Talk:Kosovo/Archive 11

Archived discussions (latest first): /Archive 10 /Archive 9 /Archive 8 /Archive 7 /Archive 6 /Archive 5 /Archive 4 /Archive 3 /Archive 2 /Archive 1 Template:TrollWarning

Introduction proposal

First, excuse me for repeating what our goal should be. And please, if you haven't done so yet, take a look at Wikipedia policies:

• "Reliable sources": As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic.
• "Verifiability": The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
• "No original research": Wikipedia only reflects the current majority view of the situation, as represented by reputable and verifiable sources. Editor's interpretations of sources (especially primary sources) have no place here.

The article should provide basic facts for readers ("users") with little or no knowledge on the subject and the diplomatic subtleties surrounding it. This is especially true for first paragraphs and introductions.

Per WP:V, those facts must be a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. It doesn't matter whether they offend someone or not. In fact, a good article should offend those who dislike the current consensus: as Don Quixote said, If dogs bark, Sancho, it's a signal that we're on the right track. A diplomatic article may leave all editors happy, but it won't be of much help to readers/users unfamiliar with the subject. The goal is to provide facts to over a billion English-speaking readers from the whole world, and not presenting a carefully worded diplomatic paper for 11 million Serbs and 7 million Albanians already familiar with the topic.

So, we shouldn't spend more than a few seconds thinking about how someone in the Balkans will react to the vocabulary, and focus instead on how to describe the situation best to an ignorant 15-years-old Philippine trying to impress his first girlfriend with his mastery on world affairs.

In most countries (and in most people's minds), a country is simply divided into states/provinces/Länder/départements/whatever, and naming one of them as a Brazilian/German/French/Serbian province would suffice. But Serbia is different, being not composed of three normal provinces but one "central part" and two "autonomous provinces", both created at the same time (1974) and for the same reason (to mitigate Serbia's influence in the Yugoslav federation), which makes the mention of Vojvodina unavoidable for a clear understanding of the issue (and of the map).

Now, how about this introduction ?

1st paragraph, de jure & de facto:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of the two autonomous provinces of Serbia, and is located in the south of the country (the other is Vojvodina, in the north of the country). However, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War, with Serbia's involvement being restricted chiefly to the areas inhabited by Serbs.

this have you call "restricted chiefly" it was ilegal involment with "serbian dinar" witch was uset in "Black Market" beacose UN hase never agree thate this valute too oficcel value. And the intro most bee Kosovo it was (you dont have a document that Kosovo is part of Serbia beacose Rez 1244 dont accept this terminology) Please respect the Wiki ruls based in documment not in somme paper but UN resulution. You dont have to intepret the document in witch the neutrality is very importen.

2nd paragraph, brief geographical description:

Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia. The mountainous province's capital and largest city is Pristina. Kosovo has a population of around two million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks and other ethnic groups.

Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia and Serbia this terminogy is usedt from the oficcel powers (see UN, UNMIK and OSCE documents)

3rd paragraph, "long-running dispute":

The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's majority Albanian population. It has been under Serbian sovereignty since 1912 but since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations. Security is provided by the NATO-led peacekeeping force, Kosovo Force (KFOR). International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo; it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence or substantial autonomy.

Kosovo was gived to Serbia from powes of thete time to be administredet. 1999 was taket beacose of bad administration. More thane 60% time Serbian goverment hase called emergency state in Province.

End of introduction.

All detailed explanations and postures (both diplomatic and sentimental) would then be treated in their corresponding sections of the article. Best regards :-) --Evv 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We're getting closer. I would make two suggestions. One, on the contentious line about Serbia's involvement. I don't like the use of the passive voice ("being restricted"), which is imprecise (begs the question: "Who is restricting it?"). How about this variation: "...with Serbia continuing to exercise some indirect influence, chiefly in the areas inhabited by Serbs."

Also, I'd change the line on future status to state simply "the talks will lead to either some form of independence or substantial autonomy." I feel comfortable noting the widely-reported developing international consensus about independence being the only viable outcome. But, if that is too contentious, then let's just state the two options under consideration: independence (Kosovo's platform) or substantial autonomy (Belgrade's platform). No other options are under discussion. If you use the term "widely expected" then I think you have to note the fact -- repeated in virtually every news article about Kosovo from the last six months -- that independence is seen as the most likely outcome by virtually every independent observer/scholar. I think you can state that fact without expressing an opinion about it. --Envoy202 01:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good observations: you're right on both points. :-)

1). Avoiding the passive voice. However, may your

• ...with Serbia continuing to exercise some indirect influence, chiefly in... become ...
• ...with little Serbian involvement, chiefly in the areas inhabited by Serbs. ?

Then, the article's main body explains the concrete fact of how much Serbian direct (if any) or indirect involvement is allowed, agreed to and/or illegally exercised but tolerated.

2). My inexcusable mistake, sorry. I added the or substantial autonomy to the sourced sentence currently in the introduction, with which I have no problem:

• it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence.

(referenced to Kosovo's status - the wheels grind on, The Economist, October 6, 2005).

I'm happy both with leaving it as it is now, or with Envoy202's the talks will lead to either some form of independence or substantial autonomy.

Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure being corrected in ways that improve the text. :-) --Evv 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction you propose is very close to the previous introduction which attracted a lot of vandalism (which has significantly declined after we changed it). Although I agree that repeated vandalism is a not reason to change the article, we might want to find a version that is both correct/encyclopedic/NPOV etc.. and will not attract vandalism.

I disagree with you that the mentioning of Vodvjina is so crucial to understanding the current status of Kosovo that it has to be mentioned in the first paragraph. Ofcourse the provinces were created at the same time, but Vodvjina does not have anything to do with the current problems in Kosovo. I suggest we do not mention Vodvjina until a geography/political section like we do now.

If we start comparing to other encyclopedias (to which you added 2 other ones I noted), you will see that they hardly ever state that Kosovo is one of two provinces, so also in that respect I think we should follow the other encyclopedias.

And finally, I think that stating it is widely expected... sounds rather unencyclopedic. I prefer the sentence that is currently in the politics section: Most international observers believe these negotiations will will lead to some form of independence., but that is just because I think it sounds better. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been an active editor of this article previusly I would just like to add my two öre and say that I think the last version ammended with the comments of Reinoutr is very good. I agree that there really isn't any need to mention Vojvodina as it (a) doesn't really increase the reader's understanding of what Kosovo is, (b) no encyclopedias seem to use the wording to describe Kosovo and (c) it will draw unnecessary attention from Kosovar Albanians who disagree with Kosovo's current official status. Cheers Osli73 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

lol As I mentioned above at the start of "First paragraph, again", I'm actually proposing to use the previous introduction again. I just forgot to mention it in this new section. :-)

I'm ok with dropping Vojvodina, but I really believe that mentioning it enhances clarity. (See details 6 posts below, or here).

I'm ok with both "it's widely expected..." (because it's sourced) and Reinoutr's wording (which sounds better for me too). Evv 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of Serbia's two autonomous provinces, though since 1999 has been administered by the United Nations with little direct involvement by Serbia.

Located in the Balkans in the south east of the European continent, Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia. The mountainous province's capital and largest city is Pristina. Kosovo has a population of around two million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks and other ethnic groups.

The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian state and Kosovo's majority ethnic-Albanian population, who seek independence from Serbia. Long the subject of conflict, the Kosovo crisis of 1999 led to the intervention of NATO against the regime of then-Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic and the imposition of a UN administration. With the support of NATO-led 'KFOR' peacekeeping force, the United Nations United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has supported the development of provisional institutions of self-government in advance of a decision on the final status of the territory. International negotiations began in 2006 and it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence or substantial autonomy.

(JD)

I like it very much. :-) Three comments:

• Of course, I would love to add "(the other is Vojvodina)" for clarity (reasons already exposed at the start of this section and again here). But I'm fine without it.
• I'm ok with "little direct involvement", but i guess that those three words would require more debate.
• Maybe removing the "widely expected", using Reinoutr's "Most international observers believe these negotiations will lead to some form of independence." or Envoy202's "the talks will lead to some form of independence or substantial autonomy." ?

Regards. Evv 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Kosovo in the same breath as Vojvodina is politically provocative and I categorically disagree with it. I do not want to repeat the reasons given earlier, but I will highlight the main points again:

1. Kosovo is administered by an international community, Vojvodina is administered by Serbia. 2. It has its own constitution, and it is widely accepted that it would gain some sort of independence. 3. Even Serbia is prepared to give it a much higher degree of autonomy than to Vojvodina, thus they can not be the same.

I propose we use the Foreign Office version. If anybody wants to change it so that it sounds more suited to an encyclopedia then be it, but the substance should remain the same. I believe JD had nothing against it (he graced us with this proposal originally), so I don't see him complaining:

"Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia and Montenegro (SaM) but has been under interim UN administration pending a settlement of its status in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 since 1999."

and here's the link:

[1]

--Tonycdp 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is a province of Serbia administered by the UN. Vojvodina is a province of Serbia administered by Serbia. Both are provinces of Serbia. Serbia has two provinces. It has two provinces even if they have different degress of autonomy. It has two provinces <now> even if one or more of them are no longer provinces at some point in the future.

Kosovo does not have a constitution in the sense that the United States has a constitution. It is not primary over all other laws and the source of their legitimacy; it is provided for by one of many UNMIK regulations [2]. Vojvodina also has a document describing it's governance. They both remain provinces of Serbia, though the final status of Kosovo has yet to be decided.

It may well be politically provocative to describe the constitutional status of Kosovo correctly, and, in like manner to other subsidiary entities in Wikipedia (such as England or Republika Srpska), mention that other subsidiary entities exist. Such a statement is potentially provocative because the present situation is politically unacceptable to one side. It is clear that the Kosovo Albanian community are seeking to change this reality. It is not our role to support one side or the other but to present the facts. Stating the facts does not imply that we support the status quo personally or corporately.

Whether or not we mention the other province of Serbia is a matter of clarity, style and Wikipedia best practice. I'm in facour of mentioning that another province exists precisely becuase it puts the position of Kosovo into context, a context which we clarify by noting administration by the UN. It's not vital that we mention other provinces, but you need to present a better reason than political favouritism. (JD)

"I'm in facour of mentioning that another province exists precisely becuase it puts the position of Kosovo into context"

Yes it puts it into a wrong context (it tries to put them on equal ground which is false), open to even wilder interpretations. If you look at Missouri and Bavaria for example, they never mention all the other constituent parts of US and Germany. So your argument can easilly be nullified by this counter-argument.

It is unnecessarily political, and it will provoke vigilante attacks on the article, I beleive what the admins are trying to achieve here is a version that is closest to the facts and at the same time avoid defacements. And your version seems set to provoke just that.

--Tonycdp 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is not 'my version' but that which seems to generate greatest support and significantly from editors with NPOV. Wikipedia articles on US States and German Lander are clearly not likely to mention all the other constituent parts of those states because they are numerous and including them all would look messy and read badly. The counter-argument fails.

It seems that after all this discussion we've fallen back on the argument that we should not mention that Kosovo is one of two Serbian provinces because doing so would provoke vigilante attacks. This is an important question and I'm glad we've settled the facts and revealed the real concern here. Should we distort our reporting beyond good drafting and Wikipedia norms because of the threat of vigilante attacks? Perhaps a poll is in order? (JD)

I'm ok with dropping Vojvodina, but I really believe that mentioning it enhances clarity.

I gave my reasons to include Vojvodina at the start of this section, just before the proposed introduction's text (see here): to help a reader not familiar with the topic (our 15-years-old Philippine) understand the counter-intuitive administrative organization of the Serbian state. US and German states/Länder are the norm, Serbia's autonomous provinces are an exception.

Other encyclopedias don't mention Vojvodina. I saw its inclusion as an improvement for clarity on the lines of "unpaperness".

For my part, years ago, I only understood what Kosovo is since 1974 (but not for much longer) when I could contextualize it after finding out about Vojvodina: that was the moment when the light-bulb went on above my head. :-) The same happened often when I explained Kosovo to some friends who didn't know anything about it (except what TV said: "a remote place where evil Serbs like to harm innocent Albanians").

So, forget for a moment the sensitivities of 18 millions people in the Balkans already familiar with the topic and think about how to make more than a billion English-speaking readers understand Kosovo best as they read about it for the first time.

However, given the nature of Wikipedia, if the idea is to sacrifice what I personally perceive as "clarity" (of course, i may be wrong on this) in order to avoid vandalism... well, i really hate it, but it's a valid point. :-) I wouldn't support it, but I would understand such a decision. (Wouldn't the possible vansalism issue be better dealt with by semi-protecting the article, thus keeping anonymous IPs from editing it ?).

Regards. :-) Evv 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

EW, what a fine example of a mature attitude. It is something which there has often been a deficit of on these Talk pages. Thanks. Cheers Osli73 10:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent reaction Evv, I do understand your opinion about including Vodvjina better now, but for me personally, Vodvjina never was the light bulb, so to speak, which is why I do not consider mentioning it very early in the article to be essential. With regard to vandalism, even semi-protection is only a very temporary measure and any protection is a bit contrary to the idea behind Wikipedia that anyone must be able to add information. Apart from that, the sole fact that it attracts vandalism and objections by other, registered, editors is already an indication that the wording can be better. The ideal article is neutral in facts and is neutral in text to almost everyone who reads it (people with very extreme opinions excluded). Naming Kosovo and Vodvjina as similar entities is something that more then just the people with very extreme opinions objected to, so I would consider that wording not competely neutral. Nevertheless, Vodvjina is mentioned later on so everyone reading the article will found out about it and it is also included in the info box on the right side of the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't resist revisiting the debate over the word "province" after reading today's New York Times. The NYT editorial had this opening sentence: "The 1999 war over Kosovo left the former Serbian province in political limbo, postponing the question of possible independence for another day" (Italics mine). I like that formulation of "former Serbian province," which reflects that Kosovo's legal status as a Serbian administrative province was suspended by UNSCR 1244. I don't have any desire to reopen the whole discussion, but just thought it was interesting to note journalistic usage from an important newspaper. Envoy202 20:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately most people in here are too rigid and do not understand the reality on the ground which I was trying to stress in my many earlier posts. I'm trying to find a good parallel to describe this stupidity of clinging on to something that is defunct.

Serbian province (implying some sort of serbian control), as opposed to "UN administered and only legally a province of serbia" is at best misleading. Mentioning it in the same breath as Vojvodina and sticking a map of Serbia in the info box is ... well, lets not go there. Tonycdp 10:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

lol The moment I saw those words I knew that they would appear here. :-) But keep in mind that editorial pieces, free from the constraints of "journalistic objectivity", often emphasize their opinion with the initial definition given to the subject.

In friday's NYT, the article Uphill All the Way on Kosovo, Says U.N. Envoy (by Reuters) starts with a very clear: PRISTINA, Serbia (Reuters) - U.N. mediator Martti Ahtisaari said on Friday...

Regards. Evv 03:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Religon

Why hide fact Albanian ARE MUSLIMS and SERBS ARE CHRISTIAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.69.196 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of Albanians are Muslims, but lots of them are Catholics. And in the modern world, plenty of them are atheist, like any other group of people; the same applies with Serbian people. It's a common generalisation, but it's not a "fact" as you claim in your edit summary. If you want to make this point, how about gathering some real statistics and improving the article with some well-researched demographics. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In light of Islamist terorist we need to inform about the majority Albanians that are MUSLIMS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.69.196 (talk • contribs) 9:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please go away if you're not going to contribute anything useful... -- ChrisO 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. That the majority of Kosovar Albanians are Muslims does not have anything to do with terrorist activities or the 1999 war. Look at the 1991-95 Bosnian conflict, do Serb war crimes have anything to do with Christianity? Although religious symbols are certainly used and targeted in Kosovo I've never seen anyone say that Islam plays any role in the conflict. In my opinion, it is purely a nationalist conflict. Osli73 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We have to tell the world this is part of islamists extremism that is going on around the world. According to the government Al qaeda is present in Kosovo. They have Camps.Mujahadin helped the KLA during the war. It's a clear prof,but Albanians do everything to hide. Iran supports them too.

If you provide adequate sources for it, I'm ok with stating that KLA-members are actually Reptilian aliens. But we can't add your claims without proper backing, anonymous. Evv 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso5.html http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/nov01/hed4304.shtml

Playing with yourself. It was Milosheviq who sall wapens to Iraqien terrorist. The municion and bunkers from Albania you cannt finde in Iraq and Izrael but from "Made in Yugoslavia" in the name of Serbia. In the name of Serbia (for me is not importen, but for the Serbian Racisem) it was Milosheviq who gives to Chinez peopel the "Yugoslavian" Pass, they dont have Kosovo or Albanian Pass. - Hipi

Osli

A word - the Serb War crimes in Bosnia DO have to do with Christianity. Ratko Mladic stated the executions of the Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks as a revenge for the Battle of Kosovo - the turning point of Islams breaching into Europe. Generally, Muslims were seen by the Christians (Serbs and Croats) as occupators of Bosnia that weren't eradicated in time - a gruesome truth. --HRE

I am slightly opposed to intro's prediction of Kosovo's gradual independence.

I think the sole reason for this many Albanian POV-pushers - and the appearent rush for Kosovo's independence is the fact that all mediaters were/are Albanian-POV. The previous one fell in love with an Albanian girl and even married her - while the current, Marty Ahtisari, litterally claimed this: that the Serb nation and people and generally and wholesomely fault for everything wrong on Kosovo. --HRE

Edit-warring anonymous editors

Please don't start edit wars over this article (it's had enough already). If you have a disagreement over the form of the article, please discuss it here and reach agreement, rather than fighting over it. -- ChrisO 13:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Serbians terrorists mass

August 26, 2006 Crazy Serbians send it from Serbian government in Mitrovica kill (injure) two Albanians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.178.137.9 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hipi, you're getting tiresome - when will understand that we're all writing a BOOK here... --HolyRomanEmperor 10:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman rule

I think this sentence is POV: The Ottomans brought Islamisation with them, particularly in towns, and later also created the Viyalet of Kosovo as one of the Ottoman territorial entities. This brought a great shift, as the Orthodox Serb population began to lose its majority when masses of Turks and Albanians moved to Kosovo.

Many historians says that it can not be proved Serbs had majority in Kosovo before the Turks came. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you point them out? Actually, I've only seen quasi-historians' claims that support what you hold. Are you now going to say that the Great Migrations of the peoples to Europe (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Avars, Huns, Slavs, Franks,...) never occured? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The list is long, but what about Noel Malcolm, Alain Ducellier.--Noah30 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Great Migrations of the peoples to Europe never occurred, because I know they did, but I am saying that the Albanians in Kosovo had the majority in Kosovo before the Serbs came in the 13 century, and also before the Ottoman occupation.--Noah30 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree (partially) with Noah on this one; although I will admit that my reading on the subject has not been exhaustive, I have yet to come across an assertion that Serbs ever had a majority population that has not appeared in, or been directly quoted from, a Serb historian. Surely we can agree that in this context, neither Serbian nor Albanian historians can be relied upon as unbiased sources. What's wrong with simply admitting that we don't know, and will never know, who arrived first, and who had majority population, at least up until the time that we can draw upon a reasonably reliable and verifiable census? Davu.leon 15:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's lots of info at the Demographic History of Kosovo article - are you saying that all those Ottoman population censuses; researches of many a traveler (mostly Austrian, Jewish, British and French) that clearly state in Serb favour can be dismissed? That's the issue. In addition, Noel Malcom is not a historian and is widely known for his weird researches on dinosaurs; not to mention his short history of Bosnia, which is also essentially biased. HolyRomanEmperor 17:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorrow for the Serbs

I can nothing but feel sorry at how Serb nationalists are behaving in Wikipedia. They have captured almost everything related to Albanians and try to portray them in light of their propaganda. I have been observing the fight between Albanians and Serbs this year and I came to conclude that the reason why Albanians don't seem to care is because they are winning on real life and they seem to have decided to let the Serbs to have their go. The Serb approach in Wikipedia is a continuation of the general 'Serba approach'. I honestly feel sorry for them. I just wonder whether getting them join the EU will bring any good to them? ChrisO: are you a Serb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a little... well, biased. It appears that you shear are stereotypic opinion about Serbs as a nation - which doesn't smell good at all. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just read the Kosovo entry. It is full of Serian crappy propaganda. Look at the history section. It is so full of BS that the Albanians seem to have decided to just ignore it completely. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Spreading nationalistic BS. You Serbs with your primitive nationalism have destroyed one of the best countries of Europe. My father has visited Yugoslavia in 1980s and he still talks about how beautiful the whole country was and how sick someone must be to destroy it. Now none wants to live with you in the same state. You must recognize and stop with your crappy XIXth century nationalism. Serbia is simply a European country and now it's the XXIth century. When are you serbs going to wake up and realize this??? I have never met a Serb or Albanian, but it is easy to see who has probolems. (Of course this is directed to Serb nationalists be they 'working' on Wikipedia or trying to destroy something else in real life, not to the all Serbs).Vezaso 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Although your comment is understandable and you are certainly not the first to note these potential problems with the article, you should remember to always assume good faith. The problem here is that it is not a matter of what is true, but on the view people have on what has happened in Kosovo in the past. Both "views" (Serb vs. Albanian) are correct in the opinion of the people supporting that view and both opinions combined might give us a neutral article. Rather than reverting relatively minor sentences in the introduction (which has been the subject of a lot of debate recently), I suggest you adjust the history section to make it more neutral. Nobody will object to good faith, neutral edits, especially if you explain your rationale behind the edits here on the talk page and in your edit summaries. Good luck editing! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso, thanks for your just comments. It is true that the Serbian wikipedians have captured every article where the word Albanian and Kosovo is mentioned. I have said earlier that it is sad that the Wikipedia is being abused by Serbs for their political purposes. And do you know what? When an Albanian makes a comment which is not documented, the administrators answer with blocking him, while when a Serb makes such comment they call it good faith. Most of the administrators responsible for the Kosovo article are pro-Serb, and not only pro-Serb, but they support the Serbian nationalist versions of different historical events. Some of them think that they own those articles. --Noah30 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Noah30, please keep in mind that not every edit that does not fit with the Albanian view on Kosovo necessarily comes from a pro-Serbian editor. Both sides in this disputes (Serbs and Albanian) tend to see neutral, NPOV edits as coming from the opposite side rather than from neutral editors. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anything be done? I realized ChrisO is either a Serb nationalist or a pro-Serbs. Who are the other editors? It is sad that a good project such as Wikipedia falls in the hands of corrupt, nationalist people. Reinoutr, I don't think you can make it relative. We have all seen what the crafted Serbs can do in the Balkans. What makes us believe that their nationalism has faded away? They destroyed Yugoslavia, which could have now been one of the most important countries of the EU. They destroyed the image of the whole region. They will surely continue it here. Serbian expansionist nationalism is vile. It is sad to see people who work here, speak english - so you can guess they have are in touch with the real world outside of nationalism-corruted Serbia. Sad, sad, sad! Vezaso 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure anything has to be done. If you specify here on the talk page what exactly your problems with the current article are, I am sure there are enough neutral editors who are willing to let you know how they feel about the changes you propose. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm neither pro-Serb or pro-Albanian; I'm pro-reliable and verifiable facts. Unfortunately some users, including you, are trying to edit Wikipedia articles to reflect their aspirations or prejudices. Please don't do that. -- ChrisO 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is my strong impression that you are very pro-Serb, ChrisO. I am absolutely certain that had Milosevic read this entry on Kosovo, he would have not removed a single comma. It is simply pure Serb propaganda. The entry is pro-Serb (Kosovo's status is undecided, some want it part of Serbia, but the people there believe they are not since 1990, when they declared independence), the map portraying Kosovo as part of Serbia is pro-Serb (Kosovo is a UN protectorate, it should be a blue map, the color of the UN). It should be neither a territory of Serbia, nor a state. It should be a UN run territory, as it actually is. The history section is simply Serb nationalistic BS. The article on Serbia has 200 words of history, why should the Kosovo entry entail all the Serbian History, which all belongs in "History of Serbia". This is all for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I discussed the changes, Reinoutr. What's wrong now????Vezaso 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. If it is about mentioning the 3RR rule on your talk page, I honestly am only trying to prevent that you will get blocked. With regard to this article, please understand that there is a difference between discussing changes and telling people on the talk page the article is nationalistic BS (your words above) and changing it anyway. Discussing changes means that you try to explain your problem with the article in civil words and wait for someone to reply before just going ahead and changing things anyway. However, I think your main problem is whether or not Kosovo is a part of Serbia. This has been discussed quite some times already, and in a few minutes I'll make a new section below listing links to the reasons why many neutral editors here feel Kosovo still is a part of Serbia. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso you are right when you say that the Kosovo article displays a pro-Serbian bias. DO you know what? The map is taken from the Serbian wikipedia. The intro when I checked it was identically with the Serbian. I think Wikipedia should not be a tool for Serbian nationalists. I think some of them are paid to spread propaganda here. Nationalism is what the Balkans need least.--Noah30 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure which map you are referring to, but the only map that is identical is the green one and that was recently created especially for the english Wikipedia and apparently is also in use in the serbian wikipedia. Also, please do not make unsourced accusations towards other editors who are all trying to contribute to wikipedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

hello Reinoutr. I did not write about you, and I can see that you are trying to be objective, but not the other ones. Wish you a nice evening.--Noah30 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons why we have the current introduction

• It is mentioned that way by virtually all other encyclopedias: What other encyclopedias say
• Even most Albanians agree Kosovo was a province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), which was succeeded by Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) and now by Serbia, according to CNN, BBC, EU and the UN [3].
• Wikipedia is not about "truth" (for what ever that means anyway), but about verifiability, see WP:VER for more information.

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I further explain - ALL Encyclopedias state that (Britannica, LaRousse, Brockhaus') and even the nationalist Albanian freedom movement of Kosova, the Self-determination! movement (Ventevendosje! - Jo negotiata!) which considers the UN Peacekeepers invaders/occupiers and supports Ahtisaari's claims that the Serbian nation is guilty of a crime as a whole - considers Kosovo a part of Serbia... --HolyRomanEmperor 20:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is usually defined as a "UN protectorate", rather then "a province of Serbia". I believe both should be included, but the UN protectorate is more important in describing it.

The Albanian point of view would be:

Kosovo is a state in Central Balkans. It declared its independence in 1990, which has still not been internationally recognized. Presently, Kosovo is run in tandem by the UN Mission in Kosovo and the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment with the former expected to leave soon.

The present form is Serbian biased!

I suggest the following un-biased entry:

Kosovo is a UN run territory in Central Balkans. While still legaly part of Serbia (foremerly Yugoslavia), Kosovo is run in tandem by the UN Mission in Kosovo and the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Kosovo is usually defined as a UN protectorate, that is simply not true, see all evidence above and below. If you claim that, you will have to supply (many, since you claim usually) independent, reliable sources that talk about Kosovo as a UN protectorate and not a province of Serbia. With regard to the current introduction, it DOES state both that it legally a part of Serbia AND is under UN administration. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples of other resources:

• TIME Magazine: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, the core of the former Yugoslavia. [4]
• CNN: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, but it has been an international protectorate since 1999. [5]
• BBC: Kosovo, a landlocked province within Serbia [6]
• FOX: Serbia's southern, ethnic Albanian-dominated province of Kosovo.. [7]
• CIA: Kosovo as a part of Serbia [8]

Slight correction here - the S&M article has been replaced by this one on Serbia alone. Please note the map, Vezaso! -- ChrisO 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Encarta: Kosovo, province in southwestern Serbia. [9]
• Brittanica: ..region within the republic of Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia, 1929–2003),... [10]

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, Reinoutr - I think it makes the point very well that our sources agree on Kosovo's status. Vezaso, we have to describe what our sources say about Kosovo, not what we think is "right" or "wrong". This is required by two of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies, WP:V and WP:RS. Please go and read them if you haven't already. -- ChrisO 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To be slightly more specific, WP:V is policy, one of the three policies, the core one being WP:NPOV from which WP:V springs. V stands for Verifiability which, stated simply means that any information within Wikipedia must have been previously published by a reliable source for the information to be included in Wikipedia. Then the guideline, WP:RS gives specific examples of sources of information which fulfil WP:V. All of the listed sources of information fulfil WP:RS, and thus fulfil WP:V. If there is another source of information which says otherwise, then that might be included. Terryeo 23:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To be even more specific (and accurate), the "tripod" of fundamental policies on which Wikipedia stands are: WP:NPOV (neutral point of view); WP:V (verifiability); and WP:NOR (no original research). In other words, you can't assert something based solely on your personal belief - it needs to be verifiable, i.e. a reliable third party source has to say it. This is the real issue here: the reliable, verifiable sources that we have (see list above) all say the same thing. -- ChrisO 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, going back to the earlier post where you claim you are neither pro-Serb nor pro-Albanian. Would you like me to compile a list of evidence proving the opposite. Now I will only go through this hassle if you agree to step down from your self-assumed Kosovo related duties should I successfuly manage to expose your pro-serbian tendencies. Or perhaps anti-albanian tendencies would be more correct, because you have had your fingers in many other articles related to Albanians and all you did is to introduce Greek and Serbian names to towns and cities (and enforced them you way by just reverting anyone who dared to remove your so-called contributions). Which was really unnecessary (and inflammatory), since you never once bothered to put albanian names to the places such as for example Skopje.

You hide very well behind the Wikipedia rules, and you are indeed a master in the field, no doubt, also the diplomatic language you employ is first class (forgiving a few mishaps). Perhaps I am a little cynical (I can't help it) but despite all your brilliant arguments which should, by the rules of diplomacy, give you Neutrality kudos, the 'ChrisO influenced' end result always leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and probably in many peoples mouths in here too.

Also would you be kind enough to modify the InfoBox and remove Turkish from the list of official language because it isn't. No official document (nor the framework) recognises it as such. It is a de-facto official language in Prizren only, but still not official.

Official languages in Kosovo are Albanian/Serbian/English as it stands.Tonycdp 11:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone says the truth about ChrisO. He thinks he owns the articles about Kosovo and Albania. Asterion is also very pro-Serbian. I call this what is happening with the Kosovo articles: systematic falsification of history.--Noah30 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, but it makes me sad. I assume ChrisO is a Serb or a Macedonian and it makes me sad to see how anti-Albanian he is. It makes me sad to see that the cycle is still developing and new fighters for the cause of Milosevic are using other alternative means to continue the destrucitive path. Vezaso 12:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well considering Asterion went far beyond anything needed to get User: Ferick unblocked, who by the way, is a very large (albeit very poorly educated and rather bad at spelling) Albanian nationalist, I think it's unjust to call him "pro Serb". Of course what else does one expect. Americans help out Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets, and then Bin Laden screws them over. They're the same everywhere. Oh and what can I saw about this German here, "Markus Schott". I guess we need to point out the crimes his grandparents and relatives committed during World War I and World War II. Of course, you're not entirely to blame for World War I, but you know since the Versailles Treaty is official and all, then yeah, you are. Life must suck, I hear the Dutch still hate your guts.

Anyways Markus, if you and your "Kamaraden" ever get bored, take a long walk, it should do you good. I'll warn the Poles before hand in case you get too far. PerfectStorm ^{(Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!)} 12:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that because the Germans had Hitler, we have the right to our own Hitler too? Because Germany went mad during the WWII, we the Serbs have the right to gat mad in our own Balkans? If so, you should be ashamed! We are talking about Serbia here not Germany, Germany is a whole different and long story that we can discuss, but not in here.

Vezaso 12:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's got nothing to do with that, I just like bugging Schwabs about Hitler and they're Aryan "obsession". You know, you make me laugh, you make edits saying "Kosovo is a region in the Balkans (but definitely not part of Serbia)", but then you go on saying about how we're talking about Serbia. Well this is the Kosovo article, but please, if you insist, we'll call it Serbia, the rest of the world seems to do so. Anyways one can't blame poor Hitler for everything you guys did, he was democratically elected by you guys, shame, there go all your excuses. It was bad enough when we had homicidal Albanians here, now we've got genocidal Schwabs too. I really need to warn the Wiki Poles. PerfectStorm ^{(Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!)} 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be needing a doctor. What you say here is simply crazy stereotypical. I am complainging that some editors are heavily prejudiced and pro-serbian. Unfortunately you seem to be one of them. That is not helpful to WIkipedia. I am kindly asking you to rething your position. I am informing you, that Serb exremism has destroyed Yugoslavia, which was one of the best European countries. Nobody wants to live with you in one state anymore, as your leaders wanted to kill them. It is high time to wake up and see the world we are living and look towards the future. Vezaso 13:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso do not care about PerfectStorm. He had the nick : CCCC(according to his talk page), but was banned. Now he is back. Vezaso if you have time, write to a administrator and ask them to block PerfectStom again. --Noah30 17:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Info Box

Can we please change the InfoBox so that it doesn't show the map of Serbia.

Cpt Morgan, there were alot of people who objected to this when it was being introduced but their concerns were simply ignored (which I remember prompted me to get involved with Kosovo). Why were their concerns dismissed?

I earlier suggested that this map as a basis for the info box: http://www.axisglobe.com/Image/2005/11/16/Kosovo/2-Kosovo-map.gif

It is a map of Kosovo and the border with Serbia is a broken line which suggests that it is an internal state border (nothing political about it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonycdp (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tony, I do not agree with you that the concerns of people were ignored when this map was introduced. There was a lot of discussion about it at the time indeed. Without going into the pro-albanian/pro-serbian debate, at the time the map was introduced most NEUTRAL editors agreed that a map of Kosovo together with Serbia would be more informative. The relation of Kosovo with Serbia is still very tight (especially de-jure) and complicated (de-facto), so simply ignoring Serbia when showing a map of Kosovo is definately not a good idea. The map you show as an example, however, could be a reasonable alternative, because it shows both Kosovo and (part of) Serbia and makes clear that there is a relation between the two. I'll give it a try later to fit something like that into the infobox, hopefully without too many people edit-warring over such a change. Give me a few hours and I'll see what I can do. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Reinoutr, your openness to this controversial article is highly appreciated. Tonycdp 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo still is an autonomous province of Serbia (all our sources tell us so), and there's no better way to show it's location than in a map of Serbia, like in the current map. This is especially true for readers/users not familiar with the topic.

When/if that changes, the map should be changed accordingly. But not now, not for "diplomacy", not to keep a tiny minority happy. If facts hurt some people's sensibilities, so be it. As I stated previously, a good article should be offensive to people who dislike the current consensus of scholars or experts.

It's not about being pro- or against-something, about being paid "propagandists" (LOL !!!!) or anything similar. It's just about stating facts in an informative manner. Happy tuesday everyone :-) Evv 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that we shouldn't keep a tiny minority happy. And only the minority of people would find the version you support any more informative than the version I propose. Like this we will avoid vandalism by deliberately insulting Albanians and at the same time provide a very informative and CORRECT version that displays Kosovo but with a broken border towards Serbia, which is just as factual as the current version, but less inflammatory.

There's a a much better way to show Kosovo's location than sticking it in Serbia. As if a map of Serbia would make any sense to an average reader, who can barely keep up with all the border changes in the recent years. Kosovo in 'western Balkans' is an acceptable secondary solution but only after the primary map of Kosovo alone.Tonycdp 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the current map, showing Kosovo's ubication within Serbia, much more informative than one of Kosovo alone, which would force readers to go to the Serbia article to see the context.

It's true, mine may be a minority view. But that's the way in which administrative divisions are shown in the maps of most (if not all) other cases: first the location of the province within the country, and only then a more detaild map. Examples: Plovdiv Province, Thessaloniki Prefecture, Sibiu County, Baranya (county), Bavaria, Tennessee, Haute-Corse, Basque Country.

Now, if the idea is to change the map to "avoid vandalism", I really really don't like it. I very much prefer to "promote vandalism" than change the maps to suit those who dislike being (currently, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned) part of Serbia, Germany (Bavaria Party), France (Corsica nazione, FLNC) or Spain (Basque nationalism). Regards. Evv 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are talking as if Kosovo was really part of Serbia. Now we all know that it isn't. Although, legaly it is so until its status is resolved. And we all knwo that Kosovo is going to be independent by the end of the year. In light of this, pushing for the 'legalistic' approach makes us mislead the viewers. So, I suggest that we go for the factic approach and mention the legalistic approach. As I'm sure, these Serb nationalists will continue to vandalize the Kosovo article even after November, when most likely Kosovo will be granted independence. Vezaso 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

lol Right now, for the purposes of Wikipedia, Kosovo really is part of Serbia. :-) All our sources tell us so (see also those given by Reinoutr at the start of the previous section, here), and Wikipedia's articles should merely reflect what our sources say.

When our reliable sources begin stating something different this article should be changed. Not before. If "these Serb nationalists" want to change the article in ways contrary to what our sources state, I will try to avoid it. Regards. :-) Evv 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Vezaso will be complaining to the CIA about its map of Serbia, on which our infobox map is based? Bottom line: we reflect what our sources say - it's as simple as that! -- ChrisO 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm sure if there was an article on Kosovo in CIA, it would not include Serbia. The article on Serbia of course will have Kosovo in it, until Kosovo becomes independent, somwhere in November. But this is the article on Kosovo, which is in the process of becoming independent. Of course we need to state that Kosovo is still legaly part of Serbia. But this is not like Catalonia. + the Logo of the PISG should be placed above the map. The flag that late President Rugova used for Kosovo should also be put somewhere in the article. The UN Flag and the PISG flag should be put on the top. I am insisting that Serbs, pro-Serbs and Albanians and pro-Albanians should stop propaganda. This should be an informative article. Presently, it is a Serbian propaganda pamphlet! ChrisO, honestly I expect a bit more from you. You seem extremely biased, convince me otherwise. Vezaso 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a bit bold, but please realise that we are not trying to offend each other here, but rather finding a compromise that fits both with NPOV and is acceptable to as many editors as possible. I changed the map in the infobox to the image below here (in case someone reverts the infobox). Please do not revert right away, but take some time to think it over whether this or a variation on it might be acceptable. Please bear in mind that we are all editing in good faith here.

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cpt Morgan, thank you for your design. It looks better although it would be a million times better if Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia were included in the map too, that would put the region into a factual context. Broken line suggests it is a part of Serbia, bold solid lines represent the internationally recognised entities.

I'm glad you've taken all the concerns on board, I really appreciate it. Now I'm looking forward to some productive debating rather than patronising comments.

To Evv: You LOL all the time :) (one happy-go-lucky bunny, aren't you) . Please read my reasoning behind the request to remove map of Serbia, so that I don't repeat myself again, and I certainly wouldn't want your time wasted on LOL-ing either. I would appreciate it if you could tell me how my suggestion breaks any of your oh so cherished rules of Wikipedia you and ChrisO like to use to your advantage all the time.

I am somewhat intrigued by your statement that you would prefer to "promote vandalism". Let me think about it before I reply.... In fact I'll let you think about it before you reply :-) lol lol lol Tonycdp 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added the additional border as you can see. Adding also the names of those countries would make the image cluttered in my opinion, so I did just the borders. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

lol I do laugh easily and it's a wonderfull sunny day. Cheers :-)

I object to the new map because it's less informative, less clear, less intuitive than the previous map, not because it contradicts any rule I know of. My point is that your proposal sacrificies clarity for diplomacy.

As for the use of Wikipedia rules to "my advantage" (in my pursue of a NPOV article), well, that's in part what the rules are for. :-) See WP:NOR#Why original research is excluded.

Finally, the "promote vandalism" statement. :-) Very simple really: in an encyclopedic article, I would much rather offend some people with a clear description (thus possibly promoting vandalism) than keep everybody happy with a less informative, watered-down version (thus avoiding vandalism). Regards. Evv 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you prefer the old map, because you stated so also before I changed it. Still, I would like to ask you not to revert until some other editors have given their opinion. The map is NPOV and it is not added because of diplomacy, but because of Wikipedia:Consensus. If a majority of the editors show their preference for the old map, I have no objections to changing it back. I just want to show people this alternative, which might allow us to achieve a broader consensus than with the old map. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

lol Don't worry. And, answering to Tonycdp, I should have placed my last message above -and not below- yours. Regards. Evv 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... I can't say I particularly dislike the new map, but as Evv says, it's less intuitive than the other one. Also, WP:NPOV trumps WP:CON; let's face it, the only reason why we are even having this debate in the first place is because some nationalist editors want to present Kosovo in a way that none of our sources support. The next step will be replacing your map with one that shows Kosovo as an independent state. The editors in question know what Wikipedia policies require but refuse to play by the same rules as everybody else. If the problem is people repeatedly violating WP:V, WP:NPOV etc (and it is), the way to deal with that is to either persuade them to play by the rules or, failing that, to block them. Please don't try to negotiate on policies that are non-negotiable. -- ChrisO 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns, but in this case I think just calling on NPOV is not completely fair, because the main discussion is on what exactly the NPOV view on Kosovo is. Therefore, looking for CONsensus is a way to solve edit-warring over these matters. The reason I created this map is because it now shows 1) that Kosovo is part of Serbia while it 2) places an emphasizes on Kosovo rather than on the whole of Serbia and 3) the map of Serbia/Kosovo in Europe still shows the whole of Serbia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely the NPOV view on Kosovo is whatever the consensus of our sources say it is? I honestly can't see how it's going to be possible to reach a consensus if one side wants to depart from verifiable reality. Having said that, I see that the BBC are using a map very similar to yours in its profile of Kosovo - see [11]. On that basis, I think I'll support your map, as long as it's on the understanding that it's "thus far and no further." I certainly wouldn't support any effort to portray Kosovo as a separate state in the map. -- ChrisO 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As I assume you know by now, it definately is not my intention to have a map just showing Kosovo here. This map is merely meant as a compromise between the 'entire Serbia' map and the 'just Kosovo' map. Personally, I favor the first and not the second of those two, but this compromise hopefully abolishes those discussions. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone is biased in this discussion, it is you ChrisO. I don't want to sound dramatic, but your threat to 'block them' reminds me of Milosevic: 'They either play by the rules or we kill them. The Serbian law on such and such says this and that.' Come on! Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. It is not an encyclopedia as Serb nationalists see it. Please be more civil. Not to repeat myself: I believe the UNMIK flag and the PISG Coat of Arms should be placed above the map. Vezaso 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Quit the silly comparisons, please. When you signed up for a Wikipedia account you agreed to abide by Wikipedia's rules. Every time you see the edit window you'll see a statement immediately below that says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Do you accept this rule - yes or no? -- ChrisO 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to introduce the UNMIK flag (which is just the UN flag) and the PISG coat of arms, I suggest that you find a source that states that they're the official symbols of Kosovo rather than of just the PISG institutions and UNMIK. I was under the impression that Kosovo doesn't actually have any official symbols yet - which is why you see the Albanian flag everywhere in the Albanian-populated areas and the Serbian flag elsewhere. There's an UNMIK press release at http://www.unmikonline.org/press/2001/press-r/pr656.html which sheds some light on what seems a very murky situation. -- ChrisO 22:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vezaso, this really is the time for you to understand and see that we ARE trying to reach a compromise rather than ignoring the remarks by you and Tonydcp. The UNMIK flag, nor the PISG Coat of Arms are currently official symbols of Kosovo and therefore it would not be suitable to include them here. Naturally, they CAN be included (and probably are) on the UNMIK and PISG pages. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Both are official symbols of Kosovo under the UN Resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework. At the borders of Kosovo you will see the UN flag and the flag of the PISG. Both are UN made, they are not made by Albanians. They are the provisional symbols of Kosovo until the status of Kosovo is reached. They are ethnically/nationally unbiased. While the UNMIK flag is the UN flag, the PISG Coat of Arms has elements of UN logo and the map of Kosovo in the middle in colors that are neither Albanian nor Serb. They are unbiased provisional symbols of Kosovo.

This is my proposal:

Kosovo
Kosovë/Kosova
Косово и Метохија

UN Flag PISG Logo

[[]]

Vezaso 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide an actual reference so that we can verify where UNSCR 1244 and the CF say that. (And please remember to sign your comments!) -- ChrisO 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for discussing it here first rather than making the edits right away. Unfortunately, I am not in favor of adding this flag and coat of arms, for the reasons I stated above. They are NOT official symbols of Kosovo (per UN or framework) and therefore it would not be suitable to add them so prominently. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you check the entry on Vojvodina it has its symbols. Every entity has its symbols. I will be researching to find the appropriate UNMIK resolution and put the link here. But this is all ethnicity-nationally free. I think we should not put national flags, although I think somewhere down the article we should put the flag that Mr. Rugova propsoed and state in a box that, that is a disputed flag. We also need to say something on the parallel structures and there we could put the Serbian flag. The UN flag and the PISG coat of arms are the provisional, legal symbols of Kosovo under UN protectorate.Vezaso 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you check the official UNMIK webpage at http://www.unmikonline.org/ and the official webpage of the Assembly of Kosovo: http://www.assemblyofkosovo.org/ you will notice the logo and the flag.Vezaso 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vojvodina has its own symbols because its assembly passed a law establishing an official flag for the entire province. See http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/cs-vojvo.html for details. There is no equivalent law or official flag for Kosovo (see http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/cs-kosov.html for background). -- ChrisO 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a UNMIK Regulation. I am trying to find it, they wouldn't be used otherwise. I am suggesting that apart from the PISG Coat of Arms the UNMIK flag should be put too, for as long as the status of Kosovo is not resolved. I will provide the link to the UNMIK regulation as soon as I find it. Vezaso 23:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And here you are: ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 2003/15 at http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/admdirect/2003/ADE2003_15.pdf#search=%22%22Pisg%20logo%22%22

Hmm. This doesn't say what you seem to think it says. To quote: "For the purpose of providing the required authorization for the use of an approved logo by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government" (my emphasis). In other words, the coat of arms is only that of the PISG, not of Kosovo as a whole. It represents the institution, not the province. This seems to differ fundamentally from the coat of arms of Vojvodina, which was adopted to represent the province as a whole, according to http://flagspot.net/flags/cs-vojvo.html . -- ChrisO 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's just a logo used by a specific institution, and not a Coat of arms or something similar. Regards. Evv 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point Evv, I'd missed that. You're quite right. A coat of arms has a specific heraldric significance, representing an entity in a particularly formal way. A logo is just a logo. -- ChrisO 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is governed by UN Resolution 1244, which recognises Kosovo as a terrotory of Yugoslavia under UN protectorate. UNSC1244 establishes UNMIK, under the UN flag and gives it the mission to provide Kosovo with self-government. To fulfil this goal, UNMIK established the PISG, which is the whole institutional settiong in Kosovo. UNMIK established the PISG logo as the only symbol for the PISG, which is to be used in tandem with the UNMIK flag. These are UN symbols, the only legal valid symbols for Kosovo until status. They are used in all institutions, all Kosovo publications, all websites, bordercrossings etc. Vezaso 23:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as symbols of the institutions, not as symbols of the province. The UNMIK document you quoted is explicit on that point. -- ChrisO 23:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Evv 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The map looks a bit empty, I suggest adding a bit of color to the other countries of the region as below. The UN flag and the PISG logo are the only two official symbols of Kosovo, under UNSC1244. I don't expect you to agree, ChrisO. You will not agree to anything that dosn't have the word Serbia in it. just for your pleasure we can put a word Serbia over the UN flag and the PISG logo? Will that make you happy? Or we can write 'Srbija do Tokija' above both of them. I am talking to unbiased people. Vezaso 00:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait to see what other editors think. Evv 01:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Evv:

"As for the use of Wikipedia rules to "my advantage" (in my pursue of a NPOV article), well, that's in part what the rules are for. :-) See WP:NOR#Why original research is excluded."

Ahhh Evv, thanks for admitting it, you save me a lot of hassle. Your belief that you'd much rather offend people by offering an "informative" version over the version that is still factually correct but promotes neutrality simply doesn't wash. It is somewhat ridiculous because the very fact that you're managing to upset as you call it "the minority" (i.e. a whole ethnic group and many more outsiders here, who do not agree with you) should be enough proof that there's is something seriously wrong with your version of reality. Now you can use all the Wiki rules to your advantage, but that doesn't mean that you're presenting a factual and a fair version.

I don't want to present my version, my opinion or the truth, nor do I want to be fair. I just want the article to reflect what our reliable sources state (regardless of whether I personally agree with that statement or not).

What our sources state (Kosovo is a Serbian province under UN administration) is offensive to most (if not all) Albanians, to some (or many) Serbs and to many more other people. However, it's informative and not offensive to over a billion English-speaking readers/users. In this sense, whole ethnic groups are tiny minorities.

I find the 'Kosovo only map' less informative than the 'all Serbia map', but it's factual and prettier. I wouldn't like using it in the infobox, but if a consensus is reached for using it I will have a beer and abide by it. Cheers :-) Evv 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cpt Morgan: The map looks brilliant. There's nothing to suggest that Kosovo is not in some sort of way linked to Serbia (broken border line) which should please the pro-Serbian lobbyists ChrisO & Co. And at the same time gives Kosovo and its people the respect they deserve. Putting a map of Serbia (a country that tried to wipe out Kosovo of its population not so long ago) was very insulting, and very few people seem to understand that in here.

I do not agree with ChrisO that the map looks cluttered, I think it looks fine, although you could colour the rest of the region in bright green, so that we have a two-tone map. And again, thank you for taking this up.Tonycdp 10:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New Infobox

This is the new suggested infobox. I added the UN flag, the PISG Logo which direct you to the UNMIK and PISG entries. I dropped the lines, but I'm not sure about that. The cyrilic needs to be bold. And I am not sure as to what color looks better on the surrounding states, gray or light green. Of course if we go for green. I would suggest light blue, the UN color. Opinions? Vezaso 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to drop the UN flag and PISG logo - they aren't symbols of Kosovo as an entity, so including them is extremely misleading. The standard in infoboxes is to include the entity's flag and coat of arms, neither of which Kosovo possesses at the moment. I would leave the surrounding states in the top map as white. Kosovo itself should remain in a different shade of the same colour as Serbia (i.e. dark green / lighter green) as at present, to indicate its relationship with Serbia. -- ChrisO 00:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the previous infobox: no symbols and the 'entire Serbia' map (because it's more clear, informative, intuitive). Regards. Evv 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, Kosovo is presently governed by UNMIK, under the resolution 1244. Kosovo has Albanian and Serbian state symbols that are not considered by UNMIK as legitimate. The only legitimate symbols accepted by the UN are the PISG logo accompanied by the UN flag. You can check all the official websites of Kosovo, they all have the same pattern in symbols. We are trying to make a clear unbiased, representative article. Vezaso 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source that states that the PISG logo and UN flag are symbols of Kosovo, rather than just symbols of the PISG and UNMIK. -- ChrisO 01:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I explained the reasoning. The arguments are as follows:

1. Kosovo i governed by Resolution 1244 which establishes UNMIK;

2. UNMIK does not recognise any symbols but the PISG Logo in tandem with the UN flag (read the directive above);

3. The PISG Logo is used in all official kosovo documents etc. (Official gazette, official websites, border crossings etc.);

4. As such, the PISG Logo in tandem with the UN flag are the provisional symbols of Kosovo, until the status of Kosovo is decided;

5. The PISG logo entails the combination of symbols from the UN flag, EU flag and the map of Kosovo in colors that are neither Albanian nor Serb.

6. The Logo has been designed and approved by the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

7. In the following picture it is seen the former President of Kosovo Rugova, in front of the Kosovo flag which is not accepted by UNMIK (right) as the official flag of Kosovo as UNMIK insists that the only official symbol of Kosovo is the PISG Logo in tandem with the UN flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ibrahim_Rugova_portrait.jpg Vezaso 01:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait to see what other editors think. Evv 01:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo Kosovë/Kosova Косово и Метохија
UNMIK Flag PISG Logo
Location in Europe.
Official languages	Albanian, Serbian, English
Capital	Prishtinë / Priština
President of Kosovo	Fatmir Sejdiu
Prime Minister of Kosovo	Agim Çeku
Area  – Total  – % water	10,912 km²  4,213 sq. mi  n/a
Population  – Total (2003)  – Density	2.1 million (est.)  220/km² (approx)  570/sq. mi
Ethnic groups (2003)	Albanians: 87% Serbs: 8% Turks: 1% Others: 4%
Time zone	UTC+1
Currency	Euro (Official) and Serbian dinar (the latter is used exclusively in Serbian-populated areas)

I am not in favor of this version of the infobox. I agree the map could use some improvement, I'll have a look a that this evening, but the flag and coat of arms/logo are NOT official symbols representing the entity of Kosovo. They are official symbols representing UNMIK and PISG and are used as such. Currently, Kosovo does NOT have any official symbols and we should not be adding a flag and a coat of arms just because other countries have a flag and a coat of arms. National flags and related symbols have very special meanings in international politics, legislation and laws and are surrounded with extenstive protocols. These symbols are different from that and thus should not be used as such. I have no objections to adding the symbols at other places in the article dealing with UNMIK and PISG in more detail (as the PISG logo already is). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This new map is better. In the interest of clarity, I think it's clear that a map showing Kosovo should have Kosovo as the major focal point. One does not feel it necessary to include the whole of Britain when depicting Northern Ireland for example. As far as the UN flag etc, while it does go some way towards establishing the reality on the ground, which is that Serbia has no real influence in governing, it is probably true that it is not factually accurate to include them, in terms of the stated international stance on the region. I think Kosovo can survive without its flag on Wikipedia for the year or so it will take before final staus. Davu.leon 09:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This article as a whole is a Serb propaganda pamphlet. As for the flag, these are the neutral symbols of Kosovo, UN made. I am against of including the Albanian symbols, for as long as the status is undecided. But these symbols are used throughout Kosovo, as the provisional neutral symbols of Kosovo. You can check all the official websites of Kosovo. In the meanwhile, I put back the previously agreed version, which presents Kosovo a bit more neutral, then the current Serb nationalist pamphlet. Vezaso 09:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We do not agree with the addition of a flag, so you revert to different version of map (whereas you include the map I suggested in your proposed infobox)? That does not make any sense and such edits are certainly frowned upon here. Please understand that we ARE trying to accomodate your suggestions (this version of the map was a COMPROMISE, remember?) and we have no objections to including the UNMIK flag and PISG logo in other locations in the article. Those are all compromises, which is an essential part of Wikipedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise between neutrality and Serb propaganda brings us somewhere in the realm of moderate Serb propaganda. This article should be neutral. It has obviously been captured by Serb propgagandists, but it shouldn't remain in that way. Vezaso 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso, I have worked for a long time on this aricle but it's pointelss. I invite you to come and work on the Serbia article. Dardan 09:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso, if that was true, I would agree with you. But currently, the difference here is that we read your arguments and reply to them, whereas you read our arguments and revert the article, complain how pro-Serb it is and refuse to discuss any further. That will never lead to any improvement of this article. Please explain why this all is pro-Serb, because I do not get it:

• We change the map to focus on Kosovo rather than Serbia
• We agree to including the PISG logo, but just not in the infobox because it is not an official national symbol.
• We agree to including the UNMIK flag, but just not in the infobox because it is not an official national symbol.
• We moved any reference to Vodvjina to the geography section
• The 2ND sentence of the article explains that Kosovo is UN administered

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is horrible, I cant belive serb nationalists still countinue their attacks on everything albanian. Why does Wikipedia allows such things?????

kushtxh 09:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We would get a neutral article if we have a person holding extreme pro-Albanian point of view, as does ChrisO and you to some extent hold pro-Serbian point of view.

• A neutral article should only show Kosovo withouth any relationship to other parts of the region, as the staut of Kosovo remains a limbo.
• A neutral article will call Kosovo a 'landlocked territory in central balkans' as do so many sources call it, including UNMIK.

Kosovo is a small and landlocked territory in the center of the Balkan Peninsula. http://www.sok-kosovo.org/pdf/agriculture/Chapter_01.pdf#search='%27kosovo%2C%20a%20landlocked%20territory%27'

...landlocked territory of two million inhabitants has been under U.N. control since 1999, when sustained NATO... http://voanews.com/english/archive/2005-07/2005-07-19-voa84.cfm?renderforprint=1&textonly=1&&CFID=1126916&CFTOKEN=33491888

Kosovo is a landlocked territory under United Nations interim administration and centrally located in the Balkans. http://www.kosovo-mining.org/kosovoweb/en/kosovo.html

Kosovo is a territory in the centre of the Balkans. http://www.iflry.org/libel/libel_942e.html

These are sources, if you so much insist on. But this is not a trial to talk like lawyers. We all know what the status of Kosovo is and what it will be. I believe we should put it what we know in actuality is, an independent state waiting to be recognized by the international community. Dardan 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo indeed does not have any symbols. The UN symbols should be included in the article but probably not in the InfoBox, because it's too damn complicated as it is.

Someone mentioned Northern Ireland [[12]]. Having just looked at the article I really don't see why my proposal is considered one-sided.Tonycdp 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia infobox on Northern Ireland simply does not have a "NI in UK" (an equivalent of the "Catalonia in Spain" or "Bavaria in Germany" maps), relying instead on the "NI in Europe map" alone. The same thing happens in "England", "Scotland" and "Wales". But the UK is a special case, a kingdom and not a country: see British Isles (terminology). Regards. Evv 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dardan, I resent the accusation of being pro-Serb. I am of dutch nationality, have never been in the region and have no personal interest in either point of view. The sources you supplied are all Kosovar sources, that inherentely have a Kosovo point of view. We like to rely on more neutral sources, like other encyclopedias and news agencies. I'll repeat here what I also posted above:

• TIME Magazine: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, the core of the former Yugoslavia. [13]
• CNN: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, but it has been an international protectorate since 1999. [14]
• BBC: Kosovo, a landlocked province within Serbia [15]
• FOX: Serbia's southern, ethnic Albanian-dominated province of Kosovo.. [16]
• CIA: Kosovo as a part of Serbia [17]
• Encarta: Kosovo, province in southwestern Serbia. [18]
• Brittanica: ..region within the republic of Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia, 1929–2003),... [19]

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dardan, I was wrong I see, one of your sources was not Kosovar in origin. But now let ME quote from that source:

• Kosovo, the United Nations-administered south Serbian province.. (1st sentence) [20]

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Reinoutr, I see your point. But Kosovo became a UN protectorate in 1999 with the aim of giving kosovars self-government. Thus, the sovereignty of Serbia was frozen until the future status will be decided. The international community (the Contact Group) has agreed last year to resolve the status issue this year based on these principlas:

1. There is no going back to before 1999 (which means no more province of Serbia);

2. There is no seperation (which means Kosovo will remain an entity, the north will not be separated;

3. There is no unification of Kosovo with any other territory (which means Kosovo will not be allowed do join with Albania or parts of Macedonia). In sum this may mean from a Republic status within Yugoslavia to independence. Now that Montenegro has left Serbia it is sensless to expect that Albanians will re-establish Yugoslavia, so we can only expect full independence.

Numerous states have already declared their support (the UK, the US, Switzerland, Germany, Albania, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Finland etc.). Some states have said that they would accept independence (Macedonia, Bulgaria, Italy, Turkey, Austria, etc.) and some states have said they do not agree (Russia, Romania). As seen, the states that finance mostly the UN Mission in Kosovo are for, or would accept it. So logically we can anticipated that Kosovo will be independent by the end of the year. We need to reflect this view on the article. Please check the entry on Northern Ireland. Dardan 11:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dardan, I agree that the article should also reflect the most likely outcome of the negotiations, but not by stating that Kosovo is an independent country when this is not true (yet). The last sentence of the second paragraph reads: International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo; it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence., and more information on that can currently be found in the Kosovo Future Status Process section (which you are invited to expand if you feel that is necessary), so I think the article already addresses those issues (at least to some extend). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A minor point, I know, but why not 'The location of Kosovo in Europe'? Or just 'Location of Kosovo'? The inclusion of Serbia is inconsistent with Wikipedia norms. Davu.leon 11:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Consistency between articles is not a goal or requirement on Wikipedia.
2. Can you elaborate which Wikipedia norms you are referring to?
3. The Europe map perfectly matches the Kosovo (and part of Serbia) map this way.
4. It is now the only map that places Kosovo in the broader perspective (of Serbia), which many neutral editors (including me) feel is a requirement to include in this article.

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a small adjustment to make the description fit better with the maps. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Davu, Serbia is put there to annoy Albanian and neutral users. It is offensive, as Saying Poland is Part of Germany, or Serbia is part of the Ottoman Empire. Although it is a historical truth, it doesn't portray the reality. It is not informative, it simply pushes a Serb nationalistic agenda. Dardan 11:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dardan, that is not true as you must know. Serbia is put here because it is still is very tightly related to Kosovo and vice versa. Their relationship is not (yet) a part of history, but a part of currently ongoing negotiations. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm new, I didn't know consistency was desirable. By norms I simply meant what I have observed on other pages, such as the NI page. I like the Europe map, just not the Serbia reference. The first map shows Kosovo's place in relation to Serbia, the second its postion in Europe. If you feel that's essential, fine... it was just that I don't feel the text below the picture comes across as neutral. (I am not claiming to be totally neutral. I think it's obvious that I lean slightly towards the Kosovar Albanian position, so maybe I'm not the best person to judge.) Davu.leon 11:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And as an unrelated point, Thaci was never prime minister of Kosovo. I don't know how that got in there. Davu.leon 11:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Much better text, now comes across as neutral. Davu.leon 11:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are more then welcome to correct such mistakes if you find them. Some issues here are quite controversial, but it is safe to edit things like that I suppose. I am not familiar with Kosovar politics, so I cannot tell if something like that is correct or not. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't make changes cause I'm new. But it's correct alright. I'll try to find a reference. Davu.leon 11:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The infobox should not try to predict the status of Kosova. Therefore it should not make Kosovo look as a part of any other state, be that in color, or be included in the map of any such state. I encourage you to refrain from edits which do not comply with these elementary rules. Regards, ilir_pz 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop Revert Wars

We are trying to reach a compromise. Please refrain from taking matters into your own hands. Although I greatly sympathise with the Kosovar grievances I don't think that the reverts by Dardan are the right thing to do.

Lots of people here have come to your support by laying down well-informed arguments such as Envoy202 (who I thank greatly for his contributions). And we have managed to convince some Neutral Editors that the article was not Neutral in its previous state. We have made progress and the article now looks a lot less provocative, and it has been achieved without denting the truth.Tonycdp 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely here, this revert warring is useless, disruptive and shows a lack of respect for the people trying to reach compromises. If it doesn't end any time soon, I will take put this article and ALL editors involved (and yes that includes myself) up for arbitration by the arbitration committee. This sillyness has gone far enough now. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of you who claim to be trying to reach compromise, (maybe unaware of that) are supporting one side in the dispute and are causing the other side to revert your edits. And in the end what? Dardan or some other Albanian editor becomes the "black sheep" here, just because they are not as neutral as you (claim to be). Reconsider your actions, and only that way you would truly be reaching compromise. Unfortunately, I do not see any change here, eversince I left, still some "neutral" editors seem to be strong-headedly taking sides here, and abusing even admin rights. Unbelievable. I would propose blocking and erasing the whole article, until the status is resolved. Solution? ilir_pz 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I explanied my point very clearly. We cannot have a Serb nationalist pamphlet representing Kosovo. Not only it is innacurate, but it is offensive. I can accept Kosovo to be in a limbo, as it is, as a compromise. But I can never accept Kosovo to be put as part of Serbia, in the same manner that Bavaria is part of Germany. That is nonsense, for anyone who knows a little bit of what is happening in and around Kosovo. Kosovo is a landlocked territory in central Balkans under UN protrectorate. It is claimed by Serbia and by Kosovar Albanians. We need to portray both sides, as the situation is not set. But I will never agree to this article being a Serbian pamphlet. Vezaso 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ilir_pz: That's not true. Read my earlier posts, and you'll find that I supported most of your positions all along. It was the way most editors dismissed your concerns about the map that prompted me to join the Kosovo club, because i felt like you were being patronised by the anti-albanian Admins who were ever so effectively using their knowledge of Wikipedia rules to dismiss your valid arguments as bullshit. So please matey, state your concerns here, but don't revert to a version that has not passed through this bureaucracy. Tonycdp 14:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with exactly how the arbitration committee works (I'll check that in a few moments), but from what I have seen so far it sounds like a good idea: these constant revert wars on issues contradicting WP:V are silly indeed. Evv 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration is a rather drastic thing to do, since it is not aimed at resolving content disputes, but at preventing abuse of the wiki-system by vandalism, POV pushing etc. More information can be found at: Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. I really hate to go this way, but we've gone through all other options and this is becoming crazy. I am currently preparing a submission to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links :-) Evv 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Turkish

Is Turkish an official language? I know it is used in some govt. documents but I was under the impression that the official languages were Albanian, Serbian and English. Anyone know for sure? Davu.leon 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Albanian, Serbian and English are for sure the official languages. All the official documents issued by UNMIK contain these three. Turkish IS NOT an official language. It is a de-facto official language in Prizren because of the city's liberal attitude towards the turkish minority, but that's all.Tonycdp 14:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso

First thing's first - to User:Vezaso. How can you expect receive respect if you don't give some. I am assuming good faith, but I still ask an explaination. You accused me of ruining Yugoslavia. Either that, or you're extreemly nationalistic, refering to the guilt of an entire nation (to which, yet again, you misaccused me of belonging to). I think that Vezaso's will is highly questionable, as actions themselves explain. I also ask for an apologee (nicely). HolyRomanEmperor 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote: We have all seen what the crafted Serbs can do in the Balkans. What makes us believe that their nationalism has faded away? They destroyed Yugoslavia, which could have now been one of the most important countries of the EU. They destroyed the image of the whole region. They will surely continue it here. Serbian expansionist nationalism is vile. It is sad to see people who work here, speak english - so you can guess they have are in touch with the real world outside of nationalism-corruted Serbia. Sad, sad, sad! Vezaso 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Call me weird, but I consider this extreemly biased. Isn't Yugoslavia itself percisely what Serbs crafted? Vile? Not worse than any other expansionist nationalism (AFAIC, others are worse). Did you ever hear of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union? Or how about America's errors? Or how about Greater Albania, Greater Bulgaria or Greater Croatia? Unlike Greater Serbia, they were all realized and created. Essentially, no nation's expansionist nationalism is vile - everyone's is and nations should never be remembered by the bad things - but good. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote Vezeso: The Albanian point of view would be: Kosovo is a state in Central Balkans. It declared its independence in 1990, which has still not been internationally recognized. Presently, Kosovo is run in tandem by the UN Mission in Kosovo and the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment with the former expected to leave soon. The present form is Serbian biased! I suggest the following un-biased entry: Kosovo is a UN run territory in Central Balkans. While still legaly part of Serbia (foremerly Yugoslavia), Kosovo is run in tandem by the UN Mission in Kosovo and the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment.

Well, first of all - Kosovo is not a state. Second of all, it didn't declare independence then - but in 1991. The first one was not expressing the actual will of the people. Next, that declaration of independence was of course, unconstitutional and thereby - "illegal" to call it. Additionally, the 1999 resolution abolished the declaration of independence - meaning that it's not independent from Serbia at all. Your un-biased entry is OK, except that it doesn't state "Autonomous Province of Serbia". --HolyRomanEmperor 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso has also made offendive remarks against Serbs and Macedonians - I AM assuming good faith - but those are the characteristics of an Albanian nationalist or a heavy pro-Albanian nationalist (Albanians had bad times with all their neighbours). I wonder what does he think about Greeks? HolyRomanEmperor 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

All in all - I just read the entire talk page (and the archives) and it's making me dizzy. :X HolyRomanEmperor 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Previously agreed neutral option

I do not understand why people are pushing nationalist agendas here instead of being professional and improvint the neutral version that we agreed on previously. Dardan 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)