Talk:Kosovo status process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kosovo Portal Kosovo status process is part of the WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Serbia Portal Kosovo status process is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Status from 10 December 2007 onwards

What's happened with declaring independence on 10 Dec.? I can't find sources affirming/denying anything. Its like yes, Yes, YES!!! WE'RE GOING TO DO IT!!! HOOORRRRAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and then NO, on second thought lets chill a bit. So... What I'm getting at is that the article needs info stating whats happened post - 10 Dec. Happy Holidays ya'll! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.137.242 (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 6 expantion

Here we go! I've tried to make it look nice. I'd appreciate suggestions and additions. Envoy202 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the page move, I would prefer to revert to the old title, "Kosovo Future Status Process". When this subject becomes history, we can always change it to whatever name will used for this whole thing some months/years from now. - Best regards, Evv 02:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrm...I could go either way on this. I like your suggestion: have it be "Future Status Process" for now, then retroactively fix it when the process concludes. Does anyone else have ideas? Envoy202 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For what its worth

I like this article. I think it is reasonably good way to handle the topic. Fred Bauder 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

With all do respect, I don't think it's worth much. You were simply prodded to repond here and obviously have not been following how why and when this content fork was created. // Laughing Man 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Direct quotes from the parties on status outcome

Guys, I've added some direct quotes from PM Kostunica and PM Ceku on their positions on Kosovo future status. I don't know if these are the best quotes -- if anyone has better, feel free to edit/change what I did. It's preferable for use to use direct quotes from the parties instead of trying to characterize their positions for them. Envoy202 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh information?

Why last event mentioned in the article is November 2006? Can somebody to include here details of the plan presented by Ahtisary this month? PANONIAN (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update on MA proposal

As discussed on the Kosovo talk page, I've updated the section here to describe the Ahtisaari proposal and next steps in the status process. Envoy202 21:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find more interesting details over at the third section of the North Kosovo article. --PaxEquilibrium 18:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MA's Annexes

Annex I (Governing body):
Parliament: Of its 120 seats, 10 will be reserved for Serbs, in addition to anything they traditionally win at the elections.

Veto: The Serbs hold the Veto right for any Law in the Assembly

Government: One Minister will be a Serb, as well as one Deputy Minister
Annex III (Decentralization):
Municipalities with a Serbian majority will have very high self-government powers, practically including all local municipal decisions: from urbanization, public institutions, health care, education, across cultural bastion-related matters and a local police.
Next to the existing four Serbian municipalities (Leposavić, Zvečan, Zubin potok and Štrpce) Novo Brdo will be expanded to include 24 Serb-populated villages and regain a Serbian majority (which it had before the 1999 Serb exodus). 5 new municipalities will be created:

• Gračanica will include 16 villages to have a Serbian majority
• Ranilug with a Serbian majority will have 13 villages
• Parteš will include two villages to have a Serbian majority
• Klokot will have eight villages to have a Serbian majority
• North Mitrovica will include next to the most northern quarter of the Kosovo Mitrovica city, the villages of Gornji Suvi Do and Donji Suvi Do
  

Education: Serbian language will be taught in schools; the Serbian schools will use the plan, program and books of the Republic of Serbia. The Serbian Mitrovica University will be autonomous within the Education of Kosovo and will have its own Statute
Serbia: Serbian municipalities will be able to cooperate with any institution in Serbia (including the government). Serbia's institutions will be able to invest & finance the Serbian municipalities, including to dispatch any technical help whatsoever.
Mitrovica: The settlement is split onto two municipalities: North (Serbian) and South, but both will remain connected through a common commune, composed out of 11 members (5 from each of the two Municipal Assemblies, and one International representer as Chairman).
Health care: Municipalities are to prepare primary health care protection, while North Mitrovica, Gracanica and Strpce also secondary
Annex V (Cultural bastion)
The Serbian Orthodox Church's rights and special powers will be guaranteed and it will be officially recognize by the Kosovar government. SOC's authority will be independent from the government and supreme.
Protected zones: over 40, protected by the International Community under supervision by the European Union
Annex VI (Loans)
Kosovo will take a part of Serbia's loan to the World Bank, Paris Club and London Club that will be decided during the Vienna talks.
Annex IX (Civil representer)
The European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Great Britain and the United States International management group will name a "Made Man" (just joking :) that will oversee the implementation of this resolution after its adoption in the Council of Security, under supervision from the European Union.
Annex X (Euro-mission)
The European Union replaces the United Nations as the protector of Serbia's souther province. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Neutrality Disputed?

This article currently has a "Neutrality Disputed" tag placed on it. I feel as if we've all done an admirable job ensuring that it is as neutral as humanly possible. Both positions are represented adequately, largely through direct quotes, and the progress of the talks has been neutrally conveyed. Would anyone object to removing that tag? If there are specifically passages that people find POV, then I would love to discus them here. Thanks! =) Envoy202 01:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag was added on January 6. At the time the article was still lacking proper sources, and the main concern expressed was in relation with WP:NOT#CBALL (see here), mainly regarding the following sentence: Most international observers believe these negotiations will lead to Kosovo's independence, although with some limitations or conditions placed on the exercise of its sovereignty.

As I mentioned then, in my view the sentence doesn't infringe CBALL, and it is specifically allowed in Principle 7 of the Kosovo arbitration. - Best regards, Evv 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article is now extremely well-sourced. I also agree with you, Evv, on the factual observation that most observers believe the negotiations will lead to some form of independence. I believe this was discussed/argued/debated at great lengths previously. After last week's media flurry, we now have dozens more reliable sources restating this observations. The "Neutrality Disputed" tag inspires doubt in the reader and is misleading. Envoy202 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur, I have removed it but will reinstate if there is a need to, Buffadren 12:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just reinstated Neutrality Disputed tag for the section on Poitns of View (see Kosovo). It sounds as if its using Serbian POV. I'd like to ask to see if we should replace what's currently there with what was previously there.

Weatherguy1033 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if somebody (Serb POV) vandalized the article. I've reverted back to the original, which I feel is not POV. Would you feel comfortable removing the "Neutrality Disputed" tag for the text that is there now? I've also updated the "Conclusion of the Process" section with information on the latest state of play in the UNSCR. Envoy202 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. Thanks for looking over it. Weatherguy1033 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albanians?

Albanians excluded?

But they've thrown away their documents since the beginning of 1990, they're not registered voters. They thus boycotted everything from the 1990 election till today - there were even attempts to include them in the referendum, but they came too late though. --PaxEquilibrium 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It soureced, but that is not what the source provided says [1] "ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, which has been under UN control since 1999, ignored the poll." I'm updating the article to source provided. // laughing man 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New negotiations?

The article needs to be updated regarding this possibility. --PaxEquilibrium 12:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ? ? ?

It is written in this article that the Kosovo Albanians seek "a Kosovo that is a democratic, stable, functional, multiethnic state and an example of coexistence amongst communities."

How can it be multi-ethnic and democratic when 1) they activelly repress and discriminate against Serbs 2) they attempt to falsely re-write history and purge the fact that Kosovo has always been serbian 3) they actively brandish the albanian flag in kosovo, clearly showing their quest for a greater albania

[edit] Images

Could do with some images in here, it's all text at the moment. Perhaps an image of the parties in discussion, or of Martii Ahtisaari, and perhaps even of the Security Council for the later sections? DSuser 09:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

Why did someone remove a large chunk of the text, which I added a long time ago. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Ideally, the criticism should be compiled into one headed section instead of being spread throughout the article, as it makes it harder to read. Nonetheless, I have restored the TFF reference as I consider it notable enough to be mentioned. Regards, Asterion^talk 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Asterion: the criticism as it stands is unreliably sourced. Please provide citations with reliable sources.Phase4 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see it, the Transnational Fundation is a reliable source. Asterion^talk 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The website in question — http://www.transnational.org/Area_YU/2007/Ga-Ob-Wi_AhtisaariKosovo.html — admits that:

"Since February this article has circulated quite a few dailies but been printed only in Swedish Aftonbladet and Danish Jyllands-Posten. It has been submitted - one at a time - to the following who either did not reply - the majority - or declined: The Guardian (Comment Is Free and Features), The Wall Street Journal (as response to a pro-independence letter), The Sunday Telegraph, The Washington Post, New York Times, International Herald Tribune, Politiken and Berlingske Tidende (Denmark), Dagens Nyheter (Sweden)."

The TFF article has not therefore been published by any of the mainstream English-language media. Unless and until there is a reliable primary source in English for the criticism, I would suggest it does not warrant a mention on Wikipedia.Phase4 (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution 1244 is a basis for independence

Serbia and anti-Western countries claim that because UN SCR 1244 refers to the “territorial integrity” of Yugoslavia, Kosovo cannot declare independence without a new security council resolution. However, because UN 1244 Resolution's reference to “territorial integrity” is mentioned in the preamble and is thus not legally binding, and because nothing else in UN SCR 1244 says Kosovo can’t declare independence, Kosovo can declare independence without a new security council resolution. Thust far, Resolution 1244 has never prevented Kosovo from becoming internationally supervised country with limited independence. Therefore, Republic of Kosovo is not part of Serbia and will never be part of Serbia. 24.82.181.243 (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite, implying process is all over

They say one of the Wikipedia principles is "be bold!" :-)

When I read this article it sounded like the "Kosovo status process" was still something that was alive, that the status of Kosovo was still undetermined. In my opinion that is not a valid picture of reality.

In my opinion (and I don't think I'm alone), Kosovo independence is a done deal. There is no going back. Nothing short of WW III will change that, and Russia is not that dumb.

If someone has more time on their hands than I do, may I suggest going through the rest of the article and changing various discussions from present tense to past tense. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)