Talk:Kosovo

According to CIA Factbook, Population

Ethnic groups: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008) [3] --12:45, 27 November 2011

Name

Change name to Kosovo and Metohija! It's real name, Kosovo only is name of north part of this province. — Лазар (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Its WP:COMMONNAME in the English language is just Kosovo. Also, the longer name has WP:POV connotations. Bazonka (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Similarly Bosnia and Herzegovina is commonly shortened to Bosnia. But you would not dare to call someone in Herzegovina as Bosnian, especially if he is Croatian or Serbian. They very insist of being Herzegovinas. Simialrly Kosovo and Metohija was shortedened to Kosovo. The reason why metohija was not popular among Albanian population was origin of the word metoch - in Greek means church land. So it related to orthodox tradition of the area in time between 8 and 15 century when Ottoman conquests happened. Albanians being Muslims have been "preached" to dislike it. Unfortuantelly if we led religion to guide a science then I am afraid Galileo will find no place on this WIKI-Idiocy. Btw words like Kosovo or Bosnia are words of Slavic origin. Herzegovina has Germanic origin with Slavic spice. Talking about this as "offensive" is political not scientific statement. Mr Bazonka point is that WIKI should be stripped of politics and loaded with science regardless you or all planet finds it "offensive". Greek word saying church land in no way should be "BANNED" by YOU not any other self proclaimed "AUTHORITY" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. In English, we don't often use the terms "Metohija" and "Herzegovina" and WOULD most often call a Metohijan a "Kosovan" (or possibly "Kosovar") and a Herzegovinian a "Bosnian". This page is written in English and follows that usage. --

Biased article NATO publication

Statement: " Its independence is recognised by 90 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). "

Should be replaced by

Majority of countries does not recognize Kosovo as independent country naming countries and since you are menitiong Taiwan then you can also mention that Kosovo is not recognized by Tranzistria, Nagorno Carabah, Abhazia, Ossetia... etc.. The you can state that Kosovo is recognized by 90 countries and Taiwan(China).

What is also missing is fact that USA lead effort inserting pressure on many countries (using and abusing) its power in order to excel Kosovo recognition throughout the world. There are various testimonies and could be easily found on internet. Even US diplomacy did not hide it. One of the pressure was on Serbia itself where Serbian future accession talks to EU where conditioned on its approach to Kosovo issues e.g. Serbia would not be able to join EU if it sued NATO for de facto and de jure illegal military intervention not approved by UN madate which as results has amputation of Serbian territory (no UN mandate(braking international law), no declaration of war by US congress(breaking US law - constitution). Some examples you can even find in speeches of Ron Paul, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parentti, Russian and Chinese diplomacy (announcements, protests...) There are vast records on all of this.

It is also known fact that many countries surrounding Serbia did recognized Kosovo as consequence of NATO and EU pressure namely FYROM, Bulgaria, Monte Negro as well as some countries in central Europe like Czeck Republic, Slovakia and Poland. Some officials even did not kide it and on announcement of Kosovo recognition they argued openly that this was tactical decision for greated cause e.g. EU or NATO membership etc...

But nothing of it is mentioned. Instead only number stating number of states that recognized Kosovo independace is sited as intention was to create imagery of some wide consensus.

Facts are facts, emotions are justifications are something completely different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As a non-American, you may not realized that Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky are what are known here in the States as "kooks" - and their views are basically fringe, and not representative of the American public. You can't base changing the article on what they claim. Also, you are using your own emotions as justification for pushing a particular POV for the article - which you just decried as being wrong. ??? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Representative opinion of American public is not known in the world of non-americans for being outstanding in terms of quality but is rather subject of mocking. Noam Chomsky is considered broadly as one of leading intellectuals and scholars in the world. It is funny that you find yourself qualified to comment on his qualities. Regardless you missed completely the point of criticism. Facts are that majority of the world does not recognize the Kosovo independence and number of those countries is not stated as I suggested above and is pure fact regardless of Chomsky. It is UN fact. Second point you missed, again regardless of Chomsky, is that US imposed diplomatic pressure on many countries to acknowledge independence of Kosovo under using NATO and EU umbrella. They have never hide it, but where very open on it, again regarless of what Chomsky thinks about it. This article was least about Chomsky. Thanks God or better saying Karl Marx, Darvin, Ainstain etc., I am European!80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The existing statement is pure fact. What you're suggesting is POV-pushing. Bazonka (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement is fact but incomplete fact. How can what I say be POV if I asked that number of states that do not recognize Kosovo should be stated too and first because there is more of them. You see this is the fact that you do not like, but it is the fact too. Avoiding to name it looks as you are trying to hide something.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The solution is to say that "Kosovo is recognized as an independent state by (number) states, and is not recognized by (number) states."--R-41 (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That "solution" rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Solution is simple. State number of countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence. Then state number of countries that do recognize. Then state there was milder or stronger US pressure on some on them to recognize Kosovo indepedence and state mechanisms and examples (NATO and US harmonization, EU accession talks, economic pressure, internal instabilities like in case of FYROM, where majority of the people expressed strong opposition on streets of Skopje etc). You can also quote US diplomats and leaders.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That solution rests on the assumption that everyone agrees on the statehood of the recognizers themselves, which clearly isn't the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I fail to understand where do we disagree. Yes many countries where forced to recognize independence of Kosovo under pressure of US diplomacy and NATO and EU aspirations. This is why I stated that after quoting number that is fact this condition should be stated. If you are trying to say that majority of people oppose Kosovo independence in Czech Rep. I agree, but fact is that Czech government did recognize it. What is then problem for you there?80.61.205.20 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We disagree that, apart from Kosovo, everyone agrees what constitutes a country. Kosovo isn't the only political entity with a disputed claim to statehood, so saying that a certain number of states recognize Kosovo's statehood is itself disputed. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it will not be the first time principles are broken. But fact is that USA considers Kosovo as country and behaves in that way. So this is fact and count goes one up. Now if I understand your point problem is that USA does not follow its on principle on the matter. But US has not following its own principle in many other issues yet they are going on with it. We cannot deny Viethnam even though it was against US principle. Even some laws are very seemingly unconstitutional. However, laws are there, Kosovo has US embassy in it so that is countable fact. Unfortunately there is no mathematics and honesty in this. Anyhow, I think we will disagree again. I am not denying anything you say, but what I suggest is we are still better then what is currently there if we do the way I suggested. Your idea will take lot of battle, not with me of course, to win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This is all POV pushing origional research which has no place in an encyclopedia. As another poster says, Chomsky and fellow traveller Perenti are fringe, genocide-denying kooks and their works on the Balkans been thouroughly discredited. Thannad (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you read carefully what is bold and see what problem you may have with that. It has nothing to do with Chomsky and you can check it easily. Your statements on Chomsky you can place on Chomsky article and see will they be valid. In no way he is subject here and I am willing to delete his name from my statements if you want.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not udnerstand this opsession with Chomsky. Point is that you are not stating the fact about total number of countries that do not recognize the Kosovo and fact that many countries that do did that under pressure of USA. USA government openly and without hiding "urges" countries to recognize Kosovo independence after war it waged over Serbia. This war, factually, did not have UN mandate and was unilateral action, even NATO does not denies but justifies it, so it is also fact regardless of what Chomsky you dislike so badly thinks.But to your horror even BBC shows more interest in Kooks liek Chomsky that main stream Americans like Bill O'Raily. Not to mention what universities think about those two. But, again, this is not story about Chomsky but about facts that are publicly KNOWN!80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange that our own article on Chomsky doesn't mention his genocide-denying kookiness. One would also expect that if he was such an unreliable source, he wouldn't be cited so widely on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

On the Balkans, he is hardly ever cited, except by Srebrenica denialists and Serb apologists (and there are quite alot in this site, especially on articles relating to Kosova). Wikipedia does not like criticism sections, and that is why our own article on Chomsky fails to mention these views. Thannad (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC

Ah, that must be it. Those genocide denialists and Serb apologists are really insidious, aren't they? I've often heard it said here that Wikipedia would be a much better place if they were all rooted out and run off the site for good. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct.Thannad (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So Mate, are we moving further or you are still not convinced. Have we agreed that some countries can LOVE independent Kosovo but till you do not do paper work in UN you DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize it'Bold text'. Are we going to wait for pigeons with "messages of desperately waited Independence" to come or we are going to write facts as they are and do some serious business. I see your stance is very NATO colored. You like chopping countries NATO stile, from Iraq to Serbia. Lets close this case and move on to counting how many countries will recognize independence of Scotland, after queen jubilee is over. Seams she will be the "Last Emperor of Scotland". What do you think?80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You helped us understand Albanian democracy. NATO invented democracy for NATO invented country80.61.205.20 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why entering even this discussion here. Chomsky is least issue here. Facts stated has nothing to do with his opinion. It is pure UN count and loudly spoken US foreign policy. Chomsky is frequently guest of universities, public philosophical debates. Its pointless to discuss his qualities expressed by those who are only (un)invited to Wiki(NATO)pedia. This is not forum and not about Chomsky.

To help to all. Facts are in bold have nothing to do with Chomsky. Please stick to them. The only reason I mendionted those people is fact that for US to go to war according to US consititution it needs to be approved by congress. It has never been. Regardless of that it is not subject of Kosovo. It was only mentioned as additional hint. If you do not like it delete it. But deal first with facts in BOLD for God sake80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Calm down please. Perhaps instead of saying "Its independence is recognised by x UN member states", we should say "Its independence is recognised by x out of 193 UN member states". We don't need to explicitly state the number of non-recognisers - anyone with half a brain can do simple mathematics to work this out. Bazonka (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume everyone with half brain will understand this formulation either: Its independence is NOT RECOGNIZED by x UN member states out of 193" Since you are very honest guy you will for sure see this formulation equally right and will not have problem to do it this way. Unlike you who came with that suggestion I see difference and for me then second option looks better. I offered you strait statement, but then you appeal on other people brains so lets do it then second way stating how many countries DO NOT RECOGNIZE Kosovo Independence out of 193 since anyhow it takes BALLS for those countries NOT TO Recognize Kosovo Independence considering pressure of "World Policeman" allias USA and pressure it mounts to other governments.80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with Bazonka. Its independence is recognised by XX UN member states out of 193. Simple inclusion, more information's, more NPOV. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought we are talking serious things here not voting. Science is not election. I also fail to understand your argument why my formulation is so disagreeable to you. It should be more about arguments and less about emotions and friendships. Could you explain why is way he suggest so much "agreeable" then mine? Why it is so hard to write that there are countries that do not recognize Kosovo independence and so easy that there are those that "recognize it". I undersatnd reasons CNN does not like to state that, it has its propaganda effect. Especially when they state number then accept it and then only mention over and over again that "Serbia and its powerful ally Russia deny it". There one can clearly see propaganda effect it aims to create leaving viewer with feeling that there are broad international consensus and some boring Serbs and Russians who do oppose it.I thought aim of science/encyclopedia is not to create sentiments but report facts with least possible ambiguity. Would you agree? How on earth it is POV to you? 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If we give the total number of UN states, then we are stating how many countries don't recognise. Of course recognition and non-recognition are not as black-and-white as they may seem - there are different shades of non-recognition, from the Serbia-style "will never recognise" to countries like Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, which practically do recognise, but just haven't done so diplomatically. But explicitly talking about non-recognisers, we are giving the false impression that they're all the same. Bazonka (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is the same when we say for those that recognize it, because many of those countries are doing it under open pressure of USA and clear disapproval of population. Thus you can avoid also statement of recognizer countries. This is why facts should be stated as they are and then in text you can explain that there are some cases like Cape Verde, but also other types like FYROM, Czech Rep, Poland, Bulgaria, Monte-Negro etc where there is clear public opposition to Kosovo Independence. Some of governments of those countries justified clearly their decision based on ambitions to comply with EU and NATO agenda and not to step on US toes. Regardless of reasons facts are facts and that should be stated. Your reasoning works more against your statement because everyone knows that it was American push that made countries go that road rather then their free will. It was almost commanded from Washington and chronology of events clearly shows it. It is also very clear that many governments who opposed Kosovo independence faced open pressure for US to do so and we all know how much balls and convictions it takes to DO THAT. So please, write the facts. We can put those preceptions, conditions and limitations later on. Not to mention that without UN mandate thus DE FACTO and DE JURE US invaded Serbia (then FRJ) and amputated part of its territory. They justified it with humanitarian reasons but never denied it was not in accordance with UN carta. Unlike them Russians did have UN mandate in Georgia (which arguably is used or abused, but they still had it). NATO never had any mandate and act completely unilaterally. It itself explains determination of US and NATO in pushing this agenda and challenges poor and small countries face to take their stand. Thus, judging honestly, there is much more integrity in using NOT RECOGNIZE countries and mentioning number then RECONGIZE countries and mentioning number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is fact to say how many countries have recognised. It is subjective, and possibly WP:OR, to say why they recognised. Bazonka (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is also FACT to say how many countries DID NOT RECOGNIZE IT. It is pure fact verifiable in UNITED NATIONS. Technical problems of tiny island is ridiculous excuse not to do it. Nothing is subjective in statements of American Secretary of states that urges countries to recognize Kosovo, mounts pressure on that. Nothing is subjective in fact that in majority Czech people oppose Kosovo independence, nor when officials from FYROM and MonteNegro state that Kosovo independence is recognized as gesture of NATO/EU solidarity in their own language which I do paraphrase here. Nothing is subjective in American open policy of pressure and lobbying for Kosovo Independence using diplomatic, economic and what not pressure. It is astonishing that your subjectivity can rule in WIKI(NATO)pedia, based on comical example of Cape Verde or Equatorial Guinea, like Russia, China, India, Argentina, Brasil .... do not mater. But this is true example of NATO BIAS in this WIKIPEDIA. Most of articles more then 95% are sourced in NATO countries sources and even such an obivuous facts easily verifiable by UN data cannot be stated as FACTS based on comical excuse.80.61.205.20 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I just did a quick count on the International recognition of Kosovo page and found 94 UN member states that have made statements against recognizing Kosovo. Adding this to the 91 that have recognized Kosovo gives us 185. However, there are 193 UN member states. You are assuming that those for whom we have no statement have actually not made a statement of recognition that has not been found and that the lack of a statement of recognition is the same as a statement of non-recognition. I don't see how anything resting on these assumptions can be considered an easily verifiable fact. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant. You just formlated it right. So here we go: "102 countries do not recognize Kosovo independace and 91 do recognize it. Out of 102 that do not recognized it 94 have made statements against Independace of Kosovo. Other 8 do not have strong stance or do not oppose it but due to tech and what not reasons did not officially recognize it. Among those 91 who did recognized Kosovo independence, some did it under pressure of USA or did it to comply with NATO and EU majority stand or to enhance their integration into those structures. So what on earth would be wrong with this Khajidha. It look like clear fact easily verifiable. Finally some sense!80.61.205.20 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong is that you are STILL assuming that those 8 have not recognized. It is quite possible that some have, but the news has not reached us. Also, you are making POV assertions that some of the recognizers did so under pressure from the US. This is possible, but you have not provided evidence. Also, you are assuming that the non-recognizers were not pressured to take that position by Russia or some other state. Your statements are thus full of opinions, not verifiable facts. The ONLY verifiable fact there is the number of countries that have explicitly recognized (either through a statement of recognition or through opening relations), which is what is already in the article and is what you are arguing against.--Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

qoute 1: "What is wrong is that you are STILL assuming that those 8 have not recognized. It is quite possible that some have, but the news has not reached us." then you tell me :"Also, you are assuming that the non-recognizers were not pressured to take that position by Russia or some other state.". That is joke of a day. First you speculate to the level of comedy then accuse me of speculation. Listen no one stops you to change counts when "the news come" like pigeon is still flying over Atlantic :-). Till news do not come to UN it is FACT they do not recognize it. Do you understand the difference of political article and scientific fact. Same fact is that there is no Kosovo seat in UN. Is it because some countries do not want it, or because they do not care, or because they care but they are lazy ... that does not matter because DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize it. I am fighting (exposing nonsense) for hours to get basic fact in place and you want me to prove you something way more sophisticated. Look there is plenty of material on Internet about it. Russia does not have more then 5% of NATO GDP nor NATO reach nor its power, neither they bombed anyone on Balkans so yes there is possibility Russia influence some countries but way way less so even common sense is enough to see that coming. Just little bit of digging on internet and you will find many interesting things.80.61.205.20 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Who's the arbiter of what constitutes a country? That needs to be established before one can make any statement as to how many countries have recognized Kosovo. Thankfully your recent edit does make such an establishment, referring not to "countries" but to "UN member states". —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not all of the non-recognising countries have issued statements opposed to recognition. Some have just said stuff like "We're thinking about it," which isn't exactly taking the pro-Serbia side. Whilst recognition shows that the country is definitely taking a side (diplomatically at least), not recognising covers the the pro-Serbia stance, but also the don't care and the about-to-recognise stances. Bazonka (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not about taking pro-Serbian side. It is about facts. They can think about it, they can pray on it, but till they do not recognize it they DE FACTO do not recognize it. Similarly some countries that recognize it have strong feeling of reconsidering it. Some where even warned by US not to do it. But it does not matter because they DE FACTO recognize Kosovo independence. I cannot believe I had to expalain this over and over again. WIKIPE-dia si COME-dia.80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that's the slightest bit relevant to the objection I raised. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That's because it was a response to Khajidha. Sorry if the paragraphs have got muddled. Bazonka (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So Mate, are we moving further or you are still not convinced. Have we agreed that some countries can LOVE independent Kosovo but till you do not do paper work in UN you DE FACTO and DE JURE they do not recognize it'Bold text'. Are we going to wait for pigeons with "messages of desperately waited Independence" to come or we are going to write facts as they are and do some serious business. I see your stance is very NATO colored. You like chopping countries NATO stile, from Iraq to Serbia. Lets close this case and move on to counting how many countries will recognize independence of Scotland, after queen jubilee is over. Seams she will be the "Last Emperor of Scotland". What do you think?80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The anonymous user named 80.61.205.20 has to immediately stop her/his uncivil and combative language towards other users including the use of bolding and caps lock for shouting at other users. Such behaviour is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. In addition the user cannot legitimately accuse other users of pro-NATO opinions when the user herself/himself clearly has anti-NATO opinions, promoting either stance is in violation of POV. The user has to directly indicate exactly what specific sentences in the article are biased and present reliable sources for discussion to make the article less biased. Unsubstantiated accusations of NATO POV in the article in combination with clearly anti-NATO rhetoric here, alongside uncivil behaviour towards users will not resolve the issues here, and will likely end up in administrative action needing to be taken.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The anon IP from the Netherlands is a bit confused - the queen would be an empress, not an emperor. Also note that the United Nations has nowhere near the military and economic strength of the NATO alliance - if NATO considers Kosovo an independent state, then by every measure that matters, it will be one! As long as the NATO military backs a gov't in Kosovo, "de facto" is the proper term to use. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead: Serbian name for Republic of Kosovo

The official Serbian-language name for Republic of Kosovo, as used in the Constitution, legislation, government letterheads, and signs outside all government offices, is "Republika Kosova" (using the genitive of "Kosovo"), not "Republika Kosovo" as in the Article. I know this is different from usual Slavic naming conventions, but Wikipedia Policy on Names says that where an official name exists other than in the title, it should be given early on in the article. The name Serbs in Serbia give the region is stated in the article; I see no reason to change the name Serb Ministers in the Government of Kosovo use. --Markd999 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, its not. Translation is "Republika Kosovo" and official name also. Do you have any reference for that? --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: the end of the war

The article currently reads: "Following the Kosovo War, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) relinquished governance of this territory, whose governance was taken over by the United Nations" This sounds like a generous unilateral act, which is not a NPOV, and is factually incorrect (hostilities did not end until the FRY had accepted, under the Ahtisaari/Chernomyrdin agreement, that it would give up the exercise of sovereignty - pending a final status settlement, of course). I propose to edit this to "The Kosovo War ended with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia accepting that it would give up the exercise of its sovereignty pending a final status settlement. Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations"

--Markd999 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is fine by me. Small change... --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: North Kosovo

Current article reads: ".. while North Kosovo, the largest Kosovo Serb enclave, is under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia".

Not entirely factual. The Kosovo Police Service are present in the North, while police in Serbian uniforms are not (even if Serb officers in the KPS may not in fact be carrying out orders from Pristina); the Kosovo Customs Service controls the border crossings in joint management with the Serbian Customs; KFOR is a factor in "control"; and while openly Serbian institutions are present (electricity, telephones, etc) unofficial parallel structures are also a potent factor (usually subsidised by Belgrade, loyal to the idea of being part of Serbia, but not necessarily subservient to the Serbian Government at any particular time).

I propose to edit this (a change accepted in the article "Republic of Kosovo" to:

"..although North Kosovo, the largest Serb enclave, is largely under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia or parallel structures subsidised by Serbia"

--Markd999 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: control

Current version has the Kosovo Governemnt having "de facto control over most of its territory". I propose to delete the words "de facto". In the subsequent mention of North Kosovo there is no mention about whether control is de facto or de jure, and there is no reason for the words here. --Markd999 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Kosovo government is still mostly in the de facto region, while Serbia is still de jure dominant. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be from a NPOV. Your argument here accepts that the phrase "de facto" implies that the Kosovo Government is not "de jure" in control of most of its territory, and is not therefore neutral terminology. I accept that Serbia, and quite a lot of other countries, believe this to be the case. But their point of view is already included in the article. I shall therefore go ahead with the edit on the basis that you agree with me that the words are not neutral, albeit that they are in accordance with your own point of view over the dispute over status. --Markd999 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, i have to ask for your revert. RoK control over territory is really only de facto by now, as they are not UN members, and the rest of the territory is not in their control, neither de jure nor de facto. This is very clear info that is not problematic. As article is under ARBMAC and under various restrictions, please, revert your self, as we didnt agreed yet on this. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think I have to refuse your request. The main controversy in this article, as among the international community, is over whether Kosovo is de jure or merely de facto independent. Presumably all the states which have recognised it think it is de jure independent; as do many international lawyers. Regardless of my or your views on this controversy, under Wikipedia principles we need to use language which is neutral both explicitly, and, so far as possible, implicitly. You seem to agree with me that the use of the words "de facto" is in contrast with "de jure"; in other words that it is not neutral over the controversy. If they are interpreted purely neutrally, then they are redundant; and since most edits tend to lengthen the entry, one which cuts, even by two words, should be welcomed. Even if I entirely agreed with your view of whether Kosovo's independence was de jure or de facto, I would still propose this change.

You are, I am afraid, wrong about membership of the UN being a requirement of statehood. Even today, the Holy See, accepted by the UN as a state, is not a member. There are many examples in the past of countries generally accepted as states not being members of the UN, either of their own volition (Switzerland for most of the period since the foundation of the UN), or because they faced veto by a member of the Security Council (for example, Ireland until 1955, the People's Republic of China until Nixon's U-turn, or both Koreas until the 1990s). --Markd999 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, would you be happy if the article were to refer to control of the North being "de facto but not de jure"? I would not consider this particularly neutral. But I have never understood how Serbia constantly referred to alleged breaches of UNSCR 1244 while still claiming to exercise powers of sovereignty over the North which were specifically transferred to UNMIK under UNSCR 1244. --Markd999 (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Background: "Frontier belt"

There is no, or very little, dispute over where the line of demarcation runs. The dispute is over whether this is an international border or an administrative boundary within Serbia, or whether this should be changed.

I propose editing to the following, already accepted in the article "Republic of Koodvo":

"The remaining line of demarcation is the subject of controversy - seen by proponents of Kosovan independence as the Kosovo-Serbia border and seen by opponents of the independence as the boundary between Central Serbia and an autonomous Kosovo all within Serbia".

--Markd999 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it is not quite important to say... Dont know, why do you think that this line is necessary? It is obvious, mostly... --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is necessary for two reasons. First, the current version grammatically means that it is Western Serbia whose status is a matter of controversy, which is of course not the case. Secondly, the phrase "frontier belt" implies that there is dispute or uncertainty about where the line of demarcation runs, which is also not the case.

Thirdly, you have accepted this line (not, incidentally, proposed by me but as a response to a proposal by me) in the article "Republic of Kosovo" and you do not seem to disagree with it here. On this basis I shall make the edit.--Markd999 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Background: EULEX

Current version reads:

"the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008."

Is this true, or is it neutral? I think neither.

As for the truth, EULEX has the power to arrest and prosecute people, as well as to assist the development of the Kosovo police, prosecutors and judiciary. These were all powers of UNMIK. But UNMIK also had the powers to legislate by itself; to inspect and if necessary amend (or even veto) laws passed by the Kosovo Assembly; to take most economic decisions even against Kosovo Government decisions; to refer prosecutions to courts composed solely of international judges; to run the Customs Service, which it did to the last; to directly run elections, although in practice it gave this up in 2004; etc etc etc.

It can be seen even from this brief and partial list that "most" powers of UNMIK were not transferred to EULEX (although I think that most Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo would agree that EULEX would have been important if it had done its job properly).

As for neutrality, I can quite see that Serbians would prefer EULEX (whose role Serbia recognises) to be mentioned rather than the International Community Office (whose role they do not). But more of UNMIK's powers passed to the ICO (under the Ahtisaari Plan, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) than passed to EULEX. And some, of course, lapsed altogether (or, if you take the view of a non-recognising state, became unenforceable).

I would therefore propose to edit as follows:

"Some of UNMIK's powers in the area of rule of law were transferred to the European Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008. In the Declaration of Independence of February 2008, and in its Constitution, Kosovo accepted a general supervisory role with important specific powers, proposed in the Ahtisaari Plan, exercised by the International Community Office (ICO). The International Steering Group has decided that, since Kosovo has passed legislation envisaged in and has implemented the Ahtisaari Plan, there is no reason for the ICO to continue to exist beyond September 2012" --Markd999 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me. Good work! bobrayner (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

But, you must use good neutral source for this. Without it, please, dont add this info. --WhiteWriter^speaks 07:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you are confused. There is EULEX, as an EU institution, which is composed of 27 EU countries. Then there is the ICO/ICR/ISG/Ahtisaari Plan, which is composed of (for example) only 20 EU countries. Distinct, but overlapping, entities.

As you mentioned, some institutions Serbia recognizes as legitimate, others it does not. The International Steering Group (ISG) was created by the Ahtisaari Plan which is closely linked with the independent Republic (being explicitly referenced in its Declaration of Independence for example). Anything related to either should not be referred to as some universally accepted fact; it is a partisan institution. The ISG made the ICO/ICR.

UNMIK powers were not (AFAIK) passed to the ICO/ICR/ISG/Ahtisaari Plan. The powers of EULEX were recognized by the PISG, which was recognized by the UNMIK which was recognized by the UNSC which was recognized by the UN Chart which was recognized by Serbia. (PHEW!) But I cannot prove this! I think the PISG became the Republic but I cannot really find "the sauce"; everyone has stopped talking about the PISG, which is still recognized by UNMIK regulations AFAIK. And then again, everyone stopped talking about the UNMIK too, who seems to have abandoned his post after the Declaration of Independence (or at least stopped updateing his website)...

TLDR: No, you assume too much. When you can fill in the gaps in the Government of Kosovo article, then maybe something can be said. Int21h (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Also note the weak link between UNMIK and EULEX. The only reliable source I could find was 1 (literally, 1) BBC article, wherein it does not give details. No UNMIK regulations online even mention EULEX. Many other, in my opinion, unreliable sources also repeated this, also without any references given and likely themselves internally citing the BBC article. Int21h (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: Inter-ethnic tensions

Current article reads:

"Long-term severe ethnic tensions between Kosovo's Albanian and Serb populations have left Kosovo ethnically divided, resulting in inter-ethnic violence, including the Kosovo War of 1999."

I do not dispute that, as in most regions where two or more ethnic/linguistic/religious groups co-exist, there have been tensions which presumably go back a very long way. But this sentence suggests that it was Italic textonlyItalic text these tensions which resulted in conflict, rather than policies from Belgrade (particularly from 1989, but going back further) or for that matter Pristina between 1974 and 1989.

I find it difficult to generalise about inter-ethnic tensions in Kosovo. If one looks to Kamenica, one finds that it was virtually untouched by the conflict of 1999, the damage done by the riots of March 2004 was a couple of windows broken, the green market is (and was virtually without interruption) multi-ethnic, and the brick factory had both Serbs and Albanians in management and wotking positions again without (or almost without) interruption. If one looks to Prizren, the communities there seem to have rubbed along reasonably happily until 1999 and the destruction of Serb areas of the city seem to have been the work of people from the surrounding villages which were almost all destroyed in 1999, and did not share the pride of people from Prizren itself in the city's traditions. Other tensions arose, not surprisingly, in areas where Kosovo Albanian property was confiscated and given to Serbian colonists; and the converse may have happened at an earlier stage (for example, in the two villages of Babuš/Babush, one is called Srpski Babuš (Serbian Babush) and the other, officially, Babush i Muxharreve (Babush of the Refugees, the Refugees in question being Albanians from the Nis region of Serbia, expelled in 1878). One would have to be astonishingly well-informed about local history to make real sense of this mosaic.

I do not despair of finding a short description which is neutral, but ignoring the fact that the Milosevic regime suspended Kosovo's autonomy, introducing "extraordinary measures" which resulted in 70% of Kosovo's employees losing their jobs, etc etc, does not seem to me a NPOV. --Markd999 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Background: ICJ advisory opinion

I propose editing this to "..did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence': nor did the declaration of independence violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244, since this did not describe Kosovo's final status, nor had the Security Council reserved for itself the decision on final status".

This edit has been accepted in the separate articles on the Advisory Opinion and on the Republic of Kosovo. Two points here: it might not have violated general international law but still have violated international law because of a binding (Chapter VII) resolution of the UNSCR, and what the current version has as the president of the court's description, as if it was his personal opinion, in fact comes from the majority decision of the court.

--Markd999 (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

UN Administration Period

Current version has 2 sections: one titled as above, the second entitled UN Administration 1999-Present. The second title is neither neutral nor correct: even if one believes that under UNSCR 1244 UNMIK ought to be administering Kosovo, it does not claim to be doing so in fact. The first title is quite neutral and if one thinks that UN Administration exists legally today (even if not in fact) it still applies. The first paragraph of the second section is pure duplication and I propose to delete it. The second paragraph has information not elsewhere in the article, and I propose to retain it with the following minor amendments:

"Under the Constitutional Framework, Kosovo had a 120-member Kosovo Assembly. The Assembly includes twenty reserved seats: ten for Kosovo Serbs and ten for non-Serb and non-Albanian nations (e.g. Bosniaks, Roma, etc.). The Kosovo Assembly was responsible for electing the President, Prime Minister, and Government of Kosovo, and for passing legislation which was vetted and promulgated by UNMIK."

(This proposed edit already accepted in the article on the Republic of Kosovo. --Markd999 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, from what I can tell UNMIK christian-ed the PISG, which from what I can tell became the Republic, then abandoned the post. ("Hey UNMIK I was wondering what happened to this PISG enti-- Hey, where did UNMIK go?") Int21h (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Background: Border

It's not mentioned in Noel Malcolm, but I think that in 1953 or thereabouts there were bigger revisions to the border: that the three Presevo municipalities went over to Serbia from Kosovo (after municipal referendums) and the three municipalities of Zvečan, Lepkosavič, and Zubin Potok went over to Kosovo from Serbia (again, after municipal referendums). There were also revisions to the southern border: Đeneral Jankovič/ Hani i Elezit transferred from Macedonia to Kosovo (not that Macedonia would want it back: no statues, and more Albanians).

Zoupan (or someone) please tell me whether this is right or wrong. In one way I would prefer to be wrong; personally I dislike the idea of borders being delimited on ethnic lines, and would not want a historical argument for the transfer of territories in this way. But then, of course, I am not a Serb living in Zubin Potok or an Albanian living in the Presevo Valley. But if facts are facts we should include them. --79.126.148.120 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm going to look it up, we need sources. You would prefer to be wrong? Don't mix nationalistic partition with Yugoslav geo-administrative reforms.--Zoupan 21:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: declaration of independence

Current article reads:

"Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations. The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state, has control over most of the territory..."

All this is perfectly true, but it reads oddly. There is no sense of chronological development, although of course this is given in the body of the article. I propose to edit to:

"Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations in 1999. The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo)declared itself an independent state in 2008, and has control over most of the territory...." --Markd999 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Box: telephones

Under "calling code" there is currently a footnote which reads:

"Officially +381; some mobile phone providers use +377 (Monaco) or +386 (Slovenia) instead."

Not a NPOV and not strictly true. +381 (Serbia) is the calling code for fixed lines. The only two mobile operators licenced under applicable law in Kosovo, both of them under UNMIK authority under UNSCR 1244 so Serbians cannot dispute their legality, use the Monaco or Slovenian calling codes as part of their licence.

I propose to edit to "+381 (Serbia) for fixed lines; mobile phone providers in Kosovo use +377 (Monaco) +386 (Slovenia)" and to put this in the text instead of as a footnote. --Markd999 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing "NPOV" about a telephone exchange; just say it needs correcting. There's far too much Serb-Kosovar antagonism on the talk pages, this is complete over-exaggeration. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Help! I don't know why it has come out as it has! And I don't seem able to undo it --Markd999 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--Zoupan 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo War

I propose to edit the section on war crimes, beginning "Stojilkovic killed himself...." with the following, already accepted in the article "Republic of Kosovo", with the citations found there:

"Stojiljković killed himself while at large in 2002 and Milošević died in custody during the trial in 2006. In 2009 Milutinovic was acquitted by the Trial Chamber; five defendants were found guilty (three sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, and two to 22 years; and in 2011 the remaining defendant, who had been in hiding when the main trial started, was found guilty and sentenced to 27 years. The verdicts are under appeal. The indictment against the nine alleged that they directed, encouraged or supported a campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians and aimed at the expulsion of a substantial portion of them from Kosovo. It has been alleged that about 800,000 Albanians were expelled as a result. In particular, in the indictment of June 2006, the accused were charged with murder of 919 identified Kosovo Albanian civilians aged from one to 93, both male and female.

In addition, the Office of the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor has secured final judgements involving the conviction of 7 persons, sentenced to a total of 136 years imprisonment for war crimes in Kosovo involving 89 Albanian victims. As of June 2012, a trial of 12 defendants for an alleged massacre of 44 Albanian victims in Čuška (Alb: Qyshk) is ongoing."

This updates the trial situations and gives credit to the Republic of Serbia War Crimes Prosecutor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree , again quite valid update. --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I don't understand why nobody else comment in here except two of us... ? --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone else is asleep :-)

Usually we have epic disagreements on this talkpage. When somebody proposes something reasonable and uncontroversial, this is a serious break from tradition, and we don't know how to respond! bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Hvala! Faleminderit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Early History

Current text reads:

"During the 13th and 14th centuries, Kosovo became a political and spiritual centre of the Serbian Kingdom. In the late 13th century, the seat of the Serbian Archbishopric was moved to Pec, and rulers centred themselves between Prizren and Skopje, during which time thousands of Christian monasteries and feudal-style forts and castles were erected."

No problem with most of this, but "thousands" of Christian monasteries and etc etc were erected? Quite impossible. Any idea of how many hectares it took to endow a monastery, even with only a few monks? Or how much labour it took to build a castle, which also required large amounts of land to maintain a garrison? Where are the remains of these "thousands" of monasteries, etc? Just remember that in the early middle ages it could take over a thousand sheep to supply the parchment for one single manuscript copy of the New Testament.

I propose just a short edit. "Msny" instead of "thousands of". But it strikes me as shocking that anyone could look at the denity of monasteries, castles, etc in Europe, most of it always richer then Kosovo, and then suggest that "thousands" of these institutions could conceivably maintained. --Markd999 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Instead of using term "many" it would be better to present as precise number of churches and monasteries as possible. Huge number of churches and monasteries is one of the reasons why some people consider Kosovo as "Holy land". "Many" is concealing this important fact. I was surprised to see google hits for thousands because it really sounds impossible. To my surprise, there are numerous sources about more than thousand churches and monasteries. In that case, together with "feudal-style forts and castles" thousands don't look so impossible. Maybe some user who is more acquainted with this issue could help to determine most precise number? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Searching for a single number would be futile; over the centuries there will have been various new churches built, old ones abandoned, merges, splits &c. and the historical record is not perfect.

It should be more straightforward to get an accurate number if we focus more closely; for instance, there should be some good papers on Google Scholar based on Nemanjid chrysobulls. (New churches or monastic foundation would typically get a grant of land or other feudal resources in order to support its ongoing operation; the grant documents tended to be preserved, for obvious reasons; and now they're a good source for all kinds of history, not just the history of church foundations).

However, Malcolm (Medieval Kosovo: 850s-1390s, p50) says "...Kosovo was not the main focus of the church-building activities of most of these rulers". bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

True, the 'heart' of the medieval Serbian Kingdom was Raska, not Kosovo. A precise number say, of the most important churches, would be much better than ambiguous 'thousands' which is impossible. There are not a thousand mosques in Kosovo, and that's for a population almost 90% Muslim... - Ottomanist (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Christianity is older than Islam in Kosovo. When searching, "thousands" have been built, "hundreds" have been destroyed. --Zoupan 08:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If the population of Kosovo is likely to have been 350,000 in the seventeenth century (and it can hardly have been higher in the early fourteenth) it is quite impossible that it can have supported "thousands" of churches, monasteries, forts and castles. Each of these required, and still require, specialist personnel who require upkeep from others - despite the monastic aim of poverty and working for the monastery - and as for the costs and time of building, these were huge by modern standards. If you look at Velika Hoca, by Rasovec, for example, there are a number of Serbian churches - 12 I think - which are offshoots of bigger monasteries and are there because those monasteries gained much of their income from producing wine from their holdings there). There may be sources which talk of "thousands"of these establishments, but then medieval and early modern sources almost everywhere in Europe tend to use exaggerated numbers to mean "a lot".

The Serbian Orthodox Church produced a book (in, I think, around 2000, called, I think, "The Crucifixion of Kosovo"), detailing destruction or damage to churches and monasteries in Kosovo. Although it tries to disguise it (or possibly the attitudes in the Balkans to "restoration", as demonstrated for example in Macedonia, are different from those in Western Europe), many or most of these are 1990s "restorations" of churches, often quite small, that had been destroyed or collapsed over seven centuries. For example, the Monastery of the Archangels in Prizren can be seen in an early 1990s photograph to be visible only to the foundations.

It is evident from this source that the number of "restored" churches was relatively small; the policy of "restoration" applied to churches that were never particularly significant except to a small number of people who worshiped there, so it is extremely unlikely that more significant monasteries were not restored or recorded.

I don't think it will be possible to reach a definitive number at the present time, and with present political controversies, but "many" instead of "thousands" seems to me to be generous. If you compare with the density of archeological church, monastic, and military settlements which existed in northern Europe (simply because higher rainfall levels supported more people, the real description would be "few". I don't think this is sensible in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede

I think the UNESCO World Heritage sites and the 1389 Battle of Kosovo are sufficiently important to mention in the lede. I really do not understand edit summaries such as these [4]. Athenean (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Not that important", wow. It should stay in the intro, without a doubt.--Zoupan 08:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I half-agree. Whether the 1389 Battle of Kosovo Polje was really hugely important at the time or whether its importance is a matter of later mythologising seems to me irrelevant. Whatever, its importance in Serbian ideas of their history means it should be in the lead.

The World Heritage Sites are another matter (even though I find Visoki Decani magnificent and exuding spiritual peace, which I cannot say for Gracanica or the Patriarchate). Every country, or "country" if you prefer, has World Heritage Sites. It is very unusual for them to be mentioned in the leads to Wikipedia articles, and if they are mentioned it usually means that there is nothing more recent that might interest the reader.--Markd999 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Serb exodus 1999-2000

Current text reads:

"Some 200,000–280,000, representing the majority of the Serb population, left when the Serbian forces left. There was also some looting of Serb properties and even violence against some of those Serbs and Roma who remained.[110] The current number of internally displaced persons is disputed,[111][112][113][114] with estimates ranging from 65,000[115] to 250,000.[116][117][118] Many displaced Serbs are afraid to return to their homes, even with UNMIK protection. Around 120,000–150,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo, but are subject to ongoing harassment and discrimination due to physical threats for their safety.[119]"

Not NPOV, internally inconsistent, and difficult to support from facts. The 1991 census recorded 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo. It is difficult to see how this could have risen by 1999 to a range of 320,000-430,000 (those who left and those who remain according to this passage). "internally displaced persons" implies a view of Kosovo's status as part of Serbia, as "refugees" would imply a view of Kosovo's status as independent: "displaced persons" would be neutral. Serbian claims of 250,000 people displaced to Serbia from Kosovo may include Roma and - who knows? - even public servants, police, and army personnel deployed in Kosovo temporarily before 1999.

I suggest the following passage as a NPOV replacement, based on the article "Republic of Kosovo" and accepted there as NPOV (with citations):

"Many Serbs (and Roma) left with the Serb forces, or as a result of revenge attacks and occupation of Serb properties in the aftermath of the conflict. Estimates of the number of Serbs thus displaced range from 65,000 to 250,000. Given that the 1991 census recorded only 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo, the higher estimates, if based on fact, must include Roma, Serbs displaced within Kosovo, and perhaps other elements. It is generally agreed by both Serbs and Albanians that the number of Serbs remaining in Kosovo is in the range of 100,000-120,000, although in most urban centres other than North Mitrovica and Kamenica the Serb population is now negligeable. Although, since 2004, the Kosovo Government has been the largest funder of returns projects for displaced persons, the number of such returns remains relatively low, partly due to continued fears of possible violence or harrassment"

--Markd999 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We have numerous sources for this. I strongly disagree with your unsourced suggestion. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter, you have accepted an almost identical text in the "Republic of Kosovo" article. Of course there are numerous sources for the highest figures of displaced persons. There are also sources for the lowest figures of displaced Serbs, which are in fact cited in the current text. The point is that the text should not present as fact the highest figures, and then say that there are much lower estimates. Nor, if the Republic of Serbia (because the 1991 census was carried out by them, after Kosovo autonomy was ended) could record only 194,000 Serbs living in Kosovo, should one say without explanation that a much greater number of Serbs than existed in Kosovo in 1991 left in 1999, while at the same time two-thirds of the numbers of Serbs living in Kosovo in 1991 stayed. (Do not think that I underestimate the level of violence or fear of violence that Serbs, whether they left or stayed, had to go through).

If you propose amendments to my proposed edit, I would be happy to consider them. Otherwise I shall go ahead. --Markd999 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There are not amendments, i disagree to remove sources, without strong and great ones that says opposite. And i didn't agree on anything on RoK page, as i told you, that was a marathon of edits, and i didnt even followed everything of those. Some of those "agreed" edits will be questioned. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

But I do not intend to remove any sources. The fact is that there are estimates from 65,000 to 250,000+, and of course these must be cited. But you cannot put as a statement of fact in the first sentence that the figure is 250,000+, and then put in later down that estimates vary from 65,000-250,000. And if you accept that the number of Serbs resident in Kosovo in 1991 was 194,000, and I see no reason to doubt that the Serbian Statistical Office carried out the census professionally, then the fact that the number of "Serbs" who left, plus those who stayed, requires some explanation - or at least needs to be noted. --Markd999 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve the history section of this article

As a person of no Balkan descent, but who knows Balkan people and a significant understanding of 20th century history of the Balkans, I am disappointed with the way in which the history section is organized. It is almost completely dedicated to the rivalry and conflict between the Albanians and the Serbs without describing almost any other topics beyond the ethnic nationalist conflict perspective. For instance, it should describe what internationally-significant cultural and scientific achievements were made in Kosovo and/or by people from Kosovo. Again, by cultural I do not mean exclusively the Albanian and Serb culture, but am referring to cultural developments by individuals and groups who may reside in one ethnic group or another, but whose culture significantly influenced the world. Scientific advancements that were created in Kosovo or by people who came from Kosovo will also make this article better balanced in its historical coverage. That is my advice on how to get this article in better shape.--R-41 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to agree, but I fear that it is very difficult to do - not just because of Serbian-Albanian controversy, but because there are very few examples which one can give of people from Kosovo who have had "significantly influenced the world" except in terms of this ethnic conflict - even if, unlike some, I regard the ethnic conflict as having started relatively recently and because of influences outside Kosovo. The obvious exception might be Mother Theresa of Calcutta, both of whose parents may have come from Kosovo and who, undeniably, saw the vision which decided her on her religious vocation. But she was born in Skopje (Macedonia) and mostly brought up in Albania.

Kosovo people, Serbs or Albanians, are (most certainly) not less creative than others. But Kosovo has always been an inland area without navigable rivers; when until the late nineteenth century, trade (and therefore the economy) depended mainly on navigation. So you cannot expect Oxford, Cambridge, la Sorbonne, or Heidelburg in Kosovo's history. --Markd999 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Even including information on significant historic economic, industrial, environmental, and archaeological topics in Kosovo - whether they be internationally or locally significant, would be better than an article focused almost exclusively on the ethnic conflict between Albanians and Serbs.--R-41 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Like bobrayner (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree too. There are no one important from there, but there must be something that was there before this conflict. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather ignorant statements above. Trade was done on camels, horseback and other means for centuries without the need for rivers. Places like Prizren were some of the most important centres of Ottoman Europe. Prishtina had Jewish refugees from the Christian reconquista in Spain and Mitrovica was mined since Roman times. Trade couldn't be conducted between the east and west of massive world empires without transversing Kosovo. Obviously there are massive achievements from the people inhabiting Kosovo, the Serb-Albanian 'ethnic' conflict is a recent phenomena. Good suggestion above. Ottomanist (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Granted that there was always trade. But until the invention of the railway it was always, and everywhere, even in the easiest terrain, cheaper to transport goods by water than by land, which meant that where there was only land transport available the goods had to be high value (say, gold from Novo Brdo, or crafts like silverwork from Prizren) and the customers relatively rich, whereas for England in the same period it was possible to export wool in bulk or import wine from Bordeaux or even Spain by sea. Most goods going from (say) Istanbul to the West went by sea, not transversing Kosovo or Macedonia. Kosovo did not end up being the poorest part of former Yugoslavia only because of Serbian or Yugoslav policies! But the article would, I certainly agree, benefit from some reminder that even in the middle ages Kosovo's urban centres were quite cosmopolitan, with Germans, Hungarians, and Jews; and its history is not all about just Serbs and Albanians (just as neither its present nor its future are). --Markd999 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd disagree on a trivial point; I'd argue that there's evidence of overland trade in less valuable goods across much of premodern Europe, and Kosovo is no exception. 15th century Kosovo's main exports were agricultural products and nonprecious metals. If you want to look at ties with other groups of people (not Ottomans, not Serbs) maybe it's worth looking at Ragusan businessmen, Saxon miners &c. And we have barely any coverage of the Byzantine era. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's get back on the main topic, what material on Kosovo's history, beyond the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict, should be mentioned on matters such as economic, industrial, environmental, and archaeological topics in Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is that Kosovo has nominally gone on and off the map several times over the centuries with one huge absence. Its capacity has also varied down the generations, vilayet? Ceremonial unit? Autonomous province? And this all comes before the lack of clarity from 1999 onward. Along with the name having bounced back and forth, so too have the borders. The Kosovo with which everyone associates dates back to 1946 in the FPR Yugoslavia. The last time the region was known was up to the First Balkan War when it was the Vilayet of Kosovo. For what it's worth, Mother Teresa was born in that entity: Skopje 1910 was the capital of that province. It is a little something if nothing else. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not much of a difficulty. History isn't created by names or boundaries. The History section should cover the area that is now Kosovo (although as it didn't exist in a vacuum, it doesn't have to rigidly follow modern borders). CMD (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The easiest thing then is to produce a small section on notable people from Kosovo's towns, you'll find those on the articles. But we just need to keep away from politics. A lot of footballers that represent foreign teams come from Kosovo. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Map

File:Europe-Kosovo.svg (used until recently)

File:Kosovo in Europe (de-facto).svg (inserted by Hannover96, 10 August)

File:Kosovo in its region.svg (Balkans-only version)

File:Location Kosovo Balkan.png (Balkans-only version, like standard map)

Without any discussion, map was reverted to the non neutral version after years of consensus version by pro-kosovo editor. This contemporary map is non standard, and represent Kosovo as independent UN state, which is of course wrong. That was also his breach of 1RR on this article. Any thoughts? --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be an article about a region, so I question why any state borders are used at all. CMD (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i agree, but we need a map for location within Europe. Do you have any neutral in mind? --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What is non-neutral about File:Kosovo in Europe (de-facto).svg? It shows where Kosovo is just fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo is not independent sovereign state like the rest of those. So, it must not be presented as such, as that fails the consensus we have on this subject. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the map is not to show what status Kosovo has, but where it is. The map does that just fine: territories that are Kosovo are red; territories that are not Kosovo are white. What could possibly be contentious about that? How else could you possibly show where the freaking place is if not by giving it a different colour? The only detail that could possibly have a political implication is the way the borders are shown. Is the northern and eastern boundary of Kosovo shown in the same style as its southern and western boundary? Then it implies it's separate from Serbia. Is it shown in a different style? Then it implies it's part of Serbia. As it happens, it is actually a different style in File:Kosovo in Europe (de-facto).svg, so, if anything, it favours a pro-Serbian view. But that graphic detail is so tiny you can't really see it anyway, at infobox size, so it doesn't matter. I can understand why one might have a problem in deciding what map to use as a locator map of Serbia, but here? No. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Oo, that was quite nice explanation. Yes, i agree, that graphic detail is so tiny, and i cannot see it either. But here, on this map, which stands here for years, i CAN (and i am sure that you can too) see it quite clearly. Therefore, this old map is better, and should be placed back, as Kosovo must not be represented as independent sovereign UN stats, as it is not that. For the majority of the world, Kosovo is part of Serbia, and while things are like that, it must stay like that. And specially when it is pushed by nationalist cross wiki fighter. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does it need location in Europe? Is that common for region leads? Balkans just has a map of the Balkans and the immediate surroundings, and there's already one of the infobox. In line with this train of thought, why is the country infobox being used? CMD (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i agree with that too! We must remove that! Then none will create new problems like this one again. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What, remove the whole infobox? Well, infoboxes must burn in hell, generally speaking, but this does seem to have some useful bits. Or remove just the top map? Well, some locator map is certainly necessary, and I think the locator inset in the – otherwise excellent – File:Kosovo map-en.svg is a bit too small. I agree a locator map on Balkans-only level might be a bit more useful than the Europe-level map we now have, just because it would make the geographical relations to the surrounding states better visible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that country infobox should be removed. Regardless of the map issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the map is not in doubt, and neither is its ability to perform its function. However, what you've got there is a political map, wherein we've highlighted Kosovo alone - which is what we usually do for fully-independent countries. Even fully-independent countries that are part of a union like the EU have other associated countries highlighted in this type of map. Make no mistake: by depicting Kosovo in this manner on a political map we doubtless do imply that its entirely independent.

As stupid as that is - we can't have it up. A possible compromise would be a composite map where in one half we depict Kosovo without highlighting Serbia, and in the other half we do highlight Serbia in a lighter shade of the same colour. I could whip that up right now if its acceptable? -- Director (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like it would just confuse readers. Interesting idea though. Can't we just take the yellow map, crop to a Kosovo centred bit, and get rid of the lines? CMD (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of the lines? You mean, of all the country boundaries? No. What use is a locator map if it doesn't locate stuff in relation to what for most readers is the most accessible point of reference – other countries? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I suppose. In my experience when one discusses regions one is usually discussing geographical features, be it plains or mountain ranges or whatever, so something can simply be superimposed over country borders (like in Balkans). I though that if it's a map of a much closer area, that shows the recognisable adriatic, readers could gauge the location of the region, which is all that's usually needed, as regions are generally vaguely defined. Since this article is calling a political area a region, perhaps it goes along with the theme of the article to remove countries altogether. CMD (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, Director, I normally respect you as a sensible and intelligent person, even when we disagree, but this particular suggestion is so utterly ridiculous I really don't know what to say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken Future :). Though I could include a caption/legend in the individual segments of the map to explain that one depicts the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" and the other the "Republic of Kosovo". I think if anything it would nicely illustrate to the reader the dispute itself, while, at the same time, showing him "where the bloody hell is it", as it were. I think people have heard that there is some kind of dispute here, and that one of those neighboring countries claims the region - highlighting it could be useful. It would look good I think :). But if people don't like it.. -- Director (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, any version when Kosovo is not independent state is ok. As it was for years before. Old version was here for long years, i dont see any reason why it should not stay there. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think it is unacceptable to have a map that could be understood as implying that it is independent, why do you think it would be acceptable to have one that implies it is not? If we go down to this level of political obsession, then surely the one implication is just as POV as the other. (The solution, as always, is: stop obsessing, start writing for readers, who don't care.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

O, stop with this, please. Yes, it is unacceptable to have a map where Kosovo is sovereign and independent, but it is acceptable to show that Kosovo is disputed, as Kosovo is disputed. And that's it. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In the end its impossible to put forward a political map that is neutral in a political dispute. The current political map, that completely ignores Serbia and depicts Kosovo just like an independent state, is 100% to the one side of the dispute. Hence, I disagree with its inclusion per WP:NPOV. The only logical solutions that I can see are 1) not using a political map, or 2) using two political maps, each depicting one view. I would propose we try the latter and put together an elegant two-part image that includes in-map captions explaining the two conflicting political views. I don't think its that crazy, esp. considering we don't really have much choice. -- Director (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Two separate maps is out. Absolutely no freaking way. That would simply make us all look like idiots. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahaha, yes i agree, that would be quite too much. But what is wrong with old map? --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing, except that it is too small and the color scheme is not clear enough. On my screen, it was showing Kosovo as little more than two or three pixels in a barely discernible colour. As for the question of whether or not to show Serbia shadowed, I personally actually don't care. Although, if I were to take your political POV sensitivities seriously (i.e. acknowledge the need to avoid showing Kosovo as an independent country), I'd be forced to also take the other side's political sensitivies seriously in just the same way (i.e. acknowledge the need to avoid showing it not as one). As I said, the only solution is to ruthlessly trample over both sensitivities, wherever we encounter them, and simply choose the map that is graphically most pleasing and easiest to read, and for no other reason than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Ahahahaha..."? -.-

Then the only other course of action that I can see is no political map. Which means we can either have no image, or we can use some kind of non-political map with Kosovo vaguely pointed out.. I don't know. Though, mind you, I do not think two political maps would "make us look like idiots" - if there are two valid political maps (one showing Kosovo as independent, the other as part of Serbia).

Though, I must point out, I'm not suggesting two images, I'm suggesting a single two-part composite map. -- Director (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How would a composite map not just be very confusing? We should provide readers with clear simple information, not politically correct pandering. CMD (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't make it confusing, obviously... Otherwise, lets have the old map back until there's some semblance of a WP:CONSENSUS for the edit. Apparently what's wrong with the old map is that "Kosovo ≠ Serbia" [5]. Which kinda ignores the point of view that "Kosovo = Serbia".. textbook case really. -- Director (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How's this for a rationale? This article, supposedly, is about a region. How do we show a region? We highlight it. We don't have to highlight any particular country. If we have a shaded Serbia, then we're clearly noting it's in Serbia. If we don't shade anything, it could be a highlighted part of Serbia for all we know, or it could be another state. Given this, a map which just highlights Kosovo and nothing else should be used. CMD (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree. Plus, the present map actually has both: it just highlights Kosovo, for the reasons you state, and (if you look closely) it makes a subtle distinction between the boundaries towards Serbia and those towards the other neighbouring territories. Which is okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf. "..the only solution is to ruthlessly trample over both sensitivities, wherever we encounter them, and simply choose the map that is graphically most pleasing and easiest to read, and for no other reason than that." - Again, there's a serious flaw in that line of thinking: you'd only be trampling over one "sensitivity".

@Davis. The same problem. It doesn't matter which logic you use to arrive at a conclusion - if the conclusion is not in-line with WP:NPOV. -- Director (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how it fails NPOV to highlight a region on a map. By ignoring countries, it even follows the whole point behind the creation of this page. CMD (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So, do we use the clearer map except with Serbia highlighted in light gray? -- Director (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Then we'd be trampling over the other side's sensitivities. What makes you think that would be preferable (apart from the fact they are not yours)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps not as much. Note: the "standard" way of depicting a province of a country is not to use a map of Europe at all (have a look at Vojvodina for a rather obvious example, or Trentino, or Papua..). And if we use a map of Europe for a province (rare), we highlight its country in a lighter shade of green (or whichever colour we're using). As I've said before, its impossible to have a completely neutral single political map - but I think a light grey-highlighted Serbia is about as close as we'll get.. seeing as how light grey is as close to white as it gets.

The way I see things, we've moved from a non-neutral political map that's trying to be neutral (that doesn't strongly favor the Serbian side), to a blatantly pro-Albanian POV map. -- Director (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You could just as well see it exactly the other way round. If we don't shade Serbia, we are making no statement about their political relation or non-relation at all – the only thing we're saying is that Kosovo is here, and everything around it is not Kosovo. If we do shade Serbia, we are making a statement – namely, that there is a relation between them. If anything, that is taking sides. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, a 'map of Europe with Kosovo highlighted and Serbia in light grey' seems objectively very far from a map like this or this. Whereas it seems only a small step from a 'map of Europe with Kosovo highlighted and Serbia completely white'. So no, I don't think its an entirely reciprocal situation. At best, we're moving from a biased map to a completely biased map. I can't conceive of any valid logical argument that would maintain this political map is somehow less biased.

In addition, it seems useful from an educational, encyclopedic perspective to highlight where this "Serbia" is that's claiming the region. -- Director (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Claims? Shouldn't that be something for the Republic of Kosovo article? This one describes a region. CMD (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case we shouldn't use a political map at all.. But since we are, its pointless to make a distinction on that basis. -- Director (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The existence of this article is based on a distinction of that basis. CMD (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What I meant was that the borders of Kosovo and the (claimed) borders of the RoK are identical, so it doesn't help to make that distinction when using a political map (which could not be said for, say, Silesia or Macedonia). -- Director (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the result of trying to create a "region" article about a political area, I suppose. Kosovo is a political area, which means that many will automatically see any map with it shown as political (and they may be right). However, because of the basis of the article, we have to make that distinction. A macedonia which is perfectly congruent with a claimed country, I suppose. CMD (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with that.. Kosovo is a region. The borders in their present state were (un)fortunately created around the historical boundaries of the region of Kosovo. Its not merely a political area.. if anything, the latter was built around the former. The Republic of Macedonia is a political area as well, but since it isn't identical with the region there's no problem of this sort (and the Macedonia region is perhaps an even more disputed Balkans area, a five-sided dispute, no less!). -- Director (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "region" holds inherent flexibility (except when it's a proper name, such as for French subdivisions), so the fact we're dealing with a place with delineated boundaries makes it a political area. CMD (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The only reason we are using a "political" map (i.e. one that shows country borders) is, as I said, the fact that for most readers countries are the most natural and most accessible frame of reference for locating stuff. – But, now that I think of it, and as you mention the argument about the "encyclopedic information" of "where this 'Serbia' is", there's another argument that might lead me to come down in favour of the shadowing: since this is the article not merely about the present-day status of Kosovo but also about its history, one might argue it makes sense to show it in relation to a territory to which, undoubtedly, it did belong until recently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FPS, this "new" map is here without any consensus of agreement. If you finds it questionable, then propose new solution, but old map must be restored, until new consensus. Revert your self, your breached 1RR rule on this article, and you may be reported for that. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

From a neutral observer's point of view, how about File:Kosovo in its region.svg? It neither highlights Serbia nor Albania but only Kosovo, and it presents Kosovo in a closer region (eastern Mediterrean) than the "Kosovo in Europe" maps. If you apply the 500px zoom or higher, you'll find that it has two different styles of political borders: solid lines for sovereign states and a dashed line at the Kosovo/Serbia proper border. I think this could be a politically unobtrusive and graphically appealing compromise. De728631 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd still like to give Serbia the lightest shade of grey there. While it is different from a map of Europe, the main point of contention is the sole highlighting of Kosovo. And the dashed line is, unfortunately, not visible (and if it were, I fear the map would then be unacceptable from the Albanian point of view). -- Director (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It is too similar with this map which is pushed without any agreement at the moment on the page. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me; again, purely on grounds of readability and graphical clarity of information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm withdrawing here. WhiteWriter and his buddy Antidiskriminator just started yet another disruptive attempt to rename an article to a distinctly pro-Serbian nationalist title. The very fact I'm agreeing with WhiteWriter thus makes me feel like I should perhaps re-evaluate my position.. -- Director (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, DIREKTOR, you are not agreeing with me, but with your common sense. Dont leave conversation, nothing good will go out of that. Each page for its self. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Points taken. I assume though that the physical map shown in the infobox is not disputed. It does has a small embedded locator map showing "this map in Europe". So do we even need a seperate map for the region? Those who'd like to see a geographical context can click the thumbnail of the physical map for a full view and check the embedded locator map. If there's so much discontent with either version of a regional map then let's not have that at all. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i agree. That would be the best and easiest solution. Agree to remove the map. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think an intermediate level of locator – between the detailed physical map and its own locator inset, which is tiny – is useful. The purpose is to allow the reader to visualize the place in relation to the surrounding countries, which neither of the two others do. I don't agree with the easy way out of destroying useful reader-friendly information merely because it conflicts with the political over-sensitivities of a few editors here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If we keep a locator, I think the in its region map would be better than the Europe one, being much easier to obtain detail from at a quick glance. CMD (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I among others disagree with this wrong map, per reasons explained above. I insist to restore consensus version until all users agree on new one. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What you call the "consensus version" actually doesn't even get the basic geographical facts right. As somebody noticed on the AN discussion you opened yesterday [6], the geographic shape it shows is simply in the wrong place. So, no, now that we know this, that map is out completely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, and how about a map which looks like first one (standard version) comprise the area of third one, and have shaded Serbia? --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that would be an improvement. If we want pure geographic facts and no political implications, then the only clean solution is no colouring except for that which shows us where Kosovo itself is. No colouring = no political claims. Colouring = political claims. It is as simple as that, and you can shout and holler and refuse to listen until you're blue in the face. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are again distorting the facts. Borders = political connotations, not colors. I added new proposed map above. Then, if you are so fond of no coloring, remove red color from this map. I would agree on that then. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You have crossed the line into "WP:IDHT" territory, so this discussion is now over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And you have failed WP:POINT long time ago, but people must live with that. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Fut.Perf.; I think the new map is clearly better. This is an article about Kosovo; let's have a map showing Kosovo; simple. Personally, I'm quite surprised that WhiteWriter pushed so hard and so long for a kosovo-the-disputed-state article to be separate from the kosovo-the-area-of-land article... and then feels that the latter article must have a map which shows as part of the Serbian state. bobrayner (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is unfortunately not neutral, as you insisted that Kosovo is independent and neutral state like France or Germany. Therefor, your view is not neutral, but highly pro Kosovo. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time you tried to exclude the input of those who do not agree with your stance on Kosovo; you really ought to stop that. It's rather corrosive to the wikipedia way of editing. I realise that it's much easier to get a consensus if you can silence the people who disagree with you, but the repeated polls to split the article are far behind us. Anyway, back on topic: This is an article about Kosovo, so let's have a map which shows Kosovo. It's quite simple. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Map removal

I am proposing to remove current map of Kosovo, and leave only Kosovo physical map per several reasons. First, as map does not have shaded Serbia, it imply that Kosovo is not disputed, nor pert of Serbia for the majority of the world, but only independent, which is wrong per WP:NPOV, and current Kosovo status. Yes, this is article about region, but as we cannot present this fact in neutral faction, we should remove the problem. Then, this map is exquisitely ugly, and it is not used anywhere on wikipedias, i suppose per its questionable quality. Map is also tilted, as you may see from the locations of eastern countries, and comparation with some other maps. Then, Kosovo physical map have its own locator, and that one can be used without any further problems. Who wants to know more about locations, have several articles in the lede. --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No. We are not going to destroy useful, reader-friendly information just because of the intransigent political hyper-sensitivities of a few editors who think that any presentation that fails to explicitly favour their view is ipso facto non-neutral. No stop beating the dead horse; your level of stubbornness is disruptive and I will have to report you at AE for the sheer tediousness of your refusal to listen if you continue like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont see any problem with normal dispute resolution process. As far as i see, only you disagree to remove this problematic and non neutral map, while several users agreed or proposed removal, so we will see what neutral users say about that. Problem can be avoided also, if not fixed. What we should do, as map is not useful, reader-friendly in its current form... And we already have that in physical map. Lets see, FPS, it may be useful for all of us. And i would be much more informed just to see at least someone neutral. That is the main reason for this... Also, i would propose you to calm a bit down, all of this is not so much important at the end, so lets keep it communicative and peaceful. --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I tend to agree with FPS regarding your stubbornness. In the discussion above, you seem to be the only one not interested in a compromise but you keep insisting on your point of view. Several editors have already objected to removing a regional map, so let me propose another solution that might as well display the disputed status of Kosovo. A map similar to this could be created that highlights both Serbia and Albania in complementary colours and Kosovo in a mixed colour, e.g. light blue, pink and purple. That way we'd represent both sides of the medal. De728631 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's well-intentioned, but I don't think it would work. There is no competing viewpoint that Kosovo belongs to Albania. Either it's part of Serbia, or it isn't part of anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am quite sorry you think that, De728631, as i really want to compromise, but i am afraid that highlighting Albania would be very wrong. Albania is not participating in the medal. There are several views. Kosovo is Serbia (Serbian POV, Kosovo presented in the same color as Serbia), Kosovo is independent (Kosovo Albanian POV, Only Kosovo highlighted, as it is now) And Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (This is my POV, and by that i would somehow show that Kosovo is de facto independent, but officially is largely unrecognized.) That was the reason for highlighting Serbia, with Kosovo in main color. This was done following agreement we had on this page. I would really appreciate opinion on this, as it looks like to me we are all talking in the same direction, but only disagreeing in the technical way to achieve that. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No-one would show Kosovo in the same colour as Serbia in a map of Kosovo. That would be highly inconvenient, as an understatement. CMD (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I just tried to play around with Inkscape and I now think that a multi-coloured version would be unsuitable for colour-blind people anyway. So either we shade Kosovo and Serbia in different hues or we only highlight Kosovo and are left with the question of how to represent the borders. As to previous agreements, consensus can change, and since you mentioned de-facto-independence let's have a look at the existing options. Commons:SVG locator maps of Kosovo (location map scheme) has some "de facto" maps which are either not readable at all or look quite similar to the current map. And then there is File:Kosovo in Balkans.png which looks like it would suit all requirements of neutrality since all surroundings are highlighted alike with no country being preferred or neglected – a non-political map that only shows Kosovo in its region, something we'd like to have here. And then there's also File:Kosovo in Europe (less biased).svg showing an unobtrusive Serbia in the background but then the map's frame is again all of Europe and the grey on blue combination makes it look awkward at small sizes (200px or so). De728631 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

this is great for me. Here may be questioned why is entire Balkan highlighted, it looks like a federation, or European union style map... So, what do you propose at the end, De728631? --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And i created same map, but in our wished size. This one is also great for me, it is colour-blind friendly per lines, and it represent only Balkan as agreed.

--WhiteWriter^speaks 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the hatching supposed to do, and how do you believe it is different from just highlighting? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read this discussion. De728631 said that multi-coloured version would be unsuitable, and that is ok for me. Also, it look less biased then any map presented before this one. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. What is the hatching meant to express? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the thing already explained, that region of Kosovo is disputed between two political entities. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How would hatching in an area outside Kosovo express any such thing? It just doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it represent other political entity. That is the way to present both sides. One side is just Kosovo, other side is Serbia with Kosovo. As this is about Kosovo, that region is in main color. Without it, there is no way to present any dispute, in a easy understanding way. That is the reason why is this map more neutral than that one in the article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(outdent): Look, here's a very simple free lesson about map design. If you want to use hatching between two colours in order to express an uncertain or disputed status of something, it only works if the hatched area contrasts with two adjacent areas represented by the two pure colours in question. Say, you have a solid red area that stands for "X", and a solid blue area that stands for "Y", then a hatched red-blue area may be understood as "not-quite-X-and-not-quite-Y". Easy. Here, you have a solid gray area (meaning "territories that are not Kosovo"), and you have a white-and-gray hatched area. But where's the solid white area for it to contrast with, and if there was one, what would it mean? "A territory that is not Kosovo, but of which Kosovo is a part"? If you had such an area, then a hatched one would mean "A territory that some consider Kosovo to be a part of while others don't". But you don't have one, so the reader has no way of understanding what you mean by your stripes. Without this contrast, hatching is just another fancy way of highlighting. You've already been told why you can't have highlighting; this version changes nothing about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not "just another fancy way of highlighting". It serves to distinct the territory of Serbia without Kosovo from the rest of the world.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is precisely what highlighting in a solid colour does too. Duh. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant data! We are disusing minor, non important fragment, and i think that you are just moving away from the subject. You should show your own will to compromise, and tell what we can create in order to replace this map. You are talking bad thinks about my stubbornness, and you first didn't show even smallest compromise toward different opinions. I will never agree on blank map of kosovo, presented like independent sovereign state as it is now. Absolutely everything else is open to agreement. --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There's only one way that readers are likely to interpret that image; that Kosovo is in some way a part of Serbia. Which is why it is inherently non-neutral, incompatible with the situation on the ground, and should not be used. All the other territories on that map are made "distinct" from Kosovo by the simple expedient of shading them grey; since this article is about Kosovo rather than Serbia, I cannot fathom why Serbia should be made some other colour. bobrayner (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, File:Kosovo in Balkans.png (→) seems to be the best solution for me since it avoids all political bias by highliting the Balkans peninsula as such (one might argue that Romania are missing) but it does not give weight to anything in terms of Kosovo vs Serbia. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That map looks reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as reasonable as the one we have now – but I'm not really sure why we would want to highlight the Balkan countries, as a group. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I'd be happy to keep the current File:Kosovo in its region.svg too. To remove the map completely would be unhelpful for readers. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am leaving this awful nationalist troll fest. Not a single useful proposition, while minority POV is pushed without consensus, logic or agreement. Every sentence repeated in circles, up to TLDR. Shameful. I am leaving this circus, do as you want. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)