Template:Calmtalk

Template:Article probation

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Kosovo Top‑importance Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Serbia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:V0.5

Template:Notaforum

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

Former article talkpages (archived) Talk:Kosovo/ Republic of Kosovo Kosovo (geopolitical region)

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I have a big problem with "Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo". This is inaccurate statement in addition to being a POV to give an impression that the Government of Kosovo does not have legitimacy. Not a single government questions the legitimacy of the Kosovo government. Some countries, such as Serbia, question the legitimacy of Independence but not the legitimacy of the government. Unless strong evidence is provided to back up this, I plan to remove it.Ferick —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure if Serbia recognizes the government of republic of Kosovo. It's a fair statement since a lot of countries recognize only the UN authority.Mike Babic (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really see the problem here. The majority of Kosovo is governed by the Republic of Kosovo. Said republic is partially recognized. The sentence conveys both pieces of information clearly and succinctly. Khajidha (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence to show that countries do not recognize the legitimacy of the Kosovo government? Again, its different from Independence. You can't really challenge the legitimacy of the government that was democratically elected. If they are legitimate for the majority they are legitimate for the minority as well, but that sentence suggests otherwise. Ferick (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interesting law question. if A doesn't recognize C, does it recognize B which declared to govern C. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferick, what is your point? There is no "pov" in pointing out that the territory is different from the institutions of government. This is completely distinct from the question of legitimacy of the institutions of government. Institutinos may or may not be legitimate, but a territory is just a territory. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the territory different from the institutions of the government? How is this even a relevant statement?

Simple put, this is the only "encyclopedia" which gets into these ridiculous debates. Simply put, it should not even be mentioned who controls the territory, as it is very obvious to normal people that the Kosovo government is in control of the territory. Even in the North the Kosovo police and EULEX have control over the borders, court houses etc.

But since the statement exists in the article, and some users feel the need to defend it, I would like to point out that the whole territory is controlled by the Kosovo govt. The UN mediates (latest UN meeting concluded that this is all the UN will do from now on), EULEX controls the court houses and borders in the North, and it reports directly to the Kosovo govt, who it is advising on these matters of rule of law.

In conclusion, the statement that "its majority is governed" is misleading. This needs to be changed, or removed. Good day, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

how many encyclopedias do you edit? Talkpages are editorial discussions, not articles. You have no idea of the "ridiculous debates" that take place within the editorial team of, say, Britannica, unless you are a member.

The point isn't moot. Governments come and go. For reasons of human territorial behavior, governments are usually tied to territory, although there are exceptions to this. The territory remains, the governing institutions change. Thus, "Italy" primarily refers to the Italian peninsula. Depending on historical context, this refers to the territory of the Italian Republic (since 1946), the Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946), a number of kingdoms before that, or yet another set of kingdoms even earlier.

This is a crucial distinction if you are at all looking at historical issues. It is irrelevant in the statement "I'm going on holiday in Italy" because the assumption is naturally that you go to current Italy, not to Late Medieval Italy. Any discussion of statehood, sovereignty and history must take into account the relation of government to governed territory.

Kosovo is de iure governed by the UN. It is de facto governed by the UNMIK and EULEX forces. Both UN and EULEX tolerate the government of the Republic of Kosovo to have a say, apparently in the expectation of a transition to a de facto sovereign government of the RoK over the next few years. I am not sure how you can claim that any government has de facto control over their territory if the country is actually run by international organisations. I fully expect the RoK to take over in the course of the next few years, and I personally don't mind if they do, but that's in the future. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you have no clue what you are talking about. Seriously. Very few people dispute the fact that Kosovo is de facto ruled by the government lead by Hashim Thaci. Only de jure par is disputed. Check your facts.24.185.39.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Dab, why do you always try to punch above your weight? Check out the EULEX website; "we are not there to govern or rule". Thus your statement about Kosovo being "de facto" governed by the EULEX is false. I'm surprised that as an administrator you can just say these things without checking sources.

You clearly do not follow current events, but if you did, then you would know that the UN has re-configured its mission in Kosovo to less than 500 personnel.

is this a "historical issue", its very much a present issue; i.e. presently "Kosovo" is governed de facto by the govt. of the "RoK", helped along by EULEX and mediating with Serbs in Kosovo through UNMIK.

Why do you always have to be right, can't you just take it that some people know more about a topic than you do.

Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the United States recognizes Kosovo as a sov. state, who else are we waiting for to approve the state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.159.182 (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispite what many Americans may believe; they are not the supreme, head, top, leader (which ever adjective you wish to use) country on this planet.--Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Kosovo has joined the IMF (and World Bank), do we have to change references to Kosovo being a region into Kosovo being a country? According to the Wiki on the IMF, "Any country may apply for membership to the IMF", the whole article refers to countries and states, and there is no mention of regions, let alone disputed ones, being allowed to enter. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think Kosovo ceases to be disputed territory because it joined the IMF? Well, after you convince the Serbs of this I am sure we'll be able to state the dispute has been resolved and that Serbs and Albanians are hugging in the streets of Pri$tina. Let us know once you've managed that. You'll probably also get the Nobel Peace Prize into the bargain. --dab (𒁳) 14:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, Serbs will never get convinced, even when Kosovo will be part of the UN, they will still say that it is part of Serbia, but anyway who cares. About the hugging part, is that what Croats did with Serbs in Zagreb, to become an independent state?--kedadi (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes. We all know it's a matter of UN recognition. We have been over this only ten dozen times. My reply above is really saying, you know this section is pointless, so why bring it up. Serbia cannot veto a UN resolution, but Russia can. So, as we all know, Kosovo will become "a country" without qualification as soon as the Russians decide they would like it to be one. Of course the Russians don't care two hoots about Kosovo, but they really like to be able to show the world that they are still calling the shots. --dab (𒁳) 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not suggesting that Kosovo is not a disputed entity any more, dab, maybe I should rephrase and expand my question. When will be the point where we stop pandering to the vociferous minority (and I'm talking about considering the public opinion of the whole of the world) that maintains that Kosovo is still part of Serbia by referring to it as a region? When the vast majority of world countries have recognised it as a country? When it joins the EU? When it officially becomes a member of the Eurozone? When?

Allow me to draw an analogy with the Holocaust (sorry but it's the first example I could think of). The wikipedia article does not say that it is a disputed, unlikely event, yet there are more people around the world (including some governments) that deny it ever happened than there are Serbs alive. These people do not get a say in the article, and, other than a mention of their existance, their view is ignored as the Holocaust's occural is irrefutable, just as it is irrefutable that international news agencies and newspaper articles refer to Kosovo as the country that has newly become a member of the IMF and World Bank. So, I'm not saying that it is now, but looking at recent developments one day we will have to say NO! Kosovo is indipendent and it is a country even if its status is disputed, just as happened to other new countries in the past. Just saying that we will quite likely have to consider this in the future, It's not a POV, I'm just pointing out that according to the overwhelming majority of sources on this new development, Kosovo is a country and is referred as such. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@dab and Brutaldeluxe, what do you think if we would model the article about Kosovo from Republic of China (which is also not a UN member and disputed by People's Republic of China)?--kedadi (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:dab, I must pick you up on something. Its very puzzling how the discussion evolved from when user:Brutaldeluxe quizzed about the reference to Kosovo as a country (linking it to the wiki IMF page), and you responded by initiating a new dialogue with regards to Kosovo's status dispute.

What is the criteria for being called a "country"? It has been discussed before but I find your argumentation very inconsistent. In this discussion, you referred to Kosovo as a "state", whilst over here, you argued for it to be referred to as a "region".

I would also like to remind users that Wikipedia is not affiliated with either the UN, nor the Serbian government; inasmuch as it is not affiliated with the Kosovo authorities, the USA or NATO.

Having said this, I certainly think there is merit for Kosovo to be referred to as a nation/state/country, even with its disputed status. The words "state" or "country" are more appropriate for the article and I don't feel the use of the word(s) would violate our NPOV policy --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kedadi, although not exactly what I meant, I think bringing the Kosovo article into line with that of the Republic of China would be an improvement.

I would like to bring to attention article one of the Montevideo Convention, the criteria of which are used by the European Union to determine statehood and I'd like individual users to answer if Kosovo's situation fulfills the following criteria. The full text can be found here: http://www.taiwandocuments.org/montevideo01.htm

Article 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

So, does Kosovo have:

• a permanent population?
• a defined territory?
• a government?
• capacity to enter into relations with other states?

Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question was, "Is Kosovo 'a country' for having now joined the IMF". The answer is, this doesn't change anything immediately, altough it may come to be seen as a first step towards full recognition in retrospect.

Kosovo doesn't 'have' a defined territory, it is that territory. This territory does have a permanent population, and it also has at least three governments, viz. the Republic of Kosovo, the Republic of Serbia and the UNMIK ad interim administration. This is the entire point of a "territorial dispute": one territory, several would-be governments. The state isn't the territory, ok? The state is the état, i.e. the status , the human construct of a "fixed establisment" by which this territory is being administrated.

People keep confusing "territory" and "state". This is an easy mistake to made, but it is becoming somewhat exasperating if people keep refusing to admit a differencce between the two even after they have been patiently reminded to do so, under WP:IDHT. This is the article about a territory, its history, and the various administrations relevant to it. It is still not the article about the Republic of Kosovo, an entity or state declared in 2008, named after and laying claim to this territory, just like the Republic of Serbia, an entity declared in 2006, and named for a larger territory taken comprise Kosovo, which is also laying claim to this same territory.

Can we please set aside these semantic games now? They have long ceased to hold any kind of interest. People have refused to create a Republic of Kosovo article dedicated to the entity declared in 2008, precisely in order to create the appearance that this entity is equivalent to the territory. Well, it isn't, even if we do keep the redirect, which is properly just a {{R to section}}. Redirection does not imply synonymity. It's ok, Republic of Serbia also redirets to Serbia even though Serbia has a scope greater than the period 2006 to present, and nobody would claim that "Republic of Serbia" is synonymous to "Serbia" as the article clearly establishes that the territory known as "Serbia" has existed before 2006.

--dab (𒁳) 06:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo does not have a permanent population? I wasn't aware it is a Serbian scientific base that studies penguins. Ok, so if I'm quoting from a source that calls Kosovo a country what am I to do? Change it to territory or region? Is that allowed? If the IMF lists Kosovo in its member states list am I to deny that and say: no, it's not a list of states it's a list of regions. Are we here to doctor sources so they please the rules of Wikipedia? Brutaldeluxe (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a lot like a forum discussion to me, please note WP:NOTAFORUM. I just want to say that I don't believe Somalia to be a real-and-full country, even though it has its own language, territory (which is disputed), culture, government (poor attempt at a government) and membership in International Organisations. Kosovo has more characteristics of been a country than Somalia in my opinion. But who am I to so say if Kosovo or Somalia is a country or not even though I do personally support Kosovo's independence. It's our job as editors to state the facts, which is that Kosovo is a disputed territory with several countries and Organisations recognising it's independence, whilst other countries and organisations don't; we should reflect this in the article and at all times try our hardest to maintain a neutral point of view. Ijanderson (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• a permanent population? Yes, however many are displaced
• a defined territory? no, the north is disputed, also parts east of Kosovo in Serbia-Proper want to be in Kosovo
• a government? about 5 Govts (Rep of Kosovo, Rep of Serbia, UNMIK, EULEX and North Kosovo Serb Parliament)
• capacity to enter into relations with other states? Yes but only with those which recognise it.

That is how I would personally answer them questions Ijanderson (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting points being addressed, here is my two cents on the issue as regards the "criteria" put forward;

Defined territory? -- Yes, as guaranteed by the UN, Kosovo authorities and Serbia (who is always banging on about international law and res.1244) the region in S.E Serbia has no relevance to this debate as that relates to broader discussions which encompasses all the Balkan states.

Government? -- Yes, the Kosovo authorities led by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, aided by EULEX and mediates with the Serbs with the help of UNMIK. The Rep of Serbia has a role in events in N.Kosovo, undoubtedly, but this is denied in public and therefore should have no bearing in this discussion.Kosovo Many elections have taken place in Kosovo, with over 90% of the population voting for a government to rule - are we supposed to neglect this point? The Kosovo govt has full responsibility as regards all aspects of Kosovo's existence, from the the economy to the military to education.

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

• • Agree***Kosovo is a country. Majority of English-native speakers recognize Kosovo as a country. We cannot compromise this fact because some non-English natives dispute it. If Serbia and Russia and my lovely country Spain do not recognize Kosovo, that's fine. We can keep that as disputed in their respective languages. We can't deny the fact that as far English Language goes, Kosovo is a country, sovereign and independent. Spanishboy (talk)13:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

There is the saying about, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck." Kosovo is a country. It functions as one, has recognition - limited though it maybe - and has joined two UN agencies, which is something we can't say for Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus et al. Pretending that Kosovo is in some diplomatic twilight zone only serves to further the interests of those who would like to stick their fingers in their ears and 'lalalala' away anything that doesn't fit the Serb point of view. In essence, whether you intend to or not, many of you are implicitly backing and supporting the maintenance of Serbia's point of view being the official point of view on Wikipedia by refusing to allow Kosovo to be presented as a country, which is what it is de facto and de jure. Serbia does not exercise sovereignty over Kosovo and visits by Serbian officials are routinely refused and they are turned away at the Kosovar border. Further, this is the English Wikipedia and the major English-speaking countries have recognized Kosovo. We've had enough of this semantic hairsplitting nonsense; it's played itself out. Grow up and get with reality. Those of you who insist its status is still disputed should save these arguments for the Kosovar customs authorities when they refuse you entry and deport you as you loudly explain to them that their jobs are fantasies and that Kosovo is a Serbian province - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Canadian Bobby, I was going to use the walks like a duck, quacks like a duck analogy but didn't for fear of being ridiculed by the usual suspect. As of this week, all news items on Kosovo in English refer to it as a country, a fledgeling country, or as a republic, and, although some of them mention that its indipendence is disputed there is no mention of it being a region or a territory, therefore it seems rational to assume the position of the English speaking world and reflect this in en.wikipidia, furthermore, the majority of countries that do not recognise Kosovo's indipendence are doing so in view of their own internal conflicts, trying not to set a precedent that could affect their own territorial disputes, see Spain and Russia, to give two quick examples.

OK, going back to the question Is Kosovo now a country?, so far we have a definite NO from dab, a not so definite NO from Ijanderson, what I assume to be a YES from Interestedinfairness and Kedadi, and a definite YES from Canadian Bobby and Spanishboy, so if a consensus hasn't been reached, at least the majority of users who have pronounced themselves so far agree that Kosovo is a country. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic Lists Kosovo as a country

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/places/countries/country_kosovo.html

Biggest Daily Newspaper that supports our Spaniard Socialists El Pais lists Kosovo as a country - Republic of Kosovo in the list of the countries. Also, Serbia is listed w/o Kosovo. http://www.elpais.com/buscar/kosovo

Time to move on with this Wikipedia pro-serb stance. I am a Spaniard and I may have my somewhat support and doubts regarding Kosovo's independence, but I cannot deny the fact that Kosovo is an independent and sovereign state in Europe, considered by majority English-speaking states, including our daily newspapers in Spanish. If countries like Spain, Russia or Serbia want to keep Kosovo as a disputed territory in their respective languages - I am okay with that. But these countries to not have English as their de facto official language. I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE CHANGE. KOSOVO IS A COUNTRY! Spanishboy (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2009(UTC)

I have continued this discussion here. Bear in mind that this is not English Wikipedia, but an international Wikipedia in the English language, thus it's supposed to represent an international, neutral point of view, and not that of English-speaking governments. Daily newspapers don't recognize sovereignty, and the UN still considers Kosovo a province within FR Yugoslavia (to which Serbia is the recognized successor). This is not something to be ignored and this Wikipedia can not be biased towards one side. --Cinéma C 03:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't saw the discussion is here, so I copy and paste my question: How comes I cannot find any encyclopedia denying that Kosovo is a country but English wikipedia (together with Serbian wikipedia) does? An administrator managed that under his protection many Serbian pov pushers made this article unique compared not only to all other wikipedias (except the Serbian one) but also unique compared to all other encyclopedias and I think it is time to bring English wikipedia into line with the rest of the encyclopedic world when it comes to Kosovo: http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=kosovo --Tibetian (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo listed as fulfilling the criteria of the Montevideo convention at List of sovereign states.

New lead paragraph. Removed Serbian source for name of Kosovo in Serbian and also removed the same spelling of Kosovo in Serbian further down in the first paragraph in order to avoid repetition. Generally paragraph more coherent and readable. I included the Western World's recognition -- as this is the Western, English speaking encyclopedia; although Serbia's none recognition also noted. Kosovo is a country according to World Bankhere, but again, it is stated that Serbia disputes this.

Hopefully this won't just be blindly reverted. I generally believe this is neutral and does not violate any neutrality rule ---- (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I cannot believe this. After it became obvious you wouldn't get a consensus for your proposed edits on this talkpage, you just went ahead and implemented the changes you wanted anyway. Which shows you are not really interested in discussion (or fairness, but we already knew that), only in pushing your POV. As this talkpage shows, there is absolutely zero consensus for your edits. Kindly undo yourself and restore the previous consensus version before I report you for disruption. --Athenean (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Athenean and propose further actions below, at the sub-header. --Cinéma C 02:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the World bank as a source, just go ahead and report me for disruption. I also cleaned up the repetition in the article as it gave Serbian spelling twice in the same paragraph. Your comment suggests you have not even read the edit properly, but rather ust assumed bad faith. By the way, don't threaten me either. Cheers, --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. But the World Bank is, well... Not exactly proof of independence. Kosovo remains a disputed territory. Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this edit shows, Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) has changed the description of Kosovo to a country, despite the fact that there was NO consensus about it in previous discussions and that people were already getting tired of his continuous POV pushing. Since there is zero tolerance on this article and Interestedinfairness' POV pushing has been going on for quite a while now, despite several blocks, warnings, bans, etc, I propose a permanent Kosovo-related topic ban to the above mentioned user. There is just no use discussing with someone who refuses to take all different POVs into account and, in the end, just edits how he wants on this article that is under probation. --Cinéma C 02:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way he's been blocked for 72 hours for an unrelated dispute. BalkanFever 03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder things have been calm lately :P Still, my proposal stands - permanent Kosovo-related topic ban. --Cinéma C 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should file a request at WP:AE, with specific diffs of his problematic behaviour (edit warring, incivility, refusal to get the point etc.) BalkanFever 03:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cinema, your edit here is just the same as interestedinfairness did, yet at least he provided a link, you did not and also lied in your edit summary on a very contentious topic, so I wouln not be claiming superiority in any way shape or form.

As regards the edit lets look at the ROC page;

"The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan since the 1970s, is a state in East Asia that has evolved from a single-party state with full global. Just look at the way that is written, why can't Kosovo mirror this even though it has more recognitions that ROC?"

Why is it that you two users above are so interested keeping this page in a wrong version? Kosovo has declared independence, shouldn't the page reflect this reality? (albeit disputed by Serbia and others) Why are there two Serbian spellings for Kosovo on the same paragraph? why shouldn't the said user try and edit the page to at least mirror the ROC one? -- I'm in favor, and judging by the comments above, so are a few people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.94.99 (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should not reply to banned users, but the obvious reply to this is, of course that there is a difference between the Republic of China (a partially recognized state) and Taiwan (the island under its governance), just like there is a difference between the Republic of Kosovo (a partly recognized state) and Kosovo (the territory under its prospective or partial governance).

Saying that "Kosovo has claimed independence" is inaccurate. The declaration of independence was issued by the Assembly of Kosovo, an organ of the provisional institutions of government set up by the UN, and not by the hills and dales of Kosovo. Since this is a dispute, it is imporrtant to phrase things accurately. The accurate phrasing is that the "Assembly of Kosovo" has unilaterally declared an independent "Republic of Kosovo" laying claim to the territory of Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with dab here. I also must stress that it is very important to mention in the lead that Kosovo is also considered to be a 'country' and is partially recognised. We need to make sure that somewhere in the lead it says Kosovo is claimed to be a "country" by some to maintain a NPOV. The word 'country' is very important to this article as that what some believe Kosovo to be and what others don't, I can't believe it is not mentioned in the lead, that is not NPOV!!! Ijanderson (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have to be mentioned in the first sentence, as it is already explained later on. If the fact that some consider Kosovo a country is mentioned in the first sentence, it has to be mentioned that some consider Kosovo a province in the first sentence too, and that would just create too much congestion. In my opinion. --Cinéma C 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't specifically referring to the first sentence, I meant first paragraph, sorry for any confusion Ijanderson (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English noun country is polysemous, and basically refers to any territory, landscape or region that isn't built up by urban development. You are using "a country" in the sense "the territory of a sovereign state". This point of view is, of course, already given ample weight in the article, and it is better to use the unambiguous phrasing than the shorthand "a country". --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Kosovo is a sovereign state. What else does it take to be one? What are you missing? There is no law saying that a UN seat is necessary to be a sovereign state. BTW: Switzerland had also not a UN seat a few years ago. So please stop your distraction. --Tibetian (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey dab you must feel like you are all that. Kosovo proclaimed independence from Serbia. Obviously, the Assembly of Kosovo did, but in English speaking language you state the COUNTRY 1 DOI Country 2. It's not as if Assembly of Kosovo declared independence from Parliament of Serbia. From over year of reading this discussion I have noticed that you are fiercely biased. Kosovo is a state, it's sovereignty is disputed...NOT THE TERRITORY. Again I must reiterate to you something so SIMPLE. Kosovo is/has borders dated pre-1974 when Socialist Republik of Jugoslavia gave Kosovo autonomy under current borders and/or territory. Again, Kosovo is a state with a disputed SOVEREIGNTY not TERRITORY. Do you get it now? SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN 216.106.61.194 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. And Interestedinfairness, I'd suggest you stop with this little game you're playing here. Already exposed for one sockpuppet, soon to be exposed for many others. As for the Kosovo as a state argument, Wikipedia consensus is against calling Kosovo a country or state as it is one-sided. We have all agreed on territory, because that's what it is. You can't disagree that it's a territory, just like you can't disagree that the Alps are a mountain range. Anything else is POV pushing. --Cinéma C 05:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To you, dear dab, sorry cinema, the same question: What else does it take to be called a sovereign country? What else are you missing? And no, the "okay" from Serbia it not what is needed to be an sovereign country. Please read the Convention of Montevideo: "The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee,[6] follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood." --Tibetian (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC) BTW: I am not User:Interestedinfairness, although of course I am also interested in fairness, like everybody should.[reply]

Hehe, you're using a legal document as an argument? SWEET :) This is what I was waiting for. Now's my turn: In Chapter I, Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, it is stated that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The Charter also mentions that “the [UN] is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Note that Serbia is one of the 192 Members of the UN, while the so-called state of Kosovo is not. Also, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 guarantees the “principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” In the preamble of the 1975 Final Helsinki Act of the CSCE, the declaration in the preamble guarantees “Sovereign equality”, “respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty”, “inviolability of frontiers” and “territorial integrity of States”. This is all just off the top of my head - legal documents that affirm Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo. But it is disputed, as some countries do recognize Kosovo's secession. This, however, does not make it right to simply accept their view and ignore the view of others. --Cinéma C 17:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why couldn't anyone answer Interestedinfairness's question? What is wrong with using Noel Malcolm? He is a highly regarded neutral writer with only Serbs having no respect for him (can't think why?? um???) and he rightly says in his books that serbs have so overplayed the whole Kosova claim that it is not his fault that there are so many myths about the place rightfully being theirs. Kosova - and that is it's name, is a country not a territory, not a disputed region and certainly not no "Resolution 1244 part of Serbia under UN". It was this until 2008, and then it declared independence. That independence was followed by recognition from the USA, from the UK, from France and from all other respectable democracies. If anyone wants to go slagging off illegal countries, I'll give you all two: South Ossetia and Abkazia, they are leggaly parts of Georgia. But leave Kosova alone, and for the last time -"Kosova" is the country's name. It is not governed by the Serbs any more. Socalled "Kosovo" was a name devized by Slobodan Milosevic to distinguish it from it's true Albania character. For those of you who don't know history, Milosevic went to Kosova when it was still Yugoslavia and had his infamous Martin Luther King style speech "I have a dream", which in his case was "I have a dream - of Greater Serbia", and within a short time, he cancelled Kosova's autonomy and government, moved in his Serbs and sent in his Serb army to invade the land and cleanse it of non-Serbs. And this is not the voice of Interestedinfairness, this is not the voice of Metrospex, this is not even me speaking, this is REUTERS and it is also BBC, SKY, CNN and other impartial neutral news networks. As Interestedinfairness said, this land cannot be disputed - Reuters themselves call it a country. Since noone has answered back to the neutral/fair points made by Metrospex and Interestedinfairness, I now conclude that the "pro-serb" arguments have run out and they have lost yet anothe rone of their wars. So as a neutral editor myself with no interest in Serbo-Albanian affairs, I can safely say that "Kosova is a country" and that the Guardian article aswell as all other works by the respected Noel Malcolm can be taken as fact. Mr.Neutral (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

this, "Mr.Neutral", is exactly why: the dishonesty. We are trying to write an encyclopedia and we should not be expected to play hide-and-seek with people who do not even have the respect and good faith to forego the fundamentally puerile option of sockpuppetry. --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible response to this section header is "Said the kettle to the pot". Nationalism works both ways; before you try to clean the speck out of your friend's eye, it may be wise to remove the log from your own. If it were up to me, I would probably ban the lot of you from this page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, it doesn't work both ways, symmetrically, in this case. As it happens, this page is plagued by Albanian nationalists vs. the wider Wikipedia community. There is the occasional Serbian patriot, but for some reason these show considerably less activity than their Albanian counterparts. This isn't about "the Albanians vs. the Serbs". This is about "the nationalists (any flavour) vs. Wikipedia policy". --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse Albanians with Kosovars. Albania has nothing to do with this. --NeutralStandpoint (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Tibetian --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that "Mr Neutral"'s statement about how nationalists are taking over the page is ridiculously hypocritical. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your (mis)indentation, it appears to the casual observer that your reply was directed to Dab, not to "Mr.Neutral". No such user (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "country" vs. "region" hubbub is a semantic red herring. Kosovo is a disputed territory. Anything else is a matter of stylistics. The OED definition of "country" is 1. "A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district" and 2. "A tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation", and only 3. "The territory or land of a nation". The patriots try to impose usage in sense 3., which is obviously the subject matter of the international dispute. Obviously, Resolution 1244 isn't in any way affected by the declaration of independence. As in the case of Palestine, Wikipedia will have to take the standing UN resolutions as a guideline for the de iure situation. Kosovo will remain disputed until either (a) the UN passes another resolution, superseding 1244, to the effect of recognition of the RoK or (b) the RoK collapses and Kosovo passes back under Serbian governance. Which of these scenarios will in fact come to pass lies in the future, and it is absolutely pointless to keep arguing about them. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if anyone feels that I have been POV pushing, then I'd like to declare my position in that I have no strong opinion over the country vs disputed region dispute. Jordan became Number 61 on 7th July, as Canadian said. The recent admissions regarding Kosovo bring it closer to being recognised as an all out country, no question. Though as I say, I have no firm views and I intend to keep out of any edit warring over this issue. Evlekis (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. Chances are that Kosovo will be fully recognized a couple of years from now. I don't have a problem with that either, except that we are writing this article from the perspective of now, not 2015. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How comes that a failed state like Biafra has a country box on top but not Kosova, which is recognized by the majority of the democratic world? --Tibetian (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it has a "former country" infobox, just like Republic of Kosova (1990-2000). Also, WP:OTHERCRAP. If you have a problem with the Biafra article, you want to post to Talk:Biafra, not Talk:Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 11:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Tibetian (talk · contribs) is almost certainly a sock of a banned user. --dab (𒁳) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You try to distract, don't you? --Tibetian (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Certainly quacking like one. I'll leave it to you to file the report though. ThuranX (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a sock iverstigation more than 24 hours ago here [1], but incredibly it is still awaiting initial clerk review. Is this normal? --Athenean (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For dab? Sorry, I just saw the link, it is for interestedinfairnes. Not good as he is only trying to get the balance right as this article could easily be on Serbian Wikipedia, just compare it to other Wikipedias. All have the country box on top except the Serbian Wikipedia and this one, thanks to dab and his poodles, sorry, puppets. Nevertheless if I would know the details about how to file such a checkuser investigation I would do this for dab just because I cannot imagine that there are really so many Serbian pov pushers out there. --Tibetian (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, WP:DUCK. This is obviously a returning troll using a throwaway account. If his personal attacks weren't directed at me personally, I wouldn't think twice about blocking such accounts on sight. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You try again to distract, dear "administrator". --Tibetian (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

like most of this talkpage, this section was indeed a pointless distraction on the part of disruptive "patriots". Case closed. --dab (𒁳) 19:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin:dab sees no "bona fide" issue with the article. Removing the tags to hide admin inefficiencies in resolving disputes or neutrality is not necessary. Instead, lets work to resolve these issues.

The first sentence mentions Kosovo as a "disputed region", followed by the line "self-declared independent state". Are both sentences really necessary in maintaining NPOV? It looks like both sentences are saying the same thing actually. Moreover, the Serbian spelling of Kosovo is given twice in the openning paragraph. Will the editing users please explain why no attempt to rectify this has been made? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

The local name is primarily given in Albanian and Serbian as is to be expected. Within the first paragraph, a secondary translation appears for both languages reflecting how the respective nations recognise the region: fittingly it is presented as Republic of in Albanian with no true requirement for a Serbian translation; and Autonomous Province of in Serbian without need for the Albanian equivalent. Is that what you meant? Evlekis (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only ones strongly disputing the whole "region" or "territory" vs. "country" or "state" issue are Interestedinfairness and his sockpuppets. Now that they've realized that they can't push through calling Kosovo a country against Wikipedia consensus (like Interestedinfairness did here), notice the next step in the strategy:

"The first sentence mentions Kosovo as a "disputed region", followed by the line "self-declared independent state". Are both sentences really necessary in maintaining NPOV? It looks like both sentences are saying the same thing actually."

No, they're not saying the same thing, but I'm sure you'd like to remove the "disputed region" one instead of the "self-declared independent state" one. Or am I wrong perhaps?

There is nothing wrong with the Serbian spelling. However, I would like to suggest adding a translation of the Republic of Kosovo in Serbian, as Serbian IS an official language there too according to Priština, as well as adding an Albanian translation to the Serbian name for the province since Belgrade accepts Albanian as an official language in Kosovo and Metohija too. --Cinéma C 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nice thought. It might just get a bit cumbersome if we go ahead with it; painful for the eyes and obscuring proper reading content. I would stress that any more translations on top of those already there should be moved directly to the bottom of the page in the footnotes section. This is the practice at the moment with Albanians born in Kosovo. Ad for Interestedinfairness, I haven't been following events these past two days and have no idea as to whether checkusers took place and if any of the accounts supporting him were confirmed to be puppets. It's not my place to accuse anyone at this stage; he is back, and he probably realises more than ever what is expected of an editor. Let's give him a chance. Evlekis (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the topic at hand cinema and stop accusing me of sock puppetry or I will be forced to report you for miss informing the Wikipedia community. Also, I didn't mention anything about the "country" - "region" dispute. Stop regurgitating the same things over and over again. My contention lies with the two sentences: "disputed region", followed by the line "self-declared independent state". Are both sentences really necessary in maintaining NPOV? Can't we construct one sentence to state the same thing? Also, since we're articulating our selves in English, I'll have you know the correct spelling of the Capital city of the Republic is "Pristina". (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

"Pristina" is the spelling for Wikipedia, not so much the correct form. This is a single compromise for some strange reason which was largely decided by outsiders (non-Albanians/Serbs). As you can see, it conforms to nothing; is neither Albanian nor Serbian though it slightly favours the latter. The policy does not stretch to any other settlement name in Kosovo nor anywhere else in Albania or the former Yugoslavia. In my eyes it is pathetic, I'd much rather use Prishtina than Pristina; I have no problem with splitting 50% of the names in Albanian, the other in Serbian but a committee has decided that Pristina will take priority on WP. Evlekis (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. But I fail to see why both phrases shouldn't exist. Infact I believe it's more neutral to use them both. As it is 'disputed' and it is of 'self declared independance'. Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Île_flottant~Floating island. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Interestedinfairness", the term "dispute" would imply that there is some point you want to make. Instead, you have just used this page for incoherent nagging for weeks now. If your only occupation here on Wikipedia is poisoning the well at Talk:Kosovo, I would ask you to just stay away. If you have any real interest in building an encyclopedia, how about you show some productivity in other areas.

Evlekis, "splitting 50% of the names in Albanian, the other in Serbian" is not what we are doing here. See WP:UE. The Albanian vs. Serbian toponymy question is supremely irrelevant. We just use whichever form is most commonly used in English. --dab (𒁳) 10:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, I respect your neutrality and you are a great editor. However, your information (wherever you got it from) about Pristina being the most commonly used spelling in English is totally incorrect. I have had this discussion with people time and time again and it all boils down to one thing. Now I accept that I was wrong in assuming that Pristina was a compromise, I really thought it had been; but then if it were, so would everything else be. The crucial marker to determin whether Pristina really is the most common English spelling is whether or not the source in question observes diacritics. If the answer is yes and the article continues to use Pristina then indeed that is the true English form. But it would also make it an exonym(eg. Belgrade instead of Beograd, Bosnia instead of Bosna, and Herzegovina in place of Hercegovina). The fact is that all sources which refer to Pristina systematically abstain from using diacritics anywhere. As such, they will not use the diacritics on Malmö or Iaşi either. The general view here is that subjects may have their diacritics if they are not such major subjects to the English speaking world. I argue, why bother to include subjects of no improtance to the English speaking world if that be the case? As the opponents of diacritics like to argue, their inclusion can cause confusion to persons upon spotting it. I then remind them that WP contains thousands of articles which contain diacritics and are relatively well known in the English speaking world and there has been no confusion. Take the two cities I mentioned in this example. We had this discussion regarding tennis players over a year ago; I presented the Anti-Diacritic squad with a challenge and none of them responded. If anyone wishes to see whether Pristina is the English spelling then I present them with the ultimate challenge. I would very much doubt that Pristina has been mentioned more times than Slobodan Milošević. His name includes the diacritics, yet the type of article in English to mention one of my examples is likely at some stage to mention the other. If one person can find me an English article to use Pristina whilst using diacritics anywhere else, I'll retire from Wikipedia and announce myself an idiot. So, in an article concerning Pristina, we can also have UÇK, Slobodan Milošević, Peć or even Pejë, Hashim Thaçi, Agim Çeku, Vojislav Šešelj, Račak, Ðakovica or Gërmia. There is bound to be mention of one topic on a Pristina-based article which would include a diacritic if Pristina doesn't. So who will find one? Evlekis (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evlekis, you are missing the point. English DOESN'T use diacritics. Therefore, the most common English form of any name will not have diacritics. English language sources that preserve the diacritics are the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Such sources are not using an English form with diacritics, but are instead using the foreign form.Khajidha (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, English has a descriptive teaching tradition. It therefore has no rules which leads to the second point that some sources do use diacritics and they are no less English for doing so. The question is not whether English uses diacritics but whether English has adopted Pristina the same as it has Belgrade, Bucharest and Munich. If it has, fair enough: but show me that they would otherwise use diacritics; if not, then why include diacritics on other other well-known cities (eg. in Kosovo, Uroševac, Peć; outside, Malmö). Anyone writing about a Kosova Airlines flight to the last city with either display Pristina-Malmo or Priština-Malmö. End of discussion. Evlekis (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "no diacritics" comes from the English form of the Roman alphabet, which has no diacritics. I never said that English SOURCES that used diacritics were less English, only that the WORDS in which they are used are not fully English. The use of diacritics in an English text is just as odd as the use of non-Roman lettering. Also, I think you misunderstood the "exception/rule" statement. It is an expression stating that something is a rarity as opposed to a commonplace occurence, not a reference to an actual codified guideline. Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right Khajidha, I mistook your point. For that you have my apologies. Evlekis (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab, please stop telling me what to do. Please engage in the discussion. Your making me wonder if your abusing your administrative privileges which the Wikipedia community has vested in you.

Sorry for the distraction guys, back to the discussion. My proposal to clean up the lead and make it easier for readers to understand not just Kosovo, but also its status:

Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, (Template:Lang-sq) or (Template:Lang-sr), is a self-declared independent state in the Balkans. Its independence is a matter of international dispute initiated by Serbia who does not recognize its independence, (see: International_recognition_of_Kosovo).

Taking into account the Albanian POV and the fact that it has de facto control over the territory is necessary for this article to move forward. Giving undue weight to the Serbian pov only excites those pov pushers and gives them legitimacy to propagate their nonsense and keep the page "crap". What you guys think? -- Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I agree with the above statements. It is officially Republic of Kosova, I say it is more than a "self-declared" independent state but an actual independent country. That much must surely be enough to appease the Serbian nationalists who are trying to control the look of the page. Obviously Kosova is as legally a country as they come because as we've said many times before, the western democracies recognize the state. America would never recognize such rogue states as Abkhazia or South Ossetia or Turkish Northern Cyrpus or rebel areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan! The Serbs are not in Kosova and if they were, it would constitute an occupation, rather like the one they did in the 1990s after Milosevic invaded it and "joined it" to Serbia in his Greater Serbia plan. It is crazy to use the word "dispute" just to please a minority (limited Serbs and some apalling allies). Metrospex (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Nevertheless, for the purpose of this encyclopedia it is disputed. Thanks. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Having thought long and hard about the status quo. I agree with the top proposal. It is officially the Republic of Kosova. It is independent and it is recognized as such by the western world. It is just a "matter of dispute" by Serbia, but let's face it, Serbia promised to change it's ways when it got rid of Milosevic. They promised to obide by international law, hand their criminals over to the Hague and obey the west. Now they are going back on their word, they keep their war criminals and they don't recognize Kosova which the west does. Looks like they need another uprising because the Milosevic clan is still in power even if he's not. A Balanced View (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Sinbad Barron --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

WOW, I'm changing my user name NOW. "A balanced view", who's this account run by now. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Yeah this is getting weird. Either there's some Albanian nationalist socking around, or someone else really wants it to look like there's an Albanian nationalist socking around.......BalkanFever 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this commotion distracts from the discussion. I've been over the same argumentation again and again, and every time a "controversy" that conveniently means the discussion dies down and no consensus can be reached is formed. Thus the page is left in the same crap state. Arbcom it is then. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

It is true that you have been "over the same argumentation again and again". It would be about time for you to stop, since all you are doing is preaching your own opinion, which is irrelevant to the article. You completely and consistently fail to point out what, with respect to our content guideline, is supposed to be the problem with the article. Yet you insist on tagging it for neutrality. It doesn't work this way. Until you can present an actual case, you have no business spaming talkpages or tagging articles. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hands off the tags or you will be stopped, no matter if you are an administrator. --NeutralStandpoint (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Tibetian --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, another one. BalkanFever 15:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. There's no point in any discussion until the sockpuppetry is sorted out. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the on-wiki record, Confirmed NeutralStandpoint (talk · contribs) = Tibetian (talk · contribs). Confirmed Metrospex (talk · contribs) = Mr.Neutral (talk · contribs) = A Balanced View (talk · contribs) = Little XQ (talk · contribs). The master behind Metrospex et al. is Sinbad Barron (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All socks blocked indefinitely. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stroke the sock edits so editors reading the conversation can appreciate what parts were written by socks and what parts weren't. This should prevent new editors from being deceived by the, ah, "multiple editors" supporting a certain position. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Back to the article now. Dab, I did not add the tag, I found it here (dated February). I have been here for about two months now and no substantial improvements have been made to the article since.

Thus, can you tell us why you removed the tag?(Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

TAGS NEED TO BE PUT BACK. This article is no near neutral. If there was a "worst wikipedia article" this one would win hands down. Special thanks to dabach. SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, the only ones disputing this article the way it is are Interestedinfairness and all the sockpuppets that J.delanoy listed above (who are, as J.delanoy stated, blocked indefinitely) + a few disruptive users hiding behind their IP addresses. Is that why we need the tags? One user adding them out of spite because he didn't get his way in his POV pushing to make the article incredibly one-sided and a bunch of sockpuppets supporting him, that's why we need the tags? Please.. the article is quite neutral as it is right now, despite Albanians preferring to call Kosovo a country, and Serbs preferring to call it a province - the point is to call it neither, but rather what it geographically is - a region, and then giving both POVs, which is what we have now. Nice, clean, neutral. Everyone is tired of repeating this just because Interestedinfairness won't ever stop pushing his POV. --Cinéma C 01:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WP:DENY and WP:DNFTT at this point. Seriously. --Athenean (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Athenean and Cinema. The topic has raged for weeks now and is going nowehere. The article is very long and it is time we concentrated on sections outside the first two paragraphs. The status is not likely to be changed at this stage even though Dominican Republic is No.62 to recognise Kosovo. No new information has been presented by anybody since the case was opened: "I say Kosovo is a country because it is recognised by A, B and C" and "I say it isn't because it is not recognised by X, Y and Z!" That is all we have had for a long time. Let's all move on. Evlekis (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been done to the article for it to merit the tags removal since February and December. You three colluding together does not change that fact. And I wouldn't speak of sock puppets if I were you guys --- Regards, Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the consensus. That makes four to one. ninety:one 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should do well to remind our selves that these discussions are never a vote, but rather; an exchange of opinions on how our policy applies to a specific case. In that sense, the number of editors opposing something is of little significance. Policy-based arguments are best. Moreover, users: Cinema C and Athenean are colluding in discussions regardless of our policy. That's partly why we don't rely on votes in Wikipedia. -- Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one or more people hold an opinion different from your own does not mean that those people are "colluding". And when you find me a better way of measuring consensus than numbers, I'll be happy to use it... ninety:one 20:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a democracy and we do not vote. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Consensus is attained by weight of numbers. So within reason, it is. Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, 2 users working in conjunction in bad faith; one user with seemingly no prior knowledge of the discussions; and an administrator acting in a cavalier way, against my opinion, is not really a fair "vote". (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Interestedinfairness, you can't exaclty say you're neutral on the subject of Kosovo. Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the opposition, I'm 100% more neutral. Nevertheless, no consensus = fine. I've tagged the bit which is unacceptable according to Wiki rules anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedinfairness (talk • contribs)

Interestedinfairness hasn't shown any point that is actually objectionable under WP:NPOV. He is just saying "I want that tag". It doesn't work this way. Unless and until he can present some actual point of content, I suggest we consider this discussion closed. --dab (𒁳) 19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming from you? nnamhcabD? SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the article relies heavily on the work of Sima Cirkovic, a historian of no standing when compared to others, namely Malcolm and Judah, who both dispute her revisionist theories. The author is not reliable as per WP:V. Noel and Judah are a 100 times more verifiable and accurate sources to use.

I could rewrite this part of the article since I've worked quite a bit on the Viyalet of Kosova page and have a lot of background knowledge. Firstly, lets clarify two bits in the article which are incorrect:

The Great Serb Migration is a myth, conjured up in the 19th century to arouse nationalistic fervor (just have a look at the Wiki page, for an event so "profound" in Serbian history, you would expect a lot more written in the article). Secondly, the "slave boys" taken by the sultan were nearly all Albanian and not Serbian as the article and source make out. (source: Bernard Lewis).

This article gives a negative portrayal of the Ottoman period when in fact the citizens of "Kosovo" (Serb and Albanian alike), benefited greatly from their arrival. This is because of a Serb disdain for Turks formulated about 500 years ago but should nevertheless have no bearing on this article. We're not hear to feed ultra-nationalist lies. Comments welcome, as always --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestedinfairness, your efforts are wasted here. Articles History of Kosovo, History of Medieval Kosovo, History of Medieval Serbia, Battle of Kosovo, History of Ottoman Kosovo, First Bulgarian Empire and many more need to be changed to conform to your POV, so good luck. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brutaldeluxe. Interestedinfairness, just give up, everyone is tired of your POV pushing. --Cinéma C 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the comments and cease the personal attacks. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I have reverted "Interestedinfairness"' edits, shoving Cite needed tags inside of some references and after other references. It's clearly disruptive behavior, and shows yet again, his agenda. I think it may be time to push for a topic ban, applied broadly. ThuranX (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:V the sources are unreliable. That is the point I am making. Stop threatening me, no rules at all are being broken. You prove to me that Sima Cirkovic is a reliable source and then the Cite needed tags will not be necessary. Do not come on here like your the boss of Wikipedia. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Second the motion for a topic ban. The time is long past. --Athenean (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC

You've already tried that approach and as I recall it didn't go to well. Please stay on topic and stop messing around. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Will somebody really discuss the point on Ottoman period here, Wiki rules WP:V WP:RS etc do mean anything to you guys. Don't turn the topic into personal discussion. Just stick to the topic, references and scholars. Thanks Aigest (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Ćirković is a reliable source depends on the topic in question and the origin of the articles (eg. her article published in a certified journal readily considered reliable would be adequate, but if drawn from a blog/forum where she has left remarks, then obviously not). But again, it depends on what it is that one is trying to prove. Take Holocaust denial: if one were to state that the holocaust was a hoax and then present an article published by Stormfront, it would be dismissed instantly and laughed off. If however one were to state on the Stormfront page that the organisation itself doubts the holocaust and then uses that same article, it would be acceptable because it does stand as evidence to support the presented statement. The anti-Serb propaganist, shill and apologist Noel Malcolm not only has a catalogue of bad coverage to add to his positive portfolio but he is also renouned for producing erroneous information. He would cause greater controversy than those who deny the holocaust if only Balkan affairs were as sensitive among the architects of New World Order, but they are not so he can get away with publishing books stating how the "Serbs are not a real nation, their southerners are all corrupted Albanians and their northerners Hungarians; brainwashed into a new identity by Bulgarians and Croats"; people would believe him if they don't know any better. And as for neutrality, well, I'd like to see Malcolm ciriticised by an Albanian faction. Only then can we start to consider him being "neutral". His works are a joke, he comments are in ignorance of centuries of codified documentation. Evlekis (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't rush in conclusions about his work without reading other scholars opinion first

while Serb historians cite a document issued by the Emperor on 6 April 1690 as an "invitation" to come to the Hungary, Malcolm, referring to the original Latin text, shows than the letter urged the Serbs to rise up against the Ottomans, and specifically "not to desert" their ancestral lands - rather than the opposite of an invitation.(page 206) Thinking about Yugoslavia: scholarly debates about the Yugoslav breakup and the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo by Sabrina P. Ramet Publisher Cambridge University Press, 2005 ISBN 0521851513, 9780521851510 link [2]

You should also know that Malcolm (1998) was not the first of scholars discovering this myth (invitation letter) here you have another since 1970:

A latter day myth of some influence was to insist, mistakenly, that the Serbs were invited by the emperor to leave their homesteads and settle in Habsburg land on the promise of his favor. In fact, they cam north as a consequence of his defeat.(page 580) The New Cambridge Modern History: The Rise of Great Britain & Russia, 1688-1715/25 by J. S. Bromley Editor J. S. Bromley Publisher CUP Archive, 1970 ISBN 0521075246, 9780521075244 link [3]

So things are not so clear as you think here. The fact remains that the "invitation" letter has been misinterpreted (POV pushing myth) by Serb historians and this seriously influence their credibility here. Aigest (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Noel Malcolm being a certified propagandist, his work is not original either. His writing invariably shadows that already published by other authors. Those authors, where Balkan affairs are the issue, are often Albanian. I have rushed into no conclusion; I have simply read his verses in which I have known the information to be incorrect. If the US-led war in Iraq in 2003 hadn't been so well known but you personally did know about it, how would you respond to a shill purporting to be a historian when he tries to convince you that the war didn't happen, that Saddam was never hanged and that he still controls Iraq? To my knowledge, the Serbian migrations to Hungarian controlled territory had dated as far back as the 14th century. These are recorded as being the result of an invitation. The events of 1690 probably do suggest that locals were encouraged to uprise, but then I have never read of Serbs describing the opposite. No nation which speaks of its history is flawless and 100% truthful, and it is often easy to point out dubious claims. That however doesn't make Malcolm & co. 100% truthful, because there are multiple ways of "exposing" your less agreeable race by fiddling with facts and producing accounts based on selective evidence. Malcolm is renouned for this. Furthermore, Malcolm likes to dabble with the international "legal" system. The word "legal" opens a can of worms at first mention. So shady is the topic of international law that nobody can dictate pure straightforward facts. He states that Kosovo never legally entered the Serb kingdom after the First Balkan War. He forgets however that the aftermath of the battles also resulted in an independent Albania. The borders of Albania were recognised as a result of the same treaty which recognised Serbia's inclusion of Kosovo after Serbs (and Greeks) were instructed to withdraw from present-day Albania. So either Malcolm is suggesting that the inception of present-day Albania was also not legal, or that whilst Albania was legal, it bordered territory which was still a part of the Ottoman Empire. Which of the previous two pathetic suggestions that imbecile actually believes to be the case in his fairy-tale world, I don't know. I do know however that the Ottoman Empire recognised all lost territory to new countries in 1914; only Noel Malcolm disagrees. Today, it is like saying that "Eritea is still a part of Ethiopia legally even though Ethiopia recognises its independence!"

As for Interestedinfairness, he has claimed that Malcolm is "100 times more verifiable" than other sources. Now this user does live up to his name: interesting! Sure we can find a few half-asleep journalists to praise Malcolm when they don't know any better, but Malcolm is suddenly verifiable? That means we can find evidence to suggest that what he says is true. Well, find me evidence to suggest Malcolm's comments to Macedonian reporters in Skopje during the 1999 NATO bombing that had NATO not acted, Milošević was planning to take Macedonia; and that the whole campaign was "to protect Macedonia's national interests." Macedonians just want to know from which lunatic assylum did this inmate Malcolm escape? Evlekis (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another failed attempt to quote Noel Malcolm by "friend" of Interestedinfairness: [4] Evlekis (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evlekis, what did you mean by this statement, "He would cause greater controversy than those who deny the holocaust if only Balkan affairs were as sensitive among the architects of New World Order..." ? Who are these "architects" who determine the sensitivity/importance of certain topics? Hobartimus (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is: they who yield most influence in the world, the top governments; their officials, the wealthy etc. It was only an example. Personally I have no opinion on the events of WWII, I don't get involved because I haven't had enough time to read into it. My point was that if someone denied the September 11th attacks, you'd think he'd gone round the bend. Mr.N.M denies other known events. Evlekis (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot take seriously any allegations about citation and reliable sources when the counter to the use of a source is that the author is part of a vast hidden 'new world order' conspiracy. As such, since that's the primary objection to the use of Malcolm as a source, I see no further reason to continue discussing the source. Malcolm's info comes from his well reviewed articles on the topic, As quoted above, other serious scholars refer to his work in constructive ways. Therefore, he meets my expectations of a reliable scholarly source. ThuranX (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The references to "new world order" were off-topic and in reference to something else. I hadn't been accusing anyone of conspiring to protect their interests. Noel Malcolm's publications can be used as an external source. His "good reviews" come from sources with no knowledge of his topics, not from those with knowledge of their own. Their views of him depend on which side of the conflict they sit, and that must surely rule out neutrality. The "scholarly sources" may quote him but many sources also quote the conventional statistics which refute Malcolm. May I also warn about the dangers of using him: we would have to rewrite dozens of articles, that means everything Serbia related because as far as this man is concerned, their entire history is a "myth"; he has denied their involvement in the 1389 war in Kosovo, and exaggerated all cases aginst that nation. According to Malcolm in his books: Serbs are perpetually the party at fault, and always wrong; whether morally in their aspirations, or casually if discussing their historical adventures. To use Malcolm, you might as well restore the following edits: [5], [6], [7]. All are tributes to the propagandist. Evlekis (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I take from your comments. Malcolm's supporters are ignorant, his critics are all geniuses, and perfectly accurate, and only you, and other pro-serb editors, are qualified to judge what makes reliable scholarship as regards this article. You compound that with 'Using his sources would be a lot of work.' You decry him as opposing an entire version of history, but we have an outsider with no particular agenda using facts and evidence, against an insider's cultural version of history. Few cultures actively embrace the parts of their history where they were in the wrong, and so build up a version that justifies their actions. I'm more inclined to believe an outsider's compiled evidence, especially when well regarded after review, than an insider's stamping foot and insistence that 'that's how it was.' ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is a misunderstanding of how to use the sources here. If an author (Malcolm in this case) claims one thing (example...the original latin text translation) than the others who oppose him must say that his clam is not true since..(example...the original latin text is translated in different way from that of Malcolm) otherwise if you accuse the author for POV that is a personal attack, (attack the sources not the author is the moto here). So in this case if Evlekis thinks that Malcolm translation of the letter and its contribution to myth is not false than he should find other scholars who claim that things against Malcolm work, and bring them here. In any case just as ThuranX pointed out, other scholars refer to his work in a constructive ways,(eg if you take the time to read Sabrina P. Ramet above book, you would see that Malcolm uses more sources and is more scientific in treating them than some other scholars and we must remember that the book is about scholar debates in Bosnia and Kosovo) so even in my opinion he is a WP:RS secondary source. Aigest (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculously convoluted, incomprehensible WP:LAWYER-type argument ("If an author claims...then the others...). Noel Malcolm is anything but a neutral source. He should only be used in Kosovo related articles with extreme caution. --Athenean (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is respected by experts, then it's a good source is a WP:LAWYER argument? It's common sense, good research, and so on. Are we really going to endure these annoying drive-by policy shots in lieu of serious discourse? Yet another editor I feel comfortable ignoring in this matter. ThuranX (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the first part of Aigest's argument ("If an author claims...then the others...), not the latter part. --Athenean (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just as stupid. 'Refute a good source with equally good sources' is a solid principle of good, balanced, objective writing on a topic. Mocking it as WP:LAWYER tells me that for you, there's a 'right' source, and then there's liars, and anyone who doesn't support your POV, and thus, your sources, is also a liar. I reiterate. not worth any more attention. POV warring isn't going to improve this article. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. If a crank writes a bunch of nonsense, no one "has" to refute him. Noel Malcolm is a highly partisan source. Thus, if Noel Malcolm claims something that no one bothers to refute, that doesn't mean it's true (which is what Aigest is claiming). That said, I don't care for your tone, and since I'm not really interested in your opinion, this conversation ends here. Goodbye. --Athenean (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's analysis of Balkan historiography are you basing this opinion on? Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To:Interestedin I say this with respect, get a consensus on your edits before editing major parts, your past edits are POV, disgusting and racist, however i hope that this will change. Save us a lot of energy and be mindful of conflicting views, or you might be blocked. This doesnt mean that you shouldnt edit on wikipedia, it just means that people are noticing a large number of pov edits coming from your account and this could lead you to be blocked. I welcome the Albanian editors yet you need to be mindful.Rex Dominator (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question to all contributors here. Are travel guide books to be considered as WP:RS? I see some of them used on Ottoman period, while in my opinion they don't meet the criteria of RS for an encyclopedia. Other books or sources for this period should be used instead of them confirming or not the claims backed by travel guide references. Aigest (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion other subtopics not represented in Ottoman period are:

• Timar system in Kosovo, effects
• Devşirme system in Kosovo, effects
• Islamization process in Kosovo, effects
• Economy of Kosovo in that period, main cities, production, export import etc.

Just a short sentence for each of this subtopics would improve this section. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of adding all that stuff about Islam "Section:Ottoman Kosovo (1455 to 1912)" yet the "Section:Early history (before 1455)" in which the Serbs controlled Kosovo is relatively small. The whole history section is baised since it under-represents Serbs. For example Serbs controlled Kosovo from the 700 AD to 1540 (Raška,Serbian Empire,Moravian Serbia,Serbian Despotate)yet the history section doesnt talk about that much and is biased.Rex Dominator (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's concentrate on the topic Ottoman Kosovo here. My idea is not to add stuff about Islam but to show the effects of the Ottoman administration in Kosovo area. Timar Devşirme Islamization happened throughout Ottoman period (in all Ottoman Empire) they were the essence of Ottoman state and administration, and they greatly influenced Kosovo region, also as I see from the article the economy (main cities, what kind of production, trade, taxes etc) is not represented at all in any section of the article (except the actual economy section) while in my opinion they are to be mentioned, not in detailed way but within a sentence in each period. Aigest (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of those (other subtopics not represented in Ottoman period) are great addictions to the article. However.. we have a huge problem with a bias in the history section since 800 years of Serb history (700 AD to 1540) are under-represented (in two poorly worded sentences). This topic has a lot of bias since its controversial. Every progressive edit helps reach our goal, to have a NPOV article. So by all means add facts in the Ottoman section however please try to keep the article balanced since a huge Ottoman section will skew the article towards a pro islamic bias which is not reflective of history. It would better the article, and free it from bias in the history section, if some, simple, additions were make about the 800 years of Serbian history. Rex Dominator (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sections should not be so long. I will try to cut off repetitive or useless info. Longer edits could be made in the main articles not in this summary. Aigest (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am stopping for the moment. Does everybody agree with my edits? Plz give feedback Aigest (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX
I haven't visited this talk page since yesterday evening (local time) and there has been a lot of development and I see that Noel Malcolm hasn't been mentioned in the latest few edits. However I feel it necessary to defend myself from your attack.
Firstly, I accept that you are a neutral editor whose own background is clearly outside the area in question. In other words, you are very welcome here and your views are highly valued. At the same time, nobody is expecting you to personally know the ins and outs of the disputes. Now I will not challenge you with issues regarding Noel Malcolm because to do so would be harassment on my part in interrogating a user who is clearly not expected to produce the answers. But you have severely mistaken me in every way imaginable. I do originate from these parts, atleast by background if not birth, so many issues are everyday phenomena for me; however I do not identify as Serb, and I am certainly not Pro-Serb. My position in all conflicts is between me and my conscience and I have never discriminated another individual who has disclosed his position. The problem is when this person starts to base his views on scanty and one-sided evidence. You don't have to be an expert on Kosovo or a doctor in nuclear physics to deduce that Noel Malcolm is totally favourable to every Albanian and disagreeable to all Serbs. But it takes an absolute sucker not to put his finger on his head and ask "why is this?" Perhaps if there had been items of blatant Serb propaganda which itself quoted Noel Malcolm to enhance the campaign, things may have been different. Maybe, if natural Albanian propagandists had at one point been critical of Malcolm - accusing him of representing the Serb angle - surely then he could have been taken as objective. Conflict is precipitated by opposing sentiment among parties. As such, it is impossible for any commentator to produce a report which is favourable to every faction. Therefore, the only way to be objective (and to subsequently appear neutral) is to be hated by the heavyweights of all opposing factions.
Experts: these do not need to praise each other across the board. If I know the conventional order the Roman alphabet from A to Z, I do not need to consult David Crystal to see if his sequence is the same as mine. Malcolm is a fellow at Oxford and they in turn form a part of the same professional elite as that in Cambridge. Now the prupose of a historian is to investigate historical activitity and to explain the findings to your generation. So if a "scholar" has consulted the works of Malcolm then how could he/she have been an expert in the first place? And if Malcolm has recounted a version of events already uncovered by another historian, then how does he come to be an "expert"? In the end of the day, he is one man with one opinion.
Comment by ThuranX: Malcolm's supporters are ignorant, his critics are all geniuses, and perfectly accurate, and only you, and other pro-serb editors, are qualified to judge what makes reliable scholarship as regards this article.
Answer: Nobody claimed that a critic of Malcolm is a genius. However with regards to his supporters not being ignorant, I am afraid that this would be difficult for me to explain to you without giving examples. So to put it simply, Malcolm has never uttered a sentence which does not contain a factual error of some kind; and for being in the Balkans, these errors are obvious. Of course his Balkan-based supporters will not cite these errors because it is harmful to their defence to do so. His words tickle their ears and they love the sound of them. Most of these errors are not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Malcolm, when it suits him, likes to question these facts. However, that then becomes a matter of his own personal opinion which is worth the same as every other person's. In his Guardian article last year, he was presented with high regard. But if they knew better, then why did they need to consult him? And how can they be classed as "experts" when praising him? His "good words" have come from newspapers/magazines/journals. Other positive feedback has come from professionals at the same level who either liked the fact that he agreed with them, or had to consult him in the first place because they never knew the information he was producing. Either way, it rules out expert and neutrality.
In my own defence: I am not Pro-Serb and have never put forward an article favourable to Serbs and said "Let's use this!" The areas where I have challenged Malcolm have been on obvious cases: Malcolm denies the legality of Serbia's inclusion of Kosovo in 1912; I respond not by producing Serbian Radical Party booklets telling of Kosovo perpetually belonging to Serbia, but with a reference to the treaty which demarcated Serbia's new borders and with a citation confirming the Ottoman recognition of it. It is as easy as that. I gave no firm views, offered no opinion, and stepped into no dispute. I am not anti-Albanian, just anti-Noel Malcolm. But if he is so good, then use him, but as another user said: use him with caution. Evlekis (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text which basically reinforces exactly what I said - You think you're right and everyone else is wrong, and you object to Malcolm's material because you see it as anti-serb, which violates your POV. You continue to ignore that other scholars cite him and have been demonstrated here to take his work seriously and respectfully, which says to me that despite your loud protests, you do have a POV to push - Malcolm and Albanians bad, Serbs good. ThuranX (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text? A great place for you to hide. I'll take a bet; either you never read it or you scanned it. I have answered every one of your queries if full detail. Three times now you have proven to completely miscomprehend me. You accuse me of loud protest and POV pushing. What POV pushing would this be? I explicitly declared my position as not being Serbian and you will find no evidence among my 10,000 edits since 2005 where I have advocated using Serbian blogs; where I have amended text to conform to Serb rhetoric; or where I have sided in a content dispute with the Pro-Serb POV. You just revise this section and show me where I took part in the "disputed territory" vs "country" row to push for the former. I have explained the implications of using Malcolm. I have refuted the "expert" factor, as well as the alleged NPOV of the subject. I have only criticised his "opinion over fact" prose, and have not recommended pro-Serb POV alternatives. I have never disclosed my own POVs. Once again, a user tries to be objective and is accused of Serb POV-pushing for opposing the use of a biased commentator, not just any biased one but one noted for his notoriety. There have been countless non-Serbs whose position has been sympathetic with the Serbian angle and they too have had positive feedback; they too are academics with their works appreciated and cited by highly educated. Heard of Noam Chomsky? Yet do you see me countering Noel Malcolm with pro-Serb literature? I suggested we use Malcolm with caution. Now is that POV pushing? Evlekis (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do others find me edits ok? My proposal for the rest is:

Adiministration (but not a new topic it is for the sake of grouping here no new section)

• Timar system in Kosovo, effects in the Kosovo administration 1-2 sentences

Demographic

• Devşirme system in Kosovo, effects in the Kosovo population 1 sentence
• Islamization process in Kosovo, effects in the Kosovo population 1 sentence
• Population migrations in area my proposal is to mention it with 1-2 sentences "According to some....while according to others ..." type. If readers want a more detailed view there is Great Serb Migration article in which we can further specify it. So we can get rid of long section and remain NPOV

Economic

• Main cities, local production, 1 sentence
• Trade etc 1 sentence

Political

• Local uprisings(1689-90, others) 1 sentence
• League of Prizren 1-2 sentences
• Uprising of 1912(which ended Ottoman rule) up to 1rst Balkan war 1-2 sentences

The last one ends the section (Ottoman rule), while the background of Balkan War and war itself are explained in more detailed way in the next section. No need to put them in this section. It will make it much larger and it makes no sense to the topic title. Aigest (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this sentence regarding the islamization in Kosovo.

Although few Turks actually settled in Kosovo during Ottoman rule, many Albanians converted from Christianity to Islam, in contrast most Serbs remained faithful to the Serbian Orthodox church. (page 124) Peacemakers in action: profiles of religion in conflict resolution by David Little, Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, Richard C. Holbrooke Editors David Little, Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding Contributor Richard C. Holbrooke Edition illustrated Publisher Cambridge University Press, 2007 ISBN 0521853583, 9780521853583 link here [8]

While in the reference below the article we can put part of the text ... Such conversions were technically voluntary, but strong economic incentives existed...etc what do you guys think?

Another more detailed source would be Religion and the politics of identity in Kosovo by Gerlachlus Duijzings Edition illustrated Publisher C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000 ISBN 1850653925, 9781850653929 here the link [9] Aigest (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aigest, your edits are fine, except for the phrase "it was internally expanded" which left me a bit baffled. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks;). Yep I agree on that, I left it because I wasn't sure of what the author meant with that. I'll make some further edits today hope they are fine too:) Aigest (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence and Kosovo independence precedent, are well developed articles that i enjoyed reading. Please let me know if you agree with adding them to the See Also section. Please respond with, Agree or Disagree and or a reason.Rex Dominator (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree: These are neither published by Noel Malcolm nor Tim Judah and therefore they must be items of Serb propaganda (joking, seriously, if it involves ICJ I Agree) ----Evlekis (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Won't do any harm, International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's unilaterally proclaimed independence will probably enter Wiki history as the most convoluted article title ever. Except "Harry Potter and the extremely convoluted and contrived film title involving made up names of fictitious magical creatures", perhaps. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree and might I add a LOL at Evlekis' comment.. funny :) Of course, it won't do any harm. And might I compliment Rex Dominator's way of proposing changes to the article, unlike Interestedinfairness' method - changing it unilaterally, then pushing his POV on the talk page... --Cinéma C 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree --- Pointless to include the two proposed articles when others of more relevance and prominence to Kosovo exist. The Dardani, Battle of Kosovo and Kosovo Province articles would be more appropriate candidates for inclusion. Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Fully relevant. --Athenean (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's include those as well then. --Cinéma C 02:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, you have my backing. Interestedinfairness (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, propose those in a separate tab and I'll agree, but do you now change your vote for the ones proposed here? --Cinéma C 04:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, Disagree with IiF's proposals. ThuranX (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to articles as proposed by RD. I think further comment is probably needed on IIF's proposed additions to the See Also section. BalkanFever 06:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree On second thoughts, this article should follow the example of others here on Wikipedia and have the Outline of Kosovo link only. Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although we all agree that history is what makes Kosovo unique, the history section of the article does not appear to be in line with well-written articles about other countries, such as the United States, Germany, France, etc. I would suggest that the history section be rewritten or edited thoroughly, not to represent nationalist point of views, but to offer a concise approach of what happened in Kosovo throughout centuries. The whole history section must not exceed 2,500 words and it should focus on the Kosovo and its people, rather than the sensitive ethnic divide between the Albanians and the Serbs.--Getoar TX (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who do you think the Kosovo people are, if they're not Albanians and Serbs? Are they Martians maybe? :P --Cinéma C 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course they are either Albanian, Serbs, or something else. But the point here is that we should focus on the history of Kosovo and not nationalist POV. How could you omit Pjeter Bogdani and call this neutral?--Getoar TX (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be restructured from after the history section in order to meet Wikipedia quality standards. Its current state is highly fragmented and convoluted. For example, the UN administration period; Administration by the United Nations; and Provisional Institutions of Self-Government can be combined to convey the same message in a less tangled way. After the history section, the article would follow this structure;

• United Nations administration Period
• Declaration of independence and the Republic of Kosovo
• EULEX and Rule of Law
• Government and Politics

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Kosovo is still under UN administration, according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which is in effect. Therefore, the UN administration section should include the "Declaration of independence" (covering info concerning the self-proclaimed "Republic of Kosovo") and "EULEX" sections beneath it. --Cinéma C 04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be realistic here. The current parliament of the "Republic of Kosovo" was operating under UN 1244 when they proclaimed independence. Serbia claims they had no legal basis for that and is getting an advisory opinion in the international court of law. We will have to wait until the legal verdict is reached.Rex Dominator (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we need to wait for the ICJ opinion until we can construct a less fragmented and convoluted article? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

What you are proposing is to ignore international law and present the situation as if just because Kosovo's government declared independence, UNSCR1244 is no longer relevant, even though it's still in effect. Restructuring the article in such a way would suggest that the UN administration period ended the moment Kosovo declared independence. --Cinéma C 03:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, and your deliberately holding up discussion, as per usual. I will repeat it again for you; what I am proposing is to make the article less fragmented and convoluted, by following a logical chain of events; the UN administration period, followed by provincial institutions of self governance. Kosovo's proclamation of independence does not suggest that UN resolution 1244 is nullified, your the only one making that paranoid assumption. What is in fact relevant is the significance of the event. This is about restructuring the article, not about accommodating your nationalistic preconceptions. Any serious users want to discuss? Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is bizarre.

Kosovo is not a region. Kosovo is a country, recognized by and rejected by Serbia which still claims as its territory. This is the most neutral stance. The current description is a clear Serbia POV. Cinema's arguments are not valid since cinema is very biased. Most of its contribution in the wikipedia are pro-serb and quoting proserb media! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • 17:05, 17 July 2009

(Redirected from User:Reinoutr) is abusing wikipedia. Edit warring policy is clearly stated on this article.

Changing Kosovo from a disputed region, to an autonomous province. Please, this abuse is unacceptable. Spanishboy2006 (talk • 17:10, 17 July 2009

Dude, I explained myself on your talk page and apparently you revert me so fast you did not even bother to read what I actually wrote. I changed it from "disputed region" to "disputed autonomous region", specifically to emphasize that it is autonomous and thus largely independent. Instead of discussing, you just complain, which truly is getting us nowhere. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense, whatsoever. I am tagging this article as disputed.--Getoar TX (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

great, another revert warrior. What happened to article probation? We have discussed this, and consensus is clear. If you take it upon yourself to revert against consensus, you may be blocked without further warning. --dab (𒁳) 19:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest the usage of the phrase 'diputed region of partial self government"? As this reflects the serb controled areas to the north, and the kosovar controled areas to the south and also gives the reader the knowledge that the area is disputed. --Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed good faith when the word "autonomous" was added, and am in favor of using it. However, "Partial self-governance" would imply that there is a force outside of the Kosovo parliament which also governs the entity. This is weasel-wording and creates more problems, I feel. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Not really, as northern kosovo is de facto governed by serbia. --Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not strictly true. North Kosovo is left alone by Priština as if to function as an autonomous region. Its Serb majority population in turn observe Belgrade's authority by continuing the use Serbian currency, keeping Serbian number plates on their vehicles, voting in Serbian elections whilst bocotting anything initiated from Priština and other similar activities. The Serbs of North Kosovo are a majority but not the exclusive population, Albanians also live in those municipalities all be it in smaller numbers and they adhere to the rule as laid down in the Kosovan capital. Even though the Kosovan government leaves the region alone, it is still impenetrable by Belgrade's security forces; the region is within the borders of an entity recognised by 62 countries at present. That also means that for anyone in Central Serbia to gain access to North Kosovo or vice versa, they are compelled to cross a checkpoint. Like all border crossings, the checkpoint has two sections (one for each entity); and the Kosovan checkpoint is manned by EULEX/KFOR staff. North Kosovo if anything is a free territory left to be administered by its locals, but the only external entity with the power (if no legal ground) to cancel or amend this privilege is the rest of Kosovo. So it isn't de facto governed by Serbia, but by itself. Evlekis (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "disputed" tag should be restored as long as this article omits important parts of Kosovar history and does not mention Pjeter Bogdani, one the most important Albanian figures in Kosovo. Now the status of Kosovo is presented with extremely biased language.--Getoar TX (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

before you present a suggestion of including mention of Pjeter Bogdani, how do you know it's going to be disputed? Why cry for a "disputed" tag before even raising the points that bother you? But why, do you argue, should this article go off on a tangent on some 17th century author (let me guess... not because he is relevant, but because, as you say, he is Albanian).

The status is phrased extremely neutral language, which will irk anyone with either opinion on the Kosovo question. Which is the hallmark of NPOV. If you have an opinion, you will find neutrality grating. Why is this so difficult to grant for people here? I haven't seen anyone complaining about neutrality who did not very obviously have a strong personal opinion on the question. --dab (𒁳) 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The status is phrased extremely biased like written from Serbian foreign ministry. This is the most disturbing article being utterly dominated by dab and a few nationalists who do not respect tne NPOV rules and policies of Wikipedia. There is a large number of people who complain about the neutrality of this article. This is not a strong personal opinion but a strickly professional, based on articles published worldwide in the media which refer Kosovo as either, a republic, former province, disputed region. With exception of Serb media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people complain, but that doesn't mean those complaining people aren't also possessed of a POV, does it? In what ways could this article be changed, in your opinion, to reduce the Serbian POV? Please, no screaming about how it's really a fully recognized independent country, or other stuff that cannot be suported by citation. ThuranX (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanishboy2006, could you please not spread false information here? How would you know what the Serbian foreign ministry would write? If it were up to them to write the status, it would look something like this: "Kosovo and Metohija is an autonomous province of Serbia under UN administration." But it's not like that, so calm down. And also calm down with your bashing of Serb ministries and media outlets - every media outlet in Serbia is independent and has it's own "spin" on events, just like every media outlet in the world. The media often take sides (for example, Fox News), and that's why it's important to present both sides of the story, not just blindly following the ones that sound good to us or that we personally agree with. --Cinéma C 22:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these kind of people aren't trolling, then they clearly believe what they are saying, despite it being factually wrong. Just ask them to be bold, whilst respecting policy and guidlines. I fear that too many people may be coming here just to air their opinions - with little or no reasonable suggestions for actually improving the article. ninety:one 22:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are your fears fully justified, but that has been taking place for quite a while now and very little is done to stop it. Anything you could think of as a solution for all these unconstructive comments on the Kosovo talk page? --Cinéma C 00:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the latest squabble appears to be whether or not to include "autonomous". The word was chosen to reflect good faith, it literally means self-rule or self-govern. That actually means independence in theory. The trouble with using autonomous is that it definitely implies that the region forms a part of another country. No country has ever included the word autonomous as part of its title. Russia is full of autonomous units, so when a region admits its autonomous status then it naturally accepts its position within a larger sovereign entity. So whilst I don't have a problem with its inclusion, the term is anti-Albanian regarding its placement. Evlekis (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ev, I think the point your referring to was actually raised above. In response to a users query about how can the article can be improved however, I would like to point to my suggestion above about restructuring the article. It appears as if some editors only want to discuss contentious topics and not suggestions which actually make the article better. Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so. It's just that the autonomous dispute had been the source of the last few edits on the article when I wrote. All right IiF, can you produce a brief list of topics/statments on the article as they are now which need either revision or total amendment, and what else do you feel needs mention? Evlekis (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema, you truly defend the Serbian POV without any clear arguments, violating policies of Wikipedia by making edits without consensus. You're recent contribution have been mainly on enhancing the Serbian nationalist, xenophobic work. About 62 nations and 2 UN institutions, IMF and World Bank recognize Kosovo as a country. And about 14 on the list signaling to recognize. Adding autonomous is not a consensus because 62 countries and 2 UN institutions disput a such claim.

In the reference it is stated as an invitation, but if we read the text we see nothing of an invitation but only "The same idea of the obligations of the Serbs towards the Imperial benefactor figured importantly in Diploma Leopoldianum of 1690, the set of documents that explained the rights and obligations of the Orthodox in the months following the arrival of Serbs in the Empire. In addition to liberties and benefices given to Patriarch Arsenije III and his people, it clearly explains what the Empire expected in return:

The Emperor announces that he considered and accepted all the Serbian pleas and he declares that Serbs have every right to practice their faith and laws and that no member of the Hungarian or Austrian aristocracy has the power over them; that they can appoint their own prelates … Also they need to stay lawful and obedient and must serve the Empire to the last drop of their blood…32

Now where do we see a reference for an invitation here? This is a legal document after the Serbs arrived in Hungary, giving them a legal status and that's all. Aigest (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpanishboyAlbanianboy, please stop making silly edits, the article is on probation, I'm surprised you haven't been blocked yet. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I am surprised you haven't been blocked BrutaldeluxeBrutalserb. Autonomous is Serbia POV. Vojvodina is autonomous because Serbia controls it. Serbia does not control an inch of Kosovo. Moreover, Kosovo is declared an independent republic, not autonomous. Majority of Serbs who live in Kosovo are applying for the Republic of Kosovo documents, passports, birth certificates, ids. Serbia establishing full control of border with Kosovo. Does Serbia have a full control with Vojvodina? Serbia does not control Kosovo administratively, politically or legally. Kosovo, indeed is a disputed state in the Balkans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishboy2006 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I am not Albanian!!

Several people have been making changes without consensus here, clearly representing the Serbian POV. Brutadeluxe and a few have made contentious disruptive changes on the subject.