Talk:Kosovo

perform basic civilian administrative functions;
promote the establishment of substantial autonomy and self-government in Kosovo;
facilitate a political process to determine Kosovo's future status;
coordinate humanitarian and disaster relief of all international agencies;
support the reconstruction of key infrastructure;
maintain civil law and order;
promote human rights; and
assure the safe and unimpeded return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Kosovo.

Nikola's reverts

Nikola has started to make reverts of ChrisO's version without any explanation at all; this kind of behavior, where he is ignoring the rest of the community and their input, as well as reverting to push his point, is against a number of wiki policies. GeneralPatton 20:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He's now broken the three revert rule. GeneralPatton 20:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The province in question is called Kosovo (the word is derived from the serbian word "kos" - blackbird, coloquialy known as "Kosovo polje" and broadly translated it means "the field of the blackbirds". The word KosovA is a bastardized version of the serbian word. Same linguistic bastardization can be found in the Gaelic word Dub Hlin (town of black lakes), which over the centuries became Dublin (capital city of Ireland)- Dublin in English has no meaning, KosovA in Albanian equally has no meaning both are the names belonging to the ethnically stronger community which had prevailed at the time of ethnic dominance by the native speakers. Naturally the war for Kosovo keeps going on everywhere including the pages of this encyclopedia. Propaganda war knows no boundries. Historical facts can be checked, examined and speak abundantly of Kosovo's rich Serbian history. The many Serbian monastaries from 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14, 15, 16 and 17th Century speak strongly that Serbians had a firm foothold in Kosovo. Following facts played a key role in Kosovo's ethnic change:

1. Albanian birth rate was above that of any other nation on Earth;

2. Year 1688-1690 a mass exodus of Serbs was organized by Arsenije III Charnojevic

3. Communist politics brought many native Albanians from Albania to Kosovo in the aftermath of WW2

4. In its efforts to stifle Russian and/or Chinese version of communism (praciced only in Albania) Yugoslav leaders pretty much opened the Kosovo borders to further demonstrate their own approach to communism was the only correct way.

5. As the ethnic balance was shifting (numerically) in favor of Albanians, the more Serbians were being forcefully expelled.

CONCLUSION: Today's situation of Kosovo is clearly a nightmare because of the above and many more historical factors. In spite of the strong Serbian cultural identity established in Kosovo, the population growth and demographic make-up are clearly in favor of the Albanians. Their (Albanian) numerical superiority does not make Kosovo entirely Albanian.

"If the Pope says the Earth is flat - the facts don't have to say it's so"

Milosevic propaganda--Hipi Zhdripi 21:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

To ChrisO

ChrisO, this regards your recent edits, which entailed the erasing or modification of some of my work on the article:

Why did you add again the claim that the Albanians drove 100,000 Serbs out of Kosovo during WWII and what neutral source of information did you use? Because the source quoted in Demographic history of Kosovo is some Serbian nationalist memorandum which is as credible as something Milosevic would say.
Why does the figure of the non-Albanian refugees from Kosovo continues to stand at some 300,000 people when the whole non-Albanian population of Kosovo was 300,000 in 1991 and when the UN quotes some 150,000 non-Albanians still living in Kosovo NOWADAYS? Where have these additional 150,000 people come from? And why you you give full credit to Serbian sources even when all other sources say the opposite thing?

I am not blaming you for partiality to the Serbian cause, I am sure that you want to contribute to the writing of a neutral and valid article. However, it starts getting increasingly evident that you and several other editors are giving way to the press exerted (particularly) by Nikola Smolenski and forget that the historical truth lies in fact, not with those who scream louder. VMORO

Well if historical truth lies in fact VMORO is just shouting quite loudly to no avail. The whole non-Albanian population of Kosovo in 1991 was 360,000. Keep note, that was in 1991.

--Igor 02:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nope, Igor, you can't count - 340,000 in 1991, as compared to 200,000-220,000 according to the UN approximation for 2002. Which leaves us with how much? 120,000-140,000 *ethncally cleansed* non-Albanians. Can you point me out where exactly I *was shouting loudly to no avail* 'cause I don't seem to be able to see it? ~~VMORO

All that said, Chris revision of the article is still by far the better and more balanced one compared to some of Nikola’s work.GeneralPatton 23:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The website of the Serbian Government [1] (http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/pages/article.php?id=57) says that there were 194,190 Kosovar Serbs in 1991. Yet, Kosovar non-Albanian population seems to have exceeded the 450,000 figure by 1999. Hand on a minute, I thought that the Serb population was in decline in Kosovo - this is what the Serbs themselves say. Something smells here! Remember, there was a war in Kosovo and some non-Albanians were supposed to have died (no disrespect, my thoughts are always with the families of the innocent victims of war) -- some were supposed to be around the world as asylum-seekers or whatever (that is, not included in the list of refugees in Serbia and Montenegro). Current estimates say that there are approximately 400,000 Kosovar Albanians living in the West (Western Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) today, and this would suggest that approximately 40,000 Kosovar Serbs, Kosovar Roma, Kosovar Turks etc. are in the West, Turkey or somewhere else not registered as refugees in Serbia and Montenegro.

If anyone can add this numbers up, let me know.

We all know too well how reliable are the information of Nikola Smolenski -- who today told me that former Yugoslavia (pre-1991) had "granted" (note, this countries did not declare their independence) independence to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia! Interesting then why there were so many wars, horrible crimes and massacres. It must have been Serbs trying to make Slovenians, Croats, Bosnians and Macedonians accept their independence that was "granted" to them.

The information here is hopelessly bias and if NPOV policy is to be followed, the changes must take place immediately. -- Kosovar 13:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-Hugely anti-Albanian comments removed-

Neutrality

Absolutely, Patton, but even his work is still tipped over to the Serbian side. And he has not even bothered to answer my questions. Besides, some of the data here and in Demographic history of Kosovo are grossly manipulated (and one can easily guess who did it). For example, Yugoslav census 1921 posted 430,000 Albanians in Yugoslavia and the map made after the census portrays Kosovo as predominantly Albanian. Despite that, here and in the other article, an idea is given that interwar Kosovo was predominantly Serbian. VMORO

Nikola tends to ignore talk, it's a reoccurring thing with him. He also tends to have some extreme viewpoints, such as that the ICTY is "illegitimate" in his words and that Srebrenica numbers have been "inflated". He’s even admitted in chat that he systematically promotes a certain positions on things (i.e. Serbian hard-line one). You really can't expect a true NPOV from him, but we can do our best to counterbalance his stuff and make the articles closer to the truth. GeneralPatton 23:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Albanian recognition

Does Albania actually recognise the parallel government? Where is this written? Thanks! Intrigue 23:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be correct to say that Albania -had- recognised the parallel government. Under an UNMIK agreement with the Kosovo Albanian political parties, the (still unofficial) Republic of Kosovo and the parallel government were wound up and replaced with the provisional institutions. This is not to deny the right to Kosovo Albanians of self-government, but this was an act of their polticial representatives, who still maintain their right to declare indepedence - they have attempted to do so through the UNMIK-created parliament but have been contstantly rebuffed by the UN. The website of the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to a Mission (note - not an Embassy, an important distinction) in Kosovo, titled, "Misioni i Republikes se Shqiperise ne Kosove". I'm afraid my Albanian is not good enough to translate this precisely, but I suspect its something likle the 'Mission of the Albanian Republic' (ie. Albania) in or to Kosovo. If anyone wanted further clarification you might call that office on +381038 5483689. (JD)

Relocated?

The Serbian security forces "relocated" Albanians? Heh, did they also permanently relocate those they killed? It would be funny if it weren't for people's lives that we were talking about Nikola. Dori | Talk

Nikola objects to the following sentences in the Demographics sections (I've bolded the relevant bits for clarity, with Nikola's suggested words in italics):

The refugees were clearly expelled. The evidence for this is overwhelming; it was reported by literally thousands of people, and the OSCE's postwar report (http://www.osce.org/kosovo/documents/reports/hr/part1/ch14.htm) does a good job of summarising the evidence. The expulsions are also a big element of Milosevic's war crimes indictment. I don't think it's credible to refer to this episode as "relocation" when it was clearly much more than that.

In the aftermath of the war, many thousands of Serbs and non-Albanians (especially Romas) left/fled the province for fear of reprisals from the returning Kosovo Albanian refugees.

I don't know why Nikola is deleting the last part of this sentence. Doing so leaves open the question of why the non-Albanians fled, even though it was very clearly because they feared that the returning refugees or KLA would attack them. This was reported in both Western and Serbian news sources that at the time. See, for instance, "Kosovo's Serbs flee in fear" [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/370503.stm), "Kosovo's Serb exodus" [3] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/365405.stm) and "Serb refugees return to Kosovo" [4] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/374984.stm), all of which refer to Serbs fleeing because they "fear that K-For will not - or cannot - protect them from guerrillas of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), who have been coming down from the mountains to return to their towns and villages." -- ChrisO 13:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually ChrisO, all three sources that you give are British, BBC, none of them is Serbian. Serbian sources [5] (http://www.kosovo.net) and [6] (http://www.kosovo.com) speak of something quite different. And so do some other neutral sources such as Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/kosovo0704/3.htm):

When ethnic Albanians returned to Kosovo with the entry of NATO, Kosovo?s Serb, Roma, and other minorities were immediately subjected to violence, causing a massive outflow of non-Albanians from Kosovo.8 High levels of violence against non-Albanian communities?much of it politically-motivated and organized?continued for months, with the international troop presence and U.N. administration largely ineffective in stopping the violence.

--Igor 02:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I recall the reports of postwar revenge attacks. OK - I think we need to add a sentence to say something like: "Thousands more were driven out by intimidation, revenge attacks and a wave of crime after the war as KFOR struggled to restore order in the province." -- ChrisO 10:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thousands? here's the data (http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+CwwBmeI2269wwwwwwwwwwwwhFqhT0yfEtFqnp1xcAFqhT0yfEcFqAj1td5cwVowDzmxwwwwwww/opendoc.pdf)

22,000 to Bosnia, 63,000 to Serbia, 70,000 to Montenegro, 242,000 to (FYRO)Macedonia, 445,000 to Albania (mid June 1999). Assuming that the flux into Serbia-MG-Bosnia was non-ethnic-Albanian, we get 155,000 "others" and 687,000 ethnic Albanians, meaning 18% of the fleeing people were non-ethnic-Albanian. compare that with the "80% Albanian" claim in the demographics and you get a flow that shows no ethnic bias but a jump of an order of magnitude triggered by the NATO intervention.

Nope, I don' want to assume any such thing as the refugees to Bosnia and Montenegro were all Albanians, which in its turn signifies that your calculations are of no use ~~VMORO

The UNHCR's Kosovo Crisis Updates have some demographic information about the refugees. It's not accurate to say that those fleeing to BH and Montenegro were all Albanians, although it's safe to say that the vast majority were. Here's what UNHCR has to say:

At peak there were nearly 22,000 Kosovar refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of whom around half came after the start of NATO airstrikes in March 1999. The others fled into Bosnia over a period of around one year, following the outbreak of hostilities in Kosovo in March 1998. Most of the Kosovars who have gone to Bosnia have been ethnic Albanians, but there are also quite a few Roma — currently estimated at around 1,000. 20% are estimated to have arrived in 1998, 50% shortly after the start of NATO airstrikes, and the remainder after the peace settlement. [7] (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Current_News272.htm)

I've not found much information about the demographics of the Montenegro refugees but again they appear to have been mainly Albanian. There is a question mark about the 63,000 who are said to have gone to Serbia. The map you quoted says "[as of] mid-June 1999", which would include the people who fled at the end of the war - I would guess that these are largely Serbs and Roma, but it's possible that some Albanians may have gone to the Sandjak or the Albanian-populated parts of southern Serbia (Preševo etc).

The "As Seen, As Told" document corroborates the evidence. In Chapter 14, one reads: In addition, more than 100,000 Serb IDPs are estimated to have left Kosovo and to have been registered in Serbia and Montenegro. Source: UNHCR, Geneva, 15 October 1999. Doesn't that number represent about 50% of the pre-war ethnic Serb population of Kosovo? Themos

As for the question of whether the refugee crisis was "triggered by the NATO intervention", postwar analyses of the refugee flows shows quite clearly that it was not [8] (http://shr.aaas.org/kosovo/policyorpanic/).-- ChrisO 16:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is not what that analysis shows. The Policy or Panic document only looks at refugee flows during the period of NATO intervention. It is hence incapable of detecting whether anything was triggered by the NATO intervention, since it does not extend the study to before and after. But we can easily see (because we know that the refugee flows were orders of magnitude smaller before), that, indeed, the NATO intervention triggered the refugee crisis (crisis meaning an escalation, here). Themos

saying "as KFOR struggled to restore order in the province" is partisan. No doubt the same claim is made by any authority to legitimise its presence. -- Themos

Not at all. Law and order had clearly broken down in Kosovo. One of KFOR's first tasks was to restore it. KFOR had a lot of difficulty in achieving this initially. It didn't need to "legitimise" its presence by doing this, as its presence had already been legitimised - the Yugoslav and Serbian governments had surrendered law enforcement responsibilities in the agreement to end the war. -- ChrisO 16:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would you accept a wording that "the MUP struggled to restore order"? If not, why would you accept the same about KFOR? We already know that during the MUP's reign, the ethnic balance in Kosovo was not significantly affected while during KFOR's reign , it was. Is the ethnic cleansing of Serbs what you mean by order? Claimimg that KFOR's presence is legitimate because the opponent surrendered is quite interesting but would land you into some pretty untenable positions if applied to WW2 Europe. Themos

This is an interesting discussion, perhaps lacking some background to tie it together. Quite a few Serbs left Kosovo during the bombing for safety in Serbia proper, but very many (quite possibly half) left as NATO entered, mostly to Serbia proper but also to Montenegro (which is ethnically Serbian). Many thousands still live there, mostly in temporary camps or abandoned schools and the like - I visited a few whilst in Belgrade working at one of the western Embassies. All of them are quite clear about why they left: fear. All non-Albanians were clear that NATO moving in would mean a return of the KLA and of all those ethnic Albanian Kosovars who had so recently fled to Macedonia and Albania. Even prior to the bombing, ordinary Serbs had lived in fear of a wave of kidnappings and murders or Serbs by Albanians - it was this that led to the massive overreaction by Milosevic and the arrival of gangs of murderous thugs from Serbia (moslty Bosnian war veterans) who began to attack Albanians. So, when the Albanians returned, most Serbs left in fear of reprisals. Senior NATO figures often say that they regret that more was not done at the time to prevent Albanian voilence and encourage Serbs to remain. Those Serbs who do remain in Kosovo live in a climate of fear, and are mosty unable to leave the Serbian areas; a wave of voilence earlier this year, with gangs of Albanians laying seige to the Serbian enclaves, led to the destruction of homes and churches (including a number of historically important medieval monastries) and more Serbs left for Serbia proper - all of this was well covered by media.

The problem of 'returns' of Serbs to Kosovo is one of UNMIKs biggest headaches. Most are living in terrible conditions in Serbia proper, but are still unwilling to return out of fear for their security; they would return if they could be placed in more secure, perhaps Serbian-majority areas. Ethnic Albanians do not want them to return, partially because that would mean a larger non-Albanian voting population, but also because the abandoned homes of all those departed Serbs are now occupied by - guess who? The international community does want the Serbs to return, but cannot be seen to support mass returns to new settlements, as this would be seen as supporting the Serbian case for evential partition of Kosovo (one of the possible solutions to 'Final Status') - only return to 'point of origin' (ie. their original homes) is countenanced, but these have either been destroyed or occupied by ethnic Albanians. All rather difficult. (JD)

The article name is Kosovo not "Histori of Kosovo". Wrong place for discussion.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting paper

Here are two interesting papers that touch on the Kosovo in the 80s and mythmaking ...

http://www.amid.dk/pub/papers/AMID_34-2004_Diken_&_Bagge_Laustsen.pdf

http://www.ichrp.org/ac/excerpts/50.pdf

GeneralPatton 13:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/talk.htm (And try reading it before you pee on it, Patton. Gil-White is a leftie hater (http://www.tenc.net/gilwhite/oslo.htm) who had set out to prove TENC wrong.) Kwantus 14:53, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

The article name is Kosovo not "Histori of Kosovo". Wrong place.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

"Fear of reprisals"

My concern is that saying "many thousands of Serbs and non-Albanians (especially Romas) left the province for fear of reprisals from the returning Kosovo Albanian refugees" suggests that

the number of those leaving was under 10,000
reprisals were not in fact carried out, only the fear drove them out
the violence is attributed to returning refugees in general, tarring all Kosovo Albanians with the same brush.

All of these are wrong and the text should be made more explicit. So: "many thousands" should be "tens of thousands", "for fear of reprisals" should be "following a wave of violence" and "from ...refugees" should be "by Albanian-nationalist militant organisations". -- Themos 09:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you read "many thousands" to mean "under 10,000". The reason I originally used "many thousands" is simply because nobody seems to be able to agree how many left Kosovo. If you use "tens of thousands" you will, I'm sure, find people changing that to "hundreds of thousands" or some random number. The wording is just a way of conveying the scale without getting into disputed numbers.

We would not (and should not) talk about "hundreds of ethnic Albanians killed in Kosovo during the war" or of "tens of Yugoslavs killed by the bombing" just to avoid disputed numbers. The way to deal with disputed numbers is to present verifiable estimates from as many sources as we can.Themos

I take your point about tarring all the Albanians with the same brush. However, I don't think it's accurate to say "Albanian-nationalist militant organisations" were solely responsible for the violence. The point was that many Serbs believed that their former neighbours would take revenge for being expelled - given the amount of weapons in circulation, it was understandable that they would see any aggrieved Albanian as a threat. Perhaps we should say something like "from armed militants or former refugees seeking revenge"? -- ChrisO 11:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

two points: a) we need some data on the actual violent acts that happened as NATO went in. I remember reports of houses being burned, looting, etc. The factual basis for the fear should be made clear. b) do we use the word "revenge" for the attacks on ethnic Albanians? I think it was quite clear (from victims reports) that the attackers thought they were taking "revenge" for the NATO bombing when they attacked what they considered NATO's "allies". The problem with the word "revenge" is that it is intrinsically partisan. All sides tend to excuse excesses as "revenge".Themos

I'm a former diplomat and have spent time in Kosovo. Voilence on both sides was carried out in part by armed groups (paramilitaries on the Serb side, the KLA on the Albanian) but also by groups of individual Albanians, mostly young men of course, perhaps motivated or directed by KLA-types. We saw this again earlier this year, with large groups of Albanians destroying Serb homes across Kosovo (see media reports). Guess this does implicate the returning refugess, but most will understand that only a minority were involved in violence. (JD)

Dear JD, I appreciate your comments and I believe you have a rather good understanding of the situation in the Balkans. Nonetheless, you forgot to mention another important factor, i.e. the number of properties that Serbs have sold since the end of the NATO bombing. In case you were not aware of this, a large number of Serb properties have been sold legally and willingly. In particular, the majority of flats owned by Serbs in the capital Prishtina have been sold. Now, these Serbs will never go back to Kosova because they do not want to go back. You need to remember that Serbs under Yugoslavia (that is, since the Ottomans left) have been the priveledged ethnic group in Kosova. Now they know that that will never be the case again, and rightly so. They understand that if the unemployment rate in Kosova is going to be 40 per cent, so will be the unemployment rate for Kosovar Serbs. No longer will a Serb be the director, and the Albanian will do the "dirty" job for them (dirty as in hard labour). This ought to be made clear. High on the list of "new realities" is also the fact that nowadays if a Serb wants to address an Albanian, he or she may need to do so in Albanian. If a Serb man wants to pay an electricity bill, he will probably need to speak some Albanian, not that any Kosovar Serb is paying any electricity bills these days. And so on. Put differently, there will no longer be priviledged ethnic groups in Kosova.

Kosovar Serbs know these issues very well. They may say different things in public, to a diplomat like yourself, or indeed in front of the media. However, the matter of the fact is that a great number of Serbs have sold they properties in Kosova and they won't be going back. Let me illustrate this with an example: the supposedly Serb-owned houses in a small village just outside Mitrovica (the name of the village is Frashër in Albanian, I do not know and do not want to know the Serb name) were attacked by a group of angry Albanians, only to discover that the majority of the houses were Albanian-owned (purchased after the NATO bombing). But, it was too late, the houses were demanged and the Albanian owners kept this quite bacause they knew that the houses would only be rebuild if they were Serb-owned. Similar stories are coming out of other places too.

A quite update in the meantime, 95 per cent of the damaged houses from the March riots have been completely renewed, the other 5 per cent are in the process of being renewed.

Also, we must never fail to mention that Kosova today has a policy of positive discrimination in politics. In fact, Albanians have shown themselves to be gentlemen enough to give no less than 20 out of 120 seats of the Kosova Assembly to minorities, 10 of which go to Serbs. Does Serbia do this for Albanians from the Presheva valley: No! Do the Macedonians have any such policies where 25 per cent of the population is Albanian: No! How about Montenegro where 5 per cent of the population consists of Albanians: No! In addition, two ministries of the Kosovar Government are reserved for Serbs, plus one more for non-Serbs non-Albanians. This shows that if Kosovar Serbs really want to help themselves and improve their lives, they can because there is the political will and there will be a political will in the future. But, will they run the state, hand-pick the best jobs, enjoy priveledges in issues like language and so on, the answer is NO! So, they have to make their own mind.--Kosovar 01:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kosovar - some very important points. Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo were quite clearly discriminated against for all of the modern period. Worth remembering, though, that under the post-war Communist system, which continued unchanged until the fall of Milosevic, virtually everyone was discriminated against across Yugoslavia. None had the legitimate democratic and economic rights that most of us now enjoy. That Serb Communists appointed fellow Serb Communists to choice positions in Kosovo is no surprise, and as democrats we would all (Serb, Albanian and all of us) have opposed such favouritism. No doubt there was also a degree of discrimination on purely ethnic/religious grounds. Such favouritism also existed, for instance, in Northern Ireland, until modern legislation against discrimination was able to tilt the balance and amend (though not overturn) those historical wrongs. So It is still regrettable that, in Kosovo, the situation has been reversed by equally bad discrimination against Kosovo Serbs: you're right to say that Serbs have been voluntarily leaving Kosovo for a very long time, but a far larger number are forced to sell their property as the threat of violence against them prevents them living there. Past langauge discrimination against Albanians is no excuse for current langauge discrimination (on threat of voilence!) against Serbs. There are certainly wrongs to be righted, but the present situation is only creating more wrongs and so generating future conflict.

I also take your point as regards 'positive discrimination' in politics towards Kosovo Serbs. Every territory of the former Yugoslavia has had to find a balance between its ethnic groups. In Bosnia, the Federation is balanced equally between Serb and non-Serb, each with its own entity, and with sub-entity Cantons allowing balance at a local level. Ethinically divided countries across the world have adopted some type of 'federation' to balance ethnic groups - Canada is one example. Why not a similar solution for Kosovo? Cantonisation or entity-isation would give Serbs in Kosovo a real say in how government works, which the current position (a permanent minority in the assembly) does not. Most ethnic Albanians would oppose this - why? Because they fear a partition of Kosovo? If Serbia is to be partitioned along ethnic lines (with majority-Albanian Kosovo secceeding), why should Kosovo not be partitioned along ethnic lines, with majority-Serbian areas reverting to Serbia? It strikes me that Serbs in Kosovo are willing to consider all solutions, including complete independence, yet ethnic Albanians/Kosovars are not. I hope this does not sound 'pro-Serb' - I would jump equally quickly to the defence of ethnic Albanian rights, and supported the NATO intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing. The unintended consequences seem to have been pretty bad though - perhaps the international community should be using its money and its soldiers to enforce some balance?

Another important point - if we are see real reconciliation in Kosovo, as across the Balkans, we should make sure that those who committed war crimes on all sides are dealt with equally. I suppose you would support the arrest and trial in the Hague of any Kosovo Albanians indicted for such crimes? Something on this issue should perhaps be included on the main page, as the potential indictment of senior Kosovo ALbanian leaders could lead to voilence (most likely against the international community and NATO forces). (JD)

Dear JD, thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your time and effort.

When I wrote about discrimination and favouritism on ethnic grounds in Kosovo, I did not mean only the discrimination in the former Yugoslavia pre-1991. That discrimination did change after the fall of comunism -- Serbs took this discrimination and favouritism to levels never seen or heard before. Kosovar Serbs (approx. 8 per cent of the population) that I know think that they should be priveledged in Kosovo, in politics as well as public services. They think (not only expect) that Kosovar Albanians must speak to them in Serbian only. Although I respect your opinion, I totally disagree that currently there is a language discrimination against Serbs. I know a few Serb MPs, they speak Serbian in the Parliament, every law passed by the Assembly is available in Serbian, every official document is available in Serbian, they can fill in any application form in Serbian, there are TV and Radio stations, newspapers in Serbian -- surely you cannot call this a discrimination. I would love to hear about what you call a "current language discrimination".

It is interesting that you mentioned the divisions along ethnic lines. Why is it that you fail to suggest similar solutions for Macedonia, Montenegro and southern Serbia (Presheva-Medvegja-Bujanoc region)? The latest cencus in Macedonia shows that over 25 per cent of the population is Albanian, yet noone mentions partition of Macedonia (for your information, Albanians do not want the partition of Macedonia, I hope you do not subscribe to such rubish). Isn't it shameful that Albanians in Macedonia had to take up arms for their right to use their mother tongue in schools, and against discrimination in the public services, police, military and so on -- yet Serbs in Kosovo are granted these rights by default. Albanians in Macedonia today have far fewer rights than the Kosovar Serbs, nonetheless they represent at least a quarter of the population of Macedonia. Why is it that they don't have the right to "cantonisation or entity-isation", as you put it? Additionally, Albanians in Montenegro today are in the same numbers as Kosovar Serbs in Kosovo, nevertheless they cannot use Albanian language in the higher education, not to mention "cantonisation or entity-isation". The Government of Montenegro has shown itself to be very mature and responsible, and I have nothing but praise for them, but I must mention it to show you (and others) that what you seem to suggest represents nothing else other then double-standards. Last but not least, what about the Presheva-Medvegja-Bujanoc region in southern Serbia? They have a large Albanian population, border Kosovo and are as you would describe a "a permanent minority". Why can't they have the right to "cantonisation or entity-isation"? I am afraid JD, you will have to answer a great deal of questions before you can ask me, or any other Kosovar Albanian whether we oppose divisions along ethnic lines. Let us not forget that the current borders of Kosovo existed even in the former Yugoslavia (pre-1991) and their is strong basis for Kosovo secceeding. It is not the case, as you seem to suggest, that there are some Albanian-inhabited villages in a part of former Yugoslavia, hence let us make up a border over there.

I do not think that you or your views are 'pro-Serb', as there is no real reason for you or anyone else to side with one ethnic group. Unfortunately, this is a paranoia that has been widely embraced by a vast number of Serbs in their belief that the "world is against Serbia". I do not suffer from such feelings, and rightly so.

Before I move to the next topic, I would like you to know about one more thing. Serbia and the Serbs had a great chance to save themselves and their country (Serbia, not Kosovo) -- and at the same time stop Kosovo from becoming independent in the very near future. That great chance was offered to them (and Kosovar Albanians) in Rambouillet, France. Oh well, as you know, they blew it up! The chose a different path: all or nothing. Stupidly, they went on to flight the strongest powers in the world, and in the end, of course, they were left with nothing. That is why you need not feel sorry for the consequences, intentional or unintentional.

This is why my friend Serbia is, as you put it, willing to consider all solutions. If only some of that willingness existed back in early spring 1999.

If you read carefully, you must have noticed that I wrote stop Kosovo from becoming independent in the very near future. Kosovo was going to become independent sooner or later, no doubt about that. One can never force a solution on 90 per cent, or even more (since the majority of non-Albanian non-Serb Kosovars support the independence) of the population of a country. Only the people of Kosovo can and will decide about their own future and the future of their country, make no mistake about it.

Finally, with regards to the Hague tribunal, Kosovar Albanians are by far the strongest supporters of the ICTY. You are wrong in thinking that Kosovar Albanians do not stand for justice for all (all as in Albanians, Croats, Slovenians, Serbs, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Bosnians). The Hague tribunal has thus far charged 3 Kosovar Albanians and all three today are under the ICTY custudy. None of them refused to go there nor did anyone encourage them to hide, like the Serbs do for example. In Albanian culture true heros do not hide - that is alien to us. Today, as always, Kosovar Albanians are ready for complete and unreserved cooperation with the ICTY, regardless of whom they investigate and subsequently may or may not charge. I do not subscribe, not should you or anyone else, to the Serb propaganda that ICTY is afraid of charging Kosovar Albanians. I cannot image for a second Carla Del Ponte (whom I admire) hesitating to charge an individual or group if there is a case against them. In fact such a thought makes me laugh, and there is nothing else but to feel sorry for such people.

My final message: do not speculate, it is no good for your health. Kind regards -- Kosovar 04:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Think we're in danger of getting moved from this page. But this is a good discussion. Let take language first (also see my points below). I certainly did not intend to say that there was no discrimination post-1991. If anything, it was probably worse as the whole ethnic 'balance' (!!) of Yugoslavia was destroyed by the death of Tito. From 1991 until 2000 the system within Serbia (and inlcuding Kosovo here) was based on the Communist system with increasingly nationalist elements. You cannot blame this system on the Serbs. It was the fault of a post-WWII world obsessed by the Cold War; the rights of minorities and the democratic and human rights of all were undermined in places across the world. After 1991, the Serb nationalists, primarily Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies were guilty for the continuation and worsening of discrimination; many, many Kosovo Serbs, as you well know, opposed Milosevic and would have worked (some more than others) to find a balance in Kosovo. The reaction of some Kosovo Albanians to this discrimination was unacceptable - particularly the kidnappings and murder of ordinary citizens of Kosovo. And the reaction to this by the Millosevic government, by then tipping over into a dictatorship, was even more unacceptable, and so the West interevened. None of this excuses any discrimination now. We start with a clean slate. As the UNMIK constitutional framework states (http://www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm), all have the right to: (a) Use their language and alphabets freely, including before the courts, agencies, and other public bodies in Kosovo; (b) Receive education in their own language; (c) Enjoy access to information in their own language; (d) Enjoy equal opportunity with respect to employment in public bodies at all levels and with respect to access to public services at all levels; e) Enjoy unhindered contacts among themselves and with members of their respective Communities within and outside of Kosovo; (f) Use and display Community symbols, subject to the law. As you well know, the reaction in central Pristina to someone speaking in Serbian would be unpredictable but certainly unfreindly. Given the events of earlier this year, all Kosovo Serbs are afraid to use their language and symbols outside of the Serbian areas - this is completely unacceptable. Protected areas within the Parliament or courts are really not enough. Do you accept that ordinary Serbs are unable to use their language freely outside of the Serb areas? Is this not discrimination, as bad or worse than was committed (in language terms ONLY) against the Kosovo Albanians?

On entities etc. I agree with almost all your points; there needs to be either a more consistent approach to the 'solutions' for ethnic balance across the Balkans, or at least an agreement why this inconsistencies occur. I don't think (and nor do 'negotiators') that historical precedence is sufficient to exert a claim for or against a degree of self-determination. If Kosovo/a had never been self-administering, would you think you had less of a claim to independence? Of course not. Ultimately, as you say, the solution has a lot to do with the treatment of one 'side' by another. In Montenegro the situation has been historically better (but by no means perfect) than elsewhere; this is why there is less pressure for change. I had originally intended to respond to your point about Serbian representation in Parliament - and I think my points now fit within this discussion. If the Serbs in Kosovo NOW feel that they are being discriminated against, it is legitimate and unsurprising if they demand greater defences against this - a range of solutions from stronger legal rights, stronger influence over democratic institutions, or even, finally, a split. If Motenegro started to abuse its ethnic Albanian population, they would be within their rights to demand seccession; same for Serbs in Kosovo; same for Albanians in southern Serbia. Of course, whether or not they get what they want depends on: a) how forcefully or effectivly they pursue their goals and b) what the international community supports. And this is the dilemma for us all - and the only solution I can see is to try and reduce discontent; the only way I can see the international community allowing an independent Kosovo is if the Serbs are (relatively) content to live there. Events such as those of earlier this year, and discrimnation against Serbs as perceived by Serbs and by internationals such as myself actively undermine the case for Kosovo independence. I guess its a case of rights (to self-determination) entailing responsibilities (to not abuse your minorities). Serbia got it wrong and was punished; I suspect the IC will not risk the same in an independent Kosovo. Thoughts?

Totally agree with your points on the Serbs (or, more precisley, the Serbian state as run by Milosevic and his political allies) getting it wrong again and again. Eveything 'done' to the Serbs from 1991 up to now are in large part the fault of Milosevic, Seselj, Karadzic , Mladic and so on. Ordinary Serbs, as I am sure you will agree, were powerless to resist, just as you yourself were powerless to resist the destruction of Serb homes and churches in Kosovo earlier this year. To link in whit the preceeding point, there is a risk if a country/government/people gets it wrong, then the international community will interevene. It has intervened in the Balkans and nothing will happen to Kosovo without the support of the IC - if Kosovo Albanians acknowledge this they will more likely get what they want; and if they do not there is a real risk of losing the prize they have sought for so long.

On ICTY. Some good points. I do seem to remeber than certain of the K Albanian ICTY indictees may have not gone to the Hague SO willingly. It took a while to 'find' one or two of them, then they appeared after behind the scenes discussions with the politicians. But, in the end, they did go, all credit to them. You're right to say that 3 K Albanians (do you mind me putting it that way, I do also mean Kosovars, but we need a common reference) have gone to the Hague, but the right words would be that 3 have been openly charged; there are certainly a number of 'closed indictments' which are not public. Closed indictments exist where there is sufficient evidence for a case but where publication would reduce the chance of bringing the indictee to court or where a public indictment would cause other problems. This is not Carla del Ponte hesitating to charge; these people have been charged, just not yet publicly. It is these closed indictments which are source of speculation, some of it well informed (and I do not include Covic here, although as you well know, he is often well-informed), that very senior K Albanian politicians might be the subject of closed indictments which at some point will become open, requiring those people to stand trial. My question was - what would be result? How would the political parties, former KLA types and ordinary Kosovars react? This is, as I am sure you agree, an important question - and of more than just acadmeic interest. (JD)

Very good points! I must stress though that there is absolutely no institutional discrimination in Kosovo and there is a lot of political goodwill from the Kosovar Albanian side to improve things on the ground. It cannot be understated though, that the Kosovar Serbs could help themselves by cooperating and making use of this political goodwill. Instead they have chosen the path of no cooperation in hope that they would block the political processes in Kosovo and spoil the image of the progress achieved since 1999. Consequenly, Kosovar Serbs share some of the responsibility on the matter and this needs to be understood.

In addition, do you seem to suggest that Milosevic somehow was reacting to kidnappings and murders, and that apart from that there was no violence towards Kosovar Albanians whatsoever? Are you suggesting that somehow Milosevic was acting in self-defence?

As far as 'self-determination entails responsibility' is concerned, I could not agree with you more. However, the independence must come first -- people will know that they got what they really wanted, calm down and only then start thinking about the responsibilities -- and then whoever does not behave must face the severest consequences. Kosovar Albanians today cannot be held responsible for security issues because they are not in charge of security -- these responsibilities lay with the UN and NATO. But until the 'house is sorted' (final status resolved) not much will change because every side is led to believe that they can impose their views on the ground. Imagine the case of a family (in this case a nation) moving into a new house. Until the children know in what room they will get to sleep they will make noise and trouble in an attempt to change minds or influence decisions. Once we all know openly and clearly what is going to happen only then we take decisive steps in ensuring that everyone is truly equal and respected – no one privileged, no one discriminated.

Finally, the most willing part to cooperate with the ICTY are the Kosovar Albanians. JD, you a making a serious mistake if you think that FL was not willing to voluntarily hand himself in. He was abroad when he was charged -- he was not hiding as you seem to suggest (an offensive statement, really) -- he was on holidays skiing. When he found out he was charged, he phoned the media immediately (hardly a hiding strategy!) and expressed the willingness to hand himself in. He tried to reach a deal with UNMIK to allow him to come back to Kosovo so that he could formally voluntarily hand himself in. UNMIK could not guarantee that he would not be arrested in front of the cameras and the family, hence he went to the Hague directly.

As long as a person is not publicly charged -- he or she in fact is not charged. That is it. Your statement has too many might, could, would... (equals speculations). I do not want to be drawn into speculations. One thing I can say though: if an individual, regardless of whether he or she is Albanian, Bosnian, Croat, Macedonian or Serb has committed crimes and is charged then that person must face the law. If he or she is a Kosovar Albanian, he or she will be in the court. No Albanian will go into hidings, while receiving a pension and support from the government, police and the army. -- Kosovar 19:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kosovar - Agree that there is little or no institutional discrimination (depending on how you define it). Agree that the Kosovo Serbs continue to play a very poor hand; cooperation would have won them more influence. Agree that the K Serbs should take advantage of the goodwill that exists in the large part of the Kosovo Albanian community. However, part of the problem is that they DO want to spoil the image of progress since 1999 because they do see (and experience) real problems which most of us downplay in the (generally very good) wider picture - if those problems (security and returns especially) were dealth with, the worst elements amongst K Serb politicians would not be able to exploit the fears of ordinary Kosovo Serbs. That was my point on Milosevic - his system discriminated against and committed crimes against the Kosovo Albanian community; some in the K Albanian community responded, in part against MUP/VJ but also against ordinary citizens; this allowed Milosevic to expolit some legitimate concerns of K Serbs for his own, twisted nationalist/personal glorification agenda.

On the other points, I see what you are saying but I can't agree. It's the responsility of Kosovo Albanians not to destroy Serb homes, not to intimidate Serbs in the street, and to allow them to speak their language freely, etc. NATO and the UN should only be there as a last resort. It's precisely the same problem with your analogy of childrens' bedrooms - in demanding Independence before restoring security, good administration and human rights for all, Kosovo Albanians are asking to be treated as children (which is far less than they deserve). Hence the 'Standards before Status' mantra, however empty it can sometimes seem. As I said before, if this is recognised by the Kosovo Albanian community, indedependence would be assured more quickly. I firmly believe that if large numbers of Kosovo Serbs are allowed to return to Kosovo (anywhere in Kosovo), if those still there begin to feel less aggression towards them, with greater decentralisation, then we will have strong basis for a truly multiethnic, independent Kosovo. Not a bad goal surely?

And, on idictments. Take the point on FL - if that's the story, fair enough - had seemend suspiscious at the time. But on closed indictments I am right - if there is an indictment, but that indictment is not public that person remains, in law, in the eyes of the Hague, indicted. Not guilty, not subject to an arrest warrent, but indicted. And I do think it is a matter of legitimate, useful speculation/discussion as to the effect of the 'opening' of a closed indictment against senior Kosovo Albanian politicians. The chance might be 25%, 50% or 75%, but the effect could be massive. Good to hear that you think the response will be measured (and, as you point out, a hell of a lot better than actions of Karadzic, Mladic etc), but many in the international community are worried. I think it should be covered in the article - with plenty of caveats. Cheers for the interesting discussion, Kosovar! (JD)

Dear JD, I certainly enjoyed the discussion. I would like to conclude that the Kosovar government has rebuilt 95 per cent (5 per cent still under construction) of all the houses that were destroyed in March. I do not recall Serbian government rebuilding a sinlge house in Kosovo after the bombing (if you do, please let me know). I stand for 'Standards And Status' - the people involved in this process would be more inspired and work harder. FL was live on RTK (Radio Television of Kosova) and his statements can easily be found in archives. Finally, you may want to read the following from the Wall Street Journal (http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0412a&L=albanews&F=&S=&P=2235) -- Kosovar 19:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JD and Kosovar, I enjoyed reading your discussion, and I think I should point out a few things that should have bearing on the article text:

The statement that "Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo were quite clearly discriminated against for all of the modern period" is quite an exaggeration. All nationalisms or activities that the government thought were nationalist were suppressed in Yugoslavia, not just Albanian. After the Yugoslav constitution of 1974, Kosovo had practically the same internal autonomy as Yugoslav republics and Kosovo's leaders were overwhelmingly Albanians. There was full bilinguality in the province, there were TV, radio and newspapers, as well as schools and university studies in Albanian. The Yugoslav Official Gazette (which carried all laws) was published in Albanian since 1970 and Albanians, politicians as well as ordinary citizens, could and did use the Albanian language in all official and public business. Kosovo's representatives in the federal presidency were Albanian and two of them were presidents of Yugoslavia. Apart from the crackdown in 1981 (which I do not know enough about to have an informed opinion), this situation continued until the rise of Milosevic. All that said, I understand that Kosovo Albanians must have felt at least a bit out of place in the South Slavic country: there was the language barrier, plus the fact that they were considered one of the nationalities and not nations of Yugoslavia. Anyway, the discrimination at least from 1974-1987 is not that clear.
Without diminishing Milosevic's responsibility for the bloodshed in the late 1990's, it is obvious that Kosovo Albanians after the 1990 proclamation of independence had no intention to settle on anything less. All ouvertures by the Serbian government were either rejected or ignored and I think everyone will agree that Albanian armed organizations were ready for a war of independence long before the escalation in the late 90's. I'm not implying that there is anything morally wrong with this position, I just think that it is worthy of note when discussing the events of the 90's, especially with regard to negotiations. Zocky 02:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article name is Kosovo not "History of Kosovo". Wrong place for discussion.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved history

The article was getting far too long - well above the recommended 32KB limit - so I've moved the history section to History of Kosovo. -- ChrisO 11:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Number of refugees

First, as I said, the way in which this page is moved has insulted me and I find it insultive to comment here since; I hope that this exception will be appreciated.

For the sake of sanity, I will pretend that none of this hasn't been pointed out numerous times already.

I can not comprehend why are sysops reverting the article to the version with lower number of refugees, when that lowered number is provided without any justification and, as I said, references for the higher number were provided numerous times.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040203102745/http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/coordination_centre/index.html gives number of refugees as 242,381 and estimates that there are 50,000 more unregistered refugees. UNHCR Global Report 2001 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (to obtain it you may go to http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home?page=search and search for "Yugoslavia") at page 1 gives number of registered refugees as 231,000, report from 2002 at page 9 gives it as 263,600 and report from 2003 at page 1 gives it as 234,826. Note that both sources include only refugees inside SCG, and only registered refugees, so the actual number is higher. As after initial wave of violence some refugees have returned to safe areas, initial number of refugees in 1999 was even higher. So you can see that number of refugees in 1999 is probably even higher than 300,000; it would be fine with me to say something like "more than 250,000" but lowering the number two or threefold is not acceptable in any way. And of course, despite what VMORO might claim, UNHCR is not Serbian source. Secondary sources do take over these figures. For example, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1226542.htm mentions that "Some 200,000 Serbs fled the province"; the first link above gives the number of Serbs (for there are non-Serbs who have fled the province) as 226000. http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/yugoslavia.htm gives "The 277,000 internally displaced people in Yugoslavia" (in 2002).

As for discrepancies between censa and number of refugees, it should be noted that both 1991 Yugoslav and 2002 UNMIK's censa are ESTIMATES of the province's population while refugees are REGISTERED individually; in order to get aid, each refugee must proove to be from the province and register. This is why their EXACT number is known, and as could be seen, the sources don't round the numbers but give them accurate to the last digit. The fact that the numbers don't add up means that estimates are wrong, not that number of refugees is wrong. Further, UNMIK's censa include people who are internally displaced within Kosovo; they are still refugees.

Nikola 12:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV claims about expulsions

Leaving aside the refugee figures, I've removed a statement that Nikola keeps adding:

"many foreign governments, human rights groups and international organisations claim that they were expelled by Serbian security forces, though they are sometimes disbelieved because of their connectedness to NATO."

This is unsatisfactory for a couple of reasons. It's factually incorrect, as it was the refugees themselves who said that they had been forcibly expelled. Ignoring or denying this simply isn't credible. It's also not much more than innuendo to claim that there is a link between NATO and the human rights groups and international organisations stating that there were mass expulsions - the obvious implication is that organisations such as Human Rights Watch, the OSCE, UNHCR etc are just fronts for NATO, which is disputable to say the least. -- ChrisO 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some refugees said that they had been forcibly expelled. Whether they were speaking the truth, represent typical refugees, or were expelled in a typical way is a matter of conjecture.

And if it is a matter of conjecture, then it matters who is making that conjecture. I don't say that OSCE, UNHCR etc. are fronts for NATO. It's almost the opposite: NATO, OCSE, UN and other organisations are all fronts for their member states and their political goals.

To take OSCE as an example:

OSCE expelled FRY from its membership in OSCE in a way contrary to OSCE's charter
OSCE sent a verification mission to Kosovo to se whether there are human rights violations by Yugoslav government
Results of its findings were used to justify NATO's bombing of FRY
Its chief "discovered" "Racak massacre", which was used by NATO as pretext for the bombing
On the other hand, OSCE didn't sent a verification mission to Yugoslavia to see whether there were some human rights violations commited by NATO countries in the course of their bombing

And now, a report by OSCE is taken as a proof that Kosovo Albanians are expelled from the province? This is laughable to say the least.

To suggest that NATO member countries, who are all also OSCE member countries, would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on bombing of Yugoslavia, but would then allow OSCE to produce a report unfavourable to them (which would then likely result in spending more than hundreds of billions of dollars on reparations) would mean to think that their politicians are all schyzophrenics. To make long story short, you believe that refugees are expelled; but suppose that they aren't. Would OSCE's report be any different? Of course it wouldn't. So you can't take it as an evidence that the refugees are expelled.

Same goes for NGOs. In true spirit of NPOV, in a piece of the article now in History of Kosovo, a statement by European Stability Initiative (for which I've never heard until I saw it on Wikipedia) gains as much space as SCG's report. If we look who's funding the ESI[9] (http://www.esiweb.org/misc/funding.php), we see:

Department for International Development, UK, a NATO member
European Commission, most countries are NATO members
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada, a NATO member
Udenriksministeriet, Germany, a NATO member
Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, The Netherlands, a NATO member
US Mission to NATO (no comment)
Commonwealth Office, UK, a NATO member
Utenriksdepartementet, Norway, a NATO member
King Baudouin Foundation, Belgium, a NATO member

I don't know why, but to me it seems that there might be some link between NATO and this particular human rights group, and that it might have been financed by some NATO members, who possibly might want for it to produce a report favourable to them.

To conslude, I don't understand how some people can think that OSCE, UNHCR etc. are not influenced by NATO; but I understand that there are some people who think so. But what I truly don't understand is how there are people who think so and don't understand that there are other people who think differently. Nikola 12:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't compete with conspiracy theories, because I know that you won't believe anything I have to say. I will say, though, that I know from my personal experience with (some of) those organisations that they don't work in the way that you claim. For instance, the OSCE represents 55 countries - it's based in a neutral country (Austria), NATO countries are in a minority and there are pro-Serb countries in its membership, such as Belarus and Russia. It's fair to say that it's working increasingly closely with NATO, but that's because its role is increasingly overlapping with that of NATO (i.e. promoting peace and democratisation). It's also fair to say that it's taken some positions that are similar to those of NATO, but again that's because it has a similar set of core values (i.e. human rights and democracy). Outside Serbia and the Serbian community, I don't think many people seriously doubt that the OSCE was telling it as it saw it in Kosovo.

You take it as given that NATO promotes peace and democratisation and its core values are human rights and democracy. The given is that this is what NATO claims. The actions of NATO in Turkey suggest a very different reality.Themos

I think it's up to you to prove your case of an anti-Serb conspiracy, rather than for everyone else to have to prove a negative. I note that you haven't produced any evidence ("it seems ... there might ... it might..." etc). A matter of conjecture, right? -- ChrisO 00:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only person mentioning any conspiracy is you. I never claimed such a thing. For example, ESI's donors are proudly listed at ESI's web site where everyone can see them. Have I claimed that NATO is financing ESI secretly, while there are other donors listed on it's page, that would be a conspiracy theory.

Anyway, this is a non-issue. As you say yourself, "Outside Serbia and the Serbian community, I don't think many people seriously doubt..."; that POV, which you acknowledge to exist, as POV in one of the two sides in the conflict, is notable.

(And "it seems ... there might ... it might..." part is irony.) Nikola 21:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with you including this stuff in the article, as long as you attribute it to someone. As it stands at the moment, it's both your opinion and weasel words, but it ceases to be so if you can attribute it to some Serbian organisation, person or thing. I don't think it'd be that hard to find a quote from someone like Seselj which would get the point across. Ambi 01:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know of one interview (http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/keys.htm) in which it is suggested that the KLA contributed to the movement of ethnic Albanians, but there is no confirmation or investigation of these claims that I know of. Themos

emperors-clothes.com is far from being a credible source about this issue, its like using stormfront.org for Holocaust. It's an anti-NATO/US/EU propaganda site. GeneralPatton 18:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nikola seems to be rambling a bit but I think he has a valid point. I'm a former diplomat, having served in the region and worked on Kosovo. Some background - increasing Albanian discontent and voilence against Serbs in Kosovo led to a massive Serbian police against the KLA, with about as much subtlty as used against insurgents in Iraq; hardline, nationalist Serb paramilitary groups (mostly Bosnian war veterans / war criminals) took advantage of the situation and started to attack ethnic Albanians and their homes with impunity, aid and abetted by 'special force' elements of the Serbian police and encouraged by the Serbian President (Milosevic) himself; ordinary Kosovo Albanians began to leave Kosovo out of fear; western media took up the story and we all began to pay attention; seeing the situation moving in their facour, the KLA seems to have encouraged other ethnic Albanians to leave, perhaps using the fear of Serb voilence as a motivator; OSCE produced a report suggesting war crimes were happening; Milosevic blustered, NATO intervened, the Albanians returned and many Serbs left. So, most ethnic Albanian refugess left out of fear of the Serb paramilitaries (who, it's worth saying, were not from Kosovo), but some (no doubt a much smaller number) left under the encouragement of the KLA who had an interest in making the situation look as bad as possible.

Nicola also has a valid point on the neutrality of the international community. We each like to think that our viewpoint is neutral, but foreign policy is complex and sometimes you have to accept some contradictions. For instance - why support (sort of) possible independece for ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, but not allow the same for Serbs in Bosnia? Why do war crimes commited by Serbs have to be tried in the Hague, but not war crimes committed by Iraqis? Why have no senior Kosovo Albanians been arrested for war crimes, when the Hague thinks they were committed by both sides? And organisations such as the OSCE and the UN are not always neutral or reliable - they have vested interests and their own policy goals to pursue. Reports written by individuals in such organisations can lack information or come to an unsupported conclusion - and sometimes those individuals have their own views they want to put across, or their careers to advance. So, whilst Nicola way overstates it, their is a case for saying that the organisations of the international community (the UN, NATO, the OSCE etc) form a system, and that when that system is used with a particular goal (such as stopping ethnic cleansing in Kosovo) there IS a conspiracy against (for instance) Serbia under Milosevic - but its a very open one! The point is Serbia, needs to move on from Milosevic and the events of the past. (JD)

I would like to make a few brief comments. More on this topic I have written above in discussion with JD:

First, why support the independence of Kosovo, but not that of Bosnian Serbs? Because Kosovo has historically been an entity, autonomous, and most importantly with clearly defined borders. Kosovo has been autonomous under former Yugoslavia (pre-1991), it had its own assembly, president, police, education system and so on. In other words, there is very strong basis for supporting Kosovo's independence. Bosnian Serbs did not have any of these, hence they got a republic within Bosnia. Negotiators take all these factors under consideration, hence Kosovo is one level higher than Bosnian Serbs, that is, the right to self-determination.

I makes no make sense for the KLA to encourage people to leave Kosovo. The KLA was fighting for the survival of these people, for their liberation, not for them to leave the country. These people supported and fed the soldiers of the KLA and one's thoughts must be very distorted to come up with such 'conclusions'. I do not know a single person (and believe you me, I know many Kosovar Albanians) who has been encouraged or has heard of KLA encouraging people to flee. If you do not have any actual facts, then please do not speculate. If we are to fill these pages with speculations, like Nikola does, then we better rename Wikipedia as Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedic Speculations.

If there is a case against senior Kosovar Albanians, Carla del Ponte will not hesitate a minute to charge them. Anyone who knows a thing or two about del Ponte and the ICTY know that they are not 'afraid' to charge whoever it is that is accused of war crimes. Anyone who says otherwise is a victim of anti-ICTY Serb propaganda. It makes me laugh when I think that Serbs even managed to accuse the formal Kosovar Prime Minister, Bajram Rexhepi, as a war criminal -- only to be humiliated to a public apology by Nebojsa Covic since there were absolutely no facts.

My final message: do not follow Covic's path? -- Kosovar 04:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kosovar - I have answered points one and there above. On point, two, which has relevance here, I think it is important for us to note that a number of non-Serbs witnessed KLA encouragement of refugees in the period prior to the bombing. I have met a couple, and they remain unwilling to speak about is openly. I'm more than happy to exclude this element (as speculation) from the main article until we have something further, but I am not willing to pretend that it is impossible or just a Serb lie. I'll do some digging around the international study groups and see if there's anything further I can add.

But, getting back to the point of this section, I think its important that we recognise that there is a broader picture to the event prior to the bombing than we acknowledge in the main article. There are many across the world who perceive a bias of opinion amongst a group of organisations (NATO, the EU, OSCE and so on) who have a common membership and common set of goals, and even amongst the more reliable human rights organisations. Personally, I'm with NATO and the UN every time, but I recognise any dissent. The problem is that very few have the whole picture. This is the source of Nikola's comment. Can we not acknowledge this?

JD, I see where you are coming from, but the same could be said about the events after the bombing. If there was a bias of opinion prior to the bombing -- there certainly is one after the bombing. We must strive to be balanced. -- Kosovar 19:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions for resolving the current disputes

I think it might be a good idea to step back a bit at this point and address the two disputed sentences individually.

Economy

Nikola's version of the first disputed sentence is:

The Dinar is widespread in Kosovo because most trade is done with the rest of Serbia and the Kosovo Serb enclaves also use it widely.

Ambi's version is:

The Dinar is not widespread in Kosovo, most trade is done with the rest of Serbia using Euro, and Kosovo Serb enclaves use dinars only when in Serbia.

Could the two of you please cite your sources on this? I don't know for sure either way, though I've heard anecdotally that the dinar is only used on any significant scale in the Serb-inhabited areas of Kosovo. I certainly can't imagine the Kosovo Albanians using it when they have the Euro to hand, and UNMIK doesn't treat the dinar as legal tender for official transactions. Der Spiegel ran an article on Kosovo recently which said: "In these miniature states [i.e. Serbian enclaves]] surrounded by NATO barbed wire, where the valid currency is still the Dinar and not the Euro..." (see http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,323632,00.html ). According to UNMIK's website, "De facto the Euro is used for almost all transactions." (http://www.unmikonline.org/eu/index_fs.pdf ) If you can find any more evidence, please post it here.

The Blue Guide Albania and Kosovo, 1st edition (James Pettifer, May 2001) says on p21: "Most of the same factors affect business in Kosovo as in Albania except that the Yugoslav dinar has become a redundant currency, and is only used for small change, if at all. The only exception to this is in the Serb enclaves....." Key45

I distrusted anon's edit and haven't tried to find references. Anyway, Blue Guide that you quote suggests that Dinar is in use as small change on entire teritorry, so that is a widespread use even if it is small percenteage in total flow of the capital. Der Spiegel also says that Dinar is used in enclaves and not that they use it only to trade with rest of Serbia, if that was what anon intended to say. Nikola 21:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. You can read it using amazon's inside the book search. "If at all" doesn't sound like entire territory to me. If no one can agree between "Is widespread" and "Is not widespread" why not leave that word out entirely, and simply say

The Dinar is the primary currency in Kosovo Serb enclaves.

Maybe it could be said that outside of them it is used sporadically. I believe that it would cover low volume of use, and would be true if it is not used on entire teritorry. Nikola 07:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the kos=yoguhrt thing sounds really unlikely to me too. - Key45 04:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted it - I couldn't find any substantiation for it. I think someone was trolling... -- ChrisO 08:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is as good a point as any to throw in my observation that the classical greek word for blackbird is "kossu^ph-os" (http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2359357), some one thousand years before the slavic entry into the Balkans. However, I don't know of any expert linguistic source that evaluates this fact. In modern Greek, the region is called Kossuphopedio. Themos 11:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having lived in Belgrade until recently, and travelled around Kosovo extensively, I can probably clear this up. The Euro is the main currency for the Albanian and international population. It can't be the official currency as Kosovo is not in the Eurozone. As everywhere across the Balkans, including in Serbia proper, the Euro is also the currency for trade and for large denominations (you might buy a car in Belgrade, in cash, using Euros) and is generally accepted anywhere (you could buy your petrol in Euros anywhere). In Kosovo, the Dinar is still the main and official currency for the Serbian areas (that is, parts of northern Kosovo inlcuding towns such as Mitrovica, and the small enclaves elsewhere) and is used for all transactions from buying bread to paying taxes. Serbian pensions and salaries are still paid to Serbs in Kosovo in Dinars, no doubt a main reason that the Dinar is still used in the Serbia areas. The Dinar isn't used anywhere in Kosovo outside of the Serb areas, for fear of revealling yourself as a Serb! (JD)

PS Apologies for the way I've intserted this, not a very experienced user.

Kos in Albanian means "set yoghurt". In England they call it "Greek-style yoghurt". -- Kosovar 04:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as the currency is concerned, here are some more facts:

Budged calculated in EUROs ONLY
Electricity paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
Telephone bills paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
Water bill paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
Garbage collection paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
Heating paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
"Anything you can think of" bills paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
Postage (postal stamps) priced in EUROs ONLY (see the stamps Kosovar Postal Stamps (http://groups.msn.com/visitkosova/shoebox.msnw))
Banks operate using EUROs only (maybe except Serb-populated areas where both currencies are used)
Loans available in EUROs only (no loans available in Dinars, even for Serbs, sorry!)
Bus tickets in EUROs only
Endless list? Yes!

So, if anyone is living or staying in the country, and needs or uses any of the above must use, you guessed it, the EURO. --Kosovar 04:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Serbian government gives out payments in Dinars ONLY.
Serbian government gives out pensions in Dinars ONLY.
Serbian government gives out social aid in Dinars ONLY.
The list perhaps isn't endless but it certainly exist. Nikola 08:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would guess that this is only in the Kosovo Serb areas? Other than for transactions with the Serbian government and (presumably) for trade between Kosovo Serb areas and Serbia, is the dinar used for anything else in Kosovo? -- ChrisO 14:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is used for trading in the enclaves alongside the Euro and, according to the Blue Guide above, sometimes for small change outside of them. Nikola 03:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh really! I did not know that the Serbian government gives out pensions and social aid at all, because the Pensioners' Fund of Kosovo was stolen by the Serbian government. It was stolen just like they stole the savings of Kosovars stored in the banks of the former Yugoslavia (pre-1991). Kosovar pensioners (non-Serbs) stopped receiving pensions back in 1999 -- and what happened to their pensions has nothing to do with the Serbian government, does it?

Let me tell you one more thing, my grandfather receives a pension from Canada in Canadian Dollars (CAD) for 25 years that he worked over there. Put if he wants to use that money in Prishtina, Peja, Gjakova, Prizren, Mitrovica, Gjilan, Ferizaj, Skenderaj and so on (that is, 95 per cent of the country) he must convert it to Euros first. In fact, he and everybody else can use Euros in 100 per cent of the country, no problem with that. And be assured my friend that the Canadian government has the same influence (power) over Kosovo as the Serbian government, i.e. none.

Norwegian government gives social aid to the poor people of Somalia in Norwegian Kroner (NOK) only, but the point is what currency is actually used in Somalia and what currency the national government and the banks use to do everyday business.

The issue is: on what currency is the country run? And the answer to that question is undoubtably: the Euro. The fact that a few pensions and some social aid are paid in Dinars in less than 5 per cent of the territory of the country has very little, if any, influence on the everyday business and the way the country is run.

Summary: The Euro is the de facto currency of Kosovo, except few areas where, in addition to the Euro, Kosovar Serbs recieve pensions and social aid in Dinars. -- Kosovar 01:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kosovo is not a country, and your other assertions are incorrect in a similar way. Nikola 03:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I knew too well you would give up since there is not much you can say really. Who should know better, me who lives in Kosovo or a person (for example, you) that probably cannot even enter the country. I thought the topic of discussion was the economy, and in particular, the currencies that are used in Kosovo today, right? -- Kosovar 04:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One of telltale signs of trolling is when a participant states an obvious fact, misinterprets it completely, and then proceeds as if the misinterpretation is undisputed truth.

In the above paragraph, Kosovar claims that my reply is short because I gave up and I have no arguments. This is wrong: my reply is short because Kosovar's point are so ridiculous that they need no reply. Nikola 10:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like it or not, the truth (the whole truth and nothing but the truth) is that Serbia, and the Serbian government have no powers over the economic and financial policies in Kosovo. As a matter of fact, there are Custums (http://www.unmikcustoms.org/) at Serbian-Kosovar border points -- the significance of that cannot be overestimated. All the Serbian government can do is give out aid and pensions, part of which they stole from the people of Kosovo. As I stated above, any government (Swedish, Swiss, Jamaican, Brazilian) can do that. Today, the Euro is far more used (accepted) in the United Kingdom than the dinar in Kosovo - so there you go. Is that a 'ridiculous' point too? -- Kosovar 17:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, the essential points are that: 1) the Euro is used for official payments by the UN in Kosovo and by the governmental institutions which it has authorised, across both majority-Albanian and majority-Serbian areas; 2) the Euro is also used by all 'internationals' in Kosovo and by all Kosovo Albanians / Kosovars, again across all areas; 3) the Euro is used ocassionally by Serbs in Serbian areas for large payments and for some trade; 4) the Dinar is used for official payments by the Serbian government to Serbs and a few non-Albanians in Kosovo; 5) the Dinar is also used within Serbian-dominated areas of Kosovo by Serbs amd internationals; 6) the Euro cannot be the official currency of the UN-administered territory called Kosovo, at least until it joins the EU and the associated monetary system. Can we all sign up to these 6 points, or give valid reasons why not? (JD)

JD, you have my blessing on the issue in hand. Everything you have typed above is spot on. -- Kosovar 17:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with them, but aren't they covered in the article? Nikola 10:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not number six. An official currency is the currency so designated by a government, to conduct its affairs, denominate its accounts, and serve as legal tender within its jurisdiction. The issuing agency, if it is not a part of that government (in the case of the euro, the ECB and the various Eurozone banks), is not required to consent. So long as there are enough euros in circulation (and there are), the euro can be the official currency of any government that so chooses: say, Kentucky. (The US dollar is official currency in many places besides US territory.) The Eurozone can discourage the official adoption of the euro outside of its borders, but it cannot prevent it.
— Ford 00:32, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

BBC: Euro the official currency in Kosovo [10] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1738456.stm)

USA Today: The use of dinars not encouraged by UN Mission in Kosovo -- Deutschmark (nowadays the Euro) the the undisputed king [11] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/kosovo/koso1100.htm)

Pravda: Even the Russian Pravda admits the Euro is the official currency -- Nice [12] (http://english.pravda.ru/yougoslavia/2001/09/01/13966.html)

Needless to say, the Banking and Payments Authority of Kosovo confirms that in accordance with a UNMIK regulation the Euro is an official and most widely used currency in Kosovo [13] (http://www.bpk-kos.org/english/currency.htm)

BBC: All public accounts and customs duty will now be calculated in Deutschmarks (Euros nowadays) [14] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/437844.stm)

The British, the Americans, the Russians, the French and the Kosovars say the EURO is the official and the most widely used currency in Kosovo. What more do you want? -- Kosovar 10:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One more update: From now on Kosovo will use a distinct Barcode to barcode its products and services. Wonderful news! It must be noted somewhere in the article [15] (http://www.euinkosovo.org/pNewsDev.asp?id=169&Lang=2)

More importantly, earlier this year Kosovo got its own and distinct Swift banking code -- used for international banking. [16] (http://riskwire.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=articles_list&country_id=1230000323&country_latest=true) News item of the 19-Oct-2004. -- and [17] (http://www.unmikonline.org/press/2004/mon/oct/lmm091004.pdf) -- Kosovar 10:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks as if we're agreed (?) on the usage of Dinars and Euros across Kosovo (Euro everywhere and for official payments, Dinar in Serb areas, roughly). Question is, what is the official currency. I'm certainly not keen to take the word of the BBC, Pravda or USA Today, none of whom have permanent staff in Kosovo, and all of whom aim to simplify their reporting for a more general readership - we should aim for a higher standard. Barcodes and SWIFT codes all very interesting but too technical for this - though we could perhaps include links to relevant articles.

Back to the point in hand - official currency. As told to me by the former head of the EU Pillar, the determination in the UN in Kosovo is that the province has no single official currency; economic matters within UNMIK are handled by the EU Pillar, which could not very well give permission for the Euro to become the official currency. The policy is therefore one of constructive ambiguity. The only place where you will find precision (and, for our purposes, the truth of the matter) is in the UNMIK Regulations and administrative directives. Nowhere in these regulations will you find a reference to an official currency - the UN have not declared an official currency for Kosovo.

As you'll see below, the source of all law in Kosovo [18] (http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/1999/re99_24.pdf) is Yugoslav law up to 1989, as amended by any UNMIK Regulations, all of which are available for review [19] (http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/index.htm). I therefore read through each regulation from the entire list which was relevant to this discussion, looking for any references to currencies. In doing so, I also came across a few other regulations of interest to other discussions on this page. All are listed below.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 1999/1 (On Customs) Customs and excise duties and sales tax shall be paid in Deutsche Marks. A person wishing to pay such duties and sales tax in local Dinars may do so at the reference rate applicable on the date of payment but shall be charged a twenty five percent (25%) administrative fee thereon to cover handling and transaction costs.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 1999/2 Pursuant to UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/4 the budgest, financial records and accounts of public bodies, agencies or institutions and UNMIK shall be formulated in Deutsche Marks. Pursuant to UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/4, the designated currency to be used for compulsory payments shall be Deutsche Marks. Pursuant to section 4.2 of UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/4, the administrative fee for a person wishing to make compulsory payments in Dinars shall be ten percent of the assessed compulsory payment. Administrative fees and compulsory payments, if paid in Dinars, shall be calculated in accordance with the most recent reference exchange rate quoted by UNMIK.

This was updated (once the Euro arrived) by ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 2001/24, which provides for the same as 1999/2.

REGULATION NO. 1999/4 The source of Direction 1999/2 by stating that any person whishing to make an official transaction in Dinars may do so, at a particular rate and exhange cost. (see more discussion below)

REGULATION NO. 1999/16 (On the Central Fiscal Authority) Does not mention currencies. Nor does No.2000/7 (amending 1999/19)

REGULATION NO. 1999/20 (On the Banking and Payments Authority) Does not mention currencies.

REGULATION NO. 1999/21 (ON BANK LICENSING, SUPERVISION AND REGULATION) Where credit limits etc are specified, the denominations are in DM.

REGULATION NO. 1999/24 (ON THE LAW APPLICABLE IN KOSOVO) Of general interest. To note that applicable law in Kosovo is Yugoslav law as of March '89, amended by any UNMIK regulations. The law applicable in Kosovo shall be:(a) The regulations promulgated by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and subsidiary instruments issued thereunder; and (b) The law in force in Kosovo on 22 March 1989.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 2000/16 (ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERIM ADMINISTRATION) Again of general interest. The official gazette shall contain UNMIK regulations and administrative directions issued by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. All information contained in each issuance of the official gazette shall be in the English, Albanian and Serbian languages, published together as one volume. In the case of any disparity between the translations as to the meaning of information contained within the official gazette, the English text shall prevail.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 2000/17 (ON THE CURRENCY PERMITTED TO BE USED IN KOSOVO) Amends Yugoslav criminal law to make the DM the 'designated currency' to be used for fines, charges and penalties.

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2000/1 (ON THE KOSOVO JOINT INTERIM ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE) General interest. Marks the transition to a structure determined entirely by the UN: Current Kosovo structures, be they executive, legislative or judicial (such as the “Provisional Government of Kosovo” and “Presidency of the Republic of Kosovo”), shall be transformed and progressively integrated, to the extent possible and in conformity with the present regulation, into the Joint Interim Administrative Structure.

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2000/18 (ON TRAVEL DOCUMENTS) General interest. Residents of Kosovo may apply for a travel document. The travel document does not confer nationality upon its holder, nor does it affect in any way the holder's nationality. The travel document does not guarantee its holder admission to other States.

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2000/43 (ON THE NUMBER, NAMES AND BOUNDARIES OF MUNICIPALITIES) Kosovo shall have thirty municipalities as set out in Schedule A annexed to the present regulation. Official communications shall not contain any name for a municipality that is not a name set out in Schedule A to the present regulation, except that in those municipalities where ethnic or linguistic communities other than Serbian or Albanian form a substantial part of the population, the names of the municipalities shall also be given in the languages of those communities. Schedule A is here [20] (http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/2000/re2000_43.htm). Note that Albanian is listed first (sort of).

UMIK REGULATION NO. 2000/54 (ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERIM ADMINISTRATION) In the performance of the duties entrusted to the interim administration under United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), UNMIK will, as necessary, issue legislative acts in the form of regulations. Such regulations will remain in force until repealed by UNMIK or superseded by such rules as are subsequently issued by the institutions established under a political settlement, as provided for in United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). Meaning - UNMIK sets the rules, but that all rules are interim until final status is resolved (roughly).

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2001/11 (ON VALUE ADDED TAX IN KOSOVO) Worth noting that under UNMIK definitions, Kosovo remains a part of the (at that time) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Serbia and Montenegro, unter international law, is considered the direct successor state of the FRY. 1.13 “Import” means a supply entering into Kosovo from another country, either directly or after transiting through another part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 1.14 “Intra-FRY inflow” means a supply entering into Kosovo from another part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2001/26 (ON PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS) For the purpose of regulating the rights and obligations of participants in payment transactions in any foreign currency in Kosovo. The present regulation shall supersede any provision in the applicable law which is inconsistent with it. CHAPTER 1, SECTION 1:(p) “Foreign currency” means any currency other than the Yugoslav Dinar. Under this legislation, the Euro is a foreign currency, unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise?

UNMIK REGULATION NO. 2004/41 (ON THE PROMULGATION OF THE KOSOVO WATER LAW ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF KOSOVO) UNMIK didn't like the use of the spelling 'Kosova' throughout the document and replaces it with 'Kosovo'. (a) The word “Kosova” in the title and throughout the text of the Law shall be deleted and replaced with “Kosovo”;

From reading through all the above, and I have not listed those economic regulations (eg. tax or customs) where they did not refer to a currency, I think we have some clarity on currencies. The first point is that only UNMIK regulations are the source of law in Kosovo. UNMIK regulations refer to all currencies other than the Dinar as foreign currencies. UNMIK nevertheless identifies the DM and later the Euro as the currencies to be used for the budgets, financial records and accounts of public bodies and as the 'designated currency' for official transactions, though the Dinar can also be used for the latter (at a cost).

There are only a few conclusions we can draw from this. This is not one of them: the Euro is the (only) official currency for Kosovo. I take Ford's point about what is and is not an 'official currency'. Clearly a number of states use another currency as an 'official currency'. Montenegro also uses the Euro and Montenegrin law refers to the Euro as its official currency (the Dinar is specifically excluded) - and the EU is not entirely happy about it. Kosovo, however, has not declared in any official document that its official currency is the Euro (as many countries have for the Dollar and as Montenegro has for the Euro).

It is my belief that UNMIK has chosen, deliberately, not to declare a de jure 'official currency', precisely because it is an agency of the UN and as its economic arm is run by the EU. The Euro is nevertheless the most widely used, and along with the Dinar is the only currency available for payment of fines etc. In the Euro's favour it is also the currency for financial reporting. However, in the Dinar's favour it is the only currency not considered (under the law applicable in Kosovo), a 'foreign currency' - the Euro is a foreign currency in Kosovo under UN law. This point rather outweighs the importance of what currency is used for financial reporting. And, if we take the Regulations above to their logical conclusion, as Yugoslav law is still in force unless amended by UNMIK Regulations, then we can take it that the only legally-sanctioned 'official currency' remains the Yugoslav Dinar - until an UNMIK Regulation is produced which states otherwise and overrides law as of March 1989. I'm more than willing to be proved wrong on this - but please come up with something more than some website text with no legal force. (JD)

Note also that Wikipedia carries the following in it's definition of Currency [21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency), "Typically, each country has given monopoly to a single currency, controlled by a state owned central bank, although exceptions to this rule exist. Several countries can use the same name, each for their own currency (e.g. Canadian dollars and US dollars), several countries can use the same currency (e.g. the euro), or a country can declare the currency of another country to be legal tender (e.g. Panama and El Salvador have declared US currency to be legal tender)." Under this definition, the Euro may very well be legal tender in Kosovo, and used as the financial reporting currency, the designated currency for official payments, and for paying official fines alongside the Dinar - but this does not necessarily make it the 'official currency'. Unless anyone can come up with a recognised definition of 'official currency' (I've tried) which covers this, I propose we note that both the Dinar and the Euro are legal tender in Kosovo, but that use of the Dinar is limited to the Serb areas. (JD)

PS - I've now created an account, but have no idea how to add my tag to an edit. Any advice appreciated - I'm registered as JAD. Cheers! (JD)

I've also taken a look at the strange case of the Banking and Payments Authority, which states on its website that "In accordance with UNMIK regulation No.1999/4 the Euro was adopted as one of the official currencies in Kosovo from January 1, 2002. It replaced the German Mark being then the measurement and reporting currency in the territory of Kosovo. Today, Euro is the most widely used currency in Kosovo.".

As you'll see from the list above, and from reading the specific Regulation, UNMIK Reg 1999/4 says no such thing. Section 1 says that parties to a contract can use any currency they wish. Section 2 removes any Yugoslav legal control over the use of currencies in Kosovo (but does not revoke any other aspect of Yugoslav law). Section 3 says that UNMIK and the SRSG (the Head of UNMIK) determines which currency is to be used for financial reporting. Section 4 says that UNMIK will designate the currency for official payments, except that the Dinar shall always be acceptable. Sections 5, 6 and 7 are repetitive. Administrative Direction No. 1999/2 then identifies the DM as the currency to be used, alongside the Dinar for fines, and for as the currency for financial reporting and official payments. This is later updated by Direction 2001/24 to replace the DM with the Euro.

It's pretty clear to me that this piece of legislation does not declare the Euro as the (or even 'an') official currency of Kosovo. Even the BPA's website calls the Euro 'one of the official currencies'. And I seem to remeber that a number of countries allow or specify financial reporting in one or more currencies without making the other currency an 'official currency'. I'd state again that a currency needs to be declared 'official' in order to be so. Nor is the Euro being the designated currency for 'official payments' sufficient to make it the 'official currency'. Over the course of my readings, I'm beginning to think that perhaps ONLY the Dinar is the official currency, as laid out in Yugoslav law prior to 1989 and unamended by UNMIK. Again, willing to be proved wrong, though. I think the best like to take is 'the Euro and the Dinar are both legal tender in Kosovo, though the Dinar is only used privately within Serb areas'. (JD)

Many of the countries of Europe use the Euro as their official country, without being in the EU. Some, such as the Vatican City and Monaco are actually permitted to mint their own Euro coins Astrotrain 16:56, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

Nikola's version of the second disputed sentence is:

The population is currently comprised of almost a 90% majority of Albanians, estimated at 80% prior to the Kosovo War of 1999 except for a brief interlude during the war as many of them fled the provincel; many foreign governments, human rights groups and international organisations claim that they were expelled by Serbian security forces, though they are sometimes, mostly in Serbia, disbelieved because of their connectedness to NATO.

My (and others') preferred version is:

I've explained my own view of this above and I think the onus here is on Nikola to explain who claims that NGOs are "connected to NATO" and to come up with some form of words that is neutral. -- ChrisO 20:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I propose you have a look at, say, the response of OSCE to the crisis in Kosovo (1998-1999) and the crisis in Chechnya (1995-present) or the Turkish Southeast (1990s). I picked OSCE because of the confidence with which its report "As seen as told" states that "Between March and June 1999 forces of the FRY and Serbia forcibly expelled some 863,000 Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo". Do you think you can find a similar report that states equally categorically that Turkish state forces (part of NATO) "forcibly expelled" about 2 million people from the Turkish Southeast? The actual number is difficult to pin down: the latest (http://www.deltur.cec.eu.int/!PublishDocs/en/2004_rr.pdf) EU report talks of 3 million on page 51. Is that a fair test of OSCE's impartiality and if not, why not? Themos 13:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You explained your own view, but your own view is not relevant for the article; please, supply a proof that these NGOs and international organisations are universally trusted. I don't see why should I have to prove a negative, which is generally hard and sometimes impossible; However, I have found some articles which show how much NGOs and international organisations are mistrusted in Serbia. True, not (only) because they are connected to NATO, but more because of general mistrust. Also, my wording is more neutral already; it is version which you are pushing that is not neutral.

[22] (http://www.fondmir.org/vesti/1999/vesti_12_99.html): Predsednik Demokratske stranke Srbije, Vojislav Koštunica, posetio je juče Kosovo. On je u Kosovskoj Mitrovici ocenio da Prelazno administrativno veće "nije dobra ideja" , kao i da je "neprihvatljivo". Prema njegovoj oceni, taj projekat bi mogao "da padne u vodu" ako Srbi u njemu ne budu učestvovali, a "sa međunarodnom zajednicom treba sarađivati, ali ne sve verovati". - President of the Democratic Party of Serbia, Vojislav Kostunica, [Shortly afterwards, he was elected for the president of Serbia] Visited Kosovo yesterday. [...] He commented that [...] "the international comunity should be cooperated with, but not trusted completely".

[23] (http://www.yurope.com/zines/republika/arhiva/2000/236-237/236_32.html) and [24] (http://www.mediaclub.cg.yu/zanimljivi/zanimljivi04-00/04-2.htm): Demokratska stranka Srbije kaze: »... razbojnicko hapsenje otklanja i poslednje nedoumice o prirodi Haskog tribunala kod onih koji bi ih jos mogli imati. Nesumnjivo je da Tribunal nije ni pravna, ni sudska, ni medjunarodna institucija, vec natovsko, odnosno americko sredstvo pritiska i zavodjenja reda u svetu«. - Democratic Party of Serbia [Currently the ruling party in Serbia] says: »... this barbaric arrest removes the last doubtfullness about the nature of the Hague tribunal in those who still might have it [emphasis mine]. It is udisputable that the Tribunal is neither legal nor judicial nor international institution, but natovian, that is, American instrument for pressure and inducing order in thw world.«.

[25] (http://www.vreme.com/arhiva_html/vb8/7.html): [An interview with Sonja Liht, president of the Fond for Open Society] Q: Na nevladine organizacije ovde se nije dobronamerno gledalo ni pre NATO agresije. - Nongovernment organisations were not looked with good intentions befor the NATO aggression. A: Krajnje je vreme da se shvati da nevladine organizacije nisu neprijatelj nego komplementarne i neophodne forme koje pomažu državi da funkcioniše na opšte dobro svih njenih građana. - It is a final moment for understanding that nongovernment organisations are not an enemy but complementary and neccessary forms which are helping a state to function for common good of all its citizens.

[26] (http://www.danas.co.yu/20040323/hronika3.html) or [27] (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:HbQv8PHaSRUJ:www.danas.co.yu/20040323/hronika3.html+nato+%22nevladine+organizacije%22&hl=en): Nataša Kandić: Zavladala je atmosfera u kojoj se nevladine organizacije koje se bave ljudskim pravima vide kao neprijatelji srpskog naroda, ukoliko ne slede "patriotski" ton koji preovlađuje u društvu; Sve podseća na dane uoči NATO intervencije u SR Jugoslaviji i obećanje Vojislava Šešelja koji je konstatovao da, eto, Srbi ne mogu da dohvate NATO avione, ali mogu njihovu logistiku na zemlji, odnosno nevladine organizacije, među kojima Žene u crnom - Nataša Kandić: [director of the Fond for the humanitarian right] An atmosphere exists in which nongovernement organisations which deal with human rights are seen as enemies of the Serbian people, unless thez follow "patriotic" [quotes her] tone which is overwhelming in the society; Everything remains on days shortly before the NATO intervention in FR Yugoslavia and promise of Vojislav Šešelj [His party currently has more than 33% in the parliament, its presidential candidate came close second to the current president] who stated that, Serbs maybe can't reach NATO aircraft, but they can their logistics on the ground, including the Womeni in black.

[28] (http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.co.yu/arhiva/2003/02/13/srpski/DO03021201.shtml): Istraživanje Evropskog pokreta u Srbiji i Instituta društvenih nauka: Građani Srbije ne veruju međunarodnim institucijama i organizacijama, pokazuje ovo istraživanje. [...] Kad je reč o drugim međunarodnim organizacijama, prema UN, OEBS-u i Partnerstvu za mir preovladava nepoverenje [...] Najslabiji rejting imaju NATO i Haški tribunal, koji, kao deo sistema Ujedinjenih nacija, verovatno snižava i percepciju te organizacije, baš kao i njihov protektorat na Kosovu. [...] Poverenje u nevladine organizacije među građanima Srbije kreće se između niskog i srednjeg, u poređenju sa poverenjem u druge institucije. [...] Istraživanje je sprovedeno u periodu od 16. do 25. decembra 2002. godine na teritoriji Srbije bez Kosova i Metohije. Intervjuisano je 2.057 punoletnih građana, u 103 slučajno odbarane mesne zajednice u 68 opština - An examination of the European Movement in Serbia and the Institute of the Social Sciences: Citizens of Serbia don't trust to the international institutions and organisations, this report shows. [...] When talking about other international organisatrions, the UN, OSCE, and the Partnership for Peace are mostly mistrusted [...] The lowest rating have NATO and the Hague Tribunal which, as a part of the system of the United Nations, probably lowers the perception of that organisation, as well as their Protectorate on Kosovo. [...] Trust in nongovernment organisations among the citizens of Serbia is around low and medium, compared to other institutions. [...] The examination is conducted on the teritorry of Serbia without Kosovo and Metohia. 2,057 adult citizens were interviewed in 103 randomly chosen local communities in 68 municipalities

Nikola 22:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Related to this, I see that you were not so diligent to revert the latest anon edits. Do you agree that this article should not have SCG template? Have you found references which claim that the name means "yoghurt" in Albanian? Nikola 22:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to the New Oxford Albanian-English Dictionary kos in Albanian means yogurt or more precisely solid yogurt. In England I have seen that producers of these products prefer to use the expression set yogurt instead of solid yogurt. -- Kosovar 06:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saying that "percentage of non-Albanians has remained fairly constant until after the Kosovo War" is VERY misleading. Percentage of non-Albanians From DHoK:

1948: 31.54%
1991: 18.4%

How can someone say that this is "fairly constant" is beyond me. So I will change this. Nikola 12:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is well known that all the data for the official registrations of population in Kosovo (during former Yugoslavia) were gathered by Serbs, and many Albanians who lived in the highlands have never been included in the official data. As these data became more and more accurate, the percentage of Albanians increased. Hence, whoever made the statement about fairly constant percentage of non-Albanians is correct.

We must not forget that Serbia tried all means to increase the number of Serbs living in Kosovo, by introducing laws that forbid Albanians from legally buying Serb property, as well as bringing over 10,000 Serb refugees from Croatia and Bosnia. I am sure that Serbian government even today includes these 10,000 people in the total number of Serbs that have left Kosovo since the arrival of the NATO troops. -- Kosovar 06:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone actually believes in these statements? Because if people do I will debunk them, if not I won't waste my time. Nikola 11:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The people of Kosovo (i.e. Kosovars) have never fully trusted the official data regarding the population of Kosovo. As it became more and more difficult for Serbs officials to lie about the ethnic composition of the Kosovo population, more and more accurate figures were being produced. Full stop. Even today you cannot convince a Kosovar that the official data from the former Yugoslavia were correct, whether you accept it or not.

The complete and utter destruction of Serbs forces in the Republic of Croatia by the Croatian army led to a large number of Serb refugees. Approximately 10,000 (ten thousand) Serbs refugees were brought to Kosovo by the Serbian government with the sole intention of changing the ethnic composition of the population. Whole villages were built for these Serbs using the taxes paid by Kosovar Albanians. It is only natural that these people left Kosovo (willingly or not, that is another issue) and these people cannot be considered Kosovar Serbs. -- Kosovar 19:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, it seems that you really do.

During SFRY, censa in Kosovo, except the 1989 one, were undertaken by Kosovo administration, which was almost entirely Albanian. The number of Albanians is thus likely overestimated.

Serbia has population of around eight million, and of that number two million or 25% live in Kosovo and Metohia. During Yugoslav wars, Serbia had to accomodate for some half million of refugees. 25% of half million is 125,000. So, according to your numbers, actually Serbia settled TWELVE TIMES LESS refugees on Kosovo than it realistically should. These 10,000 people are 0.5% of the population; that does not change ethnic balance, actually there were more than 10,000 Turks living on Kosovo. And no, as they are refugees already, they are not re-registered as refugees, but even if they would be, they would be some 5% of all refugees which barely affects total number. Nikola 11:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If during the SFRY the Kosovo administration was almost entirely Albanian then that means that during the SFRY Kosovo's population was almost entirely Albanian. The population of Kosovo today is almost entirely Albanian, therefore non-Albanians has remained fairly constant. Thank you very much!

No.

In 1948 there were some 70% Albanians and 30% non-Albanians, and in 1991 there were some 80% Albanians and 20% non-Albanians. This means that percentage of Albanian population increased for 14%, which I agree is not much but don't think could be described as "constant", while percentage of non-Albanian population decreased for 33%, which is very significant decrease. Nikola 00:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Year 1948: 70% Albanians. Year 1991: 80% Albanians. Albanian population increased by 14%? 80 minus 70 equals 14, right? Who taught you maths Nikola? Can you ever stop lying? Year 1948: 30% non-Albanians. Year 1991: 20% non-Albanians. Non-Albanian population decreased by 33%? 30 minus 20 equals 33? Only now I get to know who am I discussing with. You are reinventing the meaning of spin as we know it today. Enough said. -- Kosovar 18:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hold on, Kosovar. You are misunderstanding what Nikola is doing. His math is correct. He is comparing the difference with the original. For instance, if I have two kilograms of flour and get an additional kilogram, then I have made a 50% increase, because one is 50% of my original two. I have added 50% onto what I had originally. 10% out of an original 70% is 14% of the original, so that an amount equal to 14% of the original has been added to the original. 10% out of an original 30% is 33% of the original, so 33% of the original has been lost. It is perfectly good math, and it is a standard method of comparison.
— Ford 00:27, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Kosovo had nothing to do with the Croatian and Bosnian wars, hence we should not settle any Croatian/Bosnian Serbs in Kosovo -- not a single one. Thank you very much. Keep them to yourself. You started the wars, you suffer the consequences. While under repression and violence an estimated 400,000 young Kosovar Albanians left Kosovo during the 1990s, Serbian government was bringing Serb settlers from the Croatia and Bosnia -- that does effect the ethnic composition. It is obvious you would make a really crap accountant.

You are completely wrong. Kosovo had a lot to do with the wars. It was a part of Serbia, and Serbia is the principal state of Serbs who were fighting these wars. Furthermore, a large number of Albanian mercenaries from Kosovo have fought in them. Serbs have not started the wars, there was no repression and violence on Kosovo which could cause 400,000 residents to leave, the number is overestimate anyway, and in the same period a lot of Serbs left Serbia for economic reasons too. These people were not settlers but refugees, and Serbian government has full right to put refugees on whichever part of its teritorry it pleases. Nikola 00:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but the one person who is wrong here is you. It is very obvious that you have a distorted view of what has happened and what is happening around you. Kosovo was under Serb occupation, Kosovars had nothing to do with the wars since Kosovars were not asked anything about these wars, nor they wanted to be connected with them in any way. What happened in Croatia and Bosnia was between Croats, Bosnians and Serbs -- Kosovars do not fit in any equation here. Even your lie that there were a large number of Albanian mercenaries cannot put Kosovo in any equation whatsoever. If there were any mercenaries in these wars, it was Russians.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other human rights organisation have very extensive information about the violence and the violation of human rights in Kosovo during the 1990s. Unfortunately for you and other Serbs, the world does not start following the successful NATO bombing. Now, let us see if Serbia can "put refugees wherever it pleases". -- Kosovar 18:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kosovo was never under Serb occupation. And even if Kosovo Albanians had nothing to do with the wars, which is not true, the refugees surely didn't want to become refugees. Yes, there were Albanian mercenaries fighting in the wars, I need not mention anyone besides Agim Ceku and his Albanian unit. And Russians who fought in these wars were volunteers.

It is not true that HRW, AI etc. have "extensive information about the violence and the violation of human rights in Kosovo during the 1990s". They lack information about violence commited by Albanians, KLA and NATO, while their data on violence against Albanians comes from unverified sources and is oftenly bogus. Nikola 02:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accourding to your logic, Kosovar Serbs make up just over 5 percent of the Kosovo population -- which barely affects total numbers. We should just ignore them, right? -- Kosovar 11:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. Nikola 00:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank You. You just helped me prove that you are writing a lot of rubish and nonsense. It could not be clearer, therefore I must thank you. -- Kosovar 18:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another telltale sign of trolling is when a participant claims to have won the argument when no such thing happened. Nikola 02:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Language and population issues

I realize this page is a minefield, but a few factual issues. In reverting (though not immediately) my changes in the order of Albanian and Serbian (I had placed Albanian first, since it is and has long been the dominant language), Nikola stated that Serbian was the “official, majority, primary, sourced, etc. language”. I do not know what ‘sourced’ is supposed to mean, and ‘primary’ is almost designed to be subjective and thus indisputable, but if Nikola is actually claiming that Serbian is the majority language of this territory he is the only such person I know of. The only way to make such a claim is to look at Serbia as a whole; and that would be like saying that English is the majority language of Puerto Rico or Québec — a misleading statement, and meant to be so, I think.

I will not change it without some documentation, but it is curious that the 80% figure has slid past the neutrality watch. I can think of no neutral source before the war that used it; the figure in common use (except perhaps in Serbia) at the time was the higher 90% figure — that is, 90% of the territory was Albanian even before the war. Is there a reason why 80% is now being used?
— Ford 13:28, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

This figure is from the 1991 census of Kosovo (which was almost entirely boycotted by the Albanians). It was apparently derived from "official Yugoslav statistical corrections and projections, with the help of previous census results (1948-1981)". It's not regarded as being a credible figure because of the boycott and its methodology, and it's quite likely to have been affected by political considerations as well. The Statistical Office of Kosovo states that "The quality of the 1991 census is questionable." [29] (http://www.sok-kosovo.org/pdf/population/Kosovo_population.pdf) All the figures I saw before the war were certainly in the 85-90% range. -- ChrisO 14:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Khm... Serbian is the majority and official language in Serbia, and this is article about a province of Serbia. In other articles about subdivisions same order of names is used, for just a few examples Chechnya and Ingushetia have their names first in Russian and then in languages of their populations, and Crimea has it first in Ukrainian (population: 68% Russians). This order is also applied to articles about cities etc.

By "sourced", I was referring to the fact that both English and Albanian name are derived from Serbian name, so that is one more reason why it should have precedence.

I won't revert till I hear counterarguments. Nikola 11:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps inadvertently, you inserted your comment between the two paragraphs of mine. I have moved it. In response to your point, I am glad that you concede that Albanian is the majority language of this territory. I suppose we could find examples on both sides from elsewhere in the encyclopedia. In my opinion, those cases where the local majority language is clearly one thing and the majority language of a larger territory to which the locality belongs is another should be resolved in favor of the local language, and in time I will address those as well. Only territorial claims prevent agreement on that matter. I would point out that Kosova (Kosovo) is not a part of Србија (Serbia) de facto; Београд (Belgrade) has no control over what happens here. Yes, there is international recognition of Србија’s claim in public, but everyone recognizes in private that Kosova (Kosovo) is now under the shared control of its elected administration and the Western powers; it is the Western powers, not Београд (Belgrade), who are preventing the territory’s full independence, and they are doing so for domestic political reasons of their own. We have an obligation to present both sides, but the status of the territory de jure is by definition a point of view, and in this case, moreover, a point of view not in accord with reality. We can acknowledge that the point of view exists without conceding that it is accurate, because in this case, it clearly is not.
— Ford 14:21, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Yes, it was reply to your first paragraph while I didn't think that your second paragraph is important.

In my opinion, articles on political or geographical entities should mention their names in official language of the country in which they are in first, because it is a consistent way of naming, sometimes the only available information, and to do otherwise would open a can of worms where a lot of names could be swapped back and forth. I do advocate the same for Serbian cities and villages outside of Serbia. Also, this is not one of the cases where, to cite you, "local majority language is clearly one thing and the majority language of a larger territory to which the locality belongs is another". Albanian name is derived from Serbian name so it is not another thing.

Your other points are blatantly incorrect and anyway I don't see why are they important to name order. Kosovo is part of Serbia both de facto and de jure. Belgrade agreed to give control of the province to the UN, which it had full right to do. Factual independence is prevented by Western powers - as if it would be prevented by Belgrade if it still had control; the Western powers are on the field with Belgrade's permission. I do not agree that de jure status of something is always a point of view, however even if so it is clear that in this case one point of view is prevalent and in fact I have never heard of a different point of view on this matter. Nikola 08:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Western powers are not “on the field with Serbia’s permission”. To say so is ridiculous. Such permission would never have come from the likes of Koštunica, let alone Milošević. The Western powers bombed Serbia. I am sure you of all people have not forgotten that. We may disagree on whether intervention was justified, but surely both of us can acknowledge the fact that Serbia did not invite the bombing; and what happened as a consequence of the bombing was no more by invitation than the bombing itself. I know from past experience that there is no point in arguing these points with you, but for the sake of others reading, I will point out that you have called my points “blatantly incorrect”, when it is you who say things like “Belgrade agreed to give control of the province to the UN”, and “Kosovo is a part of Serbia both de facto and de jure”. Serbia, I will say again, has no control over what happens in the territory. If the Western powers decided to grant independence, it would happen tomorrow. Even most Serbs recognize this fact, even if they do not like it.

If, as you say, the Albanian name is derived from the Serb name and they are therefore the same thing, I cannot imagine why you care which one comes first. That being the case, please leave the Albanian name first. Besides, the so-called English name is listed as ‘Kosovo and Metohija’, which is transliterated from the Serb name, and very few people in English use the full name, so the Serb name is essentially listed first anyway. I cannot imagine why you would insist that it be listed both first and second.
— Ford 10:59, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Yes they did. I don't recall that I have ever had a discussion with you regarding these points, however I would agree that there is no point in arguing them. Serbia has no control of the province because it handed it over to the United Nations, which it had full right to do. It is true that NATO forced this handing over by bombing Serbia (and thus made it illegal) but it is irrelevant - it happened anyway. The Western powers cannot grant independence to a part of Serbia any more than Serbia can grant independence to a part of any of the Western powers and so they cannot decide to do so; at most, they can pretend to be doing so, but they can not really do it, not tomorrow and not ever.

I could ask the same: why do you care which one comes first? I see that you are trying to be bigger Albanian than Albanians; the article was edited by Albanians, even by a Kosovo Albanian - and noone of them changed name order. You ask that I leave the Albanian name first, and thank you for asking nicely - but Serbian name was there first; what you really are asking is to uphold your moving of it to second. A smaller point: the English name is not a transliteration but a translation of the Serbian. Nikola 03:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Small things first, then, Nikola: ‘Kosovo and Metohija’ is not a translation, though it is true that ‘и’ is translated as ‘and’. The two significant words are transliterated, and transliterated, moreover, in the fashion that Serbs do themselves, on those occasions when they cannot or choose not to write in the Cyrillic script. I know the distinction between ‘transliteration’ and ‘translation’, but I didn’t think anyone would seriously nitpick on the ‘and’. Was that really worth mentioning? (And how do you argue that ‘Kosovo’ and ‘Metohija’ are English translations of anything? Do those look like English words to you?) My point stands: saying ‘Kosovo and Metohija’ is essentially using the Serb name anyway.
— Ford (continues below)

I'll move to threaded mode since now the points have separated; hope noone will have trouble with this.

If transliteration "in the fashion that Serbs do themselves" is a problem (related to this or not), I am for using Metohia in the article. Though Metohija is more oftenly used, I noticed that it tends to be used by Serbs who write in English while it seems to me that native English speakers use Metohia.

I don't see why is the name not in English when the only motivated word in it is translated. If we follow your point, then we have to conclude that List of cities in Serbia and Montenegro is written in Serbian because most significant words are transliterations of Serbian. Or that sentence "Ten largest cities in Serbia are Belgrade, Pristina, Novi Sad, Nis, Kragujevac, Prizren, Subotica, Pec, Zrenjanin and Djakovica" is a transliteration because most significant words in it are transliterated, while sentence "Five largest cities in Serbia are Belgrade, Pristina, Novi Sad, Nis and Kragujevac" is a translation since most significant words in it are translated. That is ridiculous.

By the way, I might agree that saying "Kosovo and Metohia" is in some way using Serbian name, but again saying "Kosova" is too. So, whichever name order is choosen, a name which is in some way Serbian comes first, so this argument is not relevant. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not judge the rightness or sense of my actions based on what another group of persons does. I don’t suppose that being a “bigger Albanian” than the Albanians is a good or bad thing; the statement has no use. I simply believe that, if we are going to mention local names at all (and we should), we must mention them in the order in which they are used. Most of the persons in Kosovo call it ‘Kosova’. A small number call it ‘Косово и Метохија’. Therefore, ‘Kosova’ should go first. I imagine that the Albanians would prefer to have ‘Kosova’ first, and in fact to have it used throughout the article, and to have Albanian names used for the cities, rather than Serb names. I agree with them, even if it is a spelling issue. But then they have to contend with nationalist reverts. I am not an Albanian or a Serb, so at the very least I am not motivated by nationalism one way or the other.
— Ford (continues below)

I understand your point completely. However, for all this time, you have not stated why do you have it. Why would a local name of something have to be mentioned in language spoken by majority of the population of something?

I have stated my reasons why I think otherwise: I believe that stating name of something in the language which is the official language of the country in which that something is should be used because it is always possible, neutral and unambiguous. Why do you think the way you do? Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Ford, please accept my apologies for answering a question which was primarily addressed to you, but I felt a real need to add my input.

Sensible people like Ford think in a sensible way because Albanian language is the official language in Kosovo. Remember, the laws that are valid in the cities, towns and villages of Kosovo are approved by the Assembly of Kosovo -- not that of Serbia. It is rather sensible to use first the name of the place that is used by the vast (overwhelming) majority of its inhabitants. You go and tell 90 per cent of the population of Ferizaj that the Serbian name is neutral and unambiguous. Or even better, tell 99 per cent of Skenderaj that a name used by less than 1 per cent of its population is neutral and unambiguous.

Needless to say, Serbian language is also an official language in Kosovo -- but it is definitely not the primary language. When a town has a majority Serb population, like Leposavic, we should use the Serb name first, Albanian second -- it is only fair. -- Kosovar 20:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong on all your points. Albanian language is not the official language in Kosovo. The laws that are valid in it are approved by UNMIK.

Albanian language is the official language in Kosovo -- welcome to the real world Nikola. I love it when you make this kind of statements, it really shows your mentality and others can see it.

Assembly of Kosovo passes the laws, UNMIK approves them. Serbia has absolutely no say on any law that is approved in Kosovo. Hence, the names of places in Kosovo that are used by Assembly of Kosovo should be used in Wikipedia articles and the Assembly of Kosovo uses Albanian names first, Serbian second.

Why? Nikola 11:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because at least 88 per cent of the population of Kosovo speak Albanian as their first language, that is why. -- Kosovar 13:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So? Why should name used by 88% of a population of something be used prior to its name in the official language of a country in which that something is? Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have explained above why I don't think that it is sensible to use as the first name the name that is used by the majority so I won't repeat myself. But I'll give a few new examples: if we follow this logic to its end, abandoned villages should not have a local name mentioned because noone lives in them? Which name order should be used for places which originally had Serbian majority, which is now displaced and replaced by Albanians? Which name order should be used for uninhabited geographical features (rivers, mountains, etc.)? Nikola 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Villages with no population have no articles in Wikipedia. If a place had majority Serb population prior to the bombing, the name used first should be Serbian. The names of rivers, mountains are less problematic, and the order of names used in the Assembly of Kosovo should be used. -- Kosovar 19:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why prior to the bombing? Why not 10 years ago? 50? 100? 500? I say 400, for that is before any forceful population movements occured. Nikola 11:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Come on Nikola, don't be so modest. Why go back only 400 years? Why not go back 2000 years when these lands were all Illyrian? Is it because then there were no Serbs, not one? Why not go back to the times when these lands were ruled by King Agron and Queen Teuta -- when Dardans lived in Ulpiana and centuries before places like Naisus was occupied by Slavs (i.e. Serbs). Why not go back to the great times when these lands used to give Rome emperors?

If you really, really want to know why, I'll tell you -- not problem. Because the world does not go around Serbs -- and you cannot go back in history only when it suits the Serbs -- if you want to go back in history, then go in all the way. The point is we live today - not yesterday, not tomorrow, but today -- and it is today that matters. Join the really Nikola. Soon it is going to be mid-2005. -- Kosovar 13:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The difference lies in the fact that Illyrians were not forcefully moved from the territory, and also, that we don't know what those Illyrian names were.

However, you have just proven my point. As the period from which the names are used may be set arbitrarily and different people are likely to have different opinion on it, it is better to use one criteria which cannot. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think you properly understand the distinction between ‘de jure’ and ‘de facto’. We can disagree about whether the Western powers should grant independence to Kosovo, whether under “international law” (which is hardly a definite thing) they may grant it independence, but in the real world of real control, they can grant it independence, whenever they want. They didn’t need Serbia’s permission to occupy Kosovo, and the use of coercion brings us into the realm of fact, not Serbian nationalist theory. Or do you think that somehow Serbia could stop them?
—Ford 05:06, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

I am quite certain that I understand the distinction between de jure and de facto. For example, I know that de jure Kosovo is ruled by UN-appointed administration, and de facto Kosovo is ruled by Albanian mafia lords. But we were not talking about control, but about whether is a part of Serbia. It is, both de jure and de facto.

However, I did not understand the distinction between "may" and "can"; in Serbian, they both translate in a single word. I checked a dictionary to be sure. After some browsing of Merriam-Webster, I came to conclusion that you were referring to the distinction of whether something is allowed versus whether something is possible.

Independence is a term defined in the international law. As I seid the Western powers can pretend to be granting independence to Kosovo, and they can even behave towards Kosovo as if it is independent, but it is simply not possible for them to grant independence to Kosovo. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Ford, I am very sorry if I am interfering in your discussion with Nikola, however there are a few things I would like to write to Nikola.

So Nikola, who granted independence to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia? Was it by any chance Serbia? Or maybe Yugoslavia?

In case you are interested, the independence of a country is not granted by anyone. The independence of a country is declared by the people, and then the independence is recognised by other countries. This is the beauty of democracy, people choose what they want.

As this is a point oftenly mentioned, I'll comment on it: its fallacy lies in the fact that the people of Kosovo does not exist. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Serbs certainly wish the people of Kosovo did not exist, but they do. Here I am, one of them. We are approximately 2 million people, and we very proundly call ourselves Kosovars. If one follows your logic there would be no such people as Austrians?

Interesting. I thought you are an Albanian. Nikola 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. Do you think that Austrians do not exist? Do you think that Austrians do not have the right to decide about their own future? -- Kosovar 09:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wait, are you an Albanian or aren't you? Nikola 11:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am from Kosovo. I am a Kosovar. If I were from the United States, I would be an American. If I were from Austria I would be an Austrian. If you believe that the people of the United States of America do not exist, I strongly suggest you go and see a doctor, preferably a psychiatrist -- but not Boris Tadic, he obviously did not help. If you believe the people of Austria do not exist, I suggest you go and see two doctors, preferably psychiatrists -- none of them being Boris Tadic, he obviously did not help.

You cannot get away with this one. You opened your mouth when you should have kept it shut -- now listen and learn. If a person is from Kosovo, that person is called a Kosovar. That person can be ethnically Albanian, Serbian, Roma... but that person is a Kosovar. If a person comes from the United States of America, he or she is an American. That person can be African, Mexican, English... but that person is an American -- hence, African American. Got it! Similarly, if a person is from Austria, he or she is an Austrian. That person can be German, Hungarian, Slovenian... but that person is Austrian. Again, similarly, you have Kosovar Albanian, Kosovar Serb, Kosovar Roma... and these people together are the people of Kosovo. The people of Kosovo are overwhelmingly Kosovar Albanian (me being one of them) - hence, I sign as Kosovar. Got it.

Now you're trolling. You are using fallacy of equivocation by trying to create impression that there is only one meaning of the word "Albanian", "Serbian" and so on.

There exist something called nationality and there exist something called regionality. A person can be ethnically Serbian or Albanian, that is, having Serbian or Albanian ancestors and being part of Serbian or Albanian culture, wherever it lives. And a person can be regionally Serbian or Albanian, that is, live in Serbia or Albania regardless of how it got there.

What a lot of rubish, as usual, from Nikola. I am very sorry to inform you but something called regionality does not exist. The Oxford Dictionary of English does not have such a word, therefore it does not exist. You cannot built your argument on non-existant terms Nikola, the rest deserves no comment. -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the Google certainly says that it does[30] (http://www.google.com/search?q=regionality). It is apparently a neologism, which is why it isn't in the OED. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A person who lives in Belgrade is called a Belgradian, one living in New York a Newyorker, one living in Vojvodina a Vojvodinian, one living in Siberia a Siberian, a person who lives in Africa is an African and so on; this is regionality. A person could not be Belgradian, Newyorker, Vojvodinian, Siberian or African by nationality. "The people of" Belgrade, New York, Vojvodina, Siberia or Africa does not exist.

"...this is regionality..." bllah-bllah-bllah... Oh really? You are turning out to be more clever than the Oxford Dictionary of English. Could you please define, in clear English the meaning of the word regionality, I do not understand what on Earth are you talking about. -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In this meaning of the word, it is the status of belonging to a particular region. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On Kosovo, there does not exist any sense of common identity in its residents, nor there exist sense of nationally different identity between Kosovo Albanians and other Albanians. That is why the people of Kosovo does not exist, and Kosovans, which you call Kosovars, are simply people who inhabit Kosovo, and not a people. And, as we all know, all Albanian politicians see independence of Kosovo just as a intermediary goal towards union with Albania. Nikola 00:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, at least 88 per cent of the population have a very common sense of identity. That is very similar to Slovenia or Croatia, and way higher than Macedonia, for example. -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One of their problems lies in the fact that there is a neigbhouring state with people who have exactly the same sense of identity. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"People who inhabit Kosovo are not a people"? You are loosing it. What are they? Aliens? -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

English language is hopelessly muddled on these issues and I often wonder is that intentional. See [31] (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=people); the first "people" has meaning #2, the second meaning #5. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"And, as we all know, all Albanian politicians see independence of Kosovo just as a intermediary goal towards union with Albania" - and you'll be following that wide-sweeping remark with some links no doubt. Most of the people who claim that are curiously Serbs. You would think that it's the Serbs that want Kosovo to be united with Albania. P.S. This page is huge, someone who can follow it should archive it. Dori | Talk 00:55, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

[32] (http://slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ks1008091304.htm), [33] (http://www.meditagenda.com/November%202003%20Week2/Kosovo%20Politicians%20Respond%20to%20Proposed%20Union%20with%20Albania.htm), [34] (http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/trae/archive/data/200105/10502-001-trae-tir.htm).

Before someone starts foaming about the first link without actually reading it, it is translation from Kosova Sot.

Thanks for not doubting me. Nikola 01:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accourding to Nikola's logic, the intermediary goal of all Serbs is it to take out the eyes of the Croats using spoons, because one of their beloved leaders, Seselj, has said so in a television interview. That implies that all Serbs share his opinion? Accourding to Nikola, yes sure! Get this man a doctor soon. -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you need is surely an eye doctor, because I wrote nicely "all Albanian politicians", not "all Albanians". Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, two or three politicians mean all, I'll have to remember that. Dori | Talk 01:54, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

And next time when you ask for some links, I'll have to remember that you don't actually read them, for the first link alone mentions three different politicians, all heads of different political parties. Nikola 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, we Kosovars, the people of Kosovo, have learned that Serbs are not very nice people and often do terrible things. That is why we are going to declare independence, just like Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia -- and Serbia can do absolutely nothing about it. Now, you can try and fool yourself in believing otherwise, but you will not fool anyone else.

If you have anything else to say, then write at the bottom of the page -- do not interrupted other people's post. -- Kosovar 12:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I would do that then the conversation would become entirely unreadable. Nikola 00:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It certainly is an interesting world you live in Nikola. Who taught you at school?

It depends on the subject. I can reveal that I was taught psychology by Boris Tadic :] Nikola 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh well, that explains a lot of things. The picture is getting clearer and clearer with each passing day. So, did Boris Tadic teach you that people like Austrians do not exist? -- Kosovar 09:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. Nikola 11:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since you bothered answering this question, why didn't you have a go at the previous question too. So Nikola, did Serbia or Yugolavia grant independence to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia? Do not hide! -- Kosovar 19:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't thought you were seriously asking. It was Yugoslavia, of course. At that time Serbia was one of its constituent republics so it couldn't grant independence to anything (and still can't). Nikola 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aha, so that is why the wars in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia started? Because Yugoslavia recognised their independence, correct? So, Yugoslavia granted independence to Slovenia, right? When? Tell us more. So Yugoslavia granted independence to Croatia, right? When? Tell us more. So, Yugoslavia granted independence to Bosnia, right? When? Tell us more. Would you be so kind and elaborate more on the topic. When you do not like the question -- you do not think it is seriously. So, Slovenia/Croatia/Bosnia did not declare their independence? It was all down to Yugoslavia granting their independence. I can see Boris Tadic did a wonderful job. Shame he cannot teach younger generations the same. -- Kosovar 09:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yugoslavia granted independence to Slovenia in 1992. I won't search for other dates, do your homework yourself. Nikola 11:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What a lot of rubish you talk Nikola. Complete and utter rubish. I did not claim that Yugoslavia granted independence to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia. You did, and by doing so you lied. Let everyone know what a lot of rubish you talk. Every thing that you say, every page that you write on has a lot of rubish just like this one. The homework is not mine, it is yours. You lied, and if you could you would happily do the homework and cover up your lies. But you can't. You cannot because you know it is a lie. Is this why all these war crimes have been committed in Croatia and Bosnia because the Croats and Bosnians did not want independence but Yugoslavia "granted" them independence and Serbs tried to make them accept their independence.

Now, how did Yugoslavia grant them the independence? Did the parliament of the SFRY exist after the independence wars in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia? Do Serbs have some powers that make it possible to travel back in time and grant independence to other people or what? I see Boris Tadic really did a wonderful job, teaching you have to claim things that cannot possibly happen.

Serbs like yourself have made up many, many lies about the history. Everyone can now see your historical arguments and your truths. The same way how you lie here, and cannot admit that you are lying, the same way you lie about the history. The same mentality, the same methods, the same practices, the same people, that is the same lies.

If you want to continue lying about the lies that you lied earlier, then please lie at the bottom of this page and do not interrupted other people's posts -- Kosovar 12:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After this many insults I don't continue conversation. If someone else is interested in answers to this question and ask me, I can answer. Nikola 00:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there is anyone who is insulting here, then it is you Nikola. There is nothing more insulting that lying, particularly because a great number of innocent people died and you continue lying about what happened. If you had any arguments, you would have answered the questions I raised, but since you were caught lying, you hide and pretend to be insulted. -- Kosovar 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if Serbia is very interested in granting independence to Kosovo, tell them not to bother. The people of Kosovo, Kosovars, will do it themselves.

Second, the fact that a person is not an Albanian it does not mean that he or she must not have an opinion, in particular since the encyclopaedia does not belong to you. In addition, do not mislead the people in thinking that a Kosovar Albanian has approved of the order of names. From the first day I found out about how Wikipedia works, I have requested and proved by facts that in English the territory is referred to as Kosovo only. I have repeatedly said that the United Nations, who are in charge in Kosovo, use the name Kosovo exclusively, not to mention the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain... the European Union, the Council of Europe, the OSCE ... endless list.

A number of organisations, including OSCE and Amnesty International for the time being are using the neutral form Kosovo/Kosova -- but the Wikipedia community does not seem to be well organised to enforce such a NPOV policy. -- Kosovar 05:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to join the discussion, Kosovar. And I hope you didn’t misunderstand me. I only said that the Western powers are in a position to grant independence to the territory (or deny it) because they have ultimate control — again, it is not that they should have control, but that they do. Clearly the democratic will in Kosovo is for independence; the reason it has not happened is because of a Western veto. Virtually every state has a minority territory that would like to be self-governing, and most of the time these states will thwart such declarations of independence elsewhere so as not to encourage their own minorities. Usually their thwarting is limited to diplomatic isolation and refusal to trade, as with Somaliland; but in the case of Kosovo, they have a more effective tool — actual troops on the ground. The flip side to that is that Serbia, despite Nikola’s empty assertions, is in no position to deny Kosovan independence. In the meantime, if you were interested in lightening the Serb nationalist influence in the main article (which I agree is pervasive), I would back you up.
— Ford 12:53, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Serb nationalist influence? The article is heavily pro-Albanian on all issues it covers. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. First - I'd like to say, it's actually very good to see ethnic Serbs, ethnic Albanians and internationals debating these issues openly - it's rare on the ground in Kosovo/Kosova. Let's also be clear that this place we're discussing is (de jure - in law, as recognised by the UN) PRESENTLY a province of Serbia. This is not to prejudice in any way its FUTURE status, which is to be determined at some future point. Nor does this say anything of the will of the inhabitants of this place - the absolute majority want an independent nation state; a significant minorty want to remain part of Serbia. In practical terms (de facto) it is governed by an agency of the United Nations with significant elements of self-government, supported by a degree of democratic accountability. None of these present practical arrangements are to prejudice future arrangments once status has been determined. Can we all agree to this?

On names. I guess in part we have to fit in with Wikipedia. The UN refers to this place as Kosovo in English - as in the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK, the body authorised by the UN to run Kosovo. As with all multilingual places, official bodies will use all main local languages and we should make reference to the Serbian and Albanian translation. That the English name for this place (Kosovo) is the same as the Serbian is a matter of historical precedent and not an indication of a preferred status for this place. Perhaps if it had been independent from the 19th century, we would be calling it Kosova (or more likely, something without a slavic root). And if and when this place becomes independent, it can call itself whatever the hell it likes - but it's inhabitants should be aware that the English name for it might not change (Holland, anyone)? Can we all agree to this?

On place names. These need to be in both languages. I'm in favour of putting Albanian first, Serbian second, again with no prejudice to the potential future offical names of these places. (JD)

Another point. On the Kosovo and Metohija issue. The official name of this place in Serbian is Kosovo i Metohija; Serbian can be written in latin or cyrillic scripts, both are official, but cyrillic tends to be preferred for documents. The translation in Enlgish of this is Kosovo and Metohija; anything else (ie. Metohia) is a mistranslation. The common useage in Serbian is Kosovo, and occasionally (ie. if you're over 50!), Kosmet. The common useage in English is Kosovo. The United Nations refers to this place as the Province of Kosovo (http://www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm). (JD)

Metohia is not a mistranslation. It is an older transliteration which gained hold in English language. There's nothing wrong with using it in English, and I might add that there is possibility that old transliteration is used again for Serbian. Nikola 12:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Nikola on this point (and this point only). But Nikola, I find it bizarre that you have again interrupted my post for your own (above), and said that you were doing so in hopes that no one objected, when I have already objected myself and it was my post that you were interrupting. Don’t do that again.
— Ford 12:34, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Dear Ford, I shall no longer interrupt your posts. I was replying to Nikola's posts which were in the middle of yours -- so your comments are completely torn apart now, consequently loose their meaning and it is not fair. For my part, I shall no longer interrupt your posts, even if Nikola continues to do so. My apologies.

In addition, I agree with you entirely on the issue of Western powers recognising or putting a veto on the independence of a territory like Kosovo or Somaliland. A complete understanding. -- Kosovar 09:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On Wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet, most people discuss in this way, and I believe that it is the most efficient method of discussion and really don't see why it bothers you. But if you don't like any interruption of any your post, then OK, I'll try not to do it again. Nikola 11:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apologies also if anyone feels I'm cutting across a discussion here - all looks a bit chaotic, but hey at least we're having a serious discussion. I'm assuming the aim of the discussion is to resolve what languages we're going to use in the article? I suggested, above, that Kosovo remain the name we use as the English (as used by the UN, and a historical accident not implying any cultural dominance, especially if you think it's somehow referring to yoghurt...). We need to note the Serbian and Albanian language names, plus the more official names in both lanugages (ie. APKiM and Republic of Kosovo). We need to note the three (?) official langauges and other languages used in the parliament etc. We need to note the use of languages by ethnic groups across Kosovo. I think we can all agree on this?

Wow - I've just read your earlier discussions on use of language! Seems you were heading in this direction outline above. The real sticking point comes to towns/cities and places names. Ultimately, they either have one name or more than one name. But, looking back at the article, we don't often do this. Why don't we take it on a case-by case basis? We might (and I'm not looking to open a discussion here, refer to the main town as Pristina, followed by the Albanian, as this common useage). We might refer to Gracanica in that form when relevant as it's entirely Serb. And we might refer to some other village in ALbanian, with Serbian following. Not looking for agreement on the last three suggestions. What do people think of treating place names on a case-by-case basis? (JD)

Separately, Nikola and Ford, whether or not Metohia was a form used in the past, it is certainly neither used nor correct now. Serbian cyrillic has a consistent structure and clear transliteration into latin script - there is no reason on earth to use Metohia over Metohija. In any case, Kosovo is not referred to in English as Kosovo and Anything, just Kosovo, unless we're trying to distinguish between adminstrative structures over time, in which case we might refer to 'such-and-such a policy prevalent in the Autonomous Provice of Kosovo and Metohija' (much as we might, if needed, refer to the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' if needed). Nevertheless, there is not a transliteration problem with Metohija - we're not trying to transliterate (for example) Шeшeљ (Šešelj) into English Latin script, where we might write Seselj (and note that there are only five letters in Cyrillic, six in Latin); Метохија has eight letters in Serbian Cyrillic and eight in English Latin - Metohija. Doesn't matter if they got it wrong fifty or more years ago, because the word 'Metohia' was never in any kind of common use in English, even among Balkan experts. Unless you can prove me wrong! (JD)

Also, on occupation by NATO. De jure and de facto, NATO and the UN could not have entered and set up administration in Kosovo without the formal permission of the then-FRY. The reality is that we came to a deal where they surrendered and allowed the UN in. The UN could not break its own laws on the protection of sovereignty without the formal say-so of Serbia. That this was achieved by force is relevant only in terms of how it came about. Had Serbia refused to submit, we would have needed to fight a ground war, probably all the way to Belgrade, to gain control and completely remove the Serbian government, much as has been done in Iraq (where the government, after the first Gulf War, in similar fashion had given control over its arispace to the UN-backed US and UK forces). This is not to say that Serbia voluntarily gave control of Kosovo to the UN - the point is that it gave control, involuntarily, as provided for under UNSCR 1244. (JD)

There's something wrong with the discussion when a single section of it grows longer than 32K :) Nikola 00:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Local language

The point of giving local names in the first place is to allow users of the encyclopedia to know the names that are used by the people who actually live there. We do not give the name of Hungary in Swahili, or the name of Argentina in Mandarin. It is true that Serbs do live in Kosovo, but they are a small minority; we can give the Serb name of Kosovo, but to give it precedence over the Albanian name, by which it is known to the vast majority of its residents, is a transparent nationalist action designed to reinforce the Serb claim to Kosovo, which has historical grounds but is in complete defiance of the principle of self-determination. I support the self-determination of both Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo, and in particular would support the moving of the border to allow majority-Serb areas in proximity to the rest of Serbia to remain within Serbia while Kosovo becomes independent. To resist the border shift is simply Albanian nationalism, and is hypocritical on the part of Kosovars; any Albanian who insists that even Serb parts of Kosovo must become part of an independent Kosovo or greater Albania is demanding to be free of Serb domination but demanding the right to dominate Serbs in return. This nationalism on both parts is nauseating. However, the Serb claim to all of Kosovo is far more undemocratic than the Albanian claim to all of Kosovo. Nikola, demanding an explicit expression of something that I have already made quite clear, wants to know why Albanian should come first. My answer is this: the encyclopedia is meant to be a source of information, not a platform for sectarian advocacy. I have rewritten the opening to be as neutral as possible, but since it must be linear, I have put Albanian first. Nikola can say what he wants, but neutral observers will know that his insistence on placing Serbian first is an act of nationalism and advocacy of territorial claim. He has offered no better counterargument; and of the persons who have expressed an opinion on this, only he feels as he does.
— Ford 02:53, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

When listing the different translations on the first paragraph, I usually go by the alphabetic listing (and no, not because Albanian comes first). I've done this in articles where Albanian isn't even involved. Throughout the article is a more difficult matter. As far as I know, we go by the English name, lacking that the official name as set by the government. Here we have the problem of deciding which one is the official government. I like going with the idea of using the name used by the majority of the local population. If that's also considered unfair, we could go by google hits as a last resort. Dori | Talk 03:03, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

I have never noticed an article in which the names are listed alphabetically or by Google hits. Nikola 03:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Knowing how the local population calls the place is a nice thing, but what exactly is the local population, and why should local population of something should precede local population of something in which the first something is? I believe that the point, besides knowing how the local population calls the place, is allowing users to search for it in literature, and logically there is no literature which describes a place better than local literature. Tough luck finding something about "Ferizaj" in the National Library of Serbia.

Serbs are not a minority in Kosovo, and the same way you see giving precedence to Serbian name "transparent nationalist action", I see giving precedence to Albanian name as a not-so-transparent nationalist action, designed to reinforce Albanian claims to Kosovo.

It is not true that Kosovo Albanians have the right of self-determination, for various reasons, some mentioned in above discussion with Kosovar.

When answering why should name used by most of the population come first, you have basically said "the Albanian name should come first becouse the encyclopedia is meant to be a source of information". I don't see how is this an answer to my question.

I believe that your rewrite of the opening was in good faith, but it is simply factually wrong. You wrote "Kosovo is an autonomous province of Serbia" but Serbia does not have such autonomous province. Further, you wrote "where it is officially called" which implies that otherwhere it is not officially called so. Then, you write that majority of the population declared the independence of the Republic of Kosova, but they have declared independence of Kosovo under the name of Republic of Kosova. Finally, I'm not 100% certain whether Albania recognised the independence (I believe it did) but am quite certain that current governement is not continuation of old, or Albanian politicians would not seek to declare independence again.

Kosovo is a part of Serbia in every way; and so there is no need for me or anyone else to set a territorial claim to it. I have given several arguments as to why should official name come first. Nikola 03:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not as much a question of the "local" language as it is of the English name. Clearly, the article should live at the English name for a place/town, and also list it first, followed by the official names in the order used by the local government, and then other names. Since the English name will mostly be the same as either the Serbian or the Albanian one, the order for most articles will be set by the choice of the English name. I guess that English names for larger towns and places in Kosovo probably turn out to be mostly derived from Serbian, since they have been in use for quite a time. Less known places will, depending on the spelling, probably settle on the language of the local majority population.

Another thing that I might already have said earlier: Kosovo and Metohija should get its own article, since it is a de-jure territorial unit of Serbia with an operating administration in Serbia proper. There is also the history of the term to write about. As for the geographic region, it's usually just called "Kosovo" in Serbian, though that is felt by many to be a casual use (like "Bosnia" for "Bosnia and Herzegovina") since "Kosovo" doesn't really include all of the province. I think an accurate introduction would be:

Kosovo (Albanian Kosova, Serbian Kosovo i Metohija, often simply Kosovo) is a...

I'm not sure where to put the Cyrillic spelling, but please do include the Latin one. Serbian has an official and widely used latin script or transliteration, which ever way you want it, and there is no need to rob the readers of the ease of reading Serbian names in Latinics. Zocky 03:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Looks as if some of the long-winded discussions below are coming to some agreement, at least on the basic principles on which to base the main article. I'm not an experienced user and have no idea how this process is supposed to work, but how about we make a list of elements of the article, confirm where we're happy that a section covers a) the technical reality, b) has a NPOV, and c) covers both 'sides' where that is necessary. What do we think?

Currently we have

1 Geography 1.1 Geographical regions

2 Name 2.1 Former official names 2.2 Adjective form 2.3 Kosovo placenames

3 Flag

4 History

5 Politics and international status

6 Administrative subdivisions

7 Economy

8 Demographics

9 See also

10 External links 10.1 Provisional Institutions of Self-Government 10.2 Pro-Albanian 10.3 Pro-Serb

Can I humbly suggest the following structure:

Intro

1 Geography (where it is, what's next to it, what the landscape is like, main towns and rivers etc in English/Albanian/Serbian)

I'm strongly agains using non-English names in this way. This was extensivelly discussed before. Nikola 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2 History (link to other article, brief summary noting the major periods, inlcuding SFRY, and a NPOV sentence on the post-91 period)

3 Demoraphics (noting contradicting and incomplete sources, rough outline of post-WWII, the mass movements on both sides, and where we *might* be now)

I agree with 2 and 3. Nikola 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4 Language (noting all main languages, the formal and informal titles in English/Albanian/Serbian and less of this 'is it Slavic or not')

No, I don't agree with this. Which article on a teritorry has a Language section? Information about official languages belongs to Politics. Nikola 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5 International status (current technical status, position of UN, desires of the various sides, note on process to Final Status from here)

6 Politics (democratic involvement and main parties in and from Kosovo, inlcuding Serbs voting for Serbian elections and Serb parties)

7 Administration (note on pre-99 APKiM, early UNMIK period, and overview of current institutions, incl relevant ones on Serbia side)

Agree with 5, 6 and 7, except that I don't see why there should be a section on Administration, it should be in Politics. Perhaps even International status should be a subsection of Politics. Nikola 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

8 Economy (communist period, war and devastation, rebuilding, currency, privatisation, problems of black economy etc)

9 See also (other articles)

10 External links (International, Albanian, Serb)

All parts of the current structure should fit into this (eg Flag into International Status, Name into Language, Status or Administration) What do we think of this? We can then take each section, propose a paragraph or two, tweak them and build the article back up, bringing al sides along as we do? (JD)

The first move forward must be the removing of some of the external links that have been added recently. I did not want to do this because it might start a so-called revert war. It is totally unacceptable that links to individual articles have been added. I can add tens of thousands of links to individual articles from very reliable sources like the BBC that discuss the horrible crimes committed by the Serbs. I could add links to articles how Serbia is unsafe for Serbs, even their prime minister (supposedly the safest person in the country with the highest security around him) was killed in the middle of the capital Belgrade (supposedly the safest place in Serbia) in front of the government building (supposedly the safest building in the country). How can a country provide security for someone else when they cannot provide security for their own prime minister.

The external links must be sorted out immediately.

I suggest we put a limit to the number of external links. Kosovar Albanians would select the best sites that represent their side, and Serbs do the same. They can then select links to individual articles that talk about Milosevic being an innocent angel or website with information about the current events -- their choice.

Finally, the subject of the external links must not be changed to better suite you. -- Kosovar 11:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that new links are overkill, and a lot of them could be removed or moved to specific articles. http://www.euinkosovo.org/pNewsDev.asp?id=169&Lang=2 Nikola 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, so with agreement that we at some point sort out what links we're going to put in, we can start moving forward. Nikola - more than happy to use less sections, perhaps put Status and Administration into Politics, although given the importance of current and future status this seems to me to underrate the issue. And I suppose we could put language into demographics, but we have to account for the importance of language and terminology in the current political debate. Can we agree on:

1 Geography (where it is, what's next to it, what the landscape is like, main towns and rivers etc - language issue TBC)

2 History (link to other article, brief summary noting the major periods, inlcuding SFRY, and a NPOV sentence on the post-91 period)

3 Demoraphics (noting contradicting and incomplete sources, rough outline of post-WWII, the mass movements on both sides, and where we *might* be now; also points on ethnic and religious balances and languages used)

4 Politics and administration - International status (current technical status, position of UN, desires of the various sides, note on process to Final Status from here) - Related issues (official languages, names and terminology, Serbia/Albania/potential new flags, travel documents, - Politics (democratic involvement and main parties in and from Kosovo, inlcuding Serbs voting for Serbian elections and Serb parties) - Administration (note on pre-99 APKiM, early UNMIK period, and overview of current institutions, incl relevant ones on Serbia side)

5 Economy (communist period, war and devastation, rebuilding, currencies, privatisation, problems of black economy etc)

6 See also (other articles)

7 External links (TBC)

For those who may not have seen it above, can I also refer you to the pretty good UK Foreign Office summary on Kosovo [35] (http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019233722672).

Can we all begin to agree on some of this? Some of the current structure just seems to exacerbate disagreement (a separate section on flags?!), where we should be looking for accepted generalities, contested actualities and references to the major sides in any particular area of controversy. (JD)

JD, you sign and time stamp by typing four time tilde (~). Alternatively, at the top left-hand corner of the edit window you can find 11 buttons to help you in your editing (bold text, italic text, hyperlink text, etc). By pressing the one before last, Wikipedia does the signing and time stamping for you. Let me know if you need any further help. --Kosovar 03:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your proposals seem reasonable to me. Go ahead! :)

I've never seen an article with section "Flag", however some have section "Symbols". As it will be quite short, perhaps it could just become a sentence in "Politics", too. Nikola 04:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christmas and New Year

Dear friends of Kosova,

Just a note to wish you all a Merry Christmas, and may your New Year be bright.

I look forward to discussing with you after the winter break.

From me personally and from all Kosovars. --Kosovar 03:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you as well. Though I have not participated in the discussions above, I have followed them with interest. It's good to see Kosovars, Serbs, and others actually talking and even working together on this article. Let's hope for a peaceful and happy new year for all communities. Jonathunder 17:41, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Kosovo Map

I don't understand why the map I uploaded earlier was considered "biased" by Ford? I want a clarification from him. That map was sent to me by a Kosovan who happens to be living in Pristina. Menj 05:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The map you substituted was entirely in Albanian — not just the cities, but the surrounding countries. That is a questionable choice in the English Wikipedia anyway; and any departure from English is certain to be controversial here. You will note by watching this talk page and checking the edit history of the article that language is a matter of serious contention. We cannot even get one of our Serb nationalist editors to accept that Albanian, as the dominant language of Kosovo, should take priority over Serbian when the two are mentioned. If you want to be of help, you can support our efforts to prevent and remove pro-Serb bias from the article. Anything that tips the balance over the line will just be an excuse for a Serb nationalist response, which we do not need any more of.

I would support placing both maps in the article, and noting that the earlier map lists cities in Serbian, and the later map lists them in Albanian. I imagine it would just prove to be one more thing to fight about, though.
— Ford 10:49, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, Ford. I agree that both maps should be included. Some Kosovans I have met online are already accusing Wikipedia of Serbian bias, and this is not good for Wikipedia. I vote for putting both maps on the page. I hope this can be done A.S.A.P. Menj 04:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would outline what constitutes that pro-Serb bias. Nikola 11:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I understood the map well, it showed subdivisions used by paralell Albanian administration, so it is certainly not suitable for Geography section. Otherwise it is very interesting and would be suitable for Politics section, but only alongside map of current subdivisions. Nikola 11:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I detect much Serbian bias in this article, except when strange edits pop up. The simplest way to avoid any bias is to use UN standards where possible. As the only legitimate (or at least, internationally santioned) authority in the territory, we should be taking UN terms, definitions and usages wherever possible. Helpfully, UNMIK has its own map of Kosovo, which you can find at http://www.unmikonline.org/maps.htm, named 'UNMIK map, United Nations Cartographic Section'. Can anyone give a good reason why we should not use this map? (JD) (And a Happy New Year to you all!)

It makes no improvement on the bias of the present map: towns in which Serbian is barely spoken at all are still listed with Serbian names. And that is the most notable pro-Serb bias of the article itself. Using the diacritics from Latin Serbian is a deviation from standard English practice, which tends to use the Serbian names without the diacritics. The easiest example to use is the name of the capital. English uses ‘Pristina’. That seems like a reasonable middle ground between Albanian ‘Prishtina’ and Serbian ‘Priština’, until we can agree on the principle that it is not the right of Serb imperialists to tell the rest of the world what to call places where Serbs are a tiny minority (and in which, incidentally, the Serbian government has no control).
— Ford 22:04, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Fair points, but we need to find a map which is authoritative. The best solution would be a map showing both Albanian and Serbian names, but none exists as the only cartographic authorities for Kosovo are UNMIK and the Republic of Serbia, and the UN relies on the Serbian maps. The only option remaining (apart from using the UN maps as suggested by me above) is to create our own map using the UN dual-name listing of towns and places. But if no one is willing to put in the time and effort to do this, we should be using the UN maps (unfortunately Serb language, not that this implies any moral claim). Agree that elsewhere we should shoot for an English-usage middle ground for place names, but can't think where this applies except Pristina (and, to note, Prishtina or Pristina are also acceptable in Latin script in Serbian, so none of this is as clear cut as we might think). So, which is it - a whole new map, or the UN ones? (JD)

How about the OSCE maps, which use both names? See http://www.osce.org/kosovo/documents/reports/hr/part1/p0ka.htm . -- ChrisO 13:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UNMIK never officially abolished Serbian place names, but simply added Albanian versions as official ones too (now every place has two official names; usage depends on ethnicity, and who is UNMIK talking to through documents). I nevertheless agree that English place names would be the most appropriate choice for the article map (to avoid a 'Pec/Peje' or 'Peje/Pec' mess for every town, let alone the usage of Cyrillic for the Serbian place names - which would be the right way to do it), but the only place name that has been properly transliterated to English is "Prishtina". Dealing with the rest would simply be an improvisation. In any case, you guys might want to wait with the map anyways - UNMIK is now working on a decentralisation plan which is going to introduce dozens of new municipalities in Kosovo (perhaps as many as 50+), and these municipalities are going to be ethically based (although UNMIK will claim this is not the motivation, but it is evident that it is). (Anon).

Lead wording

Chris' rewrite is substantially better than Ford's nonsense, but I don't like several parts.

First, saying that Kosovo is disputed territory. According to the article, a disputed territory is territory which is in "disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states". Obviously, this doesn't apply to Kosovo.

Second, saying that it is formally a province of Serbia. This implies that factually it is not. Consider the opposite wording: "a province of Serbia formally administered by the United Nations", and note the POV.

Third, "where it is officially called Kosovo and Metohija". This implies that it is not called so at other places.

Finally, saying that the independence is recognised by Albania is not true. Current government is not a continuation of the government which was (I think) recognised by Albania. If not, why would current governement seek to again declare independence in 2005?

And, of course, name order. Nikola 11:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Point-for-point refutation

Sigh. I don’t know where everyone else is, Nikola. I tire of this, but until someone else jumps in and helps I suppose I will do it myself.

First, Kosovo is a disputed territory. The wording was an expression in plain English — not your strong suit, I know, but stay with me for a moment. I did not link to the page Territorial dispute, and I do not think the definition you cite from that page is accurate anyway. Is Kosovo a territory — a piece of land? Undoubtedly. Is it disputed? Undoubtedly. You have no argument.

No. If you don't think that that definition is accurate, why didn't you edited the article? I think that it is accurate. If Kosovo is a disputed territory, which states are disputing it? Nikola

The parties to the dispute are, obviously, Serbia (does Montenegro have a view?) and the Albanian population of Kosovo constituted as the "Republic of Kosova". A territorial dispute does not have to be between states. There are plenty of examples from elsewhere - the Palestinian territories, the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka, East Timor before its independence from Indonesia. But for the sake of clarity I think we should refer to it as a "secessionist dispute", as the Kosovo case is about one territory seeking to escape the control of another. -- ChrisO 12:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agreee, how would you phrase that? A province undergoing secession? Nikola 02:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd simply call it a "secessionist dispute". :-) -- ChrisO 19:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Second, in practical terms, Kosovo is no longer a province of Serbia. It is, as everyone else recognizes, a protectorate of the UN and NATO. Belgrade is not running the show in Kosovo, and at most, at most, has been allowed to veto the full independence that most Kosovars want. But your assessment of the implications is just that. The inferences you draw are not anyone else’s responsibility. The statement “still formally a province of Serbia” from ChrisO’s version is accurate, and rather than leave anything to implication, it spells out the rest: it is “administered by the United Nations, and its final status is as yet undetermined”. You have no argument.

You are wrong completely, shown to be wrong, and I don't know why you are trying to portray this as an argument. Kosovo IS a province of Serbia, in practical and theoretical terms, and of course it also IS administered by the UN (and NATO under UN auspices). The fact that Kosovo is a province of Serbia is recognised multiple times by both UN and NATO. I don't know how can't you understand as simple fact as "Kosovo is a province of Serbia administered by the United Nations" but perhaps understanding isn't "your strong suit".

Chris's statement is accurate but biased. It strongly implies ("still") that one day Kosovo will not be a province of Serbia, and it also implies that it is a not actually a province ("formally"). I can write "Washington is still formally the capital of the United States", and that is obviously true, and the word "still" and "formally" obviously unneccesary there. Nikola 08:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have a fair point about the "formally", and I accept that it's unnecessary. Kosovo is legally still very much part of Serbia and this will be the point from which the negotiations on its future will have to begin. However, I feel that it's necessary to include "still" to emphasize the point that it is not yet separate from Serbia despite Serbia's loss of control. It may one day no longer be a province of Serbia but to avoid confusion, I think we should make it clear that right now it still is. -- ChrisO 12:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How is saying that "Kosovo is a province of Serbia" less clear than "Kosovo is still a province of Serbia"? Nikola 02:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because, as we've seen with the editing of this article, there's some confusion about whether Kosovo is in fact still a province of Serbia. Clearly it is, but I think we need to say that its status as such hasn't changed since 1999. -- ChrisO 19:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But the word 'still' is only being used in response to the word 'was' in a previous version. For readers of this version, 'still' adds ambiguity. The article states "Kosovo is a province of Serbia..." That is clear and unambigous. "Still" adds ambiguity and speculation as to whether it might not be in the future. -Key45 21:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Third, in fact, virtually no one speaking English calls the territory anything but ‘Kosovo’. The full formal name given to it by Serbia is probably not even used that often by Serbs — it is just too long. Compare ‘Bosnia’ for ‘Bosnia and Hercegovina’, or ‘America’ for ‘United States of America’. Here you have read the implications correctly; it is just that you are misrepresenting reality. You have no argument.

Exactly, and this is mentioned in my version: "Kosovo is name most oftenly used for a province of Serbia officially called Kosovo and Metohija...". Your version claims that Kosovo is officially called Kosovo and Metohia only in Serbia ("where it is officially called"), which is not true. Nikola 08:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think your version is more accurate, to be honest (though I would reword it - it doesn't read very well in English). The term "Kosovo and Metohija" has definitely been used outside Serbia, e.g. by the UN [36] (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%22Kosovo+and+Metohija%22+site%3Aun.org&btnG=Search&meta=). -- ChrisO 12:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to resolve this by saying "Kosovo (known in Albanian as Kosova, in Serbian as Kosovo and Metohija / Косово и Метохија, and in English simply as Kosovo)". Note the priorities here. The English conventional form comes first (not Kosova or Kosovo & Metohija) - this is standard practice on Wikipedia where the local name and the conventional English name are different. Then comes the local names in alphabetical order, followed by a note on which is the most conventional version in English (which is perhaps redundant but might help avoid confusion). -- ChrisO 19:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally, whether or not Albania has recognized the independence of Kosovo under its present hybrid government has no bearing on whether Albania recognizes Kosovo’s independence as a formality. Has Albania retracted its recognition? Is it likely to? And if the locally-elected portion of the present hybrid government plans a second declaration of independence, that does not imply that they have abandoned the first. They are obviously hoping to be recognized by more states than one. You have no argument.

That is not true. Government which rules Kosovo today is not a continuation of the previous paralell government and so "Independent Kosovo" of tomorrow would not be a continuation of "Independent Kosovo" of yesterday. Albania, AFAIK, did not retract its recognition but it didn't have to precisely because of that (and it was invalid from the beginning anyway because the paralell governemtn didn't have any control of the territory). And yes, planning a declaration of independence does mean that one doesn't exist. Nikola 08:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Albania has previously recognised Kosovo as independent, then as a matter of international law that still stands. It doesn't depend on whether the government of Kosovo has changed - it's a matter of the relationship between states rather than governments. Albania wouldn't need to re-recognise a future independent Kosovo as far as I know. -- ChrisO 12:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will change this to "was" since it's true either way. Nikola 02:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your petulance on the language issue is blatant chauvinism. But you do not adhere to any standard of modern liberalism (“It is not true that Kosovo Albanians have the right of self-determination”) or even factual accuracy (“Serbs are not a minority in Kosovo”). I do not want to provoke you, but your insistence not only that Serbia does rule Kosovo (obviously not true) but that it perpetually should rule Kosovo falls into one of two categories. Either Serbia will rule Kosovo by force without the consent of its unwilling inhabitants, in which case we are talking about imperialism, or Serbia will rule Kosovo without its unwilling inhabitants at all, in which case we are talking about ethnic cleansing. Which of those two are you advocating?
— Ford 12:24, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

And your insistance on precedence of Albanian is blatant Albanian nationalism. Yes, I do not adhere to some standards of modern liberalism; I don't have to, that is not required for editing Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with whether I am right or wrong. I don't see why is that bad or indeed relevant for this discussion. And even if it would be, it would still need to be proven that right of Kosovo Albanians to self-determination is a "standard of modern liberalism". Serbs are not a minority on Kosovo, Albanians are, and that is factually accurate; read archives of this talk page and also the article on minority to find out why, for I don't want to explain it to you because of your hostility towards me.

Also irrelevant for this discussion, but I will answer. I believe that Serbia should rule Kosovo with consent of its willing inhabitants. But if that is not possible, I don't see why would it be wrong for Serbia to rule Kosovo without it. That would not be imperialism because most of the population of Serbia would consent to Serbian rule, and most of the Albanians would not be under Serbian rule. Nikola 08:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We're straying off-topic here, but I don't think it's going to be practical for Serbia to impose its rule on the Kosovo Albanian population - it would certainly result in a second war, which NATO and the EU certainly wouldn't allow. I can't see the Albanians agreeing to a resumption of Serbian rule, given their experiences over the past 90 years, but I also can't see Serbia agreeing to let Kosovo go. Perhaps we'll end up with Kosovo becoming a sort of Balkan Taiwan, independent in every way except in a notional legal sense. -- ChrisO 12:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated to the article, but I am curious, what experiences over the past 90 years do you think that Albanians have had? Nikola 02:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we stay on-topic?! I think Nikola has some points, and speaking as possibly the only person here who has had any direct experience of the international politics of Kosovo (as a former diplomat), I don't think you can accuse me of being Serb nationalist!

I can claim to have had some experience, on the military side... -- ChrisO 19:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is Kosovo part of Serbia? Yes - Kosovo is, in international law, a part of Serbia, as recognied by every UN member state, including Albania. Though a Republic of Kosovo was announced, the declaration was later (and quietly) rescinded by the major Kosovo Albanian political parties in a deal with the UN (mid-December 1999, for which see the UN's Chronology of events since 1999, http://www.unmikonline.org/chrono.htm#jun99 which I would encourage you all to read). UNMIK continue to block fresh declarations of independence by the assembly; all attempts have been invalidated (according to the laws of Kosovo which all political parties accept). Please provide current evidence to support any claim that a Republic of Kosovo is still claimed, or that Albania recognises such an entity. These statements are totally out of date.

Is Kosovo disputed? No. Serbia thinks Kosovo is part of Serbia, and it's right (under international law). Yes, Serbia wants to administer Kosovo as well, but that's a different matter and Serbia abides by the Kumanovo Agreement under which the UN provides the administration. No Republic of Kosovo is claimed and so does not dispute the territory. Albania does not dispute the status of Kosovo, and does not recognise a Republic of Kosovo, which no longer exists. No one disputes the current position. All Kosovo Albanian parties support the current situation, but would like indepdence. Please provide current evidence of any party which disputes the current UN administration of Kosovo, which remains part of Serbia in law. What we should be saying about Kosovo is that Final Status has yet to be determined.

I'm beginning to think that some people here are basing most of what they say on vague media reports from a couple of years ago. (JD)

- - - - -
You have generally been pretty sensible, JD, but here you are showing your own bias (in favor of diplomacy, geopolitical niceties, and international law), and your statement that Kosovo is not disputed is, frankly, pretty daffy. If there were no dispute, the UN could simply withdraw and leave matters to Serbia. Of course, if the UN withdrew, the KLA would return to arms instantly, and without a moment’s thought. The only reason Kosovo is not still experiencing armed conflict between Serbian forces and the KLA is because NATO and the UN intervened. If there were no dispute, there would be no need for final status discussions, since all parties would all be in agreement — Kosovo is part of Serbia, let’s all go home. But you know that is not true. The Kosovar Albanians most definitely dispute the right of Serbia to rule Kosovo. The idea that all Kosovar Albanian parties support the current situation is hardly accurate, either. They merely prefer the current situation to a return to provincial status within Serbia. And even if, as you wrongly state, no one disputes the current interim status (which you state while admitting that Serbia still believes that Kosovo should be reabsorbed into Serbia, and the Kosovar Albanians still believe that they should be independent), that does not mean that no one disputes Kosovo’s status de jure as a province of Serbia. And if all parties in the assembly accept the UN’s ban on independence, then there would be no need for UNMIK to keep blocking it, as you describe. If an unresolved political situation following a ceasefire in a war between two parties who still insist on opposite outcomes is not a dispute, perhaps you can use your oft-mentioned diplomatic experience to explain to me what the word ‘dispute’ means.
— Ford 03:21, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Let's not confuse Kosovo's governance with its legal status - they're linked, obviously, but they're not the same thing. Kosovo is governed independently from Serbia. It is legally still very much part of Serbia - IIRC, it still uses Serbia's legal system. The fact that it's still part of Serbia is why there's a dispute over its status in the first place. It's simply not accurate to say that it was "formerly" a province of Serbia. It is accurate to say that Kosovo was formerly ruled by Serbia. -- ChrisO 19:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Take your points, Ford. I do mean that Kosovo is not disputed in the formal sense. There is a dispute (where is there not?) but when we are discussing (and defining) the Status of this piece of land, we should not say that it is disputed (which has a very different meaning). Kosovo is not a disputed territory in the way that the Kiril Islands (spelling??) are disputed by Japan and Russia, it is a small part of a larger State where part of the population (here a majority) seek independence. A single word does not spring to mind to describe this, so we shall have to resort to a longer-winded explanation - a province of Serbia, administered by the UN, where the majority ethnic-Albanian population seeks independence as part of a UN-sponsored process to determine Final Status. No one disputes that Kosovo is a province of Serbia, administered by the UN, (erm, except yourself!) but many people have different ideas about what that Final Status should be. The UN and all sides in Kosovo have worked very hard, and both K Serb and K Albanians have made many difficult compromises (not 'mere' preferences), to get to the current position where all sides agree on the process from here. We (and here I mean you) should not lightly ignore this weight of law and political complexity and blithely decide that Kosovo is not part of Serbia for the purposes of this dictionary - this is partisan and the route to further loss of life. (JD)

Your point on repeated attempts to use the Assembly as a means to declare independence. This does not imply that the Kosovo Albanian political parties in the Assembly accept anything other than the UN-sponsored process (including the compromise status quo). Whilst the parties support the process, they also need to maintain the support of the mass of Kosovo Albanians, and to compete with other parties for votes, and probably more importantly they are mindful of maintaining their current strong position in Final Status negotiations by reasserting their claim for independence, in full knowledge that using the Assembly in this manner is illegitimate and will be struck down by the SRSG. (JD)

Theory and fact

Obviously I am beating my head against a wall here, but the very statement that Kosovo is a province of Serbia in any way but legally is biased and wholly inaccurate. During the Cold War, Ukraine and Belarus (generally then called Belorussia) were members of the United Nations. They were accorded recognition as sovereign entities. Mainland China, on the other hand, was not, and since it was made a member, Taiwan has been excluded. And yet: Ukraine and Belarus were not in any way independent during the Cold War, while Taiwan and China have been separate, functioning states since the end of the Chinese civil war. These are matters of fact.

That is why there exists the distinction between de jure and de facto. One describes a theoretical existence only in law — in this case, international law. The other describes reality. De jure, Kosovo is a province of Serbia. De facto, it is not. Since we are writing an encyclopedia of facts, not theories, we cannot call Kosovo a province of Serbia. It is not such a thing. We can say that it is a province of Serbia de jure. But if we simply say it is a province of Serbia, that implies that it is a province de facto.

American Heritage: a province is “a territory governed as an administrative or political unit of a country or empire”. We all (except Nikola, possibly) agree that Kosovo is not governed or administered by Serbia, that it is governed instead by condominium of a locally-elected administration and a UN-appointed administration. Kosovo’s actual, not theoretical, governance determines whether it is actually a province of Serbia. It is not. That is why my version states that Kosovo is a territory (bounded area of land) that is disputed. My version is more accurate than the present version. I realize that I have, with Kosovar’s recent silence, become Nikola’s chief antagonist; but it does not follow that the neutral position is halfway between us. I may condemn Nikola’s assertions here on the talk page, but my edits to the article itself have always been carefully factual and neutral. I would ask that other editors consider whether we should be filling the encyclopedia with fact or theory as they continue to favor theory in this article.
— Ford 00:25, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Well, Kosovar was at least fed with Albanian propaganda, so he at least had some knowledge of that, but you, you are completely clueless. You say the very statement that Kosovo is a province of Serbia in any way but legally - what other way there is for a province to be a part of a state but legally? May it be a part of a state illegaly? Then a province is “a territory governed as an administrative or political unit of a country or empire” [interesting, they don't think that an empire is a country] and We all [agree] that [Kosovo] is governed instead by condominium of a locally-elected administration and a UN-appointed administration as if this is in some conflict. Kosovo is a territory governed as an administrative unit of Serbia by condominium of a locally-elected administration and a UN-appointed administration. Nikola 10:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've got your history in a twist. The Soviet Union was notionally a union of 15 independent states in a voluntary union (yes, I know), and Stalin originally sought UN seats for all 15 republics plus the USSR collectively. Churchill and Roosevelt got him to agree to just three UN seats - the USSR plus Ukraine and Belarus. No other state received this treatment - it was simply the price that the western Allies paid to get Stalin to sign up to the UN. There is no parallel to Kosovo in this instance. As for China and Taiwan, they are still formally one country. The two administrations agree that there is one China, and the dispute is about which is the legitimate government of that one China. If the Taiwanese ever adopt a separatist position then the issue would become comparable to that of Kosovo. Right now, it's not. -- ChrisO 01:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don’t interrupt my posts, Chris. And I do not know what kind of history lesson you think you are giving me. It does not counter my point. My point was: just because the UN endorses a state doesn’t mean it is sovereign. Just because it doesn’t endorse a state doesn’t mean it isn’t. I think you have not been paying attention to Taiwanese politics in the last few years. The present Taiwanese administration does not believe that China and Taiwan are one state, nor did the last administration of Lee Teng Hui. Of course, you could point to backtracking on Chen’s part, owing especially to US pressure. But in any case, that is beside the point. China and Taiwan are separate states. They have completely-separate governments and each government is sovereign.
— Ford 04:00, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

To Ford: The difference between de iure and de facto exists with regards to Kosovo, and nobody is disputing that. However, you are contradicting yourself on a number of levels in your expose above. You are arguing in the same breath that Kosovo is a province of Serbia and that it isn't. Well, you have to make up your mind - you can't have it both ways, because that is meaningless when one sums it up.

Now let's assume that you actually made up your mind, and concluded that Kosovo is not a province of Serbia (this is the option you are leaning towards as far as I can see, because you give primacy to de facto over de iure). This would imply a Wikipedia article which presents Kosovo as an 'entity' (for the lack of the better word, and not to be confused with entities in Bosnia-Herzegovina) which has no relationship with Serbia.

You would then face the following difficulties and questions: a) you would have to define what Kosovo actually is, since a definition of Kosovo as 'a province of Serbia under UN administration' would not apply. Whatever definition you provided would be more debatable and difficult to sustain than simply stating that Kosovo is 'a province of Serbia under UN administration'; b) somebody like me, who likes to ask questions, would show up and challenge you to prove that Kosovo is not a province of Serbia. You would have to show me when Kosovo stopped being a province of Serbia, on whose authority and on what grounds etc. etc. This would inevitably lead to a larger discussion of what has a primacy in international law - de facto or de iure. The discussion would be endless (and in many aspects pointless), and it would be a gigantic task for you to try and prove that de facto is more important then de iure. In other words, the definition of Kosovo as 'a province of Serbia under UN administration' is simply fine, because it has two correct statements in it. I also believe that it is neutral. Anything else would get you in much more trouble. - This comment was contibuted by 216.187.83.61 at 18:47, 21 Jan 2005

I can only agree. As for "fact versus theory", I note that Ford hasn't offered a single piece of documentary evidence in support of his position, though there are about a zillion sources to support the statement in the article. Check out our esteemed rivals at Britannica, for a start. -- ChrisO 01:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Documentation for what, Chris? That the article should be about fact, rather than theory? If you disagree, say this: “I, ChrisO, think that the article should ignore fact in favor of theory.” That Serbia no longer controls Kosovo, as the definition which I cited demands? If you disagree, say this: “I, ChrisO, think that Serbia actually controls Kosovo, administers it, governs it.” If you want to make either of those statements, and then want me to document the opposite, fine. But if you refuse to make these statements, then I must assume that you agree with me, that the article should be about fact and that in fact Serbia no longer controls Kosovo. And if we agree, I don’t know why you are demanding documentation from me.

If there's a dispute about a particular set of facts, it's usually a good idea to quote evidence backing your case (and I don't mean random dictionary definions). -- ChrisO 12:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Didn’t I just ask you not to interrupt my posts? Put your comments at the end. But apparently you won’t respect the simplest requests. The facts are not in dispute here. It is the use of the word ‘province’, in which a dictionary definition is appropriate evidence.
— Ford 13:53, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

As for 216.187.83.61’s objections and questions, they are easily dealt with. Didn’t I just say that I do not believe that Kosovo is a province of Serbia? That was the whole point. I am not trying to have it both ways. I am saying that it is not a province of Serbia. I think the definition of a province precludes the idea that a province can be ruled by one power and be a part of another. Kosovo stopped being a province of Serbia when Serbia lost control, during the war. I am not trying to prove that de facto is more important than de jure in law, since ‘jure’ means law (ablative). And I shouldn’t have to prove that de facto is more important than de jure in encyclopedia writing. What is Kosovo? I have already said, it is a territory, an area of land. Simple, factual, neutral. It is a territory under joint Kosovar-UN administration, with the UN having the final say. Easy. If American Heritage’s definition of province is not to your liking, provide another; but then we will just be having a war of dictionaries. As it is, you are just saying, “Everyone considers Kosovo to be a province of Serbia.” Not everyone does, but if they did it would not make it so. If everyone considered that the sun orbited the earth, it would not be any the truer. Of course, if you want to densely ignore the distinction between de facto and de jure, and insist that there cannot be a difference, then you are taking Nikola’s position, that Kosovo is a part of Serbia in every possible way. That position is ridiculous.

As I said, beating my head against a wall. I say: “X is true.” Someone demands: “But why don’t you say whether X is true or false?” I say: “Kosovo is Y.” Someone demands: “But why don’t you say what Kosovo is?”
— Ford 04:00, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

To Ford: You are getting something wrong here: the definition of Kosovo as a province in this article has nothing to do with the American Heritage's definition of a province (whatever that definition is). We are discussing here the internal composition of Serbia as a republic. In other words, 'Kosovo as a province of Serbia' in this article is referring to the fact that it in 1999 Serbia had two autonomous provinces in its internal composition, Kosovo being one of them. This status never changed despite the war and UN/NATO presence, and it is still on the books. Thus, if you say that 'Kosovo is not a province of Serbia' in the context of this article, you are stating that its status indeed changed, and that Kosovo is now in fact outside of Serbia's territory. As far as I know, there is no UN resolution or some other document (since we agree that UN is running the show) which unmade Kosovo as an autonomous province of Serbia, and/or according to which Kosovo was excluded from being a part of Serbia as a political entity. Thus, there is nothing wrong with the definition of Kosovo as 'a province of Serbia under UN administration', because the 'province of Serbia' part is referring to the still unchanged status of Kosovo as an autonomous province of Serbia. ‘Province of Serbia' in this article is not referring to the American Heritage's or some third definition of a province, but to the internal composition of Serbia as a republic. - 216.187.83.61

The UN itself has dealt with this matter and has explicitly said that Kosovo remains part of Yugoslavia/Serbia. I suggest that Ford should take a look at UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which authorised the creation of UNMIK and does have legal force - see http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm :

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,

- this says that the UN does not endorse any change to the FRY's borders, i.e. the separation of Kosovo from Serbia

Authorizes the Secretary-General, with the assistance of relevant international organizations, to establish an international civil presence in Kosovo in order to provide an interim administration for Kosovo under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and which will provide transitional administration while establishing and overseeing the development of provisional democratic self-governing institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo;

- this speaks for itself, doesn't it? Autonomy within Yugoslavia, not independence from it.

And the annex to the resolution, a statement from the G-8 Foreign Ministers, says:

The G-8 Foreign Ministers adopted the following general principles on the political solution to the Kosovo crisis:...

A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region...

Establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo as a part of the international civil presence under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to be decided by the Security Council of the United Nations.

A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia...

In other words, Ford's claims are, to coin a phrase, theory not fact. Kosovo's governance has changed; its constitutional status remains intact. -- ChrisO 12:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why are you quoting the UN at me? I have already said that UN recognition or lack of it has to do with status de jure, not status de facto. The same goes for the G8. I was hoping that one of you might be able to offer some evidence as to why you think Kosovo is a province of Serbia de facto. That the UN Security Council, in which China and Russia can veto any statement they choose, or the G8, which needs Russia for consensus, would insist that secession is impermissible, or even insist that it has not taken place when it it has, is hardly proof of anything. For that matter, every state has an interest in the concept of territorial integrity. They have a conflict of interest; they are inherently biased. You’ve wasted a lot of breath countering a point that I did not make, and ignored the point I did. But discussing this isn’t going to work, obviously. Let’s just all congratulate ourselves on having won the argument — I know that is what you are doing — and drop it.
— Ford 13:53, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

To Ford: Before we all congratulate ourselves, we need to step back for a minute. It is evident that when you see a statement claming that 'Kosovo is a province of Serbia under UN administration', you think about the definition of 'a province' as it is given by the American Heritage's foundation. When I see that statement, I see 'province' as something that refers to the (still) unchanged status of Kosovo as an autonomous province of Serbia - in essence, an administrational division of Serbia. Ford, I am not saying that you are wrong in your perception but if you want to be realistic you will have to admit that most (if not all) readers of the Wikipedia Kosovo article see the 'province' part as something that indeed refers to (still) unchanged internal composition of Serbia as a political entity. It is very unlikely that American Heritage's definition of a province goes flying in people's minds when they see the statement for the first time. As far as the article goes, claim that 'Kosovo is not a province of Serbia according to American Heritage Foundation's definition of a province (the definition is: this-and-that)' is a borderline (footnote) material at best; I am sure that there are other foundations or similar organisations around the globe that have their own definitions like that, and piling them all up in the article would be quite pointless. - 216.187.83.61]

American Heritage is a dictionary, not a foundation; it is certainly one of the most respected sources published in the United States. (The Heritage Foundation is a think tank. Is that what you are confusing it with?) Like most, if not all, modern dictionaries, it primarily attempts to describe usage, not prescribe it. American Heritage is stating that, in the judgement of its editors, the word ‘province’ is used by anglophones to mean “a territory governed as an administrative or political unit of a country or empire”. It is perfectly relevant to cite such a definition when the usage of a word is in question. How can Kosovo, in your perception, be an administrative division of Serbia if Serbia does not administer it?
— Ford 17:57, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

To Ford: You are still confusing a generic definition of 'a province' from a dictinary with a status of Kosovo as an autonomous province of Serbia; the latter definition is the relevant one in the context of this article. Nevertheless, if you want to play with dictionaries, here is something for you to think about - from the big Webster's Dictionary:

province: a division or unit of a country that has its own administration - (exp. the provinces of Canada).

How would you use Webster's definition of 'a province' to show me that Kosovo is not a province of Serbia? - 216.187.83.61

Confusing the generic definition with the specific definition that applies to Kosovo? If Kosovo is a unique situation to which the definition does not apply, then we need a unique word. Are you saying that Kosovo is a special kind of province then — the kind of province that is not actually a part of the country to which it is supposed to belong? Your definition (and by the way, “Webster’s” is not the name of a specific dictionary; is this Merriam-Webster?) implies that the country in question controls the division or unit. Only de jure is Kosovo in any way a part of Serbia. De facto it is not a division or unit of Serbia. Or perhaps you are saying that Serbia is a special kind of state — the kind that has two completely independent governments.
— Ford 02:19, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

To Ford: Lets narrow this down even further (to avoid endless repetition) and focus for a moment on the generic definition of 'a province' found in Webster's dictionary (Unabridged Merriam-Webster by Random House Publishers, if we must). You claim that Webster's definition implies who has to control the division or unit in question (the de facto part) - it does no such thing. Webster's definition is not prescribing the mechanics of governing a province and how this reflects on its status. It simply states that a province is a division or unit of a country that has its own administration. Kosovo is de iure a division or unit of Serbia - if it was not, that would entail that it is either an independent state or part of some other country. Kosovo has its own administration (UNMIK/KFOR + provisional government), and the existence of this administration does not exclude Kosovo from being a division or unit of Serbia (if it did, that would mean that Kosovo is outside of Serbia's borders). Thus, 'Kosovo is a province of Serbia under UN administration' fits nicely with Webster's definition of a province, because it tells you everything there is to know about it - Kosovo is within Serbia's borders and it is controlled/governed/administered by the UN. - 216.187.83.61

I have made my argument, you have made yours. We do not agree. We are not going to agree, clearly. We do not agree on the premises and there is no way that we will come to the same conclusion. I have left the text alone and see no further reason for you to pursue this argument, other than an attempt to make me look like I have no response. I am fully willing to admit that you will have a response to anything I say. But if I respond beyond this, you will respond again with something else that I don’t agree with. I am trying to extract myself from this argument. Please just accept that we do not agree and leave it at that.
— Ford 20:48, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

A long discussion, though unresolved. Whatever the semantics of what a 'province' is or is not, I think the key point is that we are discussing the Status of this piece of land. The only relevant definition of the Status of a piece of land is its legal status in international law (in this case, part of the sovereign state of Serbia and Montenegro), though we should note any disputes or unusual governmental structures (as we would do for Hong Kong or Taiwan). What we can't do is create some other kind of standard for describing the Status of a piece of land: Kosovo might be 'morally' independent or 'practically' not part of Serbia, but these are not relevant except in the wider description of how we got here and where we are going.

To say that Kosovo is 'a province in Southern Serbia' is correct but insufficient and inprecise, and therefore misleading and should be changed. Nor is Kosovo administered by the UN as a 'protectorate' (except in a lose and lazy journalistic sense) and this wording should go - Kosovo is a province of Serbia, administered by the UN as such (hence why the legal system is based on pre-1999 Yugoslav law, for which see references above). The situation many of us are trying to describe is complex but neutral: it does not prejudge Final Status or undermine important principles of self-determination and territorial integrity; it may appear to favour the Serb side only becuase Serbia happens (historically) to have been in control of Kosovo, but as I have stated many times this does not imply a moral claim over Kosovo. To take any other point of view would (in the real world) cause the current delicate balance to collapse, along with the cautious process of deciding Final Status, and could only lead to further fighting and loss of life. Sorry to put it so harshly - some of this diplomacy / international law rubbish (de jure) has practical benefit on the ground (de facto). Kosovo is a province of Serbia, administered by the UN, where a substantial majority favour formal independence. Please quote relevant documents from authoritative sources if you wish to state otherwise in this article.

This whole discussion is also slightly worrying - even when international law, the UN, the government of every UN member state, every major NGO and the bulk of the contributors to this article are saying one thing, there are still people here who want to claim another in order to correct what they see as bias in this article. (JD)

While I was reading this discussion page, I had the impression that some object to the statement that Kosovo is a province of Serbia under UN administration because they believe this definition is somehow pro-Serb in nature. I don't agree that the statement is biased. It is correct not only because it portrays Kosovo's present legal status, but also (and perhaps more importantly) because that legal status is the main reason why Kosovo's final status is yet to be determined. In other words, the fact that Kosovo is formally a province of Serbia provides an important context about the place that one cannot overlook. Arguing what is more important - de facto or de jure - is, in fact, a guesswork on what is going to happen to Kosovo in the end. We simply have to wait and see. I am sure that many who visit these pages have their own expectations and wishes in this regard. Personally I think that many will be disappointed one way or another in the end, because Kosovo's final status will not be much different from what we have today. Serbia is most definitely the weaker party in the upcoming negotiations about Kosovo. However there is one thing that Serbia controls, and that is the refusal to grant independence. Legally carving out one independent state out of a territory of another against its wishes would be a first for the UN, and a nasty precedent in the eyes of most UN members (think about Russia vis-à-vis Chechnya or China vis-à-vis Taiwan for a start). In other words, Kosovo Albanians will demand outright independence and Serbia will refuse this: the negotiated position will imply that there is no international border change (a yield to Serbia) and that Kosovo is ruled by Kosovo Albanians. UN and NATO will be replaced by EU administration and some type of European force, to ensure that things remain as they are. In the long run, Kosovo’s border with (formally the rest of) Serbia will remain closed (most likely with Montenegro, too), and the relationship with Macedonia will be strained at best. The only open border will be the one with Albania, a country that is not exactly an economic powerhouse. Kosovo’s economic future looks quite bleak in the long run, so expect a lot of trouble beyond the final status talks as well. (Anon)

Non-Kosovo Albanians in Kosovo? (re: Demographics)

I remember hearing last year about a UNMIK report which claims that a large number of non-Kosovo Albanians (mostly from Albania, but some from FYROM too) entered the province in 1999 together with the returning Kosovo Albanian refugees, following the withdrawal of FRY forces. The report stated that approximately 200,000 non-Kosovo Albanians ended up in Kosovo in this fashion. Apparently a huge number of people entering Kosovo in 1999 claimed that their documents were confiscated / destroyed by FRY authorities, and since NATO forces had no means of verifying this, everybody who showed up at the border got in. The report states that these non-Kosovo Albanians settled in the cities, mostly in the apartments vacated by the fleeing Serbs (in Pristina alone, there were 40,000 Serbs living in the city in 1999; now there are less than 200, but there are no empty apartments). UNMIK eventually issued new documents to all Kosovo Albanians, which means that the non-Kosovo Albanians are now 'legalized' citizens of the province. I believe that this information should be incorporated in the 'Demographics' section of the main article, because the whole affair changed the population figures significantly. However, the issue is politically charged and without the report info as a reference I am not sure if I should proceed. Does anyone know anything more about this report, was the report released by UNMiK to the general public, and how would one find the report (and where?) to reference it for the article?

- - - -
If you cannot verify it (and allow the rest of us to verify it), you definitely should not include it in the article. If you find the UNMIK report and can give us a link, then the article can mention that fact if and only if it is attributed to UNMIK.
— Ford 13:44, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Yes, allegations exist, but for obvious reasons they cannot be proven. I have quoted several sources which cite the number in Talk:Demographic history of Kosovo. Nikola 10:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me uncover some lies here. I am very curious who is spreading such propaganda here and not signing. If someone could let me know, I would be very grateful.

When the Serb troops withdrew from Kosova, they took (read: stole) all the official documents, i.e. birth certificates, citizenship certificates etc., to Serbia. These official documents to this date are in Serbia (the following website of the Embassy of SCG in London explains where they actually are: [37] (http://www.yugoslavembassy.org.uk/eng/consular/passports.html)). However, UNMIK has access to these documents (digital copies or whatever) and when an official document is issued by UNMIK the information that is supplies by the applicant is compared against the data held in Serbia. Any mismatch results in the application being rejected.

For examples, two years ago UNMIK jointly with the Kosovar institutions started issuing Kosovar driving licences. If a person held a driving licence from ex-Yugoslavia (until 1999) the driving licence was 'converted' from Yugoslav to Kosovar. Every such application for conversion took weeks to process since every application was compared with the official data that was being held in Serbia (in Nish, Kraljevo, Kragujevac, Krusevac, Jagodina, Vranje or Leskovac). Not a single 'fake' application succeeded since every driving licence issued prior to 1999 war was recorded and the official data was held in Serbia.

The same goes with every other official document that is issued by UNMIK. So much to your 'legalized' non-Kosovar Albanians.

Also, the majority of Serb flats in Prishtina were occupied by people from Drenica whose houses were burned by Serb troops. To them, Serbs burned their houses and everything they had, so they took a flat from Serbs in return. It's called 'an eye for an eye'. Not that I agree with it. However, most of these people have been kicked out of these flats by UNMIK HABITAT. Serb owners kept the official documents that proved their ownership of the flats and UNMIK through legal means have kicked these people out. Again, so much to your non-Kosovar Albanians in Serb flats in Prishtina.

Any UN document there might be MUST be recent and up to date. Documents issued in 2001-2002 are no good since things have changed since. Next time you try to spread propaganda, make sure you attach references to official, accurate and up-to-date documents. If something cannot be proven, then it is a lie. Kosovar 13:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New ICG Report

For all here with an interest in Final Status process, worth reading. [38] (http://www.crisisweb.org/home/index.cfm?id=3226&l=1) For more general readership, the associated article in the UK's left-leaning Guardian newspaper is informative [39] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbriefing/story/0,15205,1399485,00.html) (JD)

There is something quite interesting in the ICG report: "Kosovo's de jure sovereignty, if not achieved by Serbian agreement or Security Council resolution, should be recognized by the whole international community, or at least such of its member states (including the U.S. and EU members) as are prepared to do so. It has to be contemplated that Serbia -- and perhaps Russia as well -- will refuse to cooperate with part or all of this. But the proposed process should not be held hostage to that eventuality...". If one reads this carefully, it implies that ICG is recommending a complete disregard for Serbia's sovereignty and the UN system, because some veto countries (Russia; perhaps China) will block the creation of Kosovo as a new independent state against Serbia's wishes. ICG is in fact recommending a further demise of the UN, and a creation of a 'reverse Cyprus' situation - a way to go, ICG! (Anon)

Hm. If ICG is recommending Kosovo's independence regardless of what Serbia thinks and wants (and outside of the UN Security Council, for that matter), why are they talking about 'negotiations' with Serbia - what exactly is there for Serbia to negotiate? It looks very one sided to me, especially given the fact that all these years we were told how two extreme positions - reintegration of Kosovo into Serbia and straight independence for Kosovo - are not an option for the Final Status.

13.000 Kosovars killed, 20.000 women raped, 3.000 still missing, over 700 Kosovars killed buried, then unearthed and taken to Belgrade (Batajnica) and reburied there in order to be hidden from international justice Official alleges 17 mass graves in Serbia (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2004/10/29/official_alleges_17_mass_graves_in_serbia/), Mass grave discoveries shift Serb mood (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1402605.stm), Serbia mass graves contain 400 victims (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1632468.stm), Serb mass grave reveals 269 bodies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1551385.stm), Serbs say new mass grave found (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1440373.stm), Kosovan children found in mass grave (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1412809.stm), Belgrade exhumes Danube bodies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1368627.stm), Massacre childrens journey for justice (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/real_story/3159873.stm), Serbia Finds Where Bodies Are Buried, and Investigates (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/31/international/europe/31SERB.html) (you need to log-in to read this story), the stories are endless.
Not a single Serb official has said 'sorry', most don't accept it even happened. What is there to talk with this sort of people? Thousands of people have been killed in Kosova, buried in mass graves, then unearthed and driven to Serbia and hidden in new mass graves or thrown into rivers and lakes. Double murders! And you really expect Serbia to have a say? Forget about it!
For God's sake, check what the Serbian media (B-92) themselves write: Secret police in Kosovo cover-up (http://www.b92.net/english/news/b92_focus.php?nav_id=30957&dd=30&mm=12&yyyy=2004). Do you want to discuss the future status of Kosova with these policemen and these politians?
I salute the ICG for the sheer courage of coming out and telling what they think is right. Kosovar 14:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All Kosovo Albanians killed during the war were members of KLA, even the "massacre" at Racak turned out to be that way, a firefight between Serb and KLA forces.

Are these children KLA members too? Massacre children's journey for justice (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/real_story/3159873.stm) Oops!

No Albanians have apolgized for anything they have done to Serbians or the MANY historical monuments they have destroyed in Kosovo, not in March 2004, not in Titoist Yugoslavia, more than just not apoligizing they voiced that they wanted to proclaim the KLA, a terrorist organization, funded by Bin-Laden, national heros! WHo's the double murderer...

Kosovars did not attack Serbia. I do not recall any Kosovars killing Serbs in Belgrade. Oops! Serbs attacked Kosova, Serb troops occupied Kosova, not the vice-versa. If anyone should apologise, it must be Serbs.

If you have any proof with regards to bin Laden and the KLA connection, the provide it. Do not bullshit around. Stop lying!

B92 is a Serbian media that is controlled by the West. There is no EVIDENCE to suggest any sorts of mass graves, only a few isolated persons, probably paid off by the West, are making such statements, the sane goes for all the other articles you supplied, they are just isolated statements with no actual evidence, no bodies were found...nothing!

"...only a few isolated persons... isolated statements... " -- this is evidence. What do you think evidence is? There are bodies, read and learn: Serbia returns bodies to Kosovo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4102761.stm). Next, "...probably..." -- this word has no weight. I can say that you are "probably lying", but it says nothing because I need to prove that. Now, you provide evidence that these honorable people are "paid by the West". My friend, you are paranoid. You need to see a doctor. Who are "the West"? Has the communist propaganda reached you? Really, go and see a psychiatrist.

Read the story first, then say something. How can there be bodies if they have been burned and the Hague investigators are not given access to the premises nor the embloyees.

The B92 article loses even more say when they state that the inceneration of the bodies occured on the 16th and the 24th of march 1999, after news reporters had freely roamed around Yugoslavia since 1999 deperatley trying to find a pretext to war to no avail. Face it there was no "ethnic cleansing" until NATO came in and it started AGAINST non-Albanians, this is not just in Kosovo either, Albanians are ethnically cleansing Macedonia, southern Serbia, northern Greece and Montenegro.

Aha, so the fact that these people have been killed and their bodies burned after the NATO campaign started makes these terrible and inhuman acts acceptable. I'll remember that!

Also, the fact that the ethnic cleansing occurred after the NATO campaign started makes it acceptable. Wow, what a reasoning!

Any evidence that Albanians are ethnically cleansing Macedonia, or Serbia, or Greece, or Montenegro? Oh I forgot, when a Serb talks we should ask no further questions. I forgot, Serbs need not supply evidence.

The ICG is completely ignoring the 1244. resoloution, that Kosovo must remain a part of Serbia.

Did you ever read Resolution 1244? Because if you did you would know that it does not say that Kosova must remain part of Serbia. It does mention Yugoslavia, but that country (read monster) no longer exists, so what you are saying amount to nothing. -- Kosovar 16:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro is the successor state of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In international law it's little more than a name change. (JD)

Indictees

And so the Prime Minister of the Kosovo provisional institutions is in the Hague charged with war crimes, as guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law as Milosevic or Mladic. What's worse, as soon as the people of Serbia got a chance to get rid of Milosevic they did so and put some serious politicians in place. On the other hand, the people of Kosovo only just elected this indictee. Sorry to put that so provocatively, I'm playing Devil's Advocate a little, but it's a viewpoint that Kosovars will need to answer. I wonder who's next from the former KLA leadership? (JD)

Kosovars answer

First of all a mistake: the former Prime Minister of Kosova.

Second, I have told you before, but you did not seem to listen, if there were to be any indictments and there were in the end, the Kosovars would fully cooperate. And they did. I have told you before, I will tell you again, in our tradition, in our culture true heroes do not hide. And they did not. As a matter of fact, I could imagine Serb politicians (possibly you included) hoping that something somewhere would go wrong, but it did not. Kosovars dealt with this issue within 24 hours. Yes, within 24 hours and people like yourself can no longer speculate. True, absolutely true, in the eyes of the law they are as guilty or innocent as Mladic, if only Mladic did not hide as a rat and had the balls to go and face the court (you obviously failed to mention that!).

Third, I am very sorry to inform you but the first time the people of Serbia had the chance to get rid of Milosevic was back in 1987. What you are saying is complete and utter rubbish. I am sorry to say so, but your bias is making you blind in front of some clearly obvious facts. Allow me to remind you (or inform you if you did not already know this) Serbs brought Milosevic to power back in the late 1980s, hence one can soundly conclude that they had the chance to, as you put it, get rid of him back then.

Fourth, in sharp contrast the former Prime Minister of Kosova did not need to wait for the people of Kosova to go out in the streets and strike in order for him to leave office. Legally, as you put it, in the eyes of the law he was innocent just like yourself until March 8, 2005. On that day this was no longer the case, consequently, he in a very calm manner like a gentleman, resigned, unlike the former Serbian President Milan Milutinovic who did not resign until his mandate was over. For your information Milan Milutinovic continued to be the President of Serbia even after he was indicted and after the people of Serbia got rid of Milosevic. Needless to say that Milosevic and the entire leadership of the Yugoslav (Serbian) Army did not resign after beeing indicted by the Hague. On the other hand, the people of Kosova simply did not have to get rid of their former Prime Minister.

Fifth, the former Prime Minister of Kosova was not an inductee when he was elected. He ran for office as an innocent man (he still is unless he is proven guilty). You are trying to give the impression as if he was elected after he was indicted, which is obviously false.

Sixth, the people of Serbia got rid of Milosevic only to make the Radical Party of Serbia the biggest political party in the country Ultra-nationalists top Serb poll (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3353335.stm). Hardly an improvement, if not the opposite. Using your words, the people of Serbia have "put some serious politicians in place". Very serious indeed, very serious in ultra nationalism and very serious in hate. So serious in fact that the Serbian parliament provides financial compensation and state benefits to war crimes suspects, including the man they got rid off Slobodan Milosevic Serbia votes to 'pay Milosevic' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3584205.stm). In my eyes, that's hardly getting rid of him. That's more like rewarding him for turning the entire region into ruins and for the terrible war crimes. However, to really demonstrate the seriousness of the "serious politicians" they have created a Croatian-Serb "government-in-exile" Croatia slams rebel Serb assembly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4309475.stm). So, yeah, the people of Serbia have "put some serious politicians in place".

Seventh, after the people of Serbia got rid of Milosevic, the Prime Minister of Serbia Zoran Djindjic (supposedly the safest man in the country, since the police and secrete services all look after him) is shot dead in broad daylight in the capital Belgrade (supposedly the safest city in Serbia) in front of the Government building (supposedly the safest building in the country). Serbia has really changed after they got rid of Milosevic!

Eighth, shame how you first say that in the eyes of the law they are as guilty or innocent as Mladic, yet you cannot speak out the truth that for the best part of this decade Mladic has been hiding like a rat. Shame on you how you cannot find enough courage to say that the men responsible for the worst crimes committed in Europe since the end of the Second World War (Srebrenica, Sarajevo etc.) are still at large. If Karadjic and Mladic were not responsible for this terrible crimes they would not run and hide. I have never heard of innocent people running away from justice, have you? So, let us discuss those people who are indicted by the Hague before we speculate about the future. I do not need to remind you that there are many more people other than Karadjic and Mladic who are indicted and live freely in Serbia today.

Finally, let me summarise for you the current situation in Serbia and in Kosova and let us see what our dear former diplomat has to say about this. By far the largest number of seats (81 seats out of 250) in the Serbian Parliament are held by the Radical Party of Serbia (read ultra-nationalists), in contrast by far (over 45 per cent) the largest number of seats in the Kosovar Parliament are held by the Democratic League of Kosova (read pacifists) lead by Dr. Ibrahim Rugova winner of numerous international peace prizes and many times nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. Let me use your words, what's worse?

And, yeah, keep wondering... [40] (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=581853) [41] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4351137.stm) -- Kosovar 06:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to comment a bit on your points Kosovar. I hope you won't mind on that. One can see that even you are to be neutral you are no so much. All the time defending Albanins and after all as if situation on Kosovo is the best possible and equal for. Wish I could discuss some previous things, but it doesn't matter now! Second point, this was a defenatly a great move for Albanians as a whole community and generally for the governemnt og Haradinaj. But even I have no real evidencies of it, I believe that Albanins lords throwout world and Europe the one from shadow and the financiers of KLA, and all political efforts actually made him prime minister for this. Speculation, I must say. But what I base it on is his biography for example. And I doubt that lords had no idea about him. He is generally known (not guilty till not charged, must respect that) as one of very strong men in KLA, and on of the greatest war criminals, or hero, as you like. Also a man without no real political history, and involments sudenlly becomes the PM, a bit wierd. Since his all efforts for Kosovo were military ones. So I think this is rather good move then real hero, but it differs from you obviously. Third point is very confusing for me unless you mean that they could get rid of him in a way that they didn't choose him on first place, or what?! Fourth, as i said good move in good manners, while Serbian one with so many disputes among them. But I think it goes with the 'level of country', meaning Albanians have one main aim and that is independence while Serbs are still strugiling between left and right. Sixth, what you said is completlete rubbish, really I never heard of this before. How could getting rid of Milosevic by huge demonstrations lead by DOS (Democratic Opposition of Serbia, including 28 parties, excluding Serbian radical Party) could be done to help nationalists get votes, when nationalists weren't even involved in it? Mean this is the greatest non-sense I ever heard. Because the next government was on the right track, and wasn't at all nationalist. So some right politicians were put on power, what I couldn't say now. But there is increase for this party votes I think come first from Milosevic previous party, and increased number of people opposing reforms and 'losing' identity meaning that all nations are same, not Serbs as gods, rather than awarding and not getting rid of him. Seventh, what you are saying is manipulating with facts. There is no which can perform miricles in two years so Djindjic wasn't as well. And it is a fact, there is no doubt about that. Serbia did changed and it changed very much. Why is it not the same like in Milosevic time? Milosevic killed people in order to remain uncrtisized and remain on power, while Djindjic was killed because he was about to crack down the most organized mafia in Serbia. (One of the facts is that the leaflet with wanted people which was on streets after murder, was already in computer and in few days was about to see light of the day). Secret police wasn't on the side, and wasn't protecting Djindjic completly as you said, because the part of secret police (complete army secret police, and its elite forces) weren't under control of him and thats why completly new departmant was made for fighting organized crime (UBPOK). But it is huge tragedy!! Eight, nothing much to say about this point, generally agree. Finally, it's a huge shame for Serbia having so big proportion of seats for ultranationalists. And I agree with that. But there is no black and white in politics. What about Taci? Taci is and was the leader of KLA, and represent strong power on Kosovo while being a democrat (?!). What about that? And remember KLA is according to all laws terrorist para-military organisation financed by criminals and some secret agencies. (I mean on USA ones.) And it is not a small thing. Nobel prize I agree is a big thing, but Jaser Arafat (for example) had a Nobel Prize, and what? It means he is more right and should be more accepten than Sharon who is sort of a ultranationalist in Israel? Rugova has to show some things he is doing, rather than doing marketing with Nobel prize. For politics it doesn't say much.

While the original question, who is the next leader of KLA? Well, I don't think KLA had a real supreme leader, it is likely (for me) that at least in military part had leaders for each part of Kosovo, and was organized in all parts, therefore didn't have supreme leader. But remember that Taci was leader all this time on negotiations for example. For the first time in France as a diplomat, before as a military leader. And also whole KLA has great influence on its actions, by its financiers. Anyhow, Taci is a serious leader there. Best regards, Dave!!

The flag of Kosovo

Kosovo doesn`t have any oficial flag.

OK--Hipi Zhdripi 15:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kosovo offical is a part of YU and is not a part of serbia and Monte

1944 Kosovo i Metohia (FSRJ)

1974 Autonomska Socialisticka Pokraina Kosovo (RSFJ)
2001 Kosovo (UN)

Kosovo is offical a part of SCG (Serbia and Mony) :))

Dardania
1500 Kosova Sanxhak
1918 Kosovo i Metohija (Jugosllavia)
1941 Kosova Italia
1944 Kosovo i Metohija (FNRJ)
1974 Socijalistička autonomna pkrajina Kosovo i Metohija (SFRJ)
2000 - ? Kosova (UNMIK)
? KHJHZJKHK (China) - Kosovo i Metohija (SCG+UN) - COSOWO (USA)- 1233455 (112) - "§$%&/ (%&%&) --Hipi Zhdripi 23:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everything, that has to do with Dardania, Moesia, Serbia, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, Yugoslavien, etc. subjects, put in the articel History of Kosovo. Otherwise I´ll take it as vandalismus. UN members are accepting UNMIK, and UNMIK administration is in Kosovo since the year 2000. Everything before that is History.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name

Its not importend for the World. --Hipi Zhdripi 02:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) Since Vilajet of Kosova (Osman Empire) .... :))--Hipi Zhdripi 05:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The name "Kosovo i Metohija" has to do with Milosevic´s time before the year 2000. The official name of " Kosovo " in serbian language, which is used in Kosovo as official language, is Kosovo. See UNMIK documents in sebian official language (don´t write here in Belgrad´s Pashaluk dialect ).

Please write the correct name. If you don`t do it, I´ll do. --Hipi Zhdripi 21:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flag

Thaqi is talking about that with NATO, don´t wori be happy :))--Hipi Zhdripi 05:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flag

The province never had an official flag of its own. The Albanian flag is used by the Albanian-dominated administration and the vast majority of Kosovo Albanians. Kosovo's president, Ibrahim Rugova, has proposed an alternative flag of "Dardania" based on the design of the Albanian flag, but even within Kosovo it is little used. The Serb-inhabited area of north Kosovo uses only the flag of Serbia and Montenegro, which is formally the flag of the Serbia. (propaganda:whole of Serbia including Kosovo), although this usage is rejected by virtually all Kosovo Albanians. The United Nations administration in Kosovo intends to establish a new flag for the province, which will undoubtedly be very different from the two national communities' existing flags. The current flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina emerged from a similar process of national reconciliation.--Hipi Zhdripi 22:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UNMIK

Everybody,who doesn´t accept UNMIK , but is writing for kosovo, is just making propaganda. it has nothing to do with english language. With people like that, i don t need to have a discussion. If you are able to accept UNMIK, than we can have a discussion.

First of all : UNMIK ! What does it mean ? UNMIK stands for United Nation Mission in KOSOVO. In Kosovo ! There are no words for Serbian teritory or things like that. If you would be so nice, to have a look to the homepage from UNMIK, you can see yourself : there are no words for Kosovo in serbian territory . They are just writing " ...in the war-ravaged province of Kosovo... " Than you can read this :

perform basic civilian administrative functions;
promote the establishment of substantial autonomy and self-government in Kosovo;
facilitate a political process to determine Kosovo's future status;
coordinate humanitarian and disaster relief of all international agencies;
support the reconstruction of key infrastructure;
maintain civil law and order;
promote human rights; and
assure the safe and unimpeded return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Kosovo.

That means, Kosovo doesn t have a status( it s war - ravaged ! ). It s just a province, administrated by UNMIK,and nothing else. It doesn t belong to any other state or country. UNMIK is there to help the kosovars to decide for their future.Every other offical reference, like offical serbian - or offical albanian reference, is just propaganda. From that point of knowledge, our discussion is, like I would say Serbia or Albania is a province in China. All articles with the subject " Kosovo ", which have to do with information or references BEFORE the 10. june 1999 belongs to the article " History of Kosovo ". In an other case, I ll delete it , because i took it like propaganda and not like neutral information for Wikipedia. People in this discussion, who don t accept UNMIK, aren t neutral. They are living in an own dreamworld, what has nothing to do with reallity and they are using the Wikipedia for their own propaganda.

If somebody think, that I m wrong, please show me. But please argue with informations from an OFFICIAL document, accepted from UNMIK and not with an dokument from national offical propaganda informations. We can have a disskussion with facts from UNMIK, not with the past. Wikipedia stands for knowledge and shouldn t have to become a place for national propaganda, no matter if it s serbian or albanian propaganda. In other case serbian and albanian people will ravage it, like they ve ravaged Kosovo.--Hipi Zhdripi 20:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Map of SM

The Map of SM has to be replace by the map of Kosovo.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Map Municipalities of Kosovo

The Map Municipalities of Kosovo has to be replace by correct.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with this map ? It is based on the map made by the UK Army. (it was redrawn to avoid hassle with British Crown Copyright). bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 22:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Map Municipalities of Kosovo belongs to "History of Kosovo" or Kosovo Maps --Hipi Zhdripi 22:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Name

The sectio "The Name" belongs to "History of Kosovo" . --Hipi Zhdripi 21:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geography

Propaganda

With an area of 10,887 km² and a population of almost 2 million on the eve of the 1999 crisis, Kosovo borders with Montenegro to the northwest, the Serbia (propaganda: it has nothin to do with Kosovo article: "rest of Serbia (often called "Serbia proper" in English)") to the north and east, the Republic of Macedonia to the south, and Albania to the southwest. The largest cities are Priština, the capital, with estimated 500,000 inhabitants, and Prizren in the southwest with 120,000: five other towns have populations in excess of 50,000.

Correct

With an area of 10,887 km² and a population of 1 900 000 est., Kosovo borders with Montenegro to the northwest, the Serbia to the north and east, the Republic of Macedonia to the south, and Albania to the southwest. The largest cities are Priština, the capital, with estimated 500,000 inhabitants, and Prizren in the southwest with 120,000: five other towns have populations in excess of 50,000.

Geographical regions

Metohija, called Rrafshi i Dukagjinit ("Dukagjin plateau") by Albanians, is the large basin at the west of the province. The region includes the towns of Istok, Peć, Dečani, Đakovica, Orahovac, and Prizren. The second largest region is Kosovo, a basin around the Sitnica river containing the cities of Uroševac, Pristina, Vučitrn, and Kosovska Mitrovica.(propaganda: it has nothin to do with geography: " Kosovo Polje (Kosovo Field) is just a small field which was the site of the Battle of Kosovo; when the communist government changed the name of the province to Kosovo in 1968, they also started pushing "Kosovo Polje" as the name of entire region"). Part of Kosovo along the river Lab which contains the city of Podujevo (propaganda:is called Malo Kosovo (literally "Little Kosovo")). Just between the Metohia and Kosovo is the Drenica with the cities of Srbica and Klina and Mališevo. Around the river Binačka Morava is Binačko pomoravlje. At the southmost tip of the province, along the border with Macedonia lie the Gora, Sredačka Župa and Sirinićka Župa (propaganda:Kosovo's international status is anomalous in that although it is a province of the Republic of Serbia,) actual administration is presently conducted by the United Nations with no involvement on the part of the Serbian governments (under Security Council resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999; see Security Council Resolutions 1999 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1999/sc99.htm)). The government of the province is the responsibility of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Under the terms of the Kumanovo agreement and subsequent UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which ended the Kosovo War, security is provided by the Kosovo Force (KFOR), which is led by NATO and is answerable to UNMIK.

Politics and international status

UNMIK has so far established a provisional assembly, provisional government and the office of provisional president, which are legislative and executive bodies under UNMIK's control. Control of security, justice and external affairs are still under full UNMIK control. The Assembly of Kosovo was elected in November 2001 and Ibrahim Rugova was elected as president in March 2002. The seat of the assembly, government and president is in Pristina. So far, the parliament has enacted and UNMIK approved a constitutional framework, customs code, and two criminal codes.

UNMIK is issuing travel documents which serve instead of passports in countries which are accepting to recognise them as such; UNMIK is also issuing identity cards and car plates, which again are valid only in countries which are accepting them as such. Kosovo's postal system is also usable only in countries which are accepting to recognise it as such (letters addressed to Kosovo only, or to Serbia and Montenegro have a chance of not arriving; the Universal Postal Union advises correspondents to use "Kosovo (UNMIK)" as the address [1] (http://www.upu.int/post_code/en/countries/KOS.pdf)).

UNMIK has also created a police force (the Kosovo Police Service) with employees from all ethnic communities (Albanian, Serbian, Roma, Bosniac, Roma, etc), and manages the province's railways and airline (Kosova Airlines). The airspace of the province is controlled by KFOR. UNMIK uses the United Nations flag.

The Constitutional Framework enacted by the Kosovo assembly (with UNMIK approval) has adopted a policy of affirmative action in the assembly to ensure that the province's minorities are properly represented. Out of 120 seats, 10 are reserved for Serbs and another 10 for non-Albanian minorities, while the remaining 100 seats are elected through direct voting.--Hipi Zhdripi 22:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(propaganda:Kosovo is still recognised internationally as a part of Serbia.) Its final status has not yet been resolved, though talks on the subject are planned for later in 2005, and considerable difficulties lie ahead in reconciling the apparently incompatible positions of the Serbian and Albanian sides. The Albanians reject Serbian sovereignty; although the fall of the Milosevic government has eased some of the political tensions between the two administrations, most Kosovo Albanians do not believe that the Serbian side will respect Albanian rights. On the other side, Serbia is adamantly opposed to the independence of Kosovo and for historical and religious reasons continues to see the province as the heartland of Serbian culture. The international community is reluctant to see Kosovo become independent, as its independence without Serbia's consent would violate international law (the principles of territorial integrity propaganda:and noninterference in internal affairs). It could also potentially provide a precedent for the secession of the Republika Srpska from Bosnia, which could re-ignite the war in that country. The most likely outcome is the indefinite continuation of the current situation (with EU institutions taking over the roles of UN and NATO, a process which can be observed in present-day Bosnia)--Hipi Zhdripi 22:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Map Municipalities of Kosovo

The Kosovars Citys has to be replace by correct.--Hipi Zhdripi 22:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) See:

I. Introduction

The Working Group on Local Government, co-chaired by UNMIK and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and composed of the Ministry of Public Services, UNMIK, the Office of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, Community representatives, the Association of Kosovo Municipalities and international experts from the Council of Europe, OSCE and USAID, was established in order to prepare a framework for the reform of local self-government. The Working Group was set up in the context of the request made in the Presidential Statement of the Security Council of 30 April 2004 for “more effective local government through devolution of central non-reserved responsibilities to local authorities”, and the invitation to the interested parties in Kosovo to develop concrete proposals for the reform.

VIII. Municipal Organs

...Regulation 2000/45 introduced a completely new system of local government in Kosovo. It would be unwise to again completely reshape the system after a very short period of time. Often it is the full implementation of the Regulation which is still lacking...

...“The Municipality is the basic unit of local self-government in Kosovo, made up of a community of the inhabitants of a specific territory determined by law.”...
V. The Units of Local Self-Government and their Territorial Limits

...At present there are 30 Municipalities in Kosovo for a population of about two million people. These Municipalities are large by European standards while their size corresponds to the model of former Yugoslavia...

XIV. Powers and responsibilities reserved to the SRSG

Under Art. 8.1 of the Constitutional Framework the SRSG has the “Responsibility to ensure that the system of local municipal administration functions effectively based on internationally recognized and accepted principles”. The powers and responsibilities of the SRSG under UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the Constitutional Framework, and other applicable legislation in particular to ensure the full protection of the rights and interests of all Communities, would not be affected by the adoption of the new Law.

Regulation No. 1999/14 21 October 1999 - On the Appointment of Regional and Municipal Administrators.
Regulation No. 2000/8 29 February 2000 - On the Provisional Registration of Businesses in Kosovo.
Regulation No. 2000/43 27 July 2000 - On the Number, Names and Boundaries of Municipalities.
Regulation No. 2000/45 11 August 2000 - On Self-Government of Municipalities in Kosovo.
Regulation No. 2001/19 13 September 2001- On the Executive Branch of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in Kosovo.
Regulation No. 2001/23 29 September 2001 - On the Pilot Program for the Imposition of Taxes on Immovable Property in Kosovo.
Regulation No. 2001/36 22 December 2001- On the Kosovo Civil Service.
Regulation No. 2002/11 10 June 2002 - On the Municipal Elections in Kosovo.
Regulation No. 2002/12 13 June 2002 - On the Establishment of the Kosovo Trust Agency.
Regulation No. 2002/19 31 October 2002 - On the Promulgation of a Law adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo on Primary and Secondary Education in Kosovo
Regulation No. 2002/22 20 December 2002 - On the Promulgation of the Law Adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo on the Establishment of an Immovable Property Rights Register.
Regulation No. 2003/6 20 March 2003 - On the Promulgation of the Law adoped by the Assembly of Kosovo on Forests in Kosovo.
Regulation No. 2003/9 15 April 2003 - On the Promulgation of the Law adopted by the Assembly of #Kosovo on Environmental Protection.
Regulation No. 2003/11 17 April 2003 - Amending UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/14 on the Appointment of #Regional and Municipal Administrators.
Regulation No. 2003/19 23 June 2003 - On the Promulgation of a Law adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo on Libraries.
Regulation No. 2003/24 27 June 2003 - On the Promulgation of the Law adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo on Roads.
Regulation No. 2003/29 5 September 2003 - On Taxes on Immovable Property in Kosovo.
Regulation No. 2003/30 10 September 2003 - On the Promulgation of the Law adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo on Spatial Planning.
Regulation No. 2004/4 18 February 2004 - On the Promulgation of the Law on Cadastre adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo

more [42] (http://www.unmikonline.org/misc/frameworkdoc_eng.htm)

Currency

UNMIK declared the euro to be official currency of the province in 2001 in the course of implementing a currency reform. This was undertaken to replace the previous widespread use of the Deutschmark, which had become de facto currency even before the 1999 war. However,propaganda: the Serbian dinar remains an official currency, though used principally by the Kosovo Serb enclaves; it is only used sporadically outside of them. Most trade is conducted using the euro, Kosovo's administration uses euros exclusively, and all commercial banks use the euro as the primary currency. Of other international currencies, the United States dollar and Swiss franc are the most widespread.--Hipi Zhdripi 22:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

Main article: Demographic history of Kosovo

propaganda:Albanians comprise an almost 90% majority of the population of the province. Their percentage as a proportion of the province's population has increased steadily over time as a result of a high birth rate, propaganda:immigration from Albania and concentrion of Albanians from areas formerly under the Sandjak of Nish, southern Serbia. Most of the province's Albanian population became refugees during the war but quickly returned to their homes at its end. In the aftermath of the conflict, several hundred thousand non-Albanians (especially Serbs and Romas) fled the province to escape renewed intercommunal violence. propaganda:The non-Albanian population of Kosovo has continued to fall in recent years due to a combination of economic hardship and tension (and occasional violence) in ethnically mixed area.

According to the 2000 Living Standard Measurement Survey of the Statistical Office of Kosovo[43] (http://www.sok-kosovo.org/pdf/population/Kosovo_population.pdf), Kosovo's total population is approximately 1,970,000 with the following ethnic proportions:

88% Albanians (1,733,600)
7% Serbs (137,900)
1.9% Muslim Slavs (37,400)
1.7% Roma (33,500)
1% Turks (19,700)

UNMIK Flag

Hipi Zhdripi, have you actually read this article? Under the flag section is explicitly stated that Kosovo doesn’t have its flag. Why are you then steadily putting UN flag? -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 21:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Nikola Smolenski

Nikola, please don t change it, because you don t have offical arguments. Kosovo, for shure, is under UNMIK - administration.

Yes. Nikola

If you still want to write about Kosovo and Metohija, you can do that, but please write it on an other page and put it under " History of Kosovo ".

No. This article is about the province of Serbia called Kosovo in general, while article "History of Kosovo" is about its history. Nikola

The articlename is Kosovo and that means, province under UNMIK administration. Everything else you want to write about , like Kosovo and Metohija or Republik of Kosova and their administration and government, please put in the article " History of Kosovo ". If you are a Wikipedian, you ll do that. If you are going on like that, you are just making propaganda and using this encyclopedia for your own intress and national propaganda, far away from the facts.--Hipi Zhdripi 15:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems that you are claiming that Kosovo and Kosovo and Metohia are not the same province. But they are: UNMIK is temporarily administering Kosovo and Metohia, which it calls Kosovo for political reasons, even though that is not it's real name. The province is still the same. Nikola 15:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

212.124.169.39 : Nikola, is that you.--Hipi Zhdripi 17:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, not sure. Which edit are you referring to? Nikola 15:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

One thing is, that every human beeing from balkan has. ( No matter, if he`s serbian, montenegrian,greece, albanian, romanian, hungarian, moldawian, bulgarian, kroatian, makedoniain (If I forgot anybody,please forgive me).) This one things is, that they all aren`t frightened to show her own,real face. No matter, if they loose or win. The best evidence for that, is the battle of Kosovo against Sultan.--Hipi Zhdripi 17:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

About the Serbia und Montenegro subject

I ve visit all pages with this subject. All informations, I ve found there, like for example for: popullation, territory etc., aren t correct. Pristina for example isn t a city in Serbia, it s a city in Kosovo. That s offical accepted by UN. Please edit that informations. I ve done some but better you ll do it, because I ve not so much time. I m working in albanish - and german Wikipedia, they need more help there. With friendly greetings,--Hipi Zhdripi 15:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. These informations are correct. Pristina for example is a city in Serbia, and in Kosovo as well. That is officially accepted by the UN. Nikola 15:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

See:[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davenbelle#Kosovo_-_Kosovo_i_Metohija_-_Republic_of_Kosovo) ^{diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavenbelle&diff=13200607&oldid=13186982)} --Hipi Zhdripi 19:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Info Box

See: ... It was a part of Serbia, but since the Kosovo War it has been administered by the United Nations as a protectorate ... Everything else doesn`t work and is just propaganda.--Hipi Zhdripi 15:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, that is not true. For example, if Kosovo would not have been not a part of Serbia, there would be no need for talks with Belgrade about its future status. Why would Belgrade have a say in future status of some foreign territory? Nikola 15:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Administrative

UNMIK = this are the offical divisons of Kosovo.
Kosovo Metohija = this is used by NATO . UK Sector (Pristina), France (Mitrovica),Germany (Prizren), Italy (Pec),USA (Gnilan) Since milosovic dissolved the parlament of the Socialist Autonomus Province of Kosovo.
Republika e Kosoves = This is used by the office of UNMIK administratio, but it s not offical. this sollution was made by Ex-Yugoslavia - Administration.

I wrote all three, because all three are still in use from different organisations. Please don`t change it. If you want to have a discussion, we can have, but first of all you have to accept UNMIK: --Hipi Zhdripi 16:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a map showing all districs and municipalities of Serbia at [45] (http://www.srbija-info.yu/cinjenice/okruzi.html), on an official site of the Serbian government, and a map showing all municipalities of Kosovo at [46] (http://www.sok-kosovo.org/pdf/Geographical_data.pdf) (PDF), on an official site of Kosovo's transitional government. As far as the maps can show, there have been no changes whatsoever to the municipalities: if there have been, they are too small to be present on the maps. So, same municipalities don't need different articles. Nikola 15:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

...Prema popisu iz 1991. godine Kosovo i Metohija broji 1.956.196 ljudi... [47] (http://www.srbija-info.yu/cinjenice/kosovo.html). History

Present

... Kosovo is a small and landlocked territory in the center of the Balkan Peninsula. Kosovo borders Macedonia (FYROM), Albania, Serbia and Montenegro. Its area is 10 877 sq. km. This is about one third of Belgium. Kosovo is at present divided into 30 municipalities... --Hipi Zhdripi 18:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC) [48] (http://www.sok-kosovo.org/pdf/Geographical_data.pdf)

Well, to use your discussion style... Fantasy Nikola 08:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hipi Zdhripi, this what you’re doing is bordering vandalism. Your mouth is full of UNMIK, but you apparently haven’t read the only currently valid document about Kosovo, UN resolution 1244. In this document is clearly stated that Kosovo is a part of Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro, under a temporary UN administration.

1244

In resolution 1244 is furthermore explicitly stated that territorial integrity of Serbia and Montenegro is intact - ergo if Kosovo was part of Serbia and Montenegro prior to 1999, then it is still part of Serbia and Montenegro. This is a categorical syllogism and if you don’t find a mistake in this line of conclusion, you will have to stop with your stubborn edit war, or you are a vandal. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 18:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It s not the truth, it s just a interpretation from the serbian governnment, to tell them popullation, that they are loosing nothing.

It´s the same thing, like with UCK. Their point of view, they should put in the article " Republic of Kosovo", but not here. I`ve written an article with the subject "Kosovo and Metohija". Both subjects are one the wrong place here, they can be only in " History of Kosovo " In the article "Kosovo" is just place for present information, not for the past or future. No speculation, no propaganda, just facts . Nowhere you let a place for ACTUELL , CORRECT information from Kosovo.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

shouldn't neutral (i.e. non-serb) pro-serb sources be listed under neutral?

Unfortunately, you are wrong. Acording the UN resolution 1244, Kosovo is part of FR Yugoslavia. Since, FRY is now Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo is in it (and in Serbia, too). Please, read resolution 1244, and do changes in article Kosovo than. Unfortunately, you must respect this situation. UNMIK is ofcourse UN administrating service in Serbian Kosovo still. Perhaps, Kosovo should be independent state in future... It is not now! Just see 2nd page of resolution. Than you shell see the words: Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2. --M. Pokrajac 20:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
See this page! (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1999/sc99.htm) Now, best regards, --M. Pokrajac 20:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

see:According to resolution 1244, UNMIK is to:(PRESENT) --Hipi Zhdripi 21:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

is NOT According to resolution 1244, SM is to:--Hipi Zhdripi 21:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

To Nikolla for other Serbs

Nikola, please can you explain to the other serbians, that things are moving!? They doesn`t understand why. I know, that`s not easy, because they all are coming from balkan. I m coming from balkan, I know that. This kind of " stoneheads " brought the war to the balkan. --Hipi Zhdripi 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hipri Zhdripi, as you can see, I am ready to talk about everything, because I am not natonalist, and I do not like them. Facts are difrent category! Maybe you are Albanian natonalist, but you must respect those facts, just like EU, UN, CIA... --M. Pokrajac 18:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I am an anarchist and I don't like to be involved in discussion about problems between state forms. However, as a member of community at Serbian Wikipedia, it seems that I have to say something about this issue... --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don´t hate Milosevic, bekause he´s Serbian, I hate him, because he´s a looser. And really I don´t hate the Serbs. If he´s a balkan-hero (serbian-hero), he would fight till the end. He would´t give up before. To have a look for real balkan-heros: Skanderbeg,Stefan Dusan,Tito,John Hunyadi,Enver Hoxha... This personse arent´t afraid from the POWER --Hipi Zhdripi 20:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that a group of persons should organize their society as they want. If they want to organize state (or to become a part of some other state) and they have teritorial possibilities to do so, they should do that. When we talk about Balkans, I think that the same rule shoud be implemented for Albanians in Kosovo and southern Serbia, Serbs in northern Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as for Hungarians in the northern part of Vojvodina (in Serbia) etc. Even a lot of that questions are questionable in the sense of "what all people want", even it is questionable in the sense of international politics -- I just wanted to say what do I think. Also, I have to say that (this) my oppinion is forced and that I think that there should not be any state. --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
So, in some way it can be said that I support independance of Kosovo. --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
However, the situation today is different. De facto, Kosovo has some kind of questionable independace (I think that high representative of UN has de facto power in the similar way as Jimbo Wales has power here ;) ). But, de jure it is not: people from Kosovo has Serbia and Montenegro's passports, telephone prefix for Kosovo is Serbian (for example, +38121 is Novi Sad, Vojvodina and +38129 is Prizren, Kosovo; +38134 is Kragujevac, central Serbia and +38138 is Pristina, Kosovo), Kosovo is not recognized by any other country except Albania and all other countries recognizes SCG with Kosovo, Kosovo is not a member of UN, SCG is, etc. --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
As I understand templates, country templates are about de jure situation, but text iside should describe both: de jure and de facto. This means that I think that until Kosovo is de jure inside of Serbia and until Wikipedia has country-based templates, I think that SCG template is OK there. When/if situation becomes different and Kosovo becomes independent, I think that this article should contain Kosovo template. --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

See:[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davenbelle#Kosovo_-_Kosovo_i_Metohija_-_Republic_of_Kosovo) ^{diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavenbelle&diff=13200607&oldid=13186982)} --Hipi Zhdripi 20:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I`ve tried to be neutral. I`ve tried to find a way, which is accepted by booth sides. Firts of all: UNMIK administration is accepted by the serbian government and Kosovars. The Serbs take UN Mission in Kosovo as a UN-service. But it`s not a service [50] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=service), it`s a mission [51] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mission) from UN, according to the resulution 1244. However, the Serbian government has made his own districts, in the time of Milosovic, after he disintegrate the Kosovars parlament [52] (http://www.yugoslavembassy.org.uk/eng/consular/passports.html). After Milosovic disintegrated it, the Kosovars made them own districts,too. But UNMIK don´t accept both kinds of devisions. (See: [53] (http://www.sok-kosovo.org/pdf/Geographical_data.pdf) and at [54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Administrative) The Map Municipalities of Kosovo).There s no offical page of a present administration in Kosovo, just the pages supported by UNMIK. All informations from the serbian government are old. There s no actuell serbian government in Kosovo, after UNMIK started his work. And I can`t understand, how somebody things, he has the possibility to divide a place in some districts, when he`s not the administrator of this place.Isn`t it unbelievable ? How he can do ? How can he decide for the name of the citys ? Are you able to decide, that the OFFICAL name of New York is Apple ? What we can do in future, I think, is, that every articel in Wikipedia with the subject: serbia and montenegro, kosovo, and serbia ,- can inform global about Kosovo. But for detailed informations, like districts and citynames etc., everbody has to accept the version from UNMIK. It`s, because UNMIK is the offical administrator of Kosovo right now. If it s changing, it`s a different situation, but NOW it`s UNMIK. I think Wikipedia should be a place for facts, not for personal meanings. In the subject Serbia must be only the information, that Kosovo is under UNMIK administration. Till the status of Kosovo s decided. In an other case, the informations are not according to the resulution 1244, which are signed by the serbian government, too. --Hipi Zhdripi 19:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've copied the above here and added a diff-link for when I archive my talk page. — Davenbelle 01:30, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Look, these things are simply not true at all. The districts were not made "in the time of Milosovic". I have a geographical atlas from 1971, and municipalities are still exactly the same. Now, after KFOR has entered the province, district and municipal governments, as well as many companies, institutions etc., were relocated to places outside of Kosovo where they continue to operate, to the extent that it is possible or needed. UNMIK has later created paralell municipal governments, companies, etc. (????[55] (http://www.yugoslavembassy.org.uk/eng/consular/passports.html),[56] (http://www.euinkosovo.org/pDefault.asp?id=66&Lang=2)--Hipi Zhdripi 15:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)) UNMIK could have changed municipal or district layout, but it didn't do so. So, to sum it, I don't see why would one municipality or district need two articles: article on a municipality can describe its geography, state where is it relocated and what's it doing, and give facts about UNMIK's municipal government. I also don't see what any of this has to do with this article. Nikola 06:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You folks need to hammer out a common version of this article. The pages Kosovo i Metohija && Republic of Kosovo should be redirects to Kosovo. Kosovo is a province of Serbia and it is also under UN administration. I'd suggest you stay focused on facts and not seek to advance causes. — Davenbelle 01:30, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

All of those are the facts. However, please consider my proposal described in the next section. --Millosh 02:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Regional templates

Also, I think that country templates are very problematic because of such situations. Maybe regional templates are better? --Millosh 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

YES Millosh, we can have a discussion about that.--Hipi Zhdripi 20:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I ask all people involved in this issue to see m:Balkan NPOV page (to be involved there in general) and to see my proposal for regional template for Balkans at this page and to discuss about that proposal. (Note, this page is on Meta, not on English Wikipedia, so interested people should use Meta account.) --Millosh 23:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

My overview

First of all, I am sorry for not replying to any specific posts, but I have a rather difficult time following this conversation. The way I see it, Hipi Zhdripi wants every page in relation to Kosovo to be formed as to reflect the current situation of UNMIK's presenence. The rest of the involved want to state de jure situation. My proposal, not just regarding this article, but any article concerning Kosovo, is:

Kosovo should still be defined as a province of Serbia under UNMIK administration. The reasoning is as following:
1. Resolution 1244 did not define nor did it attempt to define the future status of Kosovo. Many think that Kosovo will be independent, some thing that it will remain within Serbia. I personally don't know, but I think that it will be independent. However, my nor anybody else's view is not relevant. We are dealing with factual information that we have, which is: Resolution 1244 does not define Kosovo as an independent territory, be it governed by anyone (Kosovars, Belgrade or UNMIK).
2. Kosovo does not have the international presence as a sovereign state, nor does UNMIK have a status of international government.
3. UNMIK in Kosovo is a temporary solution. I can assume that Kosovo will not become independent nor its status will be clarified as long as UNMIK is running the show. But, once again, my assupmtion is irrelevant. We are dealing with facts, which say that UNMIK is there to administer things - for now.
Articles about UNMIK's administration should exist, but as a distinctly separate articles. How UNMIK governs Kosovo is an interesting topic. If Hipi Zhdripi feels like he can write articles about UNMIK's administrative units, thats great. But:
1. These articles need to be separate from Serbian definition of districts in Kosovo. Since Kosovo is now administered by UNMIK, these divisions have little importance for anything, but they do exist. We should not change them, ever - because they will be a valuable source once the final status of Kosovo is known. If Kosovo becomes independent, then every district article will start with: "This WAS a district in Serbia." Of course, every article should include the fact or a link to the fact that this district is not under sovereign control of Belgrade.
2. Stuff dealing with UNMIK administration should be included in all articles, but in a sensible manner. For example: "District so and so is a district in Kosovo, Serbia. blah blah blah Now it is a part of UNMIK's administrative unite So and So".
3. New articles about UNMIK's division would be great, but need to specify that this is UNMIK's and nobody elses division.

So, in a nutshell: include information about UNMIK, but respect the fact that Kosovo is not a sovereign nation run by UNMIK. What does everybody think of this? --Dejan Cabrilo 04:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think that UNMIK's and Serbian district and municipal governments should have separate articles. If they are reorganised, then there will be need for different articles, but now there isn't.

Anyway, as I also said above, this is not the point. The problem is: Hipi was changing main points of the article in incorrect way, deleting important information from the article, and inserting bogus or irrelevant information. In the last edit, he changed introduction to say that "Kosovo is a country in the Balkans which borders Serbia and Montenegro", deleted section on geography, removed link to History of Kosovo, claimed that Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja are in Kosovo, removed Serbia and montenegro template etc. etc.

In short, you have successfully been trolled. Nikola 06:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Nikola, I am not sure if my post was clear enough. My point is that current articles regarding Kosovo should remain as they are. However, articles about UNMIK's mission should be welcomed at Wikipedia, or edits about UNMIK's impact on Kosovo, but as long as it is made clear that they deal with UNMIK. --Dejan Cabrilo 07:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Why make a decision now? It appears that the status of Kosov@ will change by the end of the year anyway. - User:Dardan

Regardless of Kosovo's future status, I really don't think that anybody should alter the articles to reflect anything but the factual situation. Like I said, when (or, "if", if you wish) Kosovo becomes independent, these articles will still serve a purpose. --Dejan Cabrilo 06:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, the article is in a much better shape than it was six months or so ago, when we had very little even about the UN administration. Though the number of non-Balkan editors seems to have fallen radically, it would seem to me that we have a more neutral article than at any previous point. I'm not sure I agree with Dejan that UNMIK should be a separate article; in most cases we need to record (at least) three separate realities: what the situation was 1999 and how that is reflected today; what the situation on the ground is at present, as reflected by UNMIK; and elements of what the Kosovo Albanian majority would desire (e.g. a new flag). So, for administrational districts, we need to record the pre-1999 set up, the fact that these are operating this moment in some form in Serbia proper, and the UNMIK districts (and if there were parallel K-Alb districts we could record these). And some need to remember that making factual statements about the current situation (e.g. that Kosovo is a provice of Serbia under UN administration whose final status has yet to be determined) is not prejudging what that final status should be. Having seen plenty of Serbian vandalism of this article in the past, the main culprits now seem to be Albanian. No doubt this is because those people perceive bias: can they perhaps suggest a form of article or content which might be acceptable to them and which they think all the other parties would accept? (JD)

Some of the more recent arrivals to the discussion also need to go back and read the history: there was much debate and research about currencies for instance, and it was determined that both the Euro and the dinar are official currencies, but that they are used in varying ways in different locations - so there is no propaganda in this. (JD)

:id

Can someone add id:Kosovo to this article? Thanks. Hayabusa future 07:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly, despite the clutter of warnings on top, a print press outlet cites this our info without qualification

Commercial Appeal (Memphis) Circulation: 157,820 in a May 22, 2005 article used Wikipedia (no particular article cited) as the lead source in a Kosovo overview section.

lots of issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lotsofissues) | leave me a message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lotsofissues&action=edit&section=new) 14:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide link to the article? Nikola 06:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect

This series of pages

has been protected for some time now. Any objections if I were to unprotect the top two and redirect them here? Broken Segue 17:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the other ones, but this article has been protected for well over a month now. That is far, far too long. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV

I thought that the main strong point for this enciclopedia was its neutrality.

Reading the article, I could not beleive my eyes. The obvious albanian position in the article is outrageous, thus destroying any possible argument for neutrality that the enciclopedia might have. I am doing the Serbian Studies course in the University of Toronto, and I assume the neutrality of this institution. I have also documented myself in both sides of the 'issue' in question in order to understand the situation fully, and the reality is far from what we hear in the news.

Firstly, the province's final status has already been dictated by the UN. It is an autonomous province belonging to the government of Serbia and Montenegro.

Then, the article refers very ominously to the Albanians in the province. This is inevitable, for the Albanians have taken over great part of Kosovo, backed unconditionally by their government back in Albania.

The official language in Kosovo is Serbian. Albanian is used by the Albanians who have since 1990 conducted an efficient ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Albanian controlled areas. In fact, this cleansing is so efficient, Hitler would be proud, and he would be attached to the ALbanian people, for they were Nazi collaborators during the Second World War (and yes, immediately after the war they were and still are ultra-communist).

It is an attack on the freedom of expression that this enciclopedia seems to guarrantee, showing this article. It is inevitably a volatile issue, but there is really only one truth.

In Canada, and elsewhere in Western society, the news we receive is very polluted. We only hear what the news agencies want us to hear (that is why I watch more than only CNN, in order to balance my views).

The West in general has always been afraid of Eastern society. Russia and its allies have always been the Great Enemy, with or without Communism. This is evident from the bizarre need that the west has to remove Russia from its long standing allies in the east. This is evident from the urgent need to expand the EU to the borders of Russia, and to date, even with a democratic Russia, the NATO still refuses to invite it into its military alliance. More recently, during the Kosovo crisis, the NATO was quick to deploy its never before used military forces before the Russians had a chance to move in and secure the safety of the assailed Serbian population.

This episode is merely yet another expression of this inexplicable fear and aversion to eastern society. How else could one explain that to date the Holocaust of Serbs by Croatian Ustasi has been censored violently in the West? The Catholic, west-leaning, fascist croatian ustasi have not been appraised, but that brutal episode in Croatian history is not even mentioned in western history high school textbooks.

This article is just mimicking what Sky News tells us. For that reason, I strongly beleive it would be positive to allow two versions of this article, alongside each other, with no preference to either one, and both blocked for the time being. Or simply removing the article. Having this aversion to neutrality present is a contradiction to the essence of this enciclopedia. Either remove it altogether, or have two versions of the same article posted alongside each other.

So you are doing the Serbian Studies, right? Well, my friend, you will have to study a lot more before you can understand anything at all about the issue of Kosova, let alone write about it. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the Wikipedia community since I am convinced that this article is profoundly pro-Serb.

(1) Who told you that the final status of Kosova has been determined? This just shows that you are a complete alien to the Kosova issue and are currently living in "Serbija do Tokija" world whereby it is Hitler's fault that Serbs have committed genocide as well as the worst war crimes against Bosnians, Kosovars, Croats and others. Since you are studying 'hard' the subject, go study the meaning of the expression "Serbija to Tokija" and contemplate about what it actually says about Serb mentality.

(2) Kosovar Albanians make up approx. 90 per cent of the population in Kosova, so you must learn to live with that.

(3) Do you actually know why Milosevic and almost the entire political and military Serb leadership of the 1990s is in the Hague Tribunal today?

(4) Your English is very unclear. I gather you are a Serb, so that explains a lot of things.

(5) So, you don't watch CNN only? Wow! I am left speechless.

(6) Your views need a lot of balancing, and I am afraid they might be damaged beyond repair.

(7) This article deals with Kosova and Kosova exclusively. It has nothing to do with other European countries. That's an entirely different subject.

(8) What on Earth does Kosova and Kosovars have to do with Croatian Ustashi? You are hopelessly confused and I am afraid that you might need a professional person to explain to you that Croatia and Croatians are totally different to Kosova and Kosovars.

(9) I have a question for you. Since you are doing Serbian Studies, have you ever studied anything about what happened in Srebrenica, Sarajevo, Vukovar, Krusha e Madhe, Prekaz, Drenica, Podujeva and so on? Have you studies about Arkan and his 'Tigers', or the 'Scorpions'? Have you heard about Mladic and Karadjic? Because, if you haven't then I don't know what you are looking here for.

(10) Being brainwashed is a very bad thing. Since you would like to think of yourself as having balanced views, and believe you me, you are as far as it can get from balanced views, then I recommend some medicine that might help: (a) International Crisis Group [57] (http://www.crisisgroup.org); (b) Humanitarian Law Center [58] (http://www.hlc.org.yu/english/index.php); (c) Human Rights Watch [59] (http://www.hrw.org); (d) Amnesty International [60] (http://www.amnesty.org); (e) BBC [61] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/kosovo_fact_files/default.stm).

From Kosova with Love --Kosovar 23:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Serb?!?! Now I'm speechless. What is pro-Serb about it?

(1) First of all, it Srbija on Serbian and Serbia on English not Serbija(you probably know that but are just typing it as such to spite him). I really don't see how that Serb soccer chant that is occassionaly spray painted on walls have anything to do with the mentality of Serbs as whole, that is a generalization. And even if it were to be taken literally, the same thing can be said of the Greater Albania idea.

(2) Only after terrorizing the local Serb inhabitants for 50 years, there is no way other to explain the demographic change.

(3) No, the way I see it many of those (although there are exceptions, but even the exceptions to not compare to UCK/KLA doings in the 1990's, for example Drenica, and the recent March 2004 events.) are only there because they were capable military leaders of a side opposing the Western alliance, for example Lazarevic.

(4) If his English is u nclear, why must he be a Serb and not from another nationality, myself I probably type unclearly, but I am not Serb, I am a Greek, STOP GENERALIZING.

(5) Yea, agree there.

(6) Funny I was just thinking that for you

(7) Unless if you support the idea of isolationism, it is literary impossible to deal exclusivley with Kosovo, maybe while we are at it we should not mention who the different sectors of Kosovo are controlled by...

(8) Very funny, fact is that the Kosovo War falls under the recent Yugoslav Wars, as does the Bosnian War, Slovenian War, and the Croatian War. I think what he was trying to point out was that Western medias will without any hesitation condemn Serb atrocities (whether they occured or not) and will not mention the reason why these atrocities may have been done, and atrocities done by other peoples, including but not exclusively Croatians, Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Alabanians.

(9) I have (although not in Serbian Studies), I don't know if he has, but I thought we were dealing exclusively with Kosovo here as you put it, so we should not be talking about those events that occurred outside the borders of Kosovo.

(10) You are very far from balanced views yourself, I would not be surprised if you yourself are part of the KLA/UCK, because your views are to the extreme. I will not provide you any websites because I can tell with your views, you will immiedietly dismiss them as pro-Serb. Also many of my sorces are books rather than web-pages because I find them to be more viable, if you wish I can provide you with some web pages though...

Also I agree that there should be two aritcles one Albanian and the other Serbian, otherwise we will never reach a settlement and this article will be at a very large length so that we can show both points of view. -Orthodox Boy

Could you please not write in the middle of my comments? I cannot stand it when my comments and cut into pieces by comments of other people, so please do not do it again. Feel free to write below my comments, but not in the middle of my paragraphs. --Kosovar 14:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(1) When you quote something in Serbian, you use the Serbian word. What you are saying makes no sense, like most of the other things you say.

(2) Again, like it or not, Albanians were the majority population of Kosova even 50 years ago. Just learn to live with it. Please, do not quote propaganda that no one buys. Spare us from that non-sense. Even little babies don't believe in this rubbish anymore.

(3) This says everything about you. You just answered all my questions.

(3a) What do you have to say about the Croats, Bosnians, Albanians and Macedonians that are in Hague? Use your head, think!

(4) Greek? That says everything. It really does.

(5) Good.

(6) I am a Kosovar, an insider. I am here to represent the views and the interests of Kosova the Kosovars. I never claimed to be an outsider with balanced views. You did, and you failed miserably.

(7) It is possible to deal exclusively with Kosovo. If you are not able to, then that's your problem.

(8) Son, you are hopelessly confused. Croatian Ustashi fought in the Second World War. They and other Croats have absolutely nothing to do with Kosova. If you can't get this, you really need to see a doctor.

(9) I was talking about the worst war crimes that occurred in Kosova, and were committed by the same people who committed crimes in the whole of the former Yugoslavia. It's the same criminals, whether you are talking about Kosova, Bosnia or Croatia.

(10) Sides that are involved in a conflict do not have balanced views! That's a contradiction in terms. If their views were balanced then there would be no conflict in the first place.

(11) This all shows what an amateur you are. You have the same line of thinking as Milosevic and his partners in war crimes and genocide. According to your way of thinking, every single Kosovar who does not share the same opinion as you must be a member of the Kosova Liberation Army. This comes as no surprise, believe you me.

(12) Finally, please spare me of your propaganda rubbish, I have no time to waste reading complete and utter non-sense.

From Kosova with Love -- Kosovar 14:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(1) Youd don't get it, on Serbian it is Srbija not Serbija theres no "e" in the Serbian spelling you mixed up the Serbian and English spellings of the word.

(2) http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/Bulletins/tim98-3-1.html The third image from the top shows the demographic change. The reason there is slightly more Albanians in 1948 is because Kosovo was part of Greater Albania during WWII so you people inhabited it.

(3)Then explain how by some miracle there are no Kosovo Albanians in the Hague...

(3)(a) Not one Serbian has gotten off, they've had Milosevic on trial for a few years now and still nothing, but just over summer they let a Croat out.

(4) Your name says everything about you as well in that case.

(6) I did not claim to have balanced views, I am definatley pro-Serh.

(7)No, its really not, unless if we do not mention half the things we should. If you believe you can do it give it a shot and we'll see.

(8)Like I said earlier he was probably using it as an example of Western medias will criticize Serbs fro their wrongs, but do not say why (and the Ustashi movement is related to some of the hatred Serbs hold for them) or how other atrocities have been performed against Serbs.

(9) So Arkan was involved in Kosovo? He was condemned for atrocities is Bosnia and Croatia, he was loved by Serbians for defending Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia, but nothing to do with Kosovo.

(10)I have met Kosovo Albanians that can agree with me on certain items of Kosovo, they never speak in absolutes like you just did. That proves just to what extent you are biased

(11) Again, you can say Milosevic was involved in war crimes, but that does not make it true. Innocent until proven guilty and for some "odd" reason they cannot seem to prove him guilty after years on trial...I wonder why that is...

(12) Again proves my point about how close minded you are, you are not even willing to hear the other sides story. It like you are locked in a room of you own information, refuses to even peek outside to see what the truth may be. - Orthodox Boy

Listen son, the more you write the more mistakes you make. You are just simply in a different league, and the sooner you realise this the better for you. Let me teach you a thing or two:

(1) Before you write anything about the population of Kosova, visit the Wikipedia article on this topic. For your information, this page was initiated by a beloved Serb member of the Wikipedia community. Now, if you read the article carefully and analyse it you will see that Albanians were a majority population in Kosova even before the Second World War. For example, read the information about the 20th century. Also, note how no information is given about the demographics of Kosova before the 15th Century. Wouldn't it be very interesting to know the demographics of Kosova before Serbs (Slavs) arrived from the Ural mountains?

(2) Have you heard about Fatmir Limaj, Haradin Bala or Isak Musliu? You also don't seem to have heard about Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj. What more can I say? How can one take you seriously? And what was that talk of miracles?

(3) There is something the civilised world calls International Justice and it does not make any difference what race, nationality, religion or culture you are. The law is the same for all. So, it has nothing to do with how many Serbs or Croats got off.

(4) I am very proud of my name. I take this as a compliament. Thank You!

(5) You are loosing it. Your statements are laughable. First you say that you study in a "neutral" institution, you "document" both sides (well obviously not because you are completely brainwashed), and most importantly aren't you that person who, wait for it, "watch(es) more than only CNN, in order to balance my views".

(6) But wait, you just said that you are "definatley pro-Serb". That's yet another contradiction in terms! We need a doctor here urgently.

(7) Again, you failed to understand that Croatian Ustashi and the Serbian hatred for them has absolutely nothing to do with Kosova and the Kosovars. I gather your logic is, Serbs hate Croatian Ustashi, so the massacring of innocent Kosovar Albanians children in Kosova is justified!

(8) Arkan and his Tigers, Scorpions and similar criminals whose real face the world has just began to see [62] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4605223.stm) have operated in Kosova for a long time. Ask someone who knows a thing or two about Kosova how long Arkan lived in Kosova. As far as Scorpions are concerned, this article must be of great interest to you: Children testify in Kosovo trial (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3051919.stm).

(9) I have met, and I know, a number of Serbs who would totally disagree with you.

(10) Milosevic is currently presenting his defence case. If he thought that he had done enough to demonstrate his innocence, he would have ended the trial long time ago. He may have been found guilty already, but we won't know until the trial ends. If you knew anything about justice you would know that even if it is proven that the accused is guilty, the trial does not end there, but the accused is given a chance to defend himself.

(11) Watch carefully what you say. You are simply not capable of processing certain information. Why would I waste my time reading complete and utter rubbish from a person who accepts that he is "definatley pro-Serb". You are missing the point son, you cannot teach me anything about Kosova. I was born, and I have lived here all my life, so I know things much better than you do. I grew up watching and reading Serb propaganda and lies day and night, and know all of them by heart. I know what you will say before you even open your mouth. You may call me whatever you like, narrow minded or arrogant, but I know that I won't learn anything new about Kosova from you and I tell you in your face. How can a Greek teach a Kosovar about the "truth" in Kosova? Have you ever been in Kosova? Because I am here every day, I read the Albanian, the English and the Serbian media, and I don't need to read anything from a ignorant Greek who claims to have a balanced view, then to be definetely pro-Serb, who read some rubbish somewhere about the population of Kosova and now thinks he can teach me, a Kosovar, about the population of my country, who thinks that there are no Kosovar Albanians in the Hague, and talks about miracles.

(12) Well, I don't live in a Wonderland, I live in the real world, so if you want to have a mature discussion you will need to stop daydreaming.

With Love from Kosova -- Kosovar 23:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(1) Slavs immigrated to the Balkans well before the 15th century, Byzantine documents state slavs were there as early as the 9the and possibly 8th century AD, and whether or not they were from the Urals is highly disputed. The battle of Kosovo wass in 1389, before the 15th century, many of the Serb Orthodox churches were built in Kosovo in around the 13th century. (2) Yes but it took so long to get the PM of Kosovo in custody and hes already off... (3) When was the first time a black man won a case in America, where all people are equeal in front of court, 1920s. We all know "justice" is just a word, if the world truly had justice in it then wouldn't America have gone into Rwanda to stop genocide, or maybe help the Kurds, no it just happenned to be a ex-communist nation that wasn't in NATO that they decided to act in. And WOW you call Ksovo civilized?! There other things nations consider civilized, but it usually doesnt involve drug and prostitute trade that the KLA "freedom fighters" operate. (4)I'm not the guy that posted at the beginning of this sub section, i pointted that out earlier. I never claimed to have balanced view that was the person that you first responded to, I only responded to your response. (5)Again that wasnt me. (7)He just said that to show a bias in the Western Media, how they will air Serb atrocites but not from other ehtnicites this is the 3RD time I have siad this...maybe it'll click but I doubt it. (8) I'm sorry on behalf of Serbs that they retaliate for atrocities performed against them, that they stand up for themselves...? I read your sources but they have a clear western bias to them. I live on the West i get enough CNN, SkyNews, BBC, CBC etc as it is. (9) Yeah, because people ethnicity is not always tied in with their point of view, I have met Albanians in norther Greece that completely disagree with almost everything you say in this... (10) Yeah, but they had to give him a lawyer (which they should not even be allowed to do) so that he would not completely screw over the Hague and win the trial. They'll keep him there until death because they do not have any proof he did anything. (11) I sincerely doubt you have read any Serbian articles as you did not even know how to spell the name of the country properley but mixed it up with the English version "Serbija" It would be like me spelling Kosovo Kosovao. And I have had personal experiences with Albanians in northern Greece which forced me to move to Leptokaria, which is where I got in touch with many Serbs and they told me they have the same sort of problems. And yes I have been to Kosovo, in the early 1990s I visited many of the churches that your people have o so proudly destroyed and acting as if though nothing had happened. I never said I was objective, I know I am pro-Serb, but I do listen to both sides of the conflict. I am also not denying that there were atrocities performed by Serbs, but I am stating that there were also equeally bad and worse atrocities performed by Albanians, and the shamefull thing for the WEst is that this has happened after they introduced the UNKFOR. Also take note "a Kosovar, about the population of my country" Kosovo is not a country yet. - Orthodox Boy

Listen son, you are simply too weak to have a discussion with me. Do you have what it takes to sign your posts so that people know who is writing what? You lost the argument that Albanians became the majority population in Kosova after the WW2. You just write a lot of rubbish, like there are no Albanians in the Hague by "some miracle". Son, listen and learn, actions speak louder than words, and Kosovar Albanians have shown full respect for the international laws and every single Albanian that was indicted by the ICTY has gone to the Hague, something that cannot be said about the Serbs. Now, this is civilised world! What about the Serbs that hide from justice for nearly a decade now? You obviously seem to have a problem with justice, and that's a serious problem. I don't fall under your category of people who think that justice is just a word. You need to get out of your Wonderland and step into the real world. Stop blaming the West for the worst war crimes, atrocities and genocide in the Balkans! Also, you need to learn English better because obviously you do not understand the meaning of "country", here is a simple explanation [63] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=17672&dict=CALD). The rest deserves no comment.

With Love from Kosova -- Kosovar 08:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First I did not lose the argument that Albanians became the majority after WWII, you just simply are not willing to look at simple objective facts. Second: I write rubbish: Serbija. Took you two paragraphs to convince you that your spelling was plain wrong, like almost everything you have written so far. Third: Right civilized...[[64] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=13769&dict=CALD)] "describes a society or country that has a highly developed system of government" hmm...don't really have a government that is in charge of your on "country" do you its un UN adminsitration..."way of life and that treats the people who live there fairly"...March 17 2004, very fair wasn't that? Such a civilized "country" I must say...2 If a person or their behaviour is civilized, they are polite and behave in a calm and reasonable way...again March 17, 2004 very, very calm, reasonable wasn't that... Fourth: The only reason that some of these generals have not gone to the Hague, is because the Serbian people consider them national heroes, with good reason, they do not sell out their heroes like Kosovo Albanians... Fifth: Stop blaming the West? I suppose I shouldn't blame America for the recent invasion of Iraq as well? Please spare me this gibberish, we both know America and NATO are not there to help you, but for their own benefit. Read the Pentagon Papers oof 1992 and it will all be clear... Sixth:[[65] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=17661&dict=CALD)] Another definition of country, that you were probably referring to at the time but then refrained from, or that you at least meant to get into my and other readers minds through a back door... Seventh: I love it how you ignore all arguments that you cannot have a response to, then you even make it seem better for yourself "the res deserves no comment," it is not my fault you appear to be blind to objective interpretations of the FYR Wars and are unable to answer to some of these arguments. A man that can admit that is much more worthy of respect than one whos simply shuns it as "deserves no comment" trying to save his own skin. - Orthodox Boy

(1) Listen you looser, Kosovar Albanians were the majority population of Kosova even before the Second World War, even the census conducted by your Orthodox brothers proves that. Now, how's that for a simple objective fact. What a complete and utter looser!

(2) It took me two paragraphs to notice a spelling mistake, but how long will it take for your tiny brain to process the simple fact that your beloved Orthodox brothers have committed genocide and the worst war crimes in Europe since the end of the Second World War? How long will your tiny brain have to work at full capacity to process the fact that Orthodox priests blessed [66] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/03/wserb03.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/03/ixworld.html) war criminals before they committed crimes and killed innocent women and children? [67] (http://news.yahoo.com//p/v?u=/reutersav/20050603/av_nm_wl/a20625eae8639ac68f4e4b4af6ba567a&cid=1055&f=31042388%20%22,650,450);)

(3) And, please, do not be "shocked" 10 years later [68] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4605223.stm). It will be too little too late.

(4) How civilised is it to interfere into a conversation? I replied to a completely brainwashed, confused and lost looser, when you, without introducing yourself or signing, gave yourself the right to interfere into our discussion.

You seem to have a very serious problem with civilisation. Let me repeat this again: There is something the civilised world calls International Justice and it does not make any difference what race, nationality, religion or culture you are, we are all equal in front of the International Law. Now, people or nations who comply with this belong to the civilised world, unlike those who don't. If you think that complying with International Law is not civilised, then you need not be here. It was you looser who made a difference between Serb, Croat, Bosnian, Albanians or Macedonian in front of International Law, and dare I say it, you are not civilised.

(5) You looser, it took less than 24 hours for the former Kosovar Prime Minister to hand himself in voluntarily, yes voluntarily. Now, that is civilised. Not like your beloved Orthodox brothers who hide from justice for more than a decade.

(6) What on Earth does Kosova have to do with African Americans? Is this the kind of rubbish you expect me to comment on?

(7) Also, the important thing to note is, as you admit, that Slavs immigrated to the Balkans, that is, they are not indigenous. Whether they arrived (read again, arrived) in the 8th or 9th Century or later is not as important. GET THAT IN YOUR HEAD! There were some glorious people living in this land well before Christ was born, as you can learn from the following: Illyrian_Wars. Now, wouldn't it be very interesting to know who lived in Kosova before the Slavs arrived uninvited, i.e. occupiers?

(8) It would have been better if you kept your mouth shut with regards to national heroes and who sells what. Today, a very interesting story was published stating that Mladic puts price on his own head (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1659933,00.html). If you prefer, here is the story from the Serb media Mladić se predaje za 5.000.000$ (http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2005&mm=06&dd=19&nav_id=170884). We now know who sells their asses! And, for how much! Your Orthodox brothers do.

(8a) If complying by International Law, just like Kosovar Albanians do, you call selling then I must tell you that you must step out of your Wonderland and step in the real world, the 21st Century. Complying by International Law I have and will always call civilised. If you have a problem with calling such actions civilised, then we really know where the problem lies in the Balkans and who is creating these problems.

(8b) Talking about selling, check out who is selling what in the holy land: Jerusalem clergy dump patriarch (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4517223.stm). If an Orthodox Patriarch is ready to sell holy land for cash then what is an ordinary Orthodox ready to sell for cash? So, next time be careful what you write.

(9) Again, what on Earth does Iraq have to do with Kosova? Son, you are seriously confused and lost. Iraq is a completely different country, in a different continent, with completely different issues. Oh sorry, were you going to say that there is oil in Kosova?

(10) When I said country, I meant country and now you know the meaning of it. What goes through your head is not my responsibility.

(11) I have been to your country over 10 times. I have even read in great detail about your terrorist organisations, like "November 17", so according to your logic I should be an expert in Greek affairs.

(12) Finally, your statement that Albanians have forced you out of northern Greece truly made me laugh. Son, you are so brainwashed and under the total influence of propaganda that your use the adjective forced for anything that has to do with Albanians. Serbs must have taught you to use it as they use it in all of their lies. Anyhow, it is absurd to say that Albanians can force Greeks out of their state, but if this really happens and the Greek authorities do nothing about it, then you are telling me something that makes me happy. I thought the Greek authorities would be strong enough to stop the forceful removed of Greeks from their houses, but I will be a very happy man if I am wrong on this matter. So now you must choose: either (i) forceful removal and extremely weak Greek authorities who are not in charge of their state; or (ii) a big lie and a big liar!

(13) Orthodox Boy says: Then explain how by some miracle there are no Kosovo Albanians in the Hague. You are too weak to talk to me son. You are just a very confused and totally brainwashed Greek Orthodox who, by default, is biased.

From Kosova with Love -- Kosovar 22:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(1) First off, a very childish introduction, I believe we are both grown men, and can refrain from such childish language (also it is spelt loser not looser, its a common mistake I made it often myself earlier)Do you have a source that states that, if you can prove it i'll believe you.

(2) I never denied Serbs performed atrocities in Bosnia, but only in retalation to Bosniak atrocities performed agaisnt them. How long is it going to take for you to admit Albanians peroformed and are still performing atrocities in Kosovo against Serbians?

(3) I do not care for the current Serbian governement, they have sold out all values that Serbians hold dear, THEY are the sellouts, the radical party would have never allowed this.

(4)The only reason I interfered was because you were denoucning the intelligence of what is probably a good willing man trying to get NPOV in this article.

(b) Complieing to international law does not automatically make your people civilized, there are other matters in Kosovo that must be taken care of before you think of yourselvees as civilized (i.e. reduction of organized crime, drug and woman trade, killing Serbs and Roma, etc...) and that goes for Serbs living in Kosovo too although Albanians have more say (obviously) as they make up 90% of the population.

(5) Again, why should they hand themselves over to the Hague, when they will appoint them lawyers when they realise that they cannot win the case, and simply keep them there until death.

(6) It is a comparison, to show that despite glorious wording in governemnt documents, they are not actually followed through on...

(7) You are right, Illyrinas were glorious people with their own centum language that has died out, Albanian on the other hand is a satem language. Also Albanian has little Greek influence on their language, despite the fact that Illyrians were in the Greek zone of influence. The theory I accept the most is the Caucasion theory, followed by Etruscan and Dacian respectevly, Illyrian seems to be the most unlikely.

(b) When Slavs arrived they were welcomed by the Byzantine Empire, this was because the Byzantines wished for people to inhabit the otherwise desolate areas of what is present day Serbia (including Kosovo). Besdies Slavs brough many good things with them once they inhabited,it can safely be said that the Byzantine Empire, as well as Bulgaria were both slavicized, why should Albanians be an exception, unless they were not there...Also why is it that first mention of Slavs comes a long time before the first mention of Albanians in Byzantine sources? And of course they were not indegenous, only Eastern Africans have claim that they are indegenous, everyone immigrated from that region.

(8) Again the Serbian Democratic party does not hesitate to sell themselves to the West, Radicals are much different, and most of my Serbian friends agree with that statement. Whether or not that article is credible is disputable, only time will tell...

(b) We were discussing Serbians not Greeks, and Greeks have sold themselves out, the governemtn at least not the poeple, I am very ashamed of Greece's recent history (following the civil war) and especially with our membership in NATO...

(9) It is another comparison, although obviously you cannot register these, I will refrain from using them in the future to help you out a bit...

(11) What does this have to do with anything?

(12) What? You are telling me about my life now? Yes they did force me out, you can be proud if you like although I would be ashamed in your position. They use various methods, bruning our crops right before harvest so we cannot afford to live adn are forced emigrate the region, raping our daughters and woman, as well as getting entirely ethnicly Albanian settlements. The first method is by far the most effective and most often employed, it is only a matter of time before they begin using all out force as you are doing in Kosovo and FYR Macedonia. Why do we not do anything? Our governemtn is a sellout government, to the West, we are having fears that if we combat your terrorists that NATO will retaliate, despite the fact we are a NATO country.

(13) An even stupider thing is to misspell Srbija/ Serbia and then claim to have read Serbian propaganda your entire life. In my opinion you are the completely brainwashed one. - Orthodox Boy

Orthodox Boy, just a note to thank you for your prompt reply.

I am glad that we finally found some common ground! Long live the Serbian Radical Party (Српска радикална странка)! I sincerely hope they come to power in the near future. I look forward to that day.

With Love from Kosova -- Kosovar 08:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, now you really did confuse me and I do not know what to say to that...mind me asking why? - Orthodox Boy

Orthodox Boy, my opinion of you has changed completely. Please, I beg you to accept my apologies for all the things I said before that might have offended you. I believe we have truly found some common ground. I sincerely hope that in the very near future the Serbian Radical Party comes to power in Serbia. I say this very sincerely. If I had the chance I would even campaign for them, but I know this is not very realistic since I am a Kosovar Albanian, and I think I would chase voters away to other political parties. I don't mind you asking, however all I can say is that not all people like or vote for a political party for the same policies. One might like a political party because they are pro-gay whereas another might like them because they anti-globalisation. Different voters are interested in different policies. So, yes, me and you might like like the Serbian Radical Party for different policies, but I certainly do hope they come to power soon, and believe you me, it will not be soon enough. I had very high hopes that Tomislav Nikolic (Томислав Николић ) would be elected the President of Serbia last time, but my hopes were dashed when that loser (note the correct spelling that you taught me), former model Boris Tadić (Борис Тадић) won in the second round. A former model for the President of Serbia? Gde su vitezi?

Anyhow, Long Live the Serbian Radical Party!

With Love from Kosova -- Kosovar 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well like you said I am glad we found common ground, although I definatley did not expect this to be the cause...anyway you really left me confused so I got to go think why it is that a Kosovo Albanian would like a the Radical Party. Either way, long live the Serbian Radical Party - Orthodox Boy

Interesting article(s)

I have to share this gem with you people: Rugova threatens secession if no independence granted (http://kosovonewsandviews.blogspot.com/2005/05/rugova-threatens-secession-if-no.html).

Really, if you don't edit this article to my liking, I threaten to edit it myself! :))

Nikola 06:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the title of the report is Kosovo's draft constitution widens Serbia gulf (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/90c55c2a-c5af-11d9-87fd-00000e2511c8.html). It is not unusual for Serbs to 'modify' the titles of reports to their liking.

The real gems are the following: Jovanovic: Albanians should decide about their future, like Macedonians and Croats (http://kosovareport.blogspot.com/2005/06/jovanovic-albanians-should-decide.html). In case you did not know, Jovanovic is the former Deputy-Prime Minister of Serbia, that is the deputy of Zoran Djindjic.

The Christian Science Monitor editorial: Europe's Next Independent State (http://kosovareport.blogspot.com/2005/05/europes-next-independent-state.html)

Can it get better than this one? Svilanovic: Serbian Government cannot prevent Kosovo’s independence (http://kosovareport.blogspot.com/2005/05/svilanovic-serbian-government-cannot.html). In case you did not know, Goran Svilanovic is the former Foreign Minister of Serbia and Montenegro (post-Milosevic Yugoslavia).

Another good one: Kosovo Ex-PM Released By UN War Crimes Crt Pending Trial (http://kosovareport.blogspot.com/2005/06/kosovo-ex-pm-released-by-un-war-crimes.html)

Even better: Mladic 'will soon be in custody' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4077464.stm). Jesus, these is coming from a Serb mouth. Serb officials are saying he will be arrested, is there no more love left?

And the truly shocking one: Serbian leader 'shocked' by video (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4605223.stm). Disgrace!

Finally, More Srebrenica films 'to emerge' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4605633.stm)

Nikola, enjoy reading them. For your information, you won't get too far with threats. --Kosovar 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Kosovo"

Talk:Kosovo

According to resolution 1244, UNMIK is to:

Nikola's reverts

To ChrisO

Neutrality

Albanian recognition

Relocated?

Interesting paper

"Fear of reprisals"

Moved history

Number of refugees

POV claims about expulsions

Suggestions for resolving the current disputes

Economy

Demographics

Language and population issues

Local language

Moving Forward

Christmas and New Year

Kosovo Map

Lead wording

Point-for-point refutation

Theory and fact

Non-Kosovo Albanians in Kosovo? (re: Demographics)

New ICG Report

Indictees

The flag of Kosovo

Kosovo offical is a part of YU and is not a part of serbia and Monte

Kosovo is offical a part of SCG (Serbia and Mony) :))

Name

Flag

Flag

UNMIK

The Map of SM

The Map Municipalities of Kosovo

The Name

Geography

Geographical regions

Politics and international status

The Map Municipalities of Kosovo

Currency

Demographics

See also

Pro-Albanian

Pro-Serb

UNMIK Flag

To Nikola Smolenski

About the Serbia und Montenegro subject

Info Box

Administrative

1244

To Nikolla for other Serbs

Regional templates

My overview

:id

Amazingly, despite the clutter of warnings on top, a print press outlet cites this our info without qualification

Unprotect

Wikipedia NPOV

Interesting article(s)

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools