Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:25, 29 August 2006

Archived discussions (latest first): /Archive 10 /Archive 9 /Archive 8 /Archive 7 /Archive 6 /Archive 5 /Archive 4 /Archive 3 /Archive 2 /Archive 1 Template:TrollWarning

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:0.5 nom

Introduction proposal

First, excuse me for repeating what our goal should be. And please, if you haven't done so yet, take a look at Misplaced Pages policies:

• "Reliable sources": As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic.
• "Verifiability": The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.
• "No original research": Misplaced Pages only reflects the current majority view of the situation, as represented by reputable and verifiable sources. Editor's interpretations of sources (especially primary sources) have no place here.

The article should provide basic facts for readers ("users") with little or no knowledge on the subject and the diplomatic subtleties surrounding it. This is especially true for first paragraphs and introductions.

Per WP:V, those facts must be a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. It doesn't matter whether they offend someone or not. In fact, a good article should offend those who dislike the current consensus: as Don Quixote said, If dogs bark, Sancho, it's a signal that we're on the right track. A diplomatic article may leave all editors happy, but it won't be of much help to readers/users unfamiliar with the subject. The goal is to provide facts to over a billion English-speaking readers from the whole world, and not presenting a carefully worded diplomatic paper for 11 million Serbs and 7 million Albanians already familiar with the topic.

So, we shouldn't spend more than a few seconds thinking about how someone in the Balkans will react to the vocabulary, and focus instead on how to describe the situation best to an ignorant 15-years-old Philippine trying to impress his first girlfriend with his mastery on world affairs.

In most countries (and in most people's minds), a country is simply divided into states/provinces/Länder/départements/whatever, and naming one of them as a Brazilian/German/French/Serbian province would suffice. But Serbia is different, being not composed of three normal provinces but one "central part" and two "autonomous provinces", both created at the same time (1974) and for the same reason (to mitigate Serbia's influence in the Yugoslav federation), which makes the mention of Vojvodina unavoidable for a clear understanding of the issue (and of the map).

Now, how about this introduction ?

1st paragraph, de jure & de facto:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of the two autonomous provinces of Serbia, and is located in the south of the country (the other is Vojvodina, in the north of the country). However, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the 1999 Kosovo War, with Serbia's involvement being restricted chiefly to the areas inhabited by Serbs.

this have you call "restricted chiefly" it was ilegal involment with "serbian dinar" witch was uset in "Black Market" beacose UN hase never agree thate this valute too oficcel value. And the intro most bee Kosovo it was (you dont have a document that Kosovo is part of Serbia beacose Rez 1244 dont accept this terminology) Please respect the Wiki ruls based in documment not in somme paper but UN resulution. You dont have to intepret the document in witch the neutrality is very importen.

2nd paragraph, brief geographical description:

Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia. The mountainous province's capital and largest city is Pristina. Kosovo has a population of around two million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks and other ethnic groups.

Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia and Serbia this terminogy is usedt from the oficcel powers (see UN, UNMIK and OSCE documents)

3rd paragraph, "long-running dispute":

The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's majority Albanian population. It has been under Serbian sovereignty since 1912 but since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 it has been administered by the United Nations. Security is provided by the NATO-led peacekeeping force, Kosovo Force (KFOR). International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo; it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence or substantial autonomy.

Kosovo was gived to Serbia from powes of thete time to be administredet. 1999 was taket beacose of bad administration. More thane 60% time Serbian goverment hase called emergency state in Province.

End of introduction.

All detailed explanations and postures (both diplomatic and sentimental) would then be treated in their corresponding sections of the article. Best regards :-) --Evv 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We're getting closer. I would make two suggestions. One, on the contentious line about Serbia's involvement. I don't like the use of the passive voice ("being restricted"), which is imprecise (begs the question: "Who is restricting it?"). How about this variation: "...with Serbia continuing to exercise some indirect influence, chiefly in the areas inhabited by Serbs."

Also, I'd change the line on future status to state simply "the talks will lead to either some form of independence or substantial autonomy." I feel comfortable noting the widely-reported developing international consensus about independence being the only viable outcome. But, if that is too contentious, then let's just state the two options under consideration: independence (Kosovo's platform) or substantial autonomy (Belgrade's platform). No other options are under discussion. If you use the term "widely expected" then I think you have to note the fact -- repeated in virtually every news article about Kosovo from the last six months -- that independence is seen as the most likely outcome by virtually every independent observer/scholar. I think you can state that fact without expressing an opinion about it. --Envoy202 01:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good observations: you're right on both points. :-)

1). Avoiding the passive voice. However, may your

• ...with Serbia continuing to exercise some indirect influence, chiefly in... become ...
• ...with little Serbian involvement, chiefly in the areas inhabited by Serbs. ?

Then, the article's main body explains the concrete fact of how much Serbian direct (if any) or indirect involvement is allowed, agreed to and/or illegally exercised but tolerated.

2). My inexcusable mistake, sorry. I added the or substantial autonomy to the sourced sentence currently in the introduction, with which I have no problem:

• it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence.

(referenced to Kosovo's status - the wheels grind on, The Economist, October 6, 2005).

I'm happy both with leaving it as it is now, or with Envoy202's the talks will lead to either some form of independence or substantial autonomy.

Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure being corrected in ways that improve the text. :-) --Evv 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction you propose is very close to the previous introduction which attracted a lot of vandalism (which has significantly declined after we changed it). Although I agree that repeated vandalism is a not reason to change the article, we might want to find a version that is both correct/encyclopedic/NPOV etc.. and will not attract vandalism.

I disagree with you that the mentioning of Vodvjina is so crucial to understanding the current status of Kosovo that it has to be mentioned in the first paragraph. Ofcourse the provinces were created at the same time, but Vodvjina does not have anything to do with the current problems in Kosovo. I suggest we do not mention Vodvjina until a geography/political section like we do now.

If we start comparing to other encyclopedias (to which you added 2 other ones I noted), you will see that they hardly ever state that Kosovo is one of two provinces, so also in that respect I think we should follow the other encyclopedias.

And finally, I think that stating it is widely expected... sounds rather unencyclopedic. I prefer the sentence that is currently in the politics section: Most international observers believe these negotiations will will lead to some form of independence., but that is just because I think it sounds better. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been an active editor of this article previusly I would just like to add my two öre and say that I think the last version ammended with the comments of Reinoutr is very good. I agree that there really isn't any need to mention Vojvodina as it (a) doesn't really increase the reader's understanding of what Kosovo is, (b) no encyclopedias seem to use the wording to describe Kosovo and (c) it will draw unnecessary attention from Kosovar Albanians who disagree with Kosovo's current official status. Cheers Osli73 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

lol As I mentioned above at the start of "First paragraph, again", I'm actually proposing to use the previous introduction again. I just forgot to mention it in this new section. :-)

I'm ok with dropping Vojvodina, but I really believe that mentioning it enhances clarity. (See details 6 posts below, or here).

I'm ok with both "it's widely expected..." (because it's sourced) and Reinoutr's wording (which sounds better for me too). Evv 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of Serbia's two autonomous provinces, though since 1999 has been administered by the United Nations with little direct involvement by Serbia.

Located in the Balkans in the south east of the European continent, Kosovo borders Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia. The mountainous province's capital and largest city is Pristina. Kosovo has a population of around two million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks and other ethnic groups.

The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian state and Kosovo's majority ethnic-Albanian population, who seek independence from Serbia. Long the subject of conflict, the Kosovo crisis of 1999 led to the intervention of NATO against the regime of then-Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic and the imposition of a UN administration. With the support of NATO-led 'KFOR' peacekeeping force, the United Nations United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has supported the development of provisional institutions of self-government in advance of a decision on the final status of the territory. International negotiations began in 2006 and it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence or substantial autonomy.

(JD)

I like it very much. :-) Three comments:

• Of course, I would love to add "(the other is Vojvodina)" for clarity (reasons already exposed at the start of this section and again here). But I'm fine without it.
• I'm ok with "little direct involvement", but i guess that those three words would require more debate.
• Maybe removing the "widely expected", using Reinoutr's "Most international observers believe these negotiations will lead to some form of independence." or Envoy202's "the talks will lead to some form of independence or substantial autonomy." ?

Regards. Evv 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Kosovo in the same breath as Vojvodina is politically provocative and I categorically disagree with it. I do not want to repeat the reasons given earlier, but I will highlight the main points again:

1. Kosovo is administered by an international community, Vojvodina is administered by Serbia. 2. It has its own constitution, and it is widely accepted that it would gain some sort of independence. 3. Even Serbia is prepared to give it a much higher degree of autonomy than to Vojvodina, thus they can not be the same.

I propose we use the Foreign Office version. If anybody wants to change it so that it sounds more suited to an encyclopedia then be it, but the substance should remain the same. I believe JD had nothing against it (he graced us with this proposal originally), so I don't see him complaining:

"Kosovo is legally a province of Serbia and Montenegro (SaM) but has been under interim UN administration pending a settlement of its status in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 since 1999."

and here's the link:

--Tonycdp 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is a province of Serbia administered by the UN. Vojvodina is a province of Serbia administered by Serbia. Both are provinces of Serbia. Serbia has two provinces. It has two provinces even if they have different degress of autonomy. It has two provinces <now> even if one or more of them are no longer provinces at some point in the future.

Kosovo does not have a constitution in the sense that the United States has a constitution. It is not primary over all other laws and the source of their legitimacy; it is provided for by one of many UNMIK regulations . Vojvodina also has a document describing it's governance. They both remain provinces of Serbia, though the final status of Kosovo has yet to be decided.

It may well be politically provocative to describe the constitutional status of Kosovo correctly, and, in like manner to other subsidiary entities in Misplaced Pages (such as England or Republika Srpska), mention that other subsidiary entities exist. Such a statement is potentially provocative because the present situation is politically unacceptable to one side. It is clear that the Kosovo Albanian community are seeking to change this reality. It is not our role to support one side or the other but to present the facts. Stating the facts does not imply that we support the status quo personally or corporately.

Whether or not we mention the other province of Serbia is a matter of clarity, style and Misplaced Pages best practice. I'm in facour of mentioning that another province exists precisely becuase it puts the position of Kosovo into context, a context which we clarify by noting administration by the UN. It's not vital that we mention other provinces, but you need to present a better reason than political favouritism. (JD)

"I'm in facour of mentioning that another province exists precisely becuase it puts the position of Kosovo into context"

Yes it puts it into a wrong context (it tries to put them on equal ground which is false), open to even wilder interpretations. If you look at Missouri and Bavaria for example, they never mention all the other constituent parts of US and Germany. So your argument can easilly be nullified by this counter-argument.

It is unnecessarily political, and it will provoke vigilante attacks on the article, I beleive what the admins are trying to achieve here is a version that is closest to the facts and at the same time avoid defacements. And your version seems set to provoke just that.

--Tonycdp 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is not 'my version' but that which seems to generate greatest support and significantly from editors with NPOV. Misplaced Pages articles on US States and German Lander are clearly not likely to mention all the other constituent parts of those states because they are numerous and including them all would look messy and read badly. The counter-argument fails.

It seems that after all this discussion we've fallen back on the argument that we should not mention that Kosovo is one of two Serbian provinces because doing so would provoke vigilante attacks. This is an important question and I'm glad we've settled the facts and revealed the real concern here. Should we distort our reporting beyond good drafting and Misplaced Pages norms because of the threat of vigilante attacks? Perhaps a poll is in order? (JD)

I'm ok with dropping Vojvodina, but I really believe that mentioning it enhances clarity.

I gave my reasons to include Vojvodina at the start of this section, just before the proposed introduction's text (see here): to help a reader not familiar with the topic (our 15-years-old Philippine) understand the counter-intuitive administrative organization of the Serbian state. US and German states/Länder are the norm, Serbia's autonomous provinces are an exception.

Other encyclopedias don't mention Vojvodina. I saw its inclusion as an improvement for clarity on the lines of "unpaperness".

For my part, years ago, I only understood what Kosovo is since 1974 (but not for much longer) when I could contextualize it after finding out about Vojvodina: that was the moment when the light-bulb went on above my head. :-) The same happened often when I explained Kosovo to some friends who didn't know anything about it (except what TV said: "a remote place where evil Serbs like to harm innocent Albanians").

So, forget for a moment the sensitivities of 18 millions people in the Balkans already familiar with the topic and think about how to make more than a billion English-speaking readers understand Kosovo best as they read about it for the first time.

However, given the nature of Misplaced Pages, if the idea is to sacrifice what I personally perceive as "clarity" (of course, i may be wrong on this) in order to avoid vandalism... well, i really hate it, but it's a valid point. :-) I wouldn't support it, but I would understand such a decision. (Wouldn't the possible vansalism issue be better dealt with by semi-protecting the article, thus keeping anonymous IPs from editing it ?).

Regards. :-) Evv 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

EW, what a fine example of a mature attitude. It is something which there has often been a deficit of on these Talk pages. Thanks. Cheers Osli73 10:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent reaction Evv, I do understand your opinion about including Vodvjina better now, but for me personally, Vodvjina never was the light bulb, so to speak, which is why I do not consider mentioning it very early in the article to be essential. With regard to vandalism, even semi-protection is only a very temporary measure and any protection is a bit contrary to the idea behind Misplaced Pages that anyone must be able to add information. Apart from that, the sole fact that it attracts vandalism and objections by other, registered, editors is already an indication that the wording can be better. The ideal article is neutral in facts and is neutral in text to almost everyone who reads it (people with very extreme opinions excluded). Naming Kosovo and Vodvjina as similar entities is something that more then just the people with very extreme opinions objected to, so I would consider that wording not competely neutral. Nevertheless, Vodvjina is mentioned later on so everyone reading the article will found out about it and it is also included in the info box on the right side of the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't resist revisiting the debate over the word "province" after reading today's New York Times. The NYT editorial had this opening sentence: "The 1999 war over Kosovo left the former Serbian province in political limbo, postponing the question of possible independence for another day" (Italics mine). I like that formulation of "former Serbian province," which reflects that Kosovo's legal status as a Serbian administrative province was suspended by UNSCR 1244. I don't have any desire to reopen the whole discussion, but just thought it was interesting to note journalistic usage from an important newspaper. Envoy202 20:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately most people in here are too rigid and do not understand the reality on the ground which I was trying to stress in my many earlier posts. I'm trying to find a good parallel to describe this stupidity of clinging on to something that is defunct.

Serbian province (implying some sort of serbian control), as opposed to "UN administered and only legally a province of serbia" is at best misleading. Mentioning it in the same breath as Vojvodina and sticking a map of Serbia in the info box is ... well, lets not go there. Tonycdp 10:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

lol The moment I saw those words I knew that they would appear here. :-) But keep in mind that editorial pieces, free from the constraints of "journalistic objectivity", often emphasize their opinion with the initial definition given to the subject.

In friday's NYT, the article Uphill All the Way on Kosovo, Says U.N. Envoy (by Reuters) starts with a very clear: PRISTINA, Serbia (Reuters) - U.N. mediator Martti Ahtisaari said on Friday...

Regards. Evv 03:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Religon

Why hide fact Albanian ARE MUSLIMS and SERBS ARE CHRISTIAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.69.196 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of Albanians are Muslims, but lots of them are Catholics. And in the modern world, plenty of them are atheist, like any other group of people; the same applies with Serbian people. It's a common generalisation, but it's not a "fact" as you claim in your edit summary. If you want to make this point, how about gathering some real statistics and improving the article with some well-researched demographics. – Kieran T 15:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In light of Islamist terorist we need to inform about the majority Albanians that are MUSLIMS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.69.196 (talk • contribs) 9:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please go away if you're not going to contribute anything useful... -- ChrisO 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. That the majority of Kosovar Albanians are Muslims does not have anything to do with terrorist activities or the 1999 war. Look at the 1991-95 Bosnian conflict, do Serb war crimes have anything to do with Christianity? Although religious symbols are certainly used and targeted in Kosovo I've never seen anyone say that Islam plays any role in the conflict. In my opinion, it is purely a nationalist conflict. Osli73 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We have to tell the world this is part of islamists extremism that is going on around the world. According to the government Al qaeda is present in Kosovo. They have Camps.Mujahadin helped the KLA during the war. It's a clear prof,but Albanians do everything to hide. Iran supports them too.

If you provide adequate sources for it, I'm ok with stating that KLA-members are actually Reptilian aliens. But we can't add your claims without proper backing, anonymous. Evv 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso5.html http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/nov01/hed4304.shtml

Playing with yourself. It was Milosheviq who sall wapens to Iraqien terrorist. The municion and bunkers from Albania you cannt finde in Iraq and Izrael but from "Made in Yugoslavia" in the name of Serbia. In the name of Serbia (for me is not importen, but for the Serbian Racisem) it was Milosheviq who gives to Chinez peopel the "Yugoslavian" Pass, they dont have Kosovo or Albanian Pass. - Hipi

Osli

A word - the Serb War crimes in Bosnia DO have to do with Christianity. Ratko Mladic stated the executions of the Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks as a revenge for the Battle of Kosovo - the turning point of Islams breaching into Europe. Generally, Muslims were seen by the Christians (Serbs and Croats) as occupators of Bosnia that weren't eradicated in time - a gruesome truth. --HRE

I am slightly opposed to intro's prediction of Kosovo's gradual independence.

I think the sole reason for this many Albanian POV-pushers - and the appearent rush for Kosovo's independence is the fact that all mediaters were/are Albanian-POV. The previous one fell in love with an Albanian girl and even married her - while the current, Marty Ahtisari, litterally claimed this: that the Serb nation and people and generally and wholesomely fault for everything wrong on Kosovo. --HRE

Edit-warring anonymous editors

Please don't start edit wars over this article (it's had enough already). If you have a disagreement over the form of the article, please discuss it here and reach agreement, rather than fighting over it. -- ChrisO 13:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Serbians terrorists mass

August 26, 2006 Crazy Serbians send it from Serbian government in Mitrovica kill (injure) two Albanians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.178.137.9 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hipi, you're getting tiresome - when will understand that we're all writing a BOOK here... --HolyRomanEmperor 10:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman rule

I think this sentence is POV: The Ottomans brought Islamisation with them, particularly in towns, and later also created the Viyalet of Kosovo as one of the Ottoman territorial entities. This brought a great shift, as the Orthodox Serb population began to lose its majority when masses of Turks and Albanians moved to Kosovo.

Many historians says that it can not be proved Serbs had majority in Kosovo before the Turks came. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you point them out? Actually, I've only seen quasi-historians' claims that support what you hold. Are you now going to say that the Great Migrations of the peoples to Europe (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Avars, Huns, Slavs, Franks,...) never occured? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The list is long, but what about Noel Malcolm, Alain Ducellier.--Noah30 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Great Migrations of the peoples to Europe never occurred, because I know they did, but I am saying that the Albanians in Kosovo had the majority in Kosovo before the Serbs came in the 13 century, and also before the Ottoman occupation.--Noah30 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorrow for the Serbs

I can nothing but feel sorry at how Serb nationalists are behaving in Misplaced Pages. They have captured almost everything related to Albanians and try to portray them in light of their propaganda. I have been observing the fight between Albanians and Serbs this year and I came to conclude that the reason why Albanians don't seem to care is because they are winning on real life and they seem to have decided to let the Serbs to have their go. The Serb approach in Misplaced Pages is a continuation of the general 'Serba approach'. I honestly feel sorry for them. I just wonder whether getting them join the EU will bring any good to them? ChrisO: are you a Serb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a little... well, biased. It appears that you shear are stereotypic opinion about Serbs as a nation - which doesn't smell good at all. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just read the Kosovo entry. It is full of Serian crappy propaganda. Look at the history section. It is so full of BS that the Albanians seem to have decided to just ignore it completely. This is not what Misplaced Pages is about. Spreading nationalistic BS. You Serbs with your primitive nationalism have destroyed one of the best countries of Europe. My father has visited Yugoslavia in 1980s and he still talks about how beautiful the whole country was and how sick someone must be to destroy it. Now none wants to live with you in the same state. You must recognize and stop with your crappy XIXth century nationalism. Serbia is simply a European country and now it's the XXIth century. When are you serbs going to wake up and realize this??? I have never met a Serb or Albanian, but it is easy to see who has probolems. (Of course this is directed to Serb nationalists be they 'working' on Misplaced Pages or trying to destroy something else in real life, not to the all Serbs).Vezaso 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Although your comment is understandable and you are certainly not the first to note these potential problems with the article, you should remember to always assume good faith. The problem here is that it is not a matter of what is true, but on the view people have on what has happened in Kosovo in the past. Both "views" (Serb vs. Albanian) are correct in the opinion of the people supporting that view and both opinions combined might give us a neutral article. Rather than reverting relatively minor sentences in the introduction (which has been the subject of a lot of debate recently), I suggest you adjust the history section to make it more neutral. Nobody will object to good faith, neutral edits, especially if you explain your rationale behind the edits here on the talk page and in your edit summaries. Good luck editing! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso, thanks for your just comments. It is true that the Serbian wikipedians have captured every article where the word Albanian and Kosovo is mentioned. I have said earlier that it is sad that the Misplaced Pages is being abused by Serbs for their political purposes. And do you know what? When an Albanian makes a comment which is not documented, the administrators answer with blocking him, while when a Serb makes such comment they call it good faith. Most of the administrators responsible for the Kosovo article are pro-Serb, and not only pro-Serb, but they support the Serbian nationalist versions of different historical events. Some of them think that they own those articles. --Noah30 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Noah30, please keep in mind that not every edit that does not fit with the Albanian view on Kosovo necessarily comes from a pro-Serbian editor. Both sides in this disputes (Serbs and Albanian) tend to see neutral, NPOV edits as coming from the opposite side rather than from neutral editors. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anything be done? I realized ChrisO is either a Serb nationalist or a pro-Serbs. Who are the other editors? It is sad that a good project such as Misplaced Pages falls in the hands of corrupt, nationalist people. Reinoutr, I don't think you can make it relative. We have all seen what the crafted Serbs can do in the Balkans. What makes us believe that their nationalism has faded away? They destroyed Yugoslavia, which could have now been one of the most important countries of the EU. They destroyed the image of the whole region. They will surely continue it here. Serbian expansionist nationalism is vile. It is sad to see people who work here, speak english - so you can guess they have are in touch with the real world outside of nationalism-corruted Serbia. Sad, sad, sad! Vezaso 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure anything has to be done. If you specify here on the talk page what exactly your problems with the current article are, I am sure there are enough neutral editors who are willing to let you know how they feel about the changes you propose. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm neither pro-Serb or pro-Albanian; I'm pro-reliable and verifiable facts. Unfortunately some users, including you, are trying to edit Misplaced Pages articles to reflect their aspirations or prejudices. Please don't do that. -- ChrisO 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is my strong impression that you are very pro-Serb, ChrisO. I am absolutely certain that had Milosevic read this entry on Kosovo, he would have not removed a single comma. It is simply pure Serb propaganda. The entry is pro-Serb (Kosovo's status is undecided, some want it part of Serbia, but the people there believe they are not since 1990, when they declared independence), the map portraying Kosovo as part of Serbia is pro-Serb (Kosovo is a UN protectorate, it should be a blue map, the color of the UN). It should be neither a territory of Serbia, nor a state. It should be a UN run territory, as it actually is. The history section is simply Serb nationalistic BS. The article on Serbia has 200 words of history, why should the Kosovo entry entail all the Serbian History, which all belongs in "History of Serbia". This is all for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I discussed the changes, Reinoutr. What's wrong now????Vezaso 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. If it is about mentioning the 3RR rule on your talk page, I honestly am only trying to prevent that you will get blocked. With regard to this article, please understand that there is a difference between discussing changes and telling people on the talk page the article is nationalistic BS (your words above) and changing it anyway. Discussing changes means that you try to explain your problem with the article in civil words and wait for someone to reply before just going ahead and changing things anyway. However, I think your main problem is whether or not Kosovo is a part of Serbia. This has been discussed quite some times already, and in a few minutes I'll make a new section below listing links to the reasons why many neutral editors here feel Kosovo still is a part of Serbia. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vezaso you are right when you say that the Kosovo article displays a pro-Serbian bias. DO you know what? The map is taken from the Serbian wikipedia. The intro when I checked it was identically with the Serbian. I think Misplaced Pages should not be a tool for Serbian nationalists. I think some of them are paid to spread propaganda here. Nationalism is what the Balkans need least.--Noah30 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure which map you are referring to, but the only map that is identical is the green one and that was recently created especially for the english Misplaced Pages and apparently is also in use in the serbian wikipedia. Also, please do not make unsourced accusations towards other editors who are all trying to contribute to wikipedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

hello Reinoutr. I did not write about you, and I can see that you are trying to be objective, but not the other ones. Wish you a nice evening.--Noah30 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons why we have the current introduction

• It is mentioned that way by virtually all other encyclopedias: What other encyclopedias say
• Even most Albanians agree Kosovo was a province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), which was succeeded by Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) and now by Serbia, according to CNN, BBC, EU and the UN .
• Misplaced Pages is not about "truth" (for what ever that means anyway), but about verifiability, see WP:VER for more information.

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I further explain - ALL Encyclopedias state that (Britannica, LaRousse, Brockhaus') and even the nationalist Albanian freedom movement of Kosova, the Self-determination! movement (Ventevendosje! - Jo negotiata!) which considers the UN Peacekeepers invaders/occupiers and supports Ahtisaari's claims that the Serbian nation is guilty of a crime as a whole - considers Kosovo a part of Serbia... --HolyRomanEmperor 20:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is usually defined as a "UN protectorate", rather then "a province of Serbia". I believe both should be included, but the UN protectorate is more important in describing it.

The Albanian point of view would be:

Kosovo is a state in Central Balkans. It declared its independence in 1990, which has still not been internationally recognized. Presently, Kosovo is run in tandem by the UN Mission in Kosovo and the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment with the former expected to leave soon.

The present form is Serbian biased!

I suggest the following un-biased entry:

Kosovo is a UN run territory in Central Balkans. While still legaly part of Serbia (foremerly Yugoslavia), Kosovo is run in tandem by the UN Mission in Kosovo and the Provisional Institutions of Selfgovernment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezaso (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Kosovo is usually defined as a UN protectorate, that is simply not true, see all evidence above and below. If you claim that, you will have to supply (many, since you claim usually) independent, reliable sources that talk about Kosovo as a UN protectorate and not a province of Serbia. With regard to the current introduction, it DOES state both that it legally a part of Serbia AND is under UN administration. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples of other resources:

• TIME Magazine: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, the core of the former Yugoslavia.
• CNN: Kosovo is a province of Serbia, but it has been an international protectorate since 1999.
• BBC: Kosovo, a landlocked province within Serbia
• FOX: Serbia's southern, ethnic Albanian-dominated province of Kosovo..
• CIA: Kosovo as a part of Serbia

Slight correction here - the S&M article has been replaced by this one on Serbia alone. Please note the map, Vezaso! -- ChrisO 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Encarta: Kosovo, province in southwestern Serbia.
• Brittanica: ..region within the republic of Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia, 1929–2003),...

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, Reinoutr - I think it makes the point very well that our sources agree on Kosovo's status. Vezaso, we have to describe what our sources say about Kosovo, not what we think is "right" or "wrong". This is required by two of Misplaced Pages's most fundamental policies, WP:V and WP:RS. Please go and read them if you haven't already. -- ChrisO 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To be slightly more specific, WP:V is policy, one of the three policies, the core one being WP:NPOV from which WP:V springs. V stands for Verifiability which, stated simply means that any information within Misplaced Pages must have been previously published by a reliable source for the information to be included in Misplaced Pages. Then the guideline, WP:RS gives specific examples of sources of information which fulfil WP:V. All of the listed sources of information fulfil WP:RS, and thus fulfil WP:V. If there is another source of information which says otherwise, then that might be included. Terryeo 23:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To be even more specific (and accurate), the "tripod" of fundamental policies on which Misplaced Pages stands are: WP:NPOV (neutral point of view); WP:V (verifiability); and WP:NOR (no original research). In other words, you can't assert something based solely on your personal belief - it needs to be verifiable, i.e. a reliable third party source has to say it. This is the real issue here: the reliable, verifiable sources that we have (see list above) all say the same thing. -- ChrisO 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, going back to the earlier post where you claim you are neither pro-Serb nor pro-Albanian. Would you like me to compile a list of evidence proving the opposite. Now I will only go through this hassle if you agree to step down from your self-assumed Kosovo related duties should I successfuly manage to expose your pro-serbian tendencies. Or perhaps anti-albanian tendencies would be more correct, because you have had your fingers in many other articles related to Albanians and all you did is to introduce Greek and Serbian names to towns and cities (and enforced them you way by just reverting anyone who dared to remove your so-called contributions). Which was really unnecessary (and inflammatory), since you never once bothered to put albanian names to the places such as for example Skopje.

You hide very well behind the Misplaced Pages rules, and you are indeed a master in the field, no doubt, also the diplomatic language you employ is first class (forgiving a few mishaps). Perhaps I am a little cynical (I can't help it) but despite all your brilliant arguments which should, by the rules of diplomacy, give you Neutrality kudos, the 'ChrisO influenced' end result always leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and probably in many peoples mouths in here too.

Also would you be kind enough to modify the InfoBox and remove Turkish from the list of official language because it isn't. No official document (nor the framework) recognises it as such. It is a de-facto official language in Prizren only, but still not official.

Official languages in Kosovo are Albanian/Serbian/English as it stands.Tonycdp 11:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone says the truth about ChrisO. He thinks he owns the articles about Kosovo and Albania. Asterion is also very pro-Serbian. I call this what is happening with the Kosovo articles: systematic falsification of history.--Noah30 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, but it makes me sad. I assume ChrisO is a Serb or a Macedonian and it makes me sad to see how anti-Albanian he is. It makes me sad to see that the cycle is still developing and new fighters for the cause of Milosevic are using other alternative means to continue the destrucitive path. Vezaso 12:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well considering Asterion went far beyond anything needed to get User: Ferick unblocked, who by the way, is a very large (albeit very poorly educated and rather bad at spelling) Albanian nationalist, I think it's unjust to call him "pro Serb". Of course what else does one expect. Americans help out Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets, and then Bin Laden screws them over. They're the same everywhere. Oh and what can I saw about this German here, "Markus Schott". I guess we need to point out the crimes his grandparents and relatives committed during World War I and World War II. Of course, you're not entirely to blame for World War I, but you know since the Versailles Treaty is official and all, then yeah, you are. Life must suck, I hear the Dutch still hate your guts.

Anyways Markus, if you and your "Kamaraden" ever get bored, take a long walk, it should do you good. I'll warn the Poles before hand in case you get too far. PerfectStorm 12:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics