Talk:Kosovo

According to CIA Factbook, Population

Ethnic groups: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008) [3] --12:45, 27 November 2011

Official Digital Diplomacy Efforts

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-12-11/kosovo-cant-get-recognition-un-it-can-get-it-facebook Maybe info that should be inserted in the Recognition section or elsewhere? Pretty unique and very modern diplomacy effort "Kosovo is turning to digital diplomacy instead, led by Petrit Selimi. He’s Kosovo’s deputy minister of foreign affairs and the author of a forthcoming book on digital diplomacy" Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It is about facebook and a brewery in Pristina, I don't think we can do much with it to be fair. Maybe at a push it could be included on the article "Foreign relations of Kosovo" but that is an article on geopolitics so I'm not sure it'd be appropriate there either. Also remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ please. Regards IJA (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this article because the audio on it mentions an issue I had with a user on the article Kosovan passport, please view its history. IJA (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The pub in Kosovo part is just human interest - it looks like the pub owner is also Kosovo’s deputy minister of foreign affairs - the point is an official govt effort to gain digital recognition. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Northern border

I hate convoluted definitions, and I find this one: Kosovo's remaining border to the north and east is seen by supporters of Kosovo's independence as a state border with Serbia whilst opponents of Kosovo's independence see it as a provincial border with Central Serbia. absurdly complex. What is wrong or non-neutral with simple Kosovo borders Central Serbia.? It is a simple geographic reference which states that the two territories are adjacent. Readers already know that Serbia disputes Kosovo independence, so it's only natural that Kosovo used to be a part of Serbia, ergo it borders the rest of it somehow. The verb "borders" does not state whether this border is internal or international, and Central Serbia is a well-defined territory, and the term does not even have a political connotation. No such user (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree the current wording is absurdly distracting and convoluted. The only function the whole sentence has, in that context, is to explain the bare facts of Kosovo's location in space, and the sentence suddenly wrenches the reader's attention away from that and into yet another long-winded and completely unnecessary restatement of the sovereignty issue – and that for no other reason than that some editors here lacked the necessary imagination to come up with a way of referring to "Serbia minus Kosovo" in a way that doesn't hurt any of the ideological obsessions and hypersensitivities among some of the regulars here. IJA, in their revert, claimed there was "consensus" for this version, but I very much doubt there ever was – if there was, please show us where it was formed. (I seem to remember some discussion about it some time ago but can't find it right now).

My own preference would be maybe not for "Central Serbia", because the relevance of that concept might also not be immediately obvious to the outside reader. My suggestion would be "bordered by X, Y, Z, and the remaining territory of Serbia in the north-east." This has the advantage of being deliberately and artfully ambiguous: those who see Kosovo as an independent state can read it as "Serbia in its remaining form after Kosovo split off from it"; those who prefer to see Kosovo as part of Serbia can read it as "the other parts of Serbia"; either way it's correct and simple to understand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh heck, we're having this discussion AGAIN. This seems to come up several times a year. If it aint broken don't fix it. I admit that the 'consensus' isn't as strong as I remember. It can be found here [4]. The intro has been changed a lot since then too. Yes it might be a bit complex but the situation is complex. It is POV to say that "Kosovo borders Serbia" as Serbia claims Kosovo and it is POV to say that "Kosovo borders Central Serbia" as that implies that it is a provincial border. The current wording takes into account both view points. If you can come up with a simpler easier way to word what is already there, please lets see your suggestions.

I am very opposed to: "bordered by X, Y, Z, and the remaining territory of Serbia in the north-east" because remaining territory of Serbia implies that Kosovo is also territory of Serbia and I'm sure you already know that is disputed. And if you're going to mention me on a talk page, please ping me so that I can be made aware. IJA (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I see not even the beginnings of a discussion of the issue in question under the link you gave, let alone a "consensus" about anything. And "If it aint broken don't fix it"? Two people just explained to you in considerable detail why they think it in fact is broken; if you disgree with that, be so kind and respond to the arguments raised. And the suggestion I made "implies that Kosovo is also a territory of Serbia"? I just explained to you in considerable detail why I think it doesn't imply that; if you think I'm wrong then respond to the freaking argument, will you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I missed that discussion, and that wording was buried within a wall of text; obviously, I think that it is broken, because we present quite simple concepts to innocent readers in a needlessly convoluted manner. But how does "Kosovo borders Central Serbia" imply that it's a province of Serbia, any more than would e.g. "Taiwan lies across the mainland China"? An alternative name (and a redirect) for it is Serbia proper, but that would IMO have more of such an implication (that Kosovo is Serbia, but "improper"). No such user (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: - I don't think I like your rude tone/ manner, it is very unhelpful. An editor has disagreed with you, get over it, it happens all the time on Wikipedia. I have already acknowledged that it wasn't a strong consensus and has been altered since, basically I was saying I know it doesn't hold much weight but it did end a dispute. You've told me that you don't like it because it's too complex and distracting, I get that and I offered you to come up with a better suggestion. I have come up with one myself actually: "to the north and east lies the uncontested territory of Serbia"' or something along them lines. You told me why you thought it was neutral and I told why I thought it wasn't neutral, I did respond to the freaking argument. As you didn't understand me last time, let me try again and I apologise if it didn't make it clear enough previously. The term "Central Serbia" refers to the territory of Serbia outside of Kosovo and Vojvodina collectively therefore it implies that Kosovo is part of Serbia which is POV. This has been voiced by several users in the past. I'm unaware of any usage of the term 'Central Serbia' in reference to only Vojvodina, as far as I'm aware the term is only used to refer to territory of Serbia outside of Vojvodina and Kosovo collectively. @No such user: compared it to Taiwan and Mainland China. Neither PRChina or ROChina would disagree that the island of Taiwan lies across from mainland China, both governments claim all of China which includes the island of Taiwan. I also agree with No such user re usage of the term Serbia proper. IJA (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that "...border to the north and east is with Central Serbia" would work well. It's succinct and accurate. I don't think that it's POV at all; it doesn't imply that it's a provincial border. For example "Alaska borders Yukon" would not imply that Canada is part of the USA. Bazonka (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

But like I said, the term Central Serbia is only used to refer to territory of Serbia outside of Vojvodina and Kosovo collectively (never Vojvodina on its own), thus implying that Kosovo is a province. Anyway, what do you think to "...border to the north and east is the uncontested territory of Serbia"? This is succinct, accurate, factual, neutral and simple. IJA (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You could use "Serbia proper" instead of Central Serbia. The "uncontested territory" wording also works. Bazonka (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a pretty... loaded reading. It's the territory of Serbia outside of Vojvodina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Taiwan and Easter Island. Oh, and Japan, too. You know, discounting anything that isn't in it. Historical core of modern Serbia. Your formulation is a certain improvement over the current monster, but still a bit complicated. I guess I could live with it. No such user (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Serbia proper", "uncontested territory" and "remaining territory" all work for me, and I'd somewhat prefer either of the three over "Central Serbia" (but still prefer any of these four to the contorted thing we have now). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Serbia proper" sounds like the best option to me, since it has the lowest burden of implications about things that we already waste far too much time on. bobrayner (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

For reasons above, 'Serbia proper' is unacceptable as it implies that Kosovo is 'Serbia improper' (and it redirects to Serbia). Of course one can very loosely apply the term 'Central Serbia' as being the Serbian territory outside of every other territory in the Solar System, just like Northern England is British territory outside of the rest of England, Wales, Scotland, Germany, Australia ect and the rest of every other territory in the Solar System. But my point is that the term 'Central Serbia' is exclusively used to refer to Serbia outside of Vojvodina and Kosovo collectively. Japan, Macedonia, Taiwan and Easter Island are not (claimed) Serbian territory.

If we all find uncontested territory of Serbia acceptable and a lot more understandable than the current complex wording (which is the main issue of this discussion), then can we put this to bed and go with it please?

I think it is fair to say that this is a little bit complex but then again the situation is very complex. This isn't Simple English Wikepedia, this is English Wikipedia. We can fairly assume that our readers will understand what they're reading from what they've previously read in the introduction. If they require further details, they can read the rest of the article; after all that what is an introduction is, it introduces our readers to the article. IJA (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you lot really wanted, I would reluctantly accept uncontested Serbia, that is just one adjective to explain the situation but I feel our readers need that little bit extra to define it. IJA (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Proper" is an established geopolitical term; it doesn't imply impropriety at all. "uncontested Serbia", on the other hand, would worsen the very problem that I think you're trying to avoid - it tells readers that Kosovo is, deep down, just a contested bit of Serbia. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Serbia proper used to redirect to Central Serbia, but an IP changed the target back in March [5]. I reverted it and added it to my watchlist. It works for me personally, but I can see that it might be interpreted wrongly (and it's a politically loaded term within Serbia itself).
To try to break the stalemate, I'll boldly change the wording to "uncontested territory" as the least bad solution, but I won't call it consensus yet. No such user (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an entirely different take on it that we might consider: "North of Kosovo are the regions of Šumadija and Western Serbia and Southern and Eastern Serbia." Jonathunder (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are so obscure that pretty much nobody in Serbia knows about those, let alone elsewhere. They are recent inventions for purely statistical purposes. And for Wikipedia categories, sadly. No such user (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Obscure, boring, and noncontroversial. We could do worse. 20:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Both those target articles - about obscure statistical entities - treat Kosovo simply as a province of Serbia. That's not helping. Ditto for the "Central Serbia" article, which presents the rather sad fantasy that "Central Serbia ... is the part of Serbia lying outside of the provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo (AP Kosovo and Metohija)". I fear that anybody trying to bring that into the 21st century would be swiftly reverted. bobrayner (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Better now [6]? No such user (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo is part of Serbia since the formation of the Serbian state. After the Balkan wars of Kosovo again becomes an integral part of Serbia. After the First World War, Kosovo is part of Serbia, but did not have the status of provinces. The Yugoslav communists formed the province of Kosovo. Kosovo has never been albansko.Albanija was formed as a state after the First World War.--Dima73 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The northern border of Kosovo is extended session after the Yugoslav Communists in 1974. The entire north and Kosovo was part of the so-called Central Serbia.--Dima73 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
If you read Felix Philipp Kanitz -Srbija country and people -, you will see that from the border with the remnants of the Ottoman Empire coincides with part of liberated Serbia. The limit is established at the Congress of Berlin. Then the boundaries drawn by the river basins. At that time, the Albanians fought on the side of the Turks and nobody cared about their national identity.--Dima73 (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo and Metohia is the real name of the area .Albanci not use this name, because Metohija means church land.--Dima73 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
See any geographic map of Yugoslavia from 1970-1980, and you will see that it says Kosovo and Metohija--Dima73 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop with your spamming. Also please read WP:NOTAFORUM. IJA (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What's up with the Weasel wording? "Uncontested territory". Nobody disputes the independence of Serbia, it is a sovereign state and everyone should respect that. But when people say "uncontested territory" they are blatantly steering into the past-fantasy that Kosovo still somehow belongs to Serbia. The country has been recognized by the vast majority of world states and has been 100% sovereign since 2012. Bottom line, Kosovo borders Serbia. Does the government of Serbia control a single spec of Kosovo? Does Kosovo use the dinar? Do they drive with Serb number plates in Kosovo? Do they learn Serbian in the schools of Ferizaj, Peja or Gjilan? And what's more, when did a reliable media source ever call the border "Kosovo-Serb uncontested territory". The plainly call it the "Kosovo-Serbian border" and that is it, it's really quite simple. @Dima73, this is not 1970-1080 any more. It is 2015 and Kosovo has been independent since 2008, learn your present facts, leave the fantasy of the past, pull your head in and move on. --Let's keep it neutral (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, and whether it reflects the facts on the ground or not, Kosovo is still considered as de jure part of Serbia by a significant number of international actors, so there's no way around the fact that Wikipedia will have to remain neutral about this in its wording, as a matter of principle. This is not going to change any time soon, unless a firm new editorial consensus were to emerge some day that the anti-independence view has been reduced to an insignificant WP:FRINGE position out in the real world (which I can't see happening for the time being). If you can't accept this as the basic consensus governing how to edit this page, then I strongly recommend you make no further attempts at editing here at all, or you'll end up topic-banned pretty quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove the entire sentence? People can look at a map if they want and draw their own conclusions about what Kosovo is next to. Bazonka (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea. "X borders on Y" sentences are pretty standard in our country articles, for good reason – they provide an easily understandable geographic reference frame for readers unfamiliar with the region (and speaking of maps, the one we are currently showing at the top of the infobox is so small you can hardly see Kosovo anyway, let alone what other countries it borders on). I dislike the idea of sacrificing a piece of plain, uncontroversially useful factual information for our readers just because some entrenched Wikipedia editors keep reading non-existing and quite unrelated POV issues into one bit of wording. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Violation

User tryed to remove source from this article, but its restored back. with neutral words. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your sentence is wrong and thus not neutral. The 1913 Treaty of London didn't legitimise border changes in the Balkans apart from the borders of new established Albania (which they weren't happy with), the treaty agreed to de facto accept the military conquests from the First Balkan War. Most of the newly gained territories from the first Balkan Wars remained disputed territory and nothing was de jure until after WW1. With the Treaty of London, nothing was de jure/ final though, Bulgaria disputed the division of Macedonia for example. Also Kosovo wasn't incorporated into Serbia/ Yugoslavia until 1918, prior to that is was just conquered territory, also Metohija/ Western Kosovo became a conquered territory of Montenegro not Serbia. IJA (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Serbia had its borders recognized by the Treaty of London (1913) and further confirmed by the Treaty of Bucharest (1913). Kosovo became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes because it was internationally recognized as territory of the Kingdom of Serbia, and entered into SCS (Yugoslavia) as such. So Kosovo can by no means be considered "occupied territory" if it was internationally recognized as within the borders of Serbia. It is like nowadays, whoever recognized Kosovo independence, it automatically stopped considering that it was occupied territory, and considers it an independent country. Besides Noel Malcolm and his many exceptional claims (many of them quite funny actually and clearly a twister of reality and common sense), who else and why makes this polemics now? I mean, what is in question here? FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Where in the Treaty of London (1913) Peace Treaty does it say that Serbia had its borders recognised? The Peace Treaty states "His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans cedes to their Majesties the Allied Sovereigns all the territories of his Empire on the continent of Europe to the west of a line drawn from Enos on the Aegean Sea to Midia on the Black Sea, with the exception of Albania"' "TREATY OF LONDON" It says nothing about ceding sovereignty, unlike with Crete. And like I said previously, Montenegro took control of Western Kosovo. You can say what you like about Noel Malcolm, but everything he says is in line with the primary sources of the time; perhaps that is why he is unpopular with some people?. IJA (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. But in the Treaty of Bucharest (1913), "The territory thus obtained embraced central Macedonia, including Ochrida, Monastir, Kossovo, Istib, and Kotchana, and the eastern half of the sanjak of Novi-Bazar. By this arrangement Serbia increased her territory from 18,650 to 33,891 square miles and her population by more than 1,500,000. " [7] [emphasis mine]. Maybe the Serbian gain in the article was associated to a wrong treaty, but Malcolm's conclusion that " Legally, Kosovo was occupied territory from 1912 until some time after 1918," certainly does not follow. No such user (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Serbia obtained territory which included part of Kosovo, no one disputes that; but the source says nothing about legal status or sovereignty. I'd use that source you provided to support Malcolm's article. IJA (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

By that token, the same could be said about all the Ottoman territories west of Maritsa ceded to the Balkan states in the London Treaty, and that's quite a chunk of territory? By my quick reading of those treaties, Turkey really gave them away, but you say that nobody formally "took"/incorporated them until 1918? And what does it mean to "formally incorporate" a territory? (I'm honestly asking). Anyway, we seem to need an authoritative secondary source that would explain their legal status during that period (however, in the turmoil of WWI such a legal definition would be rather moot).
Anyway, I and other editors have issues with the loaded term "occupied" being used: it implies that it legally belonged to someone else (it didn't, it was just ceded before that), and no sovereign state claimed them (Principality of Albania apparently renounced them on its formation in February 1914). How about "was not legally incorporated" or like? No such user (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Turkey didn't give them away, they were part of the Ottoman Empire and the Balkan League conquered them (regardless of whether you see it as occupied or liberated), then a peace treaty was signed. I'm not bothered if the term "occupied" isn't used, I've never proposed that we should use the word. I have a solution though, how about we have something along the lines of "After the First Balkan War, the 1913 Treaty of London peace treaty was signed with Western Kosovo (Metohija) ceded to the Kingdom of Montenegro and Eastern Kosovo ceded to the Kingdom of Serbia." That is neutral, that is factual and it is what happened. Any objections to something along them lines? Also both sources/ references would support this sentence. IJA (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That wording is much better and neutral IJA. FkpCascais (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No objections on neutrality of that, but I'm not 100% sure about factuality: which "peace treaty" it refers to ? You are right that all that Treaty of London did was to cede western Ottoman territories, except Albania, to the Balkan League. It did not its regulate inter-league division at all, so it does not follow that any particular part of Kosovo was ceded to Montenegro or Serbia. Unless I'm missing some other treaty? No such user (talk)

Isn't this entire discussion mixing up two rather different topics? The one is since when Serbia's acquisition of Kosovo was internationally recognized by the other powers; the other is since when Serbia internally treated Kosovo as a regular part of its own territory according to its own constitutional order. These two questions are entirely independent of each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We have conflicting sources which say different things, my proposal gets around that by stating something neutral and factual which isn't disputed regardless of Kosovo not being incorporated into an administrated part of the Serbian state until after WW1. IJA (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm's publications are not so much in tune to primary sources but largely plagiarise (in the case of Kosovo) historians such as Rexhep Qosja and others with conceptually flawed views on the issue of the region. Three out of the four Balkan League states had planned to share the entire western Balkan amongst themselves. They overran the entire region less Vlora while an Albanian assembly in turn declared independence in their own name of four vilayets, so Vlora is what they originally secured and from where they originally administered. The Treaty of London made the provisions for an Albanian Kingdom concurrent with its present shape in return for Greece, Serbia and Montenegro taking their spoils from what remained outside. Either way, Albania itself did not from that point see remaining Epirus or Kosovo as within its territory. The Ottoman Empire in turn was pushed back to East Thrace. Now for Greek and Montenegrin spoils I cannot be too certain but the territory it lost to Serbia (most of Kosovo province) was recognised by the Ottomans in 1914 so the suggestion that Kosovo continued to be "occupied" after this implies the continuation of Ottoman rule which the Sultan himself did not recognise. Then to add ridicule, if Kosovo was occupied then so too would have been the spoils of the Balkan League (all of Rumelia except East Thrace) and all of Albania outside Vlora would too have been occupied (or all of it including Vlora just rebel-held). If the Malcolm/Qosja sources are to be trusted then there is the jigsaw peace for "when did Kosovo join Serbia?" to which Qosja's response (and subsequently Malcolm) is in the mid 1920s with the adoption of the constitution for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. By that time, the Ottoman Empire was no more and the Turkish republic had sealed its European border. So I doubt the pro-occupation after 1913 argument is even strong enough for WP:FRINGE. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oranges Juicy: - No one is proposing to state that it is an "occupation" so what's your point? Malcolm is saying it is occupied territory because Serbia didn't get round to the lengthy process of centrally incorporating into the Serbia state because five minutes after Serbia conquered it from the Ottoman Empire, World War One began (Bulgaria annexed Kosovo in this period) and got in the way of the process. So by the time Serbia was able to incorporate it properly, it was actually Yugoslavia/ Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes not Serbia. But none of this is the issue here. Lets not get side tracked. IJA (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I confess to having looked at the top of this section, the first three/four posts and the source of the dispute and then looked at a handful of other notes but did not see just how long this thread actually is or that it had evolved into the immediate topics above mine. Sorry to have caused confusion. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oranges Juicy: - No problem mate. What's your opinion of my proposed sentence? "After the First Balkan War, the 1913 Treaty of London peace treaty was signed with Western Kosovo (Metohija) ceded to the Kingdom of Montenegro and Eastern Kosovo ceded to the Kingdom of Serbia." Regards IJA (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I have read more of the thread now. The proposal is largely fine. Montenegro took the area that Slavic nations call Metohija and what in Albanian is Rrafshi i Dukagjinit, so that is Prizren, Peć/Peja, etc.. The question here (that I cannot answer since I have just joined the talk) is whether we are talking about the territory of present-day Kosovo or whether we refer to the former vilayet. If it is the former then that is all Montenegro took (west) and Serbia got central and east. If we are talking about the vilayet then it is slightly more complicated because of how big it had become when being expanded after 1881. Kosovo was something "misshapen" so to speak at that time and Montenegro also took one strip of the Sandžak territory which narrowly linked Kosovo to Bosnia and Herzegovina (i.e. Pljevlja, Berane, Bijelo Polje, Rožaje, all of which remains today in Montenegro as a result of the Ottoman ouster). Serbia's gain on the other hand stretched deep into Macedonia (ie. Štip, Skopje the Kosovan capital). It is hard to find actual maps of the Kosovo vilayet but according to what other editors have written on the articles, it seems even Albania may be left with a chunk of what was pre-1912 Kosovo (though I am not sure which settlements). So east/west may be a good simplifier, I don't know if it would be best served with more detail on the geographical territory. FTR I won't oppose your proposal if everyone else is happy with it. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This article primarily deals with the land which is currently known as Kosovo, as like with most places which aren't islands, borders change over time for various reasons but this article deals with its current boarders primarily. So present day Kosovo was split between Mont and Serbia in 1913. IJA (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with IJA. Whatever we do, we have to change the status quo, because the source simply doesn't support the claim and Anastan's edit summary is, quite simply, a lie. Sources do suggest that Serbia took control of the area, but not that it became an organic part of Serbia at that time. (To do so would have required a constitutional agreement which simply never happened). The distinction seems very important to some people. There is robust evidence that Kosovo became an organic part of Yugoslavia, of course. bobrayner (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"then it was incorporated into Yugoslavia" That the sentence you removed, with other one, talking about Serbia. The distinction is indeed very important. Welcome to this discussion, after ignoring it for 5 days. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bobrainer, I notice a lot of edits of yours where you propagate Kosovo independence with an edit summary of "Welcome to 2014" (now 2015)... So, you advocate Kosovo independence disregarding the complexity of the issue for yeas now. However, you disregard Kosovo being part of Serbia already prior WWI with some obscure minor argument about the lack of an internal Serbian constitutional ammendement (important only to hard-line Albanian revisionists), but with entire world recognizing Serbian new borders including Kosovo? See the irony here? ... Could I say: "Welcome to 1914?" FkpCascais (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?

Anastan restored content which is simply not supported by the source. You leapt in to agree with Anastan. Your ridiculous responses show, quite clearly, why I avoided the thread. I assume that both of you are sufficiently literate to know that the source neither mentions Kosovo nor discusses its constitutional arrangements; and yet you pretend otherwise. This is a sad reality of working on any article that touches on Serb nationalism. Other editors were doing just fine developing better content. bobrayner (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo and Vardar Macedonia became part of Serbia. Even Albania stoped claiming Kosovo. Who cares about the constitutional arrangements besides you and obscure historical revisionists? Deal with with it and stop vandalizing articles with your POV-pushing against Serbs constantly. I will not care to respond to your distortions. This and other articles were just fine until you got here with your illusions how Kosovo was never part of Serbia. Also, stop victimizing yourself with the Serb nationalists excuse, who is Serbian nationalist here? FkpCascais (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point.

Does anybody else have any suggestions on how to improve the article? bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As there wasn't any objections to my proposal, I went ahead and made the edits. IJA (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

IJA, I'm back for a short while. In light of the disputes and the fact that we are talking about the current borders, I consider the change objective in that it doesn't suggest one thing over another. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

To everyone else, I am finding it difficult to believe we are still discussing whether or not Kosovo became part of the Kingdom of Serbia, and I see this argument being driven by its absence from the short source on the London Treaty. To establish what was and what was not stated in the treaty, one needs the actual full text. But if it is minor citations from reliable sources people want then there is an acknowledgement here of the Treaty of London 1913. Even so, the proper place to discuss these things is in the article. Furthermore, claiming that the territory was occupied on the strength of the Kingdom of Serbia's constitution is insanely weak. All statutes are ceremonial, so much so that a number of countries do not even have constitutions. The question is one of recognition. By sealing both the Ottoman Empire's new borders and establishing Albania where it remains (and don't forget, Ottoman Empire and Serbia were both signatory to the treaty), the only outstanding dispute was the bulk of the Macedonia region. Note that this did not include Skopje or Tetovo as these were part of Serbia's gain from the Kosovan annexation, but it did include important cities such as Bitola, Thessaloniki and Blagoevgrad. The new war placed Greece and Serbia against Bulgaria and the treaty of Bucharest divided the region three ways. So this moves us forward a few years to Yugoslavia. For any editor here to suggest that there is evidence of Kosovo having been incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes but not the previous Serbian kingdom, I suggest he or she establish the facts on the creation of Yugoslavia: first Serbia absorbed Montenegro's kingdom, then after World War I it took the Vojvodina region over a period of days, then it formally united with the previously unrecnognised first incarnation of Yugoslavia, the State of Croats, Serbs and Slovenes all by the end of 1918. Therefore, if Kosovo had been occupied territory in the first place, then it wasn't Serbia's to take with it into the new state. History only records the expanded Serbian kingdom merging with the State of CSS. Plus, back to the constitution argument, if Skopje was occupied, so too would Bitola and Prilep have been since these were part of the Second Balkan War gains, and subsequently Serbia would have entered into a new state with its entire south from Novi Pazar to Gevgelija subject to "occupation" with nobody in the world laying claim to those lands, not even Bulgaria. It is a conspiracy theory with far-reaching implications (people don't always realise how vast Kosovo was and how Macedonia tumbled onto it within months) and I highly recommend we drop it. In the meantime, this is a one-revert page which means behaviour here is monitored and sensitive. Can I ask the rest of you stop picking holes into each other, and accusations of "nationalism" are never a healthy thing. Stick to content! Thanks! Regards to all. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The BBC source you used says "1912 - Balkan Wars: Serbia regains control of Kosovo from the Turks, recognised by 1913 Treaty of London" then it says "1918 - Kosovo becomes part of the kingdom of Serbia.". Just because a country has control over a piece of land doesn't necessarily mean it is an integrated part of the sovereign state. For example, the US bought Alaska from Russia in 1867 but Alaska wasn't incorporated into the US until 1884. Like I said before, Serbia didn't get chance to integrate Kosovo into a centralised part of the Kingdom of Serbia because WW1 got in the way. Anyway, this doesn't matter too much as I think my edit is fine. It says that Eastern Kosovo was ceded to Serbia in 1913, that's what our readers need to know. IJA (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the content as it stands. I did see the 1918 caption but to be honest, I wasn't implying using that source as a counter-argument. I was merely providing something which acknowledged the Treaty of London. I thought the 1918 part meant that Kosovo rejoined Serbia in the sense of Serbia restoring de facto control after the war. To be honest, this whole topic of integration is a shady area as there really is very little published on the subject. The two important factors are firstly that all maps published for the region after 1913 whether in history atlases or school textbooks show Skopje, Prizren and Novi Pazar in Serbia (as well as Prilep taken after the Bucharest treaty though no doubt subject to same technicalities), and secondly that after 1913 nobody else was laying claim to these towns (compared to the Golan Heights which Israel occupied but continues to be claimed by Syria, regardless of recognition). Do I take it we have drawn a line under this subject or does anyone else believe we have missed something out? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I rephrased it somwehat, introducing a few wikilinks to relevant articles. Now, on retrospect, I think I was a bit too anal, and there was nothing wrong with IJA's formulation (except for "became apart"). :D So, revert if you wish. No such user (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I just added the word "the" to it a few times. IJA (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I hoped I have become better with the's, but I'm still struggling with it when proper nouns are involved. No such user (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem mate, us wikipedians are a team who help each other out. IJA (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Official Serbian name

The official Serbian name is Republika Kosova (yes, with "a"). See indisputable primary source. Let's keep it neutral (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm In the Serbian language The Constitution of Kosovo, The President's Office and The Prime Minister's Office all use "Kosovo" (yes, without "a"). I think my indisputable primary sources are a little stronger than your picture of a sign. IJA (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As Anonimski explained when reverting, it is an grammatical issue. Serbian language uses declinations. Thus a name Kosovo can have a forma of Kosova (of Kosovo), Kosovu (to Kosovo), Kosovski (Kosovar), etc. This is such case in the foto, but not by any means that official name in Serbian is Kosova. Let's keep it neutral you need to trust more the editors which know Serbian language and AGF, be sure that none Serbian editors here would be putting a wrong name in Serbian, its obvious. FkpCascais (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And a typo (or laziness to use diacritics) in "Dobro došli" notwithstanding. Looks as if the road sign was drawn in a hurry to get the job done, probably by an Albanian author. No such user (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Let's keep it neutral. Let's keep it neutral.--Zoupan 21:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede Clarification

A small portion of the lede seems a bit conflicting. As a novice to the subject I'd appreciate a little more clarity when it comes to describing the ongoing tension. I propose a change from:

Serbia does recognise the Republic's governance of the territory and continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

to:

Serbia does recognise the Republic's governance of the territory yet continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

or even:

While Serbia does recognise the Republic's governance of the territory it continues to claim it as its own Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

Would either of these be a more apt way to describe the current state of the situation? sudopeople 21:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. In fact, until yesterday, the passage read "While Serbia does recognise […], it still continues […]". It was changed by somebody who apparently felt the two halves of the sentence didn't form a logical contrast [8], but I quite agree with you that they do and that they should be contrasted with more than just "and". I've reverted to the previous state, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I just saw your rv. I didn't think to check the history. I also couldn't articulate what was wrong with the sentence as well as you. Thanks! sudopeople 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)