Talk:Kosovo

• • It seems the main entry has been defaced. It must be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk) 15:09, 21 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.

--Znghv91 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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 Lusatian Sorbs 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)

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)

No.Beam 20:31, 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)

How about, "Kosovo, a territory in the Balkans is disputed amongst Republic of Kosova and Republic of Serbia" Ari d'Kosova (talk) 22:29, 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)

Autobush

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 [1]. 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 - [2]. 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)

Flag

The earlier version of the flag with a yellow map of Kosovo must be restored. This is only an alternative version, which I have never seen in use by the institutions or the people themselves. We must restore the coat of arms and all other images using the Kosovar flag.--Getoar (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Can you be more specific as to exactly what the correct flag looks like? The flag I see on the page right now is dark blue, with a dark gold (almost light brown or tan) map of Kosovo, and an arc of six equal-sized white stars above the map. This is the same flag as that shown on the "Flag of Kosovo" page as being the current flag. Is this not the correct flag? If not, what flag is in fact being used in Kosovo today? Richwales (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not the color GOLD. It looks brownish to me. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ari and Geo, have this addressed at the Flag of Kosovo article, and then we'll follow suit here. Beam 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against the incorrect flag. It has something to do with colors (CKY vs non). My digital screen is showing a non-gold color, not that big of a difference. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't undertstand. Yellow is yellow no matter of screen. It seems like the institutions are using two different flags. One with yellow Kosovo map and another with golden Kosovo map. Take a look at the Swedish flag. They have the same colors but I don't see many versions of that flag --NOAH (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the correct flag, flag. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right --NOAH (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking around on ks-gov.net (I think/hope that's the governments website). And have probably found the solution. http://www.ks-gov.net/pm/Fillimi/tabid/36/EntryID/782/Default.aspx as you can see there they link to both the flag and emblem in .pdf form flag emblem. Same colour on both flag and emblem

Colour scheme	Gold		Blue		White
HTML		#d2ac67		#0c4da2		#ffffff

The current version of Image:Flag of Kosovo.svg has the right Gold (and white) but a bit of blue, #005bab should be #0c4da2. And by doing a simple overlay of the current flag and the one found on ks-gov.net I can see that it's a bit off, both the stars and Kosovo, it's also not as high. — chandler — 15:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty to upload correct versions of both the flag and coat of arms. — chandler — 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful for you contribution but I think the Kosovo map should be in yellow and not gold. Unfortunately different institutions in Kosovo are using different colors and I don't know why, but so far I have never seen any Kosovo flag with gold . Take a look at this picture with PM Thaci: 1 --NOAH (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ks-gov.net/ appears to be the official RoK government homepage, and if we cannot take their pdfs as authoritative as to the "correct" colour, I don't know whose word we should take instead. dab (𒁳) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

yes but they too uses two different flags, on the top of ks-gov.net you have blue with yellow and if you go into PM website they have blue and gold. As I said before I have never seen in real the flag with gold map on the middle. --NOAH (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If they do use two different colour version it might either suggest that there actually are "two" flags, one which would be like the civil flag, and the other state flag, similar to what Flag of Serbia and Flag of Poland and others i suppose, though I don't know if I've seen with colour differences. One explanation might just be that when they decided on the flag it was said, something like "this layout with a blue and yellow colour" or "blue and gold colour" and flags were produced, maybe not on a "official" colour scheme. Which might have been made some days or weeks later to be the official. But flags with the more normal colours #0000ff and #ffff00 maybe are out there and recognisable. Just on a side note, I think the gold colour flag is cooler ;) — chandler — 04:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for everyone's knowledge, there exist a yellow version Image:Flag of Kosovo (yellow).svg & . There might (if its possible without OR) be reason to add that flag in Flag of Kosovo with something like this section Flag of Germany#Gold or yellow? and that it's the more common used flag by the population (at this time at least). — chandler — 04:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth the effort to invest too much research in this at this point. The flag is just a couple of months old, and like everything connected to the RoK is still very much in flux. We'll just have to see how things turn out in a year or so. It's not a big deal either way. The authoritatively prescribed version appears to have "gold", while it is obvious that many flags in actual circulation have yellow. These flags are probably turned out by some factory in China and are hardly authoritative, but they of course affect the status quo by their being in actual use. dab (𒁳) 07:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it might or might not be worth, a Kosovo TV news show (from RTV 21) gets shown every evening on the SCOLA satellite station (which I get on my cable TV) — and I'm looking right now at a screen shot with somebody giving a speech in front of a "yellow" Kosovo flag and a "gold" coat of arms. If anyone cares, let me know and I'll see about doing a capture of this shot and putting it up for all to see. I'll understand, though, if the consensus is that it's not really that important and wouldn't resolve anything. Richwales (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As was widely reported on its declaration of independence, Kosovo adopted a flag intentionally using the colours of the EU flag. While some may call the colour of those stars 'gold' it is always rendered yellow. The current sludgy brown version of the Kosovo flag used on this article looks very wrong and it should be reverted to what was used in earlier versions of the article. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, ITS FROM THE PRIME MINISTER, there is no other more official source that exist. — chandler — 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the flag used 17th February 2008 during the Declaration of Independance, you can see that the Kosovo map is yellow and not gold. Take a look at the video (the flag's showed after 2 hours and precisly one minute more) : mms://video.rtklive.com/speciale/seanca_plenare.wmv So, can somebody explain me why the map is gold when it should be yellow as it was showed you in this video by the Assembly of Kosovo !?--82.114.85.174 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, I believe the "somebody" speaking in the screen shot I mentioned last week (in front of a "yellow" Kosovo flag and a "gold" coat of arms) is Hashim Thaçi — a bit more than just a random "somebody". Take a look at the accompanying image Image:Thaci with Kosovo emblems.jpg. I don't think, though, that we can assume this translates into official approval of either colour scheme by the Kosovo government. Chances are the PM was going to make his speech anyway, and even if he didn't care for the shade of "gold" on the coat of arms, he wasn't about to waste his valuable time throwing a hissy-fit over it. Richwales (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Richwales (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A Google image search for 'Kosovo flag' shows numerous pictures of the flag being used at demonstrations and official gatherings (involving the prime minister). It is nearly universally yellow not tan. 92.12.208.70 (talk) 12:56, 5 August 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 ([[3]]) 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. -- 20000 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"2 billion €"

Several times in this article the Euro symbol is used with an (in my view) odd positioning.

"2 billion €"

This makes no sense to me, I had to stop to make sense of the sentence particularly as it was followed immediately by another numeric figure. Surely it should be formatted "€2 billion" or at very least "2€ billion". In my view it is confusing and should be changed. --86.111.162.127 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

From a British perspective that might be strange, but for a lot of other people it's very normal. See Linguistic issues concerning the euro. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks strange for me as well... I feel it should be €2,000,000,000 or 2 billion euro (or if billion and euro should be Billion and Euro) — chandler — 08:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I just looked at the Linguistic issues concerning the euro link and it clearly sates €3.14 is used for English, and as this is the English WP, the € sign shall be first. — chandler — 08:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the whole sentence "Until now EU pledged 2 billion €, $350 mil by USA. Serbia also pledged 120 million € to Serb's enclaves in Kosovo." it seems very poorly written. And it seems, without reference. — chandler — 08:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Albanians and Albanian (Kosovars included)

Click to open »

Illyrians are a large group of indo-European tribes and Albanians and Albanian belong to Illyrian of the south, thraco- illyrian tribes such Epiriotes and Macedonian even more ancient that the generic name of Illyrians. In the Dark Ages the Albanians or Epiriotes were partly conquered by Slavs .Albanians were identified with the name Epiriot 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 .

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[4]

4.Word after Herodotus [5]

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[6]

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 [7]

8.Roman empire prefecture of Illyricum , tribes of Epriotes and Macedonians [8] ,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 [9]

10.Paragraph 7: Of course, in any event we could only prove the Albanians did, and never that they did not, precede the Slavs [10]

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 [11] —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)

Disputed REGION not country!

Wikipedia has become a cestpool of turkic albanian shiptar propaganda. If it is disputed (and it is because the vast majority of the world does NOT recognize it as a country) it can't be a country, because saying "country" means taking sides in the debate. The term has to be REGION.

Wikipedia ought to be shut down for allowing such biased propaganda as this page.

--24.226.16.137 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be banned for using derogatory terms such as "shiptar". Ari 0384 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What? Shiptar is not a derrogatory term, Albanians themselves don't call themselves Albanians but Shqips or Shqiptari. Shiptar is just a variation on that. Stop changing the subject, KOSOVO CANNOT BE A COUNTRY OR STATE unless Wikipedia wants to take sides in the debate, which would be braking all POV rules. Kosovo can only be a disputed geographical region. --24.226.16.137 (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's state. It's not even disputed. Remove disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.156.157 (talk)

Proposal

Kosovo should be a disambig page. It should link to an article about the Republic and about the Serbian province. --SpeedKing (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)