Talk:Kosovo

Intro is pro-Serb. That's a fact

It is sooooo sad Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda tool by colorful Serb Wikipedians. E.g in the intro it is stated Russia is against Kosovo's independence but it is not stated that USA and EU support independence. The article is biased against Albanians in Kosovo. --Noah30 (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just undid your POV edit. Please leave the intro alone. Any further edits of that nature will be reported as vandalism. Thank you. Beam 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Let me say something, the intro puts out both prevailing views on the DOI and the state of Kosovo today, how is that not NPOV? Also, we've worked hard on this article for months, and you come in and change it out of no where, it's not appreciated. Please discuss the article prior to editing it. Thanks again, your cooperation is not only appreciated it's the right way to do it son. Beam 23:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is you who are making POV edits. I just added that USA and EU support Kosovo since Russia is mentioned and not Kosovo. I am going to incorporate this in the intro. Why not? --Noah30 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the only country that should be mentioned explicitly in the intro is Serbia. So I will remove mentioning of Russia, one can easily see all teh countries in the appropriate article. --Tone 12:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam no doubt is pro Serb. WP has been turned into a Serbian Propaganda Machine --- they use explicitly Serbian names for cities, people, and history. So Kosova was part of all these Serbian empire/state but never part of Albania or part of an Albanian tribe? What BS. The intro reeks with POV. One look at Italy or United States of America you will see that POLITICS comes first than History comes last. Republic of Kosova needs to be talked first, and its' government, thannnnn history. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused. on the United States article, History is the 4th section, Politics is the 5th. On Italy History is 2nd and Politics is 4th. And to Noah30 the EU does not support Kosovo, nor does it not support it. It is up to all member states to make own decisions, and there are both pro and against countries сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..who are you? I think I know who you are...Osli73! Why did you change nick? This kind of editors are called sock puupets. --Noah30 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And you calling other editors "pro Serb" is just trowing stones in glass houses. You're one of the most obvious pov pushers сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite. I have fought for NPOV for months now k2k8, and I take offense to your false and baseless accusations. Beam 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

really? What do you call this, "The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. The country is situated mostly i.." Those are the first words in the article. Hey beam, I'm sorry you feel offended, I'm also quiet distressed that you can't spell my name correctly to begin with. I am not a POV pusher as you claim, I am not AN EDITOR like you guys, I use something known as firefighter policy. I sound the alarm when I see something severely wrong. You guys use the cop policy, you always patrol a beat (edit,change,etc) and keep information new. Last thing, beam I've heared a lot of people talk about how you screwed them with your pov---can you also get a new catchphrase, this whole glass house isn't working. Kosova2008 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're not an editor, what are you? And can you link to the firefighter policy on wikipedia? As for your name, he abbreviated it, not misspelled it. If you don't like it, tell him so politely. Finally, this all started with yet another in a seemingly endless litany of POV vs POV messes. try to de-escalte, not inflame the situation, mr. Firefighter. ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not misspell your name, you misread that apparently. Also, you seem to confuse mew with someone else who pointed out your POV, I never mentioned a glass house. I guess I'll forgive you for the rest if you just misread someone else's comments as mine. That's no problem. And your firefighter policy is more like fire starter, to be honest. You keep pushing fort Albanian POV which like I said before is understandable. I have no problem with you saying that stuff, I just won't let that POV into the article if I can help it. Beam 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can everyone please try to not feed the trolls? A posting as obviously intended as a flamebait as "It is sooooo sad Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda tool by colorful Serb Wikipedians" should be removed on sight, not answered. dab (𒁳) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dab, are you such a nationalistic Serb? No? So please do not act like Milosevic or even Seseli but please refrain from Kosovo related articles. After I read your writings I am shocked about your hate. You must really hate Albanians and Western world from the bottom of your heart. Even novelist Peter Handke was not so full of hate like you are. Is that your motivation? It seems so. I hope you get banned soon. --Solidjohn (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Are you really comparing DAB to Milosevic? LOL! I'm sorry to laugh but this is getting unbelievable. Both Serbs and Albanians need to realize that this article is going to be Neutral and WILL NOT favor their particular personal view points. Beam 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan, may I once again point you to WP:DFTT and WP:DENY. Answering such postings isn't helpful. The correct reaction is removal on sight. dab (𒁳) 11:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

@beam, the chances that this article will be neutral are slim to zero. It is already POV whether you believe it or not. Just because you believe that your version of POV is neutral it isn't neutral no matter how many times you write it, say it, or think it. 128.206.48.13 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What isn't neutral about it? Just saying it's not neutral, no matter how many times you write it, say it, or think it doesn't make it so. Beam 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that user. First of all search words Kosova and/or 'kosovo' should redirect to a disambigious page where the user picks what he/she wants to read (not this article). Secondly, the map, the history, the names, are all SERBIAN. We need to have another concensus for what the redirects of Kosova or 'kosovo' are. One article should be this and the other about Republic of Kosova. I think everyone would be happy that way. Kosova2008 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The names are the ENGLISH names. And there shouldn't be a RO Kosova article because the name in english is Kosovo. And some weeks ago or whenever it was, there was a split proposal but I don't think it was followed through. Chandler ♠ TALK 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

k2k8, They are English. I wonder why you keep saying this article is Serbian and what not. Kosovo up until this year was Serbia within recent history, don't you know that? Beam 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

b3am you're funny LOL. Have you ever been to Rep of Kosova or do you believe what Serbianna and Tanjung tell you? Kosova2008 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not supposed to be in Albanian or Kosovo dialect. This is an English wikipedia. English is my first language, I read all my historical research and current event sources in English, I attain my knowledge in English (sometimes Latin haha). I have asked you to use your unique knowledge and experiences to help further the article. There is an open invitation for you to help write parts of this article. Go to this section and contribute to the article. I think you have some knowledge that could help us k2k8. Beam 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We should add in the intro that Kosovo was part of Albania in WWII. This happened from 1941 to 1944. --Sulmues 18:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulmues (talk • contribs)

currency of kosovo

The official currnecy of Republic of Kosovo (which is the euro) is not included in any of the info boxes. I think it will be useful to add it especially to the "Rep. of Kosovo info box".Wikiturk (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If it goes in one, it would probably go into the Serbian Province, since it's the same physical place. Beam 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

why? an "official currency" is nothing physical. The official currency according to the Serbian pov is, of course, the Serbian dinar, only we don't list "official currencies" for provinces. The official currency of the Republic of Kosovo is the Euro. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great point. You're definitely right. What do they actually use on the ground though, in Kosovo? If they do use Euros than it should go in the Serb Province Box as unofficial currency, right? Beam 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On ground it is used Euro in southern parts, and Dinar in northern parts.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks Iric. Beam 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries (Ethnic and cultural diversity section)

Kosovo and Metohija comprises a relatively small geographical area but is nevertheless densly covered by numerous Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries. The map to the right contains the most important holy sites which either exist today or are preserved in ruins. The greatest concentration of the Orthodox Christian sites is in the western part of the Province known as Metohija - the land of Monasteries.

The above content was added as the 2nd paragraph in the "Ethnic and cultural diversity' section by User_talk:Mike_Babic at 09:10 today (4.17). I have added a {{Fact}} tag because it is not curently cited. I think it's a fine addition and would like to see it cited. I hope Mike Babic or anyone will cite it so I won't delete it in a few days, I think it is good content. Thank you. Beam 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

worse, Image:Manastiri u Kosovu i Metohiji.jpg is completely unsourced. It will need to go until properly referenced. The source appears to be this: [1][2], which in turn seems to be based on (or has the same source as) this, which is a map published by the Serbian government[3] (1999), so that it may be considered a quotable source (if not a neutral one, but I suppose a map of monasteries isn't subject to a terrible lot of dispute). --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah removed it with no reason other than Mike Babic has supposed anti-albanian sentiment in his talk page. I'd reinstate it if there was a reference for that image Beam 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is biased. It seems that all the churches are Serbian orthodox. Many of those churches were Albanian before being brought into the Serbian Church. Some of them were catholic and later converted to orthodox churches. The paragraph is way too much questionable.--Sulmues 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What would you want for content in a Cultural section for the Kosovo article? We could always use a sourced and neutral contribution! Beam 23:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

37th Country recognizes the Republic of Kosovo

Now it's 37/193. The Republic of the Marshall Islands has just recognized an independent Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just read the whole wiki on the RoMI and that is one pathetic country. It's basically on US Welfare. It has 60,000 people! Geez. I don't think Kosovo Nationalists should exactly celebrate although, it does help in the raw number sense. Beam 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK then. Burkina Faso and Nauru recognized it today. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now now beam,, don't be rude, not all countries our powerhouses--Jakezing (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Template removal

In this edit here [[4]], the template for Kosovo as a province of Serbia was removed without adequate explanation. It seems to me that in the interests of maintaining NPOV, if the Republic of Kosovo template is to be included, so should the above template. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there would be no need to show any reason, for Kosovo is supposed to have its own template. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia, remember?--_Arbër ^{T •  ?} 08:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arber. Kosovo should have its own template. --Noah30 (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't have been done. That template should be there. If you can do it properly go ahead and put it back. Beam 12:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to discuss it first. --Noah30 (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all the supporters of Kosovo independence are going to say "to hell with it". But we already knew that. Kosovo can declare independence all it wants, as long as there is controversy, the template needs to be there in the interests of maintaining NPOV. As long as Kosovo's independence is disputed, we need both templates (Republic and province). It's as simple as saying "NPOV". --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No way the template is going to be included. The template would make the Kosovo-article the most POV article in Wikipedia. Serbian Kosovo is not recognized by anyone. We should have the Republic of Kosovo according to Kosovo parliament and the will of the people of Kosovo and UNMIK according to 1244. Both templates are included and there is nothing more to include. YES the independence is disputed and that is why the UNMIK template has been included in the article. According to 1244 Serbia has no control over Kosovo.--Noah30 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah... it was already discussed which is why it was there to begin with. The removal should have been discussed but putitng it back the way it should be doesn't. I don't have time right now, but if anyone would like to put it back that would be great. Beam 18:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No way the template is going to be included. The template would make the Kosovo-article the most POV article in Wikipedia. Serbian Kosovo is not recognized by anyone. We should have the Republic of Kosovo according to Kosovo parliament and the will of the people of Kosovo and UNMIK according to 1244. Both templates are included and there is nothing more to include. YES the independence is disputed and that is why the UNMIK template has been included in the article. According to 1244 it is UNMIK who have control over Kosovo, not Serbia. --Noah30 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that the template will be reinstated. I'm sorry you have your own POV, but the NPOV that Wikipedia strives for means we must include the template. Are you the one who deleted it without discussing it? I hope not. Anyway, I'll be putting it back in asap. Please do not remove it. If you do, it will be vandalism. Thank you. Beam 19:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are revealing your extreme bias. The template was inserted in the article without any prior discussion and was removed by someone else than me. I can see that the template was made by Boze Pravde and his edits have been reverted by many including Tone. By the way DON'T act like the owner. --Noah30 (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You weren't here my friend. We discussed for a few weeks. We need to present the prevailing POVs to achieve NPOV. The Serbians have a claim to Kosovo as their Province, and the RoK is claiming it as an independent state. If we represent one in a template we must represent the other which is what our detailed discussion resulted in.

And for you to say I'm biased is ludicrous, have you read your own comments? As a quick clarification, just because someone stops you from POV Pushing doesn't make them biased. Beam 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You say YES without exception to anything coming from the Serbs or anti-Kosovo editors. I just wonder how could you discuss the template for several weeks when the template was made yesterday? Yes the template was made yesterday by a user who have attempted to add biased info in the article but his edits were reverted by Tone, an admin. --Noah30 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, cool down. What's that mess again? The templates presently in the article are the geographical one, RoK and UNMIK. The last approximately fine version I remember had only those templates. My revert, previously, has been made just because of some edits that were towards one side or another. If we want to keep this article in shape, every potentially controversial change should be discussed here first. Be constructive and stop edit wars. --Tone 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I am an admin is irrelevant regarding my revert. It would be relevant only when I implemented some sanctions because this article is on probation. But don't worry, I am not going to do it (some other may, though). --Tone 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't here yesterday buddy. And my pal Tone and I have been working on this article for what seems like years, as well as many other users before us and during that same time. I'm very happy that Tone is around to help out. The intent of the templates is always to represent NPOV. NPOV in this case is to represent the valid POVs of reality. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, are Serb's Province, and RoK's Independence. If you represent one, you must represent the other. Go look in the archives for WEEKS of discussion. When the dust settled it was agreed that for NPOV we must represent those POVs. I believe at one point we had 3 infoboxes. If the Serb Province POV was just added yesterday, than that's a shame as it should have been there the whole time. And just because that user has made some suspect edits that myself, tone, and others have removed doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong in this instance.

Do you not agree that if we represent the RoK view we must represent the Serb Province view? Or are your biases too strong? Have you read the archives? Beam 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Off course I agree that all views should be represent and I can tell you that this article now is much more NPOV than it was some months ago but there is still some edits to be done that would make the article completely NPOV. Both views are represented in the article now. You have only RoK and UNMIK. According to 1244 Kosovo is under UN administration and Serbia say they respect UN SC resolution 1244 which transfers powers over Kosovo to UN. You can not have another template for the same reasons as we could not have a template on RoK before February 17th. I ask you to read the article and you will see that both views are represented, Kosovo as a republic and Kosovo as a province. The UNMIK template reflects the situation before 17th of February. Adding a new template would be POV. Once more I remind you that the template was created and not edited, yesterday so it is not possible you have discussed this template before many weeks ago. --Noah30 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see how the article can be NPOV if only the template for the Republic of Kosovo is included. The Serbian POV may be anathema to some users, but that is irrelevant. Emotional arguments aside, it should be included in the interest of presenting all POVs. Simple as that. Oh, and by the way, UN Resolution 1244 explicitly recognizes Serbia's territorial integrity and Kosovo as a province of Serbia. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about the templates. Two templates are included. The UNMIK template reflects the situation before 17th of February and as if the indepednece did not happen. We can not have a third template since accodring res. 1244 UN through UNMIK have control over Kosovo. --Noah30 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read what Tsourkpk said? Or what I said? Please also view your talk page. I tried to explain the situation here a little bit. It may help your future actions. Beam 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If I remember, the argument at the beginning was that RoK template presents the independence view and that UNMIK template presents what resolution 1244 says (the resolution Serbia agrees with). Someone pointed out that Serbian flag and CoA is inappropriate for KiM template, since the flag is for the whole country, not just for a region (in comparisson, Vojvodina has a special flag.) --Tone 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How can we ensure that the Serbia POV is represented adequately by the UNMIK template? That's my main concern. Maybe a title of UNMIK/Serb Province? I'll take a look at that. I just don't want the Serb Nationalists coming in here and whining. You know how bad that was before Tone. Recently it seems the RoK Nationalists are the loudest. But we'll make it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamathan (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But UN Res 1244 explicitly recognizes Kosovo as part of Serbia. There is no doubt about that. It's only fair that the Serbian POV be included, WP:IDONTLIKEIT notwithstanding. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read UN Res 1244 and Serbia is not mentioned...but Yugoslavia yes. --Noah30 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly. Honestly, a Serb Province box would be better than the UNMIK. Or we should reinforce the fact that UNMIK also represents the Serb Province view. The ROK Nationalists won't like it, but it is only right. Suggestions Tsour?Beam 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The most stupid thing we could do is to replace UNMIK template with a Serbian one. UNMIK is a result of Res 1244 and Serbs claim they respect 1244 (but only when it favours them). The UNMIK template reflects the situation before 17th of February and together with RoK template after 17th of February. I hope you are not using the word nationalist about me because if.... I hate the word nationalist because it was the nationalists who started the wars in Balkans that tooks more than 200 000 lives... I am totally against them --Noah30 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So what if precisely 'Serbia' isn't mentioned? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think I'll ask for a peer review of this article. Among other things, we can get some good suggestions what else to improve. Always a good thing to do when you start running out of ideas...--Tone 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Tone, but I hope biased editors will not have the opportunity to influence this review. I don't know how the weather is in Slovenia but I hope you are enjoying the spring.--Noah30 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah if the Serbs don't agree with UNMIK that's even MORE of a reason to present the Serb Province POV. You're not helping your case. And your constant OT comments are not helpful. Tone, go for it! Although I'm not out of ideas for this article, but out of ways to try to convince some very biased people to drop that crap and come to neutrality together. Beam 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbs agree with resolution 1244 since it is unclear on many issues and was supported in the UN SC in 1999 by their strong ally Russia. In 1999 all Serbian forces withdrew from Kosovo because of the resolution and they use 1244 as an argument against Kosovo's independence. UNMIK is a direct result of 1244 and is recognized by all the countries of the world(members of UN). Serbia all the time say they support 1244 but it is true that they many times don't respect what the resolution says. --Noah30 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You can do that in the Serbian WP, not here. I find it ironically humorous that you say "some very biased people [need] to drop that crap" when your POV is sticking out very clearly. No Serbian Province POV, thank you. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What the heck? This article is not on the RoK. That's the only way to achieve NPOV, thank you. Beam 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely think a peer review or request for comment is the only way to go. The article will get nowhere otherwise, as there is simply too much passion form one of the sides. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To much passion from all sides...hehe --Noah30 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be at most two templates. There can even be one template with all data integrated, there is no need to put mass templates on this article. Hobartimus (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, two templates: One for the Republic, and one for the Serbian province. Very simple really. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Two templates, one for RoK and another for UNMIK Kosovo. Very simple. Remember that according to 1244 Kosovo is a UN protectorate. --Noah30 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

...which is a part of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I also support a peer review. BalkanFever 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just make it clear that I support a peer review. But reserve the right to disagree with it afterwards ;) Beam 14:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But of course. Peer review is supposed to give suggestions, not final solutions. --Tone 15:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

@Pax, Please read or re-read Resolution 1244. Nowhere does it say, mention, that Kosova is part of Serbia. The word Yugoslavia is ubiquitous whereas Serbia is rarely mentioned. A peer review would be a great idea, a new fresh perspective. Honestly whether you have passion from one side or not, you are automatically POVing bc you took passion on a disputed article. People edit things they like or are passionate, if you hated this article you wouldn't be here, you would in another article..eh? Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry k2k8, you're very wrong. I am passionate, but for NPOV. That's the way it SHOULD BE. And BalkansFever is right, and I get a little too passionate, but that's the way it is. Neutrality shall conquer all Fanaticism. Beam 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can't spell my name...don't reply to me. Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. How many are you experts on Kosova (kosovo)? The only experts would be those that live there or have lived there ---- narrowing this down to only Albanian community here. BTW you can't "disagree" with a peer review, it's called peer review for a reason. Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not serious about what you just said. That's precisely the kind of attitude we don't need here. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the UN Resolution which supposedly doesn't mention Serbia, but only mentions Yugoslavia - that's totally irrelevant, as Serbia is the successor state to Yugoslavia (i.e. after Montenegro declared independence, Serbia retained Yugoslavia's seat at the UN, while Montenegro had to apply as a new member). Therefore, Serbia is now the successor counterpart to all agreements signed by Yugoslavia. Khuft (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

To k2k8: If you can't lose your bias, you're not needed here. Go start RepublicOfKosovo2008.com or something. Seriously. You're starting to appear as some sort of hilarious fanatical joke. At least that's how I see it. Beam 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Template of how over 150 countries see Kosovo

Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохиja Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija
Capital	Priština
Official languages	Serbian, Albanian
Government	Autonomous Province
Autonomous Province
• Established	28 September 1990
• UNMIK administration	10 June 1999

This is my proposal - to put this template above the "Republic of Kosova" template, since less than 40 countries in the world recognize Kosovo as a Republic, while over 150 recognize Kosovo as an Autonomous Province of Serbia. Not only do the majority of countries in the world recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia, but UN Security Council Resolution 1244 also states that Kosovo is a part of Serbia (then FR Yugoslavia), so it's illogical to first state what a minority claims, and then what international law and the majority of countries in the world claim. As far as Kosovo itself is concerned, yes, they did declare independence, and I would NEVER vote in favor of removing the "Republic of Kosova" template, but we neet THIS ---> template as well. --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an article for that.--Jakezing (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Kosovo article. Beam 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also an article called Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1999-) which includes the same infobox. nat.utoronto 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF? That article IS NOT supposed to be there. That is why we have a Kosovo article. I'm going to mark it for Speedy Deletion. This template in this section should be in this article anyway. There are two sections within the Kosovo article that deal with the Province and RoK. And the intro states them as well. That article is BULLSHIT. That was the whole point of this freaking merge. Beam 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was a little hasty. I'm a little confused as well as to how this should be done because it is dated (1999-).... The point of this Kosovo article is to have an all encompassing article on Kosovo. We should stick to the sections within the article. Beam 00:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I like that template (needs the currency as Dinars), but it doesn't have to go first. RoK can go first, that's fine. It shouldn't matter. Beam 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jakezing, may I say that I don't see how you consider it neutral to have an article called "Kosovo" that practically describes the POV of the Kosovo Albanians and less than 40 countries in the world that recognized Kosovo's so-called independence (even though there is nothing really independent about Kosovo, which is occupied by foreign troops, mostly from the countries that recognize it's "independence"), and claim that any mention of the fact that over 150 countries that clearly adhere to UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and consider Kosovo a part of Serbia (then Yugoslavia) doesn't have a place in this article, because there seems to be a separate article which doesn't present ANY POV, except maybe Serbian nationalists which still dream that Kosovo is under Serbian administration. International law is clear, and I think that ignoring what is said in UNSCR 1244, the highest legal document concerning Kosovo (NOT it's declaration of "independence" it's so-called Constitution or anything else), and the fact that over 150 states respect this document, while a minority has decided to put their national interests above international law. This isn't the UN, but Wikipedia must present the realistic situation of Kosovo. I would even agree to put the "Republic of Kosova" template before this template, if that'll make the Kosovo Albanians happy. The order is not necessary, but all the facts need to be present. --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Drop some of that rhetoric buddy. I almost just deleted your whole comment. We are having a discussion not a rant fest. Beam 00:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam was right about that article. The consensus was a merge. I have redirected it. BalkanFever 00:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So, ipso facto, we need a template that represents the province... amirite? Beam 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAICT, yes. So do we (Bože Pravde, Beamathan, and BalkanFever, and anyone who isn't trolling) agree to place the template in? BalkanFever 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We could always combine the UNMIK and this template. I think that's the best way to do it, but I'm open to ideas. Oh and I think Boze IS trolling btw. Not with the template proposal per say, or even his justification, but his anti RoK rhetoric pansy ranting. Beam 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Combining the UNMIK and province template seems reasonable. Superm401 - Talk 02:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just dropping my view. First, it is not right to assume that all the countries that have not issued an official declaration recognizing Kosovo, do not effectively recognize it as independent. Many countries haven't provided any statement on the matter. In fact, many countries just don't care about Kosovo/Serbia at all, and their silence in the dispute should not be seen as unquestionable support for Serbia's position. Take Montenegro for example- still many countries have not officially recognized its undisputed independence, but that doesn't mean those countries are against it, it's just that they're not bothering to declare their recognition. Therefore, calling all the countries that have officially recognized Kosovo a "minority" just because 50 or so African nations haven't said a word about it seems hardly a good point for me. When it comes to the order of the infoboxes, I think it makes much more sense to have the Republic of Kosovo one on top, as that's the entity recognized by most democracies and English speaking countries (this is the English Wikipedia). Furthermore, we'll obviously have more and more countries recognizing Kosovo's independence in the future, not less and less, so that adds up to common sense I guess. Húsönd 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the order doesn't matter that much. If you guys come up with a compromise, great, but don't you agree the template should at least appear in the article? BalkanFever 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crabsauce Husond... do you really care about the order THAT much? How about order of appearance: AutoProvince than RoK? LOL I mean geez. Do you at least agree that it should appear? Beam 01:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Beam, I do not troll, I state facts. Concerning national interests, several countries have openly said that it is in their national interest to recognize Kosovo's "independence", that's not me "ranting", it is a fact. Second of all, would anyone like to prove to me how a territory can be an independent republic when the "government" has no control over the territory, but is administered by a foreign body? I'd really like to hear you try that. Is it a rant to say that recognizing Kosovo's independence is something a minority of countries has done and, by doing so, violated UNSCR1244? If you think so, read the Resolution. All of these things are simple facts, but people don't like to state facts that go against their OPINION. Well, guess what, Wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion, but does care about facts. Trying to discredit facts by discrediting me hasn't worked so far, and I've been here for a long time now.

Also, to comment on Husond's opinion. "...it is not right to assume that all the countries that have not issued an official declaration recognizing Kosovo, do not effectively recognize it as independent...". Assumption is not necessary when facts are in question. If a country hasn't issued an official declaration to recognize Kosovo as independent, we can safely say that that country doesn't recognize Kosovo as independent. I know it sounds stupid to even say it, but it's amazing to which lenghts some people go to present facts in a way that suits them best. Oh, and your mention of Montenegro really makes me question if you have any idea of what you're talking about. "Take Montenegro for example- still many countries have not officially recognized its undisputed independence, but that doesn't mean those countries are against it, it's just that they're not bothering to declare their recognition" - there is a HUGE difference, in that Serbia signed a deal that Montenegro can separate, and it was automatically accepted into the UN, which demeans the necessity of individual recognition by UN Member states. There is also no UN resolution that states that Montenegro is a part of Serbia, or has to be a part of Yugoslavia, or whatever. Nice try, but Montenegro, other than neighboring Kosovo, has nothing to do with it. "Furthermore, we'll obviously have more and more countries recognizing Kosovo's independence in the future" - obviously, eh? Since when is personal opinion important in Wikipedia discussions? We're talking about facts here, not if we think that Kosovo should be independent or not, but what Kosovo is according to the facts: 1. UNSCR 1244 declares it as a part of Serbia (then Yugoslavia), 2. more than 150 countries adhere to that, 3. less than 40 countries don't (and this has been explained in length, which is also perfectly fine), 4. Kosovo is also de facto not independent, since it has no control over it's territory, but is run by the UN and NATO forces KFOR (soon EULEX). No opinion, only facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 05:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bože, I was speaking strictly about official recognition of independence when I mentioned Montenegro, so it was unnecessary to bring up all the differences between the separation procedures of Montenegro and Kosovo, which I am well aware of but still find irrelevant for the point I was trying to make. Which was merely and simply that countries that are silent about a country's newly declared independence do not imply a refusal to recognize it. Furthermore, recognizing a country's independence is an act of sovereignty that is independent of UN decisions, or the deal between Serbia and Montenegro, or the no-deal between Serbia and Kosovo. When I said that "we'll obviously have more and more countries recognizing Kosovo's independence" I was not expressing a personal opinion, but a fact instead. It's being that obvious for the past few months and it doesn't look like the recognition tendency will ever reverse. Again, 150 countries do not adhere to the UNSCR 1244 on Kosovo being a part of Serbia. Kosovo has declared its independence since the UNSCR 1244, so the panorama has changed. Countries that have neither recognized Kosovo's independence nor reiterated that Kosovo belongs to Serbia are not to be assumed as being on the side of Serbia. That's just political marketing that I have been reading in Serbian media lately. Quite a warm illusion for the Serbian readers, but from the diplomatic point of view this cannot be taken seriously. Only countries that officially recognize Kosovo's independence do so, and only countries that officially do not recognize Kosovo's independence, so do not. Pushing all the so far neutral countries into the Serbian side is rather pointless. Húsönd 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"it doesn't look like the recognition tendency will ever reverse" - Prove it, then state it. Looking at the past few months don't allow you to predict the rest of the future. Your predictions are your opinion, things can always change in a few years, decades, Wikipedia is not here to predict anything, and neither are you.

"Furthermore, recognizing a country's independence is an act of sovereignty that is independent of UN decisions" - OK, prove to me how UN Member States are allowed to go against UN Resolutions, the UN Charter and the Final Helsinki Act of 1975 (which was signed by most European states and even U.S.A. and Canada).

"Again, 150 countries do not adhere to the UNSCR 1244 on Kosovo being a part of Serbia." - Prove it, I'd really like to see you try. Tell me please, I'd love to hear how countries can pick parts of the Resolution they want to adhere to.

"Kosovo has declared its independence since the UNSCR 1244, so the panorama has changed." - So, you want to say that Resolutions are made to be broken? Pff, that's your opinion, and leave it out of the discussion.

"Countries that have neither recognized Kosovo's independence nor reiterated that Kosovo belongs to Serbia are not to be assumed as being on the side of Serbia" - Nobody said they're on the side of Serbia. They're simply on the side of international law, according to the UN Charter, UNSCR 1244 and the Final Helsinki Act. But this page isn't for discussing Kosovo in general (which is what you've turned it into), but rather discussing how we're going to state all the facts. --GOD OF JUSTICE 07:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to prove anything. If you're going to dispute and distort every single thing I say, which is sadly a common yet futile practise by many Serbian/Albanian users when it comes to this topic, then I'll simply stop providing my feedback. Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a laboratory for mixing international law with angry nationalist pride and sentiment. There are many places where users may paint their own interpretations of UN and other international resolutions as they like. Luckily, this is not one of them. Húsönd 15:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The order in which the templates appear does not really matter, but the Serbian province template needs to be there for the sake of NPOV. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that it's impossible for you to never troll or break some guideline. And

agreed, I think think the original plan was to have a kosovo pov article and a serbia pov article, right?--Jakezing (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

One Kosovo article... that's the final solution. Thank you. Beam 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but i think one of the original idea's was the make a 2 articles, one that has

the serbian pov and one that has the kosovo pov, right? then that fell through to alot of arguments--Jakezing (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason being that it could possibly be a POV Fork. The arguments were quite heated about that, check out the archives. I was one of the people fighting for one article for the sake of NPOV. Beam 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents to the Infobox discussion: A) I don't mind adding the "Kosovo and Metohija" infobox- however that makes me wonder whether we still need the UNMIK one (after all, there are two legal interpretations of Kosovo: either it is the independent Republic of Kosovo, or it is the Autonomous Province of K&M; there is nothing like an UNMIK Kosovo...). B) Secondly, as for both cases Pristina is the capital, is it really necessary to mention that in both infoboxes? C) As Albanian is also a national language in the the Autonomous Province of K&M, the Infobox definitely needs to contain the translation of "Autonomous Province of K&M" to Albanian. D) As a Reply to Boze Pravde: the fact that the EULEX force is stationed in Kosovo does not imply that the Republic of Kosovo has no control of the territory. After all, the whole administration (incl. schools, police, etc.) is run by the Republic of Kosovo (except in the Northern Serb bits). E) What is the "exiled" government of "the Autonomous Province of K&M"? Surely, if it is an autonomous province of Serbia, there must be an autonomous government somewhere - e.g. in the case of Abkhazia, there is a pro-Georgian one hiding somewhere too - it would be interesting to mention in the Infobox. The infobox of Voivodina also includes the important members of regional governement, and surely we should treat the infoboxes of both Serbian autonomous provinces the same. Khuft (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this infobox, firstly because the UNMIK infobox has the same information (in fact more), so why do we need to have 4 infoboxes, or if the idea here is to replace the UNMIk one then this proposal is only suggesting removal of information, or if it is suggesting adding it as a fourth one, then what it is suggesting is adding the same information twice -- Cradel 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the "UNMIK Box" be renamed or replaced by Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Beam 22:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija Krahina autonome e Kosovës dhe Metohisë Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija
Kosovo within Serbia
Capital	Pristina
Government
• Special Representative	Joachim Rücker
• President	Fatmir Sejdiu
Autonomous province  UN administration of Kosovo, an autonomous province of Serbia
• UNSCR 1244	10 June, 1999
• Joint Kosovar/UN administration	May 2000
• EULEX	16 February, 2008

Taking into consideration some of the comments, here is the slightly edited version of the UNMIK template :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 07:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets not forget the official languages and add albanian ("Krahina autonome e Kosovës dhe Metohisë/Dikagjinit") to the title and then it would be better, even though I think the current map is better I dont care much about the map, but anyway I wouldent mind replacing after that -- Cradel 11:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How about just Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija? Forget the native name. Beam 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - Cradel 18:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why get rid of the native names?! Because it looks better? That's not a reason to hide facts. I added the Albanian version. --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They aren't needed Boze. Those "facts" are in the Auto Province section of the article. Beam 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I will agree only if the translations are removed from the "Republic of Kosova" template as well. --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap... honestly I think the "native translations" shouldn't be in infoboxes anyway. In or out, I don't care. See what everyone else thinks. And that recent edit you made to the intro isn't helpful imo. It's in chronological order, as a method of neutrality. Beam 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I take that back, we will keep the native names in all infoboxes, GoJ is right, it does look better - Cradel 20:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Boze, you can do it now I think. Replace the UNMIK box with the Serb Auto Province. Leave the native translations per Cradel, and let's move the freak on. Make sure you include all the info that is in the UNMIK box. And add Dinars (sic?) as the currency. Ok? Beam 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the template. Before I add the currency, I believe we should put both Euro and Dinar on there. Comments? --GOD OF JUSTICE 04:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I say Dinar as the official currency and Euros as the unofficial currency. Beam 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But I don't know which is the official currency, according to UNSCR 1244. --GOD OF JUSTICE 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not specific. But this is the AutoProvince template, which while it is governed under UNMIK, retains the Dinar as the official currency as far as I can tell. However, in the page section where it is discussed I found out that on the ground Euros are used in the south, and Dinars in the north. So Euros as unofficial currency for the province, and Dinars as official. Beam 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

proposed added information in the intro...

Hi all, I was going to change this and see what people thought, but with the warning at the top of the page-edit screen, I thought I'd better post it here first:

At the moment the article reads "[Kosovo's] independence is recognized by some countries and opposed by others", that's a pretty bland and uninformative statement, I was just wondering if it could possibly read: "...independence is recognized by most Western countries and opposed by most others", because as far as I know that's literally true. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I should add, before anyone points out that just because a statement is true doesn't make it worthy of inclusion (which is perfectly correct, of course), I don't think it's an irrelevant distinction in this instance, given that 'the West' often does act to an extent as a group in the international arena (cf the Cold War). Jonathanmills (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The other thing is, without this information, I believe the reader gets an inaccurate and essentially non-NPOV reading of the situation, particularly because the map reads "Independence has only been partially recognised internationally" (strictly true, but it's a distinct minority who have recognised Kosovo's independence). Jonathanmills (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh. 3 people died over the current intro, and the conflict that led to it. I say no to your proposed change. Beam 17:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a fairly poor reason to oppose it, no offence. Unless the specific edit I'm proposing was discussed and rejected. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care, I don't think there is anything wrong with the intro as is, and I think polarizing those countries that support or do not support the DoI as East vs West doesn't really help the article. Beam 17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The description *reflects* the polarisation; also it's not about East vs West but West vs everyone else (or rather, the West pushing one way and the others simply immobile).

As for there being nothing wrong with the intro, regarding this sentence it's completely bland and uninformative, and even arguably POV, given that it (IMHO) suggests a roughly equal number of countries for and against recognition.

You sound like a man wearied by much edit-warring, and while I totally understand that (and relate to it personally!), I'm not sure why you're taking a pre-emptive stance against any change, especially as I don't see why my proposed edit would be unacceptable. Why not just let the torrent of abuse rain down on my head (if indeed it does)? I'm not going to waste my time if I can see that's what's happening, don't worry. Jonathanmills (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want, you can describe your east vs west idea either somewhere else in the article or within the International Reaction article regarding the DoI. The intro is not to be bogged down by the countries for or against which is why that sentence is the way it is. The intro is supposed to be just that: an introduction. Beam 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's not 'east vs west', neither is it 'my idea'. I just see it as a more informative sentence than what's there currently. I don't understand why you're taking a stance against it on the grounds that it will cause conflict; why not wait and see if it actually does?

As for being 'bogged down', my proposed edit was extremely concise, and only amounts to a slight lengthening of one sentence. Jonathanmills (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not bogged down as in length but as in content. If the reader wants to know which countries feel what way, they click and goto the corresponding article. Beam 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly 'bogging down' the content, it just adds a bit more information to what is currently a totally insipid and uninformative statement, by adding about two words. Why don't we see what everyone else thinks..? Jonathanmills (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean it isn't bogging it down? You further the details about the international reaction. That's not what this article is about. You need to go work on a different article perhaps. This article is on Kosovo. Not specifaclly on the RoK or its international acceptance. You do realize that right? This article IS NOT about the ROK or its Declaration of Independence. If this was the intro to the article on International Reaction to the DoI than yes it would be Insipid and Uninformative. Seeing as it's the intro the Kosovo Article than you're plain wrong. Thanks. Beam 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not 'bogging it down' because it's an utterly minor change which doesn't bog anything down in terms of length or readability. Furthermore, the article already mentions that some countries recognise it and some don't, so to argue that my proposed edit is somehow 'irrelevant' doesn't make much sense. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jonny, but the Kuft and Envoy agree. You can try to garner some support, but I don't think it's happening. Not only is East vs West wrong as Khuft tells you, but as Envoy says it just doesn't belong in the intro. Beam 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see it's not going to fly :-)

However, I have responded to the points you have raised below (I never said 'east vs west', and the topic is already mentioned in the intro, so I can't see how making it slightly more informative 'doesn't belong'). Jonathanmills (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This East vs. West dichotomoy is totally useless. After all, Japan and Korea (which are certainly rather Eastern) as well as Taiwan (which itself is not recognised by many states) have recognised Kosovo. What about Senegal and Burkina Faso? Would they count as Western or Eastern? Maybe Southern? A similarly useless description would BTW be: "...independence is recognized by most rich countries and opposed by most others" (a description that would at least include S Korea, Japan and Taiwan). Khuft (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For the second time, I never said 'East versus West', I was simply pointing out that most Western countries have recognised Kosovan independence while most of the rest of the world had not. This is simply a fact.

I agree with the point that such differences in opinion might be totally irrelevant (good example you raised of 'rich countries vs poor countries'), but I hardly think it is in this instance. The West often does act as a more-or-less unified political bloc, as it has here. Basically, I think you would be much more likely to read my proposed edit in Britannica or a 'real' encyclopaedia than 'Some countries recognise Kosovo's independence, some don't'. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with everything Beam has said in this section. I appreciate your interest, Jonathanmills, but your edit is subjective and probably inaccurate. Either way, it does not belong in the intro. Envoy202 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit is subjective and probably inaccurate?? It is an objective fact written in a neutral tone and it is undeniably true. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, I'm not going to hang around banging my head against a wall. I do think this whole thing shows up very clearly Wikipedia's glaring weaknesses (I don't mean any offence to anyone here, I just mean the way edit warring on controversial topics results in an inability to make reasonable improvements). Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

intro - It has historically been part of...

Hi, I think the intro text starting "It has historically been part of the Kingdom of Dardania..." is not very good. I don't see a lot of other articles on countries/territories/regions where all the political constellations which that region has belonged to since antiquity are counted off in the second sentence of the intro. This can hardly be a defining aspect of Kosovo.

• Kingdom of Dardania - this can hardly be relevant. Aslo, I think it was more of a group of tribes rather than an actual 'Kingdom'.
• Roman empire - most regions in southern and western Europe and certainly all in the western Balkans belonged to the Roman empire, yet that is not a defining aspect of the country/territory/region which needs to be included in the intro.
• Byzantine empire - same as above.
• First and Second Bulgarian empires - again, how is this relevant to understanding present day Kosovo?

However, given the present conflict between Serbs and Albanians over Kosovo (and that the Serb's claim to Kosovo is based on their medieval heritage) I do think it is relevant to state (though not necessarily early in the intro) that Kosovo was the center of medieval Serbia, was part of the Ottoman empire and subsequently included in Yugoslavia, etc. This helps the reader understand the present day conflict. The first four do not. Any thoughts? CheersOsli73 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good the way it is. Emto (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about the current conflict. For Christ's sake. This article is on Kosovo. Thanks for the input though. Beam 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Osli. An obvious wish to avoid any edit warring (how can the current conflict be somehow irrelevant to an article about Kosovo?) is simply resulting in a second-rate article (and again, I honestly don't mean any offence; I understand what edit-warring does and actually feel for the editors who have been in the trenches this whole time!) Jonathanmills (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. This whole article is about Kosovo, not solely the recent conflict. That being true than why would the intro be catered to the current conflict? Beam 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's you who don't 'get it'. The way you're talking about it, it's as if because the article isn't *specifically* about the current conflict (rather, Kosovo as a whole topic), the current conflict should somehow be needlessly played down. By your reasoning, *nothing* would really belong in the article, as the article is 'about Kosovo, not about [whatever aspect of Kosovo]'! Jonathanmills (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On rereading that, I see I may have somewhat misrepresented your position, as it looks like you're referring to the intro specifically (rather than the whole article). However, I can't see why a mention of the current conflict doesn't belong in the intro -- it's a very important aspect of Kosovo, surely? Jonathanmills (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes exactly I am talking about the intro, no hard feelings meant. I agree it's important, but the intro is just that: an introduction. Considering the whole article is on Kosovo, I feel that the basic idea of the current conflict that we do touch on currently is enough. If this article was about the RoK or DoI than of course more information would be needed. I think that some info like the whole East and West support factor could be mentioned in the RoK section. And this whole thing on just focusing on the important historical aspects as they affect the current conflict won't work for this article's intro. Beam 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, no hard feelings at all. The people who do get on my wick are those who are blatantly biased and (more importantly) don't have any interest in writing balanced, NPOV articles, but you're clearly not in that category.

I do (respectfully) still disagree with your apparent stance regarding this -- I think what Osli was proposing, and as he said 'not necessarily early in the intro', would be an improvement on what is there now, and I don't think it entails 'just focusing on the important historical aspects as they affect the current conflict', as you put it -- however, I can certainly understand an unwillingness to make significant revisions in the context of a history of severe edit-warring. (Not that that is necessarily your reasoning, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was playing some part in it!) Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It has nothing to do with edit wars. It's just simply that the Kosovo article about Kosovo as a whole and throughout history, is not going to focus on the RoK Saga. And the intro being the intro to an article on all of Kosovo in all time won't be catered to the saga either. Beam 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and I'm sorry for second-guessing your motivation. However, I still think Osli has a point, and while I agree with you that it would be a mistake to make the current conflict the entire focus of the intro, I believe it would be an improvement to include a line about how Serbia and the Albanians came into conflict about it (after all, the first sentence of the existing article points out that it is a 'disputed territory', so it would only be making this a bit clearer -- IMHO). Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article

This article needs work on all the areas that ARE NOT the Intro and does not have to do with the RoK or Serb Province. Any takers? Beam 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit. You may provide valued contributions to any areas you believe need to be worked on. Húsönd 23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's focus, as far as editors go, has been the intro, and infoboxes more often than not. We recently had a lot of great contributions by Superm401 to the SerbProvince and RoK sections. It was really good of him to that. But other than him, and some limited edits made by a limited few, the "rest of" the article has become stagnant. I fooled around with some of the Economy section and found some very poor grammar. As I reread the whole article it's quite obvious that we, the Kosovo article editors, have neglected the majority article by focusing on the RoK saga. And of course, this isn't a new problem for the article. Reading through the Arbitration it's obvious that this article has always been stuck on certain aspects.

The intro and infobox have both recently been made with consensus. After years of bullshit the article has an intro that is NPOV and almost has the ridiculous infoboxes acceptable. The history sections aren't bad at all, and even have *gasp* citations. But the Politics, Economy, Trade and Investment, Energy Sector, Mining, and Unemployment sections need work. They need citations for starters, and some grammatical upgrades as well as "flow" in general. Some updated and more detailed info would be nice as well. The culture section is also weak.

I will begin working on these sections, at the least providing {{Fact}} tags as necessary to give some guidance. By urging editors to work on these sections as opposed to the Intro and Infoboxes the article will finally start moving towards not only my personal, but our collective goal of an article resulting in feature content quality. Regards, Beam 03:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the other parts need attention as well but the lead(intro) and the templates are very prominent so it's no wonder that many editors are intrested in questions relating to those. It's hard to get someone to write about the Economy or Energy Sector if they are simply not intrested in those. Getting the article to featured status is a nice goal and that could motivate people to write about ecomony to help the article reach FA but that's a very ambitous goal in this case I think one of the criteria for FA is stability (no edit wars) of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, recently me and a couple of other editors have instilled some stability. And I agree that of course the intro and infoboxes are of the most interest. But if we start doing the work on the other sections ourselves, I'm sure other editors will help us. I'll start asap. Beam 04:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good call, Beam. I've worked on controversial-topic articles before and it appears to be not uncommon that while huge amounts of energy are spent discussing/arguing a few bones of contention, the article as a whole can end up being of fairly poor quality, basically due to neglect. (I'd give you a hand, but I really don't know anything about Kosovo, apart from the current-conflict aspects!) Jonathanmills (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to have to study up on the sections myself, but I understand the basic idea of how the economy and related topics are playing out in Kosovo right now. But your support is appreciated. I of course will lead by example here (hopefully) and i'm not just trying to get others to do "hard work." Beam 15:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Pristina/Prishtina/Priština (again and again)

In light of the ongoing and still unresolved† Wikipedia debate on which spelling should be used for Kosovan/Serbian locales, chiefly the capital as well as the main city in the Serbian-inhabited region of northern Kosovo (I'm purposefully not naming either :)), I introduced in the article what I consider to be the absolutely NPOV and complete way of referring to them, namely, linking to the name under which the article of the city is lodged, and using the other name or names in parentheses that follow.

This has the benefit of not taking any position on which name is correct and in fact mirrors what UNMIK does in its official use, where Albanian/Serbian names are always presented together, separated by a slash. Well, using the alternative name (names) in parentheses is in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style of style and disambiguates for those readers who may have come across one but not the other version, depending on where on the planet they are. For example, in the capital of Kosovo, on the ground, one English spelling predominates. The same spelling is used on web pages of American universities which mention collaboration with the Kosovan state university located in the capital and the capital itself. A different spelling is used by the BBC and the US State Department (generally, US government). Yet third spelling is used by those English-language media which take pains to represent local diacritics properly.

Instead of taking a Point of View and using that biased choice, even as far as deciding which of the three English spellings of the Kosovan capital city we should hold as more English than the other two :), I propose to simply list/use all three. The linked representation is always made to where the page resides, without prejudice as to whether it is the right choice or an arbitrary choice. In the mater of Kosovska Mitrovica, its article is parked under Mitrovica, Kosovo, but no one will use that string verbatim, so piping the link with either Kosovska Mitrovica or Mitrovica makes sense, while using the other name in parentheses. Nearby in Serbia, there is another Mitrovica, which makes disambiguation that much more necessary.

I also refer you to the Wikipedia article section link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles)#RfC_on_the_Prishtina.2FPristina.2FPri.C5.A1tina_naming_dispute (Request for Comment underway), which is the place for considering this issue. It was announced on this talk page in its time, but this announcemement got archived since then, and the RfC remains out of site of local "policemen". So I am revisiting that announcement, since there has arisen a suspicion, that I am making edits without discussing them first. In point of fact, this issue has been discussed on Wikipedia for years, and continues to be discussed, and no binding guideline as to contextual use has emerged yet.

I consider my edit to be a) in accordance to the guideline known as WP:NPOV, and b) correctly linking to articles while avoiding redirects. I hope that both considerations speaks for themselves. Your comments, please --Mareklug ^talk 19:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL @ starting a section after I already had. But anyway, we had a huge discussion on this in the past, and now it seems a lot of editors are walking into the article and making changes regarding Pristina.

As the Kosovo article says at the top, when you goto edit it, Pristina was the result of our discussion previously, it was the resulting consensus.

The way I see it is that Pristina is the most common and predominant way that English speakers spell the name. I believe the CIA spells it this way, and news agencies have reported on it using Pristina as the spelling.

Pristina is how we spell it in English. Seeing as how we don't have that "s" character in one of the proposed spellings, that's a pretty good sign that we don't use it in English, obviously. And Prishtina, well, I think it's wrong. Beam 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

STOP MAKING THIS EDIT WITHOUT DISCUSSION/CONSENSUS. STOP. PLEASE STOP. THANK YOU. Beam 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are making comments on frankly low-brow end of the merit scale: "Pristina is how we spell it in English". Arrogance of the "we" aside, this is clearly not how many others spell it in English. My citing and sourcing these uses in the appropriate space (the RfC) go completely unacknowledged by you. Furthermore, you set up yourself as some sort of a policeman, and for an unfathomable reason, seem convinced of your superiority all the while posing as representing some mythical consensus. In point of fact, no consensus has emerged. You can at best speak of neglect. I have been involved in the Kosovo articles in other places, and do not need to present my credentials as Wikipedian to you. Kindly direct your browser to the requisite RfC as well as the talk page for the city and its university, and you will be presented with several running discussions on this very topic. To talk of consensus here is to misrepresent the situation. Furthermore, you really don't have to be obnoxious, forcibly, repeatedly reverting, and shouting and emboldening while not listening to reason. My edit did not remove any information, but provided a neutral way to reference the city impartially. While at it, I fixed some other things and performed updates. But your knee-jerk repeat reverts undid all that. We don't have lots of characters in the common set of 26 glyphs known as the English alphabet, but that does not mean diacritic use even in native English words is unheard of. The practices of typography are varied and continue to diverge between popular and scholarly. In matters of reference, Wikipedia tends to side with the accurate and the scholarly, as any casual perusal of ethnic place names be they Polish, Turkish, Czech or Portuguese will show. Arguments based on ignorance are paltry arguments. --Mareklug ^talk 21:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

this isn't "unresolved". The various spellings and its implications may be discussed at Pristina, not here. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is unresolved, as there is no biding policy in effect. Or do you know any different? And while editing the section title you could have chosen to fix the spelling, but you didn't. I don't think that was a particularly friendly or impartial edit, circumstances being what they are. And your linking to a redirect in your comment amply shows bending reality, as the city continues to be lodged at Priština. So, I submit, pushing things under the rug and telling me to shove off to another talk page is hardly indicative of consensus, either, especially as another reverting gentleman is insisting that it be hashed out again on this page and agreed to, before any reasonable NPOV improvements can be introduced. In all, what I see here is forcing the issue of spelling "Pristina", opposition or other evidence be damned. --Mareklug ^talk 21:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

this isn't the right place to begin edit wars about spelling preferences. This article has to bear enough tension as it is. It is also under arbcom probation, and any disruptive editing may result in immediate blocks. You are free to suggest a compromise for Kosovo-related toponyms, but this simply isn't the right page for that, even if you did not edit war about it. I frankly don't care how the name is spelled. The important thing is to discuss it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština, not here. Come back once a consensus has been established there. dab (𒁳) 10:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are distorting my contribution and what I said and did. Not only did I provide a link to the same place you indicated, but identified it as the place where discussion on this is ongoing, and the correct place for it, in those words. Furthermore, there is no consensus, which you misleadingly maintain there is, as does Beamathan. There is simply localized (by article) de facto usage. Finally, I proposed not a compromise but a NPOV way of accomodating all viewpoints when identifying the captial city in this articcle, and this talk page is for that. So please addres the suggestion on its merits already. I would further suggest that accomodating all viewpoints goes towards reducing tensions and strain under which this article finds itself, not the opposite. Furthermore, I assiduously avoided any spelling preferences, as you put it. --Mareklug ^talk 02:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No he's not. Please view the actual series of events as they happened at User_talk:Beamathan#May_2008. You're very in the wrong here, and unfortunately when I defended NPOV and Consensus I was wrongly blocked. Dab has represented edits you tried to make correctly. Read this for the reason why. Beam 02:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan, you are ignoring the April 9 2008 Request for Comments, where this is being hashed out, and are not even participating there, while the discussion there remains completely openended, without any imminent convergence. How you can maintain all along that there has been achieved consensus on this issue is beyond me. And why you at all oppose representing all POVs in this article, when it comes to mentioning the name of Kosovo's capital is also beyond me. And why you chose to alter names of institutions which happen to contain a reference to the city spelled idiosyncratically is also beyond me. Somehow you have experienced a short-cirtuit that admits "Pristina" is the only way to spell under all circumstances, whether referring to the city, context be damned, or to some institutional name incorporating the city. This is completely bogus and against Wikipedia policies or common sense. --Mareklug ^talk 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it! Until you've reached a consensus over there, than the consensus we reached HERE stands. It's Pristina within this Kosovo article until there is general consensus on Wikipedia otherwise. Ok? That's why your edits WILL NOT be let to stand here. Do you understand now? Dab told you, this isn't the place to discuss Pristina further. Ok? Beam 03:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is you who does not get it. Consensus is agreement by all, and we clearly have no such agreement. You are referring to localized patterns of entrenched usage. And, frankly, you and others have created such an unfriendly environment on this talk page, that many users, including me, have been avoiding it altogether. This is hardly an endorsement of any consensus-building. My edit will of course stand here, as soon as you attain enlightment and consider it calmly on its merits, as representing all viewpoints and naming contexts admitted by the English language, without favoring any one, which is the thing to do in a general article on the subject of Kosovo, and also, my usage is in accordance with the content of the Wikipedia article about the city, where as first bit of information the reader is told that the city name is spelled in English three different ways. Yes, this talk page is very much the place to discuss how the city is referred to in this article, regardless of what you or Dab may have told me. So, do you understand already that you are blocking NPOV improvements by adhering to some "this is my turf and I have settled it already" principle? Please consider what I proposed to add to the article calmly, on its merits, and please convince yourself that your editing names of institutions to suit your worldview is completely prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Yet, that uncalled for edit is what brought me here, as I had the article on my watchlist. --Mareklug ^talk 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring the simple fact that we had a consensus. And that we already had an NPOV which was reached from consensus. I can't even fathom how you keep arguing. I'm sorry but you need to just stop. Follow Dab's advice please! I'm done with you. I'm pretty sure that other editors will prevent you from breaching consensus here so that I won't have to get blocked doing it. Good night sir, and good luck with your life. Beam 04:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And I have blocked Mareklug and Beamathan for this silly edit war. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan was defending the consensus version, as is evident from your "rv to before the edit war" being minimal. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, question of defending the (nonexistent) consensus aside, Beamathan's initial edit improperly reverted another, third editor's correction introducing exact own institutional names for certain institutions which represent themselves in English idiosyncratically, and it just so happens that the name of the city forms part of these names. Per administrator user:ChrisO, it is Wikipedia policy that we represent institutions exactly as they represent themselves. Furthermore, that Beamathan's edit caused my intervention, where I restored the correct institutional names, while introducing a catholic (as in, all-encompassing) indication for the city itself throughout the article, thereby removing any POV biases instilled there temporarily, under, might I add, your care. --Mareklug ^talk 03:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Marklug, you're being ignorant. We have an existing consensus. That's where the comment on the edit page came from. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT describes your argument perfectly. Beam 04:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just standard operating procedure. Plus, remember, this article is on ArbCom probation and we been asked to be harsh on users who cause problems. Locking didn't work, so blocking has to come. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Beamathan#May_2008 Beam 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

whatever. The current upshot at the relevant discussion page is that the preferred spelling is Pristina. It is a very clear-cut case as these things go (much clearer than the Danzig vs. Gdansk or Zurich vs. Zürich precedents). There is no need to have the discussion spill on this page, we have other things to discuss here. I suppose we could agree to give all three spellings in the infobox, but the article body should definitely have Pristina. Regarding the "University of Priština", the article needs to be disambiguated. the University of Pristina is confusingly a different institution from the University of Prishtina. I grant you that special care is needed here to avoid confusion. dab (𒁳) 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Beam and Dab: (Albanian) Prishtinë/Prishtina (Serbian) Pristina/Priština

All articles will be disputed if you use Priština over Pristina because they are both POV. Now the argument used is that Pristina is more commonly used...okay, what if I start calling both of you Josh from today and get everyone to call you Josh ---- does that mean that your name is Josh because that's what people refer to you? No, your name is still Beam/Dab. Even though I am against "Pristina" I will allow it, but "priština" is a serious red flag. Kosova2008 68.114.198.210 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You can call me Josh if you want! Beam 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From the other Kosovo articles I been asked to look at, folks have been discussing this issue and I mostly see Pristina. I don't know if this is being used because it is mostly used in the English language papers or due to the lack of ability to type the proper accent marks. But if I can put my own opinion, I like Pristina. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons that I think it's obviously not "Priština" in English is because...(dramatic pause)... we don't have the "š" letter in our language! lol, I don't see how people don't get that. Beam 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Josh how do you spell the serbian S? I hate discussing this because I always have to copy and paste. Kosova2008 68.187.142.80 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste. It's rediculous to think that on an English Wiki we'd use letters that don't exist in English. Why doesn't Marklug get that? Beam 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made some comments on the issue. - Ev (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Beam, this doesn't belong here, but "It's rediculous to think that on an English Wiki we'd use letters that don't exist in English" is sadly mistaken. We even have articles about "letters that don't exist in English" (ᛦ, ﺽ, Ψ, 𒌷 etc.) The question is, "is there a commonly used anglicized spelling in English langauge sources?" In the case of Pristina, the answer is yes. dab (𒁳) 06:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We have the Serbian version Priština
We have the Albanian version Prishtina
Then we have Pristina which is neither Albanian or Serbian, therefore I believe this to be best as it the most neutral and isn't pro Serbian or pro Albanian. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Term to describe Status

Currently the introduction states Kosovo as a "disputed territory", however upon clicking the link it uses Kashmir as an example - the archetype of a disputed territory. In the conflict over Kashmir, all three of the main players recognize eachother (China, Pakistan, India), however there is dispute over the borders of the territory of "Kashmir". This seems to make sense. However this is not the case for Kosovo. Serbia does not have a "dispute" with the Republic of Kosovo, Serbia doesn't recognize the Republic of Kosovo's existance..

For clarification I include the definition that Wikipedia uses for "Disputed territory" (at this time)

"A territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states, or over the possession or control of land by one state after it has conquered it from a former state no longer currently recognized by the occupying power."

Again, note the mention of "states" - there cannot be a "territorial dispute" between two states when one of the states claims the entirity of what the other state considers it's borders. (Furthermore if you use this definition it seems to be saying that Serbia recognizes The Republic of Serbia to have the dispute with - its circular.

Overall, the way its set up makes it look like Serbia has a dispute with another country over the territory of Kosovo, however this is certainly not the case, so for me this definition was lacking

I then looked at how other articles dealt with similiar issues. There seem to be two things that define the situation for Kosovo, that it is not a member of the UN, but it is recognized by at least one other country with UN membership. And that it has control over the vast majority of what it claims within its borders.

I make the assumption that UN membership is the de facto delineation between what we can call a country in a NPOV way, and something that need to be defined differently.

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is "partially recoginzed state" [By 45 UN members]

Republic of China [Taiwan] is a "multi-party democratic state with limited international recognition [By 22 UN members]

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a "de facto indepedent" republic [By 1 UN member]

The Republic of Kosovo has recoginition by 39 UN members.

The two that are closest to Kosovo situation include the word "state" with qualification. (limited or partially)

This seems to me that in order to be consistent, and keeping within a NPOV that Kosovo should be described in a similiar fashion - acknowledging its control over the majority of its territory but with the qualification that it is not fully recoginized (via UN membership)

Hence I propose using the same definition for Kosovo as Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as it seems to be in the closest situation. (similiar recoginition numbers)

So Kosovo should be defined as "partially recognized state" (with the partially recognized as a link directioning to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#States_which_formally_recognise_Kosovo_as_independent

(Madrone (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

"Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo" are not the same thing. Kosovo is a disputed territory - the parties to the dispute being Serbia and the (partially recognised) "Republic of Kosovo". BalkanFever 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" is disputed yet it has an article, so is the macedonian language and the macedonian people. The territory of Kosovo is not disputed but the sovereignty of the government of RoK over that territory. Or is wikipedia trying to be objective only selectively? Jawohl (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Brewing edit war in Albania article, about the status of Kosovo

People working on the Kosovo article may want to be aware that there is a dispute in progress on the Albania article over how Kosovo should be described in a list of Albania's geographical neighbours. Some want to say "Kosovo", but others are insisting on calling it "Serbia". People on both sides are digging in their heels, and it definitely has the potential to turn into an edit war. Anyone who wants to weigh in on this discussion may wish to go check out the Albania article and its talk page. Richwales (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dardania to Kosovo

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 Iron 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)