The UNMIK? Local militias? The crime lords? I am sure I don't know, let's see some references. --dab (𒁳) 16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kosova government has both de facto and de jure control of the entire Kosova region. Crackajack Mac (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who writes the traffic laws in Kosovo? Who issues permits for construction? Who collects the sales taxes? In short, who enacts and enforces the laws that control day to day life? THAT is who has de facto control, whoever that might be. Khajidha (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It´s UÇK, you´re right. (Sarcasm) FkpCascais (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UÇK was the freedom fighting force which pushed out the Serb invaders. Now Kosova has it's own police force and justice center. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break link with Serbs

Have a look at this very useful and informative source recently discovered: [3]

It appears that Kosova has never had anything to do with Serbia so all Serb preferences and mentions must be removed. OK, Kosova fell to a medieval Serbia empire for a hunder years or so but then it went to the Ottomans. The new Serbia which conquered Kosova in 1912 had no continuity from the last Serb empire so it was not the same one. Kosova's 75% Albanian majority also rejected the Serb new Communist rule and then it was drafted, not into Serbia but Yugoslavia where it remained until Slobodan Milosevic destroyed the country. It was a federal county like Croatia so the link to Serbia is weak and illegal. Let's get all Serb mention removed, please, before you argue, read the reputable cource carefully. Crackajack Mac (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source was not recently discovered. It was published in early 2008 in the wake of Kosovo's declaration of independence; and it has been running around the various Kosovo-related articles like a hand grenade with the pin taken out. It has been completely rejected because of its selectiveness and error content. Sources in any case are not documents which we paste word for word, so let's stop all this nonsense. Evlekis (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon???? I beg your pardon???????????? Errors???? Errors like what????? This is Noel Malcolm not some cronie to Slobodan Milosevic who wrote that report, and do you know where it came from? The Guardian. Not the Serb Communist Weekly. The only people who dispute it are the Serbs. Can't think why. All others, including the neutral observers and international community and people of the world put their turst in the experts who have gone out there and done the work to give true accounts and not distorted pro-Serb (or pro-Albanian not that there is much Albanian propaganda) visions of things. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serbian empire is with big "E": like this Serbian Empire.
  • "...hunder years or so...", like 200, 300, ... or so...ha, ha, ha...
  • "...The new Serbia which conquered Kosova in 1912...", "new Serbia"?, conquered KosovA? ??? Ha,ha,ha...
  • "...in 1912 had no continuity from the last Serb empire..." well, it may have, because was a Monarchy too, and also called Serbia, need more?
  • "...It was a federal county..." County? What country are you talking about? USA? Oh!, right, the serbian county in Massachusets, sorry,...ha,ha,ha...
  • "...county like Croatia..." yes, right, Croatia is one great Canadian county.
  • "...Let's get all Serb mention removed, please..." OK, but only because you said "please". I agree, let´s aniquilate those Serbs, we´ll pretend they don´t exist!
Excuse me, read the source. It states clearly that Kosova had it's own laws, language, rights, priviliges, parliament and system at the same level and so it was a de jure and de facto county in Yugoslavia OUTSIDE Serbia. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You should be banned. You´re a SOCKPUPPET of User:Human Rights Believer, that is already banned. Can someone please do something about it? I just don´t know anything about reporting sockpuppets. FkpCascais (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. I have no time for Human Rights Believer as he was a disruptive user. I talk my way into things on TALK, I follow Wikipedia policies and I gain a concensus for everything I do. Please don't make accusational comments which are unfounded. Thankyou. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a sock tag in his page. The page to report this is WP:SPI. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sock. Read the above. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's clearly him. I will inform admins. --Tadija (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got proof? Prove it. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has "there is no more continuity between the medieval Serbian state and today's Serbia than there is between the Byzantine Empire and Greece." This is true enough, but the fallacy here is to equate "Serbia" with "Serbs". Today's Serbia was established in 2006. It is difficult to have any "historic ties" to an entity that is all of three years of age. Serbs, otoh, are an ethnic group, and it is completely undisputed that there was a Serbian majority in Kosovo from the 14th to 19th centrury. Hell, even the name "Kosovo" is Serbian. The controversial question is just, what to do now that there is not any Serbian majority any longer, this being the 21st, not the 19th century. This is a political question, not one of "ask any historian". --dab (𒁳) 12:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support Dab. True, no continuity between Byzantines and Greece and you can see the connection. Byzantines were the Latin Italianate Romans and Greece is for the Greeks, Two different subjects. The medieval Serbian empire has no dealings with the newly formed Serbia which conquered Kosova in 1912. I think that's eveything covered. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanx Enric Naval. Aldouth, it´s not bad to have him around, just to have a bit of a laugh. :) Thanx again. FkpCascais (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, as response for dab, the problem is that I do feel that old Serbias are in fact predecessors of the current Serbia. Why shouldn´t they? If not, we will face a dangar of having a continuity break each time something in a country changes, or even a break after each elections... FkpCascais (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now can we rewrite the page to remove references to Serbs except for the 90's when the Serbs try to reconquer Kosova with their Greater Serbia campaign???!! Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=343208729"