Talk:Kosovo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Kosovo.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Peer review Kosovo has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Former article talkpages (archived)
Kosova
Republic of Kosovo
Kosovo (geopolitical region)


Contents

[edit] Dardania to Kosovo

Please can someone reverse edits made in Kosovo article, page has been vandalised by MK013 by removing the historicall part of the Kingdom of Dardania. Ballkanhistory 3:17PM, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The article Kingdom of Dardania is redirected to Dardani and there is no such kingdom mentioned. Perhaps you should fix that article first, if this kingdom indeed existed. Until then, I am removing the statement from Kosovo article because the lack of sources. --Tone 13:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, a "kingdom" in the Iron Age means simply a tribe with a tribal leader. There are "kings of the Dardani" mentioned (Monunius), but the Dardani never had any stable political entity. In fact, they appear to have invaded the region only a few decades before the Roman conquest, but this is uncertain, because it is essentially part of prehistory, and we have no idea of the ethnic identity of the peoples listed under "Illyrians" by classical authors. There is no reason whatsoever to burden the introduction to this article with speculation on Iron Age tribal geography. dab (𒁳) 13:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Some nationalists over-emphasize certain historical entities, embuing them with the status of some kind of early states, as if to legitimise today's territorial claims. In reality, there is no proof at all that ALbanians are the descendents of Dardanians or Illyrians; or that the Dardanian "kingdom" was anything more than a tribe. Hxseek (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Albanians are Illyrians there are many facts and soon will come more facts belive me, and the Kingdom of Dardania or ancient Dardania was from Nis to Skup wich tells about the lands that Albanians had and that they are a nativ balkan people. Ballkanhistory 12:33 AM, 12 MAY 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but your above statement only shows your ignorance on the topic. Please feel free to acquaint yourself with some real history rather than regurgitating nationalistic folklore Hxseek (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
indeed. "Albanians are Illyrians there are many facts and soon will come more facts belive me" is pretty much a textbook example of the attitude we are talking about here. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That is true. The very first State in the region was the Roman Empire.
BTW, the Dardanians were Thracians as much as Illyrians, if not more. Some sort of direct claims of heritage are identical to the by now almost extinct SerboSlavonic Autochtonous School, according to which the Serb ethnogenesis occurred in the 4th century in the Balkans themselves. It's mostly based on archaeology and linguistics and yes, if you start reading it (e.g. Jovan I. Deretic) you would say how everything fits in perfectly!!! It must be true as if it's some 9-11 book.
The precise heritage of the Dardanians cam freely be claimed by Serbs and Greeks, if not more than Albanians. There are a lot of Dardani remains amongst the Serbs (the name of the major City of Nish, etc...). Of course, Albanian nationalists would come and claim the entire ancient culture for themselves, meaning that they would claim most of Serbia as of Albanian heritage, and not Dardanian-Thracian-Illyrian in specific.
Actually Hxseek, though there is no strong & concrete proof, we could conclude that the Albanians were most probably Illyrianized; compare that to the possible slavicization of the Serbs from the Caucasus. The Roman findings definitely depict an ancient Albanian tribe in the vicinity of the region of Kroja in central-north today's Albania, which was Illyrianized with the migration of Illyrians southwards.
Illyrian tribes
Illyrian tribes
And in precise, the Albanian tribe - if Illyrian - was only a tiny and extremely small part of the massive Illyria (the Liburni, etc... see List of Illyrian tribes). There were some Albanian nationalists claiming all of this depicted in the image as Albania, but that is nonsensical. A good hypothetical comparison would be this one: Russia disperses as a state, and the Serbs claim Vladivostok, called Vladingtau by the Chinese (which own half of the globe). The Serbs emphasize that "Vladingtau" was originally (before the City was nuked by the Chegussetians - a new mixture people of the two Caucasian civilizations - in WWIII) "Vladivostok", and claim the Far east as ancient Serb land, or better said when they populate it, use it for a political effort of historical nationalist justification (as if it would really matter). Joking aside, according to a very popular theory (at least historically), the name "Serb" was the original name for all Slavs - because as we know the name "Slavs" draws its origin in foreign origin, Rome. In the end, only the Serbs and Lusatian Sorbs that kept this name to the 21st century (also Croats probably, as hrb/srv/whatever was possibly just a different interpretation of the one same word). This, naturally, doesn't prevent some madmen to claim you-know-what... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the God Dardanus and the Asian Dardania - especially in conjunction with Ancient Greek mythology, and more so the documents of the Roman writers on our European Dardania (migration of the dispersed Trojans to the central Balkans and degradation of the civilization), implying that the Dardanians were most probably under first Thracian and then Illyrian influence both Illyrianized and Thracizied, altogether are very hardly a coincidence. In any case, assuming a direct civilization of the Thraco-Illyrian Dardanians and Illyrian(ized or not) Albanians is evidently impossible to any historical eye, and serves primarily to the admixture of nationalist and political purpose. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. It is a possibility the Venetians and other Italians were of Illyrian origin, or at least Illyrianized...thus, if one starts to research the whole Balkans and all Illyrians in general, he or she will realize the national-romantic mythologies almost immediately (Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were in the 19th century overobsessed how they were Illyirians and the "most autochtonous peoples" when compared to the others - Ottoman and Habsburg *occupiers*). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So what shall we do with Kingdom of Daradnia now? The article says nothing of the kingdom, just of the tribe. If we are to mention this kingdom in the intro, then we should at least have a decent article (from the history I see that there's been some mess about this recently). Any suggestions? --Tone 16:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, don't mention any Kingdom nonsense. :) Beam 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your decision to remove the reference to the Kingdom of Dardania is arbitrary. This is not a discussion about the indigenous people of the Balkan Peninsula, but about efforts to maintain a bit of neutrality in this article that is essentially an original research of some Wikipedia users. The Kingdom of Dardania did exist and this is common knowledge about the history of the region. As to the discussion, it is clearly being controlled by people of Slavic ancestry and this is not helpful as long as they stick to their point of view.--Getoar (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Getoar, we have already talked about these Barbarian "Kings". And there was especially no such thing as a "Kingdom of Dardania". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ( 1007 )

Why does this article mention "central Serbia"? I changed that once to [Republic of Serbia] as it SHOULD be. The Central Serbia is an attempt to show Kosova's geographical location towards the center of Serbia (subtle Kosova = Serbia). I think it's non-POV of me to request the [Central Serbia] ---> [Republic of Serbia]. Kosova200868.114.198.210 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As Pax explained it on my talk page "Central Serbia" is just what that section of land is called, it's not a comment on the existence of a "South Serbia." Please leave it alone. Beam 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
it is undisputed that Kosovo borders on Central Serbia. This is true regardless of its status. It is disputed whether Kosovo borders on the Republic of Serbia, depending on whether you think it is part of that. dab (𒁳) 12:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Does America (USA) border Canada or Central Canada? Kosova2008

68.114.196.137 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kosova2008. Kosovo borders on Republic of Serbia and not Central Serbia. If this is not changed the artice will be pro-Serbian.--Noah30 (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No offense but of course you do because you're pushing your own POV instead of NPOV. Beam 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Canada is not a disputed territory with the United States. Kosovo is a disputed territory with Serbia. From the Serbian perspective, what they deem as the province of Kosovo borders Central Serbia. Please do not respond by arguing that the Albanian claim is more legitimate, I have heard this over and over again and it goes nowhere, because Serbs will respond that from a legal perspective, Kosovo as a province cannot unilaterally separate from Serbia as it was not given the legal ability to separate. The fact remains that the territory is disputed.--R-41 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The United States of America do not border central Canada, but British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. And I am not aware of USA's disputed status as a part or not part of Canada. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)r

How Serbia is divided
How Serbia is divided

Here's the division from 1945. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosova?

Since I don't know Albanian, I was wondering if someone who does can explain to me why the Albanians (Kosovars, Kosovar Albanians, whatever) call it KosovA. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.73.240 (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the name of the place. Kosova is the modern day Dardania, the Serbs to emphasize OWNERSHIP by cultural opression (changing names) have added the O and added the metohija which means in English "church land". Please sign your posts so next time I can reply on your page instead of here. Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
User from IP address is asking other one to sign. LOL :) What I understand from this answer is that Albanians are calling it KosovA because Serbs are calling it KosovO? Better check this Names of Kosovo. Kosovo is regular Slavic word and theory that it is modified kosova just makes no sense. Or maybe Bulgarians, Polish, Russians, Macedonians and others also changed their name from Albanian origin? --Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Who cares how the serbs are calling Kosova? They may even call it Humpty-Dumpty, nobody in Kosova would care. It's none of their business any longer as Kosova is independent now. And "Metohija" is a new serbian invention aimed to split Kosova. But they will not succeed. There is only one and united Kosova and it belongs to the people living there. One simple question, given that Kosova is serbias cradle and the child inside is Albanian: Does the cradle belong to the child or does the child belong to the cradle? But this is only a hypothetical question as Kosova is not serbias cradle. Serbs came from Siberia, they are russians, so Siberia is the cradle for serbs. Farewell! --Tubesship (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of you need to go find a forum where you can spout your nationalistic POV rhetoric. It's not wanted at Wikipedia. Regards, Beam 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, i was going to reply to you but somehow it didn't make it so just the "at Beam" came out. 'Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, thats why I wrote: Farewell! --Tubesship (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Igor the name of Kosova was Dardania..now its Kosova..you Serbs never enjoyed this idea that Kosova belongs to Kosovars so you guys began re-writting history such as the battle of 1389 and the SAMU morandums. The battle of 1389 was fought between Albanians, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonian's, etc vs the Ottomans not soley between Ottomans and Serbs...this was done to create a Serbian Nationalism...next was by Serbian Science and blah blah aka SAMU who created the famous bogus report of how Kosovars are genociding Serbs in Kosovo...which later Milosevic used to get into power. @BEAM, Kosova2008 68.187.142.80 (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you calling me a Serb? I'm an American, k2k8. Beam 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


A simple explanation would be that countries in Albanian language do not have a -o suffix. Almost all countries have -a suffix. Amerika, Polonia, Italia, Greqia, Suedia, Anglia, Serbia etc etc. --Noah30 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct Albanian version of "Kosovo" is "Kosovë".Kosova translates as in "The" Kosovo.(whatever that grammatic form is called.I'm not a linguist.)So what's the fuss about?.Amenifus (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Both are correct, like Prishtina and Prishtinë. And like Noah said, there is no country with an "o" at the end and like Americo or Serbio sounds strange to you so does Kosovo to us. --Tubesship (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of member-countries of NATO, EU, WEU and OECD have recognized Kosovo as independent.So Kosova is not independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.67.93 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it's Kosovo. Pretty easy to remember too because it's a fact! Awesome! Beam 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian churches

Serbian churches are a huge part of the culture thus they should be illustrated with this picture. The picture will be made by me, but the information that is shown will be cited when I reedit the page per your requiest. Concensus is unfair and unwikipedia friendly in Kosovos' case, since this issues is emotional and a lot of Albanians will most likely go against it even tho it perfectly reflects the culture of Kosovo. Are there any concerns?Mike Babic (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


The reason I reverted you was that I looked at copyright status. It says that you, the uploader, are the copyright holder. That makes it Original Research, since you made it. I'd also recommend that you upload an image that covers all the religious facilities, not jut churches. What about mosques or synagogues? The section is called "Ethnic and cultural diversity" not "Serbian Orthodox Churches in Kosovo." If you have some sort of image that is from a reputable source covering multiple religions, that would be great. And seriously, no need to push your Serbian POV with this image space. Use an image that represents the whole of "Ethnic and cultural diversity."

If you want to include this image, after you find a source for it that isn't you (with correct copyright status), than you'd still have to discuss it with all the other editors. I remember the last time you or someone else tried to include an image with just Serbian churches in it. It did not gain consensus.

To summarize the reasons I will revert you again: dubious copyright status/OR, undue weight/doesn't represent the section, the consensus was NOT to include an image regarding Serbian Churches in Kosovo and with that being so you'd need to go get consensus PRIOR to including this image (or images about Serbian Orthodox Churches in general) in the article. Beam 15:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm not here to write a whole article by myself. A census was never requisted on this image. My picture is cited, not copyprotected and a great contribution to the religion section.Mike Babic (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Manastiri.jpg
Serbian Churches that are found in Kosovo
[1]Mike Babic (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
did you actually make that image yourself? it's funny that the official website of the diocese gives no credit to the creator... or if you did create it whilst working there, we might be looking at a COI. ninety:one 11:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
this image is controversial how? It isn't original research by a Wikipedian, we found it on a Serbian govermnemt website. It is clearly undisputed that there are a lot of churches in Kosovo. If you can present a better source, everyone will thank you. I don't see the problem. dab (𒁳) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article need a picture of just Serbian churches? Why not all types of places of worship? Why present a certain POV? Also, I'd prefer to use sources that aren't Mike_Babic. I have no problem with the POV that Serbians feel that they own Kosovo and it's there cradle blah blah blah but I just don't think it has a place in the article. Beam 15:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware that there are any churches in Kosovo that aren't Serbian Orthodox. I don't care if the Serbs think they own Kosovo etc., but the fact that Kosovo has a cultural heritage of Orthodox Christianity is rather independent of that question. dab (𒁳) 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
There are no other places of worship? Really? No Mosques, Roman Catholic Churches, or Synagogues? What? Beam 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
i think it's POV to have the image without comparisons to other religions. if a punter comes along and sees 'oh, they only have a map of churches, they must be the most important' that is not a good thing. plus the copyright status of the image is contested. ninety:one 16:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well I'm asking: Are there other religious facilities? I'll have to go look it up myself if I get no answer. I've been doing most of my Kosovo research regarding the economy and I'd hate to stop that and use my research time on Churches/Mosques/Synagogues. Beam 16:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Three things:
Orthodox churches in Kosovo
Orthodox churches in Kosovo
01. “Serbian church” is not a precise term, since there are catholic and protestant churches in Serbia, too. So if a map points to Serbian churches, it should contain what kind of church they are;
02. There is already a image very similar (and better-designed) here in Wikipedia about the borders of the orthodox diocese borders and orthodox churches located in Kosovo (just see the image to the right);
03. What is the real reference from these maps? They should point to a verifiable link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticetnik (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure the Baptists, the Promise Keepers and the Zen Buddhists have got some basement in Pristina by now. But this is about historic churches, not the yellow pages. Kosovo used to be Ottoman, so you'd expect mosques besides Orthodox churches. But our lack of information on mosques shouldn't prevent us from covering what information we have on Orthodox churches. According to this, there were 607 mosques in Kosovo as of 1993, the majority (>300) dating from Ottoman times (pre 1918), of which some 200 were destroyed or damaged during the war. I don't know how many of these mosques are at all notable, but it would seem that it should be possible to compile a "map of mosques in Kosovo" just as impressive as the map of churches and monasteries. dab (𒁳) 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, dab, but are these really all historic churches? I don't see any indication to that effect. In other parts of the Balkans, most churches definitely tend to be much younger. And even if they are, so what? I really don't see any point in visualising their number. There's nothing special about it. Wherever you go in Europe, every village has at least one church. In many areas it's quite common for a single village to have a dozen little chapels additionally. Since it is uncontroversial that Kosovo always had some level of Christian population, why would anyone expect it to be an exception? I share the feeling that the map, by visually suggesting the multitude of churches was something uncommon and special, will act as insinuating a POV statement that is really not warranted.
Besides, it was just pointed out above that the actual image is a copyvio anyway, so we'll have little choice but to speedy it. (Fair use is obviously not an option here, as it would be replaceable.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad you get what I'm talking about. If the article only presents a graphic representation of one religion, it will imply that only that religion has a major influence. Unless that is true, and there is only one. But without researching I was under the impression that there were a lot of Mosques at the least, as well as a few prominent Catholic churches. I'd just like to be fair in our graphic representation of religion. Beam 17:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

@beam: given that 87% of kosovo is muslim, i'd wager that there's the odd mosque ;) @anticetnik: the image is from http://kosovo.net. the minority xian denomination is catholic, so i'd imagine there are almost no protestants at all ninety:one 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. That's what I figured. Beam 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, they use Pristina in that site. warning (graphic images) And meh, after clicking around there it seems like a propaganda site to me. I don't believe that's a reputable site as far as sources and citations go. Beam 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather call this site as a documentation site, not a propaganda one. For sure, it is covering only one (Serbian) side, but everything is very well illustrated at that site.

@antichetnik: 1. there is a difference between "Serbian churches" and "Churches in Serbia". So "Serbian Churches found in Kosovo" is precise. 2. The other map is better designed. But it covers only 5% of churches. And it has veeeery problematic title. Also, there's no reason to point out only Bogorodica Ljeviška.

--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the point is one of irreplaceable cultural heritage in terms of buildings, not active places of worship. It figures that there are enough mosques to accommodate Kosovo's Muslims, but we are discussing the churches because they are rare medieval buildings, not because they are in use. I wish we could detach this point from the "Kosovo and Serbia" question, but it will be difficult, becaus in the Middle Ages (the time these churches were built) Kosovo was, of course, part of the Serbian kingdom. That's 700 years ago now, but that's precisely why these churches are so special. dab (𒁳) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

we'd be hard pushed to explain or convince people that is why the image is there though. ninety:one 21:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dab, we can't assume that the readership "figures that there are enough mosques", or even figures that Kosovo is muslim. Beam 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbian religion is a huge part of history of Kosovo. The picture illustrates the magnitude of this.24.36.19.38 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Meh, what do you mean "huge part of history"? Beam 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The question is "do you have a (contra)argument or not?" Questions such as "what do you mean by huge part of history" are just prolonging the discussion without any sense. Please be constructive. --Ml01172 (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What? Beam 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The picture stays then. It is a great condtirution since it clearly shows the extent of Serbian Christian influence in Kosovo.Mike Babic (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Picture need to be deleted because of copyright problem. "Creator" of this image has been earlier suspected by me that he is making copyright violations. "His first pictures" has been deleted because of missing information on its copyright status [1] . Maybe I am mistaking but after this first deletings he has learned how to write false copyright information so new pictures has survived (example:image Cuvari Hristova groba has been deleted on 20 March, but he has recreated picture on 24 and because of new "OK writen copyright information" picture has survived [2]). Now we are having evidence that user:Mike Babic is writing false copyright information because image manastiri is copy of image on site www.kosovo.net (first and second picture). Similar thing he has done with Croatian historical map (Mike Babic, www.croatia-in-english.com). Now I will start action that all pictures created by Mike Babic are deleted from wikipedia and he is banned from "creating" new pictures--Rjecina (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I may have endorsed this image prematurely. If we get reliable sources on really remarkable churches, fine, but this appears to be mostly territorial behaviour, viz. showing a map sprinkled with "Serbian" churches. It is true that Kosovo is suffused with Serbian Orthodox heritage, but it is just as true it is suffused with Muslim heritage. No need to enter a graphical arms race on this. dab (𒁳) 08:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, remove the picture immediately. Replace with one that shows ALL signifigant religious institutions as I had suggested. Beam 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy to see you agree with me. I raised the same problem some months ago, but because of the wrong perception you had of me, you were agaisnt everything I wrote or proposed. Yes there are some very old Orthodox churches in Kosovo dating back from 14 and 15 Century, but these were not Serbian but belonged to all the people that lived in Kosovo: Albanian, Serbians, Aromanians etc etc. Later on when the Albanians converted to Islam, these churches began to become exclusively Serbian. As for the moques, in Kosovo you have a mosque in every village despite Albanians being quite secular. In Prishtina and Prizren and some othe cities you have very old moques dating back from 15 and 16th Century. You have also many Catholic (Albanian) churches in Prishtina, Prizren, Gjakova, Peja and many other cities. The maps added by Mike are for political and propaganda purposes. --Noah30 (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. The sooner you realize that when I disgaree with you it's not because I'm some Serbian POV pusher but because i'm a NPOV pusher the better. Beam 15:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Euro currency

Should it not be noted, as it normally is on Wikipedia, that Kosovo is not an official member of the Eurozone? This is normally noted with a note like "Adopted unilaterally; Kosovo is not a formal member of the Eurozone." as it is in the Montenegro page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

mention this in the Economy section Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
well, I agree it belongs in the infobox, as seen on Montenegro. dab (𒁳) 07:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European Parlament says it recognises Kosovo Independence

Jelko Kacin, European Parliament Reporter about Serbia said in Brussels yesterday that the meeting of the representatives of the European Parliament and Kosovo Parliament in Brussels have marked recognition of Kosovo independence. The flag of ‘independent Kosovo’ was raised on the mast. Kacin confirmed that to be recognition of Kosovo by the European Parliament. source: http://www.blic.co.yu/news.php?id=2236 Also: Brussels: The European Parliament (EP) in Brussels on Wednesday witnessed the Kosovo delegation appearing in EP under the flag of “independent Kosovo”. This was the first time this flag was officially hoisted at one of the EU institutions. (Doris) Pack said, “Kosovo’s constitution is envisaged under the Ahtisaari plan and we supported the plan with a two-third majority at the EP, and that’s why this meeting is held with Kosovo’s flag.” source: http://eyugoslavia.com/kosovo/28/kosovo-delegation-appears-in-european-parliament-with-independent-kosovo-flag-22300 --Tubesship (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


The headline is "Kosovo Delegation Appears In European Parliament With 'Independent Kosovo' Flag", not "European Parlament recognises Kosovo Independence". But I agree that it looks like it won't be too long before the EU recognizes the RoK. dab (𒁳) 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah obviously it's not a recognition as some wish, but it's definitely leading down that road! Beam 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with you. The article writes: "EU deputies on Kosovo, Kacin: We have recognized independence", Blic(Serbian newspaper). European parliament have recognized the Republic of Kosova as an independent country. Why I am saying this? 2/3 of EP voted in favour of Ahtisaari-plan, and what says Ahtisaari plan? Kosovo should get supervised independence. This is very simple. --Noah30 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
'Pack said, “Kosovo’s constitution is envisaged under the Ahtisaari plan and we supported the plan with a two-third majority at the EP, and that’s why this meeting is held with Kosovo’s flag.”'
and
'This was the first time this flag was officially hoisted at one of the EU institutions.' (This is why we should include THIS info) Kosova2008 68.114.196.137 (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

European Parliament did not say it will recognize Kosovo's independence. Косовска Митровица (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

please be reasonable. Voting for the Ahtisaari-plan is not recognizing independence. It amounts to saying "it would be nice if Kosovo was legally independent one day". dab (𒁳) 12:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mitrovica

I have reverted link in intro from Mitrovica back to Kosovska Mitrovica. Reason is simple. We should avoid links to disambiguation pages like Mitrovica. I see no proof for Noah30's explanation that Wikipedia uses only Mitrovica since article is called the other way.

However I did not change article text in order to have balanced intro. In order to avoid this kind of linking in future I suggest adding comment like this in article:

<--Please do not link this name to article Mitrovica since Mitrovica is disambiguation page-->

--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (and I fixed your Noah link) Beam 12:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Esentially, Mitrovica should be used instead of Mitrovica (scroll over links), because the former leads to the article being referred to, whereas the latter leads to a dab page. Simple piping. BalkanFever
That's what he did. Beam 13:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant in the future; I'm just clarifying so that this doesn't become a lame and utterly useless edit war like the Pristina problem we had a while ago (when the article location had a diacritic). BalkanFever 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm all about avoiding problems. That Pristina thing pisses me off still, I read stories in CNN to this day, and other places (local newspapers), and it's PRISTINA! Argh. Lol... or not lol. :( Beam 13:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The Economy of Kosovo

The economy of Kosovo has been affected by the Bosnian War and Kosovo War in the 1990s, and recent political instability. Issues with infrastructure such as an unreliable electric grid impede economic process. Nevertheless, in the city of Pristina there have been recent additions of new cafes and shopping malls. Currently Kosovo imports about USD 1.9 billion with exports only at USD 130 million a net deficit of USD 1.77 billion. With projected political stability and a continuing process of diplomatic relations with the West, the Kosovo economy is expected to benefit. The unemployment rate is estimated at 50%.
Natural resources available in Kosovo include 14 billion tons of lignite coal reserves which in the future will be used to fuel a new power plant by the year 2012. Other resources, as British geologists found during a recent survey, include minerals such as deposits of nickel, lead, zinc cadmium, bauxite, and small amounts of gold.
The main area of attention regarding Kosovo's economy has been the infrastructure. According to the World Bank, with political stability and infrastructure improvement the energy sector will bring opportunity for economic advancement. With foreign investment creating jobs for the local population, especially the youth, both poverty and unemployment can be reduced. Also, agriculture has been looked into as another potential source for economic growth. Kosovo's neighbors, including Serbia proper, will play a significant role in future economics. Turkey, as of February 2008, has pledged greater economic ties. Turkey states that nearly 90% of consumer goods found in Kosovo are of Turkish origin, and with massive amounts of capital Kosovo can build a sound infrastructure. Serbia, followed by Macedonia and Turkey respectively, is Kosovo's biggest trading partner. Serbia will play a vital role in Kosovo's economy with both regions depending on each other for trade.

(paragraph1)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/world/europe/05kosovo.html (paragraph2)http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/KOSOVOEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20629286~menuPK:297777~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:297770,00.html#Economy (paragraph2)http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=97108

This is by me and BalkanFever. I'd like to incorporate some of the existing economy stuff in the article now, if it's cited. All of the sources I used for this are very recent and reputable. So, let's do it! WOOT! F*** YEAH, THE ECONOMY OF KOSOVO!!!! ;) Beam 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your continued efforts. I have taken the liberty of introducing some tweaks[3], including the striking of a sentence devoid of information value ("assuming things will get better, things will get better"). I support inclusion of the paragraph. Any particular reason why you give values in USD rather than EUR? dab (𒁳) 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I took that part you striked out directly from the sources. Paraphrased of course. I figured a little insight would help a reader swallow the facts. And I used USD because that's what the sources used. Beam 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

well, it's not a big deal. But adapting your source to Wikipedia's voice, the currency should be converted to EUR (because that's the currency used locally), and predictions (such as ";projected political stability") should be attributed. dab (𒁳) 05:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still going to be working on this shortly, just haven't had the time! Beam 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gjeravica/Đeravica

From the history:

  1. (cur) (last) 11:29, 3 June 2008 Beamathan (Talk | contribs) (68,784 bytes) (I believe Gjeravica is the anglocized version of Đeravica. Please try to gain consensus that it isn't before that specific edit. I do agree with your other edit regarding the basin though. :)) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 11:12, 3 June 2008 Ev (Talk | contribs) m (68,784 bytes) (→Geography: Metohija basin -> Metohija basin | Gjeravica -> Đeravica (for consistency with the article on Đeravica ——— see WP:NCGN#General guidelines #3) (undo)

Beam, "Gjeravica" is the Albanian form. There is no anglicised version. The closest thing to an English form would be "Djeravica" (Dj for Đ) or "Deravica" (drop the diacritic).

That being said, I don't know what we should call it here. Maybe "Đeravica/Gjeravica" since it only appears once. Any thoughts? BalkanFever 12:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, and apology to Ev. I had read that version somewhere and am an asshole for making an assumption. I have gone with the the slashes for now. Beam 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But I would prefer the Djeravica version eventually. Let's see if there is consensus for that, if not we'll keep the slashes. Beam 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't take GJ and D and make "Djeravica". Gjeravica is the correct name..but if you wish to use the Yugoslavian name (1974) instead of the Kosovar/UNMIK (2000) name "Gjeravica" go right ahead. Also we really got to polish the economy section, it is very confusing, we need more information and more clarity. Kosova2008 69.29.70.177 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if we can't find an agreeable anglo'd version I say the slashes are good, which I have enacted! Beam 02:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rule of law section

Hello. I added "dubious" template to a statement under the section "Rule of law". I did this because of many reasons. As I earlier have explained the accuracy of the statement can not be confirmed since we do not have the name of the UN policemen/official that said what has been quoted here. In the article we are writing what some opinionists with an anti-Albanian (Kosovo) bias have written about someone unnamed sayinga about Kosovo. The article is not a realiable source and in addition it claims that someone said something but we do not have any evidence and this is I believe against the Wikipedia rules about reliable sources. In addition I find it strange that we use a quote here but not other places in the article. The quote should be removed and the whole section should be rewritten so it becomes balanced and unbiased. --Noah30 (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No. I feel that if we quote the source that said a UN Official said that, than that is good enough. Beam 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No it is not good enough because the statement could be a fabrication or an exaggeration. We have to do with a very tabloid sentence that should not be included in any Wikipedia article, especially when the accuracy is contested and can not be verified. It's not only Kosovo that has problems with crime, so does all the countries in Balkans but this is described in a more neutral way than in the Kosovo article. E.g. Bulgaria has much bigger problems with crime but no such tabloid, tendentious sentences have been used. FYI: A recent UN report says the crimes rates in Balkans are much lower than in Western Europe. --Noah30 (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI: I know that. FYI: I think you should include that new report, in addition to the other quote. Beam 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

sources sources. Who says it is "contested"? To the best of my knowledge, it is uncontested that Kosovo has appalling crime rates. If this is controversial, point us to the controversy. If there is really an UN report saying there is more crime in Western Europe than in the Balkans, I'd also like to see it (does that study include convictions over speeding, parking offenses and tax avoidance, or just your basic thuggish crimes like theft, homicide and rape?) --dab (𒁳) 16:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No I am not saying that Kosovo and the whole region do not have problems with crime. What I am saying is that we have included a tabloid, tendentious and unverified quote in the rule of law section. Maybe you could first read the section I am refering to and you will undertstand what I am talking about. The quote that I believe should be removed is "In June 2003, a spokesman for the UN police stated that Kosovo "is not a society affected by organized crime, but a society founded on organized crime". It says a UN police said but for the first we can not verify if the police really said this and for the second this is a personal statement and we do not know what this police bases his judgment on. This qoute does not belong to the Kosovo article and should be replaced with a balanced sentence, paragraph describing the problems Kosovo faces with crime in an objective way. For your information let me tell you that it is not true at all that Kosovo has appalling crime rates, but I do not see any point to discuss with you that most probably never have been to Kosovo and make personal statements a la "uncontested" and "everyone know that...". Crime rate in Kosovo is comparable to those in Western Europe. That's a fact. Here you have the article on the UN report: "Surprising as it may be, the Balkan region is one of the safest in Europe" http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/29/europe/balkans.php

It is important we keep our balance. If we extensively discuss crime in Kosovo then we should not favor other countries. Yet this gives us no right to use biased or unreliable sources.--Getoar (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When I was researching the Economy paragraph I wrote I saw multiple mentions of organized crime being an issue. I say we use that quote, per my research it makes sense. Beam 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Beam it may make sense but it sounds unencyclopedic and it is a subjective judgment of the situation rather than an objective and balanced. I hope you are not misundertanding me. I am not against mentioning the problems Kosovo have with crime but we can do it in another way where we are encyclopedic and avoid using tabloid, tendentious quotes . I think that we should also mention the parallel structures operating in parts of Kosovo. Have a nice summer --Noah30 (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't really like the summer because it's so hot, and for fat people heat is bad. I do like skimpily clad school girls though. Secondly and firstmost (if that makes sense), I don't think that is a tabloid tendentious quote, and think you call it that because you don't like it or don't like what it's saying. It's a sourced quote, and it's relevant to the article. We'll use it because of that. Beam 18:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Noah is right, anonymous quotings (we do not have the name of the UN policemen/official) should be deleted as they are unencyclopedic. There is nothing more to say about it. --Tubesship (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Except it's going to stay in the article because it's sourced and cited properly. Now there's nothing more to say about it! Beam 13:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The current map is not article worthy. We need a better map such as [4] or [5].

Secondly, the introduction needs work. There is so much Albanian and Serbian translation going on that it looks sloppy and messy.

I propose this as the second paragraph of the introduction"

"In February 2008, the Assembly of Kosovo declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo. However, Serbia claims Kosovo as its' province. The declaration of independence has received world attention and mixed reactions amongst countries. The Assembly of Kosovo is the main legislative body in Kosovo, whereas the Republic of Serbia retains sovereignty in the areas with large Serbian majority such as Northern Kosovo. Politically Kosovo is overseen by UN (UNMIK) and in the future by EU (EULEX)." --Kosova2008 (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I'll re read it again I guess, but I'm not impressed. Beam 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good addition. We should work on wording a bit but I think it is relevant to mention the de facto separation of north and the rest and the Eulex mission. --Tone 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I just got rid of the Alb and Ser translations, those are quite annoying and I am not sure the reader really cares what it looks like in Albanian/Serbian. I also added the "world attention and mixed reactions" and that should lead to the the International Reactions to Kosovo's DOI 2008 page instead of having "some support" and "some oppose" which both links lead to the same page. On my paragraph it also mentions UN and EU because they are part of it in a sense. This article needs much more work, please let's change the map to

--Kosova2008 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I am agianst using this formualation "Serbia retains sovereignty in the areas". It is not Serbia that controlles these areas but Kosovo Serbs and there is a big difference between Kosovo Serbs and the country Serbia. We can not say Serbia has any kind of sovregnity over Kosovo since they do not have any police or military personell in Kosovo. --Noah30 (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Noah30, Serbia retains control by paying wages of 150-300 EUR to Kosovar minorities that take orders from Belgrade...this isn't news, it's a fact. I think the MAP needs to change ASAP, the one we have doesn't have anything that a person can reference to find the location of Kosova / Kosovo. The map I provided (the CIA one) does just that and has the names in Alb/Ser (since it's disputed); I can understand someone will object because Kosova in that map looks independent..so I would be okay if someone changed the borders to dashed lines etc. --Kosova2008 (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer and I agree with you that the map should be replaced with the CIA map but the CIA map should not be changed. No dashed lines. --Noah30 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not that I disagree it's just that other users want this article to be about the dispute between Republic of Serbia and Republic of Kosova and therefore that map represents Kosova as an independent Republic; that flashes PROBLEM. This article is very cluttered and messy..ROC TAIWAN is a disputed country between China and Tiwan...why does their page say "Republic of Taiwan" but Kosova's page reads, "Kosovo, a disputed..."? Kosova2008 (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I know why... Serbian Wikipedians are overrepresented here while Wikipedians from Kosovo can you count in one hand.. me, you, Getoar and one or two others. Very sad but nothing we can do. Kalofsh bukur në Kosovën e pavarur (nëse nuk je atje kur të shkosh)--Noah30 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's too bad that you feel like that, it's not a good sign. Beam 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we have discussed about that before. There are much, much more Albanian Wikipedians than Serbian on this talk page. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Such tagging of non-Albanians as some sort of "traitors" is really (ethnic) hate speech. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
How can you call it hate speech? I just made an answer based on mine but also others observations. Everyone knows that most Serbs are very revisionist when it comes to Kosovo's Albanian population and Albanian character. The Serbian version of the history of Kosovo differs very from what is commonly accepted. Most Serbian children learn at school that Kosovo had Serbian majority until 1945 and then some years later Tito opened the border and Albanians from Albania flooded Kosovo. This is NOT true but most Serbs are 100 % sure that this is true and happened and they use every occasion to distribute this version of the history of Kosovo. You have also some Albanians that make some ridiculous claims but compared to the number of Serbs they are very few. Revisionist versions of the history of Kosovo are even supported by Serbian government at all levels. Pax, I hope you did not get offended by my comments and wish you a nice summer. --Noah30 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty bigoted to say those things. Things like "Everyone knows that most Serbs are very revisionist." Plus it's no secret what your pov is and that you push it hard. Please try to be civil towards those who have different view points. I'd personally appreciate it. Beam 18:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not know that Pax had appointed a lawyer. I don't have any POV, I just want the Kosovo article as any other article on Wikipedia to reflect the reality. Beam, I was away for a while but I was informed that you were blocked for disturbing edits on the Kosovo article. I suppose this was done because of your pro-Serbian edits since you all the time supports Serbian Wikipedians. I did say Serbs are revisionist only when it comes to Kosovo and not as you claim Serbs being revisionists in general. To balance my views I did also underline that you have revisionist among Albanians as well but very few compared to the Serbians, and the obvious reason is that revisionism is main stream in Serbian, unlike in Kosovo. --Noah30 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have never been rightfully blocked from a Kosovo article other than a 3RR block once. And I've never, NOT ONCE, made a "pro-Serbian" edit. And neither have I made a "pro-Albanian" edit. But thankfully I have been called both a "Pro-Albanian", by users like Mike-Babic, and a "Pro-Serbian", by users like you and Tubeship, repeatedly. And this is a good thing because I know that as long as those of the POV pushing ilk don't like me or my edits that I am doing a good thing. And I will continue, hopefully, to always and forever push the only acceptable POV, that of neutrality. :) Beam 19:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If it's true that you have never been blocked from Kosovo article than I apologise for saying you were (You were topic banned but this was lifted after making a heartbreaking plea). I hope you will use the summer to read more about the Balkans and Kosovo and why not make a trip to the Republic of Kosovo. Even though you, according to me make pro-Serb edits, you will get a greate welcome because you are an American. In addition to delicious hamburgers/pleskavica, we also make great salads that are recommended for those having problems with weight. --Noah30 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I might be going to visit my family in Germany later this Summer and if time provides I'd love to visit the Balkans. And I'm constantly reading up on the Balkans, it's quite interesting. The whole role that the Balkans had in WW1 is enough for any history buff to salivate over. Oh and it's not a weight problem, I like being fat! Beam 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can call it hate speech, Noah, because that is precisely that which it is. If there is a citizen loyal to Serbia, of whatever religious background or ethnic origins he/she is, it is highly normal to act like that. Speech like that automatically makes them as if they are just some sort of stupid traitors to the Democratic Nation of Kosova who are plainly manipulated by Belgrade for political use, without any notion of conscience, a soul or an IQ over 90. That kind of speech in Kosovo really does contribute to the ongoing discrimination of minorities.
Now, your next sentence reveals that you have an incredibly inherently POV opinion, and do allow me to think that this is proper opinion, so much, much more unbalanced than POv-ish-good-old myself. The notion is not only stereotypic towards Serbs, but as completely unsupported by some citation or source, is even outrageous.
Most Serbian children learn at school that Kosovo had Serbian majority until 1945 and then some years later Tito opened the border and Albanians from Albania flooded Kosovo.
Your problem, I think, is actually ignorance; and ignorance, as always with nonsensical and stupid conflicts like this, is the cause of the Serbo-Albanian conflict, two - one might actually be shocked by the following statement of mine, but as always, his reaction would be fueled by ignorance and irrational emotions - very close and deeply connected peoples. I can guarantee to you by my, Big Papa Smurf's, Aragorn's, or Nelson Mendela's life, that your statement is nothing else than blatantly false. I call you to visit any sort of Serbian school, e-mail the Ministry of Education, or ask any Serb at all, and you shall see that you are not correct. As I understood before, you were supposed to have been to a Serbian school yourself, so it pretty much does comes as a shock to me that you make statements like these.
This is NOT true but most Serbs are 100 % sure that this is true and happened and they use every occasion to distribute this version of the history of Kosovo.
That its not true, I don't think anyone needs pointing out, but the latter part of your sentence is an extension of the absurd fallaciousness you exposed before.
You have also some Albanians that make some ridiculous claims but compared to the number of Serbs they are very few.
Really? You have counted them or what? I haven't, and I find their claims completely equally absurd.
Revisionist versions of the history of Kosovo are even supported by Serbian government at all levels.
This statements makes me wonder whether I should really hold any sort of further discussion with you at all, as it even greatly exceeds some of the oddities you have stated before.
Pax, I hope you did not get offended by my comments and wish you a nice summer.
I never get any offense, and neither do I get it right now. Thank you for the wish, and I wish the same to you, but your recent statements have opened me some intense questions on your exceedingly controversial attitudes, and the problem is your overconfidence in them, rather than just statements. For instance, Serbian nationalists have often claimed me the same thing. They claim how there are only a few Serbian revisionists, and how most Albanians (perhaps they had invented miniature bots that infiltrate an entire ethnic group, spreading out through the blood system, and attaching to the victims' neurons eventually probing out information from their psyche?) believe in revisionist history and how the Shquiptar-dominated provisional institutions of self-government in Kosovo support nationalist-driven irredentism on all levels, claiming how Albanians continually lived in Kosovo for 100,000 years and formed a 99% majority before evil Uruk-Serb colonisations from the Dark Lands. What's more, the Serbian ultra-chauvinist imbecilic paranoia has actual basis if we read here the fallacious idiotic propaganda the Kosovo Ministry for Tourism did, and I'd like you to supplement me with some evidence for the Serbian side. This altogether - and no offense intended - makes me deeply wonder whether I can, the same way, consider you an Albanian nationalist or not... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I still stand by what I have said previously and here I provide a link to SANU (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts): http://www.sanu.ac.yu/Eng/News/kosovo.htm. This link contains revisionism, revisionism and yet again revisionsim. Those who write the books children use at schools in Serbia are members of SANU. I see you mention Kosovo Ministry of Tourism, but I don't know if I can trust B92 anymore. They have become very pro-Government and we have here at Wikipedia revealed that B92 published a false news about a UN report mentioning Albanian crime. From know on I prefer BalkanInsight rather than the new "outlet" Tanjug/B92. Here you have the website http://www.visitkosova.org/english/ but I can not find any of the things B92 mentions. Relief, you can NOT consider me an Albanian nationalist but I speak up if I see injustice. Unfortunately I don't have time to continue discussion about Serbian revisionism but I may come back another time. --Noah30 (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering that B92 was set ablaze during the Anti-Kosovo independence demonstrations and that it is constantly on the run by the Patriots, I fail to see why could B92 be pro-government, or pro-any. They are plainly neutral. You cannot see it on the official website, but you can probably remember the entire fuzz, as the Serbian Foreign Ministry lodged an official protest with UNMIK and UNESCO regarding this falsification. Perhaps you could clarify that on UN report?
You stand by what you have said previously and base it on what? Do you have a previous assumption, do you have any proof? In the meantime, I suggest you to go and acquire Serbian school textbooks or any school or teacher, and you shall see how wrong you are for yourself. The reason for this strict reaction of mine is that ignorance is here evidently the problem, and ignorance is, as always, the true cause of all conflicts - including the Kosovo problem.
I'm afraid that you are a bit incorrect. The textbooks in Serbia are approved by the Ministry of Education, and not the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. It is, if I understand well, in every county in the world. I have taken the liberty to acquire this morning myself Serbian textbooks for the 8th grade of elementary school and 3rd & 4th grades of High School. I found no such thing you claim. Tomorrow morning I shall attempt to acquire University textbooks, but with their information going further in depth, chances of finding such ridiculous fallacy are exceedingly low.
Instead of providing a link and claiming it contains revisionism, revisionism and again revisionism, perhaps you could point out precise examples? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, why don't we change the map? Does this page need editprotec or something? Kosova2008 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break: Map

Pax and Noah, please go to either of your talk pages for this, not here. Kosova2008, can I please ask why we should change the map? Sorry if you have to repeat yourself, but the above section is basically a discussion between you and Noah, and then Noah and Pax, with a sprinkle of Beam in between. So, the map should be changed because......BalkanFever 12:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is themed at "disputed" between Albanians of Kosova and Serbs of Serbia so we present both sides, this map is exlusively in Serbian (city names). B) It's hard to reference physically where Kosova / Kosovo is because the map is ugly, C) My map has names as Alb/Ser D)Much easier to find Kosova
and I said that the CIA map (the one I proposed) has Kosova with permenant borders (independent state) so I would be okay to make the borders dashed or in a way which doesn't present Kosova as an independent country in the name of nPOV. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If I understood, English language uses Serbian naming, so that's the reason? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We should use maps with both Albanian and Serbian names, and not only maps with Serbian names. Most of the places in Kosovo have to names and there is no doubt about which version is used most. The Albanian names are used by over 90 % while the Serbian names by less than 10 %. Many in Kosovo do not know the Serbian names and if someone prints a map from Wikipedia and goes to Kosovo and asks where is Urosevac, everyone will say we don't know, but if that person asks where Ferizaj is then everyone will have the answer. Both Albanian and Serbian names are official in Kosovo and used by UN based on 1244 but also according to the Constitution of Kosovo, Albanian language and Serbian language are both official. I give my support to Kosova2008's efforts to replace the current map with a map with both Albanian and Serbina names. --Noah30 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a tour guide for a trip to Kosovo. We try to use the names that the English speaking peoples of the world, the users of en.WP, would use. Beam 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Oh and according to 1244 Kosovo is a province of Serbia. Just saying ;) Beam 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Once more you make clear pro-Serb comments, and you are allowed to do that, BUT please don't come and tell us that you are neutral, because you aren't. Your answer is very special. You say "names that the English speaking peoples of the world, the users of en.WP, would use". How do we know what names people would use? Or are we Wikipedians supposed to look into a crystal ball and make assumptions. The main rule for Wikipedia is to use the names that are used by the locals and the locals in 92 % of the cases in Kosovo are Albanians, ditto Albanian names should be used. To avoid confusion we should use both Albanian and Serbian. Serbia is not mentioned in resolution 1244, but only Yugoslavia + Kosovo is recognized independent by 42 countries including the vast majority of European countries. In the end I would appreciate if you avoided speaking on behalf of Wikipedia like it sounds sometimes. From now on I will try to only discuss issues and not other things. --Noah30 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
When you say "Yugoslavia", let's keep on mind that it's the direct legal (and in every other way) predecessor of Serbia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and not the greater Yugoslavia. It is also noteworthy to mention that the documents UNSCR 1244 calls upon and relates to indeed do mention "Republic of Serbia" (e.g. Rambouillet, just to name an example). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Noah30, I really find it excessively unlikely that anyone at all (except some kid perhaps) that couldn't read Serbian spelling. For one thing, all other things aside, majority of Kosovo indeed is Serbian-understanding (to avoid usage of the term "-speakable"). Next to that, as you say, in all places where there are two versions, both are there. I'll take no side, but I do know that this is the English Wikipedia, and precisely because of that we shall not rename this article to Kosova/Kosove/Kosovo, but it shall indeed remain Kosovo. BTW, the Constitution of Kosovo is not yet in strength. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wish the majority in Kosovo were Serbian-understanding since we could have saved a lot of money when we translate different documents into/from Serbian, but that is unfortunately not the truth. From 1990 no one learned Serbian and the generation that now is turning around 30 can not speak Serbian and it is the generation that occupies many important postitions. Also those who studied before 1990 can not speak very well and after almost 10 years of not practising Serbian they have completely forgot the language. Only old people like my father that have worked with Serbs or Serbian/Bosnjak/Croatian-speaking people in public companies can speak Serbian but they are also forgetting the language. An example: I was sitting in a bar in Prishtina with a foreigner and two young Albanian girls. The foreigner says "I would like to visit Urosevac and Pec" and believe me or not the two Albanian girls did not know what cities these were. Maybe you have seen Albanian politicians speak Serbian well and do you know what is the reason? Many of them were educated in Belgrade and had in addition Serbian wifes or girlfriends. --Noah30 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I know that, but every Kosovo Albanian I met simply said "my Serbian is a little rusty right now", and I know from personal knowledge that Ramush Haradinaj, Hashim Thaci, Fatmir Sejdiju and all other statesmen and political leaders (and journalists) speak it perfectly (maybe Vlasi the best). And it is very odd to me when I remember what my trip to Austria did to my German language, or even a stay in Greece, to consider that something like that can actually happen. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Vlasi speaks best because he was if I remember correctly the leader of the Communist party of Kosovo and he was and is still married to a Bosnjak. You have also Alush Gashi, currently Minister of Health, who was married to a Serbian woman and had children. Have heard that his daughter worked for B92 in Serbian in Belgrade, and you have many others like Idriz Ajeti etc, but most Albanians who say the speak Serbian do not speak the language well. But they learned from Kosovo Serbs and the Kosovo Serb dialect is not the best one based on what I have heard. I have also read about a lot of stigma in Belgrade against how Kosovo Serbs speak. There is no doubt that more Albanians speak Serbian than Serbs who speak Albanian, but most of those under 40 years old can not speak Serbian. It will take time to get people to understand that it is an advantage to speak as many languages as possible, and especially a Slavic language like Serbian or call it Croatian if you want, since we are surrounded by Slavic countries. But in Kosovo Serbian language is still associated with the war crimes, massacres, aggression, superiority etc. Hopefully things will change in the close future, but the political scene in Belgrade isn't that promising. After this long discussion I hope we have come to the conclusion that we should have both Albanian and Serbian names on the map. This is the best solution I believe since it is a compromise and Albanian and Serbian are equal on the map. Please support this and put and end to the discussion. --Noah30 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No. See my comments below. Beam 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What pro-serb comments? Yes, WP is supposed to figure that out! We do it through a variety of ways. See the Pristina discussion for how we figured out that one. Go check out Burma for ways we try to figure out the English usage there. That's precisely what we do here at en.wp. As an aside 1244 mentions Yugoslavia, and Serbia inherited Yugoslavia's designation including it's UN seat if I'm not mistaken. And I was just letting you know what we do at Wikipedia, we try to use the English version. Beam 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In precise, the documents relating mention the Republic of Serbia also, and international treaties have also predetermined Montenegro's secession and identified Serbia as the legal upholder of all Kosovo-related norms. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling every single editor that disagrees with you pro-Serb veers on trolling. Please stop. We should get some other opinions on the map though. Maybe Dab, Tone and the others? BalkanFever 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Every editor? I have only been discussing with Beam and I don't know why, maybe it is the human nature, but it bothers me when someone says something that do not corrospondent with what he/she does. --Noah30 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated earlier, we should have both Albanian and Serbian names on the map and this is the only logical solution. We can not pretend as if Albanians and their way of calling cities and places did not exsist. By the way: UN uses both names.--Noah30 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, we should use the English version in the article. That's the only logical solution. And if there isn't an "english version" we use the version used in English (which is the English version anyway lol). And I'm waiting for you to show me one thing I've said that is "Pro-Serb." I'd also wouldn't mind an apology for your constant accusations and insulting mannerisms put forth towards me. If not, that's ok, just don't continue to do it please. Beam 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I may give an apology when the Sahara desert is covered by snow. You are new here do not know the Wikipedia rules about names. Go and read them. Show you what is pro-Serb??? I have done it a plenty of times and don't want to use more time. The comment I am answering is pro-Serb since you are discriminating Albanian namings in Kosovo. The map will be changed once we reach an agreement, with or without you. --Noah30 (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Noah, myself, Tone, BalkanFever, Pax, Dab, and others who are able to show neutrality (regardless of their personal feelings), will most likely agree with me more times than not on this page. That's because they, like me, try their hardest to stick to the theory of NPOV on Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say, but you might have to try it yourself. Beam 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This is becoming trolling and I have no plans to feed trolls. All discussion started here are deviating and because of one person. Tone, you as a devoted and respected editor, please help us. I amd not worried that editors have pro-Serb bias, but I am more worried about editors who soon are developing from pro-Serb bias to Albanophobia.--Noah30 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I insist that you stop accusing me of things whether it be pro-serb or trolling or now, and this is a new one, Albanophobia. Please stop. Beam 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find my comment ?? --Kosova2008 (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break 2

I understand that this is getting heated but please reply in an orderly manner. Instead of replying inbetween 2 comments please reply last but add "@beam" or "@noah30", it's hard to check every date to see who said what after what comment.

Pax: What you speak of is not true. Noah summarized it perfectly well, only people 40 and up will be able to speak some to understandable Serbian. From 1988 and up Kosovar school started to teach English as a protest to Milosevic throwing us out of schools and we had to gather in homes to get an education illegally. Currently in Kosovar schools they all operate in Albanian but it is required after 3rd or 5th grade to learn English (secondary). I know now in private colleges they have started exclusively all English; not all colleges although.
The map of this article needs to present reality, not 1974, or 1388. Seeing how this article isn't completely locked up why isn't an established administrator changing it? Kosova2008 (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)