Talk:Kosovo/Archive 12

Previous discussion have been archived. Editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to see also Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11 (especially the last few) Please also see this subpage which contains a list of descriptions of Kosovo's status from other sources: /Sources

Arbitration

A controversy over the introduction of this article, has recently lead to an arbitration case, which was concluded with putting this article under probation, among other measures. Before editing the introduction, please review the talk page archive and the arbitration case on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom made a weird decision: to ban Vezaso for one year - regardless of the fact that User:Vezaso is indefinately banned as per being one of the many sockpuppets of User:Dardanv. --PaxEquilibrium 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is the one year ban from editing Kosovo related articles, that probably should be Dardanv instead of Vezaso. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

Why the article is POV:

1. The map shows Serbia as a separate entity to Kosovo. At this time, Kosovo is recognised (however grudgingly) as a part of Serbia. The most pertinent evidence for this is Security Council Resolution 1244 ("Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,") [1]. The Republic of Serbia is the successor state of the FRY, assuming all its rights and responsibilites (apart from some debts etc which were transferred to the Republic of Montenegro)

Untrue. The map shows Kosovo as a region within Serbia, as evidenced by the broken line representing an internal border. Your evidence is irrelevant as your contention is false. Davu.leon 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

2. "security provided by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR)." The evidence shows that KFOR don't provide much security, as noted by organisations such as Amnesty International.

3. "Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and the Republic of Macedonia." This phrasing suggests Kosovo is independent.

How exactly does this suggest Kosovo is independent? I'm really interested to hear this one. Davu.leon 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

4. "The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's Albanian population." Why government on one side and people on the other side. Serbs in Kosovo are people too, as are all Serbs how don't want Kosovo to become independent. On the other hand, this is patronising to the Albanians - they have political leaders too.

5. "Incorporation into Serbia" The whole sections uses pejorative language ("stormed", "takeover", "broke the peace", "renewed the conflict") and lacks context (it's the middle ages :-)). It isn't sourced either, like other huge tracts of the article.

6. "Serbian Orthodox Church was officially abolished in 1532" Doesn't really convey that it was a forcible suppression. "Special privileges were provided, which helped the survival of Serbs and other Christians in Kosovo." Only in relation to their previous status. They were still discriminated against in favout of Muslims. i.e. Devshirmeh

There is also no section on Human Right is Kosovo, which basically don't exist for Serbs and other non-Albanians. I hope this "small" selection is enough for the POV tag. --estavisti 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, write one. Be sure to use Reliable Sources and make it NPOV. Good luck with that one, by the way. Davu.leon 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I strongly urge you to read the talk page archive and arbitration case before making big changes to this article. With regard to your points:

1. The map is a compromise between the Albanian view and the Serbian view. See talk page archives.
2. Security is provided by KFOR. Whether or not it is succesful is a matter of debate. Speculation would be original research.
3. Kosovo does border those countries, hardly a topic to dispute.
4. The dispute is between the Serbian government and the Albanian population. The Serbians in Kosovo have no dispute with the Serbian government.
5. Agreed, could be more neutral.
6. I do not know enough about this topic to judge your remark.

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

1. 2. and 3. - Reinoutr had answered

4. What Estavisti meant is that the non-Albanian population of Kosovo (particularely Serbs) are also a factor and "a side" in the dispute as well

5. I strongly object. I myself wrote that part and consider it almost the peak of objectivity and neutrality. If we rephrase to the (possibly) desired phrases, that would be Serb POV.

6. Well, yeah; but where's the relevance of the forceful abolition of the Church to Kosovo itself? Also, even though of the unorthodox laws, that might've been heavily against the Serbs, fact is Serbs lived well while the Patriarchate of Pec existed (1557-1766) and until the Ottomans started to lose and be on constant retreat (17th century), at least the best imaginable way that an occupied people can possibly be in. --PaxEquilibrium 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some thoughts I had

5 - How is it serbian POV? Using weasel words such as "takeover" "stormed" "broke the peace" is inherently biased. Avoid it. Remember the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines.

6 - Most of your arguement here is supposition and theory. Remember, encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

The map has been a subject of a lot of contention. Personally while I acknowledge that it is contented to be a territory of Serbia, Serbia's geography is irrelevant to the area of Serbia, and the map should just depict Serbia. Anyways, just some thoughts. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The words 'stormed' and 'takeover', and the formulation 'broke the peace' are not "weasel words", even by the most lax interpretations of the policy. They are statements of FACT. With all due respect, please refrain from attempting to misuse Wikipedia rules to justify your own POV. There's been more than enough of that at this article already. Davu.leon 10:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They are. They infer bias in tone and definition. An act of "storming" a city, or a "takeover" suggests an overtly hostile bias against the party that did the "storming" or "taking over." Please consider the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines in the future. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are confused.

A. Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. The city was stormed by Serbs is a statement. Weasel words would be Historians claim the city was stormed by Serbs. So your issue is with the words not adhering to Wikipedia Neutral Point of View. So,

B. See below. (Thankyou, int19h) Davu.leon 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

From Wiktionary:

• Storm - "a violent assault on a stronghold or fortified position"
• Take over - "to annex a territory by conquest or invasion"

There are other meanings, of course, but these are the ones that make sense in the context of their use. I fail to see how either of these is POV. -- int19h 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your very good comments. However, I only partly agree with you:

1. the map seems like an acceptable compromise. Note that the line betwee Serbia proper and Kosovo is dotted as compared to full for the 'foreign' countries.
2. Whether or not KFOR is successful in providing security is a matter of dispute. Maybe a better wording could be something like "with KFOR responsible for providing security".
3. Well, the province of Kosovo does border the countries mention.
4. You are partly correct, the dispute is between the Serbian government on one hand the Kosovo Albanian provisional government (or whatever it is called) on the other hand. Maybe the wording "Albanian population" should be replaced by the relevant Kosovar institution. However, at the same time it seems logical to say that it is with the Albanian population of the province, not with the Serbian population of the province.
5. I fully agree, the text should be changed to more neutral terms. Whether these are "weasel words" or not is beside the point.
6. If that is indeed the case then it should be changed.

Regards Osli73 12:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On Serbs in the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires

Why is it then that Serbs in the Ottoman Empire were peasants and pig farmers, while Serbs in the Austrian Empire were normal Europeans? Both were occupied by empires, after all. --estavisti 21:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet it is that all those Serbs that were "pigs & farmers" produced dozens of Patriarchs of Pech (1557-1766), the most cultured Serbs in the world that were in reality moral, spiritual, ethical & even political leaders of the Serb people; Omer-paša Latas, one of the brightest military minds of the Ottoman Empire; Mehem-paša Sokolović, quitte possibly the greatest official in Ottoman history as well as numerious poets and other people; the father of the Serbian language: Vuk Stefanović Karadžić; not to mention numerious politicians and other people. --PaxEquilibrium 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Of the three examples you present, one was taken from his parents as part of the blood tax and raised in Instanbul. He was a victim of the Ottomans, before he became one himself. He was hardly a Serbs in any meaningful sense (i.e. only by descent). Vuk was only a teenager when the rebellions against the Ottomans started. The Empire was so conducive to education that he learned to read from the only literate man in his region. Then, again thanks to the high culture of the Ottomans, he published most, if not all of his works in Vienna. While in Austria there were Gymasiums and universities, Vuk was stuck with his local monastery. And finally, Omer Pasha was such a great Serb that he lead Ottoman troops into Montenegro. Please, give me more great Serbs like him, I can't wait! --estavisti 13:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bajica Sokolovic maintained "close" to Serbian conscience and despite being an Ottoman and a Muslim, remained a Serb national "patriot" in a way til his death; contrary to Omer-pasa Latas, who really was the way how you describe. However, what to you define by "normal European-class citizens"? If you consider crossing to another faith "betrayel" that doesn't make Serb a Serb or similliar, you shouldn't look like that. The achievements of the Habsburg Serbs - never surpressed the achievements of the Ottoman ones. --PaxEquilibrium 20:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider his change of religion a betrayal, but rather his leadership of the Empire that was oppressing Serbs. Like you say, he was quite possible its greatest ever official. The Habsburg Serbs achievements rgeatly eclipse those of the Ottoman Serbs, like you youself implicitly admit, with your choice of the greatest Ottoman Serbs, one of whom wasn't an Ottoman subject for much of his life (the famous part), one of whom wasn't a Serb, and the third who was the Ottoman Empire's "greatest ever official".--estavisti 20:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bajica Sokolovic kept a Serbian national identity and became arguably the greatest Ottoman official in the history. The best one the Habsburg Serbs got is Svetozar Boroevic von Bojna, who became the sole non-German Austro-Hungarian military general during the First World War; didn't fight for the Serbian national cause, but rather styled himself with Croatian nationalism, despite being a pious Orthodox Christian. --PaxEquilibrium 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd bring him up :-) No, I'm talking about people like Sava Tekelija. --estavisti 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, OK you win - I was just trying to fight against a feeling of "superiority" of the HabsburgSerbs towards the Ottoman Serbs, so often expressed by many Vojvodinians & Slavonians in those time. --PaxEquilibrium 21:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, don't worry, the Vojvodinians and Slavonians get my back up too. I'm Dinaric/Central Serbian by descent, the Habsburg Serbs have their own way of annoying me :-) --estavisti 23:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Currency

The summary section notes that the Dinar is used in 'North Kosovo'. This is incorrect as it also used in the many Serbian enclaves (e.g. Gracanica). In any case, even if the present formulation were to remain the proper reference would be to 'northern Kosovo' to avoid the suggestion that 'North Kosovo' is a distinct entity with a different currency usage.

As it happens I'm unable to edit the main page as I'm a recently registered user, though I've contributed to these pages in the past as '(JD)'. Any way I can get unprotected? JamesAVD 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are correct. Changes made. Davu.leon 15:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure - for commercial transactions territorial continuinity is required. The Serb enclaves aren't connected to Serbia - whereas North Kosovo is a part of Serbia, de jure & de facto. --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Pax. It's a fair point, but the phrasing made it sound like north Kosovo was a distinct political entity, which simply isn't true. And anyway, the Dinar is used in the Serb enclaves throughout Kosovo, (though they will accept euros too,) and it would be remiss of us not to mention them. Davu.leon 08:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I really didn't know that. It still sounds illogical to me... --PaxEquilibrium 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All a minor point, really. There's no distinction between ethnic Serbian parts of northern Kosovo and ethnic Serbian enclaves in Kosovo, as far as either de jure or de facto distinctions go. Territorial continuity is in no way required for commercial transactions. As far as law in Kosovo goes, both the Euro and Dinar are official currencies, though the UN institutions use exclusively the Euro and you wouldn't last long offering to pay in Dinars outside of the Serbian areas. JamesAVD 13:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming of Cities

Why is it that the name of cities/districts in Kosovo are listed Albanian spelling first and Serbian spelling second? Kosovo is stil a Serbian province and the official language in Serbia is Serbian. If you look at the vast majority of new sources, other encyclopedias, academic sources, (even those advocating independence), the Serbian spelling is the one that is used. I hope Wikipedia will re-examine their naming conventions for Kosovo cities and places as the current method seems to be advocating a political stance rather than presenting the information in a scholarly, historically sound manner. MK013 23:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite Kosovo being de jure a Serbian province, Serbian laws do not apply to it because of its UN protectorate status. In particular, Kosovo has its own declaration of what its official languages are, and those are Serbian and Albanian. So they both have equal status. Yet they have to be ordered some way, and the ordering rationale has to be neutral (have a look at edit history of that box and check how many times it was edit-warred over to see why there is a need for a neutral solution). The present order is the alphabetical order of language names: Albanian comes before Serbian. If anyone has better suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them - just discuss them here before changing it, please, lest we get another edit war. -- int19h 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Serbian laws do not apply? Wrong! According to UN council resolution 1244, Serbian laws apply to all resolution unregulated areas. For instance, judiciary system is based on Serbian laws, so it's not Anglo-Saxonic like one would assume because of the UN and NATO are running judiciary. Even UN placed judges foreigners had to learn Serbian laws to be able to lead the processes. Serbian laws are the ones to be obeyed in many other areas, but the whole point is that it's not Serbian authorities who are using laws, it's the UN administration. The reason for this is that UN is unable to build the whole legal system from the beginning, partly prohibited by the resolution, and the other reason is that the Albanian institutions are simply not capable of bringing "better" laws because of lack of experts which would work on them - it requires a vast effort. 89.216.173.210 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was sceptical on this at first but took a look at the maps on the UNMIK site itself: [2] [3] [4]. MK013 might be right. JamesAVD 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The roadsigns sometimes disagree though – and not just thanks to individual Albanians with pots of paint, I mean. Does anybody know if there's a single agency responsible for these? If there is, and presuming that their decisions about sign spelling are based on local demographics, perhaps there's a committee of some sort which measures that and decides on the language to be used? The results of this would quite likely be more up-to-date than the UNMIK maps. Their records would be a useful source to refer to here if anybody can find them. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the whole point. There is no official standardization body in Kosovo for names. Those names assigned could only be treated as "unoficcial" - they do not rely on any legal document that defines the process of naming and changing names. In fact, that document is Serbian law on naming. But again, there is no central base of maps and names in Kosovo. 89.216.173.210 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Int19h, it is a common misconception that Serbian laws do no apply. Law in Kosovo is precisely Serbian law up until 1999 with any amendments since by UNMIK. If UNMIK law is silent on a topic, Serbian law as of 1999 applies. Check out the UNMIK website for confirmation. Doesn't (necessarily) impact on this question but hasn't been stated since way back in the archives so worth repeating. JamesAVD 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I always though that Wikipedia should use the English place names. As Kosovo has been a part of Serbia for most of recent history the Serbian place names seem to have become the standard. This is perhaps best exemplified in the naming of Kosovo itself, with an "o" instead of an "a" (which is much more of a political statement).Osli73 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Final status

A preliminary solution was drawn by Martti Ahtisaari and his officials. Independence is dropped (but an mysterious already mentioned "..some form of independence" will be adopted). Kosovo will be proclaimed a state in the political sense, although it will not be a Republic (nor have any governmental order), since it will have state representatives nowhere (most notably not in the UN), neither an army nor a State-type government, nor other symbols of statehood (flag, national anthem, coat-of arms, minor political organizations, etc.). It will be stated as a constituent part of Serbia, however Serbia will have no authority in Kosovo whatsoever. In the style of the early 21st century agreement between Serbia & Montenegro, there will be a 3-year trial period, during which both Kosovo and the rest of Serbia is encouraged to continue negotiating minor things like the status of non-Albanians in Kosovo (Serbs, mostly), the protection of the Serb Orthodox Church and other cultural bastions as well as paying war damage, returning the refugees; optionally Kosovo starting to enter Serbian institutions & government etc (mainly because they solved none of those issues by now)... After a 3-year period negotiations may be reopened. A new UN resolution will be brought to replace 1244.

Expectations are that an altered version (i. e. without any Serbian Army's or policy or official presence in Kosovo) of this draft will be adopted and that Kosovo will generally, because of this, become much like North Cyprus and it is expected, although independence is out of the question, that after the 3-year trial period Kosovo will become a fully independent country. However, riots and rebellions as per this decision are expected, as well as recognition (which is allowed according to the draft - by anyone who wishes so) of independence by some organizations or states is expected (most notably Albania's; it is expected that it will be something like Palestine's status). --PaxEquilibrium 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pax, I don't know what your sources are, but the scenario you describe is not under serious consideration anywhere. I'd also point out that the media are rife with rumors on this or that outcome for the Kosovo status process -- as a general rule, the media are just speculating or reporting half-truths. The reality is that these issues are still under discusssion. Until there is something more concrete, this kind of speculation shouldn't appear in the article. Envoy202 19:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pax, look closely at that 'recognition of independence is expected...' Think carefully about it. You're on the verge of what may well be the eventual solution. Interesting times. Davu.leon 10:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't hurt the messenger. I did say preliminary; it's half-truth hear-say of a pretty much final status. Anyway, I personally do not like it, if that is what you wanted to know. --PaxEquilibrium 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is beginning to seem a little deceitful for us to continue to present only the view that 'final status process likely leads to indepdendence in 2006'. Clearly the process is not progressing at all and Russia is coming out quite strongly against independence. We should be reflecting the increasing probability that the 'talks' fail with either stasis or UDI the likely outcomes. Doing so would be no more speculative that the present line we take, surely? JamesAVD 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the last post. Kosovo's fate is more or less decided. Russia may not support the independence, but does anybody really care? Kosovar parliament will be given the green light to declare independence and individual countries will decide whether to recognise it or not, but it is more or less certain that USA and the EU will recognise it as a sovereign country. It may not have a seat @ the UN initially, but it will be given a chance in the future to prepare a formal bid. I don't think that's an important aspect anyway, Switzerland doesn't have a seat and nor did Austria until recently. Belorussia and Ukraine had seats during the cold war but were never sovereign states. What is clear is that Kosovo will not be returned to Serb sovereignty. Conditional Independence or whatever you want to call it gives Kosovo attributes of a state, and from what I gather those conditions will gradually be ticked off leading to full independence eventually.Sanmint 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Kosovo can't return to Serbian sovereignty. Know why? Because it already is under Serbian sovereignty. :-) // --estavisti 02:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood my point, Sammint. It may be that independence is the only likely outcome, but at present we're putting across the UN line that this will be the negotiated outcome of all-party talks. Recent events do not suggest that this is the likely outcome of talks. It may be that failed talks, followed by a UDI, supported or not by major powers. At present we're offering an opinion on likely future events but not taking into account how events have developed in the past tweilve months. JamesAVD 11:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JamesAVD on this. However, I would prefer to leave the old sourced & agreed upon version in place until a proper replacement (both wording and a new source) is agreed upon in this talk page. - Regards, Evv 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article should remain as it is. There has been no change in the conventional wisdom. Today had two media articles proving this point -- today's 'Economist' article on Kosovo was sub-titled "Despite its last-minute manoeuvring, Serbia now seems certain to lose Kosovo." Also today, the NY Times had an article that began with the words "In the next few months, Kosovo is likely to win independence from Serbia..." If anyone has more credible sources than the NY Times and the Economist, then they should share them on this page. Envoy202 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We're going down the wrong road here. Fine, some editors want to remove sourced and agreed upon material. There is a case to be made for retaining it, as explained above by Evv and Envoy202. There is also a case to be made for removing it, that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's a grey area, though, because Wikipedia rules allow for exceptions. A case like this, where there is almost unanimous recognition, (even amongst the majority of Serbs,) that some form of independence is inevitable, would seem to be such an exception.

However, there is in this article an entire section devoted to the status talks, so I say in the interest of preventing another mindless revert war, let the babies have their bottle. Put a (see below) or something in the intro, and tidy up the future status section so that it's a little more legible and comprehensive. If no one has any major objections, I may have a bash at this myself later today. Davu.leon 09:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have expanded my comment. My argument is that, at present, the article implies that a) independence is likely to occur and that b) this will be the result of UN-sponsored talks. This statement is not entirely incorrect, though it may be misleading or insufficient (and is perhaps embarrasingly close to the press releases of the mediating team). Point a) is quite clearly the opinion of the majority of sources, though many also offer the opinion that a deadlock might lead to the status quo being maintained indefinitely. More importantly, b) is not necessarily the case as these recent articles from the deeply credible Times and the more than adequate Guardian make clear:

- 'The vote took place amid rising international tensions over Kosovo, with fears that Russia could veto independence moves at the UN because of concerns over a precedent for Chechnya... Mr Ahtisaari is expected to announce a “managed” or “conditional” independence. But there are fears of a declaration of independence from the Kosovo Albanians.' The Times, 30 October 2006 [5]

- 'Amid growing calls for a decision on the province’s status to be delayed until 2007, Agim Ceku, the prime minister of Kosovo, said his countrymen could lose faith with the international community if the promise of sovereignty was snatched away from them at the very last moment. While the world’s attention has been focused on events in the Middle East and Afghanistan, experts fear that the Balkans, where wars raged for much of the 1990s, could erupt again unless the current situation is carefully handled... This has persuaded some European players that it would be best to postpone a decision on Kosovo until 2007 or risk handing ultranationalist Serb forces an election victory.' The Times, 13 October 2006 [6].

- 'Plain-speaking Martti Ahtisaari ... let the Kosovo cat out of the bag this week with potentially unpredictable consequences for Balkan stability. As UN envoy charged with brokering a settlement by the end of the year between Serbia and the ethnic Albanian leadership in Pristina, Mr Ahtisaari conceded the negotiations were not going well. In fact, he went further. Agreement on Kosovo's final status was not on the cards, "at least not in my lifetime", he said. "The parties remain diametrically opposed." The breakaway province might have to wait a little longer for its long-sought independence, he said. ... US and British officials have moved quickly to re-bag Mr Ahtisaari's cat, insisting the talks are on course.' The Guardian, 13 October 2006 [7]

There is more than enough doubt being expressed about the outcome of the talks that we should either a) not comment on the talks and their outcome or b) mention the very real possibilty that the talks either go nowhere or fail, with the very real possibility of a universal declaration of independence by the Kosovo Albanians.

Whilst we shouldn't go further than this in our discussion, it's worth considering that this would cause immediate tensions amongst the players and institutions involved. There would be much pressure within and from the US to recognise independence. However, the UN itself is prevented by it's Charter from intervening and UNMIK would likely be forced to strike down a UDI if it came from within the provisional institutions of self-government. Serbs within the Republika Srpska might themselves raise the possibility of a UDI on their part. These are all possibilities and, as the credible articles above allude to, the result of failed talks and a UDI would be disagreements in the international community and not inconceivably bloodshed in Kosovo and the wider Balkans. If anyone can present a more credible observer of all this than Martti Ahtisaari, and can state them here, I'll be impressed...

To keep the article as it is, with a bland statement that talks will lead inevitably (peacefully) to full independence is not reflective of the situation on the ground or amongst commentators. We should agree a new form of words. JamesAVD 13:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please let me also say, for those here who personally support or oppose independence, that saying any of this is not to express a point of view on the desirability of failed or successful talks or of independence, just a recognition that the wider press and international community (including the main negotiator) see failed talks as a very real possibility. JamesAVD 13:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And just as a reminder to us all, Wikipedia policy on speculation (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) states: 'It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.' The Arbitration decision also makes clear that, 'Optimal reporting includes adequate treatment of new or prospective developments'. So the standard we need to adhere to is that our reporting of the prospects for Kosovo Final Status talks needs to be properly referenced. The most recent good references make clear we need to given some prominence to the possibilty (or likelihood if you believe Martti Ahtisaari) of failed talks. JamesAVD 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this! Some people are acting here like this is not encyclopedia and spreading Albanian propaganda. So, as well, I can say that if Kosovo declares independence on it's own, Serbia would likely invade the province and restore it to it's jurisdiction again. The only ones who could stop that income are Americans if they decide to bomb Serbia again. And that's the same way Kosovo was taken away in 1999. Does anyone really think that Kosovo Albanians can stand up to Serbian army? So if you're going to delete this comment, it would be fair to delete other biased comments as well. 89.216.173.210 13:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

verifiable

Here is a new article from today by Reuters discussing the very real possibility that talks will fail. [8] This alone should be enough to cast doubt, along with the many articles JamesAVD posted so I will remove the prediction in the introduction. MK013 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"It is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence". This sentence is vaguely formulated and in may be misleading. Even if it is a fact, we dont have the sources to state this, the UN has not stated this and this is why we shouldent have statments like this, based on journalists. I think we should remove this sentence until we have a concrete facts about the proposals and etc. I also think we should follow Principle 7 in this issue. - Litany 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, principle 7 includes this statement: "Speculation by reliable experts may be included only in limited circumstances." Fairview360 05:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume that everyone who read it know that but I think most us wants to know who are the "reliable experts"? This is also vague wordings and dosent lead any closer to a solution. Litany 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K., Litany. Please clarify your position then. You stated "I also think we should follow Principle 7 on this issue." But now you are saying that principle 7 does not "lead any closer to a solution." So now please state for us once and for all. Are you proposing that we follow principle 7 or not? Yes or no? Fairview360 22:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Litany , after you answer the question about where you stand on principle 7 -- yes or no -- I would like to know if you consider the Boris Tadic's assessment of current expectations to be that of a reliable source? He stated today: Kosovo is at this time closer to independence than to essential autonomy. http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n99738 Of course, he wants essential autonomy to be the outcome, but he acknowledges that the current expectation is some form of independence. He has acknowledged that obvious fact numerous times. Do you consider the President of Serbia Boris Tadic to be a reliable source? Who do you consider a reliable source? What reliable expert would need to state the obvious for you to accept it? Fairview360 06:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The article you posted does not have a quote of him saying that. In fact it quotes him as saying "Today, we are pulling Kosovo out of independence, where Milosevic’s and Radicals’ governments pushed it." It is a very misleading article as he never once mentioned Kosovo was closer to independence. Please find a direct quote of him saying that. MK013 22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Title of article: Kosovo closer to independence than to essential autonomy: Serbia’s President

Date of article: 16 November 2006 | 18:16 | FOCUS News Agency

First sentence: Kosovo is at this time closer to independence than to essential autonomy, Serbia’s President Boris Tadic has stated, as cited by the Serbian Beta agency.

MKO13, the quote that you cited from the article is consistent with Tadic's acknowledgement of current expectations that Kosovo is close to getting some form of independence. If you say you plan to pull a car out of the mud, you are acknowledging that the car is in the mud. If you want to find the original transcript and find reason to object to the Serbian Beta news agency's accounting of what Tadic asserted, go ahead. That is your fool's errand, not mine. But do note that Tadic himself is not objecting to the article. Apparently, Tadic is farther along in acknowledging reality and working with it. It makes him a better president than you are an editor of wikipedia. Perhaps, you could learn from him and acknowledge the obvious. It would save us a lot of time and energy. Wikipedia is not a place for wishful thinking or denial of the obvious. Current expectations are that Kosovo is going to get some form of independence. Russia is accepting a visit by the leader of Kosovo. What does that tell you? Carl Bildt refered to "Serbia and Kosovo" as if they are on the same level. What does that tell you? You read an article that clearly states Tadic's acknowledgment of current expectations but it eludes your mental grasp. Hence this article gets protected since there is instability in the realm of the editors of this article. But we only have a few more months and then we will no longer need to discuss expectations. The actual decision will be there for all to see. Hopefully, it will be clear and concise without room for misinterpretation so this inane conversation can finally end. Fairview360 15:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK Fairview360, principle 7 states that Wikipedia not should be a crystal ball and tell the readers about a future we cant predict but it lets a loop hole about the sources and etc, so this opens for more conflicts between editors. It dosent matter what I think because I think it is pretty obvious where these talks about the future of Kosovo is leading (to some for of independance, with autonomy or soemthing else) BUT I dont know for sure and no body else does either, thats why I think this small sentence should be left out until we have an actual agrement stated by the UN. Principle 7 says that we should not predict the future, thats what I think is the most important. Litany 16:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So you and I support the part of principle 7 that says you and I should not predict the future. I agree that what you and I think is going to happen is irrelevant. What is relevant is the opinion of reliable experts. Reliable experts believe that some form of independence is the most likely outcome. Principle 7 states that the opinion of reliable experts may be included, but you disagree? Fairview360 05:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that an Independent Kosovo is a prediction. It is an accepted outcome. Everyone knows that some form of independence will happen. This means no Serbian sovereignty any longer. Stop feeding an illusion. Accept the new reality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.217.3 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I think the Bosnian Serbs' independent Republic from BH is an accepted outcome. I think that the Hungarians in Vojvodina will receive regional autonomy. I think that Bosniacs in Sanjak and Albanians in Presevo will be constitutionally recognized. I think that the Croats in BH will receive a 3rd entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. AFAIC, I think that Montenegro will rejoin Serbia, the Republic of Dubrovnik will be restored, FYROM will join Bulgaria; I also think that it is a fact that Izrael will eventually retake the territories it previously conquered, that Transnistria will be independent, just as South Ossetia and Abkhazia; I also think that Nuclear Fusion will in several years be mastered by an ethnic Italian living in USA and that sharks will be in no time extinct due to the American invasion of North Korea (which is an accepted reality that it will happen) that will also sparkle a Nuclear War and eventual end of the world. Heck, I'm Nostradamus! :))) --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not predicting the future. We are accurately describing what current expectations are. Associated Press today: "if U.N.-brokered talks lead to independence as expected". http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4346608.html Pax, your facetious predictions are not indicative of actual current expectations of reliable experts. Fun reading though :) . Fairview360 05:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Litany

As regards your claim that this was "settled" - I don't believe it was. As you can see above, the discussion was still ongoing as of 11:00, 2 November 2006. The previous version that I had reverted to was the one that was settled upon after months of arguing, not to mention an arbitration, and it is the one that is supported by the majority of reliable sources. However, in the interest of not starting another arguement, I will refrain from reverting to the agreed-upon version and merely hope that you will in the future attempt to gain a consensus before unilaterally altering sensitive areas of this much-disputed article. Thanks, Davu.leon 15:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you need any proof you can read here on Kosovo's talk page. Consensus regarding this issue has already been reached by the arbitration commitee, read here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo.

I would be pleased if you respect the ruling of the arbitration commitee and do not do any disruptive edits. Litany 19:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether there was a consensus or not, but what I do know is that this article is so messy it is hard to tell. There is an undeniable fact, however, and I can supply a great number of sources to support it, that says that the path to "some form of independence" is certain. This is not about predicting the future, this is about a future that has already been decided. Negotiations are bound to fail, so the solution will undoubtedly be imposed sooner or later, but no later than march 2007. I hope this argument is sufficient for the revert I have made. Sanmint 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see What Wikipedia Is Not. It's not a crystal ball, we should not post about the future, even if it is speculation that is generally agreed upon, it is still speculation. I have refrained from reverting again so as not to break the three-revert rule, however I would probably expect that change to be reverted by someone else.

Also, please read the ArbCom ruling about this article. Thanks. -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the poin here Wizardry_Dragon. We're not predicting the future here, the future is certain, it has been decided and there are numerous secondary sources that would agree with it including Financial Times and the Economist. These are reliable sources.

Just to put my point in context, if you look at the Demographics section of the USA here [9], the words "If current immigration trends continue, the number of non-Hispanic whites is expected to be reduced to a plurality by 2040-2050" represent prediction of future and as such should it also be removed?

It is in the interest of the general reader to know what the very imminent future holds for Kosovo. I will be reinstating the statement and I would ask the editors not to remove it.Sanmint 13:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could use a more authoritative source on the matter. With all due respect to the newspapers in questions, American newspapers are rather out of their depth in the case of events happening in Kosovo, IMHO. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 16:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Economist is actually British, but the point still stands. --estavisti 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is on a path to independence. That fact has been repeatedly and widely written about. That fact is found in a wide range of authoritative sources, including media, academic writing, and the public statements of experts. This is not "speculation," or even informed speculation; it is, rather, a fact of the process. I travel all around Europe and have never heard anyone -- except for Belgrae government officials -- claim otherwise. It would be intellectually dishonest to either ignore this fact or pretend that all options for Kosovo's future status are under realistic consideration. Speculation does not belong here (for example, I would advise against any speculation about how and when Kosovo will become independent or what temporary limitations will be placed on its independence). But it it ludicrous to not state the obvious course of this process. Envoy202 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have further sources, cite them. It shouldn't be too hard if what you say is true. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wizard: I'd disagree about your conclusion about U.S. media being "out of their depth" (as your independent research has concluded). In fact, the NY Times does great coverage of Balkans issues. Nick Wood, the Times correspondent for the region, is a top-notch reporter and has excellent sources in the region. Envoy202 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Envoy, you seem to have a hard time distinguishing between facts and opinion. Fact: They are having negotiations to determine the final status. Opinion: this will lead to independence. Why have talks in the first place if the outcome is alredy determined? The world does not revolve around the US and just because the US and its media are pushing for independence does not mean Russia, China will not shoot this done in the Security Council. So once again, wait for the results to be determined before discusing the outcome as it's far from certain that Kosovo will be independent. MK013 20:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon & MK013, in the arbitration the inclusion of this speculation on Kosovo's future by reliable experts was specifically contemplated in Principle 7 (see also Fred Bauder's comment on Proposed principle 11). - Regards, Evv 21:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's to say what constitutes a "reliable expert"? I can produce quotes from PM Koštunica and Pres. Putin (both heavily involved in the negiotation process) along with other "experts" which deny that it will be granted independence. Western "experts" say Kosovo will gain independence, Eastern "experts" deny. The fact of the matter is, nobody knows how this will play out. Just because Ahtisaari may propose independence does not mean Russia, Serbia, China etc. would accept an imposed solution without a veto in the Security Council. History is unpredictable and nobody, no matter how "reliable" or how much "expertise" they may have, can predict it. So once again I strongly suggest letting the talks play out before discussing the outcome MK013 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a neutral wording would be that final status talks are underway, without speculating on the results. Your Economist source is a year old. I ran a LexisNexis search just now and the situation looks pretty murky. Russia says they won't support a solution unless all parties agree, but Belgrade is digging in its heels. There is an Economist story from two days ago (2 Nov) that might have useful information on the current situation, and there are dispatches from Beta and Xinhua news services in October. I expect it will be possible to neutrally describe the situation and the points of view of the various entities somewhere in the article, but I would recommend that the introduction not predict an outcome or timetable. Thatcher131 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The reasons given so far to counter the inclusion of the paragraph about Kosovo becoming independent are uninformed at best and sinister at worse. With all due respect, all one has to do to find information about the imminent future of Kosovo, is to google news and search for Kosovo. Here are a few very recent reliable sources (as mentioned by Thatcher131) [[10]] [[11]]. Financial Times and the Economist are british papers, they are not American. I also strongly disagree with the observation that New York Times lacks depth, that is very untrue.

P.S. Its interesting how no one answered my point about the Demographics of USA, which is rife with predictions.Sanmint 03:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that demographic predictions about the US are (a) uncontroversial, and (b) could probably be sourced to Census bureau analysis if necessary. And please refrain from describing other editors' motives as "sinister" or anything else. Thatcher131 07:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the inclusion of that paragraph is controversial, and I don't see that being a good enough reason for exclusion of such well-sourced material. Reading from the archives, I can see that there were and still are numerous controversies within this article that haven't been removed because they were well sourced, despite the protests.Sanmint 11:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As Sanmint says, the sentence isn't controversial at all: almost every source/comment share the view that Kosovo is heading to "some form of independence" (ranging from almost total autonomy within Serbia to outright full formal independence). Belgrade strives for the former, Priština wants the latter, but the differences are only a matter of formalities: an autonomous Kosovo within Serbia would be independent in all but name.

Furthermore, not mentioning the broad agreement on this issue would be outright misleading.

I already agreed with JamesAVD (in the "Final status" section above) that the source and the wording could do with some updating, reflecting the fact that the talks could lead nowhere and the final status be decided by UN diktat or some other means. But let's keep the old sourced & agreed upon version in place until a proper replacement (both wording and a new source) is agreed upon in this talk page.

So, let's talk about new wording and a new source. Does anybody have a proposal on this ? :-) Regards, Evv 11:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The comments ARE controversial. And autonomy is not independence, there's a huge difference actually. Your arguments are not address the key issues. Nobody knows exactly how the talks will end so there should not be predictions on it. MK013 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'm going to add one more thing. These same "experts" said that the final status would be settled by 2006 and judging by the recent comments of Kofi Annan and Javier Solana, that will not be the case. So now we see how reliable these "experts" are. MK013 22:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

By "experts" the arbitration referred to the authors of reliable sources, not the political actors involved in the process.

Following WP:V and adhering to Principle 7 of the arbitration, the sentence in question merely reflects the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources share the opinion that "some form of independece" will be the likely outcome. Whether they're right or wrong about it is outside the scope of Wikipedia. - Regards, Evv 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are Western sources reliable, while others are not? --estavisti 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not always the case: in principle sources are reliable or not on a case by case basis, irrespective of their "Western" or "non-Western" nature. However, a certain pro-Western bias can be attributed to simple ignorance about/lack of familiarity with other sources (at least in my personal case). Do you have any particular non-Western source in mind, Estavisti ? - Regards, Evv 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section above for the continued discussion of how to represent the potential outcomes of the talks presently underway on final status. JamesAVD 13:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to follow the agenda of the arbitration committe, and in this issue Principle 7 is the best to follow. Which means no specultions and even if the source are made by reliable experts the source is dating to over a year ago. Litany 15:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please comment in the section above, not here. JamesAVD 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reality

I do not really think that Kosovo is a part of Serbia.Why?
Because it was not,it is now not,and will not be a Serb controlled state.
And please do not violate the truth for telling the untruth someone should care about it and I know about kosovo so do not try to write un true things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.81.150 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I would refer you to the "Arbitration" section at the top of this talk page.

The issue has been discussed at lenght, apparently for most of this talk page history. Please read the archives (especially Talk:Kosovo/Archive 10 & 11) and the Kosovo arbitration case. - Regards, Evv 22:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it was not,it is now not,and will not be a Serb controlled state

1. It was, for centuries

2. It is

3. I guess we will have to wait. I suggest to you all to stop interpreting the status thinking that you're all the UN and just simply wait. I am not competent enough to decide a whole country's future, so I will not talk in the place of millions of people like all you do. Cheers, and don't mind my harsh words - I'm usually very bright! ;) --PaxEquilibrium 17:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

it was for centuries? I guess you know that one century = 100 years. We are not in 2012 now, are we?

it is? someone stop me from laughing to death.

future? I guess some like the just wish too much. All but Serbs are not sure about this. lots of love from Kosova, ilir_pz 16:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, centuries, yeah (some 400 years). If we count Metohija alone, then almost 1,000 years :).

Well, yeah, it is. If it's not a country, then it's for sure a part of one (Serbia in this case)

What on earth are you talking about? I can't really understand you over there... --PaxEquilibrium 17:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section above for the continued discussion of how to represent the potential outcomes of the talks presently underway on final status. JamesAVD 14:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I might try - but I wouldn't advise doing such a thing. This is not a discussion board/forum, but an encyclopedia. We write here what is said/sourced and that which is, not that which may be. --PaxEquilibrium 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pax, I mean keep the discussion within one subsection rather than breaking it up under multiple headings. Any further points re. how we describe future status process, please comment above? Thanks. JamesAVD 12:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel like vomiting when I hear some comments from some here :). Those who want to see what Kosovo really is, please be welcome to visit and check it :).ilir_pz 16:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It gets the guts, doesn't it? :) AFAIC, I forgot to tell - I spend a day in Kosovo recently. --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't spend a day in Kosovo, thats a lie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.217.3 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Right... Ilir pz is that you? --PaxEquilibrium 00:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is toooooooo long

I think the Kosovo article is very long and has too much information about the History of Kosovo, which already has its own article already. Don’t you think the part “History” should be summarized just to their basic points, making the article more coherent, shorter and easier to read?--MaGioZal 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is we get a similar issue as with the History of Vojvodina - removing contents we can never balance the histories of the proper peoples (here when regarding to Serbs and Albanians, respectively, and in Vojvodina's case totally ruining it multi-ethnic order). If memory serves me well, we did try out a tiny version, but then huge disputes came over all those sentences - and the consensus ended up with "..more clarification is needed.." and so we ended up here. :) --PaxEquilibrium 14:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Can someone add these templates, I think they are neutral :) --Göran Smith 13:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected the page, you can do it yourself. Hopefully we won't go right back to edit warring over one sentence, hmm? Thatcher131 02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Spain & Independence of Kosovo

Spain (its Government & Premier) announced that the Kingdom of Spain cannot, will not and should not recognize or support any independence of Kosovo. Spain officially supports the legal status of Kosovo being a constituent part of the Republic of Serbia and fiercely argues that any sort of implemented compromise is unacceptable. He also says that not only independence of a "Republic of Kosovo" is impossible, but also that the entity should not receive any form of limited independence. He also says that so-called "self-determination" is what ruined Yugoslavia in the first place and is the key/sole problem of all European questions, and that it should simply not be applied to this case (or any other); considering that the official policy is against the creation of new countries (especially if illegal), but disappearance of the existing ones, and gradual thinning and merges of European borders. They also draw that self-determination is often (like in these cases) the source of irridentism and destabilization of the region, and says that Spain will not allow the creation of any ethnic country, supporting multi-ethnic order and stating (concentrating on Europe) that the current situation must be actively frozen, and countries, on historical basis, kept in the spirit of stability and Euro-Atlantic integration.

Other countries related to Serbia have stood aside it (Slovenia, Slovakia), stating that only compromise is the solution for Kosovo, and if independence is simply unacceptable to Serbia, so it must not be the solution either. Now, I fail to understand all those notes how Kosovo's independence is something so evidently "expected" by the whole world, and something that will certainly happen, when aside from Spain, a superpower (which is also a member of the 8 Contact Group) - the Russian federation, but other world powers, like the People's Republic of Chine, staunchly oppose such a thing. Recently, US envoys have payed a visit to Serbia stating that they want good relations with Serbia and remain open to a common compromise, ending their campaign of lobbing Kosovar independence. Currently, Italy replaced Britain and America as the main ringleader of the campaign for independence. --PaxEquilibrium 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Spain is a "superpower" teeming with aircraft carriers, strategic nuclear weapons, a space program, and stands as one of the largest economies in the world? When did this happen? Fairview360 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It reads to me as though that was describing the Russian Federation as the superpower.

Spain could be expected to say such things against independence. They are strengthening their own arguments against independence for the Basque region, and indeed Catalonia. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Kierant, thank you for the correction. Indeed I misread it. Pax was indeed refering to Russia though I think he is mistaken about the US taking a backseat in regards to Kosovo getting some form of independence. The following is from B92: Fairview360 18:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Polt also said that the preservation of territorial integrity is not a central question in the Kosovo discussions.

“Should we protect the territorial integrity of every regime that chooses to kill its own citizens?” Polt asked, adding that it is in the international community’s best interest to offer everyone the same rights.

“Belgrade will have to live with the results of the Kosovo agreement, as will Priština. Both sides can choose to continue resistance against it, fight against it and live in constant animosity towards such an agreement. If Belgrade rejects the reached agreement for Kosovo and says that they will resist it, I would like to know if the people of Serbia really want that kind of a future.” Polt explained.

The US ambassador said that the possibility for violence breaking out in Kosovo still exists, but that it will not be tolerated.

“A violent past exists in Kosovo and we cannot forget who started that past violence in the 1990s. It was the Milošević regime.” Polt said.

“And of course there could be violence as a result of the agreement. I think that it would be a great mistake for whatever groups starts the violence, because it will not be tolerated by the international community.” he said.

The only problem is that regime no longer exists, so the argument drops to water. ;) If they support the territorial integrity, they would not support that kind of regime. --PaxEquilibrium 18:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

? Fairview360 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Pax is referring to the fact that the current government in Belgrade is not responsible for the actions of the Milosevic regime and hence shouldn't be punished for its crimes. Osli73 19:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

The irony is that AFAIC, Kosovo's government is made from a regime that chose to kill its own citizens. The wholesome government of Serbia is composed out of strictly democrats and free-elected people (even without any "messy" figures), whereas War Criminals and former terrorists (sic!) form the Kosovar government. The most powerful man, the Premier, is a notorious War Criminal; and due to first-eye witnesses, a pure extremist nationalist by my opinion (war in Croatia), that even Croatian officials admitted that he was the one doing the "dirty work". Although I sincerely believe that Ceku tries to do what's best for Kosovo (but motivated by Albanian national interests solely), look it like this - if Stalin suddenly helped build a democratic regime in the early 1950s in Soviet Russia, I still would like him trialled for all the bad things he did before. Agin Ceku has murdered, had them killed or indirectly didn't protect over 800 non-Albanian civilians and POWs. Now, whereas in the Serbian government there are people that never wore weapons in their lives (and have nothing to do with the disgusting 1990s), the Kosovar government is composed mainly from people who not only were para-soldiers, but literally killers (as harsh as that sounds - I apologize if it offends anyone), people who were hiding and fighting a guerrilla war using even terrorist tactics (kidnapping, blackmail-assassination) and committing retribution acts (atrocities) against Serbs and Romas in the civil war. Carla del Ponte made a good critics of the Kosovar war criminal government and lodged an appeal for Ramush Haradinaj's case (as she said, a very notorious war criminal, ethnic cleanser), a man that walks free in Kosovo and is allowed to practice politics... bizzare :S. The very same government that supported (partly) the march 2004 mass anti-Serb riots. A government wanting to kill its own citizens... A good comparison would be if the Serbian Radical Party takes power in Serbia. :) So, according to logic and common sense, USA must not support Kosovo's aims for independence, and should support instead Serbia's territorial integrity according to what you say... :P --PaxEquilibrium 22:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"The wholesome government of Serbia"... interesting concept. As innocent and pure as the wind-blown snow. So Pax, could you explain why this beacon of democracy, law, and order, does not arrest war criminals Ratko Mladic and/or Radovan Karadzic? You apparently consider Carla Del Ponte a legitimate source. According to Del Ponte, the government of which you speak so highly knows where Mladic is but will not arrest him. From B92: "Carla Del Ponte says Serbia is far from the European values as truth and justice are relative concepts in the country." http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=37667

The relevance of this conversation is to the Kosovo article's description of current expectations and how the international community perceives Serbia's right (or lack thereof) to Kosovo. Pax, you would be hardpressed to convince people that your opinion here is reflective of the international community. Rather, your opinion is indicative of people who are painfully unaware of the course of current events. Fairview360 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Serbia had, as Carla says, many chances to arrest Mladic (Karadzic is not in Serbia, unlike Mladic), but they missed them or in the worst case, are even protecting him. But we don't know these things, whereas we know that people like Ratko Mladic, Agim Ceku and Ante Gotovina are murderers, and nothing we say here will change that. If (hypothetically speaking) Kosovar President admitted that the Kosovar authorities had the chance to arrest war criminal in hiding Agim Ceku, but didn't; I would believe that Kosovo is indeed in the process of becoming a democratized place; but handing over power to the evil ones' never good - remember what had happened to Serbia when Milosevic seized state control? I am not at all reflecting the opinion of the international community (which is divided, with a large part supporting independence - but contradicting with International Law itself, a minor part opposing and the majority simply not caring); I was reflecting that which you said. --PaxEquilibrium 15:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the latest back and forth, I'd like to make three points:

1) On the inevitability of independence -- Well, we've been around this argument before. First, virtually every credible source makes a point of saying that Kosovo's independence is all but certain. It's extremely difficult to find a media article or academic report that does not mention this. Second, the reality is that Europe is not divided on independence. I spend a lot of time traveling European capitals talking about Kosovo and I can attest that there is an extremely broad consensus that Kosovo will become and should become independent. The only disagreements are about how and when Kosovo should become independent. Yes, there are some outliers -- Spain and to a lesser extent Romania and Greece -- but does anyone really believe these countries will seek or even be able to derail a status outcome that is so widely supported? Admittedly, most folks are not thrilled about Kosovo's independence (it's an option with lots of problems), but expert opinion is remarkably unified that all other outcomes are not remotely viable. Also, remember that big countries have a powerful incentive to move this process to a rapid conclusion: there are over 16,000 troops on the ground who would be in harm's way if new instability hits Kosovo. It's always a pain in the ass getting Europe to agree to anything, but I share the confidence that all our credible source have that Kosovo's independence is still on train.

2) On the war crimes issue -- The problem with Serbia's new "democratic" leaders is not that they are morally responsible for the crimes of Milosevic; the problem is that they (especially Kostunica) have quite brazenly refused to fulfill Serbia's international obligations to cooperate with the ICTY. I do not believe in collective guilt, but I do believe that all nation's have a responsibility to deal with the legacy of the past (Americans still must deal with the legacy of slavery; Germans still must deal with the legacy of the Holocaust). Serbia's leaders and their focus on the past -- especially their self-destructive attempt to hang on to Kosovo at all costs -- is only distracting them from their brighter future in Europe. As for the Kosovo Albanians and their leaders, I'd be the first to agree that there are some shady characters around. But the ICTY has spent years investigating Ceku and other Kosovo Albanian leaders, but only managed to get charges to stick on a few, including Ramush Haradinaj (and most experts believe that indictment was extremely weak, but that Carla Del Ponte felt pressure to indict at least one high-profile KLA'er to show "balance.") And, from a pragmatic and amoral point of view, you have to acknowledge that both Ceku and Ramush have done more for the wellbeing of Kosovo Serbs after the war than any other Kosovo leaders.

3) On international law -- I bristle deeply when principles of international law are invoked to "prove" that Kosovo's independence will be "illegal." Kostunica, a lawyer by trade, has put all his eggs in this very unsympathetic argument that somehow Kosovo's independence will violate international law. This is simply not right. The reality is that Kosovo's independence is taking place in the context of Yugoslavia's 15-year, non-consensual breakup. As part of that breakup, the UN Security Council (itself a major source of international law) passed Resolution 1244 that called for a UN-led political process to determine Kosovo's future status -- that Resolution deliberately did not rule out any particular status outcome, including independence. Finally, there is nothing in the UN Charter or in international law that prevents the emergence of states on the territory of former states: if so, then the new states of the former Yugoslavia would never have come into being! The reality is that international law is kind of like the Bible: it contains many principles and maxims that can be invoked to prove any case. For Serbia to rely on its interpretation of international law -- while ignoring the extremely persuasive political, pragmatic and moral reasons why Kosovo should become independent and why Kosovo's two million citizens should not be forced to remain in a union with Serbia -- is unfortunate and does not reflect well on Serbia. I believe that Serbia, a great nation with a bright future in Europe, deserves better from its leaders.

Envoy202 23:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Words "masses" and "razed to the ground"

Dear all: The section on Kosovo during Ottoman rule says:

"This brought a great shift, as the Orthodox Serb population began to lose its majority when masses of Turks and Albanians moved to Kosovo. During the Islamisation, many Churches and Holy Orthodox Christian places were razed to the ground or turned into Mosques".

I think the words "masses" and "razed to the ground" are both inappropriate and should be replaced by something less controversial - maybe "large numbers" and just plain old "destroyed". Regards Osli73 19:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Masses definitely implies informality, which is probably inappropriate, but it can of course also be used in the sense of "population movement en masse" — i.e. lots of people moving together in a very short space of time. Is that what happened? I'd agree on "razed to the ground" though; too emotive, unless it's quoting from a source. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)