This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A new modest proposal to acknowledge the 3 ways to spell Prishtina *once* in this article's text.
Is there a salient reason why mentioning all three Prishtina variants *once* in the main text for article "Kosovo" is not a good idea?
I advocate doing so, rather than rely on the infobox alone (it's not there yet, or anywhere in the article, as of now), as I am aware that Wikipedia gets reused in outside mirrors, quasi-mirrors and other engines, whereby anything confined to the infobox gets tossed, as the infobox gets stripped. For example, the Google Desktop Wikipedia widget prints the article lead only. And so on.
This information is basic, not peripheral, and should appear in the lead. Some people don't notice what's in the infobox. Some user agents, such as mobile browsers, might put the infobox far below the article text, or not render it.
I propose including: "The capital of Kosovo and its largest city is Pristina (also spelled in English: Prishtina or Priština)". As for the infobox, only in the first one: "Pristina (Prishtina, Priština)". --Mareklugtalk 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
sounds like a compromise. I don't care overmuch for this solution, but I wouldn't oppose it either. dab(𒁳) 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that tying the "...Pristina (also spelled in English: Prishtina or Priština)" part to the capital city is good, though the exact sentence reads as ...dull. at least go with '"The largest city and capital of Kosovo is Pristina (also spelled in English: Prishtina or Priština)" so that it's not quite so cumbersome. But putting it all into the article is good. ThuranX (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
also drop the "in English". It isn't spelled Priština in English, that's just the transliteration of the Serbian. "Pristina (also spelled Prishtina or Priština)" will do fine. dab(𒁳) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I will respectfully disagree with the suggestion to drop "in English", as that is the crux of the issue. It is spelled that way in scholarly English language use, whether it is a transliteration or simply correct, the way "naïve" where the i is typeset with twin dots is perceived in some circles as the absolutely correct way to spell it/typeset it in English. Another such case in English is "coöperate". Clearly, the discourse need not pertain to IcelanderBjörk to see diacritics in English. As evidence of this spelling in English, the current online edition of Encyclopedia Britannica will do nicely: Priština is where Britannica lodges the article about this city, and anyone can verify this, as no subscription is necessary to view the article beginning.
The idea of correcting the sentence to be less dull :) I wholly accept. Thanks. --Mareklugtalk 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me :-) But I also think that the addition of "in English" is redundant. The text "Pristina (also spelled Prishtina or Priština)" already indicates that the three forms are used in English-language publications. All article text is supposed to be in English -or reflect English usage- unless specifically indicated otherwise, as in "Pristina (spelled Prishtina in Alb. or Priština in Serb.)"
At the same time, by dropping the "in English" part we avoid the thorny question of whether a specific name/form/spelling is English, and allows us to remain in the much calmer waters of merely reporting English usage :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think this information isn't basic or peripheral? What importance is this? In all honesty it's not important. That is besides the point that from most English speaking sources it is spelled Pristina. It's that simple. I disagree that i needs to be in the article itself. It's just clutter. In the infobox is fine though, as I agreed to here. I don't want to be abrasive in stating the facts, so please tell me why you think it's important. I'd like to work on this with you civilly. I have tried to explain my view and why it is that way, why do you think it's important to be in the article? Why isn't an infobox mention good enough? Beam 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Because, simply, it appears that other editors feel that the distinctions in spelling are important enough to ensure they appear in the text, instead of an auziliary feature. I can't speak for all people, but I know that I'm not alone in disregarding the infobox if i want to know a lot about a subject; I just start reading the article. Explaining that three spellings represent one city is also important, as sometimes seemingly minor spelling differences can indicate different locations (Kalisz and Kalusz comes to mind in my own experiences). It appears that this is not about whether there is consensus to include or not, but how to include, and consensus to include is fairly well founded. ThuranX (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems you have no reason whatsoever other than "some editors feel".... That's what I honestly thought, but I'm interested to see Markle's reason. Beam 10:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't need any further reason. This is not a discussion on to include or not, but HOW to include. Consensus, as shown by numerous editors working on the HOW, not the 'whether', shows consensus for inclusion. That's all we need on this particular issue. You can go run to Arbcom, YET AGAIN, if you feel that strongly that we don't need it. I'm sure the Arbers will looooooove dealing with this triviality, and will point you to WP:CONSENSUS, among other policies. Further, dismissing all my commentary out of hand with a slap at consensus ignores the very salient point about clarity and removing potential confusion. But then, that's harder to argue. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a champion of Consensus sir. Please show me the consensus here. And, I've made the argument against. I support the infobox addition. But cluttering the intro (of all places), imho, isn't a good idea. To suggest ARBCOM is pretty ridiculous! We have solved tougher issues at this very article without the need of such things. Beam 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I repeat I object to the "in English", because it seems to imply Pristina is *not* English. See the first line at Pristina: I can accept replicating that. For anything else, go to Talk:Pristina first. "Pristina (also Prishtina, Priština)" is briefest, and doesn't prejudice the question of "English". dab(𒁳) 05:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Taking into account discussion to date, I refine my proposed edits like so:
Please note direct linking without obfuscating piping was used everywhere, neighboring countries alphabetized to avoid any appearance of POV in that listing, and alternative names were included for all mentioned cities, not just the capital, for consistency. Prizren blessedly has just one name.
Is this satisfactory, or are there further objections? --Mareklugtalk 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's retarded to have it in the intro. But the intro is so supremely and blatantly messed up now that it doesn't matter. Beam 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Pushing for better citation
This article is missing a lot of citations. I have done most of the politics section, and plan on both bringing its content up to the present and citing it. I'm happy to move for the rest of the article, but more help/review is appreciated. If we can get most of this done then we can try for GA status. User:RideABicycle/Signature 17:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Beam posted an economy section on my talk page if that helps. BalkanFever 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
lol but I'm getting pretty pissed off about this article so I'm trying to stay away from it, but you know what.... I'll bring it here. brb Beam 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Its claims are backed up by Russia, India and China.[1] Further, the United States and leading countries in Europe have confirmed that Republic of Kosovo is independent, supporting the declaration.
the usage of the word 'confirm' implies fact, but nationhood is never black or white; especially in this case. the section is best left out. ninety:one 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
yeah, the term isn't "confirm", the term is "recognize". Recognition of independence is (at least partly) performative. dab(𒁳) 05:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Euro currency
Should it not be noted, as it normally is on Wikipedia, that Kosovo is not an official member of the Eurozone? This is normally noted with a note like "Adopted unilaterally; Kosovo is not a formal member of the Eurozone." as it is in the Montenegro page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
mention this in the Economy section Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
well, I agree it belongs in the infobox, as seen on Montenegro. dab(𒁳) 07:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Mitrovica
I have reverted link in intro from Mitrovica back to Kosovska Mitrovica. Reason is simple. We should avoid links to disambiguation pages like Mitrovica. I see no proof for Noah30's explanation that Wikipedia uses only Mitrovica since article is called the other way.
However I did not change article text in order to have balanced intro.
In order to avoid this kind of linking in future I suggest adding comment like this in article:
<--Please do not link this name to article Mitrovica since Mitrovica is disambiguation page-->
Agreed. (and I fixed your Noah link) Beam 12:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Esentially, Mitrovica should be used instead of Mitrovica (scroll over links), because the former leads to the article being referred to, whereas the latter leads to a dab page. Simple piping. BalkanFever
I meant in the future; I'm just clarifying so that this doesn't become a lame and utterly useless edit war like the Pristina problem we had a while ago (when the article location had a diacritic). BalkanFever 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm all about avoiding problems. That Pristina thing pisses me off still, I read stories in CNN to this day, and other places (local newspapers), and it's PRISTINA! Argh. Lol... or not lol. :( Beam 13:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
European Parlament says it recognises Kosovo Independence
Jelko Kacin, European Parliament Reporter about Serbia said in Brussels yesterday that the meeting of the representatives of the European Parliament and Kosovo Parliament in Brussels have marked recognition of Kosovo independence. The flag of ‘independent Kosovo’ was raised on the mast.
Kacin confirmed that to be recognition of Kosovo by the European Parliament.
source: http://www.blic.co.yu/news.php?id=2236
Also:
Brussels: The European Parliament (EP) in Brussels on Wednesday witnessed the Kosovo delegation appearing in EP under the flag of “independent Kosovo”. This was the first time this flag was officially hoisted at one of the EU institutions.
(Doris) Pack said, “Kosovo’s constitution is envisaged under the Ahtisaari plan and we supported the plan with a two-third majority at the EP, and that’s why this meeting is held with Kosovo’s flag.”
source: http://eyugoslavia.com/kosovo/28/kosovo-delegation-appears-in-european-parliament-with-independent-kosovo-flag-22300 --Tubesship (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The headline is "Kosovo Delegation Appears In European Parliament With 'Independent Kosovo' Flag", not "European Parlament recognises Kosovo Independence". But I agree that it looks like it won't be too long before the EU recognizes the RoK. dab(𒁳) 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah obviously it's not a recognition as some wish, but it's definitely leading down that road! Beam 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with you. The article writes: "EU deputies on Kosovo, Kacin: We have recognized independence", Blic(Serbian newspaper). European parliament have recognized the Republic of Kosova as an independent country. Why I am saying this? 2/3 of EP voted in favour of Ahtisaari-plan, and what says Ahtisaari plan? Kosovo should get supervised independence. This is very simple. --Noah30 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
'Pack said, “Kosovo’s constitution is envisaged under the Ahtisaari plan and we supported the plan with a two-third majority at the EP, and that’s why this meeting is held with Kosovo’s flag.”'
and
'This was the first time this flag was officially hoisted at one of the EU institutions.' (This is why we should include THIS info) Kosova200868.114.196.137 (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
European Parliament did not say it will recognize Kosovo's independence. Косовска Митровица (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
please be reasonable. Voting for the Ahtisaari-plan is not recognizing independence. It amounts to saying "it would be nice if Kosovo was legally independent one day". dab(𒁳) 12:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The Economy of Kosovo
The economy of Kosovo has been affected by the Bosnian War and Kosovo War in the 1990s, and recent political instability. Issues with infrastructure such as an unreliable electric grid impede economic process. Nevertheless, in the city of Pristina there have been recent additions of new cafes and shopping malls. Currently Kosovo imports about USD 1.9 billion with exports only at USD 130 million a net deficit of USD 1.77 billion. With projected political stability and a continuing process of diplomatic relations with the West, the Kosovo economy is expected to benefit. The unemployment rate is estimated at 50%.
Natural resources available in Kosovo include 14 billion tons of lignite coal reserves which in the future will be used to fuel a new power plant by the year 2012. Other resources, as British geologists found during a recent survey, include minerals such as deposits of nickel, lead, zinc cadmium, bauxite, and small amounts of gold.
The main area of attention regarding Kosovo's economy has been the infrastructure. According to the World Bank, with political stability and infrastructure improvement the energy sector will bring opportunity for economic advancement. With foreign investment creating jobs for the local population, especially the youth, both poverty and unemployment can be reduced. Also, agriculture has been looked into as another potential source for economic growth. Kosovo's neighbors, including Serbia proper, will play a significant role in future economics. Turkey, as of February 2008, has pledged greater economic ties. Turkey states that nearly 90% of consumer goods found in Kosovo are of Turkish origin, and with massive amounts of capital Kosovo can build a sound infrastructure. Serbia, followed by Macedonia and Turkey respectively, is Kosovo's biggest trading partner. Serbia will play a vital role in Kosovo's economy with both regions depending on each other for trade.
This is by me and BalkanFever. I'd like to incorporate some of the existing economy stuff in the article now, if it's cited. All of the sources I used for this are very recent and reputable. So, let's do it! WOOT! F*** YEAH, THE ECONOMY OF KOSOVO!!!! ;) Beam 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your continued efforts. I have taken the liberty of introducing some tweaks[1], including the striking of a sentence devoid of information value ("assuming things will get better, things will get better"). I support inclusion of the paragraph. Any particular reason why you give values in USD rather than EUR? dab(𒁳) 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I took that part you striked out directly from the sources. Paraphrased of course. I figured a little insight would help a reader swallow the facts. And I used USD because that's what the sources used. Beam 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
well, it's not a big deal. But adapting your source to Wikipedia's voice, the currency should be converted to EUR (because that's the currency used locally), and predictions (such as ";projected political stability") should be attributed. dab(𒁳) 05:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm still going to be working on this shortly, just haven't had the time! Beam 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Serbian churches
Serbian churches are a huge part of the culture thus they should be illustrated with this picture. The picture will be made by me, but the information that is shown will be cited when I reedit the page per your requiest. Concensus is unfair and unwikipedia friendly in Kosovos' case, since this issues is emotional and a lot of Albanians will most likely go against it even tho it perfectly reflects the culture of Kosovo. Are there any concerns?Mike Babic (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I reverted you was that I looked at copyright status. It says that you, the uploader, are the copyright holder. That makes it Original Research, since you made it. I'd also recommend that you upload an image that covers all the religious facilities, not jut churches. What about mosques or synagogues? The section is called "Ethnic and cultural diversity" not "Serbian Orthodox Churches in Kosovo." If you have some sort of image that is from a reputable source covering multiple religions, that would be great. And seriously, no need to push your Serbian POV with this image space. Use an image that represents the whole of "Ethnic and cultural diversity."
If you want to include this image, after you find a source for it that isn't you (with correct copyright status), than you'd still have to discuss it with all the other editors. I remember the last time you or someone else tried to include an image with just Serbian churches in it. It did not gain consensus.
To summarize the reasons I will revert you again: dubious copyright status/OR, undue weight/doesn't represent the section, the consensus was NOT to include an image regarding Serbian Churches in Kosovo and with that being so you'd need to go get consensus PRIOR to including this image (or images about Serbian Orthodox Churches in general) in the article. Beam 15:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to write a whole article by myself. A census was never requisted on this image. My picture is cited, not copyprotected and a great contribution to the religion section.Mike Babic (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
did you actually make that image yourself? it's funny that the official website of the diocese gives no credit to the creator... or if you did create it whilst working there, we might be looking at a COI. ninety:one 11:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
this image is controversial how? It isn't original research by a Wikipedian, we found it on a Serbian govermnemt website. It is clearly undisputed that there are a lot of churches in Kosovo. If you can present a better source, everyone will thank you. I don't see the problem. dab(𒁳) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article need a picture of just Serbian churches? Why not all types of places of worship? Why present a certain POV? Also, I'd prefer to use sources that aren't Mike_Babic. I have no problem with the POV that Serbians feel that they own Kosovo and it's there cradle blah blah blah but I just don't think it has a place in the article. Beam 15:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware that there are any churches in Kosovo that aren't Serbian Orthodox. I don't care if the Serbs think they own Kosovo etc., but the fact that Kosovo has a cultural heritage of Orthodox Christianity is rather independent of that question. dab(𒁳) 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
There are no other places of worship? Really? No Mosques, Roman Catholic Churches, or Synagogues? What? Beam 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
i think it's POV to have the image without comparisons to other religions. if a punter comes along and sees 'oh, they only have a map of churches, they must be the most important' that is not a good thing. plus the copyright status of the image is contested. ninety:one 16:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Well I'm asking: Are there other religious facilities? I'll have to go look it up myself if I get no answer. I've been doing most of my Kosovo research regarding the economy and I'd hate to stop that and use my research time on Churches/Mosques/Synagogues. Beam 16:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Three things:
Orthodox churches in Kosovo
01. “Serbian church” is not a precise term, since there are catholic and protestant churches in Serbia, too. So if a map points to Serbian churches, it should contain what kind of church they are;
02. There is already a image very similar (and better-designed) here in Wikipedia about the borders of the orthodox diocese borders and orthodox churches located in Kosovo (just see the image to the right);
03. What is the real reference from these maps? They should point to a verifiable link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticetnik (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sure the Baptists, the Promise Keepers and the Zen Buddhists have got some basement in Pristina by now. But this is about historic churches, not the yellow pages. Kosovo used to be Ottoman, so you'd expect mosques besides Orthodox churches. But our lack of information on mosques shouldn't prevent us from covering what information we have on Orthodox churches. According to this, there were 607 mosques in Kosovo as of 1993, the majority (>300) dating from Ottoman times (pre 1918), of which some 200 were destroyed or damaged during the war. I don't know how many of these mosques are at all notable, but it would seem that it should be possible to compile a "map of mosques in Kosovo" just as impressive as the map of churches and monasteries. dab(𒁳) 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, dab, but are these really all historic churches? I don't see any indication to that effect. In other parts of the Balkans, most churches definitely tend to be much younger. And even if they are, so what? I really don't see any point in visualising their number. There's nothing special about it. Wherever you go in Europe, every village has at least one church. In many areas it's quite common for a single village to have a dozen little chapels additionally. Since it is uncontroversial that Kosovo always had some level of Christian population, why would anyone expect it to be an exception? I share the feeling that the map, by visually suggesting the multitude of churches was something uncommon and special, will act as insinuating a POV statement that is really not warranted.
Besides, it was just pointed out above that the actual image is a copyvio anyway, so we'll have little choice but to speedy it. (Fair use is obviously not an option here, as it would be replaceable.) Fut.Perf.☼ 06:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad you get what I'm talking about. If the article only presents a graphic representation of one religion, it will imply that only that religion has a major influence. Unless that is true, and there is only one. But without researching I was under the impression that there were a lot of Mosques at the least, as well as a few prominent Catholic churches. I'd just like to be fair in our graphic representation of religion. Beam 17:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
@beam: given that 87% of kosovo is muslim, i'd wager that there's the odd mosque ;) @anticetnik: the image is from http://kosovo.net. the minority xian denomination is catholic, so i'd imagine there are almost no protestants at all ninety:one 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. That's what I figured. Beam 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, they use Pristina in that site. warning (graphic images) And meh, after clicking around there it seems like a propaganda site to me. I don't believe that's a reputable site as far as sources and citations go. Beam 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather call this site as a documentation site, not a propaganda one. For sure, it is covering only one (Serbian) side, but everything is very well illustrated at that site.
@antichetnik: 1. there is a difference between "Serbian churches" and "Churches in Serbia". So "Serbian Churches found in Kosovo" is precise. 2. The other map is better designed. But it covers only 5% of churches. And it has veeeery problematic title. Also, there's no reason to point out only Bogorodica Ljeviška.
I suppose the point is one of irreplaceable cultural heritage in terms of buildings, not active places of worship. It figures that there are enough mosques to accommodate Kosovo's Muslims, but we are discussing the churches because they are rare medieval buildings, not because they are in use. I wish we could detach this point from the "Kosovo and Serbia" question, but it will be difficult, becaus in the Middle Ages (the time these churches were built) Kosovo was, of course, part of the Serbian kingdom. That's 700 years ago now, but that's precisely why these churches are so special. dab(𒁳) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
we'd be hard pushed to explain or convince people that is why the image is there though. ninety:one 21:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Dab, we can't assume that the readership "figures that there are enough mosques", or even figures that Kosovo is muslim. Beam 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Serbian religion is a huge part of history of Kosovo. The picture illustrates the magnitude of this.24.36.19.38 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Meh, what do you mean "huge part of history"? Beam 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The question is "do you have a (contra)argument or not?" Questions such as "what do you mean by huge part of history" are just prolonging the discussion without any sense. Please be constructive. --Ml01172 (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The picture stays then. It is a great condtirution since it clearly shows the extent of Serbian Christian influence in Kosovo.Mike Babic (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Picture need to be deleted because of copyright problem. "Creator" of this image has been earlier suspected by me that he is making copyright violations. "His first pictures" has been deleted because of missing information on its copyright status [2] . Maybe I am mistaking but after this first deletings he has learned how to write false copyright information so new pictures has survived (example:image Cuvari Hristova groba has been deleted on 20 March, but he has recreated picture on 24 and because of new "OK writen copyright information" picture has survived [3]). Now we are having evidence that user:Mike Babic is writing false copyright information because image manastiri is copy of image on site www.kosovo.net (first and second picture). Similar thing he has done with Croatian historical map (Mike Babic, www.croatia-in-english.com). Now I will start action that all pictures created by Mike Babic are deleted from wikipedia and he is banned from "creating" new pictures--Rjecina (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I must admit that I may have endorsed this image prematurely. If we get reliable sources on really remarkable churches, fine, but this appears to be mostly territorial behaviour, viz. showing a map sprinkled with "Serbian" churches. It is true that Kosovo is suffused with Serbian Orthodox heritage, but it is just as true it is suffused with Muslim heritage. No need to enter a graphical arms race on this. dab(𒁳) 08:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, remove the picture immediately. Replace with one that shows ALL signifigant religious institutions as I had suggested. Beam 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy to see you agree with me. I raised the same problem some months ago, but because of the wrong perception you had of me, you were agaisnt everything I wrote or proposed. Yes there are some very old Orthodox churches in Kosovo dating back from 14 and 15 Century, but these were not Serbian but belonged to all the people that lived in Kosovo: Albanian, Serbians, Aromanians etc etc. Later on when the Albanians converted to Islam, these churches began to become exclusively Serbian. As for the moques, in Kosovo you have a mosque in every village despite Albanians being quite secular. In Prishtina and Prizren and some othe cities you have very old moques dating back from 15 and 16th Century. You have also many Catholic (Albanian) churches in Prishtina, Prizren, Gjakova, Peja and many other cities. The maps added by Mike are for political and propaganda purposes. --Noah30 (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. The sooner you realize that when I disgaree with you it's not because I'm some Serbian POV pusher but because i'm a NPOV pusher the better. Beam 15:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Gjeravica/Đeravica
From the history:
(cur) (last) 11:29, 3 June 2008 Beamathan (Talk | contribs) (68,784 bytes) (I believe Gjeravica is the anglocized version of Đeravica. Please try to gain consensus that it isn't before that specific edit. I do agree with your other edit regarding the basin though. :)) (undo)
Beam, "Gjeravica" is the Albanian form. There is no anglicised version. The closest thing to an English form would be "Djeravica" (Dj for Đ) or "Deravica" (drop the diacritic).
That being said, I don't know what we should call it here. Maybe "Đeravica/Gjeravica" since it only appears once. Any thoughts? BalkanFever 12:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, and apology to Ev. I had read that version somewhere and am an asshole for making an assumption. I have gone with the the slashes for now. Beam 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
But I would prefer the Djeravica version eventually. Let's see if there is consensus for that, if not we'll keep the slashes. Beam 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't take GJ and D and make "Djeravica". Gjeravica is the correct name..but if you wish to use the Yugoslavian name (1974) instead of the Kosovar/UNMIK (2000) name "Gjeravica" go right ahead. Also we really got to polish the economy section, it is very confusing, we need more information and more clarity. Kosova200869.29.70.177 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if we can't find an agreeable anglo'd version I say the slashes are good, which I have enacted! Beam 02:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
( 1007 )
Why does this article mention "central Serbia"? I changed that once to [Republic of Serbia] as it SHOULD be. The Central Serbia is an attempt to show Kosova's geographical location towards the center of Serbia (subtle Kosova = Serbia). I think it's non-POV of me to request the [Central Serbia] ---> [Republic of Serbia]. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As Pax explained it on my talk page "Central Serbia" is just what that section of land is called, it's not a comment on the existence of a "South Serbia." Please leave it alone. Beam 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
it is undisputed that Kosovo borders on Central Serbia. This is true regardless of its status. It is disputed whether Kosovo borders on the Republic of Serbia, depending on whether you think it is part of that. dab(𒁳) 12:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Does America (USA) border Canada or Central Canada? Kosova2008
Agree with Kosova2008. Kosovo borders on Republic of Serbia and not Central Serbia. If this is not changed the artice will be pro-Serbian.--Noah30 (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No offense but of course you do because you're pushing your own POV instead of NPOV. Beam 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Canada is not a disputed territory with the United States. Kosovo is a disputed territory with Serbia. From the Serbian perspective, what they deem as the province of Kosovo borders Central Serbia. Please do not respond by arguing that the Albanian claim is more legitimate, I have heard this over and over again and it goes nowhere, because Serbs will respond that from a legal perspective, Kosovo as a province cannot unilaterally separate from Serbia as it was not given the legal ability to separate. The fact remains that the territory is disputed.--R-41 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the division from 1945. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
From a Serbian point of view, Serbia consists of three bits: Vojvodina in the north, Kosovo in the south and Central Serbia in the middle. As Serbia still considers Kosovo to be part of its territory, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to rename Central Serbia - as far as they're concerned it's still in the centre.
From a Kosovar point of view, Kosovo borders Serbia. But it is not up to Kosovo to define the names of Serbia's internal divisions.
All this talk of how the USA borders Canada is irrelevant. However, to carry on the analogy in a ridiculous and hypothetical way - USA borders Alberta; if the Canadian government were to rename Alberta to "North East Canada" then it would still be correct to say that USA borders North East Canada, however geographically daft that may be. Bazonka (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Rule of law section
Hello. I added "dubious" template to a statement under the section "Rule of law". I did this because of many reasons. As I earlier have explained the accuracy of the statement can not be confirmed since we do not have the name of the UN policemen/official that said what has been quoted here. In the article we are writing what some opinionists with an anti-Albanian (Kosovo) bias have written about someone unnamed sayinga about Kosovo. The article is not a realiable source and in addition it claims that someone said something but we do not have any evidence and this is I believe against the Wikipedia rules about reliable sources. In addition I find it strange that we use a quote here but not other places in the article. The quote should be removed and the whole section should be rewritten so it becomes balanced and unbiased. --Noah30 (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No. I feel that if we quote the source that said a UN Official said that, than that is good enough. Beam 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No it is not good enough because the statement could be a fabrication or an exaggeration. We have to do with a very tabloid sentence that should not be included in any Wikipedia article, especially when the accuracy is contested and can not be verified. It's not only Kosovo that has problems with crime, so does all the countries in Balkans but this is described in a more neutral way than in the Kosovo article. E.g. Bulgaria has much bigger problems with crime but no such tabloid, tendentious sentences have been used. FYI: A recent UN report says the crimes rates in Balkans are much lower than in Western Europe. --Noah30 (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI: I know that. FYI: I think you should include that new report, in addition to the other quote. Beam 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
sources sources. Who says it is "contested"? To the best of my knowledge, it is uncontested that Kosovo has appalling crime rates. If this is controversial, point us to the controversy. If there is really an UN report saying there is more crime in Western Europe than in the Balkans, I'd also like to see it (does that study include convictions over speeding, parking offenses and tax avoidance, or just your basic thuggish crimes like theft, homicide and rape?) --dab(𒁳) 16:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No I am not saying that Kosovo and the whole region do not have problems with crime. What I am saying is that we have included a tabloid, tendentious and unverified quote in the rule of law section. Maybe you could first read the section I am refering to and you will undertstand what I am talking about. The quote that I believe should be removed is "In June 2003, a spokesman for the UN police stated that Kosovo "is not a society affected by organized crime, but a society founded on organized crime". It says a UN police said but for the first we can not verify if the police really said this and for the second this is a personal statement and we do not know what this police bases his judgment on. This qoute does not belong to the Kosovo article and should be replaced with a balanced sentence, paragraph describing the problems Kosovo faces with crime in an objective way. For your information let me tell you that it is not true at all that Kosovo has appalling crime rates, but I do not see any point to discuss with you that most probably never have been to Kosovo and make personal statements a la "uncontested" and "everyone know that...". Crime rate in Kosovo is comparable to those in Western Europe. That's a fact. Here you have the article on the UN report: "Surprising as it may be, the Balkan region is one of the safest in Europe" http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/29/europe/balkans.php
It is important we keep our balance. If we extensively discuss crime in Kosovo then we should not favor other countries. Yet this gives us no right to use biased or unreliable sources.--Getoar (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
When I was researching the Economy paragraph I wrote I saw multiple mentions of organized crime being an issue. I say we use that quote, per my research it makes sense. Beam 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes Beam it may make sense but it sounds unencyclopedic and it is a subjective judgment of the situation rather than an objective and balanced. I hope you are not misundertanding me. I am not against mentioning the problems Kosovo have with crime but we can do it in another way where we are encyclopedic and avoid using tabloid, tendentious quotes . I think that we should also mention the parallel structures operating in parts of Kosovo. Have a nice summer --Noah30 (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
First, I don't really like the summer because it's so hot, and for fat people heat is bad. I do like skimpily clad school girls though. Secondly and firstmost (if that makes sense), I don't think that is a tabloid tendentious quote, and think you call it that because you don't like it or don't like what it's saying. It's a sourced quote, and it's relevant to the article. We'll use it because of that. Beam 18:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Noah is right, anonymous quotings (we do not have the name of the UN policemen/official) should be deleted as they are unencyclopedic. There is nothing more to say about it. --Tubesship (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Except it's going to stay in the article because it's sourced and cited properly. Now there's nothing more to say about it! Beam 13:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Images
Of 9 images on this page, 9 (100%) are maps, many of them are placed in unrelated sections. Is it ok? What is the point of using two similar maps of ethnic composition, the map of Kosovo Vilayet, the map of Kosovo's position within SFRY etc? Many of them could well be moved to the History of Kosovo etc. I think we should use photos more. Furthermore, the article is currently cluttered with maps, so that the "edit" buttons of the first ten subsections have been displaced, which makes the article hard to edit. Is it possible to move some of them to the left? Colchicum (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Anything fom this gallery? Colchicum (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You can remove the last two, forget moving them to the left. The "CountriesRecognizingKosovo" is not needed in this article, there is a whole article (actually more than 1) dedicated to that whole situation. And we don't need an ethnicity map, there should be an article on Kosovo's ethnicity. Beam 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, too many maps. There are tho about ethnicity, one suffies. There could be some work on the historical maps, probably all are not needed (instead, history article). The images from the gallery at the bottom could be placed in the corresponding sections (library to education, costumes to culture etc.) --Tone 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've put captions under all of the images, except the one with the two girls. It needs one. BalkanFever 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need the map in the third infobox? What is it for? To make some point? Well, I don't care much, but it is too large. Colchicum (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if we wanted any infoboxes we had to have 3 infoboxes.... you missed it it was good times. Beam 11:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it is ok that we have 3 infoboxes (though I hope that eventually there will be only one). I mean that the map in the third infobox is redundant and too large. The third infobox without a map is perfectly ok with me. Colchicum (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, just know that each map was chosen to show that particular view point. Beam 17:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
national anthem
do we need to say that the anthem has no words? ninety:one 15:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Why so? It doesn't hurt. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The less clutter the better Ari. Beam 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I do understand this but I don't think it is common to have a national anthem with no words. It should be mentioned in the Republic of Kosovo section or anywhere something like, "to demonstrate multi-ethnicity the Kosovar Government adopted the Europa anthem [date here] which has no words to prevent excluding anyone...". I think it's a useful piece of information, and of course we don't have to say "to demonstrate multi-ethnicity" even though that is the reason for a wordless hymn (anthem) as the Europeans call it. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it is fairly common. The former Russian anthem had no lyrics in 1990-2000. Colchicum (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Not very common, but as Marcha Real article says, there are some. In any case, the above argumentation is already in the article about the anthem and this is fine. We don't want to make the basic article on Kosovo too long. --Tone 17:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Mistakes
The sentence "The Slavic migrations reached the Balkans in the 6th to 7th century." is repeated 2 times in the "Early history". I can not change it. How does this work, please?Parissorbonne (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
THE BEGGINIG IS NOT NEUTRAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.237.60 (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it's pretty neutral. What would you, from the land of Serbia, suggest as a better "neutral" opening? Beam 14:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Its ok now...someone fixed it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.237.60 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you were talking about now. Beam 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Too much informationj, some of which do not fit
About the part talking about the Ottoman Kosovo, there isn't actually that period, because it was part of Ottoman Serbia then. Some of the parts in the article must be merged to another part of the article. Joe9320 (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Joe, regardless of the degree of autonomy any given region may have had in regard to other political entities or cultural communities, the different periods of a specific region's history can always be the subject of independent study. We aim at merely reflecting the manner in which the subjects are approached in reliable publications. - As Beam asked above, could you specify exactly what you have in mind ? - Regards, Ev (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
did he just say that Kosova was part of Serbia during the Ottoman times? I hope to God he didn't just say that. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
HAHA, Ottoman Serbia... there was no such thing as 'Ottoman Serbia.' The empire was based on provinces (vilayet) of which Kosovo was one: Kosova Vilayeti in Turkish. Here's a book on it by a Turkish author
if there was "no such thing as 'Ottoman Serbia.'", why do we have an article on Ottoman Serbia? --dab(𒁳) 08:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Dab you have got to be SHITTING me. Wikipedia is not GOD, it's just another encyclopedia. That link takes you to an article about the battle of kosovo...I'm just glad that whomever wrote that piece of propaganda wrote it as Serbs vs Turks when in reality it was Albanians,Serbs,Macedonians, Hunagarians, etc all of Balkans against Turks. AGAIN, "ottoman serbia" what a joke. Kosova2008 (talk)
There is NO continuity between medieval Serbia and today's Serbia. This is a fact that is acknowledged by most historians. --NOAH (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (new nick)
You are mixing issues. What I said was that the medieval Serbian state and the Republic of Serbia today are not the same since there is not contiunity between this two states, but I am NOT saying that today's Serbs are not decendents of Serbs that inhabited Balkans in 13. Century. Noel malcolm, a Balkans expert says: "no more continuity between the medieval Serbian state and today's Serbia than there is between the Byzantine Empire and Greece." Ottoman Serbia is something made up by the authors to describe today's Serbia as part of Ottoman empire. --NOAH (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as 'Ottoman Serbia' as anyone who knows two bits about the Ottoman Empire knows that it wasn't a federal state but a state composed of provinces, or vilayet(s). The Kingdom of Serbia ceased to be when it was conquered by the Ottomans and was divided by the Ottomans into several different provinces. There is no continuity between the Kingdom of Serbia of the 1300s and the Republic of Serbia today. Hence, no continuity of 'Ottoman Kosovo being a part of Ottoman Serbia.' One cannot be a part of something which did not exist. Everything else is merely an illusion. --alchaemia (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone put down their nationalism and bias for a second. Ottoman Serbia simply refers to the land which we call Serbia (including Kosovo in this instance) during the Ottoman Empire's reign. That's it. That's all it is. No need to politicize it or to flip kittens. Beam 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Infoboxes
I believe that the first infobox should be merged with the second as they refer to the same thing; despite some dispute, I believe that the declaration of independence should, to an extent be recognized. The region of Kosovo referred to in the first infobox has now become the Republic of Kosovo. This will also make the article easier to read without sacrificing depth of information. Audirs8 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It's still disputed. Which is why we have all of those infoboxes. Eventually, I hope, it will be resolved one way or the other which will let Wikipedia show it resolved as well. Beam 14:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is it so difficult to understand "it's disputed"? We will only be able to reconsider the current organisation of this article once Kosovo joins the UN, or is recognized by a UN resolution. This will be possible once Russia and China agree to forgo their veto. At that point, even if Serbia may still not recognize Kosovo, Kosovo will have the status of Cyprus (recognized by everyone but Turkey), and we'll be able to do without the multiple infoboxes. Until that day, we're stuck with treating the competing views on an equal footing. dab(𒁳) 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
The current map is not article worthy. We need a better map such as [4] or [5].
IO could make a better map then that, you know. I may not be a licensed cartogfrapher, but I am more accurate. Joe9320 (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, the introduction needs work. There is so much Albanian and Serbian translation going on that it looks sloppy and messy.
I propose this as the second paragraph of the introduction"
"In February 2008, the Assembly of Kosovo declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo. However, Serbia claims Kosovo as its' province. The declaration of independence has received world attention and mixed reactions amongst countries. The Assembly of Kosovo is the main legislative body in Kosovo, whereas the Republic of Serbia retains sovereignty in the areas with large Serbian majority such as Northern Kosovo. Politically Kosovo is overseen by UN (UNMIK) and in the future by EU (EULEX)." --Kosova2008 (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Meh. I'll re read it again I guess, but I'm not impressed. Beam 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a good addition. We should work on wording a bit but I think it is relevant to mention the de facto separation of north and the rest and the Eulex mission. --Tone 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I just got rid of the Alb and Ser translations, those are quite annoying and I am not sure the reader really cares what it looks like in Albanian/Serbian. I also added the "world attention and mixed reactions" and that should lead to the the International Reactions to Kosovo's DOI 2008 page instead of having "some support" and "some oppose" which both links lead to the same page. On my paragraph it also mentions UN and EU because they are part of it in a sense. This article needs much more work, please let's change the map to
I don't know. I am agianst using this formualation "Serbia retains sovereignty in the areas". It is not Serbia that controlles these areas but Kosovo Serbs and there is a big difference between Kosovo Serbs and the country Serbia. We can not say Serbia has any kind of sovregnity over Kosovo since they do not have any police or military personell in Kosovo. --Noah30 (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Noah30, Serbia retains control by paying wages of 150-300 EUR to Kosovar minorities that take orders from Belgrade...this isn't news, it's a fact. I think the MAP needs to change ASAP, the one we have doesn't have anything that a person can reference to find the location of Kosova / Kosovo. The map I provided (the CIA one) does just that and has the names in Alb/Ser (since it's disputed); I can understand someone will object because Kosova in that map looks independent..so I would be okay if someone changed the borders to dashed lines etc. --Kosova2008 (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer and I agree with you that the map should be replaced with the CIA map but the CIA map should not be changed. No dashed lines. --Noah30 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not that I disagree it's just that other users want this article to be about the dispute between Republic of Serbia and Republic of Kosova and therefore that map represents Kosova as an independent Republic; that flashes PROBLEM. This article is very cluttered and messy..ROC TAIWAN is a disputed country between China and Tiwan...why does their page say "Republic of Taiwan" but Kosova's page reads, "Kosovo, a disputed..."? Kosova2008 (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I know why... Serbian Wikipedians are overrepresented here while Wikipedians from Kosovo can you count in one hand.. me, you, Getoar and one or two others. Very sad but nothing we can do. Kalofsh bukur në Kosovën e pavarur (nëse nuk je atje kur të shkosh)--Noah30 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's too bad that you feel like that, it's not a good sign. Beam 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we have discussed about that before. There are much, much more Albanian Wikipedians than Serbian on this talk page. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Such tagging of non-Albanians as some sort of "traitors" is really (ethnic) hate speech. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
How can you call it hate speech? I just made an answer based on mine but also others observations. Everyone knows that most Serbs are very revisionist when it comes to Kosovo's Albanian population and Albanian character. The Serbian version of the history of Kosovo differs very from what is commonly accepted. Most Serbian children learn at school that Kosovo had Serbian majority until 1945 and then some years later Tito opened the border and Albanians from Albania flooded Kosovo. This is NOT true but most Serbs are 100 % sure that this is true and happened and they use every occasion to distribute this version of the history of Kosovo. You have also some Albanians that make some ridiculous claims but compared to the number of Serbs they are very few. Revisionist versions of the history of Kosovo are even supported by Serbian government at all levels. Pax, I hope you did not get offended by my comments and wish you a nice summer. --Noah30 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty bigoted to say those things. Things like "Everyone knows that most Serbs are very revisionist." Plus it's no secret what your pov is and that you push it hard. Please try to be civil towards those who have different view points. I'd personally appreciate it. Beam 18:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not know that Pax had appointed a lawyer. I don't have any POV, I just want the Kosovo article as any other article on Wikipedia to reflect the reality. Beam, I was away for a while but I was informed that you were blocked for disturbing edits on the Kosovo article. I suppose this was done because of your pro-Serbian edits since you all the time supports Serbian Wikipedians. I did say Serbs are revisionist only when it comes to Kosovo and not as you claim Serbs being revisionists in general. To balance my views I did also underline that you have revisionist among Albanians as well but very few compared to the Serbians, and the obvious reason is that revisionism is main stream in Serbian, unlike in Kosovo. --Noah30 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have never been rightfully blocked from a Kosovo article other than a 3RR block once. And I've never, NOT ONCE, made a "pro-Serbian" edit. And neither have I made a "pro-Albanian" edit. But thankfully I have been called both a "Pro-Albanian", by users like Mike-Babic, and a "Pro-Serbian", by users like you and Tubeship, repeatedly. And this is a good thing because I know that as long as those of the POV pushing ilk don't like me or my edits that I am doing a good thing. And I will continue, hopefully, to always and forever push the only acceptable POV, that of neutrality. :) Beam 19:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If it's true that you have never been blocked from Kosovo article than I apologise for saying you were (You were topic banned but this was lifted after making a heartbreaking plea). I hope you will use the summer to read more about the Balkans and Kosovo and why not make a trip to the Republic of Kosovo. Even though you, according to me make pro-Serb edits, you will get a greate welcome because you are an American. In addition to delicious hamburgers/pleskavica, we also make great salads that are recommended for those having problems with weight. --Noah30 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I might be going to visit my family in Germany later this Summer and if time provides I'd love to visit the Balkans. And I'm constantly reading up on the Balkans, it's quite interesting. The whole role that the Balkans had in WW1 is enough for any history buff to salivate over. Oh and it's not a weight problem, I like being fat! Beam 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can call it hate speech, Noah, because that is precisely that which it is. If there is a citizen loyal to Serbia, of whatever religious background or ethnic origins he/she is, it is highly normal to act like that. Speech like that automatically makes them as if they are just some sort of stupid traitors to the Democratic Nation of Kosova who are plainly manipulated by Belgrade for political use, without any notion of conscience, a soul or an IQ over 90. That kind of speech in Kosovo really does contribute to the ongoing discrimination of minorities.
Now, your next sentence reveals that you have an incredibly inherently POV opinion, and do allow me to think that this is proper opinion, so much, much more unbalanced than POv-ish-good-old myself. The notion is not only stereotypic towards Serbs, but as completely unsupported by some citation or source, is even outrageous.
Most Serbian children learn at school that Kosovo had Serbian majority until 1945 and then some years later Tito opened the border and Albanians from Albania flooded Kosovo.
Your problem, I think, is actually ignorance; and ignorance, as always with nonsensical and stupid conflicts like this, is the cause of the Serbo-Albanian conflict, two - one might actually be shocked by the following statement of mine, but as always, his reaction would be fueled by ignorance and irrational emotions - very close and deeply connected peoples. I can guarantee to you by my, Big Papa Smurf's, Aragorn's, or Nelson Mendela's life, that your statement is nothing else than blatantly false. I call you to visit any sort of Serbian school, e-mail the Ministry of Education, or ask any Serb at all, and you shall see that you are not correct. As I understood before, you were supposed to have been to a Serbian school yourself, so it pretty much does comes as a shock to me that you make statements like these.
This is NOT true but most Serbs are 100 % sure that this is true and happened and they use every occasion to distribute this version of the history of Kosovo.
That its not true, I don't think anyone needs pointing out, but the latter part of your sentence is an extension of the absurd fallaciousness you exposed before.
You have also some Albanians that make some ridiculous claims but compared to the number of Serbs they are very few.
Really? You have counted them or what? I haven't, and I find their claims completely equally absurd.
Revisionist versions of the history of Kosovo are even supported by Serbian government at all levels.
This statements makes me wonder whether I should really hold any sort of further discussion with you at all, as it even greatly exceeds some of the oddities you have stated before.
Pax, I hope you did not get offended by my comments and wish you a nice summer.
I never get any offense, and neither do I get it right now. Thank you for the wish, and I wish the same to you, but your recent statements have opened me some intense questions on your exceedingly controversial attitudes, and the problem is your overconfidence in them, rather than just statements. For instance, Serbian nationalists have often claimed me the same thing. They claim how there are only a few Serbian revisionists, and how most Albanians (perhaps they had invented miniature bots that infiltrate an entire ethnic group, spreading out through the blood system, and attaching to the victims' neurons eventually probing out information from their psyche?) believe in revisionist history and how the Shquiptar-dominated provisional institutions of self-government in Kosovo support nationalist-driven irredentism on all levels, claiming how Albanians continually lived in Kosovo for 100,000 years and formed a 99% majority before evil Uruk-Serb colonisations from the Dark Lands. What's more, the Serbian ultra-chauvinist imbecilic paranoia has actual basis if we read here the fallacious idiotic propaganda the Kosovo Ministry for Tourism did, and I'd like you to supplement me with some evidence for the Serbian side. This altogether - and no offense intended - makes me deeply wonder whether I can, the same way, consider you an Albanian nationalist or not... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I still stand by what I have said previously and here I provide a link to SANU (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts): http://www.sanu.ac.yu/Eng/News/kosovo.htm. This link contains revisionism, revisionism and yet again revisionsim. Those who write the books children use at schools in Serbia are members of SANU. I see you mention Kosovo Ministry of Tourism, but I don't know if I can trust B92 anymore. They have become very pro-Government and we have here at Wikipedia revealed that B92 published a false news about a UN report mentioning Albanian crime. From know on I prefer BalkanInsight rather than the new "outlet" Tanjug/B92. Here you have the website http://www.visitkosova.org/english/ but I can not find any of the things B92 mentions. Relief, you can NOT consider me an Albanian nationalist but I speak up if I see injustice. Unfortunately I don't have time to continue discussion about Serbian revisionism but I may come back another time. --Noah30 (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering that B92 was set ablaze during the Anti-Kosovo independence demonstrations and that it is constantly on the run by the Patriots, I fail to see why could B92 be pro-government, or pro-any. They are plainly neutral. You cannot see it on the official website, but you can probably remember the entire fuzz, as the Serbian Foreign Ministry lodged an official protest with UNMIK and UNESCO regarding this falsification. Perhaps you could clarify that on UN report?
You stand by what you have said previously and base it on what? Do you have a previous assumption, do you have any proof? In the meantime, I suggest you to go and acquire Serbian school textbooks or any school or teacher, and you shall see how wrong you are for yourself. The reason for this strict reaction of mine is that ignorance is here evidently the problem, and ignorance is, as always, the true cause of all conflicts - including the Kosovo problem.
I'm afraid that you are a bit incorrect. The textbooks in Serbia are approved by the Ministry of Education, and not the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. It is, if I understand well, in every county in the world. I have taken the liberty to acquire this morning myself Serbian textbooks for the 8th grade of elementary school and 3rd & 4th grades of High School. I found no such thing you claim. Tomorrow morning I shall attempt to acquire University textbooks, but with their information going further in depth, chances of finding such ridiculous fallacy are exceedingly low.
Instead of providing a link and claiming it contains revisionism, revisionism and again revisionism, perhaps you could point out precise examples? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, why don't we change the map? Does this page need editprotec or something? Kosova2008 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Section Break: Map
Pax and Noah, please go to either of your talk pages for this, not here. Kosova2008, can I please ask why we should change the map? Sorry if you have to repeat yourself, but the above section is basically a discussion between you and Noah, and then Noah and Pax, with a sprinkle of Beam in between. So, the map should be changed because......BalkanFever 12:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is themed at "disputed" between Albanians of Kosova and Serbs of Serbia so we present both sides, this map is exlusively in Serbian (city names). B) It's hard to reference physically where Kosova / Kosovo is because the map is ugly, C) My map has names as Alb/Ser D)Much easier to find Kosova
and I said that the CIA map (the one I proposed) has Kosova with permenant borders (independent state) so I would be okay to make the borders dashed or in a way which doesn't present Kosova as an independent country in the name of nPOV. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If I understood, English language uses Serbian naming, so that's the reason? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We should use maps with both Albanian and Serbian names, and not only maps with Serbian names. Most of the places in Kosovo have to names and there is no doubt about which version is used most. The Albanian names are used by over 90 % while the Serbian names by less than 10 %. Many in Kosovo do not know the Serbian names and if someone prints a map from Wikipedia and goes to Kosovo and asks where is Urosevac, everyone will say we don't know, but if that person asks where Ferizaj is then everyone will have the answer. Both Albanian and Serbian names are official in Kosovo and used by UN based on 1244 but also according to the Constitution of Kosovo, Albanian language and Serbian language are both official. I give my support to Kosova2008's efforts to replace the current map with a map with both Albanian and Serbina names. --Noah30 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a tour guide for a trip to Kosovo. We try to use the names that the English speaking peoples of the world, the users of en.WP, would use. Beam 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Oh and according to 1244 Kosovo is a province of Serbia. Just saying ;) Beam 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Once more you make clear pro-Serb comments, and you are allowed to do that, BUT please don't come and tell us that you are neutral, because you aren't. Your answer is very special. You say "names that the English speaking peoples of the world, the users of en.WP, would use". How do we know what names people would use? Or are we Wikipedians supposed to look into a crystal ball and make assumptions. The main rule for Wikipedia is to use the names that are used by the locals and the locals in 92 % of the cases in Kosovo are Albanians, ditto Albanian names should be used. To avoid confusion we should use both Albanian and Serbian. Serbia is not mentioned in resolution 1244, but only Yugoslavia + Kosovo is recognized independent by 42 countries including the vast majority of European countries. In the end I would appreciate if you avoided speaking on behalf of Wikipedia like it sounds sometimes. From now on I will try to only discuss issues and not other things. --Noah30 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
When you say "Yugoslavia", let's keep on mind that it's the direct legal (and in every other way) predecessor of Serbia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and not the greater Yugoslavia. It is also noteworthy to mention that the documents UNSCR 1244 calls upon and relates to indeed do mention "Republic of Serbia" (e.g. Rambouillet, just to name an example). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Noah30, I really find it excessively unlikely that anyone at all (except some kid perhaps) that couldn't read Serbian spelling. For one thing, all other things aside, majority of Kosovo indeed is Serbian-understanding (to avoid usage of the term "-speakable"). Next to that, as you say, in all places where there are two versions, both are there. I'll take no side, but I do know that this is the English Wikipedia, and precisely because of that we shall not rename this article to Kosova/Kosove/Kosovo, but it shall indeed remain Kosovo. BTW, the Constitution of Kosovo is not yet in strength. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wish the majority in Kosovo were Serbian-understanding since we could have saved a lot of money when we translate different documents into/from Serbian, but that is unfortunately not the truth. From 1990 no one learned Serbian and the generation that now is turning around 30 can not speak Serbian and it is the generation that occupies many important postitions. Also those who studied before 1990 can not speak very well and after almost 10 years of not practising Serbian they have completely forgot the language. Only old people like my father that have worked with Serbs or Serbian/Bosnjak/Croatian-speaking people in public companies can speak Serbian but they are also forgetting the language. An example: I was sitting in a bar in Prishtina with a foreigner and two young Albanian girls. The foreigner says "I would like to visit Urosevac and Pec" and believe me or not the two Albanian girls did not know what cities these were. Maybe you have seen Albanian politicians speak Serbian well and do you know what is the reason? Many of them were educated in Belgrade and had in addition Serbian wifes or girlfriends. --Noah30 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I know that, but every Kosovo Albanian I met simply said "my Serbian is a little rusty right now", and I know from personal knowledge that Ramush Haradinaj, Hashim Thaci, Fatmir Sejdiju and all other statesmen and political leaders (and journalists) speak it perfectly (maybe Vlasi the best). And it is very odd to me when I remember what my trip to Austria did to my German language, or even a stay in Greece, to consider that something like that can actually happen. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Vlasi speaks best because he was if I remember correctly the leader of the Communist party of Kosovo and he was and is still married to a Bosnjak. You have also Alush Gashi, currently Minister of Health, who was married to a Serbian woman and had children. Have heard that his daughter worked for B92 in Serbian in Belgrade, and you have many others like Idriz Ajeti etc, but most Albanians who say the speak Serbian do not speak the language well. But they learned from Kosovo Serbs and the Kosovo Serb dialect is not the best one based on what I have heard. I have also read about a lot of stigma in Belgrade against how Kosovo Serbs speak. There is no doubt that more Albanians speak Serbian than Serbs who speak Albanian, but most of those under 40 years old can not speak Serbian. It will take time to get people to understand that it is an advantage to speak as many languages as possible, and especially a Slavic language like Serbian or call it Croatian if you want, since we are surrounded by Slavic countries. But in Kosovo Serbian language is still associated with the war crimes, massacres, aggression, superiority etc. Hopefully things will change in the close future, but the political scene in Belgrade isn't that promising. After this long discussion I hope we have come to the conclusion that we should have both Albanian and Serbian names on the map. This is the best solution I believe since it is a compromise and Albanian and Serbian are equal on the map. Please support this and put and end to the discussion. --Noah30 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No. See my comments below. Beam 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
What pro-serb comments? Yes, WP is supposed to figure that out! We do it through a variety of ways. See the Pristina discussion for how we figured out that one. Go check out Burma for ways we try to figure out the English usage there. That's precisely what we do here at en.wp. As an aside 1244 mentions Yugoslavia, and Serbia inherited Yugoslavia's designation including it's UN seat if I'm not mistaken. And I was just letting you know what we do at Wikipedia, we try to use the English version. Beam 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In precise, the documents relating mention the Republic of Serbia also, and international treaties have also predetermined Montenegro's secession and identified Serbia as the legal upholder of all Kosovo-related norms. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Calling every single editor that disagrees with you pro-Serb veers on trolling. Please stop. We should get some other opinions on the map though. Maybe Dab, Tone and the others? BalkanFever 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Every editor? I have only been discussing with Beam and I don't know why, maybe it is the human nature, but it bothers me when someone says something that do not corrospondent with what he/she does. --Noah30 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated earlier, we should have both Albanian and Serbian names on the map and this is the only logical solution. We can not pretend as if Albanians and their way of calling cities and places did not exsist. By the way: UN uses both names.--Noah30 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, we should use the English version in the article. That's the only logical solution. And if there isn't an "english version" we use the version used in English (which is the English version anyway lol). And I'm waiting for you to show me one thing I've said that is "Pro-Serb." I'd also wouldn't mind an apology for your constant accusations and insulting mannerisms put forth towards me. If not, that's ok, just don't continue to do it please. Beam 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I may give an apology when the Sahara desert is covered by snow. You are new here do not know the Wikipedia rules about names. Go and read them. Show you what is pro-Serb??? I have done it a plenty of times and don't want to use more time. The comment I am answering is pro-Serb since you are discriminating Albanian namings in Kosovo. The map will be changed once we reach an agreement, with or without you. --Noah30 (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Noah, myself, Tone, BalkanFever, Pax, Dab, and others who are able to show neutrality (regardless of their personal feelings), will most likely agree with me more times than not on this page. That's because they, like me, try their hardest to stick to the theory of NPOV on Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say, but you might have to try it yourself. Beam 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This is becoming trolling and I have no plans to feed trolls. All discussion started here are deviating and because of one person. Tone, you as a devoted and respected editor, please help us. I amd not worried that editors have pro-Serb bias, but I am more worried about editors who soon are developing from pro-Serb bias to Albanophobia.--Noah30 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I insist that you stop accusing me of things whether it be pro-serb or trolling or now, and this is a new one, Albanophobia. Please stop. Beam 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find my comment ?? --Kosova2008 (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Section Break 2
I understand that this is getting heated but please reply in an orderly manner. Instead of replying inbetween 2 comments please reply last but add "@beam" or "@noah30", it's hard to check every date to see who said what after what comment.
Pax: What you speak of is not true. Noah summarized it perfectly well, only people 40 and up will be able to speak some to understandable Serbian. From 1988 and up Kosovar school started to teach English as a protest to Milosevic throwing us out of schools and we had to gather in homes to get an education illegally. Currently in Kosovar schools they all operate in Albanian but it is required after 3rd or 5th grade to learn English (secondary). I know now in private colleges they have started exclusively all English; not all colleges although.
The map of this article needs to present reality, not 1974, or 1388. Seeing how this article isn't completely locked up why isn't an established administrator changing it? Kosova2008 (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kosova2008, not because he comes from the same country as me but because I think it is unacceptable for Wikipedia English to discriminate Albanian language on the map. Albanian + Serbian names is a fair and just solution. On the map the name "Kosovska Mitrovica" has been used, but in the English language only Mitrovica is used without Kosovska prefix. This proves there is no consistency in what some of the editors opposing Albanian names says. --Noah30 (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what Albanians or Serbians speak. We should use the English version. We should make a map with the English usage of the names of places. Pristina should be used instead of some other version etc. Of course I don't look forward to a place by place battle, but whatever. In the mean time if you can find a map with both, I have no problem using that map. None. Don't sully the article with dispute tags or the like in the mean time, please. Beam 12:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
We can both use Prishtina and Pristina in the map, as CIA has done. Dispute tags can be added when a discussion is going an and the names are disputed by editors/readers taking part in the discussion. English version? Kosovo or Serbia never were part of the British Empire so I don't think the places ever had English names. During the Kosovo war, international media used Serbian official names but these are not English names. 1911 Enc. Britannica uses Prishtina and this must be the English version, or what?? --Noah30 (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Back then it was Turkish-inspired. Today it's Serbian-. In a hundred years or so, it might become Albanian-. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy.... did you do as I ask? At all? Go look at K2k8's talk page. Go look at BalkanFever's talk page, and then feel free to stop insulting me and removing my helpful comments from your talk page as spam. Beam 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh forget it, I'll bring that discussion to this talk page that way you don't have to go anywhere else for your up to date news. And you can make enlightened decisions. Beam 13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Section Break 3 - RE: Map
As proposed by Kosova2008 on BalkanFever's talk page. I support this map. It uses the consensus version of Pristina (accepted English version) and as proposed by Noah and Kosova2008 it uses Albanian and Serbian names for the rest. It's not perfect, but if it will alleviate some strife coming from some editors than so be it. Beam 13:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh and it coolly avoids any problems over the labeling of the map. Very nice K2k8. Beam 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. And it is readable, unlike the current one. Colchicum (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. Though Prizren seems to have the same spelling in both languages, according to the map (and spelled two times, maybe redundant or consistent with the others, can't decide...). But otherwise, it's a good solution for the time being. --Tone 13:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. The map is readable and uses names in both Albanian and Serbian. A neutral map. --Noah30 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - not because of the placenames, but because the other map is a hundred times more informative with its geographical detail. It's just a much more professional map. By the way, are you guys aware it's actually an SVG map, that means its legends are editable? If there was consensus to do so, we could relatively easily make a new version of the detailed map with spellings exchanged. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: How is the other map "hundred times more informative" when you can't see a thing until you zoom in? Not to mention the reference mechanism is of the outter space, you have no clue where Kosovo is, Albania, Serbia, or anything on that map. Every time I look at that map I feel like I'm looking at the stars, lots of things going on but no clear direction real information. [[User:Kosova2008|Ari]] ([[User talk:Kosova2008|talk]]) (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Do it and post it here, the quicker the better to be honest. I'm sick of this holding up the article and the supports here would surely support a newly labeled, and much more informative map. I'll also consider having sex with you if you do it. Beam 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fix your link. And if it's the 2nd map on BalkansFever's page, than no I don't. Beam 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Future Perfect above. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If Fut Per makes that map he speaks of I support his, until then I support this one. Beam 01:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support This map clearly shows Kosovo how it is. Also this map isn't meant to be representing Kosovo Geographically. That other map should be used when explaining the geography of Kosovo. So disregard opposition as groundlessIjanderson977 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm not a contributor to this article, and couldn't care less about which foreign language people use in Kosovo. But this is the English wikipedia, so maps should have only the English names of minor towns on them. the onjly common language to all editors here is english, including albanian names serves only a tiny minnority, while reducing the clarity of the map. That English chooses to take the serbian names is maybe unfortunate, but it is not wikipedia's place to change this.Yobmod (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: I consider your objection groundless. First of all the English language does not "chose" anything. Secondly, the map being proposed has more clarity and is more appealing. Thirdly, Kosovar cities and towns have always had their names but Serbia was the one creating the maps and therefore WP and news agencies have used Serbian names, even though the names of these towns was not so. Fourthly, Kosova in WP is introduced as "disputed territory" and since we present both sides this article needs to reflect on the map with both Alb/Ser. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There are no English names of minor towns. Even Pristina is a borderline case. Colchicum (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Can we finalize this editprotect already? It's been a week or two.Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Finally someone brings a political map, instead of a geographical one. People have the right to see Kosovo as it is on the map, the current map is inadequate.--Sulmues 22:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)
Its far how Albanian nationalists who seem to dominate the wikipedia in here and outnumber other common sense spread about serbia. Well, this is not a serbian source, nor does it come from (even close) pro-serbian ranks ether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.200.11 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Man, talk about ethnic cleansing :),just kidding --CD 10:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
NONONO THANK YOU...This only proves that Albania was what the Serbian Propagandist's call "ethic albania". Albanians land are from CAMERIA (norther Greece) to Southern Serbia, half of macedonia, and parts of Montenegro. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What is your goal what do you want? Spreading Albanian chauvinism and propaganda?
I think these maps are more trustable: 1, 2, 3, 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticetnik (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an entirely reliable ethnic map for the 19th century Balkans, basically because Ottoman census data don't say anything about ethnicity and because this is a politicized issue. Each map is a POV of a certain researcher, more or less impartial. It is not up to us to decide which map is more reliable. Therefore I suggest that we don't use such historical maps here at all, at least without a disclaimer and a reference supporting the data presented on the map. Colchicum (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Turkish censuses, as Serbian before, list names of residents, and I asure you that there is evident diference between a Slavic and notslavic name.
Neither do I, but I think that everyone here agrees that Serbs lived until not long in Kosovo as a majority. It is claimed by history, by science, by the world. Every single one non-Albanian scholar including many Albanains ones throught the entire history new this. There is only one exception today, and that is poor journalist Noel Malcolm, an Albanian lobbyst, whose work is not about history, but modern politics. Why should he overpower the globe? Hiding this evident fact here on the Wikipedia is spreading Albanian revisionism or better said tolerating it while Serb revisionism is sanctioned successfuly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.199.83 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
This Hungarian map is one of those that consider the Moslem Serbs in there, Albanized Serbs. Many scholars thought that Kosovo was populated by Albanized Serbs (as the British National Geographic wrote even how northern Albania are Albanized Serbs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.199.83 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how the centuries-old demographics is particularly relevant now. And no, not everyone agrees on this even here, let alone in reliable sources. Therefore per WP:NPOV we cannot prefer a single version. By the way, I am afraid you grossly overestimate the Albanian presence on the web. There are far more Serbs here. Colchicum (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
And yes, even if they were 100% Serbs and decided to secede, this wouldn't change a thing. What is important is their will, not their genes. Colchicum (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
You could also say that you fail to see why is history relevant now. Then I suggest to remove the entire section and nominate the Kosovo history-related articles for deletion. Not everyone agrees, because they use Albanian nationalistic propaganda. If its true as you say, then the Wikipedia is heavy pushed towards the Albanian POV. In reliable sources (from Amy Boue across Mary E. Durham over Milan Sufflay to Jovan Cvijic), there is an absolute consensus on what you perceive as a "pro-Serbian" view. I find it very unlikely that there was some sort of a 1,000-year long anti-Albanian conspiracy in which circles of London, Moscow, Paris, the Holy See and Athens are conducting an organized pro-Serbian campaign to "decrease Albanian soil". According to your interpretation of WP:NPOV, we must put on the Adolf Hitler an open ending to his life, because there is no consensus whether he committed suicide or continued to live in occupied Germany as a most influential person for the Soviets. Therefore we cannot prefer a single version and must not point out any sort of Hitler's demise. I was not talking about the web, but about Kosovorelated articles this one speficificaly.
What are you talking about? What does this independence have to do with revisionism? I am tolking about the culturocide that's been going on and still is this moment we are speaking. Ignoring a culturocide means at the very same time deneing its very existance.
P.S. Apparently, such will of the people on a matter is relevant only here and nowhere else in the world, and what's more, only that of one ethnicity Albanian, non-Albanians [myself] irrelevant, posibly because they belong to the "wrong" ethnic group - so yes, their genes, or better said national identification, seem to matter very much. Just as it does matter because those who suport independence of Kosovo often point out Albanian irredenta, claiming Kosovo belongs to Albania on the basis of what the nationalists call "Ethnic Albania", sea that articel if you havent before.
I must confess that I don't understand you well enough. If this is not a joke, this is cherry picking of sources. It is your particular POV that Robert Elsie, Noel Malcolm and others are not respected in this field. Well, whether we like it or not, they are, certainly not less than the 19th or early 20th century authors you are referring to (Ami BouéEdith Durham, Milan Šufflay, Jovan Cvijić). Understandably, the former (and some of the latter) are dismissed or bashed by many Serbs, but such is life. Furtermore, I am sort of surprised to hear that Edith Durham and Milan Sufflay advocated the Serbian cause. And no, the theory about the Albanization of Serbs is not to be taken seriously. No way.
There is nothing wrong with the Serbian ethnicity, but you are apparently from Belgrade, and I think it is up to the population of Kosovo (regardless of their ethnicity) and not up to you or me to decide how they want to live there. Colchicum (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. These 'experts' are from the 21st century. One is only foolish to believe that somehow, there was an international anti-Albanian conspiracy that was unveiled only several years ago and that science. You should not be surprised with Durham and Sufflay - they did not advocate any "Serbian cause", because they presented history and fact as that is. Milan Sufflay was a Croatian ultra-nationalist and nown not to be fond of Serbs supporting even some revisionist ideas, but that did not prevent him to dedicate his life to the study of Albanians and define their ethnic expansions in detail. In the 12th century they populated to the Skadar-Prizren line, and sometimes at the end of the 17th century, according to him, the came to slowly dominate Kosovo. Then I am quoting Durham, fascinated by Albanian culture, history and heritage:
“
Leopold could not hold Servia, but he did not wish it to become an independent country. The large Servian colony already settled in Syrmia had proved of great use to him, and he now invited the inhabitants of Old Servia to join them. In 1689 Arsen Crnoievich, Archbishop of Ipek, migrated to Hungary with a following of 37,000 families—family groups, that is, in the Servian sense of the word; uncles, brothers, cousins—a vast mass of people; and the Serb claim to Old Servia has never recovered from that loss. It is doubtful if it ever will in our time, for the wholesale emigration of the Serb left the greater part of the land to the Albanian, and in the event of a new delimitation of frontiers it will probably be found impossible to give the whole of it to Servia.
The Turk still further weakened the Serb position in 1737 by putting the Church of Ipek under Greek instead of Serb rule. Another Serb migration then took place, but the Turks, who wished to prevent the Serbs from massing in the north and forming a power, checked it by killing a number of the would-be emigrants and selling many as slaves abroad. The land was thus still further depopulated.
”
Or how about from her other work, to show that this is not an "isolated example of her opinion"? Such is not life such is normal reaction to history revisionismus. Someone mentioned Deretic in here (or some other talk page), I suggest you google "Jovan I. Deretic". I am sure an American historian could amass and write a book how Americans lived there for 3,000 years and then lay claim to all the remaining American countries (from Canada to Argentina) as ancient American soil, and claim how European migrations are mostly European nationalism bent on depicting the Americans as just mere children of Europe, and dedicate a lot of his life to the study.
“
The story of Old Serbia is one of uninterrupted misery. The suffering of the Christian peoples in the Balkans is no new thing. It began with the advent of the Turk, and will continue while he remains. As long ago as 1690 the intolerable lot of the Serbs of Old Serbia induced no less than 37,000 zadrugas (family groups, including uncles and cousins) to migrate to Hungary. The Albanians then spread over the vacated lands, which they have been permitted to harry with impunity ever since. A small unarmed Christian population "regulated" by Albanians is not merely unable to rise, it is unable to cry loudly enough to be heard, and there was no foreign consul to make reports. It was not until the Russians (who with extraordinary diplomatic skill lose no opportunity of winning the love of the Slavs of the Balkans) forced Stcherbina into Mitrovitza in 1902 that any light was shed upon the condition of this hapless land. The Albanians promptly shot him. The Christians regard him as the man that died to save them, and cherish his portrait. Until Stcherbina came they lived in a state of terror, and all that the tax-gatherers spared the Albanians looted. Owing to his death, the Government had sent the Nizams to subdue the Albanians.
”
...so you can see for yourself, that this is no advocation, but historical science. I can find tons of others, themselves very not inclined towards Serbs or not, to keep surprising you further (there is no selective choosing). I am nowhere talking about albanization of Serbs, and claiming all of them are albanized Serbs is foolishness, but neither can we deny that it indeed occurred, to whatever extent.
Yes, I am in Belgrade, but only because I am forced to live here, as an expeled refugee. We are working with the Serbian government to ensure return to North Mitrovica, were a job opening might be, and I think there wil be safe for us and that it Prishtina never annexes it. The population of northern kosovo has decided, and they want to remain in Serbia, but I am woried by threats from Pristina that they wil not alow division of Kosovo, and especialy after the UK ambassador to the UN announced that they will stop any division at all possibility what does that mean will they use force against the people. We want to decide how to live, why are we being deprived of that right, just because we are of a certain ethnic origin? --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I should compare this to Serbian revisionisms about Serbs in Croatia and Vojvodina. In the 1990s during the existence of a Serb separatist para-state in Croatia there were such quasi-historians, and even one French quasi-journalist supported them. But with their defeat in 1995, it obviously ended, while due to Kosovo's seek for recognition of independence, revisionism here is much, much, more persistant ("all Serbian churches were once Illyrian catholic, the Albanians lived in Kosovo for thousands of years continually, while the 10% non-albanians are recently arived colonists..."). Sometimes Serb nationalists also make silly claims about Serbs in Vojvodina, but obviously because Vojvodina is highly cultured and advanced, unlike poor Kosovo, that is not the case. --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, understood. Sorry. If you are from Kosovo, it changes a lot. Personally I support division of Kosovo if that matters (and maybe even separation of the Republika Srpska and Serbian Krajina, if they want to secede), but nothing depends on my opinion. I think it's inevitable in the long run, nevertheless. But this article doesn't say that "all Serbian churches were once Illyrian catholic", so what's the problem? As to the sources, I see little contradiction between them, though they emphasize different things, and even that is a word against a word, we are not in the position to decide which is more reliable. Such are rules, such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, etc. So speaking constructively, what changes would you like to make in the article? Let's decide, and maybe others will agree. Colchicum (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well for one thing, the article is good because because it emphasizes the Serbian departal from Kosovo in the 17th century and after - however, nowhere the migration of Albanians from the southwest is depicted. Another noture is the League of Prizren, which actualy became confronted by most Kosovar Albanains and was not realy ever accepted by the Kosovars.
After quoting Durham, I will do it from Sufflay (whom some consider a fascist for his scientific pro-Croat and pro-Albanian, as well as anti-Serb, studies):
“
In the 17th century a new cyclon begins in these areas. And again it was initiated by Albanian shepherds, now already of Mohammedan religion, towards the center of the Balkan, and then towards Macedonia. From the times of Turkish occupation the Serb populace is already withdrawing to the north, until finally in the year of 1690 a great migration to Hungary arises. In the ancient homeland of the Serbs come the Albanians across Opolje, Ljuma, alone the White Drin to Kosovo, and then all the way to Novi Pazar and Niš. Peć (Ipek), where for some 600 years the main center of the Serbian Church had existed, became, like Djakovo and Gusinje, a form of an Albanian civic republic, which due to its war-like and rogue citizenry was harder to reach than the ruins of Niniva. Ethnic setback of the Serbs and the expansion of the Albanians were increased by the Serbian Uprising (1804-1815), and especially the Serbo-Turkish war of 1876-1878. From the 18th century the Albanians press Macedonia heavily. In the upper valley of Vardar Slavic land tillers still reside on the Mohammedan lands (Ciftliks); the rest of the land is settled by Albanian shepherds. The Albanians have also taken the southwest coast of the Lake of Ochryd.
”
You might support Republica Srpska's independence, but I don't, I think the best thing is to always live together and yes probably all of them would vote for independence. You cannot support Krajina's independence because they live in Bosnia and Serbia as refugees, most of them expelled. I do not wish to defend the separatist self-styled countries, but their fate must not be forgoten. What, one must work more fiercely to remove the unloyal population? But, as I said, ethnicity seams to alwais matter, to everyone... --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Advice for how to avoid conflicts on Wikipedia over Kosovo
I have noticed that there are a number of heated arguments continuing on this article. Unfortunately these include ethnic nationalist sentiments between Kosovo Albanians and Serbs. These are bits of advice to consider and respect with the Kosovo article
1) Kosovo is a disputed territory. Claims by one side or the other to Kosovo both have merits, Kosovo's population is predominantly Albanian which voted for independence, but Serbia claims that according to international law Kosovo did not have the constitutional power as granted to it as an autonomous province to separate. Kosovo's declaration of independence is not an easy issue to determine which side has a legitimate claim as this is currently under serious debate at the United Nations and amongst international law experts, so please do not assume that one side has a correct analysis.
2) Beware of editors with nationalist or patriotic sentiments.Albanian and Serb editors with nationalist or patriotic sentiments are antagonistic towards each other. The collapse of Yugoslavia led to major atrocities between the two ethnicities and there is ENORMOUS antagonism between the two peoples making it highly unlikely that Albanian and Serb editors will ever agree with each other on controversial issues in the near-present future. Nationalist Albanian and Serb editors are more likely to cherrypick information to promote their views, and often denounce the other side as being the ones who cause all the problems in Kosovo.
3) Avoid posting maps which show names of countries and political borders of states as these are disputed.
4) Focus on posting POSITIVE and NEUTRAL edits.Far too many edits so far are focused on the wars, there need to be more which discuss the cultures of the Albanian and Serb peoples of Kosovo. If you decide to edit and add material on culture try to keep it simplified and avoid bringing up controversial details especially regarding conflict of the two peoples, unless you deem it as essential to the article and that it is backed up by high-quality and reliable sources from writers who show no bias on the issues.
5) Try to avoid relying on Albanian and Serbian sources on controversial topics like the Kosovo War, as mentioned above, these sources typically have POV due to the serious tensions between the Albanian and Serb people.
What? lol... i'm sorry I don't mean to laugh, and of course I'm sure you're trying to help but it's still sort of funny. Beam 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
When you said "collapse of Yugoslavia led to major atrocities between the two ethnicities" I knew right there and then that you had no real knowledge of Kosova | Kosovo. As far cherry-picking it's not between Alb/Ser but between all. Kosova is as disputed as Taiwan but the article for Taiwan reads Republic of Taiwan..not "Taiwan is a disputed territory..". Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what is so funny about warning rookie editors about the problems on this article and how misleading it can be from day to day as editors post their material. I for one, don't like the idea of just submitting to accept the endless and pointless cynical argumentative behaviour by a few nationalist editors, there is much more about Kosovo that should be studied and posted that is not just about the Balkans wars. More information about the cultures in Kosovo could be provided, information about athletic sports in Kosovo, famous people from Kosovo, etc. Adding that kind of material would be positive. Let me make it clear that I know that Yugoslavia had many ethnicities (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, etc.) but when I said the "collapse of Yugoslavia led to major atrocities between the two ethnicities", I was talking about Kosovo in particular. To Kosova2008, I ask why did you instinctively focus on criticizing a post by me that was meant to encourage more productive editing and to warn new editors to Wikipedia about the problems caused by nationalist editors edit-warring? Also, I would like to ask Kosova2008 about how he thinks this article could be improved in a way that is neutral and opposes bias?--R-41 (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing man, I said it was all good. It's just well...maybe it will help with rookies. I don't disagree with it. Beam 10:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, to improve this article we first need to refurbish this article with the information it has before we can add more. Considering that all Kosova/kosovo/kocobo and anything all comes here, I don't see this as the right movement. The article in Albania in the introduction mentions "partially recognized Kosovo" and when you click Kosovo you come to this article which pretty much does not reflect that. I did not mean to discourage you but it's become cynical to edit Kosova-based article because of such high emotions in both sides and editors (non alb/serb) taking sides as well. Hey Beam, here is May's CPI index [6] on page 6 there is a graph. This should be added somewhere. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
some suggestions
The text begin with: Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova; Serbian: Косово и Метохија; Kosovo i Metohija) is currently a disputed territory in the Balkans . Why not remove (Albanian: Kosova; Serbian: Косово и Метохија; Kosovo i Metohija) and put it in the infobox instead ?
And this one: ..is currently a disputed territory in the Balkans. This should be changed to "a partly recognized republic in Europe". --Ezzex (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with both suggestions, but only the first suggestion could gain consensus. That is, if the past couple of months are any indicator. Beam 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Population of Pristina
This article says that the population of Pristina is about 170,000, while the article Pristina says that it stands between 500,000 and 600,000. Is this ok? Colchicum (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
What source do they use? If it's reliable, stick up in this article and change the number. Beam 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
After the Kosova War people moved to the capital from rural areas because jobs where abundant on UNMIK run town. Now the population at my best estimate is around 560,000 and traffic (people coming and out) comes at nearly 1,000,000 (according to RTK) in the city. Of course I don't have reliable sources except experience (been there, lived there). Ari d'Kosova (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't asking what happened in Kosovo, I'm aware of population shifts through my studies, however I was asking whether Colchic did anything.
No I didn't. I have to find and review more sources. Colchicum (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
And you should dig up some sources for the economy section regarding people moving to the capital due to jobs. That would be great. You find a source and I'll incorporate it into the economy opening paragraph I made, and then we'll add it to the article. Beam 02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been dying to bring sources to WP but I'm so busy or always on the run to party. As far as my sources the most reliable would be from the Kosovar Government such as SOK (Statistical Office of Kosova) because they conduct these surveys and I'm sure I'd get pro-Serb commenter's here talking about the illegitimacy or some POV argument that the Kosovar Government facts can't be used as sources...but that's the best I can do. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd also be uncomfortable using the SOK numbers as...well they're trying to push their little country to legitimacy and would say or do anything to have it so. Beam 21:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not about feeling comfortable. Even if you don't feel comfortable, SOK is the most reliable source when it comes to Kosovo's population. During Yugoslavian times, SOK was part of Yugoslav Statistical bureau but since 1999 SOK was first under UNMIK but was later made independent. Since 1999 SOK has cooperated with different statistical bureaus in western countries. For many years they have been trained by Swedish Statistical bureau. I don't know if it's only me, but I feel you behavior here many times is against the Wikipedia rules. You act like you are the owner of the article, when you only are an ordinary editor that opened account four months ago. Don't get offended, I am just saying what I but also some others have noticed. --NOAH (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy, I'm very sorry that you are offended by my neutrality. Really, I am. I regret that your bias has tainted your idea of neutrality but I won't let that ruin the article. Beam 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I am not offended by your "neutrality" but by your unenlightenment. You won't let...? Once again you speak as if your are a kind of superuser, but I remind you once more that you aren't. --NOAH (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
SOK isn't posting facts in WP to be "push[ing] their little country to legitimacy". SOK is also not just some albanian ogranization, it is run by mainly Kosovars and internationals and they have been operating at least since the 1970s. They are very professional, but of course you may believe what you want. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't be insulted by my assumption of the SOK being pro Republic of Kosovo. And I don't know if you did, but don't! I'm pretty sure they are, don't you agree? What are there numbers for the current population? If they're not nonsensical, I have no problem using them, as I'm sure no one else will. I'd say all their current numbers are reliable, I just wouldn't want to have them as a sole reference for population shifts during the 90s. So yeah, what do they have for current population numbers, I'd venture that they are reliable. Care to link me? Beam 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
How sweet of you. This will shock you but current numbers reflected on this article come from Enti i Statistikës së Kosovës (ESK) (Statistical Office of Kosova, SOK). For example I asked that the article a while back say the population is 2.1 million, I also asked that Kosova's territory is 10,908km and not 10,882km; all of them based from SOK. Here is what they have from 1921 read thisAri d'Kosova (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
So, the article is ok, or what? Beam 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You didn't read my comment and I think we are confusing one another. I find this interesting from your last comment, "Please don't be insulted by my assumption of the SOK being pro Republic of Kosovo. And I don't know if you did, but don't!" (than you contradict everything in the next sentence) I'm pretty sure they are, don't you agree?" LOL. : ) Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a contradiction. I don't want you to be insulted by assumption. Doesn't mean I'm not still assuming it. Beam 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous
This article is ridiculous. Kosovo is maybe a "disputed territory", but it remains a COUNTRY and nothing else. This page seems to be a project of the Serbian government! Is the English Wikipedia afraid of any Russian or Serbian reactions or something like that? I propose the deletion of the first and the third infobox — only the second has any legitimacy. Belgian man (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
You heard me well. Look at the article please, it has THREE infoboxes and starts with
Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova; Serbian: Косово и Метохија; Kosovo i Metohija) is currently a disputed territory in the Balkans.
A "disputed territory", while all other dignified media call it a country. Wikipedia is a not a medium for Serbians and Russians to put in the limelight their opinions or the way they see things. Belgian man (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You've already lost your argument, by accusing Wikipedians of being biased to Serbs and Russians you are assuming bad intentions by editors, I suggest that you stop this and provide constructive criticism instead. Assuming bad intentions by editors is a first-class ticket to being banned on Wikipedia in the future, so stop this for your own sake. I am not a Serb or a Russian, I am a Canadian who has no Balkan heritage. I was one of the proponents of recognizing both governments' claims and declaring that Kosovo is one of many disputed territories in the world, just as Taiwan is, just as Kashmir is, just as the Palestinian National Authority is. I don't hate Albanians and I don't hate Serbs, and I have no passionate views on the issue. It appears that you have some inflamed passions on the issue. The fact remains that the UN is debating the issue as we speak, international law experts are divided on the issue, they have been examining the international legal implications of accepting the independence of a region that did not have the constitutional right to separate (Serbia's laws did not allow its autonomous provinces to separate) and how this could impact the world if the UN recognizes Kosovo. Spain, a democratic country, has opposed Kosovo's independence based on these concerns as regards to the Basque independence movement. Whatever your position is on the countries that oppose Kosovo independence, the fact remains that as much as there are many important countries which have supported Kosovo's independence, there are many important countries that have not supported it. There is no point in Wikipedia recognizing Kosovo's independence, as that will bring back the vicious edit wars that occured after February 2008 which left the article in near permanent lockdown on any editing for months which continued until this compromise was reached. This article is not biased towards Serbia, if it was it would probably deliberately declare that Kosovo is part of Serbia and that the Republic of Kosovo is illegitimate. The article does not say this as the article neither gives endorsement to the Republic of Kosovo's claims or the Serbian government's claims, but shows the claims by both sides, thus on that matter it is neutral. Returning to recognition of Kosovo as an independent state by Wikipedia would destabilize the article and definately start another futile edit war that will eventually bring us back to this position of neutrality on the claims. Wikipedia should not show any preference on such a highly controversial and debatable dispute, and make no mistake it IS a real and serious territorial dispute, just as other disputed territories as mentioned above.--R-41 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this the English Wikipedia? Already threatening with a block if somebody expresses his meaning which is a little bit other than that of the majority of the contributors that wrote this article? Listen, I can't blame you about most of the things in your little text above and I probably can't really blame the contributors to the Kosovo article as well, but the only thing I wanted to express was, that when I saw the "new" article for the first time in February, I became furious, and that was simply because I got directly a feeling about the article being a little bit "we all know Kosovo is an independent nation, but we, as Wikipedia editors, are a little bit afraid of bad Russo-Serbian reactions". Belgian man (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean exactly? Belgian man (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It is your opinion, and hey good for you, that Kosovo is an independent country and nothing else. And that the only reason it would be presented as disputed would be that "wikipedia is a little bit afraid of Russo-Serbian reactions." That's your opinion...and honestly that second part is ridiculous. Anyway, the first part of your opinion that Kosovo is a country and "nothing else" is simply not based in any facts, and is not a view held world wide. As Wikipedia is an Encylcopeida, and it is not your personal soapbox the article will present the prevailing world views in a neutral manner. And when you take those into account, Kosovo is very much a disputed territory. As WP:WWIN suggests, perhaps you should start a blog, where you can present your opinion without fear of having to remain neutral. That is, of course, unless you are the one who fears "Russo-Serbian reactions." ;) Beam 11:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't mind the mention of "country". I don't think the "disputed" issue is the work of Serbs and Russians either. If it had been down to Serbian and Russian heavyweights, Kosovo would be "an integral part of the Republic of Serbia held by rebels." But it doesn't say that! Kosovo does indeed function independently. It is indeed recognised by an ever-growing list of countries. I even say that it is far more successful in its adventure than any other disputed entity, such as Tamileelam, Waziristan, South Ossetia or Transdniester. Sadly, the world we live in and the rules that govern us are that a country's recognition requires certain criteria. Now, Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and can veto Kosovo from joining the UN, that means that UN rules forbid Kosovo borrowing from the World Bank. Now I don't live up in Cloud Nine and I know that all UN activity is ceremonial and a waste of every member-state's taxpayer's money. Kosovo at present cannot join, and it cannot draw money from the world bank, but it can establish relations with as many countries who wish to do so, and the USA can donate (not lend) Kosovo more money that it can dream of seeing from the world bank!!! I am personally happy (when it comes to giving one's place of birth) to list previously unrecognised entities such as the Independent State of Croatia because it functioned independently. But unless the system is to fall apart on every minor discrepancy where two local people disagree on something, we need to respect the conventions laid down by the "higher bodies". At the moment, Kosovo is disputed, and widely disupted. It is early and once the situation settles, we will be able to assert with more confidence a more positive introduction to the opening paragraph. Evlekis (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Who has recognized South Ossetia? Only Russia? Quite a difference with Kosovo's situation. I would absolutely not compare the republic of Kosovo with those "pseudo-states" that only have their "best friends" to recognize them. The countries that recognize Kosovo are not all Albanian speaking, are not all capitalist, are not all ex Soviet Union countries, are not all Islamic or Christian countries: It are countries from "capitalist" Europe, from North and South America and Oceania, it are African countries, Islamic countries and countries of ex Yugoslavia among others. But I give in that there is still a long way to go (only 44 (I recognize Taiwan, you know) of 195 countries have recognized it), and I will let rest this situation. I hope that when Kosovo will be recognized by half of all countries (97/98 countries, still 53/54 to go), that we will eventually take the step of "recognizing" this country too (simply by calling it a country, by removing the first and third infobox, by making white the light orange area on the map in the infobox and deleting all "excluding Kosovo" remarks on the Serbia page, by making the article List of airports in Kosovo (which we do not lack because there is maybe only one airport (see List of airports in Palau, List of airports in Tuvalu, and so on), but because we do not "recognize" Kosovo fully), et cetera). When 98 countries have recognized Kosovo and the situation remains the same, I will start talk here again. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Belgian Man. This is a free encyclopaedia and you have the right to edit. My advice to you personally is to take care when editing; in other words, yes by all means edit the intro to state that Kosovo is indeed a country, but do consider its dubious status; so don't try to categorise it all at once as being as widely accepted as Sweden or Canada. As I said earlier, if the intro were completely anti-Albanian and pro-Serb, it would state that it is a part of Serbia held by rebels; that is how the Belgrade and the Kremlin view it for the time being. Evlekis (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay I understand, no problem. I don't know if I have to read this as an advice from you to me to edit the article, but I will not do that, this is indeed a free encyclopedia, but that applies only to a certain level, I know it will be reverted. Greetings from a country of which the government is going to fall on July 15, Belgian man (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Kosova?
Since I don't know Albanian, I was wondering if someone who does can explain to me why the Albanians (Kosovars, Kosovar Albanians, whatever) call it KosovA. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.73.240 (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the name of the place. Kosova is the modern day Dardania, the Serbs to emphasize OWNERSHIP by cultural opression (changing names) have added the O and added the metohija which means in English "church land". Please sign your posts so next time I can reply on your page instead of here. Kosova200868.114.196.137 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
User from IP address is asking other one to sign. LOL :) What I understand from this answer is that Albanians are calling it KosovA because Serbs are calling it KosovO? Better check this Names of Kosovo. Kosovo is regular Slavic word and theory that it is modified kosova just makes no sense. Or maybe Bulgarians, Polish, Russians, Macedonians and others also changed their name from Albanian origin? --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Who cares how the serbs are calling Kosova? They may even call it Humpty-Dumpty, nobody in Kosova would care. It's none of their business any longer as Kosova is independent now. And "Metohija" is a new serbian invention aimed to split Kosova. But they will not succeed. There is only one and united Kosova and it belongs to the people living there. One simple question, given that Kosova is serbias cradle and the child inside is Albanian: Does the cradle belong to the child or does the child belong to the cradle? But this is only a hypothetical question as Kosova is not serbias cradle. Serbs came from Siberia, they are russians, so Siberia is the cradle for serbs. Farewell! --Tubesship (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of you need to go find a forum where you can spout your nationalistic POV rhetoric. It's not wanted at Wikipedia. Regards, Beam 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, i was going to reply to you but somehow it didn't make it so just the "at Beam" came out. 'Kosova200868.114.196.137 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, thats why I wrote: Farewell! --Tubesship (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Igor the name of Kosova was Dardania..now its Kosova..you Serbs never enjoyed this idea that Kosova belongs to Kosovars so you guys began re-writting history such as the battle of 1389 and the SAMU morandums. The battle of 1389 was fought between Albanians, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonian's, etc vs the Ottomans not soley between Ottomans and Serbs...this was done to create a Serbian Nationalism...next was by Serbian Science and blah blah aka SAMU who created the famous bogus report of how Kosovars are genociding Serbs in Kosovo...which later Milosevic used to get into power. @BEAM, Kosova200868.187.142.80 (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you calling me a Serb? I'm an American, k2k8. Beam 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A simple explanation would be that countries in Albanian language do not have a -o suffix. Almost all countries have -a suffix. Amerika, Polonia, Italia, Greqia, Suedia, Anglia, Serbia etc etc. --Noah30 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The correct Albanian version of "Kosovo" is "Kosovë".Kosova translates as in "The" Kosovo.(whatever that grammatic form is called.I'm not a linguist.)So what's the fuss about?.Amenifus (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Both are correct, like Prishtina and Prishtinë. And like Noah said, there is no country with an "o" at the end and like Americo or Serbio sounds strange to you so does Kosovo to us. --Tubesship (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What about Burkina Fasa, Lesotha, Monaca, Mexica, Montenegra, Morocca, San Marina, Toga or Trinidad & Tobaga? :) Bazonka (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Bazonko. BalkanFever 10:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Most of member-countries of NATO, EU, WEU and OECD have recognized Kosovo as independent.So Kosova is not independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.67.93 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah but it's Kosovo. Pretty easy to remember too because it's a fact! Awesome! Beam 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I asked... I mean, it's not the end of the universe if the world calls it Kosovo/a, we just have to learn to live with it. I mean, there's no need to argue over something that we can do nothing about, it's just a pointless waste of time (unless it's constructive criticism on the article). There can be millions of different interpretations of various historical events. Heck, ask two people about something that happened last week, and you won't get the same answers, let alone an empire that existed a 1000 years ago.
To the Serbs: Yes, this may be hard for us, but it'll end up the way it should, whether we like the outcome or not. Ever heard the one "If it didn't happen, it wasn't supposed to happen"?
To the Albanians: Please, have some sympathy for the other side. I understand many of you lost your loved ones during the wars, but understand that there are Serbs down there who have also suffered, lost their homes and families.
Peace, Superfan 410 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Funny example, San Marina !!! I guess that saint would be a woman, as opposite to San Marino, which sounds like a male saint. Do they look the same to you Sir. Bazonka !!! 84.20.64.250 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"And like Noah said, there is no country with an "o" at the end and like Americo or Serbio sounds strange to you so does Kosovo to us."
Apart from the examples stated ny the user above me, Kosovo in Serbian means "kos', belonging to kos". That's why it has an -o suffix. Purely grammatical reasons. Superfan 410
Pictures
Can we use pictures from [visitKosova.org], I saw some really amazing pictures there yesterday and I want them to be included in this article. What are the copywrite rules? That website is of the Kosovar Government Tourism website and I don't think they mind. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Get written permission (i guess email might work...maybe) releasing the photographs into the Public Domain, or written permission to use in the Wikipedia article. Or you could always have your family take pictures next time they goto Kosovo. Beam 15:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Some of my family just came back from the newborn republic on friday. I had a ton of pictures especially of Rugova resort which was breath-taking but when my computer died a few months back I lost everything :(. Ari d'Kosova'64.195.0.187 (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Sad about your computer :-(, but I hope you have learned that back up is necessary. The internet is full of gorgeous pictures from Kosovo. I advice you to go to Flickr and find the groups with photos from Kosovo. When you find a picture you like, you can find out who's the photographer and then ask for permition to use the photo at Wikipedia. I advice you to open an account, if you already have a Yahoo account then you just login in. You have very many Albanians from Kosovo publishing photos they have taken with advanced cameras and they may help you, but you should be open about the rules of Wikipedia and what happens when a photo is licensed to be used here. Good luck. --NOAH (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There are probably tons of pictures available for use at flickr.com a small search for Kosovo use be sure that they are released under the right copyright (Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr) — chandler — 20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The article
No one is really paying attention and this article is being changed every second. This article needs to be locked, everyday it's getting messier. I hope an admin is reading this and he/she will take proper action and re-revert all these "new" changes which have only de-contributed; lots of perspectives going on. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yea, at least it would be semi-protected... I've never requested a protect, but you do it at WP:RFPP — chandler — 05:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Give me some diffs! I'll check out the history of the article, I have about 10 million articles on my watchlist, it was easier when I only edited the Kosovo article ;) Beam 14:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I put it back to the consensus version we has last week, you're right ari it's been kind of demolished since then. Beam 14:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I support this revert made by you. With regard to your watchlist, it is possible to remove articles from the watchlist. --NOAH (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Also, I know you can remove them, but then I wouldn't know what was going on! Beam 16:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend that the phrase "disputed territory" in the opening sentence should be linked, not to the general "Disputed territory" article, but to the "Political status of Kosovo" article. Even if "disputed territory" is eventually changed to "partly recognized republic" (as some have suggested), that phrase should still be linked to the article talking specifically about the political status of Kosovo. Comments? Richwales (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
In the forseeable future I do not see partly recognized republic being in the lead. And the Political Status article is already linked in the lead, is it not? Beam 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The "political status" article was indeed linked to the phrase "disputed territory" until just a short time ago. Your (Beam's) most recent edit reverted that link and made "disputed territory" link to the generic article. I wasn't sure if that was intentional on your part, so I didn't want to just change it back and look like I was engaging in an edit war. Richwales (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought that it was linked elsewhere in the lead, but as it isn't I have made your suggested change. Beam 17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps an updated economy section and infobox?
I'm of the opinion that the economy section is outdated and not written very well. It doesn't contain much information, and what it does, is mainly from a couple of years ago (GDP per capita, for example, is from 2004). I think we need to re-write it. What do you guys think? --alchaemia (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I already rewrote an introduciton with the help of Dab and BalkanFever. No one else wanted to help and I got lazy. It's in the archive, maybe the last one or the one before that. Beam 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking {{sofixit}}. dab(𒁳) 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking that you need to read the instructions above. It clearly states that any major change should be discussed first, and only then implemented. I meant to do a gutting of the article, not merely minor changes. --alchaemia (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
yes, sorry, I did not mean to be rude. I think it is fair to say that most bickering here focusses on the lead section and on placename spelling. If you embark on improving the economy section, everyone will thank you, and there will still be time to sit down and talk once you find one of your edits was reverted. dab(𒁳) 16:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well then, I'll embark upon this enterprise as soon as it is humanely possible. I'm thinking of expanding the section a bit as well, as I think the average reader has a lot of information on political/legal mumbo jumbo but not enough on everyday things, like the economy. --alchaemia (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Map shown in top infobox
Kosova2008 (talk·contribs) switched the top map without any edit summary on 1 July[7]. In spite of later assertions in edit summaries[8], I can see no discussion on the change, let alone any consensus. I for one object to the change. I apologize if I am missing any actual consensus, but there is ostensibly no discussion on this page leading up to the 1 July edit. A brief look at Kosovo2008's userpage, username and edit history shows that this user is about as partisan to the topic as it gets (WP:COI). His edits can be taken into account as a defense of the pro-independence stance, but cannot for a minute be taken as contributing towards NPOV. dab(𒁳) 14:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
why am I opposed to the map? It's by the CIA, and as such implicitly takes the pro-independence stance of the USA (yes, and of 7 out of the G8, and 43 states in total, etc.). It's the US view, which in this case diverges from the UN view. dab(𒁳) 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It was discussed at length at Talk:Kosovo/Archive_20#Comments. And there was nothing in the map which could suggest that Kosovo is an independent sovereign state or not. I don't understand what you are talking about. BTW, "the UN view" is merely another POV, just like the US view. Wikipedia is not an official UN body either. Colchicum (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
To the contrary, it is the current map (defended by you) which is not neutral, as it uses the Serbian names only, even when an English one is available (Pristina). And what is more important, I can't see a thing there if it is not enlarged. Colchicum (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
And yes, I think you should unconditionally apologize to Kosova2008. This was far beyond the pale for a talk page on probation. Colchicum (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just one question... Why are there even names on, if any there should only be English names. But still... Why not have a map without names completely? Whether you look at countries, regions, states, provinces. You never see any names. — chandler — 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
ok, sorry for missing the archived discussion. However, it doesn't show any "consensus". It shows a majority of 5:3 votes for the political map. If you add my opinion, it's 5:4. That's not a consensus by any stretch. We do not want a political map in the top infobox, because the top infobox concerns the territory, not any political entity. The CIA map presents Kosovo as an independent state, listing "Serbia" on an equal footing with the other neighbouring state. It's not an extremely big deal, but I do strongly recommend we keep the topographic map (any topographic map) over any political map. And yes, we want a map with English (anglicized) labels. That is, we want to ask Sémhur (talk·contribs) to adjust a few spellings on his "English" version of the map. That's really it. dab(𒁳) 15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
To adjust all the spellings, not just a few (Priština => Pristina, the rest => double Albanian/Serbian names, as minor towns have no English names). And to make the names much larger. As of now the map is difficult to read even when enlarged. Colchicum (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
yeah - I'm open to any topographic map. My point is just that we don't want a political map. Or at least one that shows the disputed border in some highlighting colour, like our maps of India show the Kashmir border as disputed. dab(𒁳) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That was a compromise and consensus map that we have now. I gave my blessing, and do not see it as independence affirming at all. The area "Kosovo" has Serbia to the north. That's a fact whether it's a state or not. Beam 15:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
um, no. Kosovo has Central Serbia to the north. Whether Central Serbia is Serbia is very much a case of dispute. Maps: these [9][10] would do fine, but they aren't free of course. To the anti-independence position (which I am happy to accept as the minority one, and which I in no way endorse myself), you sound like saying "Texas borders on Mexico to the south and on the USA to the north". The crucial point is to get some graphical means of distinguishing the disputed border from the undisputed ones. That isn't difficult to do, just see Image:Map India.png. dab(𒁳) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
(EDIT CONFLICT - let me edit or i'm going to flip kittens) There is no disputed border, at all. Call it Central Serbia, edit the map. As to what disputed border you refer to, I can't figure it out. Beam 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
sigh. it is disputed whether the border between Kosovo and Central Serbia is (a) a mere provincial boundary, or (b) an international border. Depending on which opinion you hold, you're going to render it differently on a map. Google Earth shows it in red like all other disputed borders. --dab(𒁳) 06:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
@dab, you don't want a "political map" yet you want the "UN map" to be in the infobox? What's the UN if not a political organization with political maps? Your rejection of a CIA map and your support of a USAID map just shows how unnecessary of a request this is; one the one hand you don't want a map from a US agency because "the US supports independence", but on the other hand you offer a map from a different US agency. Anything to further your POV, ha? --alchaemia (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
what "UN map"? The map will need to show the borders of Kosovo, political or not, and I am saying that the border towards (Central) Serbia will need to be shown marked (dotted, dashed, etc.) in some way. That's all. dab(𒁳) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
What about stripping Image:Kosovo map-en.svg of all names and upload it, maybe with the Europe map a bit larger so i can be seen in a infobox? I or anyone can probably do this pretty easy in Inkscape — chandler — 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the childish disputes over spellings should prevent us from labelling places at all. We just need to figure out the most common English spelling and stick to that, per plain WP:NAME. Of course poor Semhur could not anticipate these decisions, and we'll just have to ask him politely to re-label things. dab(𒁳) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
hold it, what we want, of course, is a blank map after all, and use {{Image label}} (as in e.g. {{Iranian Plateau}}). That way, we'll always be able to dynamically edit, add or remove labels as we see fit. dab(𒁳) 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well the easy reason for not having names is, no other map in a infobox has them. — chandler — 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Dab it is not our foult you were away and could not take part in the discussion. The change of map was agreed and until a new agreement, the current map should stay. --NOAH (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
What about something like Image:Kosovomapsmallpreview250px.png (I have that in SVG form but as 250px is what will show in the infobox i just uploaded in like that so people can see preview.) Anything can be changed though, from the Europe map to the colour of the ground etc etc. Is just shows the location of kosovo in line with most other regions/countries/provinces/states etc, even though this has a high detail level — chandler — 17:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
that's excellent. Let's see:
I'm sorry for the premature revert, but I am raising a valid concern, and I am presenting a suggestion for genuine improvement. It's never too late to improve an article. --dab(𒁳) 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Still don't think the names should be shown in the infobox ;( — chandler — 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The physical maps without labels we now have is perfect. --dab(𒁳) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That map is retarded. Beam 23:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I like that map (The green one with no names) Let's use it. BalkanFever 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not just use a single pixel? It will be just as informative and RETARDED. Beam 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If anything is retarded its the current one, as you don't see or understand where Kosovo is in the World, it also uses names, which NO OTHER country/province/state/you name it — chandler — 04:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand your comment, Beam? Why a "single pixel"? This is a physical map, with a locator inset. I am not aware we are using the CIA Factbook maps as locator maps anywhere else. These aren't locator maps by any stretch, they are simple overview maps showing political borders and major settlements. dab(𒁳) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
See now I WAS AWAY, and didn't see this uproar that Beam caused. First of all, that was a CHEAP and IMMATURE gesture to call me "Kosovo2008" when you know my username is "Kosova2008". Secondly, the change was agreed because it showed Kosova as a disputed country/territory..all names are Alb/Ser as they should be. I don't think its' fair of you to not assume AGF, but do asyou might, I can't say I trust you because you show a real anti-albanian attitude. I won't allow this new map because it just shows lines...it has bad referencing qualities and the reader will have ABSOLUTELY no clue where Kosova is..btw one of the maps where it shows Kosova in Europe I proposed that but I think it was Beam who opposed it. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Uproar that I caused? You need to chill the fuck out and read stuff again before you hit submit. Thank you. Beam 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
please, grow up. the normal spelling in english is "Kosovo", it's understandable for someone to make a mistake like that. an attitude like that is what inflames consensus-building discussions like these. ninety:one 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
any other comments that aren't immature rants? Otherwise I suppose we'll move to the unlabelled map. It is clearly superior because it (a) includes a locator map and (b) has no labels (which, as noted above, is desirable for locator maps). dab(𒁳) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason for not having names, (Especially not Albanian or Serbian) is, as i've said, if you look at any other map showing a location it does NOT have labels. — chandler — 16:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to place a dot at the location of Pristina, as in the example above, but I don't think {{Infobox Country}} allows for this... dab(𒁳) 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Current map is wronz The previous one was just fine. Folks like torcino and other proserbian have truly found heaven in distoring info.
shame shame shame on wikipedia. shame on the abusers of democracy...
please revert to previous maP.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.156.157 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
any reason why you think a physical map of Kosovo is "pro-Serbian"? --dab(𒁳) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
to be fair, Infobox Country maps usually have no labels because they are pure locator maps. Since we present a physical map instead, I am not sure whether an entirely unlabelled map is preferable. Compare the template at Moldavia (not a great choice I admit), Abkhazia (shows a labelled map together with a locator map of Abkhazia within Georgia), South Ossetia (similar), Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (a complex locator map with a lengthy caption). dab(𒁳) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant dab caused an uproar not beam. Also some of you need to act a little civil, firstly with DAB for putting a new map without a consensus. I don't like it, the map locater sucks, if it was a little better perhaps if you edit it yourself than it would be okay. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
uh-huh, an up-front nationalist zealot like Kosova2008 is up in arms because of design elements like "the map locater sucks" (interestingly in favour of a map that has no locator whatsoever) I hear you... I mean, thank you, I couldn't have made the case any clearer than that: the fact that our resident pov-pushers try to go back to the CIA map really drives home my point that it isn't neutral (nor does it pretend to be neutral. The US government, unlike Wikipedia, does not have a "npov" policy. Kosova2008 is trying to go back to a map published by an entity ostensibly taking a pro-independence stance. Peace to the USA, they are free to do that, but we aren't). --dab(𒁳) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This and this are over the top, Mr. Bachmann. You come here and throw wild accusations around. IMHO Kosova2008 is relatively neutral compared to some others here, including yourself. Well, I am neither a Serb nor Albanian, but you don't seem particularly impartial to me either. Also please keep in mind that you are not exempt from WP:CIV, WP:NPA etc. and that this article is on probation. Colchicum (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to act mature with you but you make it harder by every keystroke. If you think I'm a "nationalist zealot" that is my personal opinion and prerogative, that is none of your business. My objections are clear and not political when I ask that I want a map that a person who is visiting this page for the first time does NOT get confused and can clearly point out where Kosova is. If you feel so against that map you should add a locater, or better yet design a better map with names in your map locater. Just for an FYI, I will not reply to your childish posts or accusations of being nationalist or POV-pushing when you are yourself ranting about anti-America and CIA this and that, keep WP out of your politics. Ari out, Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, " IMHO Kosova2008 is relatively neutral"? Are you reading some parallel Wikipedia? The behaviour of Kosova2008 (talk·contribs) has been blatant nationalist pov-pushing from the beginning. He throws temper-tantrums over the spelling Kosovo, which is otherwise completely undisputed as the English language form. He rambles about "locaters" (God knows what he means by that precisely) when his concern is defending the CIA map, which ostensibly constitutes a prejudice in favour of the US pov. I don't know what to say except that it seems you are not talking about the same user. dab(𒁳) 11:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the map, here are my thoughts:
I'm forced to acknowledge that most current Wikipedia articles on countries do not have maps of this sort (political maps with locations of cities). I'm not sure I understand why that's the case — and from an information standpoint, I'm not sure I agree with the current state of affairs (I think a map showing a country's key cities is a good thing to have) — but the people who are saying that maps like this are not the norm do seem to have a valid point.
If city names are going to be included on the map — something which I would prefer — then I do think they ought to be in both Albanian and Serbian for NPOV (and, at least in the case of the capital, also in English). In this regard, I would wonder if the capital, currently labelled only as "PRISTINA", should perhaps be labelled as "PRISTINA / Prishtina / Priština". And is there really a need for the redoubled label "Prizren / Prizren", rather than just "Prizren"?
If a close-up map of Kosovo is going to be included in this article, I think it might make more sense to move it farther down, into the "Republic of Kosovo" infobox, just above the existing map showing Kosovo's location in Europe. That seems to be more in line with other country articles which may show a regional view plus a wider view of a country's location. Or maybe the close-up map could be included elsewhere in the body of the article — along the lines of what the Montenegro page currently has.
For the sake of NPOV, I would propose that the boundary between Kosovo and Serbia (or, as some would prefer to say, the rest of Serbia) should be shown as a dashed or dotted line. I imagine one reason why some people are objecting to the existing map may be because it has a solid line around Kosovo's northern/eastern border — strongly implying in their view that Kosovo's independence from Serbia is a settled matter — whereas neutrality requires us to acknowledge (in maps as well as in the text of the article) that Kosovo's status is still in dispute.
In reality the map probably most suitable is Image:LocationKosova.PNG as it goes more along the lines of other countries, regions, states, provinces, not zoomed in at all, but to locate it in Europe and in the World — chandler — 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That's it. the entire point of the first infobox is treating Kosovo-qua-territory, without endorsing either pov. Consequently, the Kosovar-Central Serbia border needs to be marked specially, dotted or dashed or something. That's the issue I had raised, reasonably, and for which a solution has been presented. If there are yet better solutions than the present suggestion, let's hear them, as long as they don't revert to a biased presentation. --dab(𒁳) 11:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
So, dab, you just felt like the map wasn't good enough for your tastes and decided to change it - even though there was consensus for the previous map? Listen, just because you were away and did not participate in the debates does not mean that you can change the maps now here. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your "edit" and call the new map terrible. RoK is tiny in that map, it's not even a zoomed map. Just terrible. --alchaemia (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
nope, I gave my reasons, proposed a new solution, discussed it, and found support. I am not sure what "new map" you are talking about, the one I included is shown above: it is a map of Kosovo. I do not understand what you mean by "it's not even a zoomed map". Briefly, you are not making sense and appear to be barking up the entirely wrong tree. dab(𒁳) 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
A "zoomed map" means a map that does not show the whole of Europe - in that context, Kosovo is small and cannot be seen clearly. --alchaemia (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
wait, are you referring to Image:LocationKosova.PNG? Is it too much to ask that you pay a little bit of attention to the debate before spewing your vitriol at the wrong people? The current map was neither suggested, nor endorsed nor introduced by me. It was introduced by Chandler in good faith, but I have to object to it on the same grounds that disputed borders aren't shown as distinct from undisputed international borders. It is also pointless seeing that we now have two maps showing "Kosovo within Europe". --dab(𒁳) 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The previous map was just fine, until you marched in, having missed the previous debate and consensus and wanted to change it. Also, not sure what you mean by "disputed borders aren't shown as dinstinct from undisputed borders international borders." Do you means Serbia's borders are undisputed international borders? Because they are, and by some major players I might add. --alchaemia (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I favor Image:Kosovo in Balkans.png, or something like that but more zoomed in. The CIA map was implying that Kosovo was outside Serbia, which is no surprise given that the official CIA position. We must be careful not to make such an implication. Superm401 - Talk 11:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not? By "not making such an implication" we are making another one; namely, that Kosovo is inside Serbia which is disputed by no less than 44 states (including Taiwain) and, of course, Kosovo itself. --alchaemia (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No. Make this implication. You are happy enough to use CIA sources, on English language Wikipedia, and all English speaking countries recognize Kosovo don't they. But I still think that if you place the map on a bigger scale, such as to include the whole of Europe then you'll struggle to find Kosovo, it is so small. Can I ask Ari d'Kosovo do please use the English name for the disputed province which is Kosovo with o thank you. Balkantropolis (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"Claim sovereignty" vs. "support territorial integrity according to international law"
I have a problem with this edit by Elk Salmon. In my view, the new version is slanted way too far towards an assumption that Serbia's position is correct. I think both sides of this dispute are claiming international law is on their side, so saying that Serbia's position (but not Kosovo's) is "according to the principles of international law" would amount to a POV judgment on our part favouring the Serbian view. The original wording was more neutral, in my opinion, because it even-handedly mentioned both sides and merely stated (without taking sides) that Serbia still claims Kosovo as part of its own territory. I was inclined to simply revert this change, but given the heightened sensitivities over this article, I thought it would be prudent to bring it up here and ask for other people's opinions first. Comments, anyone? Richwales (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I believe that as far as international law goes Serbia may be right. Of course there are far greater legal minds debating that. Anyway, I've made an edit to assure NPOV, so consider your concern alleviated. Beam 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do you believe that? "International law" (whatever that means, it's a very vague term) recognizes self-determination, and for all that matters, that's exactly what happened in Kosovo. --alchaemia (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
International law has become a mantra for Serbian politicians but they do not specify which international law. We know that we do not have any book that contains the international law, where we can search and find an article that says what Kosovo did was illegal. We have to interpret both written and unwritten sources, agreements, memorandums, practice. I think both Albanians and Serbs will be able to find good arguments that their standpoint about Kosovo is according to international law. What is most interesting is that Serbia keep mentioning international law when it favors them, but completely ignores it when it says they are hiding and supporting people who have committed genocide, Mladic and Karadzic. Should a country that does not respect international law be allowed to use it when it is in its interest?? --NOAH (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. It's not just about Serbia, it's about point of view of Serbia allies. And it's not you who should define in which way international law for territorial integrity should be applied to Serbia. UN will decide. Elk Salmon (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Not the UN either. Fortunately the UN is not a world government or a world court, and fortunately there are none. The UN is just an international organization (which is quite recent, utterly ineffective and probably will not last long). Actually there are no global supranational judiciary and law enforcement. You are forced to obey the UN only as long as you recognize the UN authority. To put it short, there is no single authority in international law. Colchicum (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
so? this just means Wikipedia has to go along with UN resolutions as a guideline until there is a "world government". If the UN doesn't have jurisdiction over "international law", how much less authority, do you think, lies with Wikipedia, or with Wikipedia user Colchicum? --dab(𒁳) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no. Absolutely not. Why should we stick to the opinion of UN at all? Being sourced by a government or by something "official" has nothing to do with being good, reliable, true, impartial etc. I believe there will never be a world government, you can wait forever, but this is not relevant here. In Wikipedia we have policies such as WP:NPOV which require Wikipedia to be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. As a matter of fact there are different significant interpretations of international law and we cannot afford to pick up a single one as the ultimate truth. The UN opinion (has it produced any, by the way?) is neither better nor worse than many others in this respect. Colchicum (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the old pre-Elk Salmon version was perfectly fine. This is too pointy and not an improvement at all. I'd suggest to revert the change. Colchicum (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. Of course this isn't about "truth". Yes, the UN position is relevant. Go figure. --dab(𒁳) 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Now i've truly fixed it. Fixing my fixed fixes. Beam 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the phrase used in Abkhazia article to explain why and how exactly Georgia allies support of Abkhazia being a part of Georgia. That all goes to this point as well. It should be explained how and why Serbia allies support Kosovo being a part of Serbia and article should say about a right of Serbia for territorial integrity per WP:NPOV. Elk Salmon (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but in the Abkhazia article, the references to territorial integrity and international law occur a bit later on (in the "Political status" section), not in the intro. I can certainly imagine more material about the Serbian position being added to the "Constitutional status" section of this article, but it would need to be done in an even-handed fashion that acknowledges the ongoing dispute, doesn't give undue weight to either side of the argument, and avoids saying or implying that either side is obviously right or wrong. Richwales (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Dardania to Kosovo
riten: "Kosovo was liberated after 1944 with the help of the Albanian partisans of the Comintern and became a province of Serbia within the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia." - Yugoslavia was not democratic.
Please can someone reverse edits made in Kosovo article, page has been vandalised by MK013 by removing the historicall part of the Kingdom of Dardania. Ballkanhistory 3:17PM, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The article Kingdom of Dardania is redirected to Dardani and there is no such kingdom mentioned. Perhaps you should fix that article first, if this kingdom indeed existed. Until then, I am removing the statement from Kosovo article because the lack of sources. --Tone 13:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, a "kingdom" in the I
Correction needed where is wron Age means simply a tribe with a tribal leader. There are "kings of the Dardani" mentioned (Monunius), but the Dardani never had any stable political entity. In fact, they appear to have invaded the region only a few decades before the Roman conquest, but this is uncertain, because it is essentially part of prehistory, and we have no idea of the ethnic identity of the peoples listed under "Illyrians" by classical authors. There is no reason whatsoever to burden the introduction to this article with speculation on Iron Age tribal geography. dab(𒁳) 13:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well said. Some nationalists over-emphasize certain historical entities, embuing them with the status of some kind of early states, as if to legitimise today's territorial claims. In reality, there is no proof at all that ALbanians are the descendents of Dardanians or Illyrians; or that the Dardanian "kingdom" was anything more than a tribe. Hxseek (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Albanians are Illyrians there are many facts and soon will come more facts belive me, and the Kingdom of Dardania or ancient Dardania was from Nis to Skup wich tells about the lands that Albanians had and that they are a nativ balkan people. Ballkanhistory 12:33 AM, 12 MAY 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but your above statement only shows your ignorance on the topic. Please feel free to acquaint yourself with some real history rather than regurgitating nationalistic folklore Hxseek (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
indeed. "Albanians are Illyrians there are many facts and soon will come more facts belive me" is pretty much a textbook example of the attitude we are talking about here. --dab(𒁳) 07:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That is true. The very first State in the region was the Roman Empire.
BTW, the Dardanians were Thracians as much as Illyrians, if not more. Some sort of direct claims of heritage are identical to the by now almost extinct SerboSlavonic Autochtonous School, according to which the Serb ethnogenesis occurred in the 4th century in the Balkans themselves. It's mostly based on archaeology and linguistics and yes, if you start reading it (e.g. Jovan I. Deretic) you would say how everything fits in perfectly!!! It must be true as if it's some 9-11 book.
The precise heritage of the Dardanians cam freely be claimed by Serbs and Greeks, if not more than Albanians. There are a lot of Dardani remains amongst the Serbs (the name of the major City of Nish, etc...). Of course, Albanian nationalists would come and claim the entire ancient culture for themselves, meaning that they would claim most of Serbia as of Albanian heritage, and not Dardanian-Thracian-Illyrian in specific.
Actually Hxseek, though there is no strong & concrete proof, we could conclude that the Albanians were most probably Illyrianized; compare that to the possible slavicization of the Serbs from the Caucasus. The Roman findings definitely depict an ancient Albanian tribe in the vicinity of the region of Kroja in central-north today's Albania, which was Illyrianized with the migration of Illyrians southwards.
Yes, but the ancient Albanoi tribe does not neccesarily equate as the ancestors of modern Albanians. It could be a transfer of name due to geographical approximity Hxseek (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Illyrian tribes
And in precise, the Albanian tribe - if Illyrian - was only a tiny and extremely small part of the massive Illyria (the Liburni, etc... see List of Illyrian tribes). There were some Albanian nationalists claiming all of this depicted in the image as Albania, but that is nonsensical. A good hypothetical comparison would be this one: Russia disperses as a state, and the Serbs claim Vladivostok, called Vladingtau by the Chinese (which own half of the globe). The Serbs emphasize that "Vladingtau" was originally (before the City was nuked by the Chegussetians - a new mixture people of the two Caucasian civilizations - in WWIII) "Vladivostok", and claim the Far east as ancient Serb land, or better said when they populate it, use it for a political effort of historical nationalist justification (as if it would really matter). Joking aside, according to a very popular theory (at least historically), the name "Serb" was the original name for all Slavs - because as we know the name "Slavs" draws its origin in foreign origin, Rome. In the end, only the Serbs and LusatianSorbs that kept this name to the 21st century (also Croats probably, as hrb/srv/whatever was possibly just a different interpretation of the one same word). This, naturally, doesn't prevent some madmen to claim you-know-what... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the God Dardanus and the Asian Dardania - especially in conjunction with Ancient Greek mythology, and more so the documents of the Roman writers on our European Dardania (migration of the dispersed Trojans to the central Balkans and degradation of the civilization), implying that the Dardanians were most probably under first Thracian and then Illyrian influence both Illyrianized and Thracizied, altogether are very hardly a coincidence. In any case, assuming a direct civilization of the Thraco-Illyrian Dardanians and Illyrian(ized or not) Albanians is evidently impossible to any historical eye, and serves primarily to the admixture of nationalist and political purpose. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. It is a possibility the Venetians and other Italians were of Illyrian origin, or at least Illyrianized...thus, if one starts to research the whole Balkans and all Illyrians in general, he or she will realize the national-romantic mythologies almost immediately (Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were in the 19th century overobsessed how they were Illyirians and the "most autochtonous peoples" when compared to the others - Ottoman and Habsburg *occupiers*). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So what shall we do with Kingdom of Daradnia now? The article says nothing of the kingdom, just of the tribe. If we are to mention this kingdom in the intro, then we should at least have a decent article (from the history I see that there's been some mess about this recently). Any suggestions? --Tone 16:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, don't mention any Kingdom nonsense. :) Beam 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Your decision to remove the reference to the Kingdom of Dardania is arbitrary. This is not a discussion about the indigenous people of the Balkan Peninsula, but about efforts to maintain a bit of neutrality in this article that is essentially an original research of some Wikipedia users. The Kingdom of Dardania did exist and this is common knowledge about the history of the region. As to the discussion, it is clearly being controlled by people of Slavic ancestry and this is not helpful as long as they stick to their point of view.--Getoar (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Getoar, we have already talked about these Barbarian "Kings". And there was especially no such thing as a "Kingdom of Dardania". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You (I do not mean "you", but almost all who write hier about history) are one of the Wikipedia "historians" educated at the Google University! Please, do not be ofended, this is just a joke with 99% truth in it. I will never understand why, after having so thoroughly explored the Internet sources, don’t you guys turn to the classical sources that are certainly given as references on some sites, read the books and find the answers. There were many classical authors who wrote on Dardania, like Justin (in Prologue 24), Polybius, Livy and then contemporary authors, like may be Fanula Papazoglu (The central Balkan tribes in pre-roman times) who has a full chapter on Dardanians, pages 131-170, and who confirms that the “kings” certainly existed. She even names some. I am certainly not going to give you these names and will not give you any citations because you will then misuse them pretending that you read the books, as you permanently do. The history sections on Wikipedia, gives often very good row data, I mean dating and isolated details, without understanding and historical meaning that may be reliable. This is because the amateur editors as you here, just look up at other Internet places and list what they found without any understanding whatsoever. You can not become “historians” without reading the sources. This is just not possible!!! This is why the history pages on Wikipedia are full of good details and then, at the same time, complete nonsense.Draganparis (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well "Google University " is good, but you exaggerate. May be "Goowik University"? (abr. for Google-Wikipedia). But I wanted to say something else more serious. How crazy is all of this what the people write hear in the discussion! The Serbs first just can not understand history. And Albanians fail in logic. Kosovo AND Metochia have been Serb for long time and obviously a lot of churches were built. Showing only Orthodox churches illustrates that fact. A very recent fact in spite “Muslim occupation” during 500 years!!! If we want to illustrate some other fact, we can try to present other picture, one of Muslim religious objects, for example. Or Catholic or what so ever. If Mr. Beam wants to present them all, let him present them all. But he must then say that these are all, for example. Since it is newer “all” he would have to say that this is “all what he could do”. But the reality may be completely different. One may say that it will be always unfair; anything that we do will be unfair and false. So if that Serb Babic?) put a picture where just Serb churches are and called them “just Serb”, it is correct to do like this. The land may have been Dardanian – long time ago. There is ZERO proof that today’s Albanians have something to do with Dardanians, as well as the Illyrian hypothesis is equally strong, i.e. has no meaning. During Ottoman empire Albanians, or whoever they may be (Turk military allies brought from Caspian regions? Who knows?) They seam to speak an ancient language that could be just Caspian enriched with the Greek and Roman influences), profited by adopting Muslim religion (not all!) and were advantaged population during the Ottoman times. This is not a pejorative because a lot of Balkan and Greek and Mediterranean people arrived probably from the Caspian regions also. The Arian, proto-Arian language probably had the same destiny.
So they (Albanian newcomers) probably, tried to extend their territory to the extremes exterminating the defeated Serbs. The Serbs were very religious people and many churches were built; as all Muslims are in principle very religious (not separating religion from the state) and they built a lot of mosques too, but later. Kosovo was strongly populated by the Albanians already at the end of the Ottoman empire and the retreat of the Turks coincided with the relative majority of the Albanians in Kosovo. The ethnic pressure (exaggerated mechanism of ethnic expansion – the way how we all Europeans in fact arrived where we are here) – continued very fast. In the Yugoslavia, this had extreme influence on and was running together with the violent means so that the Serbs left Kosovo. It is today 90% Albanian. What it will be in 100 or 500 years we do not know. And he/she Mr Beam should stop playing an arbiter here, because he is NOT one.Herodotus1A (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You are saying that Kosovo was populated by Albanians during Ottoman regime and you say that the churches witness the presence of the serbs. This is nonsense, as the Albanians were Christians prior to convert in the XVIIth century and they attended masses together with the serbs in those times. The fact that the Serbs had a stronger orthodox church and the Albanians had no national church is due to the fact that Albanians were either catholic or orthodox, whereas the serbs were all orthodox. Furthermore Albanian orthodoxy has always been under strong influence of Greek orthodoxy (and still is). The fact that Albanians converted more than the serbs indicates you that they were in charge of Kosovo: Why would a poor person convert? Poor families didn't have to pay "jihaz" tax at all! But wealthy families who risk to lose money and power convert much more promptly in a religious state such as the Ottoman Empire. That is why Albanians converted more than serbs.--Sulmues 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong about one thing. Are/were ever Albanian Orthodox in Kosovo or the surrounding territories? Nope. Those Albanians are/were Roman Catholic Christians. The Orthodox Albanians were far to the south. And yes, there were Catholic Serbs, but those were very isolated. Serbs converted to Islam en masse too, just because the Slavic Muslims were pushed to extinct (except in Sanjak) with the passing of Ottoman power doesnt meant that they never existed, and majorily populated all cities. Prior to the XVIIth the Albanians were Christians by the greatest part, but they had yet to settle Kosovo back then. --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not wrong, but you are in both your claims. First, there were many Albanian Orthodox people in Kosovo until the beginning of the XXth century. After that time the very few ones remained got slavicised. But I can guarantee that there is plenty of proofs to show that part of the Albanians were orthodox 3-4 centuries ago. For example, even today Saint George and Saint Demeter are celebrated in Kosovo by the Albanian catholics following the Julian calendar and not the Gregorian one. This is a very strong proof to say that they were originally orthodox and converted to catholics at a certain point of time. In addition, the style of construction of many churches has been done on the model of the Albanian "kulla", which is completely unknown for the Serbian tradition. A serbian author, Pero Slijepcevic, recognizes that "out of the many serbian church in Kosovo only a handful is built by them. The serbs did not have neither the tradition of construction nor that of the icons for the orthodox churches found in Kosovo". Second, Albanians were the original inhabitants of Kosovo for at least 3000 documented years: serbs have been documented in the Balkans from the VIIth century, and much later (XIth century) in today's Kosovo.--Sulmues 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well first of all, let me hear which Albanian Orthodox person was from Kosovo by name. Can you name at least one. Also where did they live? Part of the Albanians were Orthodox? Of course they were. Those in the south. Not the ones in Kosovo and Skadar's area. That which you mentioned is hardly a proof of anything. We could just as well say that that those were Orthodox Serbs once, that at one point due to expansion of Catholicism in the 1600s (though it was mainly in Macedonia, and not Kosovo) converted to Catholicism, and assimilated into Albanians, because Catholicism is what separates the Albanians from the mainly Orthodox Serbs. This is even more logic than yours, isn't it? I do not know of what importance could be about history of Kosovo what a poet from Herzegovina wrote, eve if he did write that. What is he saying, that there was some sort of a special orthodox icons style just for Kosovo?!?! Could you name me which Church or Monastery was made in the Albanian "kulla", or better said which Church or Monastery was raised by the Albanians in Kosovo? Name also here please. And could you describe this "kulla" please? And in the end you are very wrong, what you are saying is typical propaganda, the Albanians have been documented as certain since the 11th century, and Serbs since the VIth, but Albanians in today's Kosovo much later (XVIIIth century). --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
But the Albanians being muslim and Turkish allies only naturally favoured their settlement of Kosovo from wherever they might have originated from. This is not propaganda, or bad-mouthing of Albanians (we have moved on from the days where we consider everything Turkish/Muslim as backward/primitive/nasty). But represents logical fact. There was a constant cycle of Serbian uprising (supported by Austria and/or Russia). Then the Austrians would sign a peace treaty with the Turks, leaving the Serbs at the mercy of the Turks. After 5 centuries, most Serbs in Kosovo were killed or migrated to the north where it was less Turkicised. It is only natural that the Albanias- being the favoured Turkish pawns- then moved to occupy Kosovo more completely as the years went by. No one is accusing them of being evil or anything, this is simply what anyone would do . It has happened for thousands of years in every continent. Hxseek (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You may be right. But I can not see where the problem is. I was refering to the 18th-19th century. The Turks stayed there I think untill 1912, so there was enough time for this. You mentioned 17th century as the conversion time (to Islam). Could you give some sources please? There is little doubt that the churches were built by the Slavs and these could be just the Serbs. The churches were used probably by all who lived there. I read somewhere that the Turks organised census on at least two occasions where they distinguish Albanians from the Serbs and other nations. Does anybody have some data about this? Herodotus1A (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes there was earlier on either in this article or the History of kosovo article, but might have been removed by someone. The first charter was the Decanski charter in the 12th which recorded (rough figures) as > 90% Slav, 2 % Albanian households. The Turks held quite good censi even from early on, as far as the 14 th century. These censi clearly document an inversion of demographic ratios, progressing steadily during the centuries of Turkish occupation, with Albanians growing from a small minority to a large majority. Interestingly, i have come across theories that Serbs in Kosovo started to speak Albanian becuase of 'the large numbers of Albanians, and therefore many Kosovar Albanians today are in fact "Albanianized Serbs"- but dont quote me on this. Hxseek (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Conversion of Albanians to Islam has been steady and gradual since XVIth century and has strongly increased in the XVIIth century. After that Albanians held very strong positions in th administration of the Empire: The Albanian Quprilli family gave 35 prime ministers to the Empire during the span of 3 centuries. At a certain point the Turks realized that converting Albanians wasn't that profitable because there were less christians to work for them. That is why there was a certain stop of conversions in the XVIIIth century. The XIXth century had again a raise in conversions (especially during the 1840s), because of the Tanzimat reforms, which increased the "jihaz" tax (tax to christians) sixfold. Furthermore, the Empire started to hire christian solders for the many wars they were doing: the Albanian christians were already giving money, now they should give blood too for the turks, so they thought "what the hell, we're going to fight but let's at least not pay these christian taxes anymore", hence the conversion restarted. In Kosovo, many albanians that were pious got slavised and converted to the Serbian orthodox church. The others became muslims. When you say that the serbs built those churches, you make the mistake to fall under the serbian propaganda, because many of those churches belonged to Albanian families. Many of them were catholic Albanian and converted to orthodox churches. The whole Antisari plan is a sham for the Albanians because it treats the lands where they stay as christian lands occupied by muslims. This would be the same as claiming to put under Saudi Arabia the (few) Belgrade mosques.--167.219.88.140 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If we talk about slavicization of Albanians, we must also talk about albanization of Serbs, and that in fact most Kosovo Serbs were albanized through Moslem faith, and only a small number remaining Serb through Orthodox faith. --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This is astonishing. There is so little written on history of that region. Could you give me some literature, some references where that peace of history can be read, please? In particular the Ottoman times in these regions. Simply the sources where you learned all of this. Please in English if possible. Thanks! (and log in next time, so that your IP number will not be wisible!)Herodotus1A (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is little literature on the history of the Albanians as Albania has been a closed country during the cold war. In addition Albania has been a poor and a dangerous country to live, so not many travallers have spoken about it. I am Albanian and the sources of my knowledge are mainly written history books of my school, written by Albanian scholars and historians.--Sulmues 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)
I see. You're saying all those "Serbian" orthodox churches in Kosovo from the 10th, 11th, 12th century were built by Albanians in the 17th cenutry. That IS amazing ! Hxseek (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Now where did I exactly say that? And why are you taking care of a discussion page of wikipedia? I agree that dislexy is a good reason to keep reading but wikipedia is heavy stuff. All I said is that Albanians have been Christians until the 17th century. The churches were built earlier.--Sulmues 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)
The bottom of the line is we are going to be neutral, no matter what. That policy will be enforced here. Beam 19:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Disputed by who????
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. The sole purpose of this section is Soapboxing. As such, the section is closed. ThuranX (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo declared independence. And Serbia was sorry to lose it I know, but that was it's own fault for it's repeated ignorance towards the west and it's insistence of bringing mysery to the non-Serbs. Russia supports Serbia on some "communist" grounds, an old-dictator buddy thing, but all the democratic states recognize Kosovo. The number might just be 40 like Chanler said, but it is early days, it takes years for all countries to recognize countries because most are too busy with their own affairs. The EU recognizes Kosovo and so does the UN and surely that should count. France regocnizes, Germany regognizes, Sweden recognizes, Spain recognizes, Portugal recognizes, Australia recognizes, all former Yugoslavian states recognize, Albania recognizes. The only countrys who probably dont recognize are maybe dictator states with no democracy like Zimbabwe and Russia. It is the "democratic" states and institutions which matter, and the countries that recognize ARE them. Autobush (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
That's some quality rambling but I think you answered your own question. Beam 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The EU don't have an official stance towards the independence of Kosovo nor fully the U.N with the two members of the U.N sercurity council or whatever they are called refuses it. "The only countrys who probably dont recognize are maybe dictator states with no democracy like Zimbabwe and Russia." I'm not sure if you had an education in world affiars and all that but Russia does not have a dictator and does have democracy even if its not great they have democracy. UK dont have a great democracy either. Its a disputed territory coz their are a good amount of nations that has not recognise it yet or refuses to do so. Only 43 nations have done so out of 200. Until its fully recognize or near it enough to be recognize by the E.U and U.N then it will no longer be a disputed territory.Pro66 (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, Spain does not recognise it. Their PM Zapatero made his position clear before Kosovo declared independence. Evlekis (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You just don't get it. Kosovo DOES NOT DEPEND on another country. Serbia is not in control of Kosovo. Kosovo has it's own currency and own parliament, it's own law and it's own schools. That makes in INDEPENDENT. Ofcourse Serbia doesnt wanna recognize it, but Serbia doesnt recognize any of the countries it lost when it destroyed Yugoslavia. Do we say that Croatia is disputed because Serbia does not recognize it? No. Croatia is not in the Greater Serbian Empire that existed in the days of communism and neither is Kosovo. The UK recognizes it and so does America. How much more do you want? Autobush (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Until the rest of the World you are neglecting. China, russia, Serbia refuse to regnise and over 140 nations has not recognized it nor has the U.N and EU. so therefore its not a fully independent untill its fully recognised and its disputed coz there are more then one nation that is disputing something you can't seem to grasp that very well. Pro66 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, so what about Israel??? Thats not recognized by several countries like your middle eastern states and the Muslum countries and everywhere else where you get Sharia law. Pakistan doesn't recognize Israel and so do we remove Israel from the independent list of countries? Iran doesn't recognize it either. And what about the rest of Yugoslavia that Serbia doesn't recognize? Do we call them disputed?? It tried to decimate the whole of Bosnia & Herzegovina some years back. Serbia will never accept losing it's empire it once had during the "good old" days of Communism. However little amount of countries do or do not recognize Kosovo one must realize at all times that it is the world's newest country and that it does not depend on anyone, it has it's own flag, it's own anthem and own official language, none matches Sebrian. Over 40 countries allready recognize it and it's only been since February of this year. Come the end of the year, all states will recognize it but I expect Serbia (Russia's puppet) and Russia will still not. I find this whole affair stupiod and incredible.
How stupid are you Autobush? Where do you get this that "Serbia does not recognize Croatia" or any former Yugoslavian countries?? That's 100% false in every way, woah, at least check SOME of the crap you write. 77.105.26.157 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Autobush , you know very little. Serbia's claims on Bosnia and Kosovo are not related to its "communist empire" - as you put it, but to the fact that Serbs have lived in these regions of conflict for centuries- Bosnia, Kosovo and parts of Croatia. It saw itself as defending the rights of these Serbs against what it saw a potentially dangerous and de-stabilising Islamic regimens. Yes, it was carried out in a catastrophic manner, but your statements are not only POV, but also lack intelligence Hxseek (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - to which Serbia belonged until 2003 - did establish diplomatic relations with all of its former republics seveal years previously. During the fighting period (1991-95), it would not immediately recognise former republics because of the unresolved issues, but its own recreation involving just two republics in April 1992 meant that this was not a territorial dispute, just a case of one country having initially bad relations with the others. Kosovo's independence has aroused doubt far and wide. A couple of dozen or so countries wish not to recognise it on logistic grounds (breakaway regions may exist within their territories) and even among the ranks of the countries who have racognised Kosovo, there has been resent from high profile individuals, such as the Czech President Vlaclav Klaus. This is why it is disputed even if it does function independently. You may be interested to know that several entities around the world function independently with their own flags, anthems, government etc. but are not internationally recognised at present (ie. the odd country may recognise them but a strong majority do not). Evlekis (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Elvekis, you are a Serb nationalist so someone should block you. Firstly mate, your precious territories which are "internationally unrecognized" are just that - ROGUE STATES. Kosovo is NO rogue state because it IS recognized by America, by Britain and by all DEMOCRATIC countries, the rest of them like Northern Cyprus are not. How the hell can a country which declares independence, is recognized by America and democratic countries NOT be independent??? Do we have to wait for Saddam Hussein to rise from the dead to say he recognizes it??????? Autobush (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all Kosovo is not recognized by the UN, EU, or even NATO which bombed civilians and embassies in Serbia some nine years ago. Also only two of the former Yugoslav republic recognize Kosovo (they are Croatia and Slovenia) while the other four do not recognize (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia). Here is a list of UN member states which recognize Kosovo and Metohija as a Serbian province...
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Republic of the Congo
Côte d'Ivoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Fiji
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Jamaica
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nepal
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Philippines
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Seychelles
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
New Zealand don't recognise it as a Serbian province or an independent republic. The recognise it as disputed territory. Also just because these countries don't recognise Kosovo, doesn't mean Kosovo isn't a country ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There's not just the lack of universal recognition. The authority of the government over the territory is also a question that should be looked at. At this point the highest authority in the territory is still UNMIK. That organ of the UN has not authorised or recognized the declaration of independence of Kosovo. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I believe the user Autobrush needs to be blocked from editing Kosovo as his editing is unconstructive and he is refuses to ackeknowledging what other people had said. He has recieved warnings from another user for vandlising another article, he has from what i seen a small form of hatred against serbia and also another user has accuse him of sockpuppetry so i like for admins to take into account of what to do with the user autobrush thanks. Pro66 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Meh, just revert him, but be weary of 3RR. I'll step in if you get to 3 Reverts. If he then reverts me..well, he gets banned. Beam 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I also support Autobrush being banned if he makes one more negative edit. Autobrush has claimed that Kosovo is legitimately independent because "Milosevic is gone and so is Greater Serbia". This is declaring that Kosovo was only part of Serbia due to Greater Serbian nationalism which is not true, as Kosovo was established as an autonomous province of Serbia during the Communist and anti-nationalist regime of Joseph Broz Tito (himself a part-Slovene and Croat), it was only until the reign of Milosevic that violence exploded between Albanian and Serbian nationalist forces that Kosovo's legitimacy in Serbia began to become under dispute.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Violence exploded between Albanians and Serbian? Could you please provide a source for this wild claim? There was a conflict after the Serbian government expelled all Kosovar institutions and brought in the Serbian forces (police, paramilitary, and Army) to make Kosova more Serbian. When the Serbian forces started beating and killing Kosovar civilians violence started between MUP and UCK. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Mr Ari, you unfortunately seem to neglect the mention of kosovar albanians terrorising and murdering Serb civillians years prior to Milosevic's actions. An honest oversight, i;m sure. Hxseek (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
R-41 does not have to provide any source for anything. His remark comes on a talk page and he is rightly concerned about a certain individual who is blatantly using Wikipedia to repeat the rhetoric of the major players who in 1999 stood against the Belgrade government in the Kosovo crisis. The violence did not so much "explode" after Milošević took stage but intensified. The entire affair had been slowly escalating in the years leading the end of the 1980's. No individual from either side of the conflict wall can be held fully responsible for everything which happened. When two nations within a single country have diametrically opposed views on self-determination, only the clerics who drive them to feel that way can ammend the notion. Be that as it may, it is a reciprocal approach: one nation cannot oppose another unless that other nation also opposes it. There had been reports of abuses by local Albanians throughout the 70's, 60's, 50's right back to the days that today's regions became internationally recognised as Serbian sovereignty (Treaty of London 1913). Likewise, there have constantly been reports on how the central government in Belgrade, throughout all its phases, performed abuses towards the Albanian population. There were times it was plain violence, and other times, it was just provocation caused by unkept promises and a failure to fully integrate the nation. For one who advocates all-out independence for Kosovo, nothing else is naturally enough, so it was easy to find fault with the system throughout the 1960's and early 1970's when autonomy was gradually increasing. There were often reports of dissidency and dissatisfaction by the Albanians, citing abuses by Belgrade. Local Serbs too had long filed complaints about treatment and abuse of power by Albanian authorities within Kosovo. A conflict can only exist if it has a minimum of two opposing sides. And the suggestion that either side was completely innocent until the other one struck, or one is "more right than the other" is pathetic. Evlekis (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There was never ANY violence against Kosovar-Serbs from Kosovar-Albanians from anytime in the 20th century; those are lies made up by SANU that got Milosevic into power; pure propaganda. I think you should do some searching about SANU's work such as how "kosovo albanians are genociding the serbs in kosovo". Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Come on Ari, don't be like that. Beam 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I can because I have sources, and facts. I can prove that SANU (Serbian Academic something science) was a Serbian Government tool that was a think-tank for anti-Albanian fears and propaganda. I can prove that there was no ethnic violence between Kosovars (albanian on serb, or serb on albania). Can you prove them wrong Beam? I'm leaving for now but please reply in my talkpage, I don't want WP to be more cluttered. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
To say that there was NO violence of that sort in the 20th century is just silly. Beam 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
More to the point, it is impossible to "prove the negative", and that is when the negative is true in the first place. For example, to prove that there no Norwegian has ever lived in Brindisi, Italy, I would need to compile list after list of endless population statistics and censa based on Brindisi from every corner of creation, and still I would prove nothing; whilst one who knows differently need only give the address of some Norwegian who lived six months there in 1981 and my whole testiment is refuted. With regards to Kosovo, there had been reports of ethnic unrest dating back to the first days, all be it few and somewhat isolated. Serbs throughout Central Serbia, Vojvodina and other places who originated from Kosovo were publishing notes of their experiences many years before the SANU documents. SANU was a mid-1980's publication, a recent chapter, but the independently authenticated reports by anti-Kosovo independence persons including a number of ethnic Albanians go back long before the SANU memorandum. Evlekis (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Evlekis you are talking NONSENSE. There was no ethnic violence and please don't give us Norwegian examples, this is about Kosova not Norway. If there was any unrest in Kosova from Albanians against Serbs please document me 10 cases and I will drop this. I find it fascinating that there are people from Norway or wherever you may be that are trying to tell me that they know better about my country which I was born and raised in. There is crime in France between French and English...but that's called everyday crime, you CANT conclude that there is "ethnic unrest" in France. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Very well if I am talking nonsense. Here is a list of compiled reports from the New York Times dating back to 1981 (before the SANU memorandum), and definitely not everyday antisocial disorder but 110% political [11]. Read it all. Evlekis (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I replied in your page. Enjoy! Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Who's talking nonsense? I dare say, Albanians try to pass the notion that they are wholly innocent in the kosovo affair, and they are only victims of Serb nationalism. Any person who has lived in the Balkans can testify against this (and even suggest the complete contrary); be they Serb, Macedonian or even Greek. It seems like you are trying to convince yourself of a reality which does not exist, Ari d'Kosova.Hxseek (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point Kosovo2008, the New York Times is just a "blog." If that is your opinion then I cannot argue with it. I'm just curious to know how even a blog could produce lies years before it ever became known that they would one day be relied upon. The Kosovo riots of 1981 were reported in all western media. What you fail to realise is that even they were only a responce to other activities. I know that the Albanian nation had its reasons to feel dissatisfied; I know that Yugoslavia's federal authorities mistreated them at times. You don't need to tell me this! My only point is that from 1990 onwards, the situation worsened, but it did not just "develop from nowhere!" Now am I being anti-Albanian? I don't think so! Evlekis (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I called the "The new emperors clothes" a blog. Calling me "Kosovo2008" is an insult when you know my username is "Kosova2008" and a very cheap one at best, not to mention immature. I see that your mind is set as stone, there is no changing it, so believe what you want. Ari, out!! Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop being childish, It's not an insult at all, Would ANY Swede or for that matter any other person be insulted if their username was Sverige2008 and he called them Sweden2008? NO because It doesn't make any sense. It just sounds like you want to bring more hatred into the discussions. — chandler — 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The website listed is a blog but the references are all genuine. The New York Times did report the Kosovar riots of 1981. Here is another source for it - [12]. Balkantropolis (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That wesbite is a BLOG, it was written by ONE PERSON and so was the one you gave. I watched CNN (neutral) and Sky (neutral) during the Kosovo campaign and EVERYTHING was peaceful before the butcher Milosevic assumed presidency. Albanians were ALL happy and there was no terrorism. Milosevic knew that to create his Greater Serbia, he would first have to send his troops to invade Kosovo and thus began the ethnic cleansing, genocide and rapes. NO WAY did new York Times report nothing about no so-called "Kosovo riots" in 1981 because there was no MILOSEVIC to try for Greater Serbia that year. I am so glad that Ari d'Kosova knows what he is talking about. Autobush (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes he does, but you obviously don't. Apart from the fact your views are shared only within an anti-Serb environment, you don't appear to accept a general concensus. The only person who has altered the text to "Kosovo is independent" is you! For one claiming to be from Surrey, you seem more dangerous than many of the Albanian heavyweights we already have here. Atleast they respect concensuses; atleast they can stand and argue on the talk page rather than making constant reverts. Evlekis (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Look here. You are a Serbian nationalist and you cannot accept that you have lost Kosovo. It's good people didn't want to be under your Communist rule and didn't want to be a part of your plan to exterminate them and cleanse them. You say it is ONLY ME who says it is independent. What about the politicians in democratic countries? When George Bush states "I RECOGNIZE KOSOVO", and he keeps KFOR troops there to hold back Serbian communists and "Greater Serbia" enthusiasts, how much more evidence do you need that it is INDEPENDENT? Evlekis is a Serb nationalist and should be blocked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Autobush (talk • contribs)
Autobush, I strongly recommend that you read WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:Consensus and WP:NPA before you continue editing Wikipedia. Your latest edits were disruptive and I must warn you that Balkan-related topics are under a strict probation which determines that disruptive users may be easily banned from editing them. So please follow my advice and read those policies in order to understand how we function. Thank you. Húsönd 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Autobush is currently accused of being a sockpuppet of the blocked user DW Celt. Anyone with evidence either for or against this accusation might want to go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DW Celt and speak up. I personally do not claim to know whether Autobush is a sockpuppet or not; I'm just reporting a complaint that someone else has already lodged. Richwales (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The user has now been blocked for being a sockpuppet. Pro66 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the democratic (somewhat) country of serbia is communist, and greater serbia was only the dream of 1 man, ye,s makes sence to me...--Jakezing (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Not you aswell. No Serbia is not communist, nor is it one-party rule. Its democracy may be questionable but then the same can be said of anywhere. If Greater Serbia had been the dream of one man as you say, then nobody would have heard of it, he'd have been advised to keep it to himself. I think our former friend Autobush read too many books by Noel Malcolm and got just a touch too absorbed by BBC reports, his facts were so out of place that you'd have to start from the beginning of time to set him straight. Good riddance to him. Evlekis (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Map Consensus
Resolved
Right now the article has no map because someone took it off, well a revert by DAB but I don't see a map. Last time I started a consensus for the map, the discussion was open for maybe a month, and the change was made. Here is what needs to be established,
the map must:
Clearly make Kosova easy to find on the map
and
Either have both Alb/Ser names or none, BUT, must have Pristina
Now since some of you feel that I took it under my liberty to change the map without their input here is a great time to nominate a map or two; we'll discuss them and whatever the community here decides it will be our map.
I want this the CIA map to be on here. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
You claim "the article has no map." This is nonsense. The article has two maps in the lead (apart from several more maps in the body): one showing Kosovo within Europe as you request, and one showing Kosovo within Serbia. The only thing missing at this moment is a physical map. --dab(𒁳) 16:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, a physical map is needed. This page ([[13]]) has something similar to the CIA map, I think it's the Polish Wiki. Anyways, I made this so we could discuss the map since you were so displeased; I can't say you had a mandate to remove the map altogether, but you should contribute and tell us what map isn't POV, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be a map WITHOUT names, that shows where Kosovo is located, NOT zoomed in to only show Kosovo like the CIA map. This is what every other country/state/region/etc has. — chandler — 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
diff I'm not going to get to a second revert over this person. Someone else should be nice and do it. Beam 16:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have an idea: We move the map being used in the RoK infobox up to the top. Serbia is grey, so it shows the dispute, and that seems neutral enough. It also addresses Chandler's point about the zoom. Then we can put that CIA map in the RoK infobox, where it's actually relevant. BalkanFever 03:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan is also disputed, but we don't show PRC in grey. Why should we show Serbia in grey? --alchaemia (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The map should in no way show Kosovo as part of Serbia because we are then supporting the Serbian point of view. Take a look at the articles about Northern Cyprus and Republic of China. I can not see any dashed lines, even though these countries are disputed. Kosovo is even more a country, being recognized by USA, Japan and most EU-countries. We should have a map that shows Kosovo alone/independent of any other country, and adresse the issue of recognitions in the text, as we already have done.--NOAH (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Screaming is hardly productive. BalkanFever 09:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that all you can say?--NOAH (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I find it strange that you are so against "supporting the Serbian point of view" but so for supporting the independent point of view, while forgetting this article is suppose to be supporting the neutral point of view. — chandler — 09:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not saying we should support the independent point of view, but we can present Kosovo alone (without dashed lines) since we have already stated in the intro that independence is contested by Serbia. I support independence for Kosovo but when editing I do my best to avoid let my feelings control my edits here. I always try to be as NPOV as possible. Sometimes the debates may be very polarized and I may say things I should not have said but I try to never make POV edits, I don’t think I have either. --NOAH (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Real discussion
When you people want to stop SCREAMING, yelling and SHOUTING about your respective neutrality (or lack thereof), or about your respective states of existence, please edit here and respond to my proposal. I'll restate it
I have an idea: We move the map being used in the RoK infobox up to the top. Serbia is grey, so it shows the dispute, and that seems neutral enough. It also addresses Chandler's point about the zoom. Then we can put that CIA map in the RoK infobox, where it's actually relevant. BalkanFever 12:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The consensus has now been reached: Use CIA map in RoK infobox and "Europe Locator KOS" in territory infobox. -- 20000Talk/Contributions 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo "is currently a disputed territory in the Balkans" should be changed to "a partly recognized republic in Europe".
This would be a much more correct description since over 40 nations now have recognized Kosovo. Besides, all know that Kosovo will never be a part of Serbia again since over 90% of the population are kosovars and are strongly opposed to be a part of Serbia again.--Ezzex (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. I really hate arguing against this suggestion but there's 100+ countries that haven't recognized and some 10s of countries that said they WON'T recognize. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball etc... Beam 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
that's like saying "Jesus is a partly recognized Son of God". dab(𒁳) 19:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
But... I love Jesus. He, and I mean He, loves me too! Wait, are you agreeing with me or not? Beam 19:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
what I am trying to say is, we might as well put it as "Kosovo is a partly recognized province of Serbia". Both variants are equally biased. --dab(𒁳) 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
"A partly recognized republic" is the truth since they are in fact recognized by over 40 nations. The sentence "disputed territory" sounds silly and little accurate after February 2008. --Ezzex (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read what dab said? We should just put "a partly recognized province of Serbia" according to your logic, because 160 countries HAVE NOT recognized. Beam 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should stick to the reality of 2008 and not become too philosopically. --Ezzex (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Right. And the reality is that it's a disputed territory. 160/200+ countries don't recognize Kosovo. It is biased to say it's a "partially recognized Republic" or a "breakaway region", "separatist province", "partly recognized province of Serbia." Sorry, we have to stay neutral. Beam 20:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
What about "A partly recognized republic and a disputed territory in the Balkans? --Ezzex (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Only 16 nations don't recognize Kosovo while 43 do recongnize them --Ezzex (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
so long as we don't become adverbs (Ezzex's comment), that sounds fine :p ninety:one 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
ps. glad we're agreed here, but Pristina says 'is the capital and the largest city of the newly independent Balkan nation of Kosovo'! ninety:one 20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow...wow. Well...wow. That's not right. brb. Beam 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, while this article is relatively neutral, the rest of Kosovo-related articles are heavily biased in favor of either the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia. Colchicum (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed Pristina. Where else isn't it neutral? I'll have to go on an NPOV spree. Beam 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Rambouillet Agreement looks particularly bad, though I don't know how to fix this. Many other articles in the History of Kosovo series are also very biased (sometimes in both directions at the same time). Colchicum (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if there is anything I'm good at regarding Wikipedia, it's neutrality. I will attack each and every problem you bring to my attention. Sorry for the French but Fuck Nationalists and POV Pushers. Beam 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is supposed to be concise and summarized but I like that language, you should incorporate in the article in an appropriate section, perhaps as an opening sentence to a section. Beam 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraph should be "a partly recognized country in Europe, but disputed by its neighbour, Serbia". It would be more correct. Simply saying "a disputed territory" is very little. Even the moon is a disputed territory.--Sulmues 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
do you know, or care, what we had to go through since February in order to arrive at the current, extremely neutral, lead section? Its phrasing should not be fiddled with idly until there is some substantial change in status quo. "Kosovo, a territory in the Balkans is disputed amongst Republic of Kosovo and Republic of Serbia" would in principle be equivalent of course, but then some people objected to keep Republic of Kosovo as a standalone article separate from that of the territory, so the first link simply redirects back to this page. dab(𒁳) 17:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
dab, there would is nothing wrong with the intro I introduced. The Republic of Kosovo would take you to a different article and not Kosovo. Those people that object to having a standalone article of Rep of KV is simply POV..but for the time being all Kosova|Kosovo|Kosove|Kocobo need to be directed to Kosovo and in the future this will change (possibly >> Republic of Kosova). Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
you just totally changed the topic. We do not want to open the split discussion again. dab(𒁳) 20:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with dab. So much effort was put into finding consensus on how many articles there would be for this situation (hint: we decided on one - this one), and restarting it will most likely bring the same results. It will just deter from discussion to improve the article. BalkanFever 03:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I truly wish that people would put half of the emotion and effort into improving the article in places that don't have to do with the RoK or the DoI. It would be so awesome, I'd probably orgasm. Beam 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, there is NOTHING, and I mean absolutely nothing controversial with having an article about the REPUBLIC of KV. POV is when Kosova / o search leads you to Republic of KV article although. I am going to inform you and everyone that I am for an article split, I loved the way that Kosova search took you to disambiguation page, I wish that would still happen. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Kosovo. Don't you see that nobody cares for your suggestion? If you must re-open it, do it through the proper channels, not in a completely unrelated talk section: that leads to no result except cluttering an already busy page. dab(𒁳) 10:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't be rude, you don't own WP. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely it must be immediately changed back to partially recognised republic for moment 'cause
Kosovo in every new day is waiting for a new recognision ( that's sure 100% it's gonna happend.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triimm.z (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"'cause Kosovo in every new day is waiting for a new recognision ( that's sure 100% it's gonna happend."
Your own POV is not a vaild reason for it to be changed. Pro66 (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo is a cessionary territory of Serbia which has achieved de facto independence and substantial international recognition as an independent republic. It remains a disputed territory, claimed by Serbia, while Serbia’s actual loss of control is not disputed. Some countries recognize Kosovo’s formal independence, some reject it, many have taken no stand as yet.
In truth, its status can be analogized to the Republic of China/Taiwan, the former German Democratic Republic, or better yet, Rhodesia under the UDI. These countries were de facto independent (with some outside assistance in the first two cases), but with mixed recognition. Kosovo has and probably will continue to fare better at racking up recognition (ROC is at 35 or so countries). Kosovo got its independence the same way the GDR did and will very likely have similar long term success and very widespread recognition.
Criticality (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with this suggestion. Partly recognized is correct, because 20 out of 27 EU nations have recognized Kosovo.--Sulmues 19:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The EU is not the whole world. ThuranX (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Albanians and Albanian (Kosovars included)
Click to open »
Illyrians are a large group of indo-European tribes[3] and Albanians and Albanian belong to Illyrian of the south, thraco- illyrian tribes such Epiriotes and Macedonian [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] even more ancient[11] that the generic name of Illyrians. In the Dark Ages the Albanians or Epiriotes were partly conquered by Slavs [12][13].Albanians were identified with the name Epiriot[14][15] by themselves and outsiders until 17th century but with the identification of Millet during Ottomans Empire based on religion the name Epiriot was abandoned and the name Shqiptar or Albanian was used instead [16][17].
1.Reference: Illyrians, the large group of related Indo-European tribes that occupied in classical times the western side of the Balkan Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Ed. John Roberts. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
2.Albanian is identified as the descendent of Illyrian, but Hamp (1994a) argues that the evidence is too meager and contradictory for us to know whether the term Illyrian even referred to a single language. Thracian has also been adduced as a possible ancestor of Albanian (Fine 1983, 10? 11). Hamp (1982; 1994b) argues that Albanian is descended from a language that was in intense contact with Latin, as was the language that produced Romanian (traditionally referred to as Dacian), but unlike the ancestor of Romanian, the ancestor of Albanian escaped Romanization. Source : Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics. Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 144.
3.The ancient Macedonians probably had some Illyrian roots, but their ruling class adopted Greek cultural characteristics. The Illyrians also mingled with the Thracians, another ancient people with adjoining lands on the east[14]
5.Not one of the peoples with whom we have to deal in this book has such a claim to the epithet "Balkan" as the Dardanians... because they appear as the most stable and the most conservative ethnic element in the area where everything was exposed to constant change, and also because they, with their roots in the distant prehomeric age, and living in the frontiers of the Illyrian and the Thracian worlds retained their individuality and, alone among the peoples of that region succeeded in maintaining themselves as an ethnic unity even when they were militarily and politically subjected by the Roman arms...and when at the end of the ancient world, the Balkans were involved in far-reaching ethnic perturbations, the Dardanians, of all the Central Balkan tribes, played the greatest part in the genesis of the new peoples who took the place of the old" Papazoglu, Central Balkan Tribes, p.131
6.Reference : The Albanians (more of an ethnographic than a geographic term) are called Arnauts (Arnaoots, Arnaouts) by the other peoples of the Balkan peninsula; they give themselves the name of Skipetars or "mountaineers". They claim descent from the Epirots and Illyrians, and, like the latter, have always been distinguished by their warlike spirit Source: Albania Written by Elisabeth Christitch. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York[16]
7.Reference : The period of the Roman domination, the 2nd-4th centuries A.D., marked the beginning of a major differentiation, effective throughout the Albanians' historical development, in the processes taking place in the North and in the South. The population in the more backward North succumbed to assimilation and lost its language and its Illyrian identity awareness. On the contrary, owing to their higher level of development and cultural and ethnic distinction, the Illyrians in the South could keep their identity even under the Roman Empire and its strong civilisation pressure…….. 3 Antonina Zhelyazkova 1999.. International center for minority study and intercultural relations. Sofia .BULGARIA [17]
8.Roman empire prefecture of Illyricum , tribes of Epriotes and Macedonians [18] ,the new Slavs took territories from Epiriotet .
9.Reference:After Scutari, Yanina is the largest and most interesting town of modern Albania. Near it are the ruins of the temple of Dodona, the cradle of pagan civilization in Greece. This oracle uttered its prophecies by interpreting the rustling of oak branches; the fame of its priestesses drew votaries from all parts of Greece. In this neighbourhood also dwelt the Pelagic tribes of Selles, or Helles, and the Graiki, whose names were afterwards taken to denote the Hellenes, or Greeks.: Source: Albania. Catholic Encyclopedia Online [19]
10.Paragraph 7: Of course, in any event we could only prove the Albanians did, and never that they did not, precede the Slavs [20]
11.Albania, Christianity in. Christianity probably reached Albania early, but with the fall of the W. Empire in the 5th and 6th cents. its influence was largely destroyed. In the Dark Ages the Albanians were partly conquered by Slavs. In the 9th cent. some were incorporated into the Bulgarian kingdom, adhering to E. Orthodoxy, and in the 11th cent. they came under Serbian sway. At the time of the schism between the E. and W. Churches, some transferred their allegiance from Constantinople to Rome. After the Turks finally subjugated Albania in 1521, there was much apostasy. In 1913 Albania became independent and the Orthodox Church became autocephalous in 1922. Under Communist rule after 1945 all places of worship were closed, but the outward practice of religion was allowed again in 1991.How to cite this entry:
"Albania, Christianity in" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press."
12.Reference .Barleti repeatedly stresses the national aspect of his work. Scanderbeg is not only an impressive hero, but also the saviour of his native country. When he is compared with Alexander the Great and Pyrrhus, these are not arbitrarily chosen models from antiquity, but national heroes, for Alexander's Macedonia and Pyrrhus' Epirus are for Barleti synonymous with his own country. Mostly he calls it Epirus, but also often Albania Source : A Heroic Tale: Marin Barleti's Scanderbeg between orality and literacy Minna Skafte Jensen (b. 1937) Ass. professor of Greek and Latin, Copenhagen University, 1969-93. Professor of Greek and Latin, University of Southern Denmark, 1993-2003. Member of the Danish, Norwegian and Belgian Academies of Sciences and Letters. Main fields of research: Archaic Greek epic and the oral-formulaic theory
13.Reference :Albania and Albanians which is a new name were identify not wrongly with Epiriotes from 1000 AD [Despotate of Epirus] , Gjergj Kastrioti Princ of Epirus and Ali Pashe kingdom 1744-1822 who was prescribed by british poet Bajron in his poem Childe Harold"Albania" A Dictionary of World History. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University
14.The history of modern Albanian identity, like that of other modern Balkan identities, begins during the end of the Ottoman Empire. At this time, the Ottoman system of classification was based on millet, which can be glossed ?religiously defined national community?. Greek Orthodox Albanians were therefore classified as Greeks and Muslim Albanians as Turks. The Orthodox were subject to Hellenization, while the Muslims were denied linguistic rights granted to Christians. Thus, for example, in 1878 there were 80 Turkish schools, 163 Greek schools, and no Albanian schools in the sandjaks of Berat, Gjirokastër, and Vlorë (Jelavich 1983, 85). Ammon, Ulrich(Editor). Sociolinguistics.Berlin, , DEU: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 2006. p 144
15. Albania (Shqipëria) Arbania/Arbanon, Epirus The Republic of Albania (Republika e Shqipërisë) since 1991. Previously the People's Socialist Republic of Albania (1976); the People's Republic of Albania (1946); the Kingdom of Albania (1928); and the Republic of Albania (1925). True independence was gained in 1921. ……Shqipëria is generally taken to mean the ‘Land of Eagles’ from shqipónjë ‘eagle’, a name gradually adopted during the 16th and 17th centuries, to replace Arbania/Arbanon which took its name from the Albanoi (the Byzantine Greek name; in Latin, Arbanenses) tribe which in turn took its name from the Indo-European word alb ‘mountain’. "Albania" Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University [21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.246.110 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
yeah, this is off topic. Take it to Origin of Albanians. Your note "2." says it all: "evidence is too meager and contradictory for us to know whether the term Illyrian even referred to a single language. Thracian has also been adduced as a possible ancestor of Albanian". That's really it. --dab(𒁳) 20:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Precisely like in your oddly deleted comment. The Serbs have the whole Defender of Christianity and Heavenly People, and the Albanians have got the Illyrians. --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The oddly thing is your nationalism mixed with Christianity. Even in Christianity Albanian gave many Popes and Emperors during Byzantine Empire , we are the country of Gj.Kastrioti protector of Europe Christianity and Mother Tereza.We are the nation of Arvanites which formed modern Greek state.
Pretty much, this discussion is still irrelevant for this specific article. Please, continue the debate at a more appropriate talkpage. --Tone 20:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cuvari_hristovog_groba.jpg){kind=link}
Done Beam 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kosovo-map.gif){kind=link}
![[5]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Kosovo_in_Balkans.png){kind=link}
![[9]](http://www.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/fl_sep05/images/KosovoMap_AI10.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://www.seerecon.org/images/maps/kosovomap.gif){kind=link}
Resolved
![[13]](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:Kosovo_kart.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/Ancientimages/109B.JPG){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:450s.PNG){kind=link}