Talk:Kosovo/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

---

Untitled

There is a complete lack of references to the treasures of Kosovo - namely the Holy Orhtodox Monestaries see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visoki_De%C4%8Dani_monastery as an example. There needs to be a main section that talks about the monestaries and their value to Christianity and humanity as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.80.238 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

This becoming STUPID! [sic]

I added list of districts and cities here with the purpose to IMPROVE article, not to start new revert war. The names are written in both, Albanian and Serbian, and the name order is that used by UNMIK. So, if somebody see problem with that, he should discuss that problem here. It must be noted that state of Serbia recognized UNMIK and accepted civil UNMIK rule over Kosovo, thus, I do not see reason for revert war here. Even when Milošević was in power Albanian was an official language in Kosovo. PANONIAN (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, about the revert war part, Panonian. People should learn to discuss more here. AS of the official language in Kosovo, I must remind you that during Milosevic everything was in Cyrillic alphabet in Kosovo, including ID's, labels on shops, buses, administration, everything. But that is a black part of the history, not worth comparing to. Regards, Ilir pz 11:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably because Kosovo is/was part of Yugoslavia at the time and Serbian in Cyrillic was the official language. I don't know, but I guess the as Albanian population boycotted everything Serbian then buses etc labelled in Cyrillic wasn't a self-imposed disadvantage. Phil 13:46, 01 June 2006 (UTC)

Phildav76, a clarification: in Kosovo before Milosevic's apartheid was installed, Albanian, Serbian AND Turkish were the three official languages. The abolition of Albanian and Turkish were something new introduced by the one I mentioned above, not because Albanians boycotted anything. That was just one of the many other tools that regime used to oppress the majority of Kosovo's population. ilir_pz 16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is okay to spread propaganda (e.g. apartheid) but when you end up believing your own propaganda, that is where the danger is. Phil 23:38, 01 June 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain for a non-native speaker what you meant by that Phildav76? I really like it simple, with no irony in it. ~Thanks.ilir_pz 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about one thing today. What do you guys/girls think will happen with 1244 resolution, once (eventually) Montenegro gets recognized? Does it make sense to say that "now Serbia takes over what is left from Former Yugoslavia and the responsibilities of that resolution"? Seems like we might have to do major updating on those parts soon, where Serbia and Montenegro is mentioned as a successor of FRY, and Kosovo a de-jure part of it. Very curious how this evolves. Not that the Montenegro's independence affects Kosovo'spath to independence, but anyways it would be welcome. Ilir pz 11:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It will not affect it in any sense as Kosovo is recognised as a province of Serbia in S&M constitution. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 12:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Let us wait and see :) So next will be "Serbia is a successor of FRY"? after Montengro is gone from that federation?? This resolution is getting funnier and funnier. Ilir pz 12:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not the point. S&M is the same as FRY. Kosovo is not a province of S&M but a province of Serbia anyway. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 14:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. As of now Kosovo is a territory under UN administration, whose status is still not defined anyways. That resolution is for a couple of months more. Regards, Ilir pz 14:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is weird, SCG can't be the successor of FRJ. It's the successor of SFRJ (legally) - a state cannot be a successor of itself. Are youy suggesting that the Republic of Holland (declared with the Hague Manifesto of 1581) is not the successof of the United Dutch Provinces that existed there since 1576? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me just correct a mistake there -- FRY = SCG, but FRY (and therefore also SCG) is *not* the successor to the SFRY. SCG had to reapply for UN membership; had it been recognised as the legal successor to the SFRY, it would have simply taken its seat. —Nightstallion (?) 21:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats right. Since one month I m traing to say that. But nobody dont wont to listen-- Hipi

You are confusing Nightstallion's words. Resolution 1244 is relevant to FRY, which is the same as saying SCG. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 18:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I have moved the old entries to /Archive 8 because the page takes too long to load. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 10:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. You have removed my post at talk page beacose the fact I have putit in your talk page. Ther was no personal atack how you have wrotit at the comment during the deletio of the post in your talk page. This is another fact about wat I have sayed to you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:suspected sockpuppet of permanently blocked user Hipi Zhdripi|suspected sockpuppet of permanently blocked user Hipi Zhdripi]] ([[User talk:suspected sockpuppet of permanently blocked user Hipi Zhdripi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/suspected sockpuppet of permanently blocked user Hipi Zhdripi|contribs]])

Hipi, the copyvio text was removed before I moved the page. Besides, why are you adding text unrelated to the current discussion for? Please take some time to familiarise yourself with the copyright policy of Wikipedia too. I have already explained you this a few times but you insist on trolling around with my user page. Just to let you know that a lifting of your block was being considered but given your recent behaviour, I cannot see this happening at all. It is my fault for trying to be civilised with everyone. I should know better... Asterion ^{talk to me} 13:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is saing that is a copyvio (?) text, this is citat of a work. I diden uset that in the article. I have putit als source here for beter work and beacose the user Cernagora sayt to me that HRE is not serbian nationalist but he have only the serbian source. I dont know so gut english beacose that I dont work in the articel only in discussion side. But I know hat ther are some gut wikipedians and they are going to user this surce. (I know that you are not going to be that). You have sayed that I have maked personal atak at your talk page and deletet the my kritik for your work. Witch sentens is personal attack for you? Is this your civilised way to delet the post at your talk page and saying that is personal attack? I have no interes here for personal attack with nobody. I have experienc with that. Only if you present yourself als a hardliner of wikipedia Im going to give you a hard kritik. And wat are you doing, you are usenig your better english to diskrimined my work but that is not argument. You are not objetiv and that is not fair. Perhaps I can not do to much agains that but sombody is watching that, beacose I kow that from my work in sq:wikipedia. I dont let the new or the user witch dont know well albanian to be discrimedit. Even the user dont know albanian if he have facts I going to help him. Do you know way? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs)

Well, in that case. Why don't you explain things, then? It is a copyright violation to reproduce texts from a book that is not in the public domain. By Wikipedia Fair Use policy, you are only allowed to quote sentences or short paragraphs. And yes, you have been harrassing me in my talk page with your silly comments that I am not really Spanish and that you and your friends are going to prove it. It is real sad that I had to get my talk page protected to stop your trolling. You could learn from User:Ilir pz and start to discuss things like a normal person. Goodbye. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 14:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if I hert you. I have explent way I dont belevie that you are t Spanish. This is not personal attack, (this is my opinion about you and my experienc with Spanish peopel and your work here is maken my opinion, dont forget everybody who know spanish can say thate) I going to prufe that (my opinion). What is wrong with that. If you are a Spanish you dont need to be worit. I m Albanian and everybody can think what he wount, everybody can profe his opinion. -- Hipi

Well, feel free to check my Spanish wikipedia contributions if that satisfy your unhealthy curiosity. I accept your apologies. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Kosovo

History of Kosovo In "Travels in European Turkey" (London, 1850): E. Spencer gives an account of the Illyrian Empire:

...The Illyrians founded an immense empire extending from Epirus ... to the Danube and the Black Sea and comprehending the whole of the maritime coast of Hungary to Venice and Triest, with Istria, Carnolia, Carinthia, Styria, and Friuli... History and tradition affords us many interesting details of the battles of the Illyrians with the ancient Greeks and the Romans... Napoleon was well versed in the history of these people when he flattered their national pride...(Vol. I, pp. 93-94)

---

As indicated by E. Spencer, the Illyrians fought, in fact, for a long time against the Romans, who eventually conquered the whole of Illyria in A.D. 9. Many Illyrian soldiers, who susbsequently served in the Roman army rose to high positions. Some became emperors and viceroys: Claudius II, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian, Maximilian, Constantius, Valens, and Valentinian. Mention should also be made of Saint Jerome, one of the greatest scholars of his time. The Illyrians gave to Byzantium three of its greatest emperors: Constantine, who officially accepted Christianity; Justinius, who built Saint Sophia; and Justinianus, famous for his Code of Laws. The philologist Paul Kretschmer went so far as to maintain that the Illyrians actually founded Byzantium.

Proud of what they considered their heritage (see E. Spencer, Travels... I, p. 94), the South Slavs became eager to recreate ancient Illyria by forming a union among themselves.

---

Albania was at that time a domain of the Turkish Empire comprising four vilayets or provinces: Shkodra - which included the Dukagjini Plateau (Metohija), Monastir (presently Bitolja), Janina, and Shkup (Skopje), presently in Macedonia. This latter province was more readily called Kosova by the Turks in memory of the victory of a battle on the Plain of Kossovo, the "Campo dei Merli" of old Venetian maps. The capital of this province had at times been Priština.6

6. According to A. Boue, the "battles" that took place were not fought on the plain, but on its "plates-formes" at Gasimestan, "one and a half hours north of Pristina;" the name of Kossovo, he explained, was applied later to the Plain of Sitnica and the surrounding territory (A. Boue, op. cit., I, p. 142).

---

Owing to the efforts of the committee headed by A. Frasheri,7 80 delegates representing all four provinces convened at the city of Prizren, in the Vilayet of Shkup (Kosova) in June 1878, three days prior to the opening of the Congress of Berlin, whose purpose was to reconsider the decision reached by San Stefano's preliminary Peace Treaty. The assembly of these delegates was henceforth called The League of Prizren. Its task was to defend Albania's rights.

Kosova became thus for the Albanians the center of their resistance and they have ever since regarded this territory as a symbol of their struggle for independence.

7. An Albanian patriot of broad culture (1839-1894). His younger brother, Sami, wrote in Turkish as well as in Albanian. Greatly admired for his Universal Dictionary of History and Geography (a six-volume encyclopedia) and for other writings, he is considered in Turkey as one of its most prominent poets. Having fought for Albania’s rights, he spent five years in prison. The sec.ond of the three brothers, Naim, is the most popular South Albanian poet.

---

As soon as the Serbs occupied the ceded territories, the Albanians were asked to evacuate them. With respect to the Albanians inhabiting those areas, Mr. Gould, Consul of Great Britain in Belgrade, wrote to the Marquis of Salisbury, Secretary of the Foreign Office of Great Britain, on Nov. 26, 1878:

I hear that the Servian Government has behaved with great and unnecessary harshness, not to say cruelty, toward the Albanians in the recently ceded districts. If my information is correct, and I have every reason to believe it to be so, the peaceful and industrious inhabitants of over 100 Albanian villages in the Toplitza and Vranja Valley were ruthlessly driven forth from their homesteads by the Servians in the early part of this year. These wretched people have ever since been wandering about in a starving condition in the wild country beyond the Servian frontier. They have not been allowed to gather in their crops on their own lands, which were reaped by the Servian soldiery... I ... casually stated to his Excellency (Ristic) that these facts had come to my knowledge, and that should they be confirmed I felt certain Her Majesty's Government and the majority of the Great Powers would call the Servian Government to account, and insist upon strict justice being done to these unfortunate people, whose only crime was their belonging to an alien race and another creed...10

10. EM., Accounts and Papers (38); 1878-9; LXXIX 79, 574-575. Letter reproduced by Rizaj in op. cit. pp. 24 1-242.

---

As to the number of the Albanians inhabiting those territories, various statistics and extant documents give contradictory figures. According to a note of the administrative divisions dating from 1873, the district of the Sandjak of Niš had about 100 000 Albanians. As regards the number of refugees, the figures given by Prof. J. Cvijic for those who settled in Kosova is 30 000, that furnished by English documents, 100 000. According to Turkish sources, the number of the Albanians who were forced to leave the region amounted to 300 000.

On June 3, 1978, Rilindja (p.7), published a letter addressed by these miserable people (who were deprived of all means and many of whom were sick) to the European Powers requesting that at least a commission be set up to look into their serious problem.11

Leaving these helpless refugees to their sad fate, the Serbs colonized the region with astounding rapidity. Referring to the colonization of the area by the Serbs, V. Cubrilovic stated in his "Memorandum" (about which more will be told later) that "Toplica and Kosanica, once Albanian regions of ill-repute, gave Serbia the finest regiment in the wars of 1912-1918".

11. For the data concerning the Albanians of these territories, see E. PlIana, "Les raisons et Ia maniere de Ia migration des refugies albanais du territoire du Sandjak de Nish a Kosova (1877-1878)," Gjurmime Albanologjike IX 1979, Prishtine, 1980, pp. 129-156. Cf. also R. MarmullakuAlbania and the Albanians , London, 1975, p. 24 (does not contain details).

---

The Great Powers eventually left the Balkans in the hands of Austria and Russia. The influence of the latter, however, grew stronger as time went by.

In regard to Kosova, Russia sent priests to Serbian monasteries situated in the region exalting, together with the Orthodox faith, heroes and deeds pertaining to Serbian legends.18 They opened schools which were hotbeds of Slav propaganda. Clearly, her purpose was to colonize the province where the Serbs were but an insignificant minority.

The West knew little at that time about the Balkan states. In fact, the ignorance was such that some missionaries who went to Macedonia to support the Bulgarian cause confessed that formerly they had been ignorant of the fact that there were Bulgarians in the Peninsula; they had thought that only Greeks lived there. Practically nothing was known, of course, relative to the Albanians; those unfamiliar with the question could be told anything. Thus, when two Russian consuls in Kosova and Monastir were killed by Albanians (who acted in self-defense), these acts were described as being committed by 'Moslem fanatics'. The two propaganda agents were presented as martyrs; their funerals were grandiose. Since Christianity was equated with civilization and Islam with backwardness, the Christians were regarded as the allies of the Great Powers. Thus the Catholic Albanians who are animated by patriotic feelings were ignored by design. The Albanians were depicted merely as backward Moslems and as allies of the Turks.

18. "It seemed sheer folly to make a large and costly Serb theological school in a Moslem Albanian town and to import masters and students, when funds are so urgently needed to develop free Serb land" (ME. Durham,High Albania, London, 1909, p. 275). Even E. Noel-Buxton, of the Balkan Committee, whose attitude was pro-Slav, had to admit that "The spirit of chauvinism is but thinly veiled under the garb of churchmanship. Religion is degraded to the level of pretext for exciting national zeal" (Noel-Buxton, op. cit. p. 50).

---

Many books and articles were published by the South Slavs for the purpose of showing the ferocity of the Albanians, their backwardness, their despicable behavior, their lack of discipline, etc. Vladan Djordjevic, former Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Serbia, went even so far as to claim that until "as late as the 19th century", there had been Albanians with tail in their rear! Djordjevic even referred the reader to J.G. Von Hahn's scholarly work, Albanesische Studien, where, he asserted, he had found the information.19

19. V. Djordjevic,Les Albanais et les Grandes Puissances, 1913 p. 8. No information of this kind is contained in von Hahn’s work.

---

The purpose of all these writings was, of course, to draw a picture that gives to the non-specialist a very poor idea of the Albanians so that these, by dint of being despised by others may, in their innermost soul, start to despise themselves.20

20. According to Felix Adler, "The vice of vices is when we are held cheap by others sod then in our innermost soul start to think cheaply of ourselves." Protic, Gopcevic, Zupanic, Tomic, Djordjevic are some of the Slav authors who criticized the Albanians in a particularly uncivil way. Many others may be cited.

---

To be sure, there are established scholars - be they geographers, historians, anthropologists, or serious travelers and explorers - who have expressed opinions of a very different kind: H.N. Brailsford went even so far as to maintain that "from Byron's day downward it would be hard to find a Western European who has learned to know the Albanians without admiring them" (The New Republic, March 1, 1919). In fact those who had nice words on behalf of the Albanians were so numerous that the Serb S. Protic (Balkanicus) considered the tendency to praise the Albanians as highly ethical individuals and to describe them as "unusually gifted", to have become a fashion.21

21. 5. Protic,Das Albanesische Problem und die Beziehungen zwischen Oestereich- Ungarn, Leipzig, 1913, p. 19.

---

The fact remains, however, that the latter writings were not accessible to many. The influential French daily Le Temps, published merely articles favoring the Slavs and Greeks, for France was then Russia's ally.22

22. "Le journal parisien Le Temps avait mis ses colonnes a Ia disposition de ces detracteurs comme il les avait ouvertes pour les Grecs.. .," — "The Parisian daily Le Temps was at the disposal of these calumniators [i.e., of the Slays] as it was also at the disposal of the Greeks (Lumo Skendo, Albanais et Slaves, Lausanne, 1919, p. 3).

---

In order to achieve national unity with a delimited territory, the League had requested the Porte, in July 1878, to turn Albania into one vilayet. The request had not been granted. As a consequence, the Albanians, under their gallant leader Isa Boletini, a native of Kosova, openly took a stand against the Turks. All their activities were centered in the Kosova region, which became the cradle of their national struggle and thus acquired a special meaning for them.23

In 1912, when the Albanians seized Shkup (Skopje) and were about to enter Monastir (Bitolja), the Turks called a truce and granted them autonomy uniting the vilayets of Shkodra, Janina, Kosova, and part of Monastir. As a result of this Albanian victory, the government of the chauvinistic Young Turks Party was overthrown. The weakness of Turkey became thus evident.

The Albanians had administered a heavy blow to the Turks and rightly hoped for approval and sympathy, for, as Lord Goschen had rightly pointed out back in 1880, if the Turks lost Albania, they would lose their cause in Europe. Instead, the Albanian victory triggered the Balkan wars, the purpose of which was the annexation of Albanian-inhabited territories that were under Turkish rule.

At that time, Montenegro had been free from Ottoman rule for over forty years; Serbia and Greece for over eighty. These states, being independent, had their regular armies. When attacked on all sides (by the Greeks, the Montenegrins, and, of course, by the Serbs, who entered Kosova), the Albanians, aware of the great danger, hastened to raise their flag and declared their neutrality.

23. SeeR. Marmullaku Albania and the Albanians, Hurst and Co., London, 1975, pp. 23-24.

---

The atrocities perpetrated by the Serbo-Montenegrins during the Balkan wars on the Albanian population were acknowledged by the Serbian socialist Dimitrije Tucovic (1881-1914) in his book Srbija i Albanija (published in 1946):

The bourgeois clamored for a merciless extermination and the army executed the orders. The Albanian villages, from which the people had made a timely flight, were burned down. There were at the same time barbaric crematoria in which hundreds of women and children were burned alive...24

24. Cited by R. Marmullaku, op. cit., p. 137.

---

Brutalities committed by the Serbo-Montenegrins are also described in the Carnegie report. They may be best summed up in two short paragraphs taken from Mary Edith Durham's Twenty Years of Balkan Tangle (1920):

No Turks ever treated Armenians worse than did the two Serb peoples treat the Albanians in the name of the Holy Orthodox Church (p.235).25

25. Cf. also Aubrey Herbert, M.P.: "Very little was known about Albania. The general opinion was that the Albanians were another branch of the Armenian family, and indeed, as far as massacres were concerned, this was most understandable . . ." (A. Herbert, Ben Kenilim,

London, 1924, P. 24). According to ME. Durham, the slaughters of the Armenians were nothing compared to those of the Albanians: "The massacres of Adana and the resultant misery pale before the scarlet horrors committed wholesale in cold blood by the so-called followers of Christ" (Durham, Struggle for Scutari, London, 1914, p. 303).

About these slaughters see 1. Albaniens Golgotha, Anklageacten gegen die Vernichter des Albanervolkes, gesammelt und herausgegeben von L. Freundlich, Vienna, 1913. — 2. Enquete dans les Balkans, Rapport de Ia Commission d’enquete de Ia Dotation Carnegie pour Ia Paix internationale, Paris, 1914.

---

As for the Balkan Slav and his vaunted Christianity, it seems to me all civilization should rise and restrain him from further brutality (p.238).26

26. What surprised ME. Durham quite specially was the religious fanaticism of the Serbs:

---

"It was not astonishing that the Serbs hated Islam, but that they should fiercely hate every other Christian church, I had not expected. The Catholic was hated the most." According to Durham, the Moslem was to the Serbs "a lesser evil than the Catholic," (Twenty Years of Balkan Tangle, London, 1920, p. 52). "The hatred of the Serb Orthodox for the Catholics was shown in 1913 in the Balkan war, when the Montenegrin troops, whose object was said to be to liberate Christians, fell upon the little church of Mazreku, trampled the Host underfoot, dressed up in the priestly vestments, danced about, and amused themselves by cutting noses from images of the saints and firing bullets into the crufix" (Some Tribal Origins ... p. 28).

In 1913, a number of soldiers led by a bandit clad as an Orthodox priest stripped and bayonetted to death Luigj Palici, an Albanian Franciscan from Gjakova, because he refused to cross himself in the Orthodox manner. "Austria intervened sharply. Had she not done so, in the words of a Catholic refugee, there would not have been a Catholic left" (E.C. Helmreich, The Diplomacy of the Balkan Wars, Harvard U.P., 1938, p. 317).

In 1919, a treaty concerning minorities was signed at Saint-Germain-en- Laye whereby the Yugoslav Government pledged to protect all citizens without discrimination as to race, nationality, and creed. Yet the persecutions against the Catholic Kosovars continued. Mother Teresa’s father, a native of Shkup (Skopje), and a noted Albanian patriot, was poisoned by the Serbs, as reported by his son Lazer Bojaxhiu in an interview published in Gente (Dec. 1979 andJan. 1980). Mother Teresa’s family was obliged to move to Tirana, where her mother and sister died (the former in 1974; the latter in 1976).

In 1929, was executed Father Shtjefen Gjecovi, a Franciscan, greatly respected by all the Albanians for his erudition and his righteousness. As a result, on May 5, 1930, three Catholic priests, obliged to leave the region, addressed the "League of Nations" a memorandum concerning the tragic plight of the Albanians in Yugoslavia (see H. Kokalari, Kosova, Rome, 1962, p. 165).

---

It should be reiterated that the unbelievable massacres were in no way committed as a result of a struggle between Christians and Moslems, as it was at that time believed by Gladstone and stressed in his speeches.27 They were solely motivated by the desire to decimate the Albanian race. Not only Kosova was coveted, but all of North Albania

27. Cf. E. Noel-Buxton: "Mr. Gladstone said, the Christian, who retained his faith at the price of slavery, when by recanting he could obtain every favour, is entitled to the name of martyr and to him Europe owes the gratitude" (op. cit., p. 27).— That the conversions of the Albanians would be taken as a pretext to expand territory was already pointed out by A. Boue who was for the freedom of all nations and had little respect for those who "for sheer purposes of invasion consider themselves chosen by God to exterminate the Moslems and make people happy." (". . . chez ceux, qui s’intitulent, par pure politique d’envahissement, les elus du Tres-Haut pour l’extermination des Musulmans et le bonheur du genre humain," Boue, Recueil d’itineraires dans Ia Torquie dEurope, 1854, I, "Avant-Propos."

---

During World War I, Albania's neutrality was not respected and mass massacres continued.

At the turn of the century, the reports of the Ohio journalist J.A.Mac Cahan concerning the Bulgarian uprising, had shocked the West; as known, Russia used these accounts as a pretext to march against the Turks. By contrast, the Albanian cause did not benefit from the Carnegie report, nor by the frequent and moving declarations of philanthropists and journalists who, like M.E. Durham, were eyewitnesses to mass massacres of women and children, simply because it was not in the interest of the Great Powers to take Albania's defense.28

28. No study is available on ME. Durham, except for that of Sh. Shaqiri, "ME. Durham dhe Shqiptar&,"Nentori, Oct. 1981, pp. 149-164. A talented painter and writer,a good historian and an excellent anthropologist (her diaries and other papers are available at the "Royal Anthropological Institute of Gr. Br. and Ireland," London, of which she was a member and to whose journal, Man, she contributed many articles), she also worked as a volunteer in Montenegrin hospitals as well as for the "Macedonia Relief Fund." Her first book was devoted to the Serbs (Through the Land of the Serbs, London, 1904). But, as pointed out by Aubrey Herbert, it was only their revolting cruelty that turned her affection into dislike" (A. Herbert, Ben Kendim , p. 220). Her later attitude toward the Serbo-Montenegrins is conveyed by a passage contained in Twenty Years of Balkan Tangle: "On arriving in London I packed up the Gold Medal given me by King Nikola and returned it to him stating that I had often expressed surprise at persons, who accepted decorations from Abdul Hamid, and that now I knew that he and his subjects were even more cruel than the Turk, I would not keep his blood-stained medal any longer. I communicated this to the English and Austrian press. The order of Saint Sava given me by King Petar of Serbia, I decided to keep a little longer till some pecularly flagrant case" (p. 25).

---

The well-known Swiss geographer H. Hauser, rightly pointed out that the principle of nationality, like all other principles, cannot be applied in a strict and equitable manner given the fact that most places constitute, with respect to the population inhabiting them, a mosaic.29

29. H. Hauser, "Le principe des nationalites," (30-page pamphlet, reprint fromRevuepolitique internationale, March-April, 1916). See also A. van Gennep,Traite des nationalites, 1922, p. 24.

---

In 1878, Lord Goschen and Lord Fitzmaurice had been in favor of a large Albania comprising the Albanian-inhabited territories of the four vilayets.30 But, at the Congress of Berlin it was decided -as already pointed out - that territories indisputably Albanian be handed over to Montenegro and to Serbia. Places connected with Albanian history and national pride, like Janina, Arta, Preveza, were allotted to the Greeks, who within a relatively short period of time were to exterminate the overwhelming Albanian population inhabiting them. No system of guarantees was applied. Albanians, numbering hundreds of thousands were to be forcibly sent to Turkey.

The manner in which Albanian territories were ceded to neighboring states clearly indicates how arbitrary decisions that make history may be. And one cannot but agree with Mircea Eliade (The Myth of the Eternal Return), who, with respect to the theory that valorizes historical events, to which the 19th century attached so much importance, pertinently remarked that such a theory could have been established only by thinkers who know nothing about injustices and miseries caused by history.

30. A. Herbert, op. cit., p. 216 and M.E. Durham, Twenty-Years p. 83.

---

Albanian population lived, remained outside the borders assigned to her.31 As Lord Fitzsimmons rightly remarked, "Albania was to start her career as a state mutilated from her birth". Indeed, as a nation humiliated in her pride, she had no place among her sister nations. She was doomed to poverty, bitterness, and complete isolation.

In regard to Kosova, a territory where Albanians displayed their most important activities for the independence of their nation and a region which, as some scholars contend, is the cradle of the Albanian people, the principles of ethnicity and self determination were not observed. Nor had they been taken into account when districts indisputably Albanian had been allotted to Montenegro and Serbia by the Treaty of Berlin. At that time, the principle of history had been ignored as well.

31. The tragic fate of many of these Albanians, who remained outside the borders assigned to the state of Albania, was to populate Asia Minor. As indicated (p. 10), the guarantees stipulated by the Treaty of Berlin were not honored by Serbia. Likewise, over 300,000 Albanians inhabiting the regions ceded to Greece were expelled by the Greek Government and obliged to settle in Turkey as a result of an exchange treaty of the Turkish and the Greek Governments (see, among others, A.A. Pallis, "The exchange of populations in the Balkans," Nineteenth Century, March, 1925, pp. 376-387). Pallis begins his article by saying that ‘the exchanges of populations, as a method of settling the problems of minorities, has been condemned in many quarters as a barbarous and dangerous innovation in internal politics." The Greek delegate at the Lausanne Conference had, in fact, declared that ‘Greece agrees that the compulsory exchanges shall not be applicable to her Moslem subjects of Albanian origin." However, the Greeks declared the Moslems of Tchameria as being "merely Albanophones," but in reality Greeks, and on this basis forced them to emigrate (Pallis art. cit.). Pallis argued that they emigrated of their own accord and that they were pleased in Turkey. This, however, is not the opinion of Ruth Pennington who returned to England in 1927 after ten months of work with the immigrants, ‘In Turkey the are 300,000 Albanian-speaking immigrants. Of these at least 10% would willingly shift their quarters and move again seeking for better land, to rejoin cousins and friends, who have already moved. Turkey does not wish for any further depopulation, but in spite of official prohibition, for the next 10 to 20 years there will be a constant leakage . . ." (Near East and India, Sept. 15, 1927, p. 333).

---

Although in 1913, the population of the south Albanian region ceded to Greece was over 90% Albanian, no Albanian schools or newspapers were ever allowed. This population has been almost extirpated on account of the harsh treatment to which it was subjected.

When, following World War I, the Dalmatian question was discussed, the fact that the West Adriatic coast had previously belonged to the Venetians, Austrians, Hungarians, and - in parts - to the Turks, and that, moreover, Slav colonization of the Coast was a relatively recent event in history (for, although the Slavs had settled in some parts of the Coast already in the 7th century, colonization was still going on as late as the beginning of the 20th century),32 did not have an adverse effect relating to the claims of the South Slavs. According to M.R. Vesnic, ...except for historical arguments... no present day consideration would authorize Italy to spell out such pretentions. Economically, geographically, and from the point of view of morale, these shores are inseparable from the hinterland which is Yugoslavia.33

32. Austria supported the Slavs against the Italians. Cf. M.E. Durham: "The Slavizing process in Dalmatia visibly progressed until the German-Austrians began to realize that they were warming a viper and feel nervous" (Twenty Years p. 13); cC. also U. Biscottini, Sull italianita della Dalmazia, 1930, p. 55.

33. MR. Vesnic, Les aspirations nationales de Ia Serbie (no date) p. 16.

---

Thus, disregarding historical considerations, Yugoslavia was allotted territories that were vast beyond her wildest dreams: to her devolved the beautiful Dalmatian Coast, where the Slavs had not ruled before, except for brief periods of time (a claim contested by the Hungarians) on some portions of it; to her was ceded Macedonia where the Serb population was insignificant and to which the Serbs had no claims before 1885;34 to her was allotted the Vojvodina (Banat) where a certain number of Serbs had been hospitably allowed to settle in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. The newly created state of Yugoslavia also retained territories which, regardless of the principles of ethnicity and self-determination had been previously granted to Serbia and Montenegro by the Treaty of Berlin and forcibly annexed by them.

34. In 1880, the French consul in Scutari, when describing Macedonia in an "Aperiu geographique" of Albania, prepared by him for the French Government, did not even mention the Serbs: ‘La Macedonie est en effet partagee entre les Albanais, les Grecs, les KutzoValaques et les Bulgares," — Macedonia is divided between Albanians, Greeks, Vlachs, and Bulgarians," (unpublished document contained in Albanie, Dossier I, "Archives de la Defense," Chateau de Vincennes, Paris). Cf. also M.E. Durham, The Serajevo Crime (London, 1925): "When I was living in Ochrida in the winter of 1903-4, a Serb schoolmaster had but just arrived. The largest school in town was the Bulgar one. The Greeks made a bad second. In spite of all his efforts, the Serb only succeeded in scraping up about 50 persons including his own family, the Greek priest and myself, to celebrate Saint Sava’s day. The majority were poor school children picked up in the town. In those days anyone who said that the Serbs would one day own Ochrida would have been thought insane" (p. 27). II ‘Dr. Milovanovich admitted in 1898 that the Serbs did not begin to think about Macedonia till 1885" (E. Noel-Buxton, Balkan Problems and European Peace, London, 1919, P. 27). /1 In regard to Macedonia, A. van Gennep, citing the Carnegie Report, criticized the Serb scholars Belic and Cvijic, attributing no scientific value to their research, because their sole purpose, according to the Carnegie report, was "to support the political claims of Serbia" (Van Gennep, Traitet� &s nationalites, Paris, ed. Payot, 1922, P. 202).

---

Faust, when translating the New Testament into his mother tongue, rendered with "action" the meaning of "logos", thus writing: "at the beginning was action".35 As prototype of modern man, Faust did not believe in the fascination and power of the word, as traditional doctrines do. Since then, however, sociologists and anthropologists, especially Frazer, have pointed out the magic that not merely traditional doctrines, but also the so-called primitive peoples attach to certain words and names, the use they make of them in myths, and how these myths affect them. In his turn, Freud has rightly remarked that the primitive mind is contained in all of us. We are impressed by words. Indeed, the suggestive power emanating from some particular words and names that affect our unconscious, especially when used in myths, surpasses action. More exactly, words may become dynamic symbols; they automatically generate action owing to the very magic contained in them.

In fact, Old Serbia acquired for the Serbs a magic power similar to that contained in Illyria.

a. It was asserted that Stara Srbija was the cradle of the Nemanjis, the Serbian kings. Special emphasis, in this regard, was laid on the Glorious Empire of Stefan Dušan.

b. Of foremost importance was considered the Battle of 1389 against the Turks on the Field of Kosova. It was somehow implied in various writings that Czar Dušan's Empire was sacrificed on that battle which was said to have been fought by the Serbs alone to protect Europe.

c. The Serbs who wanted to prove that the Albanian-inhabited region had formerly been ethnically Serb, underscored and proclaimed widely what it became known as the Serbian Exodus or the Emigration of the Serbs to Hungary. It was stressed that the Serbs, as a result of the Austro-Turkish wars of 1690 and 1735, had been obliged to evacuate the region and emigrate to Hungary under the leadership of their bishop, Arsenije III Crnojevic. And that, subsequently, the land, once vacant, had been colonized by the ferocious Albanians assisted by the Turks. The Albanians inhabiting Kosova were thus considered as recent settlers who had no right to be there.

These important issues which played a paramount role in the delimitation of the Albanian borders shall be discussed in PartII.

35. MR. Vesnic, Les aspirations nationales de Ia Serbie (no date) p. 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs)

---

Hipi can you please share the link where you found the info, so we can check if sources are reliable and verifiable. Thanks for the info. (Asterion, thanks for restoring the text, that was removed by someone) greetings, Ilir pz 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone out there?

Where is everyone? I thought all new changes would be discussed beforehand as a matter of respect? (This also goes for unsigned edits, Hipi) --Asterion ^{talk to me} 20:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well considering a lot of us are in school/university at the moment...we don't have much time to contribute, only revert ocassionally:P. C-c-c-c 21:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting is not to do if you dont have much time to contribute. Instead discuss a little, that helps more. Asterion, I am a bit busy with school, for another 2-3 days, then will dedicate more time here. ilir_pz 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I understand. What is the story with the map now? Have I missed anything?!? Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, Ilir, don't take this personal, but I've made a few changes to the article.

Actually, just one - the map. Kosovo is defined as autonomous province within former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro, thats in the article. So, now we have a map that points that out. --serbiana - talk 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Boris not even b92 has that map that you put there. Do not start revert wars for no reason. I proposed a map for those who like maps, but none liked the idea. ilir_pz 22:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. OK, Boris, you may have a point but I am afraid this is going to take things back to square one. Is it worth it? I have serious doubts indeed. Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair warning

Revert activity at this page has been flagged at WP:AN, and as it's now reached the point where a user's first edit (I use the term loosely, I suspect) was a revert here. Revert changes if you must, but note that doing so repeatedly, without regard to talk page discussion, or in egregiously suspicious circumstances, may be regarded as disruption. Alai 23:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. This page was stable for some time, and editors from both sides achieved a consensus and were rationally editing, until recently when someone started changing maps, from some IP in Canada, some suspicious Special:Contributions/SerbianMafia account etc. I would appreciate some attention by any admin here in such cases. ilir_pz 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

• Please stop vandalizing this article, it's gone far enough. --Krytan 01:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you fully. How about you help by stopping yourself?!ilir_pz 01:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear. You also broke the 3RR rule, lawl. --Krytan 01:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to push me toward that using your multiple usernames, right? Not difficult to guess.ilir_pz 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple usernames? I don't understand. I don't have multiple usernames. Although I don't break wikipedia rules either, like somebody I know ;) I'll be doing some reporting after. Turns out you might not get banned today, maybe tomorrow? Cheers, --Krytan 01:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck! ilir_pz 01:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a invasion of sebian account in en:Wikipedia

Im waitting if any administrator is going to do something agains this invasion. Now Im going to sleep. Ilir ky invasion nuk mund të pritet me diskutime ko është më se e qartë. Po më dhimbset PANONIA dhe ti, në fund të fundit puna e ju dy do të dëmtohet nga ky invasion. --Hipi Zhdripi 01:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep it in English, for the rest of the users to understand. There is no "invasion" of Serbian accounts. All the best, --Krytan 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocks on the basis of checkuser result

Given this, I've blocked several users involved in the recent spree of reverts. If there are additional undiscussed reverts, in either direction, either from editors who've repeatedly reverted before, or who "show up out of nowhere", I'm going to block for disruption without further warning. Let's see some discussion, and a ceasation of the sniping and tag-team reverts. Alai 02:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet thing

I will automatically revert any unsigned edits due to latest batch of sockpuppetry incidents. Asterion ^{talk to me} 07:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention

We agreed the name Kosova would not be used as not commonplace in English language. Therefore, the correct term to use in Wikipedia is Kosovo. Kosova is POV. Asterion ^{talk to me} 11:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The term Racak Massacre is POV. This is not even been used in the dedicated article, Racak incident. Asterion ^{talk to me} 11:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The addition of this text is POV and is not verifiable: In a number of cases, Albanian families were expelled from their apartments to make space for the refugees.

The victims have been executed by Serb forces, which were refusing to allow proper autopsy of the victims is simply not true as Helena Ranta and other forensic teams were immediately allowed.

After the Dayton Agreement in 1995, Albanians organized into the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), employing guerilla-style tactics against Serbian police forces. Yugoslav forces allegedly committed war crimes in Kosovo, although the Serbian government claims that the army was only going after suspected Albanian "terrorists". is not only POV but sarcastic. The previous text was a neutral alternative: After the Dayton Agreement in 1995, an armed movement called the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), employing guerilla-style tactics, took shape in western Kosovo. It was mainly composed of local youngsters, unemployed and farmers.

I would appreciate an explanation. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 12:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the naming convention, as long as none adds the "metohija" part to the name, in return.

I do not agree with your questioning the cases of Albanian families being expelled to mkae space for the refugees from Krajina etc. I will find facts for that very soon. Also do not agree that ``ìt is not```true that the victims were executed by Serb forces in the Racak Massacre. That what happened there cannot be described in any other way but a massacre, civillians were shot from a close distance. The forensics did prove that.

The "neutral" alternative you provide to describe KLA is really funny. It makes it sound as if NO educated people were in such organization. I can tell you you are very mistaken. Hence that ridiculous statement is not neutral at all, whoever added it should have not speculated but instead read a bit more. ilir_pz 13:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That sentence can come off (I did not write it, though I do not take it as offensive). My point was about the last sentence of the version replaced by Hipi. Also, the word massacre is semantically loaded and it is not used in the Racak incident article either. Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The first line of "Racak incident" says "The Racak incident (also called the Racak massacre or Racak operation)". What do you mean it is not used? ilir_pz 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely the same than when I ask you to use Kosovo and not Kosova. This is not the article name, as it was deemed too biased. Asterion ^{talk to me} 18:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

List of presidents

If this section is to remain it should be accompnied by some explanatory information. To begin with, it should be noted that these 'presidents' of Kosovo are not and have never been internationally recognized. Rather, they were the inofficial representatives of the kosovo albanian population. Wikipedia should be used to convey facts, not to push a political agenda. So, although the 'presidents' were representatives of the majority of the people of Kosovo, they were, in fact, not the officially recognized as such.Osli73 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So, if no one is opposed (and gives a reason why) I'll something on the pre 1999 presidents of Kosovo.Osli73 09:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure presidents from 1989 to 1999 should be added as presidents. During that time apartheid existed in Kosovo, so they were not legitimate presidents. Besides, they were not called presidents, but something like "the head of the committee" or something. The first time Kosovo had a president was after 1999, with Ibrahim Rugova being the first. ilir_pz 10:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

SCG nonexistant

I will make one thing clear. As 1244 does not say that Kosovo is formally a part of Serbia, I will not allow people to alter that in the preamble of Kosovo article. Call your senses, please. ilir_pz 22:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

However, it does say it is formally part of Former Yugoslavia, who's heir is, as of right now, Serbia:)))). Get over it Ilir, stop denying facts. C-c-c-c 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. ilir_pz 22:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you limiting your vocabulary to "whatever"? C-c-c-c 22:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol sorry Boris:P C-c-c-c 22:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

whatever. ilir_pz 00:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Ilir. I think your feeling a little down. C-c-c-c 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

At least Montenegro is gone? :) --Krytan 03:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is official finally. UNtil 1244 is changed and adapted to any new version, it does not belong here. ilir_pz 07:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Official status of Kosovo

In the article it states that Kosovo is "autonomous province within former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under UN administration." As Yugoslavia changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro, shouldn't this also be stated in the article. In the case the union between Serbia and Montenegro is ended, shouldn't Kosovo, de jure, become a part of the Republic of Serbia?

What do you think? Osli73 07:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. You canno just derive one statement to the other, according to some "logic". ilir_pz 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the union between CG and Serbia ends, then The Republic of Serbia will be the heir or the Republic of Yugoslavia, and thus, have de jure jurisdiction over Kosovo. Why else would the EU, the UN, the US and other involved parties recognize the Republic of Serbia's government in Belgrade as the legitimate negotiating party in the Vienna talks over the future of the province? If Kosovo is not de jure part of Serbia, what are they negotiating about?

I know a lot of Kosovo Albanians like to think that Kosovo is an independent country or simply just a territory under UN administration. However, the fact, stated in 1244, is that it is recognized as a part of Yugoslavia. And, as Yugoslavia has ceased to exist it is recognized as part of the Republic of Serbia.

Who is saying that Serbian Govement (Serbia) is regodnasied als the UN member. Perhaps Kosovo is going tp be regodnasied and Serbia with Vojvodina are going to spleet. After sometime Sandjak and Serbia???? How you areseeng Serbia is a small place. It is like a bothel without milk, out side the serbian nationalist has maked wite color and you are saying that it is milk?????

Perhaps Kosovo might be or might not be recognized. Vojvodina and Serbia will never split, because Vojvodina is Serbia. The actual name is Serbian Vojvodina, but because it's within Serbia, it doesn't need to have that in front. Sandžak? That's not even recognized. It's people like you who want to tear up Serbia. But if that's your mission, learn English first. Sign your edits too. Krytan talk 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandžak ( That's not even recognized???? ) and Vojvodina is recognized yes? Sandjak needs a littel more time to be recognized one or two yeare.

I know a sebians siged the song

Ko to kaze, ko to laze da Serbia je mala kan nam Belgrada Pasaluk je dala.

Two things I compel to complain

1. The Serbian dinar has been removed from the currency in the article.

2. It mentions (now Serbia) instead of the recent (now Serbia and Montenegro). If this refers to the dissolution of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, they're far from being dissolved - the results of the referendum are still 5% off, and we'll know final results tonight. There is a long road ahead of Serbia and Montenegro, regardless of whether the Montenegrin independence referendum has succeeded or failed. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The table

The map doesn't even show Kosovo within Serbia, like the Vojvodina map. Like this, it looks as if Kosovo is independent. Krytan talk 23:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because Kosovo is not within Serbia? didnt you wonder about that? ~Kosovo is soon to be de-jure recognized as independent, as de-facto it is. ilir_pz 23:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, Ilir, where are the sources to support your claim? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh jeez... but every map I look at, everywhere, Kosovo is still within Serbia. And Kosovo can be as independent as they want, at least let Leposavic and other Serb-majority municipalities stay with Serbia. RS could unify with Serbia too. Krytan talk 23:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am none to decide that what you wish. Contact group has said specifically that Kosovo will not be devided, at any cost. And the status has to be acceptable to be acceptable to the people of Kosovo, which means independence will be the result, sooner or later. But according to Serbian sources that is to happen in November Sorry for the diappointment. Montenegro is not the last part of former Yugoslav federation to be formally recognized as independent. ilir_pz 23:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't rush into the future. Wait until Montenegro becomes independent. Also - exactly what you said: will, meaning that Kosovo is not independent yet; no? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It was good while it lasted :+) I'm happy that Montenegro is gone. And now Kosovo? I could really care less. I would want what's good for the Serbian people. However, when that independence day comes, then you will use this template: {{Infobox Country}}. Otherwise, the same table as Vojvodina should be used. Krytan talk 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't good for my nation, Albanians, anyways. So what happens with it I care less than I care for what happens with a tribe in a tribe in African jungles. I don't mind that you don't care about Kosovo. Since you don't I encourage you not to involve in edit warring, out of no reason. The template for country will be used when the time comes. As Kosovo is a territory under UN administration, no template for such cases exists. Hence, it should stay as it is. Regards, ilir_pz 23:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't good for my nation, Albanians, anyways. How? Krytan talk 23:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No comment. ilir_pz 23:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. The only reason I thought Kosovo was within Serbia was because of the Serbian constitution, but ok. Krytan talk 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just the Serbian constitution - read up (or in the Archive) - every single international source from the List of World Countries to the CIA considers Kosov a part of Serbia. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about since it's very clear - "Kosovo is a province of Serbia currently under UN administration. Talk are going on with the aim of giving the province conditional independence by the end of the year." How can this be 'controversial'? Every government in the world recognizes this. All published maps/atlases of Europe (and of the world) show this. Look at Wikipedias map of Europe for example [[1]]. I'm getting ready to change the current version to show this and let those who don't accept the facts get upset. Osli73 08:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image of destroyed Serbian church

• Why? the Serbian Church [2]
• Atention is real is not propagander masaker

A Serbian church, before and after it was destroyed in the pogrom of 2004

During the last edit reversions going around, people have also been removing and adding back in this image. I think we should discuss it here. Personally, I do not have a real opinion on the matter, but it certainly cannot be dismissed that also many Serbian people and buildings suffered from the war. Cpt. Morgan 10:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If we keep uploading pictures of how people suffered in Kosovo, I would have to upload tons of such with mutilated bodies of Albanian civillians. The above mentioned page belongs to the 2004 pogrom in Kosovo, and other war pictures to Kosovo war. I think we should agree on this, otherwise I will have to upload some pics soon. ilir_pz 10:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I understand your opinion, my only goal is to reach consensus whether or not an image like this should be included in this article. I would tend think it shouldn't, since it is a general article on Kosovo and the image has little relation to that. But by reaching consensus on that issue, we at least can deal better with the continious reversions regarding that image and images like it. Cpt. Morgan 10:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the article you mentioned and I agree the image would suit better in 2004 pogrom in Kosovo. Cpt. Morgan 10:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, so I remove it then. ilir_pz 10:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I put it back:))). Guess will just have to put pictures up of dead Serbs. And the only people that wound up "dead" that were Albanians, were KLA forces. Good day shqiptar.C-c-c-c 12:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear C-C-C-C, I strongly disagree that this image has a place in this article dealing in general with Kosovo. We gave a fair place in another, more suitable article, 2004 unrest in Kosovo. Without starting a revert war, if you disagree, can we first discuss the matter please? Also, can you refrain from calling a edit like this vandalism, when we are trying to obtain a reasonable solution for the matter here?Cpt. Morgan 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If we let this picture in the article, then we must put the horror pictur from serbian masaker Kosovo at first WW I , WWII, Balkan firs, secend and last. Destroid monument of Prizren Liga the simbol of catholic, muslim and arthodox Albanias in all the World, ect... .

Funny, Serbs were fleeing Kosovo in WWI Hipi. And learn some English, or go back to Shqip Wiki. C-c-c-c 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Why the srbian church? {video document} Sart with suporting demo and masaker
Show is going on 0 1 2 3
Game Over in Koshare, Kosovo
Today screaming--Hipi Zhdripi 21:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ciracassians

The article states that: There was a small minority of Circassians in Kosovo Polje(Fushë-Kosovë in Albanian) but they were repatriated to the Republic of Adygea, in Southern Russia, following threats by the KLA[6]. I am aware of the Circassians of Kossovo since Noel Malcolm gave generous mention of their presence in this province in his well-known tome. They arrived in the Balkans (at that time still Turkey in Europe) after the Russo-Turkish wars of 1877-1878. Many of them were shipped up on the Danube and disembarked at Vidin from where they continued their journey to the Ottoman-ruled Kossovo. Many of them remained in what is today Bulgaria especially in the towns on the right bank of the Danube. Until recently there was a compact Ciracssian village very close to Salonica called Tserkassoi (in the meanwhile the Greek patriots dilligently re-baptized it Ayios Serafimos: its current name). Yet it is the first time when I hear about their being sent 'back' (after 130 years?) to Adygea in what is today Southern Russia by the "KLA'. Sorry, I one don't believe this made up story. Any concrete source or refferences? Apostolos Margaritis 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed an intriguing claim. I think that the correct term is "fled". Dahn 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WEll, at the end of the day google sorts everything out. Even romantic tales like that of the Circassians are inevitably cached. Malcolm describes their amazing beauty (women very beautiful, men very handsome) and about how they were accused by the locals that they steal horses and eat carrion. Many of them perished after contracting typhus. And now back to Mother Russia which they once so much hated? Apostolos Margaritis 17:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone removing legitimate links and other

Someone keeps removing the links that I provide. One of them is an EU link which proves that Euro is the official currency, approved by the international community in Kosovo. The other one is a link to Vetevendosja an Albanian movement in Kosovo for Self-determination. I clearly stated that is is a pro-Albanian site. I do not see why would one remove these parts? I also added categories, and fixed minor spelling mistakes. No need to remove them either. ilir_pz 23:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Question, why is the link "national awaking of Albania", or whatever is it on there. If we have to delete everything involving Serbia, why not this too?C-c-c-c 23:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not "whatever", but national awakening included Kosovo, hence it is an appropriate link. if you do not know much and want to, then look for info, but do not revert it without knowing. ilir_pz 23:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why can't we add Serbian politics on there? Obviously representatives of Serbia got invited to come to Vienna for the talks, so why shouldn't it be important? And if Serbia is invited, then they must be seen as a key player obviously, which you are nevertheless trying to deny. C-c-c-c 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Vienna talks and National Awakening of Albanians are more than a century apart. How relevant is your comment? That serbian delegation is taking place in the talks that is indicated in the first paragraph of the article. What is your point?ilir_pz 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is, why is Serbia being invited? (because Kosovo is still legally part of S & M) C-c-c-c 23:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Because Serbia's govt is representing the interests of Kosovo Serbs :), and because it will have a lot to pay, war damages, provide information for the hidden bodies of Albanian victims transported from Kosovo to Serbia. ilir_pz 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

War damages? What war damages is the Kosovo government paying to ethnic Serbs? C-c-c-c 23:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, war damages. That is yet to come. Some war damages can never be repaired, thousands missing, and more than 10000 Albanians killed. Kosovo govt to pay war damages to ethnic Serbs? :))))))))))) when did kosovo's govt send troops (military or police) to massacre Serbs???!?!? ilir_pz 23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well since the Kosovo government was and is still primitive, they sent KLA fighters. Fortunately for the KLA, a lot of Albanian civilians joined them. :))) C-c-c-c 23:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What war damages are they paying for destroying centuries worth of architecture, art, and taking away religious and civil freedoms of Serbs? What have the Croatians repaid for expelling 300,000 Serbs out of the Krajina? C-c-c-c 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting too long, and you keep jumping from a topic to another. I have no information about the war in Croatia, so I cannot speculate. You seem to have information, but share it in "Croatian war" wiki page, here is not the place. Kosovo government does not send killers to kill civillians. Some other government is talented at that, and you know who I am talking about, some more "civillized" government :))). KLA does not exist for more than 6 years now. You are just misleading. End of discussion for today. ilir_pz 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright...you busted me, I tried to be nice to you. Let's admit what really happened. ALbanians got fed up with the slow indepedence process and decided, "What the heck, let's just kill them all now" and attemptedto ethnically cleanse Kosovo of Serbs and other minorities. (Un)Fortunately, more Albanians wound up dead than Serbs. Blame KFOR, not us. Anyways, non-existant? I guess it was just school teachers and babysitters who went insane on Serbs in 2004, and have been attacking them ever since and well before. Yes, that would explain it. Anyways, didn't the so called KLA become Kosovo's new "defenders" (or murders)? Aren't they controlled by the government? Wouldn't it be right assume that what they do what is handed down as an order by the Kosovo government? Funny, who else does all of Kosovo's drug dealing, and human trafficking? The UN? Sleep on it, maybe you'll have a vision of dead Serbs again.:)))) C-c-c-c

Whatever. you are so young, and so full of hatred and irony. Sad. No time to answer to such nonsense.ilir_pz 08:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Young? Indeed. Full of i0rony? Oh very much so, too much in fact. Hatred? Maybe for peanuts, that's of course becaues they're murderous little devils at times. I better keep track of all my food, it may get contaminated now! I have sealed my own fate...hooray.

P.S. Happy you finally admitted Kosovo is in Serbia. C-c-c-c 03:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is Kosovo?

I don't see why someone would have anything against describing Kosovo as a UN administered province in southern Serbia. This is how the vast majority of western media describe Kosovo. The UN resolution 1244 defines it as a part of Yugoslavia, of which Serbia is the successor state (in the UN and with regard to international comittments and agreements). Describing it as being in the Central Balkans sounds very contrived (you never hear it described as such in media). Once Kosovo has gained independence it will be appropriate to describe it as being in the Central Balkans. However, it's not there yet.Osli73 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you care to know where Kosovo is, Osli73. Why do you insist that Kosovo has to be a part "of something" ? Kosovo according to its constitutional framework is a compact entity under UN administration. In my travellign docouments, in the part where country should be specified it says "territory under interim UN administration". Where is the problem with my definition? Feel free to browse through Constitutional Framework and tell me where it says that Kosovo is a part of Serbia? I will cite in the document point 1.1. 1.1 Kosovo is an entity under interim international administration which, with its people, has unique historical, legal, cultural and linguistic attributes. This document is approved by all the international community, and is the document with the highest value there. ilir_pz 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet again someone suspected that the above documents were prepared by the Kosovo institutions, I must repeat myself, UN administration in Kosovo has released the documents that I mentioned. You are making me cite the constitutional framework now: "CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PROVISIONAL SELF-GOVERNMENT UNMIK/REG/2001/9 - 15 May 2001 " and the travel documents UNMIK issued documents. What part of this was prepared by the Kosovo's government (which by the way is not only Albanian)?This justifies me fully to remove the speculations you added on its status, which ignore the above mentioned document. Thanks for understanding.ilir_pz 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the UN (that has the area under its administration) Kosovo is officially part of Serbia. When/If it will be independent, we may remove this sentence. here are 3 maps of the UN depicting Kosovo as part of Serbia [3], [4], [5]. --Hectorian 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The maps you showed are old, Montenegro is not in that map anymore. Hence, invalid sources. ilir_pz 22:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro will be part of the federation till end 2006. do not rush history. furthermore, the Montenegrin referendum did not make Kosovo independent. they are two different things. before u revert, provide sources that clearly show Kosovo as not been officially part of Serbia. I can find more, u know, from UN, EU, etc. I think we should stick on reality...when Kosovo becomes independent (which is a matter of time, in my opinion) the paragraph will have to change. but not at the moment. --Hectorian 22:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am providing you with sources ratified in Kosovo, by the international community. I am not sure what did I say above that is my POV? I kept citing all the time. My POV is very different from those documents, but my point in Wikipedia is to cite as much as possible, for the claims and edits I provide. Thanks, ilir_pz 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There is such a thing as picking the sources you want to believe. Not every source is reliable, but the UN and EU ones are. If you pick Albanian sources, you get the story you want to hear. If you ask any country in the world where Kosovo is, they'll say it's in Serbia, and so will the UN and EU. -- serbiana - talk 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Trust me both, i follow NPOV policies. i think that the current version is clear enough, stating both who has the area under its control (UN) and to whom it still officially belongs (Serbia). saying 'de facto serbian' is the serbian POV, saying 'not having to do anything with serbia' is the Kosovar (or Albanian) POV. the way it is now is NPOV, and furthermore it is the reality. Regards --Hectorian 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

HELL-ooo the sources I gave are from UN for God's sake, I am not picking anything. It is the most important document in Kosovo. ilir_pz 23:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the document (not all of it, in so short time, of course)... it also says: Considering that, building on the efforts undertaken by UNMIK and on the achievements of JIAS, including the valuable contribution by the people of Kosovo, and with a view to the further development of self-government in Kosovo, Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in the legislative, executive and judicial fields shall be established through the participation of the people of Kosovo in free and fair elections;

Determining that, within the limits defined by UNSCR 1244(1999), responsibilities will be transferred to Provisional Institutions of Self-Government which shall work constructively towards ensuring conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo, with a view to facilitating the determination of Kosovo's future status through a process at an appropriate future stage which shall, in accordance with UNSCR 1244(1999), take full account of all relevant factors including the will of the people;

Considering that gradual transfer of responsibilities to Provisional Institutions of Self-Government will, through parliamentary democracy, enhance democratic governance and respect for the rule of law in Kosovo;

So, let me see: further development of self-government in Kosovo, shall be established, Kosovo's future status, future stage which shall, Provisional Institutions of Self-Government will, through parliamentary democracy, enhance. this is what i meant when saying 'do not rush'... --Hectorian 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Kosovo was independent, to deserve the "dont rush" comment. I just provided you with the source that defines what Kosovo really is. The formal recognition of Kosovo's independence is yet to come, that I also said in my personal page. I still do not see where is the part that I said wrong above, that you are criticizing. ilir_pz 23:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Liar! You erased the Serbia and Montenegro part of the article. If you don't say that Kosovo is a part of something, then it must be independent. Clever you are, but not a Wikipedian for much too longer. Enjoy these few days... -- serbiana - talk 23:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not feed the trolls ilir_pz 23:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

But, you eat, don't you? What a paradox... -- serbiana - talk 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys! do not push things further... just calm down! the truth is that Ilir pz did not say that Kosovo is independent, nor i am accusing him of saying something similar. i am just saying that this document shows the current administration and the the future projects about Kosovo. it does not say that it is not officially still part of Serbia. it says that it is administered by the UN. this is different... So, i am saying, once more, that i believe the current version is the most neutral one. i may be wrong, but, honestly, i do not have any single reason to push serbian or albanian POV:) --Hectorian 23:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

i added some clarification, Hectorian. Let me know what you think. I think I did agree to disagree already a lot, I expect the rest to follow the example. 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is de jure a province of Serbia. -- serbiana - talk 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The clarification Ilir pz added seems fine to me. Bormalagurski, yes, Kosovo is de jure/at the moment/currently/officially/formally/at the present/according to the UN, EU/etc etc a province of Serbia. i cannot see why u have to repeat it all the time... --Hectorian 00:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, pls all consider NPOV before editting or reverting. i am not saying that this is the best wording ever (i may be wrong, u know...) but i think that it is based in facts and reality. anything that may happen in the future can completely alter the opening paragraph. Wow, i am beginning to feel like Annan! (God no! we all have our POV on different issues, that's why i am talking as a "peacemaker" here:)...) --Hectorian 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:) the near future will change the opening paragraph for sure. ilir_pz 01:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed the de jure and de facto terms to make the text more smooth. I agreed with him on that one, so I put them back but replaced them by in principle and in practice. Cpt. Morgan 13:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Serb Crimes hard to be found

The Kosovo page is highly slanted towards Serbs.There is no way this page is going to remain like this.

"Alleged execution of civilians in Recak"?
No talk about mosque destruction when 200 of them were raised to the ground 
No mention of the notorious massacres ( other than Recak) 
2,800 people of Serb origin are still missing? Baloney. 

I will be busy in the next couple of weeks giving this page a sense of sanity. I haven't looked at it in while and sure enough it has been high jacked by the Serb propaganda machine. The whole thing is slanted!Ferick 03:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Come back with sources, Ferick. Of course you are welcome to edit here, and disregard inflammatory comments from people who attempt to stop you from doing that. ilir_pz 08:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We all look forward to your continued defamation of this article Ferick. C-c-c-c 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So you are going to vandalize the article? Bravo, bravo... -- Krytan talk 01:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so now I have a RELIABLE source that catalogues the destruction of mosques and other cultural property in Kosovo. Of 500 mosques that were in use before the war, 200 of them were destroyed completely, vandalized or defecated by Serb forces.Another words made useless. [6] Anybody disagree that this fact should be put on the article?

Serb Crimes in Kosovo (That should appear more visibly in the article):

Torture chambers found in the Serb Police Headcounters [7] A VILLAGE DESTROYED: War Crimes in Kosovo [8]

Gornje Obrinje—Shelled to Death [9]

Alleged civilians killed in Recak?

BALKAN WITNESS: Articles on the Kosovo Conflict [10]

Recak report finds Serbs guilty: Forensics show 45 victims were unarmed civilians

[11]

How many Serbs are still missing in Kosovo? 2,800? How about 500? 3,000 missing in Kosovo [12]

Interestingly enough, none of these reports were compiled by Albanians …..HINT HINT HINT.216.209.33.60

These sources were long needed to prove that many crimes in Kosovo were not "alleged" as some like to label them, but happened for real. No wonder, 10000 or more Albanians did not get struck by NATO, or thunder. These articles have to be incorporated here, and as well in the Kosovo war article. Thanks for bringing these sources here, Ferick. ilir_pz 09:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose making two separate chapters: Albanian warcrimes and Serbian warcrimes - or something to that effect. That way both sides can provide all the selective 'evidence' they want in 'their' sections, without poisoning the entire article. How about that?Osli73 22:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Crimes are crimes, and took place in Kosovo. If the sources are reliable, all of them need to be put in one place. It is not what "sides" think that should be put here, but what independent sources have confirmed. If we put what "sides" think, we will get more than 20000 Serbs killed during the war, and that documentation might exist, as prepared during Milosevic era, for justifying his massacres. Thus I do not think we should separate them. ilir_pz 09:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a start, but incorporating them in the main article would be better. I do not oppose your idea- I could live with it. I am not here to show selective information. All I want is for the article to show the facts as they are- nothing else. Reading the article as it is you would get an impression that Albanians were the main perpetrators of crimes in Kosovo, which is of course nonsense.Ferick 00:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than having separate sections for Serb and ethnic Albanian crimes, why not have a section on war crimes allegations with bullet points with brief details and links to other sources.--الأهواز 00:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We can have a section for alleged crimes (No Independent Source), but there also needs to be a section of proven crimes. If we just have alleged crimes, we are misleading the reader into thinking that there is been no proven crimes. We all know that that is not the case. We just need to agree on how to distinguish alleged crimes from proven ones.Ferick 03:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the latter. Many crimes were alleged, for reaching certain (stupid) goals. Instead, it is good to make a clear distinction of what was alleged and what was proven to have happened. In advance I propose to not use local sources. What do you think? they can be biased. ilir_pz 09:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, sources by individual journalists and unreliable institutions should be treated with a grain of salt. There are always nut-head journalists who are so anti American that they will oppose anything the U.S. supports. I don't want sources banned just because of their origin, but dubious sources should require additional back up from reliable INSTITUTIONS.Ferick 12:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ferick: I think you are right, but I can see this becoming an issue of dispute. What would you say is a reliable source? Also, some may argue that the only crimes that are proven are those that have been successfully convicted by the International Tribunal.--الأهواز 12:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would guarantee you that no Serb or Albanian would agree that the only crimes that are proved are those that have been successfully convicted by the International Tribunal. What is a reliable source? Any institution that has been in a business for years with a proven record of reliability and fairness (CNN,BBC,TIME,NEW YORK TIMES etc).I know it's vague, but we have to take sources as they come and examine them.Ferick 13:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments and proposals:

(1) Change the focus from "war crimes" to "civilian casualties" or something else, as the former has become more of legal term, risking confusion. Also focusing on the effects on the civilian population would give a more holistic view, rather than just listing individual incidents/war crimes.

(2) Don't use ICTY indictments/convictions as a yardstick:

(a) Focusing on ICTY convictions risks only bringing up those incidents where the perpetrator has been identified and enough evidence is available to convict him/her. This would exclude all of the incidents where there clearly are victims, but no perpetrator has been identified or enough evidence is available for a indictment/conviction.

(b) As the ICTY doesn't have its own investigative resources it depends on evidence gathered by and provided by other parties, usually the parties involved in the conflict in one way or another. Thus, ICTY indictments/convictions are more an indicator of where information has been made available to it rather than of which war crimes have been committed.

(3) Let's take a top-down approach. (a) Start with how many civilian casualties (fatalities) there were and then categorize them as to if they were (i) in Serbia or in (ii) Kosovo. For the ones in Kosovo, categorize them between Albanians, Serbs and others as well as if they were before, during or after the Nato part of the war. (b) Add a paragraph on demolished buildings and property in general and cultural buildings in particular. (c) Add something on refugees, both during and after the war (were there any significant numbers before?) and returns. (d) Finally, some words about the ICTY and other legal indictments and convictions would be interesting (they would not in themselves show the whole picture, however).

If you accept (roughly) the above, I propose that we divide each of the sections between us and then post them here in a couple of days to discuss. How about this?Osli73 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflicts between UN Resolution 1244 and S and M's Constitutional Charter

I know that there is a dispute over the issue of Kosovo's sovereignty - whether it is a province of Serbia or of the union of Serbia and Montenegro. Looking at UN Resolution 1244, Kosovo is not defined as an autonomous area of Serbia but of the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro).[13] It also recognises the territorial integrity of FRY.

Paragraph 10 "Authorizes the Secretary-General [...] to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while establishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic selfgoverning institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo."

To me, the issue is fairly clear-cut as far as international law is concerned: under Resolution 1244, Kosovo is an autonomous region of Serbia and Montenegro. There is no mention of rule from the Serbian authorities, which are distinct from the union of Serbia and Montenegro.

But the issue is complex as the country as a whole has changed its constitution since Resolution 1244 was passed. Serbia and Montenegro is a union of two republics and under the old FRY before the 1999 war it was legally a province of Kosovo. I do not think that the Republic of Serbia has changed its position with regards to the sovereignty of Kosovo. So, under the law of Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo is technically still a part of Serbia. The Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro is quite clear about this. It refers to "the state of Serbia which includes the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija." [14]

No-one can actually state Kosovo's legal position until the issue of its constitutional arrangement is finally settled. There is considerably ambiguity as to Kosovo's sovereignty and in a sense both Bormalagurski and Ilir_pz are right.

As a neutral observer, I think the conflict between the law of Serbia and Montenegro and international law with regards to Kosovo's sovereignty should be highlighted in this article.--الأهواز 09:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

When local law contradicts international law, more often then not, International law takes precedence. No?Ferick 18:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Ferick.Local laws are disregarded in this case, hence the constitution law of SCG is less powerful than the international law. ilir_pz 09:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a controversial topic at all. How can it be, when any map of Europe will show you Kosovo as an province of Serbia. And we all know that it is run by the UN and that negotiations are ongoing about some form of independence. Take a look at the map of Europe published in Wikipedia as an example (but any reputable political map of Europe will tell you the same thing). What's so controversial about this?Osli73 22:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You tend to ignore internationally ratified documents ruling in Kosovo, and instead refer to some maps, Osli73. Not sure this is how a politician like you should evaluate the real situation. Regards, ilir_pz 09:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is whether Kosovo is a part of the union of Serbia and Montenegro or the Republic of Serbia. There is a difference between the two. The UN Resolution refers to Kosovo as an autonomous region of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but this has now been replaced by the Union of Serbia and Montenegro which has declared in its constitution that Kosovo is an autonomous part of Serbia. The issue would provide rich pickings for lawyers, but I don't think anyone here is qualified to make a judgement. We can only provide some understanding of the controversies and contradictions and leave it to the reader's judgement.--الأهواز 23:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement by Ferick above made it clear, that international laws here make more sense than the other local law. ilir_pz 09:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is whether Serbia and Montenegro (Which by the way is now a defunct state) can enact laws which are in direct contradiction with International Law. The answer is no. Serbia is no position to defy International Law. They can pass all the laws they want, but that is not going to change the situation on the ground (Taiwan). We all know that Kosovo was at one time physically a part of Yugoslavia. There is question about this legality, but that was the case. It’s also true that Serbia has no legal authority in Kosovo as of right now (Serb Laws do not apply in Kosovo). The future will be determined soon.Ferick 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, as i have said before, i think that the issue is more easy to deal with it. Kosovo, an autonomous province of Former Yugoslavia became part of New Yugoslavia (later just Yugoslavia, and some years ago became Serbia and Montenegro). according to the UN, it is a de jure part of Serbia (even after the Montenegrin referendum and the divide of the federal state, Kosovo, de jure, is part of Serbia). But, de facto, is under UN control (with much EU influence). when the talks about its future will come to an end, we can add their outcome here (and move the current ballanced-i think-edits to the history section). but it is silly to say that it is not part of Serbia at present, although the UN recognises it as such, it has not declared independance, nor any country has attempted to recognise it as separate country. thus, at the moment, the article is accurate enough, without taking sides (note that the first paragraph is the result of a sort of compromise between two users supporting different POVs). --Hectorian 00:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What UN document are you referring to when you say: “according to the UN, [Kosovo] is a de jure part of Serbia”. I am not aware of any UN document that says Kosovo is part of Serbia. Enlighten us please!

The best way to describe Kosovo’s status right now is: No Status (Limbo). Kosovo is neither independent, nor under legal control of Serbia or Yugoslavia or Serbia Montenegro or UN (UN Administration in most cases does not make decisions without consulting Kosovo Government) or whatever country you want to mention. Ferick 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats it. And you dont need to say nothingg more. But here is nt the problem thate the serbian users dont know thate but they are usen this page for conflicts. They can not live without problems, they need somthing to be spocet about they, they must put they fingers every wher. I can understen they beacose they bio-gens are so --172.208.219.77 00:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No UN approved document mentions Kosovo to be a part of Serbia Hectorian. Take a look at the 1244 resolution, or any law ratified in Kosovo by the UNMIK. It is not good to speculate, based on some laws passed by a country that has no moral, and no factual right over Kosovo. Those laws in this case are useless and ignored fully. ilir_pz 09:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That is factually incorrect. Even the ICTY uses the term in indictment texts [15]. I like Hectorian's common sense approach, but unfortunately you will find common sense does not abound around here. This is my last contribution to this debate. I hope things improve in a years time. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about legal documents ( Passed by the General Assembly or UNSC) not press releases. So you are factually incorrect.Ferick 13:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Maps and press releases are not equally important as UNSC decisions, Asterion. ilir_pz 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The UN Resolution 1244 says that Kosovo is part of FRY. It makes no mention of whether it is part of Serbia proper or a member of the federation - now a political union. The Constitution of Serbia and Montenegro states that Kosovo is part of Serbia.--الأهواز 12:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Asterion. i will not take part in this debate anymore either... UN maps and documents, plus all countries all over the world, say that it is a de jure part of Serbia. i find it useless to try to convince users to accept reality... if they want to stick on specific words, denying the whole meaning of a document, it's fine by me... i won't take part in edit-rv-wars (i think i can be more useful in other articles). In a year's time, i hope, the dispute over this fact will be over. --Hectorian 12:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Its fine you guys don’t want to take part in the debate. We are looking at the situation from two different Paradigms-diametrically opposing views. Normally, people can find common points of agreement but I guess you don’t think that is possible. The problem here is that even if Kosovo were to become independent tomorrow you would still point out that Serbia has not accepted this Independence and therefore Independence is not valid. Am I wrong here?

There is more here that just a disagreement about the current status of Kosovo. You think Kosovo shall never become Independence, which is a political view, and there are other people (majority) who beg to differ. That’s the underlying disagreement. I suspect the disagreement will go on even after Kosovo’s status is resolved because of what I said above.Ferick 13:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing POV and altering my words (and Asterion's as well)! and stop supposing what i may say if/when Kosovo becomes independent and how i may feel 'bout the serbs or albanians (there are users who know). lastly, i will come back in this debate only when the users will be ready to accept facts and reality. end of discussion (at the moment) for me. --Hectorian 13:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing is ignoring what the UNSC states, and instead referring to some maps, or press releases, or constitutions of a country that literally organized the genocide in Kosovo. Call your reason, and consider when you cite sources. Thank you, ilir_pz 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is an obvious confusion in the legal status of Kosovo due to the contradiction between the constitution of Serbia and Montenegro and Resolution 1244. I think we can only point this out in the article, quoting each document. I don't think maps and press releases define what is sovereignty "de jure", although I think we are all agreed that neither Serbia nor the union of Serbia and Montenegro have any real power over Kosovo. It is also not our place to decide on whether Kosovo should be independent or not and anyone who thinks that this article should pass judgement is missing the point about Wikipedia and its commitment to NPOV.--الأهواز 19:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am against, Ahwaz. Some people here attempt to find sources that only back their wishes (i.e. wanted status of Kosovo), and it is wrong. The fact is Kosovo has no legal status, hence, not a part of any country. Period. If we quote constitutions, then Kosovo's (more than 90%) of the population declared it independent in early 90's. Then we need to respect that constitution which was approved by the significant majority of the territory we are talking about. Then there is another confusion added to the whole mess. Instead, keep to the point, Kosovo's status is yet unresolved, that is why negotiations are taking place. It is quite clear for me, don't know why people here get confused so much. ilir_pz 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro

Serbia and Montenegro still exists even after the Montenegrin referendum. Montenegro has passed no law of secession, the union has not been formally dissolved, Montenegro is not recognised as an independent state by the UN and is not a member of the UN. Some editors started deleting Serbia and Montenegro from this article even before the referendum results were declared. It won't be some months before Montenegro is an independent state and until then, Serbia and Montenegro is the correct term to use.--الأهواز 12:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason they delete SCG and instead leave Serbia is because it somehow satisfies their inner feeling. No matter how strange that may seem for you. ilir_pz 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My friend at first. After the serbian masaker (I mean with humen definicion of term "masaker" not with the propagada definition) in Kosovo, with masaker in Adem Jashari family, Serbia hase lost Kosovo, "de facto" and "de juro". Now, the serbians can start screaming and crying for they church, and they political "masakers", for they "enklaves" but thet is going nothing to chanche, Kosovo ist "de facto" and "de juro" out of Serbia. The nature (biologie gene) of this folk is this. They have started with military agains the armed familys wich have no eperienc with military. (Sllovenia, Kroacia, Bosnja, Kosovo). After they lose (eache family belongs to one folk they have forgetit thate), they stardet screaming and crying. The albanian nature is somthing als, we know who hase don what and thate all what we need. The father and mther Russia is death and the serbs diden understande thate till now. This is a problem. For your "Serbia and Montenegro" the paper in witch is wroting that they are a state you can take and user for WC.--172.178.93.99 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

To the non IP, I can say that I was brought up a Muslim and I have no sympathy for the Serbian Orthodox Church. But if you are talking of the law, the status of Kosovo is not certain. Kosovo is not an independent state. The UN recognises it as part of Serbia and Montenegro and the constitution of Serbia and Montenegro recognises it as part of Serbia. Whether you like it or not, Kosovo is de jure part of the Union until it's final status is resolved. This is not about being pro- or anti- Albanian or Serbia, it is simply about the facts. Personally, I have nothing against Serbs and Montenegrins and have met Dragiša Burzan, the ambassador to London and former deputy prime minister of Montenegro, on two occasions. I think the issue is complex and should not be determined by the political preferences of certain editors, either pro-Serbian or pro-Albanian.--الأهواز 00:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The problem is that the Sebian govermant hase taket a ofenisve too explen the world, thate ther was not only the serbian masaker. But, the problem in Kosovo is thate there was no masaker too the civilian serban peopel. The Albanians dident have "special" organisedet units for clearing the area with masaker. And now, the serbian user s are trainig to make "political masaker" from the frustration of the albanian peopel agains the kiling of three albanian chldern in Mitrovica. The albanias in Kosovo diden forgetit the time in witch the Serbs after they came bake from the church they kame mit Kalishnikov duing the year 1992-1999, they diden forget thate time and they dont wont to forget all the serbians masakers in Kosovo. And at last Kosovo since the folk of Kosovo has cleare disedet to be indenpendent Kodovo is out of Serbia, and now is the time in too be acceptet from the serbian folk but they are sleepen and thinkin that it was only a dream. No, no it was not a dream it was drog and raki and now you fiel seek. Dont Dring and Make War. --Hipi Zhdripi 11:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Half of the serbian Church it was build during the Millosheviq time, and they was build to be used als Bunker.--Hipi Zhdripi 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hipi, the 127 monasteries that albanian kosovars ruined were built more than 5 centuries ago. To some foreigner it might sound strange that there are so many monasteries in Kosovo and Metohija. But, more than 90% of the monasteries had been there for centuries. The root of the word Metohija is a holy land, the one that belongs to church. This whole region for serbs is like Jerusalem for the Israelis or Palestinians. Gianni ita 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC) You are showing everyone that you don't know anything about Kosovo. Five centuries ago Kosovo was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, and there were very few churches build at that time.Ferick 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, you are ridiculous. What about the monasteries that were built before the Ottomans? Serbs were there even before turks, you should at least know that fact before continuing any further discussion. Gianni ita 08:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Paparlapap, I live here. 5 centuries? yes and the serbians from Hungary and als wher has take care to keep they during the Ottoman time and they diden succes to keep they church in Belgrade????? Till the 1912 in Belgrad it was more muslims monasters als serbians. Go and talk with somebody out of Earth. All the serbian Church in Kosovo it was build after the Ottomans started to lose controll over this area, please this is not a place to talle the children a good night storys.--172.208.219.77 00:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

PAPARLAPAP, whatevere it means Hipi. Please show me the facts when you say that the were more mosques in Belgrade than orthodox monasteries. YOU ARE A VERY IMAGINATIVE PERSON HIPI. WHY LIE SO MUCH, WHY? I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE SERBS, BUT LYING IS NOT GOING TO GET YOU ANYWHERE. Gianni ita 08:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Very emotional description, Gianni_ita. I am not sure Israelis massacred the people of Jerusalem, and opened many mass graves filled with bodies of civillians, or even worse cremated them somewhere outside Jerusalem. Hint: Serbian regime did. As far as churches are concerned, some people say those Churches existed much earlier than 5 centuries ago, when the local people were Roman Catholic. The land is holy to those who make a living there, are born there, and the generations before them have also. Living in myths is wrong. With all respect to Serbian churches, do not make it sound as if Albanians do not care about them. The cultural heritage of all Kosovo is sacred, and (has to and) will be protected. Let me remind you that during the war several other cultural heritages in Kosovo were damaged, among them hundreds of equally old mosques, and building of League of Prizren, and many many public libraries. Measuring who did what during the war, and who did more or less harm to the other, is not smart. ilir_pz 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add another thing. I wanted to say how i admire all the Albanians, and especially all the albanians from Kosovo. There has never been a single conflict between them, they all share the same views about serbs, serbia, kosovo...They always stick to their ideas and plans. They will always repeat their POV, even if it is not totally truthful, and try to explain it to foreigners. They want the story of how they suffered under the Serbs to be retold everywhere and all the time. They understood the importance of lobbying long before any other nations from the Balkan peninsula. I admire the albanian people for making plans about independence decades ago, when it seemed that independence is impossible, but they patiently waited for the right moment, and it came, with Milosevic, the person whose statue should be on the main square in Pristina, as he made everything possible (he can stand next to Tito, he was the first one who gave albanians a little hope for independence). For all that, i envy my dear neighbors. Gianni ita 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I will have to correct your "admiration", Kosovar Albanians were slow in uniting as they did today, and several types of suffering and oppresions finally brought the (admirable by you) situation as it is now. Ironically. And their unification is not against Serbs or Serbia, but against any kind of imposed regime on Kosovo again. Let us have this clear here. One smart move that Ibrahim Rugova took I will always appreciate, he did not inspire any responce (militarily) to Milosevic's provocations to start some kind of uprisal in early 1990s, because we were going to be the lesson for all the rest of republics within ex-Yug that wanted to secceede. Luckily, that did not work, or today we would have a majority of Serbs in Kosovo, and mass graves filled with (more than 10) thousands of bodies of Albanians, and Albanian refugees would be already used to living outside Kosovo (in Albania and all around the world) and Operation Horseshoe would be completed much earlier. Milosevic did plenty to deserve to be mentioned in the black history of Kosovo, and one that destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people (not only in Kosovo) and (hopefully not for a long time) spoiled the coexistence of Serbs and other non-Serbs he terrorized. It would be a shame even if anyone erects a statue of his even in Serbia. Your irony can be felt, but you should know some more facts before you use it. ilir_pz 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

oh and another thing, the reason most of us Albanian Wikipedians trying to explain issues to international readers here is to show them a side of the story, which has been covered up by an excellent (I must say, ironically) propaganda orchestrated in many years by several Serbian regimes, where Albanians are represented as wild, always causing wars, illiterate, ugly looking, (once horribly even heard that Albanians allegedly had tails), making racial comments, the Muslims of the Europe (the tie with Al-Qaeda or whatever) i.e. threat to Christian Europe, and many many more things, which are ridiculous to mention. The world does not hate Serbs, they just understood the truth finally, and were slow at doing that, unfortunately, after many lives of innocents were lost. ilir_pz 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is the drug-trading hot-spot, and so is Albania. Half of the population of Albania are still farmers, using tools that were used centuries ago. Albania has a large gray economy that may be as large as 50% of official GDP. Now, as far as wars are concerned, Albanians have, only in the last 15 years, started three, one in Kosovo, one in South Serbia (Presevo Valley), and one in Macedonia. All were wars of secession, wherever they go, they want to separate. This is not propaganda, this is fact, and anyone in the world can check it. Comparing to Serbia's percentage of 96% who can read and write, Albania's percentage of 86% sounds low. I have never heard, in my 16 years of living in Serbia, that Albanians have tails, I'm affraid you made that up. Furthermore, the Greater Albania concept still lives in Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia and Greece, while the "Greater Serbia" dream has faded away long ago. I think the world should stop focusing on something that no longer exists, and focus on solving the problem that the drug-dealing, weapons-smuggling, war-starting Albanians. Regards, -- serbiana - talk 19:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, I wouldn't say that the main impression given of the Kosovo conflict (other other ex-Yugoslav conflicts) in western media is very favorable to the Serbs. In fact, sympathetic media coverage played an important role in bringing NATO intervention on the side of the Albanians in 1999. The most widely distributed book on the history of Kosovo by Noel Malcom (Kosovo: A Short History) also paints a sympathetic picture of the Kosovar Albanians. For sure the Serbian government is trying to give its picture of the issues, but I wouldn't say that they are being very successful.Osli73 09:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Serbs do not want you to read this

In their attempt to spread anti Albanian hysteria, Serbs have forgotten their dirty laundry.

As I have said before, take with a grain of salt everything written by a Serb about Albanians. They will stop at nothing in their attempt to spread falsehoods. Now, ladies and gentleman, here is something about Serbia that a Serb would do anything to prevent you from knowing. This information is from a Serbian source: Serbian Education and Labor Ministry!

Poverty still rife in Serbia[16] “President of the Free Workers Union, Dragoljub Stosic, said that Albania was once the regional poster child for poverty, but that because of the high unemployment rate and the increased amount of corruption, Serbia has now taken over the role. “We are, unfortunately, one of the countries for which days such as this are being recognized.” Stosic said yesterday, which marked the International Day for the Fight Against Poverty. “We are on the same level as Rwanda and similar countries, though I would not compare them with us because, there are increasingly fewer and fewer nations with whom we can compare ourselves. We cannot offer help today, we can only ask for charity.” Stosic said.”

Half of Serbia Illiterate[17] “According to statistics from the Education Ministry, nearly 50 percent of Serbian citizens never finished elementary schooling. This means that over 3 million people in Serbia are considered illiterate by all international and European standards. “

I report, you decide.Ferick 17:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these comments about Albanians are conducive to a discussion on how to produce a factual NPOV article. It would be helpful if editors desisted from shouting against Serbs and Albanians and got on with putting in factual content.--الأهواز 11:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

These are mild comments in comparison what I am used to hearing, Ahwaz. You are just seeing the top of the iceberg here. ilir_pz 11:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See Giani_ita, this text above is exactly what I am talking about, the extent that the Serbian youth is mis-informed about Albanians in general. I do not care to explain further to people who are determined to push their propaganda. I only state the facts, by providing you with sources. ilir_pz 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See, dear Wikipedians, this is exactly what I'm talking about, the extent that the Albanian youth is mis-informed about it's own people in general. I have only stated facts, Ilir has done nothing to prove me wrong, but has claimed that I'm pushing my POV. He accuses me of pushing propaganda, yet he can't find a single source to prove me wrong. PROVE ME WRONG, ILIR, PROVE ME WRONG! -- serbiana - talk 00:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You dont just copy the way I make my personal page, but even the way I write sentences. Cite at least :))))). Your disruptive behavior (has been and) will be dealt with by admins soon. ilir_pz 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You have lost Sllovenian war, Croatian war, Bosnien war, Kosovo war, thate was not inofe you have killed the democratie (Xhinxhiq) and you are acusen the albanias for great albania??? Please after you are clean from Raki comme bac.--172.208.219.77 00:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

{{cleanup}}

Serbiana you might have been a little bit harsh on Albanian people in general. Kosovo does have a high criminality rate, but the situation in Albania is a lot different, and i don't think that 50% of the Albanian GDP is made through drug and people trafficking, although the percentage is pretty high compared to some other Balkan countries.

Ilir, you know exactly the things that when told to a foreigner make Serbians sound like bad guys and albanian kosovars as good guys. You start by saying how the world until recent years was aware of only one side of the truth, the serbian POV. First of all that's completely incorrect. No one wants and no one ever wanted to listen to Serbs and their story. The reason for that is because the Serbs since the WWI have had the lousiest polititians in the world. Hundreds of thousands of Serbs massacred by Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Albanians were simply forgotten in order to preserve the brotherhood between the nations. The world never heard about serbian victims. Serbs are the only nation from the Balkan peninsula that until recently didn't have any lobbyists in the US.

Then you make Kosovar war look like a religious war, which again doesn't have any sence. You know that even if the Albanians were jews, or catholics or even christian orthodox, the war would have taken place. You talk constantly and in detail how people were massacred, and that is the easiest and the most efficient way to get support from some foreigner. you think that i don't have stories to retell?

Gianni ita 09:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All the Balkans has a high criminality rate. I hear more cases of different mafia bosses being arrested and chased in Serbia than in any country around, but for some reason only Albanians have a high criminality rate. Gianni_ita, it is not in my interest to make serbs look as bad guys. Having good neighbours is better than bad ones, that you dont have to be smart to know. But unfortunately one should clarify the truth, when having neighbours who were blinded by propaganda, for decades, into thinking only bad about among their oldest neighbours-Albanians. You say that the reason the world does not want to listen to Serbs is because you had the lousiest politicians. I am not sure who elects them, God or the people. I think the latter. So it should have been them who should have done something, not instead follow them to wage wars. I think the world got the picture about all the victims in this bloody region. I did not say Kosovar war was a religious one, though Serbian regime wanted to give it such a character: it destroyed many old mosques (also cultural heritage of Kosovo, just like churches), spread rumours about Al-Qaeda being in Kosovo, etc. I am not interested to describe the massacres either, they disturb me more than they disturb a foreigner, because I had relatives who were victims of that. Massacres are just another reason, in a list of many, that Kosovo should be only independent, and have no relation with a regime which seems democratic from outside, but uses the same language against Albanians as Milosevic did...exclude the military and police brutality, it is exactly the same. I do justify them though, having that many radicals in the parliament, they have to act the way they are. ilir_pz 10:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, when 2 mosques in serbia were ruined, because more than 50 orthodox serbian churches were previously (in kosovo), the BBC, CNN, said that violence escalated on both sides (I'm refering to march 2003). It is true that when we talk about victims or ruined houses, monasteries, we can't subtract the numbers from each other and find whose guilt it is, but in this case the difference between the numbers is just enormous. About criminality rate, if you don't want to accept that Kosovo and Albania have the highest rates of criminality in Europe, OK. About Al-Qaeda- I have no idea if al-qaeda was in Kosovo, it wouldn't surprise me, it had been proven that even now they have training camps in muslim part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I hope that you accept that fact. About serbian polititians- people choose only the president. All the others that you get with him can be a lot different. In the past, they didn't choose a king, nor did the choose Tito. The only wrong one the people of serbia elected was Slobodan Milosevic (after that he bought the next elections). So, don't blame Serbian people. About independence. that's a long story, and i don't have time now. I can only say that full independence (as in change of borders of Serbia) should not be accepted. talk to you later ilir. Gianni ita 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Serbian Church was destroid not beacose they was the religion house, but beacose this Churchi wasen t religons House. This Churches was used from Belgrade to give arms and mobilised the serbians civilist in Kosovo and start again War. Do you think thate NATO can not stop the albanian protest? The NATO problem it was thate every day Belgrade send to this Church military peopel. And they diden wountit to be involt in this case and let the albanias extremist to do thate. Gianni ita naice name, you are thinkin thate is the time in witch Serbians was supported from Rusia, this is your problem and this was the serbian problem during the last 20 years. They was thinking thate Rusia is going to support the serbs with every think, they was thinking thate if NATO is going to start the War, Rusia is going to be involt in War (they wounted to start the WWIII), but they send only some oficiers and solders and nothing more. Please dont forget in year 1912 Serbia was the smallerst pashalluk from all Balkans folks, they haved nothing, nothing they was liven in perifery of the citys and was mixed with gypsy/roma. They wasen nothink only the Rusian propagander hase made this name Serbia to somthing. And during 80 years unter this name in Balkan was maked the most masakers in the civilian peopel, more thane each time in the History of Balkan. The "serbs" in Croatia was t serbs but only there Church was Orthodox and the Church in Belgrade hase declaredet every Orthodox in west Balkan to Serbs from this propagander one Church one nation, only the Motenegriens hase survieved with many losed years. And now they wount to talle somthing about the Albanians. Oh my friend in this world somebody is born to destroid and somebody to create. The serbs hase destroid the olders Churchs in Dardania area from Byzant and Roman E. They have burn the Albanian identity in the Dardania, the last argument in witch way they have don it was in border Kosovo to Albania and border to Macedonia in last war. See the Sebian Akademy Memorandum. No one Academy in Balkan has souch plans. But the Futer is going to better and souch thinks are going to be netralizedet before they comme in life. -- Hipi - from UNI

Replacement of factual statistics with phony numbers

A certain Serb user named Bormalagurski continues to replace factual statistics (with reliable sources) about the missing people in Kosovo with his phony numbers and no source. Usually people revert when they dispute something, but this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on, and doesn't even claim to have information that proves his claims-He just reverts. I am not surprised that someone like him would do something like this, but one needs to ask a question: what kinds of value people like him bring to Wikipedia? I don't see anything positive.Ferick 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST

HIPI ZHDRIPI SHOULD BE REMOVED OR BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA FOR INSULTING ME THROUGH INSULTING MY RELIGION. I DIDN'T INSULT YOUR RELIGION, AND I NEVER WILL INSULT ANYONE WITH DIFFERENT BELIEFS. LET'S KEEP THE DISCUSSION ON THE BASIS OF FACTS WE HAVE. HIPI, DISCUSSING WITH YOU IS IMPOSSIBLE. Gianni ita 08:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

FERICK THE SERB HATER

HI FERICK! I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THE WEB SITE YOU RECOMENDED ME MADE ME LAUGH FOR SO LONG. YOU ARE SOME KIND OF A FUNNY GUY? SERBIA WITH 50 % OF ILLITERATE PEOPLE?? THAT'S A BIG LIE MY FRIEND. THESE ARE THE OFFICIAL PERCENTAGES- SERBIA (WITHOUT KOSOVO) 2002.- AROUND 5 % OF ILLITERATE PEOPLE. SERBIA (WITH KOSOVO) 1991. - AROUND 8% OF ILLITERATE PEOPLE.

STOP ALBANIAN PROPAGANDA! Gianni ita 09:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the information is from the Serbian Education Ministry. And you know what's funny: the statistics you are mentioning don't necessarily contradict my information because Serbia uses different standards for measuring literacy. In Serbia you are considered literate if can only read and write- so you don't have to have finished the Primary Schooling. The information I am providing, which comes from the Serbian Education Ministry, says that half of Serbia have not finished the primary education ( 8 years of schooling).Don't try to put sand on people's eye's by confusing two different statistics. Chill out, don’t be a hater:) Ferick 12:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gianni can you please use small caps? Reading this it seems as if you are screaming. I am not sure the source Ferick gave is a lie, if you check the last 3 letters in that article it says "B92" so go and tell them they are lying. If someone does not agree with you, it does not mean you can call them "Serbian haters"...for some reason almost all Serbian editors feel they are hated when someone does not think like them. Weird. ilir_pz 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ILIR, I LIKE CAPS. AND I USE THEM ONLY TO RESPONd TO BIG LIES AGAINST ME AND MY NATION. B92 HAS NEVER HEARD ABOUT THE ARTICLE YOU ARE MENTIONING. THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT. CHECK OUT THIS UNESCO SITE, AND YOU'LL FIND THAT BOTH SERBIA AND ALBANIA HAVE LITERACY RATES ABOVE 90%. www.uis.unesco.org/en/stats/statistics/literacy2000

Gianni ita 09:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Busted. Here is the link to b92 original article in english[18] Another Serb lie busted. What do you have to say for yourself?Ferick 12:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you are using CAPS for me as well? what did I lie in my message above? I did not say that the b92 article was correct or a lie. I was myself surprised. Here is an article about that in B92. ilir_pz 09:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And another thing Gianni_ita, I am sure that Ferick would instead like to see Serbs be more literate than the statistics show/speculate, because from more illiterate Serbs more little Seseljs can grow, and that is not in Albanian's interest either, as that way we would not be able to keep neighbour-to-neighbour relationships even. ilir_pz 09:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

what a funny bunch of guys we have here. Ilir, Seselj's IQ is around 170, and although i do not support him, i can't say he is uneducated (he was honoured by tito as one of the youngest people who had a phd diploma). Otherwise, I appreciate that you care about the border between Serbia and Albania. About iliteracy, well UNESCO site that i gave you says enough. Both albania and serbia have more than 90% of literate people. I wrote to b92 about the text you say they wrote, so we'll see the result. Gianni ita 16:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Otherwise, I appreciate that you care about the border between Serbia and Albania."? Gianni_ita? ilir_pz 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What you mean you wrote to B92? For What? I already provided the link to their website[19] You don't seem to get it: In Serbia you are considered literate if you can read or write by the age of 15. It's not a requirement that must have gone to school any number of years. The B92 article says the following: 50% of people in Serbia have not finished Elementary Education.Ferick 16:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this part should be named: Ferick the Myth Buster. Anybody disagree? Ferick 16:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

FERICK, MY DEAR ALBANIAN FRIEND. THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WITH FINISHED PRIMARY SCHOOLING IN SERBIA IS 97%. SOURCE: United nations homepage

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_results.asp?crID=891&fID=r15

STOP ALBANIAN PROPAGANDA.

Fair enough. But here is your problem: The Stats you are talking about talk about percentage of students who finish the fifth grade, not the 8th grade. The information provided by the Serb Education minister talks about the overall Serb population who have primary education( 8th grade education). So the statistics that appear in B92,that is 50% of the population of Serbia does not have primary education( Don't confuse primary with elementary education), is not challenged by your source. So, you efforts to prove me wrong haven't gone unnoticed, but you have not been able to provide any source that contradicts what I have been saying. And besides, the UN gets its information from the member countries-that is to say to Serbian Education Ministry in this case. So there should not be any contradiction between them.

This is not Albanian Propaganda. All I am trying to do is limit Serb falsehoods. That's all.Ferick 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK Ferick. It seems that we got lost when it came to terms (literacy, primary education, elementary education...). I can just tell you one more time that both Serbs and Albanians (from Albania) are very well educated people, and that the percentage of people that enroll and finish university from these countries is bigger than in Switzerland and some other Western European countries. Gianni ita 07:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain why you say "Serbs and Albanians (from Albania) are very well educated people," in the discussion page about Kosovo? Or you added that "from Albania" accidentally? :)) ilir_pz 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That’s probably true, but it is also true that a lot of people in Albanian and Serbia have bare minimum education. I am not familiar with rates of University Education in that part of the world, but I can tell you that in the U.S 25% of the population had a university degree. I suspect this rate is a lower in the Balkans as well as Europe.Ferick 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Status of Kosovo

I've come to realize that some people don't believe that Kosovo lies within the internationally recognized borders of Serbia (which any political map of Europe will tell you, including the one on here on Wikipedia [[20]], likewise if you look at the CIA map of Europe [21] or those published by the EU [22]). As such, it is a province of Serbia. However, it is run by the UN and administered by UNMIK.

So, in light of these facts, why can't we settle on the NPOV introductory statement that "Kosovo is a province of Serbia administered by the United Nations"? I realize a lot of Kosovar Albanians want nothing to do with Serbia (which I can fully sympathize with) and therefore don't like being called a province of Serbia. However, this doesn't change the fact that is legally still is.

Please excuse me but I can't help making an analogy. The issue above is a bit like a married couple who have separated after the husband beat the wife. Just because the wife hates the husband and wants nothing to do with him doesn't change the fact that, from the point of view of the law, they are still married until the divorce is final.

So, let's stick to the facts and not what we would like the the facts to be.

PS. Simply stating that Kosovo is a province in the Central Balkans would be about as misleading to the readers as stating that Catalunia is a province in southwestern Europe or that Scotland is a province in northwestern Europe. The wording of Res. 1244 is more about politics and what was acceptable to all parties at the time (ie getting Serb troops out for NATO and keeping Kosovo as a part of Yugoslavia for Serbia).Osli73 11:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for good measure I would like to add the EU Commission map of Serbia and Montenegro as found on EU Commission web site: [23]. It's quite clear about Kosovo being a province of Serbia but under UN administration according to UNSCR 1244.Osli73 12:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As Resolution 1244 is the document which regulates this, please search within it, and find your claim. I just want it to be according to that article. Kosovar Albanians do not want even what that resolution says about the "de-jure" part, but that is a different matter. The res.1244 does NOT mention what you are suggesting. Regards, ilir_pz 12:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that the UNSCR 1244 regulates how Kosovo is to be administred, not it's international status. My references above clearly show this (it would be interesting to hear your comment on these source, by the way). UNSCR 1244, however, does not say anything about Kosovo not being a province of Serbia, in fact, it says that it is a province of Yugoslavia.Osli73 12:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, the analogy is a funny one. You just forgot to compare it in a rather different way, the wife's body parts were cut, not just beaten up, the relatives of the wife (innocent civillians in Kosovo) were massacred, etc. Furthermore, that marriage was made by force by the "father" (Large Powers). And some neighbour, or an individual (read: readers like you) still insist that the woman is supposed to be that husband's wife, and every document should say so, even if temporarily. Being Swedish, you should be familiar about the laws on protection of women, and in this case that husband would deliberately be sent to prison, to linger there for a long time, let alone stop that marriage. I like analogies, actually :))) ilir_pz 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you would (like the analogy). Of course you can spice it up with additional details, as people tend to do during ugly divorces. However, that doesn't change the fact that the couple are still married (which is why they're getting the divorce, so to say). Saying otherwise isn't really being truthful. Right? Just because the wife has a temporary restraining order on the husband (UNSCR 1244, if you will) doesn't mean she's not still married to him.Osli73 12:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

1244 resolution is the temporary guard, which more or less cohabitates with the wife, until she is cleared out formally (independence recognized by intl community) from an imposed marriage. The air strikes are the analogy to the democratic (say Swedish) state taking over that marriage and getting the husband out of the house :). ilir_pz 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I lost you on your last stretching of the analogy. However, since even you seem to agree that Kosovo isn't independent ("cleared out formally (independence recognized by intl community)") I'll add back the "province of Serbia under UN administration" bit.Osli73 13:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood my statement, anyways. The independence recognized by intl community means changing the status-quo i.e. statusless status :). Besides, due to too much emotional edits in this article, the article has been protected. ilir_pz 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is so, Ilir, please explain to me why all recently published maps of Europe, including those published by the EU Commission, CIA and Wikipedia, include Kosovo within Serbia's international borders?Osli73 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Work things out please. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried, but things don't look that promising. Yes, the future status of Kosovo is a controversial and heated topic. However, the current status of Kosovo shouldn't be. All of the sources I site above (including the maps of Europe both on Wikipedia and other, incl. CIA) indicate it as a province of Serbia administered by the UN. I don't see how you can compromise about this. It would be like compromising about the intl. status of Cataunia or Scotland (in my example above). Just because nationalists, of any color or shade, don't accept it doesn't mean it's not so.

I suggest bringing in an acceptable outside arbiter. Do we have any constitutional judget on hand? Osli73 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no current status of Kosovo, this is the point you are misunderstanding, Osli73. Hence, the status talks in Vienna. You do not have to be very smart to know this. And yes, 1244 resolution DOES NOT mention Serbia anywhere in the document. No reason to push further against the 1244 resolution. ilir_pz 13:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There most certainly is a current status of Kosovo - a province of Serbia under UN administration. The talks are about changing the status of Kosovo. UNSCR 1244 only regulates how Kosovo is to be administered, not it's international status (Ergo, the old one is still formally valid).

How would you otherwise explain that any reputable world map (also those produced after 1999) show Kosovo as a part of Serbia? How come the EU, UN, CIA and just about anyone else you ask agrees that it is formally still a part of Serbia? You still haven't answered this question. Osli73 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Ferick 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So what are the maps are suppose to say? Leave that part of the world blank? Most maps are based on the pre 1999 status and that includes maps produced after 1999. The other day I happen to go the immigration with a friend of mine, and they could not find Serbia and Montenegro on their system. They said “I have Yugoslavia here" but no Serbia and Montenegro. Does that mean Serbia and Montenegro don’t exist? Well, they did until a week ago. Don't act like you don't understand. How about if Kosovo remains at the current status for the next hindered years? Would Serbia still make the claim after 100 years that Kosovo is still part of Serbia? Loot at Taiwan- Most agree that the Island is legally a part of China, but does that really mean anything? Can you really say Taiwan is a part of China? I don’t think so.

And what’s with “the future status of Kosovo is controversial one”? It’s a lot less controversial then you would like us to believe. Ferick 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, I don't think it should be controversial as it is so clear cut - Kosovo is a province of Serbia under UN administration. However, this statement of fact appears to be so controversial to some persons that they cannot accept it. Instead they claim that Kosovo is in fact just a province (of nothing) and that it is not within the internationally recognized borders of Serbia (which, by the way, today's Financial Times special on Kosovo was quite clear about).Osli73 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ferick or Ilir, please explain why all maps of Europe show Kosovo as a part of Serbia? Why do the maps of the EU Commission and the CIA show Kosovo as a province of Serbia, albeit under UNSCR 1244 administration? Please answer me.Osli73 15:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I did, above....Ferick 16:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Ferick gave you the explanation. I just cannot understand why you are so pushy Osli73? Just respect the (not the best) 1244 Resolution, as of now, and don't waste your energy. Maps show old data, and are not often updated. It will take who knows how long to change maps when Montenegro becomes independent. Furthermore status-less territories, such as is Kosovo, cannot be represented in maps, therefore old maps are used for them. Do not act so surprised, you should know that. ilir_pz 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider to the matter (I am Dutch and have no affiliation with any Balkan country) I think we should stick with the current version for the following reasons:

The article states: Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro)

1. The UN resolution was adopted at the time of the Republic of Yugoslavia, so that is what should be (and is) stated.

2. Currently, there no longer is a Republic of Yugoslavia, but neither a Serbia alone, it is still Serbia-Montenegro, and also that is correctly named in the article. Once Montenegro is officially separated, the article should state Serbia instead of Serbia-Montenegro.

3. The maps that can be found are hardly evidence. For example this map: [24] shows both Kosovo and Montenegro as similar denoted areas in Serbia-Montenegro. Does that mean they have a similar status? In addition, at this website of the UN: [25] Kosovo does have its own map, whereas Montenegro doesn't. One can therefore also easily conclude that the UN does consider Kosovo independent, since neither Serbia nor Montenegro does have its own map (but they do have a map together). Cpt. Morgan 21:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see two maps at that site, one under the "Country maps" (!) sub-menu of "General Maps", and one under "Peacekeeping Maps", but both indicate K. as part of S&M, and indeed as part of Serbia. The "tanks on the lawn" situation is rather different from the Taiwan case: here the governing authority allows Kosovo to in large part operate as if autonomous, but does not allow declrations of autonomy, independence, separatism, or whatever (and indeed itself asserts the contrary). The RoC government could, however, make whichever declarations it wishes (or perhaps, dares to). Alai 04:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Captain,

1. UNSCR 1244 is about how Kosovo should be administered. It doesn't say anything about it's international status (other than that it is still part of Yugoslavia). Therefore the status is, formally, unchanged since before 1999. Therefore it is still, formally, a province of Serbia, albeit run by the UN.

2. UNSCR 1244 recognizes Kosovo as part of Yugoslavia, which became Serbia, currently in a state union with Montenegro. Yugoslavia didn't turn into Serbia-Montenegro, it turned into Serbia and Montenegro which in turn formed a union.

3. No, maps are not 'evidence' but they generally aren't wrong either. Are the Wikipedia, EU Commission and CIA political maps of Europe wrong? Of course not. Kosovo is included within the recognized borders of Serbia because this is the what all government of Europe (except maybe Albania, I'm not sure) recognize.

In fact the cartographic section of the UN that you linked to does have a map of "Southern Serbia and Montenegro" [26] which includes "The Province of Kosovo" with international and republic boundaries marked out in the legend. It's a map from April 1999, but they've opted to keep it and call it Southern S and M, so thay would tell you something, wouldn't it.

The reason I'm getting all hot and bothered about this status of Kosovo issue is that it's such a blatant example of people using Wikipedia to push their political/nationalist views on what could, and should, be a reputable encyclopedia available for all.Osli73 08:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So forget about the maps, my only point was that you can use them to reason both ways. And I totally agree that Wikipedia should contain usefull, unbiased information. I just do not agree with the remark that Yugoslavia turned into Serbia. The article on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia states that Yugoslavia was the name of the federation of the republics Serbia and Montenegro, which existed between 1992 and 2003, when it was transformed into new country named Serbia and Montenegro. Once Montenegro officially leaves the union, I would agree with you. Since Montenegro is still part of Serbia-Montenegro, Kosovo is a province of that country and not of Serbia, which is not an indepedent state at the moment. Cpt. Morgan 08:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

cpt.Morgan, the resolution 1244 should be modified accordingly, and until then, you cannot just say "ok it was yugoslavia, now it is serbia" and interprete the resolution the way you want. ...argh I am getting tired of this ilir_pz 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like someone is not satisfied enough with the (already morally wrong) wording that Kosovo is de-jure a part of ex-Yug (read: the country that carried mass executions of Kosovo's people, and the apartheid before that, and is recently playing with the bodies of killed civillians in Serbia itself). This is getting as ridiculous as it gets. Only about one wording. My God. And then they blame me for NPOV pushing. Look at your contributions, first. ilir_pz 10:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some, hardly partisan, comments from media around the world on the current status of Kosovo:

The BBC Kosovo, a landlocked province within the union of Serbia and Montenegro, has been the backdrop to a centuries-old and often-strained relationship between its Serb and ethnic Albanian inhabitants

Unmik online The United Nations administrator of Kosovo today called on Serbia to reverse its calls to ethnic Serbs to boycott institutions in the Albanian-majority Serbian province which the world body has run ever since the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO) drove out Yugoslav troops in 1999 after grave rights abuses.Osli73 11:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Osli, of these two references, one names Kosovo to be a part of Serbia-Montenegro, the other as a part of Serbia. Since Serbia-Montenegro is (if you will) the follow-up of Yugoslavia, Kosovo would be part of that, until it dissolves in Serbia and Montenegro. From that point on, Serbia will (arguably) be the follow up of Yugoslavia. Rather than simply complaining about nationalist feelings, can you explain why you cannot accept the wording Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro). Cpt. Morgan 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually am very curious why Osli73 thinks there is something wrong with that wording? Besides that it is offensive to Albanians in Kosovo, for the rest it is according to 1244...and actually more than that, as neither Serbia and Montenegro are mentioned in the 1244 resolution, only Former FRY. ilir_pz 12:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that is offensive to some people is not an argument here, there are many articles on wikipedia that are offensive to certain people. The only thing that matters is which country can be considered the follow-up of the FRY. Cpt. Morgan 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion based on US Congressional Research Service and US Council on Foreign Relations wording

Ilir, why do you feel that I'm pushing POV pushing? I'm not the one using words like "Apartheid", "massacres", "mass executions", "Kosova" etc in order to use Wikipedia as a way to push your own political opinions. I'm simply trying to state the fact that Kosovo is still internationally formally recognized as a province of Serbia and currently under UN administration. This can hardly be called a POV.

the words you mentioned above are legitimate enough, and have been used by the international community sources that you quote as well. Do not accuse me falsely. Furthermore Kosova is the way more than 90% of the population in Kosovo call the plac, why should that be any political opinion? ilir_pz 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In order to break the deadlock and as gesture of good will I suggest the wording used by the US Council on Foreign Relations on Kosovo [27] (the website is quite good overall). It says, under the heading "What is Kosovo's political status?":

"Since NATO forces occupied Kosovo in 1999, the province has been a protectorate of the United Nations, with broad administrative responsibility under a mission called UNMIK. Technically, Kosovo remains a province of Serbia."[28]

A January 2006 US Congressional Research Service special report [29] also states this saying (page 2):

"UNSC Resolution 1244 provides little insight into how the status issue should be resolved, saying only that it should be determined by an unspecified “political process.” However, the resolution explicitly confirms the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (consisting of Serbia and neighboring Montenegro) and calls for “substantial autonomy” for Kosovo “within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” The FRY was dissolved in February 2003, replaced with a looser “state union” entitled “Serbia and Montenegro.” Kosovars believe that the dissolution of the FRY invalidates this portion of UNSC Resolution 1244, while the international community views Kosovo as part of Serbia." (my emphasis added).

How about one of these two wordings?Osli73 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Osli73, you are wasting time, with maps and press releases of different non-partisan organizations, or research services of congresses, and still refuse to quote the 1244 resolution. It is easier to quote the most powerful document on Kosovo, and spend your precious time on other research, which is needed here. Once again, Serbia is NOT mentioned in 1244 article, whatsoever. Why is it so hard for you (a Swedish neutral editor) to accept this fact? ilir_pz 12:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, I'm telling you that UNSCR 1244 explicitly confirms that Kosovo is part of Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro and that the intl. community views Kosovo as part of Serbia. Of course it's not possible to quite UNSCR 1244 since it doesn't say that Kosovo is not part of Serbia, it simply says that Kosovo's legal status is unchanged but that it will be administred by the UN.

The view of the EU Commission, the US Congress' research service, the US Council on Foreign Relations and the BBC that Kosovo is a province of Serbia clearly show that the international community does see it this way. If you don't, that's too bad but should't hinder the readers of Wikipedia from being presented with the truth (rathe than political grandstanding).Osli73 12:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Osli, the BBC reference you gave named Kosovo as a province of Serbia-Montenegro, not of Serbia alone. So do many documents of the EU and many other news stories on the internet. As I see it, Kosovo is regarded a province of Serbia-Montenegro by some people, and a province of Serbia by others. Because currently Serbia-Montenegro is the official country and not Serbia, I do not understand why you so fiercely oppose the current wording: Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro). Can you please explain? Cpt. Morgan 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Using your words, Osli "UNSCR 1244 [] simply says that Kosovo's legal status is unchanged but that it will be administred by the UN." That is what I have been saying all the time. Seems like we agree, ilir_pz 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, good if we agree that UNSCR 1244 confirms the territorial integrity of FRY/SCG, where Kosovo is defined as a province of Serbia. When the union between Serbia and CG is terminated this will be very clear. Simply stating that Kosovo is a province of FRY, when FRY doesn't exist anymore, isn't very helpful to Wikipedia readers. It could give them the incorrect impression that Kosovo isn't a part of anything any more, which isn't true.

Better then to be as clear as possible, which is also what the BBC and other are being when they present Kosovo on their websites.Osli73 14:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I stated several times that the 1244 res is enough to state that de-jure part you are being so pushy about, but it does NOT say a word about Serbia, do not misinterprete my words. You tend to push for the latter, which neither did I, nor the 1244 Resolution mention. ilir_pz 14:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So, to make a new suggestion then, how about this:

"Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which is now the union of Serbia and Montenegro, but in practice it runs independently from the former."

It makes the statement on Serbia-Montenegro more clear, but leaves the UNSCR 1244 statement intact. Cpt. Morgan 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is more balanced than Osli's. [30] quoting this source, your statement is further confirmed: While legally still part of Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo remains an international protectorate of the United Nations as outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (passed June 10, 1999). Under UNSCR 1244, UNMIK assumes the supreme legal authority in Kosovo, while working to create "substantial autonomy and self-governance" in Kosovo and, eventually, facilitate a political process to determine Kosovo's future status. Osli wanna push further than this I guess? Hope not. Anyways, we are arguing about something that is due to change drastically in Autumn of this year. Then some will regret over spending so much time over something like this. ilir_pz 15:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is a province of Serbia, which in turn is one of the two republics which make up the country Serbia and Montenegro (previously FRY). However, for the sake of ending this deadlock, I have two suggestions:

"Kosovo is a province within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which is now the union of Serbia and Montenegro, currently administered by the United National under UNSCR 1244."

or

"While legally still part of Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo remains an international protectorate of the United Nations as outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 1244"

I can live with either of these. Osli73 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"live with"? seems like it is of vital interest to you to waste so much time for this definition. Let me remind you, all this that you came to agree with ALREADY is in the text. Do you now believe me that you wasted precious time? The way it is specified in the text already explains the de-jure and the de-facto situation. That Kosovo is de-facto independent, you do not need to be very smart to see that. The de-jure part is also explained in the existing text in the main article. ilir_pz 09:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What will happen when Serbia and CG go their separate ways and SCG no longer exists?Osli73 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Both are fine with me as well, but I prefer the first one for no specific reason. Cpt. Morgan 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it with fresher eyes, I feel it doesn't make sense to say that Kosovo is a part of FRY (a state which doesn't exist) and the to say that this is now called Serbia and CG. Better to say:

"Kosovo is a province in Serbia and Montenegro, currently administered by the United National under UNSCR 1244."

Is this still OK with you, Cpt.?Osli73 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise, I would suggest the following. I think (hope) Ilir pz can agree (this version puts the emphasis on the United nations rather than on Serba-Montenegro):

"Kosovo is a United Nations administered autonomous province in southern Serbia and Montenegro (and formerly of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), as defined by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 in 1999."

Cpt. Morgan 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cpt., I would really prefer the version I suggested:

"Kosovo is a province in Serbia and Montenegro, currently administered by the United Nations on the basis of Security Council Resolution 1244."

Can we all agree to this? Osli73 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole point that Ilir pz was making is that resolution 1244 does not talk about Serbia or Serbia-Montenegro, it talks about the FRY. Another try then:

"Kosovo is an autonomous province in southern Serbia and Montenegro, which came under the administration of the United Nations in 1999 when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244)."

How about that? Cpt. Morgan 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, FRY doesn't exist anymore, so Kosovo is therefore a province in Serbia and Montenegro, its successor state. That's pretty simple. What's the use of referring to FRY, it is only likely to confuse readers of the article.Osli73 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If stated properly, I hardly think people will be confused. I Honestly do not understand why that is such a big deal to you. You underestimate wikipedia readers :) Cpt. Morgan 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, I believe it should state what is generally accepted by all foreign governments - that Kosovo is a province of Serbia, currently under UN administration. Some (probably most) Kosovar Albanians prefer to say that Kosovo is a part of FRY (now SCG) since this implies that Serbia does not have anything legal claim on Kosovo. Just as the US Congressional Research Service special report I quoted above says, they feel that since FRY no longer exists, they are now technically in legal limbo. This is, however, not the view of the rest of the world. That's why I'm against saying Kosovo is a part of FRY or even a province of SCG (I can live with province "in" SCG).Osli73 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what your opinion is. I disagree since A LOT of articles and documents talk about Kosovo as a province of Serbia-Montenegro. My last suggestion stated exactly that. With, in the second part of the sentence, a short description of the origin of Kosovo getting under UN control. What if we split it in two sentences:

"Kosovo is an autonomous province in southern Serbia and Montenegro. It came under the administration of the United Nations in 1999 when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244)."

I really don't see how you can object to that? It is totally historically accurate. Cpt. Morgan 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "Kosovo is a province in southern Serbia and Montenegro. It came under the administration of the United Nations in 1999 when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244)." Osli73 23:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you object to the use of the word autonomous? It is even stated exactly like that in the article on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? I think it is an important aspect of the current status of Kosovo. Cpt. Morgan 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Check also this page, Vojvodina, another autonomous province. Cpt. Morgan 06:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is called an autonomious province in the following articles:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia, Subdivisions of Serbia, Template:Serbia and Montenegro and by many UN, EU and US documents. Example:[31]. Historically, it was autonomous until Slobodan Milosovic claimed Kosovo in 1991. It is again autonomous now and should be named as such. I do not at all understand why you object to that. Does it confuse wikipedia readers? No. Is it historically incorrect? No. Is an albanian nationalist statement? No. I am trying to find a consensus here, but just disagreeing without arguments makes that very difficult. Cpt. Morgan 08:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cpt., I've checked the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (the current one, not the proposed new one) and you are right. Article 6 [32] reads: "The Republic of Serbia includes the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia, these being the forms of territorial autonomy." I stand corrected. Please feel free to include the autonomous bit. I thought it had been revoked by Milosevic in 1991 and not reinstated since. However, from Article 6 it is also quite clear that Kosovo is an autonomous province of Serbia, not of Serbia and Montenegro. In fact, the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro [33] clearly states that Kosovo is a province of the State of Serbia (ie not of Montenegro or of Serbia and Montenegro). But since this seems to be out of the question for some users, so I will let it go. Osli73 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are joking on this part, Osli. Saying that Kosovo had any kind of autonomous character from 1991 is ridiculous. You are citing a wrong source. ilir_pz 09:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I am confused now in regard to what both of you want or not:). Since I just want this block to end quickly, I'll give (some again) several options. If you guys can sort them according to which one you think is best, we will choose the one with which all of us have the least problems. Is that acceptable?

1.Kosovo is an province in southern Serbia. It came under the administration of the United Nations in 1999 when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244).

2.Kosovo is an autonomous province in southern Serbia. It came under the administration of the United Nations in 1999 when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244).

3.Kosovo is an province in southern Serbia and Montenegro. It came under the administration of the United Nations in 1999 when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244).

4.Kosovo is an autonomous province in southern Serbia and Montenegro. It came under the administration of the United Nations in 1999 when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244).

5.Kosovo is an autonomous province in southern Serbia and Montenegro, which came under the administration of the United Nations in 1999 when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244).

My favorite in this list is number 5 and the following ranking: 5 > 4 > 2 > 3 > 1 Both of you guys, let me know which ones are acceptable and which ones are not. Cpt. Morgan 11:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinoutr, and Osli73. What is wrong with the already existing definition "By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro), but in practice it runs independently from the former." It both states the de-jure, and de-facto situation. I do not think we should have started this dispute at all. The intro that already exists in the article is sufficient, and descriptive enough. ilir_pz 11:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My main objection is that it sounds like a sentence from a legal document rather than from an encyclopedia. But I would urge both of you to show some willingness in ending this dispute please. We are talking here because Osli wanted the introduction changed (which is his good right and was also the wish of others before him), which ended in a reversion war because you (and others) did not agree. We will have to agree to a certain compromise now. Cpt. Morgan 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

on the contrary, Reinoutr, the existing formulation states as the situation really is on the ground. I am not sure I can call this formulation as non-enciclopedia formulation. It has to do with some law, hence a law-like term should be used..we have to deal with a Resolution from UN here, we cannot just skip the definition. An encyclopedia also clarifies the situation according to laws, not just "common" knowledge. Don't you think so? Oh and the existing definition, is a looooooong long compromised solution between Wikipedians from both parties included in the dispute, as well as foreign readers...until Osli73 showed his interest in allegedly bringing neutrality here. ilir_pz 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cpt. Morgan, I'm happy with either one of your five proposals (though my favorites are 1 or 2, since they are more precise, however, "in" SCG isn't necessarily incorrect).

Ilir, no, I'm definately not implying that Kosovo had some kind of autonomy since 1991 (quite the opposite in fact). That's why I was surprised to see it defined as such in the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (article 6). Maybe it's just a word they decided to use with no meaning (likely), in which case it might be misleading. Osli73 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Osli. Dear Ilir, can you please inform us which one has your preference? It is really time to lift the editing block on the article. Once you have stated your preference, I will inform the editor who blocked the article and change the text to the version you choose (of the 5 options above), because both Osli and I agree to all 5 of them. Cpt. Morgan 20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your statement above Ilir. My suggestion is to use one of the 5 options in the intro of the article and give a more thorough, judicial explanation later in the article (perhaps moving the heading politics to nr. 1 or 2 and explain it in detail right there?). In that way, the intro is kept concise and simple, but the article does explain the situation in more detail. I know that is not your preferred option, but I would like to remind you that reaching consensus between editors is a key part of Wikipedia, so everybody will have to give and take a little (see also Wikipedia:Consensus). The fact that a compromise was reached before must be taken into account, I agree, but it is not the only factor we have to deal with, especially since the wording chosen was far from ideal, as was also mentioned by Hectorian at the time that the compromise was reached (which is only 5 days ago, so far from established). Cpt. Morgan 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your initiatives to reach compromise, cpt. Morgan. And no, I did not perceive your call for compromise as a threat. I just did not know what to compromise for. The already existing version is the one I could compromise with. And that compromise was achieved after I tried to back off readers from my country who would get irritated by even the current statement. I called them to refrain from that. Furthermore, I called the Serbian editors to refrain from using their extreme views as well, hence the "de-facto" part was added. Cpt.Morgan, neither of your 5 suggestions is correct, in several ways. 2-5 are incorrect as they use the term "autonomous" as defined by Serbian constitution, which is incorrect. That term ended in 1989, when Kosovo's autonomy was abolished by Milosevic. From 1999 Kosovo is a UN administered territory, still legally (according to 1244 resolution) a part of FRY (now SCG). Fine then, the fact is that Kosovo is a UN administered territory. Add that it is still legally a part of FRY(SCG) in the bottom part, in the "politics" header. That is more judice-related, than the factual - Kosovo being administered by UN. Oh, and proposal 1 is just a revert-war-inspiring proposal.ilir_pz 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cpt. and Ilir, I'm completely OK with taking out the "autonomous" bit. Saying that it's a province in "Serbia" rather than in "SCG" will increase the longevity of the wording (once SCG) break up. I think saying it is a province "in" rather than "of" Serbia should go some way to placating Kosovar Albanian editors. Another way to go could be to say that it's "technically a province of Serbia but came under UN administration in 1999..." if that is easier to accept. I still think the US Council on Foreign Relations wording is the best for an introduction and most easily understandable (UNSCR 1244 can be explained later):

"Since NATO forces occupied Kosovo in 1999, the province has been a protectorate of the United Nations, with broad administrative responsibility under a mission called UNMIK. Technically, Kosovo remains a province of Serbia."[34]

Osli73 07:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Osli, you STILL insist on the part "of Serbia", and ignoring completely the 1244 Resolution which does NOT mention your words AT ALL. CFR is a non-partisan organization, and thus is not more important source than 1244 Resolution itself. Get real! :) ilir_pz 09:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Osli and Ilir, I just heard on the news that Montenegro will declare its independence officially this saturday. How do you two suggest we incorporate that in this article? Apart from a more elaborate explanation in the politics section, on which I think we all agree now, I would propose either one of the following (several combinations of my previous suggestions and the sentence by Osli. I think it is not fair to start the article immediatly with the occupation of Kosovo by NATO):

1. Kosovo is a protectorate of the United Nations in southern Serbia since 1999, when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244).

or

2. Kosovo is a protectorate of the United Nations under a mission called UNMIK, since NATO forces occupied Kosovo in 1999. Technically, Kosovo remains a province in Serbia.

or

3. Kosovo is an province in southern Serbia . It came under the administration of the United Nations in 1999 when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244).

Note that I use the wording in Serbia rather than of Serbia, which is hopefully acceptable for all. Cpt. Morgan 10:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Osli and Cpt. Morgan, until resolution 1244 is modified to reflect the changes, the following wording would better suit..always citing the documents released by UN and UNMIK respectively. Since (yet again) another fake federation is splitting up, the following definition would suit: Kosovo is a UN administered territory, which by UN Resolution 1244 is technically considered a part of former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Ilir, UNSCRs aren't revised. Also, there is no need, since Serbia will be the successor state of both FRY and SCG in UN terms (it will inherit the seat at the UN while CG will have to reapply). So, treaties/resolutions applying to FRY or SCG will be transferred to the Republic of Serbia, including SCR 1244.

I suspect that you probably hope that with the end of FRY/SCG, Kosovo isn't a part of any country anymore (or at least you want to imply this) and thus really doesn't have anything to do with Serbia anymore - ie that Kosovo is independent but just not yet recognized as such. Osli73 10:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not have any grounds to suspect my opinions, as I did not give you any. I keep referring to Resolution 1244, which is not my favourite anyways, but for the sake of keeping a NPOV and referring the the document with highest importance in Kosovo. UNSCR should be revised, and if not, they cannot be implied as such just by intuition, or non-partisan websites' claims. You should keep the version according to the respective UNSCR, until another one is released, or UN informs the public about who inherits what from that resolution. ilir_pz 10:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"in Serbia, of Serbia, within Serbia," what is the difference? None. Sounds like POV pushing. Instead simply refer to the Resolution 1244, and change the text according to the way it is modified. Do not make up sources, and give out wishes here. No need to waste energy on that. This is not creative work, it is a fact based on some law (read: Resolution 1244, and not non-partisan websites)ilir_pz 10:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Option 3 is the best: it mentions Serbia (rather than the soon to be extinct SCG or already extinct FRY); it mentions the under UN administration bit (rather than protectorate, which I find to be more of a characterization of the administration); when it came under UN admin., and; the SC resolution on which it is based.

In, of and within Serbia make some difference in my ears. Of, implies "ruled by" while "in" merely implies geographic location. Both are technically correct. Ilir, you should support the latter option.

Also, wasn't there another UNSCR in 2002 regulating the status of Kosovo? Osli73 10:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not support any version that is not according to UN 1244 Resolution. And those versions you support, and you think that I should support violate that resolution. The resolution does NOT mention Serbia in any way "in,within,of,inside.." I am not aware of any newer resolution Osli, but feel free to bring it over. ilir_pz 10:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with Ilir_pz . The things that he explained are the facts today. Maybe the main problem is that some users just don’t want to face the truth… --Mig11 10:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, other than saying that Kosovo remains a part of FRY (ie no change of the formal status quo since before 1999), UNSCR 1244 only discusses how Kosovo is to be administred (until a new UNSCR on its status can be concluded).

SCG is the successor of FRY. With the breakup of SCG, Serbia will inherit its UN seat and intl. treaties and agreements. CG will need to reapply for a UN seat. UNSCR 1244 doesn't have to be "revised" to reflect this.

So, Kosovo is technically a province of/in Serbia. Feel free to go through the technicalities of UNSCR 1244 in a separate section. We are talking about an introduction to the article here. Osli73 10:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly because it is an intro, you should refer to UNSCR 1244 as it is, and provide the technicalities (if they make sense) in the separate section below. And not provide some made-up technicalities and PUSH (like you've been doing eversince you started your wiki-career) to just mention Serbia, and nothing else when referring to Kosovo...for the sake of some kind of neutrality, which I still do not understand still.ilir_pz 10:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, I'm pushing for the truth - legal and technical. POV has nothing to do with it.

I realize that you feel my insisting on Kosovo technically (still) being a province of Serbia is pushing a POV (since few, if any, Kosovar Albanians agree with this). However, this is technically and legally correct as well as widely accepted in the world community (see all/any of my previous posts here).

Therefore, insisting on referring to UNSCR 1244:s mention of FRY rather than Serbia (which is natural, since FRY, not Serbia, was the UN member at the time), for the reasons you have stated yourself (Kosovar Albanians don't want anything to do with Serbia), is the real POV pushing.

Osli73 11:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the truth? General truth? or YOUR truth? Do not use such words which have a broad meaning. If you study politics you should know that there is no such word there :). Insisting about what the UN Resolution ACTUALLY says is POV pushing? now that is some opinion. I have no further comment. ilir_pz 11:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I would value the opinion of more people, I posted a link at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Perhaps some of you can make a short statement on your view of this dispute. Cpt. Morgan 10:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, cool. Thanks, cpt.Morgan.ilir_pz 10:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a good way forward.Osli73 11:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To faciliate other editors to contribyute, I started a new heading below with two proposed wordings an the objections that were raised here (without stating exactly who or what made the point). Feel free to add other points to the list or change them if I did not word them correctly in your opinions , but I suggest we continue the discussion from there. Cpt. Morgan 11:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also posted it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, with the same intention and description, to get more people to give their opinion. Cpt. Morgan 12:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I may have unintentionally thrown a bit of fuel on this fire by making an edit replacing "Serbia and Montenegro" with "Serbia" yesterday without noting this debate, and for that, I apologize. In any case, speaking as someone with absolutely no allegiance to one national tradition or the other but a pretty decent grasp of international law, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes it clear that the rights and responsibilities held by FRY went to S&M and then went to the present Republic of Serbia. Resolution 1244 would be read by any serious international lawyer to mean Kosovo is part of the de jure sovereign territory of whatever state is regarded as the successor state to FRY. Now, I think it's pretty clear that the majority of the population there doesn't consider themselves part of the Serbian nation. Fine. But statecraft is full of blacks and whites (to a fault), and its clear that Kosovo is officially part of the state of Serbia, with 1244 only transferring administrative control to the UN. This is a cold fact of life. Being Irish doesn't prevent me from recognizing that Northern Ireland falls under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom under international law, and I should hope those Albanian contributors will recognize that publishing the legal circumstances of Kosovo's current situation as currently recognized by the international community does nothing to strengthen or demean the aspirations of Kosovars to self-determination. The Tom 23:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. (at least from my side). With all due respect to your background and your personal opinion, we are dealing with a law here. And any serious international lawyer knows that for new definitions to be accepted, the law should be changed accordingly, and not according to some "common sense". Laws are laws. The current compromise on the definition of the intro part is supposed to reflect the current situation, which is defined by the UNSCR 1244, and has nothing to do with strengthening or weakening any aspirations of any particular group of people. My aim here is to only reflect the legal circumstances as they are defined by the law, and not according to some personal opinions, be that of mine, or anyone else. As I said several times before, my personal opinion is very different from what the UN Resolution states, and I have my reasons and facts for it, but that is not the point here. Best regards, ilir_pz 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize (at least to neutral editors) :P. C-c-c-c 23:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, ilir pz. Perhaps I should have been clearer, though--this isn't a question of common sense. International law is pretty explicit about successor states, and just because the officially signed copy of 1244 in some locked climate-controlled filing cabinet somewhere in the UN basement says Kosov(o/a) is part of the FRY doesn't mean that the text is static in a legal sense. The Charter of the United Nations says the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a permanent member of the security council. It said that in 1956, and it said it in 1986, and it says that in 2006. That passage has never been amended. But somehow Russia is a permanent member of the council? This isn't because of interpretation or opinion or goodwill on anyone's part, it's because the Vienna convention sets out the process that let Russia be considered the successor state of the USSR, and as such you mentally strike out the USSR and insert Russia in every instrument of international law on the books. The Vienna convention keeps legal obligations in place without the need, as you imply, to change the letter of various laws through a formal amendment. Likewise, the FRY's name might be on the Kyoto Protocol (for argument's sake, I'm not about to look it up), but that got automatically switched conceptually to "Serbia and Montenegro" in 2003, and now will be switched to just "Serbia" when being read legally, even though nobody would deny the word "Yugoslavia" is inked onto the paper. 1244 falls under the same umbrella. Does this make it any clearer? The Tom 00:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for taking the time to explain. I'd rather see this explicit law about what happens with successor states defined in a UN document, than just accept your claim as such. No offense. I may lack knowledge in the particular issue, hence I need to see the reference to it. Regards, ilir_pz 00:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Wikipedia's coverage of the area, and a link to the Treaty text: It's rather heavy going. 1244 probably is best covered by the Convention's Article 12. The Tom 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito

Why no one wrote anything about Tito in the article? His role is very important, and I hope that all the Albanians and Serbs understand that. I suggest we add something after they unlock the article. What do the others think? Gianni ita 07:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

sure. His role was important.ilir_pz 12:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Turkish as one of the official languages in Kosovo? Lol no way man. These is false based information. At no one!!! almost no one wiki of an county i see that c*** sh** info.

Turkish has been the third official language in Kosovo, until UNMIK decided to have it removed. Now turkish is only official in locations where Turks are a majority, but is not official as Albanian and Serbian are. ilir_pz 10:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Political status of Kosovo

A short description of the dispute why the article is locked:

The current wording in the start of the article is:

Kosovo ... is a province under United Nations administration. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro), but in practice it runs independently from the former.

The objections that have been raised to this wording are (regardless of who made the statement):

• It puts to much emphasis on the no longer existant Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)
• Kosovo is not a province of FRY or Serbia and Montenegro, but of Serbia
• It mentions Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) as the follow-up of FRY
• As of next saturday, Montenegro will be independent
• It sounds more like a legal document than an introduction to the article.

A recently proposed alternative was (already taking into account the independence of Montenegro next saturday):

Kosovo is a province in southern Serbia. It came under the administration of the United Nations in 1999 when it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (UN Security Council Resolution 1244).

The objections that have been raised to this wording are (regardless of who made the statement):

• The UN resolution 1244 does not talk about Serbia or Serbia-Montenegro, but it talks about the FRY
• Serbia is not the follow-up of FYR
• Kosovo being a province of/in Serbia is not true since it is under UN control
• Kosovo being a province of/in Serbia is offensive for Albanians/Kosovars
• It violates the Constitutional Framework [35] of Kosovo, which nowhere states the wording suggested above. ilir_pz 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• It ignores the de-facto situation ilir_pz 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cpt. Morgan 11:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: It is worth mentioning also that the existing version is a long-agreed version, which was edited for months before the protection was applied, due to revert wars taking place. ilir_pz 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Current compromise version (with at the time de-jure instead of in principle) is of 25 May 2006. [36]. Cpt. Morgan 12:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming so tedious. But, I will repeat my arguments for the second version (what I already see as a compromise with the truth). The logic runs as follows:

• Kosovo was internationally recognized as a province of Serbia in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia prior to 1999 (1974-1991 it had the status as an autonomous province within Serbia, which was de-facto revoked in 1991)
• UNSCR 1244 confirmed that Kosovo would remain a part of FRY (the state which was the counterpart of in the UN system) but that the UN would administer it - ie it confirmed the legal status quo of Kosovo.
• 2003 FRY was turned into SCG. Unde the constitutions of both (FRY and SCG) Kosovo was/is defined as a part of the Republic of Serbia.
• When SCG dissolves, Serbia will inherit all treaties and international agreements of SCG, including the seat at the UN and.... UNSCR 1244 (which is why it will not have to be "revised").
• All maps of Europe show Kosovo as a province of/in Serbia, including those by:
  • EU Commission [37],
  • CIA [38],
  • Wikipedia,[[39]]
  • United Nations [40][41]
  • US State Department [42]

all show Kosovo as a province of Serbia.

• Kosovo is widely accepted in the world as a province of/in Serbia. For example, a recent report by the US Congressional Research Service on the future status of Kosovo [43] as well as the US Council on Foreign Relations [44] define Kosovo as a province in/of Serbia (although they say that is should become independent).

Osli73 14:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Council of Foreign Relations writes under the topic of "What is Kosovo’s political status?":

Since NATO forces occupied Kosovo in 1999, the province has been a protectorate of the United Nations, with broad administrative responsibility under a mission called UNMIK. Technically, Kosovo remains a province of Serbia. [45]

Surely this is a neutral and knowledgeable source? Osli73 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You successfully managed to get me tired and bored of Wikipedia for some time, Osli73. Congratulations. Your pushy POV achieved what you (obviously) wanted. I need a break. ilir_pz 14:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hooray Osli! Good job. Ilir, if "neutral" editors disagree with you, and you accuse them of P)V, then it's most likely that you're the one POV pushing. And in fact, you are. Why would Osli spread "Serb propaganda", if not Serb and has nothing to gain from it? He has said before he agrees with Kosovo independence, and I respect his opinion, even though it is not the same as mine. However, you can't ignore the evidence that he presented coming from very reputable sources. I'd advise you to stop such childish games, you are waging a losing battle my friend:)))) C-c-c-c 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

whatever. ilir_pz 00:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for making your case here (again), I know it all has been said before but this summary makes it much easier for others to join in. I suggest we all leave it at this for a while, unless other people join the discussion. That way everybody cools down and we might get some fresh ideas (either by ourselves or from other comments). Cpt. Morgan 14:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Food for Thought

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica [46]: KOSOVO (Albanian: Kosova): Region within the republic of Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia, 1929–2003), occupying the southwestern portion of the republic. Kosovo is bordered by Serbia proper to the north and east, Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west, and the republic of Montenegro to the northwest. Serbs call the region Kosovo and Metohija...
2. Encarta (2006) [47]: Kosovo, province in southwestern Serbia, in the republic of Serbia and Montenegro (formerly the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or FRY). Kosovo is bounded on the south by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on the west by Albania, and on the northwest by Montenegro...
3. 2006 Columbia Encyclopedia[48]: KOSOVO [Kosovo] or Kosovo-Metohija , Albanian Kosova, Serbo-Croatian Kosovo i Metohija and Kosmet, province (2002 est. pop. 1,900,000), 4,126 sq mi (10,686 sq km), S Serbia and Montenegro, in Serbia. Priština is the chief city..."
4. CIA Factbook (updated 1 June 2006) [49], regarding administrative divisions in SM: 2 republics (republike, singular - republika); and 2 nominally autonomous provinces (autonomn pokrajine, singular - autonomna pokrajina)(both in the republic of Serbia)* ; Kosovo* (temporarily under UN administration, per UN Security Council Resolution 1244), Montenegro, Serbia, Vojvodina*

Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

None of these documents regulate the status of Kosovo, neither represent any laws. As such, irrelevant for the topic we are discussing. ilir_pz 09:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, Ilir, as are those above. As for the status of Kosovo, the fact is that it is a province of Serbia and this is not denied by anyone, this is no place to discuss what it should or should not be. Name me a single country that does not recognise this. The onus is definitely on you. This is no place for minority views. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolution 1244 does not predict what it should be, but what is (was) from 1999. Regards, ilir_pz 10:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As you already know, the famous Resolution 1244 does not deny the sovereignty and territorial integrity, as it seems you are actually implying. Well, you are entitled to hold your personal views but do not try to impose them on the article. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Start from yourself with the advices you give me. ilir_pz 10:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to be uncivil, thanks. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 11:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Have a nice one. ilir_pz 11:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I dont really care much for the Serb/Albanian disputes but I thought it was common knowledge that Kosovo is an autonomous province of Serbia (at least theoretically). The way it is written it makes it sound that Kosovo is a province of Yugoslavia. I am pretty sure this is not the case otherwise its position under international law would be similar to that of Montenegro and independence would be much less of a problem than it is at this point. The article should be unprotected and reference to Serbia should be included. I dont think Albanian wikipedians should try to stop this from happening. The problem (and paradox) of Kosovo still being part of Serbia is not going to go away by negating it on wikipedia. If I were Kosovar Albanian i would be trying to make this be known so as to find a solution for the future of my territory. Asterion, q pasaa quishooo! ya me he metío en l embolao este... q vicio! jeje.

--Burgas00 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article will not be unprotected unless we will find a compromise statement to use in the introduction. I have been trying to negotiate a compromise, but this has been difficult because the two views are not easily brought together. Cpt. Morgan 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What about this? Kosovo is an autonomous province whithin the Republic of Serbia (formerly part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), temporarily under United Nations administration (per UN Security Council Resolution 1244) E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it sounds fine with me but I am sure that Ilir has objections (see his comments above). Since he got blocked for 24 hours and I want to give him also the opportunity to come up with a version, we will wait for some time to start the poll. In my opinion, the poll should not include too many (max 3) options for the intro. I suggest one written by you and/or Osli, one written by Ilir and I will prepare a compromise version. Is that allright with you?Cpt. Morgan 23:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK with me, of course. You would need to ask the rest of the people. Straw polls need to run for some days, anyway. So hopefully everyone would be able to contribute. I am sure some admin is keeping a close eye on sockpuppets too. Thanks for your help. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Burgas00, why did you make that personal attack on me on my user page? I found it rather funny:)))C-c-c-c 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just one thing, I've left Wikipedia, but found interesting quotes: "With Montenegro's independence vote, Serbia inherits the union's legal claim to Kosovo." [50] and "Today, Kosovo is de facto an international protectorate but legally is part of Serbia" [51]. You should put this in the article. bye. -- serbiana - talk 23:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL... This dispute is really funny... People try to convince Albanian from Kosovo that Kosovo is part of Serbia, and they don't want to beleive in it, and deny the true [b]facts[/b]. :D I can't beleive. How I say sometimes: Fool is the one who doesn't know that he doesn't know. --Mephistophilus 15:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I disagree with the versions above. I still insist that they violate the definitions by the 2 main documents/laws ruling Kosovo from 1999: 1244 UNSCR and Kosovo's Constitutional framework. None of those articles mentions Serbia, in NO part of it. What is a fact or what is not, that is not the point here. If we followed a fact, de-facto Kosovo is independent, but we are talking de-jure here. And de-jure (read: according to law, read:highest law in Kosovo is UNSCR 1244 and its Constitional Framework):

• Kosovo is a territory under UN administration, and according to 1244 UNSCR it is de-jure a part of FRY, but de-facto is administered independently from the former.

Refer to the main laws in rule in Kosovo, and none of you will have a reason to ironize me, or call my edits as funny. I am not imposing my POV here, as mine is very different from the 1244 Resolution, which I do not like at all. ilir_pz 18:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As you may already know, Ilir, Res 1244 does not deny the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (aka Serbia and Montenegro), which in turn recognises Kosovo and Metohija as a province of Serbia, as every other country in the world does (with the possible exception of Albania, if they finally make up their mind). At the time, Serbia was a state, part of a federation, hence any foreign agreements were negotiated by the Federal government (as Serbia had no international representation indeed). Also Serbia is now the legal sucessor of the FRY/S&M. Therefore, please stop playing word games regarding "not mentioning Serbia". E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

UN Resolution 1244 does not say that Kosovo is a province of Serbia. It says that it is a province of the FRY. The resolution was not changed when the FRY transformed into Serbia and Montenegro, a looser political union of two republics. The Constitution of Serbia and Montenegro does, however, define Kosovo as a province of the Republic of Serbia. But the situation is unclear and no-one - whatever their opinion - can state what the legal status is until a new UN resolution is passed. The intro should quote both the relevant texts of UN Resolution 1244 and the S&M Constitution and leave it at that.--الأهواز 22:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

S&M constitution has no value in Kosovo, Ahwaz, that is clearly stated in the Resolution 1244. UNMIK is the institution that makes laws, according to UNSCR, and laws approved by the Parliament of Kosovo. ilir_pz 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz, the UN accepted Serbia and Montenegro as the sucessor state for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in the same way that Serbia is seen as the sucessor state for S&M. You have your opinion and you are entitled to it. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not needed here. Instead just refer to the resolution as it is. If it is changed, there would be a briefing on that from UN. When that happens I accept it as well. Until then, I do not have to agree to your logic. Regards, ilir_pz 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This dispute is not about opinions, as if we are talking if we like onions or not, and trying to find the reason behind people not liking it. (I do not like onions for example, and I have my reasons :)). In this case we are dealing with a definition, which MUST be based on some law, not on some personal opinion, of some kind of flow-of-responsibilities-from-a-state-to-a-state type of opinion. Every change in a law, in this case Resolution 1244, should be adopted accordingly, i.e. only when UN Security Council decides so, not because some user in Wikipedia thinks that is fair or not. Regards, ilir_pz 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are no one to decide who's opinion is or is not needed. Be a litte bit more pleasant Ilir.:))) C-c-c-c 00:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Look who's talking about being pleasant :))) ilir_pz 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I must agree again with facts brought from Ilir_pz here and under the discussion point: Political status of Kosovo.

As the UN Resolution 1244 was made there was no Serbia but FRY they were talking about. FRY doesn’t exist anymore. Serbia is not the following state of FRY. Serbia is just one of the states, which were in FRY. Where are the official documents that claim that Serbia is the follow-up of FRY?!

The fact is today that Kosovo is under the UN control and has its own political and economical institutions and Serbia has in reality no say there anymore. --Mig11 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone who reads the actual law, and considers it the correct source of defining the intro. ilir_pz 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilir and Mig11 interpret UNSCR 1244 as saying that Kosovo is a province in FRY and since FRY no longer exists it is no longer the province of anything. And definately not Serbia, which isn't mentioned in UNSCR 1244. This is their interpretation.

However, everyone else, including the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, CIA Factobbook, the UN, the EU Commission, US COngressional Research Service, the US Council on Foreign Relations and Wikipedia itself, define Kosovo as, technically/legally, a province of Serbia based on USCR 1244.

Osli73 12:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the interesting thing is that data from Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, CIA Factobbook, etc, etc, was in fact written before Serbia became independent. We should see some source which define Kosovo status after June 5, 2006. :) Also, the status of Gaza Strip could be interesting for our discussion and perhaps could be compared with that of Kosovo. PANONIAN (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo's status changed no more when "Serbia" replaced "Serbia and Montenegro" than it did when "Serbia and Montenegro" replaced "FR Yugoslavia" in 2003. As far as international law is concerned, they were both successions of states. I honestly don't see how this is an issue in some people's minds... can they point to one credible news source that says the events of June 5 have had a direct impact on Kosovo's status vis-a-vis 1244? The only place in the world I've seen this treated like a newly-created situation is here at Wikipedia. The Tom 02:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the question is not that simple. See this link as example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3190320.stm Quote: "Is Kosovo part of Serbia? It certainly was before the conflict, and in the run-up to these talks, the Serbian parliament reaffirmed Serbia's sovereignty over the province. However, UN Resolution 1244 envisages a self-governing Kosovo within the framework of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia itself has since gone out of existence, and the loose union of Serbia and Montenegro which took its place may itself split in two eventually." So, the question is not only at Wikipedia. :) PANONIAN (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's at least something vaguely along those lines ;) Not to knock the BBC research department, but I think the various legal paraphernalia stories that have circulated in the press since that Q&A was written has made it clear amongst most journalists that this "status black hole" vaguely hypothesized there hasn't come to pass, and they seem to have been made aware that the S&M Constitution was specifically written to ensure that it couldn't.

We have to keep in mind a lot changed from the early 90s. The SFRY vanished completely in legal terms, with a general free-for-all for sovereignty and no official successor state. Under circumstances like that, claims of Kosovo not falling under the de jure sovereignty of Belgrade and being in a weird stateless limbo would have held water. However, in what I guess was unfortunate for the Kosovars, the international community ultimately recognized the FRY (as a brand new state, which had to reapply to the UN) and recognized FRY sovereignty over the entire area that had been considered part of Montenegro and Serbia pre-1990, which, fairly or unfairly (and I bet there're plenty in suits in Brussels, London and Washington who are wishing now they hadn't), was taken to include Kosovo. That sovereignty was what 1244 spoke to, and that sovereignty was transferred to Serbia and Montenegro and transferred again to Serbia--these being controlled, legal successions of states spelled out in domestic and international law, unlike the general anarchy of the early 90s.

I believe Kosovo will be independent, as do most commentators who know a lot more than me. If Belgrade can't be somehow pawned off with some sort of deal-sweetener that induces it to openly draft rules that allow for Kosovo separatism, though, and has to give up Kosovo kicking and screaming, I think it will mark a very interesting new precedent where the territorial integrity of a state was coercively altered by the international community (albeit for some pretty good reasons). That's what Putin's been talking about so much lately, vis a vis little places like Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh. And that's why this legal question of how Kosovo's status is represented in the article isn't just about chest-thumping nationalist pride, but has important implications for Wikipedia's whole coverage of international law. Kosovo's the potential test case precisely because by the letter of the law Belgrade is entitled to it, as unjust as that might seem to many of us. The whole reason eyes will be watching these talks as they continue is precisely because, unlike the Montenegro situation, the Kosovo situation could have some aftershocks.

Here's my proposed wording for the offending lead, for what it's worth:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but placed under United Nations administration; in practice the province is run independently of Belgrade by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been succeeded by an independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Thoughts? The Tom 04:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it contains all the elements that we have been discussing on during the last few days, the only parts that people might object to (from what I have seen here) are the statements that Kosovo is autonomous, which is an arguable fact since it currently is under UN administration, and that the introduction places most emphasis on the FRY, which does not exist anymore, than on the current status, Kosovo being (arguably) located in Serbia. But we will have hear the comments from more people to see how they feel about this version. Cpt. Morgan 05:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Thom, first of all, thank you for trying to help resolve the text to be used in the introduction of the article. I'm

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a province in southern Serbia. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (since then succeeded by Serbia) but placed under United Nations administration; in practice the province is run independently of Belgrade by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

How about this? Osli73 10:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't help mentioning Serbia at least twice in every paragraph, can you, Osli73? Of course your version is unnacceptable, as it is based in no fact (did I say no? Sorry, Serbian government "facts"). ilir_pz 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Tom, thanks for taking the time to explain yourself, and your opinion on the matter. I agree partly with your first paragraph, but I am not sure about the second. As I said, I need credible sources to believe that the successor states are just implied like that in the existing law. My opinion is, that the law should be update accordingly, so that one can mention that "the successor state is this and that". I thought laws are more accurate than this, and do not leave space for speculations of the sorts as mentioned above. (sorry for blindly calling it speculation, as I do not see a source). And yes, the term "autonomous" is irrelevant in this case. (For reasons that only UN knows) 1244 Resolution only confirms some kind of integrity to FRY, and does not say that Kosovo is an autonomous province of Serbia. As far as the precedent is concerned, I must refresh your memory/knowledge in matters related to the dissolvement of FRY: Kosovo was a federal unit, without the consent of which no federal-level law could be passed, or no decision could be made. Hence, as much as the other units of the Federation violated that "integrity" that much Kosovo did. Moreover, Kosovo has a much more valid pretext to "violate" that precedent, for reasons that you know very well. Putin's delegation in the Contact Group in January 2006 agreed that "Ministers look to Belgrade to bear in mind that the settlement needs, inter alia, to be acceptable to the people of Kosovo. so I do not think he opposes that statement just now. I will try to give out a formulation of "my" version soon. I say "my" because it is not mine, it is as defined by the current documents. My version is yet to come, for 2006-2007 New Year's celebration. :) Thanks again, ilir_pz 12:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can do to convince you that in these situations, the law doesn't need to be amended, short of copying sections of my old international law textbook out. the UN Charter, Article 23, surely, illustrates the fact that a piece of active, binding international law can have an impact on a differently-named country than the one in the text. If amendments were needed in situations like that, Iran could simply pass an internal constitutional amendment saying its name is "Irann" now and it can't be held party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because that refers to somewhere called "Iran." The Tom 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

State Union

This page need to be updated as a result of the dissolution of the union between Serbia and Montenegro.

Stefan2 06:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Stefan2, it does. If you read the discussions above, you will see a long ongoing discussion on the topic however. Perhaps you can give your opinion on that? Cpt. Morgan 08:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add that Serbia *is* the legal successor of the FRY. —Nightstallion (?) 18:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That is obvious, as Montenegro seceded from the union. This has actually been acknowledged too by Montenegro itself. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro has not yet seceded from the union. There was a referendum, but this is not the end of the matter. The union is not yet formally dissolved by the federal authorities, Montenegro is not recognised as independent by the UN or other nation states and does not yet have a constitution. There is little doubt that it will get independence soon, but the issue is too complex to state Kosovo's status following Montenegro's independence vote.--الأهواز 01:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ahwaz, according to Wikipedia Main Page, Montenegro has already declared independence and there has also been a separate declaration saying that Serbia is the legal and political successor of Serbia and Montenegro. I agree it is still too soon but I think everyone knows who is the user who started all this before the vote was not even over at the time. We can carry on discussing this matter tomorrow. I have to work in a few hours. Best regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 01:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Geez Asterion, just go to bed already, I think even Ilir's left. :) Regards, C-c-c-c 01:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

These quarrels are becoming very annoying/boring. You keep arguing over irrelevant things, instead of facing the reality. This is an encyclopedia - and it should be modallled in the form of other encyclopediae. Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia - as presented everywhere in the world (the 1244 is actually, far more irrelevant). Since this is not something of a political-push agenda, it should be presentend that way, until it's no longer that way. Premier Agin Ceku simply cannot demand independence and at the same time claim that Kosovo is independent from Serbia (ping!: self-contradictory). --HolyRomanEmperor 00:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

quoting you, HRE, "1244 is actually, far more irrelevant" . Are you talking about the Resolution 1244, the UN Security Council resolution which is the law with the highest value in Kosovo? No further comment. ilir_pz 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time you said "no further comment", but kept on going....I'd well....be able buy back Kosovo and make all the inhabitants billionaires:))). C-c-c-c 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No further comment, ilir_pz 00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cha-Ching:))C-c-c-c 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes c-c-c-c I did make that personal attack on your user page. I appreciate you realise it was a joke. I think you overreacted by getting me blocked though:-)--Burgas00 08:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, even though I found it funny, it would have been rather offensive to someone else. But anyways, mix ups are mix ups, and the past is the past. Forgive and forget:))

P.S. You should be happy it was only a day, I got a week for calling an admin a racist lol. C-c-c-c 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow... I am so unawared. I had to come to wikipedia to notice that Kosovo is independent country. ;))) People, relax... Dogs are blind for colours, and there doesn't exist any method for teaching them to see. If they think that they will live better in independent Kosova, let them think that they live in independent Kosova, maybe all problems will dissapear if they think that? :D I think dogs would be sad if they would found out that colours exist:) Don't make little dogs sad lol --Mephistophilus 14:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure none is interested in your dog-stories, and speculations, Mephistophilus. Thanks for dropping a line. ilir_pz 14:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Don t wory be happy. Serbia is going to be independent, but first Kosovo must be regotnazied, after thate Vojvodina and Sandjak and then the word is going to know what is this serbs nationalistic creature "Serbia".

You see, ilir, I don't think much users are interested in your continued speaking about independent Kosovo, and all other types of spam on this dispute. I just don't understand people who give you attention and after 3 archived pages they still try to explain you some things that you can't, and will never understand. Just after reading your user page, I understood all that I had to understand about you (talking as pacifist, so you (I HOPE) understand why). I think your presence on this article and talk page will not improve the article or help other users to improve it.

To the "gentleman" above me: I can't say I'm happy but for certain that's not because of wikipedia and wikipedians. :D What are you prophet? Could you tell me how to get some money? :). Serbia is "nationalistic crature" but Serbia gained independence last? I'm sure our liders have some secret plan about Great Serbia now. But I don't care... If propeth says that Vojvodina will be independent, I will be Vojvodian(?), and I don't care about anything els. :D

I hava a suggestion. Create future wikipedia and create articles there. Maybe prophetic work give better results ;) --Mephistophilus 17:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

None is talking about the independence of Kosovo here. Read above and then comment. Thanks in advance, ilir_pz 23:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know to read lol... It seems that your purpose on this wikipedia is to deny things. As I said before, you can't teach blind to see so farewell. --Mephistophilus 12:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Have a nice one. ilir_pz 12:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure... ;) --Mephistophilus 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo and Gaza Strip

Perhaps we can compare current status of Kosovo with that of Gaza Strip. We should also see some relevant source which speak about Kosovo status after June 5 (not before it). The fact that Serbian government declared that Serbia is a successor of Serbia-Montenegro does not mean that international community will recognize it as such in all questions, including the question about de jure authority over Kosovo. PANONIAN (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that is what I have been saying, Panonian. But I've been accused for spreading propaganda, and strong-headedness instead. ilir_pz 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a UN press release from June 5 calling Kosovo a "Serbian province" [52]. Obviously from the keyboard of one of their staffers and not someone at the ICJ, but I think it makes it pretty clear nobody at the UN is suddenly losing sleep because Kosovo's status is somehow changed.

Gaza, incidentally, is a totally different kettle of fish. As far as the general body of states are concerned (not everyone sees it this way, mind you), its official legal status is undecolonized territory not legally assigned to any state, dating back to the end of the British mandate in Palestine. Some UN resolutions in support of the peace process there have made it clear its reserved for a potential Palestinian state, to the best of my knowledge. Anyway, the last thing we need is to open things up to differing interpretations of the Israeli/Palestinian situation. The Tom 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that "keyboard mistake" mean that the resolution has changed since June 5th? ilir_pz 21:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo final status

You all must see this:

• http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr91.html

If you think that we have problems with Kosovo status now, you should wait final solution which could be so complicated that our discussion here will never end. :)) For example, one of the proposed solutions is that Kosovo is in same time sovereign country itself and also under Serbian sovereignty. :)))) LOL I am sorry, but I really found this very funny. PANONIAN (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

hehe, wasn't that suggestion the current one from the Serbian government? or the Draskovic's rhetoric? :)))) There are many funny suggestions I hear these days, indeed. ilir_pz 11:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is "my" preliminary version, which complies with all 3 points that User:Reinoutr asked me to comply with, before putting proposals for voting: 1) It does state that Kosovo is administered by the UN, 2) it does state Kosovo is part of a larger union/country (FRY) as defined by 1244 Resolution and 3) it should state that Kosovo will most likely become indepedent in the near future, as indicated by Contact Group statements:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is placed under United Nations administration, though de-jure it is still defined as a part of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but runs independently of the latter. De-facto the province is run by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), based on the Constitutional Framework[53] of Kosovo. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The negotiations are mediated by the international community, and enforced by the Contact Group [54]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006, and indications from the Contact Group show that "the settlement will have to be acceptable to the people of Kosovo"[55] the majority of which seek recognition of full independence for the province.

The article should comply with the 1244 UNSCR as it is. Whoever cares (and I do not really) to know what happened with pieces of the former FRY, let them follow the link. It is unacceptable to imply definitions based on some personal opinion, which undermines the law with the highest importance in Kosovo. Furthermore, citing constitution(s) of Serbia (and Montenegro, when there was such a country) is irrelevant, as since 1999 the latter has absolutely no say in Kosovo, but it is the UNMIK together with the Kosovo institutions that does. Anyways this formulation is of temporary in nature, as once the status is defined this all needs to be changed. But this one is good enough until then. Feedback (with no provocations) is appreciated,ilir_pz 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sold on your suggestion for a couple of reasons, but I think we're getting closer. Without getting into that, though, I have a question for you to try and figure out what the deviation is--do you believe that for the years between 1244's passage and the dissolution of FRY that the Constitution of the FRY had some degree of de jure legitimacy with respect to Kosovo, as reserved by 1244, despite the fact that on the ground most people would agree the various instruments of UNMIK law served as the starting point? The Tom 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather hear you tell me where you disagree with my proposal. I do not think FRY or whatever its successor's names are, had any de-jure legitimacy. That is clearly stated in the 1244. The laws and decisions are made in Kosovo, by Kosovo's institutions and UNMIK and are confirmed by the UN Security council. Hope I understood your question. Pardon my lack of knowledge of English as a native-speaker. ilir_pz 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, I think User:Asterion has put forward our proposal ahead of the vote. Are you ready with yours? It would be nice to get the vote/poll done with. Regards,Osli73 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Why not say "Kosovo is unrecognized as an entity seperate from Serbia". This is entirely correct - and will satisfy all those who complain about the POVness of this article (which tends to alienize from Serbia). --HolyRomanEmperor 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the way you put it is not very respectful of other peoples' opinions (you seem to assume that while we have been discussing for days about what is the current status of Kosovo, you know exactly what is entirely correct and that it will satisfy all), I disagree with you. The sentence you propose is ambigious. It can mean that Kosovo is an entity separate from Serbia, but is not recognized (by whom, btw) as such, or it can mean that some people feel Kosovo is an entity separate from Serbia, but it isn't because it is not recognized as such. Articles in Wikipedia should be unambigious, but can reflect different opinions. This should be very clear however, and not muffled in a sentence that can be explained in two different ways. Cpt. Morgan 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see what on HRE's comments may be taken as offensive. Remember to assume good faith. I think that everyone with an interest on this subject should be allowed to express their opinion. Either by making comments on previous proposals or by suggesting a completely different one. Ideally we should stick to a small number of these (four maximum?) but I have no objections to HRE's explaining his views. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I suggest to create a subpage to keep the proposals separate fom the rest of the talk page discussions, in order to make the options clearer.E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let's make a separate subpage for the vote. By the way, who will be organizing it? When will it take place? Does everyone have their version ready yet?Osli73 22:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with organizing a vote. This is not a case of seeing which of two competing visions of what Kosovo is can merit the most support. It's about drafting a correct vision of what Kosovo is. And I think that with the exception of a few radical nationalists on each side (by whom, I should clarify, I don't mean the people who've decided to discuss this rationally in the above section, but rather the single-issue and anon. crowd that seem to think that editing an online encyclopedia is a way of advancing their cause), it is possible for a mutually-acceptable version to be written that matches with what reality is. I think the best step to pursue at this stage is to try to narrow down what aspects of our conception of Kosovo are uncontested, and which one's are.

On reviewing what I proposed above, I think we're all guilty of losing sight of something key to encapsulating what Kosovo is. In the name of trying to avoid saying outright whether Kosovo is legally Serbian, we're dancing around the elephant in the room: the most fundamental defining feature of Kosovo is the very fact that its identity is contested. (Most) Serbians think it's Serbian. (Most) Kosovars think it's not Serbian. Most neutral parties agree that this contestation of identity exists, that the current political ambiguity of governance for the place relects this, and the final status of the region is neccessarily going to involve resolving the above question. The pages and pages of above debate spring from this fact, and we don't even acknowledge that straight up in the lead paragraphs.

1244 and the FRY and the succession of state are important, but in my mind focusing purely on the legal aspects of Kosovo's status is a cowardly way of avoiding the underlying debate. In my opinion, an NPOV should make clear that there's no right answer as to what Kosovo's identity is, only state the fact that many Serbs consider it a culturally integral part of their nation, and 90%+ of Kosovo's inhabitants strongly disagree with that belief. Only then should we move on the legal question, where I'm of the opinion that there is a single NPOV "truth" as to Kosovo's status:

1. 1244 says it's part of FRY but not to be administered by the FRY, with those responsibilities instead being carried out through the UN protectorate framework
2. under international law the Rep. of Serbia inherits the FRY's claim
3. Belgrade exercises no de facto control over Kosovo today, and hasn't at any point since 1244 was passed
4. Negotiations are ongoing between Belgrade, the UN, and Kosovars to change Kosovo's status to something that is permanent.

The mistake seems to have been getting hung up on #2 because the FRY's successor state is called "Serbia" and this is problematic because of the fundamental issue about Kosovo's identity we've been dancing around. I would urge those editors who've had problems with this to bear in mind that they're completely separate issues. Saying a state named "Serbia" inherits FRY's claim is not the same as saying "The Serb nation has the right to rule Kosovo because its an intrinsically Serbian place." For the sake of argument, let's say that instead of just having a referendum in Montenegro, there was a referendum in, oh, let's say Bulgaria, to join the State Union, and as result "Serbia and Montenegro" was replaced by "Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro." If that were the case, I can't imagine there'd be the same hostility to saying "Kosovo was technically said to be part of FRY per 1244, and today that means its technically part of the State Union of Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro, but in any case its still administered by the UN" Is this making sense? The Tom 22:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point but it seems this is the only way for some people to accept they are wrong and move on. I have no particular objections to your version. It is in fact very neutral and encyclopaedic, as for the one I helped to draft. I object to the obscuration or removal of facts (i.e. Kosovo as a province of Serbia) and the inclusion of highly biased comments on the future of the province, deeming it as "formal recognition of independence". In fact, this whole issue is leaking to other articles with some users unilaterally removing any reference to Serbia (eg. Pristina article). The point is Wikipedia is not a soapbox. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I'm new to this discussion. I'm mostly interested in the Kosovo war. However, I though the outcome of that war was that Kosovo remained a part of Serbia (at the time FRY) in principle but that it was to be governed by the UN until a final solution could be decided on. So, technically, Kosovo is a province of Serbia but is in effect governed by the UN. A bit like northern Cyprus, which is technically a part of Cyprus, but is in effect governed independently of it (or at least was).

If some people don't agree with this, isn't it best to have a vote on this and get it over with?KarlXII 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Nagorno-Karabach page has a solved a similar problem in an interesting way:

"Nagorno-Karabakh is a territory of Azerbaijan that has declared itself independent as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR). It is in the South Caucasus, about 270 kilometres (about 170 mi.) west of the Azerbaijani capital Baku. The predominantly Armenian region has been a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan since the final years of the Soviet Union. Karabakh is currently under Armenian military control, as a result of the subsequent war the took place between both countries in the aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR. The local Armenian population declared independence from Azerbaijan December 10, 1991. The NKR's sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, where, among other issues, the future status of the region is being discussed. "

Here, they are clear that it is part of Azerbaijan, but that it is de-facto controlled by Aremenians, although this is not recognized by any foreign govt. Perhaps we could agree on this exact wording for the Kosovo article?KarlXII 23:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Nagorno-Karabakh???? What is thate. Are ther NATO trups as garant?. Is any UN resulution thate declaret this area under UN protection??? Has NATO bombt Aserbaijan??? You are traing to invol Rusia too??? Oh man Kosovo is Protectet from powerfull NATO army and paowerfull UN. You dont have souch case in World, is only one Kosovo. In Nagorno-Karabakh are there NATo basis???

Dear Tom, I too think it would be better to simply agree on a wording that identifies Kosovo as legally part of Serbia but in principle run by the UN (ie a protectorate). As has been shown countless times on this talk page, this is the view held by western media and governments as well as by international organizations. The problem is that one or two Kosovar Albanians (who thus have a very partisan view of the whole issue) don't accept this but propose their own interpretation of UNSCR 1244 (an interpretation not shared by the rest of the world) whereby Kosovo has nothing to do with Serbia.

I've proposed simply stating that Kosovo is in Serbia (rather than a province of Serbia), hoping this could be a compromise acceptable to both sides (implying geographic location rather than sovereignty, but still not excluding it). However, this compromise has been turned down by the Kosovar Albanian editors. They refuse to accept any text version which makes any mention of Kosovo still, technically, being a province in/of Serbia.

Thus, sadly, a vote seems to be the only way out. I don't like it but that's where we are now. So, lets get going with the vote! Osli73 10:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosov is a province of Serbia = Kosovo is in Serbia, Osli, no need to use weasel words. And using Nagorni-Karabah as a comparison here is more than wrong. Kosovo existed in the Federation, as a constitutive unit, and is not a result of some war. This is the most important difference ilir_pz 11:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ilir, Kosovo existed in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) - as a province of Serbia!!!! That is my point. In FRY (and also before) Kosovo was a province (sometimes autonomous, but always a province) of Serbia. So, when the UNSC confirmed the territorial integrity of FRY, they confirmed it as a province of Serbia.

I'm not trying to be a weasel, just trying to find a solution that might be acceptable to all while still being correct and not misleading.Osli73 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Arguements, arguements, arguements

It's funny to me how you argue for days - but over funny things. It's like this: Serbia is the successor state of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro - which is in turn, the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. According to the 1244 Resolution - Kosovo is a temporarely UN-administered province of that Country.

The other alternative to see things is not counting Serbia as the legal sovereign successor for Kosovo - then, the entire 1244 is rendered invalid, and the negotiations will have to be brought once more. This alltogether shifts back (before 1999) to the Constitution of Serbia and the unconstitutional ("illegal") declaration of Kosovo's independence in 1991/1992. Yet again - a province of Serbia.

In this arguement, I think the sole purpose is to exclude the mention of Serbia in the context. As Kosovo might become independent (I'm kindah - not entirely - supporting this), then we'll put it. So, the claim of putting Kosovo as independent doesn't seem to Ilir pz as predicting (which he said that he's opposed), but mentioning that it's a southern province of Serbia is? Also, I think that a frequent thing is happenning in here - the side that fanaticly believes that is right - doesn't see that it's own claims are, essentially, POV themselves. All the best. Sorry for these harsh words, but your empty (read: empty) arguements are really, really... --HolyRomanEmperor 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not personal issue in this, I'm neither Serb, Albanian, have any heritage or family connection with any of these or live (or have lived) in any of these places. I'm just concerned with Wikipedia not becoming a tool for various national groups pushing their POV, however subtly. If all other sources (Britannica, BBC, etc, etc) say that Kosovo is, technically, a province of Serbia, it would be detrimental to Wikipedia to say something else.

So, I suggest just having the vote to get the whole issue over with.Osli73 15:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither have I. On the other hand, I agree. Let's get on with the vote. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All this oppose, neutral or support ...

This is something like when you, one group of people with many masks, want to decide to kill somebody. And you cannot kill him but you make a vote in which way to do that. People I think it is time to open your eyes and dont play with the fish in your kitchen. This Fish called Kosovo and it is swimming free despite all your oppose, neutral or support...

Kosovo is a non-status area in the Balkans, like Western Sahara, because the war betwen Serbia and the Kosovars. Now Kosovo is protected by UN administration (de juro) and NATO (de facto) forces according to Resolution 1244.

In 1992 Belgrade parliament declared Kosovo a Province and the Prishtina parliament as Republic of Kosovo. Kosovo's autonomy was protected by the "veto right" of Prishtina parliament in the Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was then destroyed in that same year.

Now the kosovars want to use their veto right which is now protected by the UN and want to use their autonomy to be an independent state. The Serbian goverment is trying to stop this process but the PISG are more or less independent from UN administration.

Each Province has "veto right". The communist era term "Province" has nothing to do with the actual term "Province" in English language. This term is different from "province" in the sense that it meant Autonomous Province with veto right in SFR Yugoslavia. The second part of the definition, "Autonomous", is saying it is autonomous but not in every area (local self goverment, and cultural matters). Regarding "veto right" then you have to do with something else. This was only valid during SFRJ. And now the UN has taken the role of the SFRY to guarantee it. It was never taken from Serbia. The kosovars did not take their "autonomy" and "veto right" status from Serbia but from the SFRY, because the central pover resided not with Serbia but with SFRY. Since this central power is dead, the UN is now playing its role.

This is a normal proces of the new States. I dont know any state that was born out of the sky. The UN is the Doctor and is watching a new baby.

Upss!!! The baby is now 7 year old and is not allowed to walk alone, and do not need any more help from UN, only the security from NATO. His mother is dead (SFRY) and the cannibal Serbia want to eat it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) 03:10, June 11, 2006

NB: I have tried to translate this user's comment to my best knowledge. Please note this is certainly difficult (and at first I understood them as highly offensive). Basically this user believes that Kosovo has never been a province of Serbia, but of the SFRY, and therefore they obtained independence with the fall of Socialist Yugoslavia in 1992. This is indeed a very peculiar personal opinion, contrary to reality and international law, and should not be allowed to leak into the article namespace for obvious reasons (i.e. WP:SOAP). His original edit is still available here [56]. Regards, Asterion, 09:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha... This made my day. -- Krytan talk 04:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro changes proposal

These entries have been moved to Talk:Kosovo/Intro changes proposal for clarity purposes. Also to save load time (main talk page is well over the recommended size limit).E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional material

The followowing material was inappropriately part of the Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire article. It might fit better here but there is a block on edits so I will post it here until the block is lifted and it can be added if appropriate. AjaxSmack 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though the southern half of present-day Kosovo is part of the historical region of Macedonia, clearly marking it as one of the territories of a Greater Macedonia, attempts to create a Macedonian state had not yet reached the Slavs of Kosovo province before World War I. Only after the suppression of any Macedonian movement in the Yugoslav Kingdom before World War II was a Macedonian republic created which today gives Kosovo a diamond shape as Macedonia claims the mountainous regions of Tetovo and Skopje. The region within the Republic of Macedonia is no longer referred to as Kosovo in any way even though the ethnic Albanians did originally create the Kosovo Liberation Army in Yugoslav Macedonia at a time when their affiliates had autonomous rights in Serbia but not Macedonia. This shows that at least to the Albanians, Western Macedonia may still be considered as Kosovo.

Continue protection?

This page has been protected for three weeks, longer than general wikipedia standards. However, since discussion is progressing on the subpage, I will assume that the page can stay protected for a while longer. Calwatch 23:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)