Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:14, 4 May 2004

Old resolved discussions are archived at /Archive 1 and /Archive 2.

Kosovar, Kosovan, Kosovian

I've added an explanation of the usages of the collective term to the article. -- ChrisO 20:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It will go to BJODN soon :)) Nikola 07:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adding summary info to article

The Kosovo article is already structured along the lines of a regular country or state article, but it lacks a summary table giving basic information on the place (official language, capital, largest city etc). If nobody objects, I'll have a go at creating a summary table for the article. I've already moved the map to the top of the page and will create a locator map based on that in the Serbia and Montenegro article. -- ChrisO 10:24, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Moved tables below)

Table based on subnational entity template

Please comment on this table below this point

Should I start to object? Nikola 07:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's up to you. What's your objection? -- ChrisO 09:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I object as well, for several reasons:

1. Kosovo is not a state

I've answered this on Talk:Vojvodina; the table is a standard way of displaying data on subnational entities. It has nothing to do with whether a region is a state or not. -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I see, a table is a standard way of displaying data on subnational entities; but which table? Even those that you mentioned (Limburg, Southern Finland, Pas-de-Calais, Dagestan, Karelia, Chechnya or London Borough of Southwark) have completely different tables with completely different colour, layout and data.

2. The Albanian flag is not officially recognized (unofficial data can not go into tables)

As far as I know, it has an official status within Kosovo, but an unofficial status in the Serbia-wide context. I'm not sure how else we can resolve this conflict of status, where each side says that the other's flag is illegitimate, other than by showing both flags and explaining the circumstances. How do you propose to address the official endorsement of the Albanian flag by the interim administration? -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Write about it as a subsection in Politics and the international status? Note that Kosovo Serbs don't use flag of Serbia as a flag of Kosovo but as a flag of Serbia, so if you put both you are wrong. I am not sure about the status of the Albanian flag also. Nikola

3. Ibrahim Rugova was never elected in a direct vote, he was actually nominated by the UN administrator, as well as Bajram Rexhepi. The UN administrators have the final say.

He was elected by the Kosovo assembly a year ago this month. Don't forget that the US president isn't directly elected either, but nobody doubts his legitimacy (well, not until George W. Bush anyway :) -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

An issue I will raise now is consistancy of information with other tables. A table is obvious sign that all the information inside it also exists in a table of any other similar entity. But Vojvodina has no president or official currency.

For example, you have even included TLD; but that is TLD of Yugoslavia and not of Kosovo, and Kosovo doesn't have a TLD (I would not object to including it if it existed). Each university in SCG has a TLD so if there are articles on them with standard tables, there would be no need not to include TLDs. But here there is no need to include it. Nikola

4. Kosovo did not declare independence, Kosovo Albanians did.

Strictly speaking, it would be more accurate to say Kosovo Albanian members of the Kosovo Assembly did. But really, the situation in that regard is little different to (for example) Abkhazia or Chechnya or for that matter Republika Srpska, all of which were secessions by one ethnic group. -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RS didn't secess in the same way as these, Bosnia was not an internationally recognised state when it declared independence. Nikola

I think that me and Nikola should write up a similar table for the Republic of Serbian Krajina, what do you say Nikola? -- Igor 0:46, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object in principle, if you have the data. It's already been done for Biafra, an extinct secessionist state in Nigeria. -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not a state? Nikola 09:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

True, but it's an administrative division. Misplaced Pages already has a well-established practice of giving summary information on administrative units of cities or countries (see, for instance, London Borough of Southwark or Surrey). Doing this for Kosovo implies nothing about the status of the province other than that it's an administrative division of Serbia, which we already know. I'd be grateful if you could verify the information that I'll be putting in the table, though. -- ChrisO 10:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would have no problems if this table is not based on table used for states and is clearly distinct from them. In fact, I would proliferate it to Vojvodina, Serbia, Montenegro and Republika Srpska articles. However, I strongly object with several reasons if the table is going to have political data in it (such as: flag, president, prime minister etc.). What exactly would you put in the table? Nikola 22:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Full agreement with Nikola on this issue, the table should be in the format of similar administrative subdivisions in the world. -- Igor 0:46, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Which it already is; see Talk:Vojvodina for random examples. -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd overlooked this comment of yours before I added the table. (I've put the table next to this thread for ease of reference so that we can work on it here before it goes into the article. I've amended it a bit.)

I cannot believe this because you have at first proposed a table similar to that of London Borough of Southwark or Surrey. But then you have inserted a table that has nothing in common with these two, but looks completely like a country table and contains all the information that I've objected about and which is not present in these two tables. Nikola

Southwark and Surrey didn't prove to be an appropriate model because they don't give the full set of information needed for an article like this (e.g. languages, currency, political data). I used instead the model adopted for the republics of Russia - see, for instance, Dagestan or Karelia. It's a standard template for many Misplaced Pages articles on subnational divisions. -- ChrisO 10:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So what, add the new -- Igor 0:46, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I answered to this above. Nikola

At the very least the table should have physical, geographical and demographic information. It should also have political data: Kosovo does have an elected president and prime minister who are regarded by the Serbia/Montenegro government as being the legitimate government, representatives of Kosovo. See, for instance, the many references at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=rugova+site%3Agov.yu which refer to "Kosovo President Ibrahim Rugova" and "Kosovo Premier Bajram Rexhepi". The S/M government clearly accepts these as their official titles and roles.

As far as I can see, these are relayings of news by various news agencies: "PRISTINA,Oct 13 (FoNet)-Kosovo President Ibrahim Rugova" by FoNet for example etc. However, even if they are regarded as legitimate government, I don't think that they should be in the table as 1) their positions are purely nominal, and each of their decisions can be withdrawn by UN administrator and 2) it suggests a sense of permanence and there is no final status of Kosovo yet; when there is, maybe Kosovo will not have a president. Nikola

I found many references from the Serbian government itself to Rugova as "Kosovo President" - see http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/news/2003-10/14/331454.html , among many others. That article describes Rugova and company as representatives of "Kosovo-Metohija's interim self-government institutions." Also, don't forget that the posts were filled through democratic elections; the individuals concerned were not self-appointed. Given that, I suggest that we include both the President and Prime Minister posts but note their interim status. (I've updated the table accordingly.) We can always change it later when things are finally worked out. -- ChrisO 10:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That one is also a piece of news, not an official document. Nikola

I agree that the flag is more problematic. I suggest that both the Albanian and Serbian flags be used in the table in recognition of the fact that Kosovo's elected administration uses the former, but the latter is the legal flag of the whole of Serbia, including Kosovo. This seems the most even-handed solution; using the Serbian flag alone would be rather like using the flag of the People's Republic of China as the sole flag on the Republic of China (Taiwan) article, while using the Albanian flag alone would disregard the formal position of the Serbian flag being the official Serbia-wide flag. See the amended form of the table for a possible way of displaying this.

Why displayingthem at all? Nikola

Because they're both in common use - it's as simple as that. NPOV means that we have to report things as they are, not just how one side or the other would like them to be. As a matter of record, we should say that the two main national communities each have their own flag exclusively used in their own areas of settlement. The interim government of Kosovo appears to have formally endorsed the use of the Albanian flag, so it would be POV to ignore that, just as it would be POV to ignore the national legal status of the Serbian flag. -- ChrisO 10:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the Serbs use both the Yugoslav and Serbian flag. There are many unofficial variations of both the Serbian and Albanian flags that are used in Kosovo and throughout the Balkans, listing all of them, particularly in such a table, would be ludicrous. --Igor

But am I right in suggesting that there are only two or possibly three flags with any official standing - the Serbian/Serbia-Montenegro flags (endorsed by the Serbia/S&M government), and the standard Albanian flag (endorsed by the Kosovo interim administration)? -- ChrisO 02:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Answered above. Nikola

I've restored the information on the naming issue that you deleted without explanation.

I just reverted. Nikola

The majority consensus on Talk:Kosova was that it should be retained to explain the controversy; I suggest that you respect that view. If you have a problem with it, please have the courtesy to discuss the issue and suggest alternative ways of dealing with it, rather than just deleting factual material. -- ChrisO 18:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Table based on London Borough

Please comment on this table below this point

Thanks for producing this, Igor. My comments:

• Morwen has produced a nice concise locator map which I've included in my version of the table: see Image:SerbiaMontenegro-Kosovo.png. Image:KosovoMetohiaMap.png is a bit too large and detailed for this purpose and doesn't put Kosovo in its usual context as one of Serbia's two autonomous provinces.
  • I don't think that it doesn't put it into context but I agree that it is too large, though I think that the other one is somewhat small. But as far as I am concerned it could be used, eventually replaced with a larger image later. Nikola
• The "ethnic composition" note is a bit POV; I suggest just listing the figures and explaining the context in the text.
• Politics: you can't just ignore the elected administration. It's a good idea to include the UN Administrator (I've done this with my table as well) but given that the president and prime minister are recognised as such by all the governments and international organisations involved, they need to be included. Also, I think the "declaration of independence" does need to be mentioned. For comparison, see the tables in Chechnya or South Ossetia, which likewise declared independence in 1990 and 1992 respectively but haven't been recognised internationally. Northern Cyprus is not dissimilar.
  • Again, above. Vojvodina never declared independence. Nikola

The table isn't bad, but I still think that for the sake of consistency it would be better to use the standard model for subnational entities. -- ChrisO 11:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

===========================================================

Sirs,

I hope you don't mind if I join this discussion.

I have a long list of objections, but I would like to start with the most important one: the name of Kosovo.

I totally object Kosovo being named Kosovo and Metohija. Naming Kosovo like that shows that by default you are being biased. Kosovo is known internationally as Kosovo only. I am not aware of any major or important government or institution calling Kosovo as Kosovo and Metohija. To begin with, the United Nation calls Kosovo as Kosovo only (and United Nations opinion should matter). Otherwise, the name of the UN mission in Kosovo would not be "United Nations Mission in Kosovo and ...", but it is simply "United Nations Mission in Kosovo". End of story.

In addition, the American government also uses the name Kosovo only. See CIA Factbook, or all other document released by the American administration. In particular, I recommend you see "Erasing History: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo" (http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/rpt_9905_ethnic_ksvo_toc.html). The same with the governments of United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Japan and others.

Moreover, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has a large mission in Kosovo, and once again they refer to Kosovo as Kosovo only. The list of examples is absolutely countless. See at any other encyclopedia. Kosovo is named Kosovo, no more, no less.

Therefore, having said all this, if the name of Kosovo on your website remains as Kosovo and Metohija it will demonstrate that the whole contents on Kosovo is blatantly biased. If you want to be NPOV, then something has to be done immediately. Otherwise I expect a meaningful explanation as to why the name of Kosovo is different to all other international standards.

Another note, even in the former Yugoslavia (pre-1991) Kosovo was always Kosovo only. However, when Serbia violently revoked Kosovo's autonomy, Metohija part was added to the name. The reason: so that it sounds as if Kosovo is not one entity, but a number of smaller entities, in an effort to cut one big problem into a number of smaller ones. Unsuccessfully, of course.

I look forward to all your replies.

Yours.

===========================================================

Tables: outstanding issues

For ease of reference, I thought I'd add a list of the outstanding issues here so that we can work through them one by one. -- ChrisO 12:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flag

How do we acknowledge the fact that each community in Kosovo endorses its own flag and deprecates the use of the other community's? Should we show both flags? Should we show neither?

Neither is in official use, UN flag and Yugoslav ones are. --Igor

I don't know whether it is in official use and in which way Nikola 11:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Map

Which map should we use - Image:KosovoMetohiaMap.png (large, detailed) or Image:SerbiaMontenegro-Kosovo.png (small, locator map)?

Politics

How do we acknowledge the existence of the President and Prime Minister of the interim administration? Both offices are recognised by involved governments and international organisations.

How do we refer to the 1990 declaration of independence, given that it's accepted by one side but rejected by the other? Misplaced Pages precedent is to include it but note that it is unrecognised.

To sum up my points:

• Official name of the province should be used, as is in other tables.
  • I think we're all agreed on that. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, what I mean by official name is full name, "Autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohia". Nikola
      • I thought the autonomy was abolished in 1990? -- ChrisO 16:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • No, no, no, as I said numerous times before, it was drastically reduced, but not abolished. I think that it should have been abolished competely, but it simply hasn't. Nikola 07:02, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• There should be no flag; I am not sure about its officiality but am quite sure that it is not recognised.
  • The choice seems to be both or neither, doesn't it? I'll settle for neither, though obviously we'll need to revisit this when a flag is finally agreed. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • You plan to live that long? ;))) Nikola
      • As long as it takes. ;) -- ChrisO 16:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Map #1 is OK for me.
• Capital, surface, population are OK.
• But I'm not so sure about official languages and ethnic makeup. It's somewhat offendable, as is the flag.
  • UNMIK declared Albanian and Serbian to both be official languages in 1999 (as I recall, they also declared English to be an official language). The ethnic makeup figures come from the Statistical Office of Kosovo (http://www.sok-kosovo.org/ ), though clearly they are an estimate in the absence of a reliable census. Their status as an estimate needs to be noted. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I also don't think that politicians should be there; if they go then put them all (including Covic).
  • An infobox of this sort ought give summary information on key aspects of an entity, which clearly should include governance. Regarding Covic, as I understand it his role is "Head of the Coordinating Centre for Kosovo-Metohija" and he is Vice-President of the Republic of Serbia. He has no role in the government of Kosovo. The situation would be somewhat different if there was a "government in exile" and a rival President and Prime Minister, but this isn't the case in Kosovo. As far as I know, there is only one administration there, which both sides recognise officially. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The coordination centre is the only formal way of influence of Serbia on politics of Kosovo, I think that this should be noted somehow. Nikola
      • Can you suggest an appropriate way of doing this? -- ChrisO 16:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, it should be mentioned in "Politics" section and, as I said, I think that its head should be in the table. Nikola 07:02, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• And I am quite certain that there should be no TLD, time zone or official currency. TLD doesn't even exist, time zone is not province-limited and Vojvodina has no official currency.
  • I agree, TLD and time zone should be omitted. TLD crept in from the country table and time zone was relevant in the case of where I took this table from (Dagestan, because Russia's republics are in multiple time zones). Clearly this isn't the case here. However, the official currency should be given, as UNMIK declared the euro to be an official currency as of 1 January 2002. The dinar retained its legal status at the same time, so the province actually has two official currencies. I don't mind whether the currency field is given in Vojvodina or not, but you might want to include it for the sake of consistency. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Background must not be gray because it is gray on state tables.
• But it shouldn't be pink either. No better reason then aestethic dislike.
  • Misplaced Pages:Infobox suggests a pale green (#DEFFAD) for geographic subdivisions. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I like the way Igor's table is split into subtables.
• Table of Vojvodina should be rebuilt to follow this one.
  • I agree, they should both be consistent. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You've not mentioned the "Independence" field - it should be included, as is the standard practice for secessionist regions elsewhere (e.g. Northern Cyprus, Chechnya, South Ossetia, Biafra etc.). I think this field also needs to be included in the infobox on Republika Srpska and any future infobox on Republic of Serbian Krajina. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I also have an idea I haven't seen in other tables but which I think could be applied to this one, presumably via {{msg:Subdivisions of Serbia and Montenegro}} which could stand aside the map and contain something like:

Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro:

• Serbia
  • Vojvodina
  • Kosovo and Metohia
• Montenegro

Nikola 11:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like it - very good idea. I'll see what I can do. -- ChrisO 11:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now just to wait for Igor's comments... Nikola 23:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just watched Covic on TV, he said that government of SCG doesn't recognise government of Kosovo. Nikola 19:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Demonyms, continued

I've removed some errors from the discussion of the demonym:

someone from Togo is a Togoan, and so on.

Actually, someone from Togo is Togolese.

"Kosovian" is grammatically incorrect; the -ian ending should only be used for nouns ending in -ia (e.g. Russia, Serbia, Georgia).

You mean like "Canadia" and "Panamania"? --Montrealais (not Montrealian ;)

Caucasian Albania is irrelevant

"Some historians, including Serbian, claim the Albanians originate from the Caucasus, particularly Caucasian Albania, Albanian linguists suggest that the vocabulary and structure of the Albanian language points to a much earlier presence in the western Balkans." The Caucasian "Albanians" are no mystery any more; their descendants are the Udi, as recently discovered linguistic evidence shows , and the reason for the coincidence of names (which also explains "Alps" and "Albion") is that *alb- is an old Indo-European root meaning "white", and applied to mountainous regions all over the place. The Caucasian Albanians' language, I should add, is non-Indo-European, and has nothing to do with Albanian. - Mustafaa 06:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Coincidence of names is not a crucial argument, and there are other linguistic arguments. There are other pointers to Caucasian origin of Albanians, such as folk attire and tribal organisation. Anyway, even if untrue, the view is held by some historians. Nikola 07:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind producing some of this other evidence? From what I know this is nothing more than a crackpot theory. Dori | Talk 16:27, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Can't find on the net, anyway they wear Keche as well and two of their their tribes are Gege and Toske (don't know English spellings, but I'm sure you'll understand). Nikola 08:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what a "Keche" is, but Gheg and Tosk are two dialects of Albanian and have nothing to do with tribes. Are you saying that they speak Albanian? Dori | Talk 14:28, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

You know, Albanian hat. You should write an article about it :) AFAIK, there are no claims that Caucasian Albanians spoke (or are speaking) same language as Albanians. Nikola 12:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, we spell it Qeleshe. I hardly think that a similarity in the hats proves that Albanians came from the Caucus. Besides, there are only so many ways of making a hat, and many other people in the Balkans have the same kind of hat, it's hardly the most distinguished trait of Albanians. The language is much more important, and since those two are not similar, then that pretty much settles it, don't you think? Dori | Talk 13:37, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've added it to List of hats and headgear. Well, Qeleshe is quite specific, and I'm not aware that anyone in the Balkans has same hat, anyway, I don't know enough about the theory to discuss it further, I think it's well marked as a minority view. Nikola 15:01, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Name of the article

Sirs,

I hope you don't mind if I join this discussion.

I have a long list of objections, but I would like to start with the most important one: the name of Kosovo.

I totally object Kosovo being named Kosovo and Metohija. Calling Kosovo with such a name shows that by default the contents of the page is biased. Kosovo is known internationally as Kosovo only. I am not aware of any major or important government or institution calling Kosovo as Kosovo and Metohija. To begin with, the United Nation calls Kosovo as Kosovo only (and the opinion of the United Nations should matter). Otherwise, the name of the UN mission in Kosovo would be "United Nations Mission in Kosovo and ...", not as it is, simply "United Nations Mission in Kosovo". End of story.

In addition, the American government also uses the name Kosovo only. See CIA Factbook, or all other document released by the American administration. In particular, I recommend you see "Erasing History: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo" (http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/rpt_9905_ethnic_ksvo_toc.html ). The same with the governments of United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Japan and others.

Moreover, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has a large mission in Kosovo, and once again they refer to Kosovo as Kosovo only. The list of examples is absolutely countless. See at any other encyclopedia. Kosovo is named Kosovo, no more, no less.

Therefore, having said all this, if the name of Kosovo on your website remains as Kosovo and Metohija it will demonstrate that the whole contents on Kosovo is blatantly biased. If you want to have a NPOV, then something has to be done immediately. Otherwise I expect a meaningful explanation as to why the name of Kosovo is different to all other international standards.

Another note, even in the former Yugoslavia (pre-1991) Kosovo was always Kosovo only. However, when Serbia violently revoked Kosovo's autonomy, Metohija part was added to the name. The reason: so that it sounds as if Kosovo is not one entity, but a number of smaller entities, in an effort to cut one big problem into a number of smaller ones. Unsuccessfully, of course.

I look forward to all your replies.

Yours,

Kosovar

Well, there is at least one government which calls its province Kosovo and Metohia only, and it's the only one that matters. Nikola 08:27, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Dear Nikola,

I thank you for exactly proving my point. According to you, one opinion “is the only one that matters”, brushing aside all other views. The Oxford Dictionary of English defines your opinion as one-sided. The exact definition of this word is: “unfairly giving or dealing with only one side of a contentious issue”. To put it more straightforwardly, that is a bias in its worst form.

Too bad the rest of the world does not think like you, Nikola. Since when the opinion of the United Nations (UN) does not matter? What about the opinion of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)? Also, what about the views of the European Union (EU), European Parliament, Council of Europe, Red Cross, or United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, just to name a few.

Better still, how about the opinion of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which has an international reputation for impartiality?

Yet, most importantly, what about the opinion of the majority of the population in Kosovo? Surely their opinion should be the most significant.

Nikola, the official policy of Misplaced Pages is the Neutral Point of View (NPOV), not opinions that matter to only one group of people, isn’t it?

But then indeed, this comes as no surprise, as Serbs’ understanding of impartial opinion differs from the rest of the world.

Next please.

Kosovar

.....

Dear Yours,

What I said was not an opinion, but a fact. If tomorrow, the assembly of Serbia decides to change the constitution of Serbia in such a way that name of the province is changed to "Abvgd", this article would have to be moved to "Abvgd". If, day after that, it decides to change the name of the province to "Province 2", this article would have to be moved to "Province 2". And yes, noone's opinion, including mine, yours, UN's, or the majority of the population in Kosovo's, would matter.

Nikola 15:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

.....

Given the previous controversial acts conducted by the Serbian assembly I would not be surprised at the slightest if they start calling Kosovo as “Province 2”. No one can force them to call Kosovo whatever they wish to call it. No one is depriving Serbs of calling Kosovo as Kosovo and Metohija. However, this is not the point.

The point of discussion is whether the international community must use the same name as the one used by the Serbian assembly. The answer is no, of course. It is not within the powers of Serbian assembly to dictate the international community what action to take (including the naming of Kosovo). It is rather the international community, which enjoys such discretionary powers. Therefore, the issue in question is that there is an internationally accepted name for Kosovo, and that name is simply Kosovo.

Nikola, you forget the fact that this is not the website of the Serbian assembly, and it is not meant to adopt the views of that assembly. This is supposed to be an international encyclopedia with neutral and impartial views.

Your “facts” are only one part of the story. The other part of the story is that the vast majority of Kosovars uses the name Kosova, whereas the international community (just to remind you, United Nations, UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, European Union, Council of Europe, European Parliament, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Group of Eight, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, etc. … endless list) have adopted the name Kosovo.

Now that’s a fact you or anyone else cannot deny or ignore.

--Kosovar 16:50, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro is a sovereign country. Therefore, the international community, whatever it might be, has no discretionary powers whatsoever to name provinces of its constituent states. Assemblys don't have views, they pass laws. There is no story.

Nikola 17:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

.....

If that were the case, how come then that the international community refers to the territory as Kosovo only. Nikola, your statements are obviously false.

Also, the Serbian assembly de facto lost its entire jurisdiction over Kosovo back in June 1999. Kosovo is now administered by the United Nations. Serbia has absolutely no actual powers whatsoever over Kosovo. Kosovo has its own constitutional framework (http://www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm ), adopted and approved by the United Nations Security Council. And it is this constitutional framework that names the territory as Kosovo only.

My only question to you is: why do the UN Security Council (http://www.unmikonline.org/press/reports/N9917289.pdf ), OSCE (http://www.osce.org/kosovo/ ), and EU (http://www.euinkosovo.org/ ) refer to the territory as Kosovo only? If you can come up with a logical answer, I will appreciate it greatly.

--Kosovar 18:18, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

The international community, as you are trying to portray it, does not exist. All my statements are correct. Whether or not Serbia has actual powers over Kosovo is irrelevant. Various organisations apparently can use various names in their internal documents; only one name is official name. Aforementioned constitutional framework is an internal document of an international organisation. As such, it can not change a name of a province of Serbia.

Nikola 19:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

.....

Dear Nikola,

I asked you for a logical answer, not political propaganda. Propaganda is a sign of weakness and defeat.

If only the whole world was blind, you would make a great spin-doctor. Now, let me elaborate on your propaganda.

So, there is no international community, no international law, no international norms or standards?

So, you portray the United Nations Security Council as some sort of a “various international organisation”, the UN Security Council Resolutions are some sort of “internal documents”. Too bad Nikola the world does not circle around Serbia, and it doesn’t work as you would have liked it to. Frankly, I am not surprised at your opinion. No wonder your former beloved presidents and military leaders are all in The Hague.

Now, let me reverse your question and please, allow me to ask you: if the United Nations Security Council were some sort of “various international organisation”, and the UN Security Council Resolutions were some sort of “internal documents” why do you cry that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombarded Serbia “without endorsement by the United Nations”?

Serbs (and you personally) use this argument consistently in your interpretation of the situation in Kosovo.

So Nikola, what difference an “internal document” would make if NATO bombarded Serbs or not?

You must choose, either cry together with other Serbs over an “internal document” of a “various international organisation” (i.e. a piece of paper, nothing more) for NATO bombing Serbia, or accept the fact that legal internationally binding documents and resolutions name the territory as Kosovo (no Metohija).

Make up your mind, Nikola. You can’t have it both ways!

According to you, documents approved and authorised by the Security Council, like the Constitutional Framework of Kosovo, are “internal documents”. I am really thinking if there is any point in arguing with someone who is so narrow-minded. Utter arrogance. Whether you like it or not, this document acts as the current constitution of Kosovo, and it is legally binding and enforceable (i.e. it is not non-sense as you would like to present it).

In the end, I have no problem in calling Misplaced Pages a “various international organisation” as long as it names Kosovo like the other “various international organisations”. At the end of the day, it will only be an “internal document”, won’t it?

Kosovar 12:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Vote on the name

Under which name should this article go?

Kosovo and Metohia (current)

Kosovo

1. Dori | Talk 03:12, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
2. Kosovar 04:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Kosova

Other (specify by your vote)

Comments

I doubt this issue could be resolved through discussion of involved parties, so I have listed this as an RFC and started a vote. As far as my vote goes, Kosovo is the most widely used name elsewhere (most organizations and nations). The Albanian name is Kosova, so I feel that Kosovo would be an acceptible compromise. Dori | Talk 03:12, May 4, 2004 (UTC)