Misplaced Pages

As my edit summary states, I removed the text because it was unsourced. – The current Attribution policy clearly states that "he threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true", then going on to say that "any unsourced material may be removed".

For uncontrovertial text I simply add the {{fact}} tag, but when it comes to "the alleged chasing of four Albanian children into a river where they drowned" I prefer to have the sentence well-sourced or not at all.

In any case, I would prefer to have any new wording discussed . My personal feeling is that the issue should be explained in detail at the 2004 unrest in Kosovo article, but that it doesn't merit a mention in the brief summary of the main Kosovo article. - Best regards, Ev 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions are well considered, I will get those sources for you and if not we shall agree to exclude it. Buffadren 16:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article from the BBC that refers to the children but not in enough detail to be acceptable for i'd imagine but let me know. ] Buffadren 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If we really want that text, we could source it with this Amnesty International report: The March Violence: KFOR and UNMIK’s failure to protect the rights of the minority communities (July 8, 2004) (see the 3rd paragraph), or this Human Rights Watch one: The Sparks That Caused a Fire (July 2004) .

However, in my opinion the clear and concise wording by Envoy202 (was sparked by a series of minor events that soon cascaded into large-scale riots) is much better suited for this article than a more detaild one (along the lines of was sparked by a series of events including the alleged chasing of four Albanian children into a river where they drowned, This and other events soon cascaded into large-scale riots).

1). Because the incidents were minor, basically rumors and unproved allegations. There's no need to go into such details in this brief summary of events.
More important is how those allegations were manipulated to escalate the situation; see this OSCE report: The Role of the Media in the March 2004 Events in Kosovo (.pdf), Vienna, 2004.

2). Because we already have the 2004 unrest in Kosovo sub-article (linked from "Kosovo after the War" sub-section) where such details can be expanded at will.

3). Because mentioning the March 16 chase & drowning of three Albanian children will surely lead Serbian editors to call for the inclusion of the March 15 shooting of an 18-years-old Serb in Caglavica (not to mention the many other incidents by both sides that had ocurred in the previous months) making the "brief summary of events" even longer and more detailed.

Of course, if other editors agree to include this detail in the text, I will respect the consensus :-) Best regards, Ev 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough evidence to back its inclusion and to refer to it some way may infer that there is. I think we should 'park' it for now and let it rest. However I do suggest that we remove the word 'minor' as this word caused me to include the Children incident. We can revisit it again some time if needed.Buffadren 13:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I find that the incidents themselves were minor, and that Envoy202's wording adequately describe the situation. – When the text was discussed (see 90s History...Take Two) there were no objections to the word "minor". Let's wait and see what other editors have to say about the issue :-) Best regards, Ev 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree,even though the word is misplaced.It implies that the Albanians kicked off trouble without any provocation. Buffadren 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't read the word "minor" as implying lack of cause/justification for the subsequent violence. That could be the case in an isolated sentence or paragraph; but here, in the context of the "Kosovo After the War" sub-section within the the "Modern history" section, just one paragraph after mentioning the refugee crisises and the numbers of deaths, it is clear that the situation was quite tense, and that a minor incident was all that was needed to spark major troubles (as is usually the case in such situations). – I don't expect any reasonable person reading the article to come to the conclusion that the unrest started because of a minor incident only.

As I see it, this minor incident itself was not the real cause of the unrests, but merely the spark that lead Albanians to vent resentments and frustration with the slow pace of change. If anything, the provocation that led Albanians to "kick off trouble" was not the minor incident itself, but its use and manipulation as a rallying cry to escalate and justify the unrests, and thus send a clear message to all parties involved in the region. - Best regards, Ev 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Official languages in Kosovo

"In municipalities inhabited by a community whose mother tongue is not an official language, and which constitutes at least five (5) percent of the total population of the municipality, the language of the community shall have the status of an official language in the municipality and shall be in equal use with the official languages."

I think you find that we have dealt with this in detail in the Talk Page archives.Buffadren 13:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the article would be improved by changing or adding something about Kosovo's official languages, Alexmarysimp/ams ? - Regards, Ev 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On the flag of Kosovo

this may be the flag of kosovo in kosovo's independents movement.

just asking permission to add it before i actually add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatferret36 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be an interesting addition, Thegreatferret36 :-) However, the current Misplaced Pages Attribution policy requires that we cite the provenance of any fact/information mentioned in (or added to) the article, and that only reliable sources are to be used to this end.

So, do you know of any reliable published source mentioning this flag proposal ? How did you came to know about it ? - Best regards, Ev 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Albanian American Civic League, led by former U.S. Congressman Joe DioGuardi, has been promoting this flag. He has been taking out full-page advertisements in various media outlets trying to get support for it. It is not, to my knowledge, being seriously considered by the Pristina-based working group on national symbols. This flag should not be included in the article. Envoy202 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Envoy202. Here's a link: Albanian American Civic League’s proposal for a flag for the independent state of Kosova.

Thegreatferret36, this flag proposal could eventually be added to a new "Flag of Kosovo" article, when an official flag is adopted and the article created. - Regards, Ev 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

yah i got it from a similar page like that.. and if kosovo is getting independance from serbia it needs a flag right? it should atleast be worth mentioning in this article, i'll try to make a article bout it though. (Thegreatferret36 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

i never made an article.. so would one of you like to make it instead? (Thegreatferret36 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think it's premature. There wouldn't be much to report. That being said, an especially ambitious person could perhaps cobble together an interesting article about "Flags of Kosovo" and report on the various flags that are floating around out there (e.g., the goofy AACL proposal or the controversial 'Dardania' flag that Rugova loved but the PDK despises). Envoy202 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would really like such a "Flag of Kosovo" article, dealing with those odd proposals and with Pristina's work on that field :-) But, as Envoy202 points out, it would have to be very well sourced. - Best regards, Ev 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard last weekend in Vienna that the Pristina working group on symbols was considering a design competition for the flag. This could be noted in a future flag article (I think it might have been reported in the local press -- check out Koha Ditore as a source). My personal belief is that this will not happen in time for independence. Symbols are, by their nature, emotive and the Kosovars will likely not reach consensus for awhile. Envoy202 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote too soon! I just saw this in a press summary: STATE SYMBOLS CHALLENGE KOSOVO’S ASSEMBLY (Koha Ditore, p. 5) "The newspaper writes that the issue of Kosovo’s state symbols appeared to be more complex than the Assembly Presidency thought at the beginning. On 12 March, they decided to proceed this issue to Assembly’s session, that will be held today. Even though they decided to announce a national competition for the flag, emblem, without the anthem, and to establish an ad hoc committee to review the ideas, this proposal has not been included on the agenda for Friday session. The chiefs of caucuses could not agree on Thursday about the proposal and criteria that should be determined about the competition. Sources from the meeting also said that participants had diverse positions." Envoy202 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And thats exactly why we should keep the AACL flag out of this article. It has no basis to begin with. I am not in favour of a Flag article either. Premature Buffadren 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

recent articles confirm that expectations remain the same with or without Russian approval

From B92 today:

The Council for Foreign Relations expert believed that Ahtisaari’s plan surely paved the way for the recognition of Kosovo’s statehood outside the UN Security Council.

“The U.S. hasn’t yet implied that it would make steps towards accepting Kosovo’s independence outside the UN Security Council, but we cannot exclude the possibility they would do that in the near future,” McMahon concluded.

In the media, there is some speculation of how Kosovo will become independent, but there is no expectation that Kosovo will be returned to actual Serbian sovereignty. Whether seen as right or wrong, returning Kosovo to Serbian rule (without or without substantial autonomy) is seen as simply not possible. The Kosovars will not accept it and Serbia has neither the political nor the necessary military might to force it upon them. While Russia is indeed throwing its renewed political weight around, it is most likely that they will use the Kosovo situation to their best political advantage and then abstain when the time comes. And as stated frequently, if Russia or China were to prevent a new Security Council resolution, the US and several other countries will recognize Kosovo unilaterally. Again from a purely pragmatic point of view, the international community has little choice but to grant eventual independence to Kosovo. There is no other viable alternative. NATO is not going to allow this to descend into a Palestine situation where the military force would be seen as an occupying force and therefore hostile. After 8 years of promises, the international community must provide the Kosovars a clear path to statehood, or else, as Richard Holbrooke pointed out today, there will be armed conflict again. Hence, the sentence in the intro "According to the news media, it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence." remains an entirely accurate assessment. Furthermore, if an editor were to change it to "According to the news media, it had been widely expected that the talks would lead to some form of independence.", they would have to add an explanation. Otherwise the sentence is non-sequitur. Fairview360 21:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360 cites the Report: Plan explicitly recommends independence, B92, March 15, 2007, article.

The changes to that sentence were intended to clarify that the Vienna talks between Belgrade & Pristina ended without fulfilling those expectations. Some form of independence remains the expected outcome, but now as a result of negotiations at the UN Security Council, instead of an agreement between the main parties. – I would propose to simply modify that sentence into: "According to the news media, it is widely expected that the negotiations will lead to some form of independence." - Best regards, Ev 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My preferred formulation is: "It is widely expected that the status process will lead to Kosovo's independence, which will be subject to a period of international supervision." I always thought the "according to the news media" line was dumb and should be dropped -- there are many reliable sources expressing this view, not just AP or Reuters reporters. As for "negotiations" versus "talks," I think it is better to just say "process," a word that covers everything that has been happening, including negotiations between the parties and now action in the UNSC. Finally, I think we can be more specific about the nature of the independence. Most of the media articles now are reporting on the preferred formulation of "supervised independence" or else "independence, subject to a period of international supervision." It's clearer that way. To say "some form of independence" leaves people wondering exactly what that means. Envoy202 18:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of speculation and very little concern about the future

Well... this is a very messed up situation. I think a lot of countries don't think to carefully about the results a independent Kosovo would create. At least USA/EU could put a lot harder demands on the albanians in Kosovo to create harmony and see that it actually works before they get independence. When it comes to all this they just think that Serbia needs to be punished in some way, take the blame for all bad as a scape goat and now is the result not that important. Serbs didn't get their independence from either Croatia or Bosnia & Herzegovina and I don't say that they should have but what should been drawn from that lesson?

We could asked some of the leading countries if they would like to give up some parts of there territories and give freedom to its people. We all know what other countries would say about avoids talking about. If Kosovo gets independence what will other separatistic countries accept for refuses? Some examples could be that could USA accept a new CSA in the south or return land to the native americans who wants their own country? Would the English accept Scotland's independence? Will Spain accept a Basque independent nation? Sweden, Norway and Finland with the Sami People? Russia with it's separatistic republics within the nation? Will Moldova accept Transnistria’s independence? If Kosovo gets independence can Republika Srpska do the same? Can the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina demand their right to an own country? Will the Albanians in Montenegro and Macedonia demand their own countries? Could Sandžak do the same from Serbia? Will Belgium become two separate states? Or even Italy? How about the Palestinians and Israel? Should Cyprus accept North Cyprus? Why cant the world recognize Somaliland as independent from Somalia? Well... you all see for yourself and this is just a few examples. We have probably hundreds (or thousands) of more around the world. There is already a state called Albania and a another Albanian-state would only trigger to more violence and separatism, which I don't think ever brings any good. The world wants to see a fast solution but no one seems to care for the consequences and the results it is bringing. I think the solution the world needs today is the stable solution with the right to self-determination for all people without separatism. Thank you all - Litany 23:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually i read a news report saying that the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus are afraid if kosovo gets it's independence then the Turkish Cypriots in northern Cyprus might think of it as a chance to get themselves independent. Read the article here: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=105722 (Thegreatferret36 12:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The main difference is that, differently from the cases cited above, Serbia wasn’t a real democracy under Milosevic’s years: it was a dictatorship where freedom of expression and the right to oppose to the government were curtailed, the state media was serving as propaganda mouthpiece and elections ere rigged. And this dictatorship tried with its police, soldiers and paramilitary to wipe out the Albanian-Speaking people from Kosovo, killing anyone who dared to stay in home and expelling all the others — all in the name of religious medieval myths and territorial and political gains. I don’t think Finland had made anything similar to its Sami people…--MaGioZal 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The horrors happened - true, but I cannot agree with "wipe out" (could that be true?). Is that applied anywhere in the world? WWII ended a long time ago. --PaxEquilibrium 19:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

MaGioZal, your user boxes say different story. You support independence of Kosovo (or dismembering of Serbia) but in the same time you support unity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and unity of Georgian state against aggressive separatism in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There is no user box on your page that support unity of Finland of independence for Sami people. --Marko M 09:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I share the similar views to MGZ, this is not dual standards. There are compelling factors. For a start the Georgia breakaway states are within the territory natural of Georgia. Kosovo is independent and there is no perfect solution but independence offers best hope for lasting stability and peace. . Same with Transnistria it has no ethnic ties to Moldova So in order to secure lasting peace in that region some form of recognition will be needed in time. Buffadren 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember when I said you might be MaGioZal's sock? :D

Anyway, what do you mean by "are within the territory natural of Georgia" and "Kosovo is independent"? Kosovo is inside the territory of Serbia, it's not independent. --PaxEquilibrium 15:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wake up, people. Kosovo doesn’t belong nor it’s controlled by Serbia since the end of NATO bombings during Kosovo War, and everything indicates that it will never be given back to Belgrade’s control. The only option to Serbia to regain Kosovo is to restart Milosevic’s wars again, but it would be a suicidal tactic since NATO troops are positioned in Bosnia and Kosovo and the military alliance has plenty of ways to impede any kind of adventure. And the EU would close the door to Serbia for a long time…

What do you mean by "not belonging"? If you refer to territorial integrity of countries in the world, then Kosovo of course "belongs" to Serbia and no other state. A part of Belgrade's sovereignty is in Kosovo, in places where Albanians do not live (like the enclaves, or North Kosovo). Just like Kosovo doesn't have full control over its own territory (North Kosovo is much more "in Serbia" than "in Kosovo"). Despite small, a "part of Serbia" is seen in Kosovo indeed.

North Kosovo, as the rest of Kosovo, is fully controlled by NATO soldiers and central Kosovar authorities. There is no Serbian authority nor Serbian police or army there. The NATO orientation is to give independence to all of Kosovo territory, in the same borders drawn in 1945 and confirmed by the Yugoslav Constitution of 1974, which gave Kosovo the right to political autonomy from Serbia (a right decision, IMHO). And as far as I know, granting rights to the Serbian minority is on the roadmap to Kosovo’s independence. --MaGioZal 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, North Kosovo is separate from the rest of Kosovo in nearly the same political situation as Kosovo is separate from Serbia. The people of North Kosovo has in the same very extreme separatist tendencies (from Pristina) as has the (majority of the) people of the rest of Kosovo (from Belgrade). North Kosovo is not under control of the central Pristina transitional authorities. Of course it isn't "controlled" by NATO soldiers, they're only there to supervise and retain peace (as much as they can do; they're doing not quite a good job). There is Serbian authority there, even the Albanian political leadership openly states that by saying statements like "North Kosovo, or in precise the Serbian National Council, is a mere puppet-state of Belgrade". Talking about Serbian army/police, the Resolution 1244 announced the return of a part of the soldiers & policemen (so, "officially" there is, i.e. should be). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's orientation is a militant organization's opinion and nothing else. --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, the fact is that there is no Serbian police or army units in any part of Kosovo, from South to North, from East to West. Remember, NATO doesn’t have just opinions… it has a lot of soldiers and heavy bombers, too. And Martti Ahtisaari Kosovo’s independence plan, fully endorsed by America, Britain and NATO, mandates that Kosovo independence will be within its current borders.--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

An unjust fact, yes (which was first promised/signed/arranged and then denied by the very Albanian authorities and their international supporters that are proposing another solution right now). Are you saying that in this case (when another people is involved) you do not support the will of the people? --PaxEquilibrium 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are not the same territories drawn in 1945, North Kosovo was later annexed to the Kosovo-Metohijan province (inner borders of Communist/Socialist Republican greater Yugoslavia were interchangeable, and they did change like in Kosovo's or Vojvodina's or even Sandzak's and Trieste's case if go back) and those borders are not confirmed by the Yugoslav 1974 Constitution (AFAIK, there is no legal act of the Constitution's magnitude that ever confirmed Kosovar borders ;). BTW, Kosovo had autonomy received autonomy before 1974. What rights in specific are you referring to? --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying this way you want to convince me that Kosovo was never autonomous and the current borders of Kosovo were drawn by “the islamic terrorists of KLA”…

Here’s the sources of my writings:

*1974 Constitution of Yugoslavia (in Slovenian) at Wikisource;

*History_of_Yugoslavia#The_Second_Yugoslavia--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources support (of which the latter is incorrect) that which you claim. I shall repeat: 1) Those aren't the borders drawn in 1945, the three most northern Kosovar municipalities were annexed to KosMet in the 1950s and 2) The 1974 Constitution neither drew nor confirmed any border whatsoever (like not a single Yugoslav legal act). --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course no one talks about wars; war is not even an option. Everything does not indicate - who knows how will it traverse. For example, if new negotiations are adopted, Pristina and Belgrade might make a compromise. EU already closed the door for Serbia for a long time (because of Ratko Mladic). :D --PaxEquilibrium 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Even Russia can’t completely block Kosovo’s independence — the approval of the “permanent five” of the UN Security Council is not a mandatory pre-requisite for independence and recognition: the case of Israel and Bangladesh wars of independence illustrates this very well. If the USA, Albania, Croatia and Germany recognize Kosovo, it would be no problem for the new country to be non-recognized by Russia, Serbia, Greece or any other Slavic and/or Orthodox nation that would take the pains in this question.

Correct; that's probably what's gonna happen (Kosovo will end up in a situation slightly better than that of North Cyprus). --PaxEquilibrium 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of better, I would say. Kosovo, like Israel, very probably will get recognition and support of USA and UK, two big Western Great Powers (and Germany would also do the same, too). Northern Cyprus is recognized only by Turkey (one of the reasons why this country can’t get into EU yet) and part of Azerbaijan.--MaGioZal 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did say between North Cyprus and Ireland in 1917. --PaxEquilibrium 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1389 is over. The last Battle for Kosovo was lost in 1999. The grandchildren can’t be punished for their grandparents (more than 90% of Kosovo’s population are not “Ottoman Empire Muslim Invaders”, but legitimate natural-born people from that land). And in 2007 Kosovo belong to the majority of their people, who speaks Albanian and ardently wants to be free.

Why are you calling upon the Battle of Amsfeld? The Self-determination is important, true; but you have to keep on mind that not all people who spread bloodshed in the 1990s in Kosovo were Serbs - some were Albanians too. And you must keep in mind that the Albanian government is composed by those same war criminals (in Serbian POV, terrorists). I will quote Carla del Ponte: "Corrupted gangsters who have the blood of many innocents on their hands". Ibrahim Rugova's death ended the Gandi era and brought the "evil-dudes" (Ramush Haradinaj, Hashim Thaci, Agim Ceku,...). They must be punished for their acts (and not the Kosovar population, regardless if it supports them - heck, Milosevic had great support in Serbia too). But, according to the same self-determination principles, North Kosovo should stay in Serbia (the rest become independent) and the Serbian Republic should secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina... shouldn't it? --PaxEquilibrium 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because Republika Srpska, in a way similar to Abkhazia separatist government, is just a recent para-sate created trough war, mass expulsions, rape and genocide (references: Bosnian Genocide, Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia).--MaGioZal 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that ethnic cleansing or similar atrocities were not conducted by the Serbian enemies in Bosnia and Herzegovina (or by KLA in Kosovo?). Over four hundred thousand Bosniacs left the Serbian part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. But also, much more than half a million Serbs left the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Federation. A large portion of RS's population are former refugees expelled/exiled and/or victims of such activities themselves. --PaxEquilibrium 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact (attested by many forensic analysts and scientists) is that the victims of Serbian military and paramilitary were in a much more large scale than the Serbian victims of anti-Serbian forces during Yugoslav Wars (see this). --MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is no greater point in that but just rough bad-faith national generalization. BTW for example, should you count the losses of all people who were of Serb ethnicity across all the Yugoslav wars, you'll get a staggering figure much larger than any of the "anti-Serb" sides as you call 'em: 1,200,000 Serbs exiled and at 40,000 killed (roughly). That's even the basis for the Serb Radicals' "global conspiracy" theory. I said and shall again - it's pointless (the Serbian people is neither the Nazi Party in Germany during the 1930s & 1940s nor could it, like any other people, tagged with a whole national genocidal guilt). Anyway, you're drifting away from the subject - which was that "the magnitude of crimes" is not quite a pointer (i.e. "All right, leaders of ethnic group X killed 5,000,000 people of ethnic group Y, while leaders of ethnic group Y killed only 500,000 Ys, let's punish the Xs for being stupid to conduct larger crimes instead those of the same magnitude?.") Pointless (except to the minds of hard-driven nationalists). --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

About the comparsion between Kosovo and Georgian separatist problems, well, me and many people around think that the two cases are quite different (see Sukhumi Massacre and Vladimir Socor articles at Eurasia Daily Monitor about the nature of Russian peacekeeping operations in these regions) and one can’t be used as a precedent for another.

Try to tell that to millions of common folk living in separatist regions. --PaxEquilibrium 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The key in the maintenance of Georgian separatist regions is not their populations (counted in tens of thousands, not millions like Kosovo), but the presence of Russian troops stationed in these regions. There is no massive grassroots popular movements in these regions claiming for independence; Kosovo, in these matters, is very, very different (remember Ibrahim Rugova).--MaGioZal 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood - try to tell that to millions of all the people in the world that support separatist movements (Albanians in Kosovo, Serbs in Bosnia, some Albanians in south Serbia, Basques, Irish in Northern Ireland, Hungarians in Slovakia, Cyprotian Turks, --PaxEquilibrium 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with NATO’s opinion: Each case of separatism has its own history, characteristics and possibilities of resolution. An unique “Universal Precedent Formula” as said by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin is completely out of context.--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

NATO's opinion is (was?) also (adopted in collaboration with the majority of the international community), ever since 1991, that they endorse a policy in which precisely all 6 republics of Yugoslavia be allowed, and supported on their way to independence, and not any other region (including Kosovo). That policy actually still stands as an international signed act. NATO's (official) side-policy in 1999 was also that Kosovo has no future outside Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

or even Sicilians, Corsicans, Bretons, Sardinians, Bavarians or whatever separatist region,...).--PaxEquilibrium 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn’t any significant separatist movement in these regions nowadays, and the vast majority of Sicilians, Corsicans, Bretons, Sardinians, Bavarians and even the Basques wants to remain within their current countries. The case of Kosovo, where the central government sent troops and police to try to wipe out the natural-born Albanian-speaking population as if they were mere foreign invaders, were and is quite different.--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I already pointed out - "wipe out" is a little too harsh (and quite possibly incorrect term). Even those who point that there indeed was a plan ("Horseshoe Operation"), claim that there never ever was a plan (ever) to simply destroy the whole Albanian people in Kosovo (the harshest of the claims say that Milosevic wanted to "decrease their numbers" to keep a sick balance so that he could more easily control the province with a potentially friendly-orientated non-Albanian population). Keep also on mind that that all is unendingly controversial. We could freely say quite the same thing for the Croatian Army/Government in Serbian Krajina, or for the Israelite forces in Palestine (erroneously generalizing in each and every single case). --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Point was there is no argument that can beat self-determination, nor convince any of those 100+ million people of anything whatsoever. --PaxEquilibrium 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Each case of separatism has its own history, characteristics and possibilities of resolution.--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Abkhazia's population does not count in tens of thousands - Abkhazia is home to more than 215,000 people. --PaxEquilibrium 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That were twice as big before the great ethnic cleansing that expelled the local Georgian population from there in 1993.--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

True; your point (you were still wrong)? BTW did you know that Hashim Thaci officially admitted and apologized for expelling more than half of the entire non-Albanian population in late 1999 with NATO's help recently? --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And about allegations of socketpuppetry: remember that one of the principles of real democracy is the presumption of innocence. --MaGioZal 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One of Misplaced Pages's policies: Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages could not be a vote-style democracy, but it’s a place where people cannot be punished for what they didn’t done. And perhaps the administrators agree on this. --MaGioZal 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the RfC was declined because in precise you (if B. is your sock-puppet indeed) didn't do anything bad, or I just couldn't find it in precise. However the administrators themselves later said that a check-user would not be even necessary, since Buf.e is an obvious sockpuppet of yours. --PaxEquilibrium 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not Buffadren. Believe, there’s more than 1 people in the planet Earth that supports an independent Kosovo and a unified Bosnia and Georgia.--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course; the suspicion was not in there in the first place. It was in the fact that A) Buffadren might then be impersonating you (unintentionally or otherwise) and B) Buffadren made a peculiar case in which he wrote to me that he's not you in perfect English, then rewrote it to pig English and then rewrote it again repairing some horribly-written to words to just badly written. Not a usual thing, don't you agree? --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW I cannot really believe that there's more than one Wikipedian on Misplaced Pages that both supports an independent Kosovo and a centralist Bosnia and Georgia and shares identical personal interests (+the incident with Buffadren I already mentioned). No, that is very unlikely. :) --PaxEquilibrium 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia. What ever UN decides about Kosovo, no one in Serbia, nor radicals nor democrats will recognize independence of Kosovo. Since, the decision about this matter must also recognize interests of international community (or great powers) it will be to soon to talk about any long lasting solution to this problem. Why? There are few serious reasons but I’ll state only two.

First, Kosovo is major center of narco trafficking and illegal arms trade in Europe. Freelancer journalist Donald McIntyre managed to buy 13.5 kg of Semtex in Kosovo without any problems. In fear for his life, he reported his buy to KFOR and left Kosovo immediately. You can read an article about this published in Sunday Mirror here.

"In neighboring Croatia we bought a machine gun and a Walther PPK pistol. In Belgrade, the capital of nearby Serbia, the local Mafia emailed us to offer a cache of anti-tank missiles, Kalashnikovs, a mortar and illegal land-mines for £ 50 000. And in neighboring Montenegro, on the Adriatic coast's version of the Costa Del Crime, another war criminal was selling death on an industrial scale. The man, known as Vesko - a former bodyguard of Serbian warlord Arkan - offered to supply us with 20 rocket-propelled grenades, 20 shoulder-fired missiles and 20 Spider machine guns used by the SAS." Yes, Kosovo is clearly the major centre for illegal arms trade. It always amazes me that people fail to actually read the articles they cite. Davu.leon 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing my effort to be objective. I didn’t just pull out the part of the article that talk about Kosovo. Instead I placed a link to the whole article and i read it from first to last sentence.

Lets see, quote: In Belgrade, the capital of nearby Serbia, the local Mafia emailed us to offer a cache of anti-tank missiles, Kalashnikovs, a mortar and illegal landmines for £ 50 000.

I just received a new shipment of B-2 bombers. If you give me your mail, all be glad to send you an email offer for whole squadron of this war planes.

Can you see the difference between an email offer and confirmed buy of 13.5 kg of Semtex? One can’t blow up an airplane with an email offer.

Montenegro does not concern me. It’s an independent state now. Same goes for Croatia.

Any comments on my second remark? --Marko M 20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Second. The latest news from Serbia about police action near Novi Pazar, in Sandzak region bordering Kosovo and Metohija goes like this: Police raid Wahhabi terrorist camp. You can read a whole story on B92 – News.

If you have in mind that all of these, including constant attacks against Serbian population in Kosovo, happened during UN and KFOR presence in Kosovo, we can only imagine what will happened if Kosovo gained independence. --Marko M 10:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there difference between different regions around the world? There is some great hypocrisy. Kosovo is not an exception (and shouldn't be one), although we could only hope for a good solution. The minorities situation is far worse today and not to talk about the organized crime. To talk about a two-sided history about Kosovo will not lead anywhere. Even if you regard to the medieval age or the antiquity era.

And I just wanted to add that ALL western countries have blood on their hands even if it was 200 or 100 years ago. Including Finland, Norway and my own Sweden regarding the Sami-people.

Litany 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We should note that on more than 1180 years of history of Serbia (since approximately 825), Kosovo was an effective part of this kingdom/empire/country and its many incarnations for just 259 non-consecutive years (from 1216 to 1389 and from 1913 to 1999). For most of the time, Kosovo wasn’t Serbian territory. The only “reason” to not to give Kosovo independence is, in fact, a religious one. But as a bright and secularist I believe that the plea of millions of Albanian-speaking people inhabiting the region for centuries is much more important than considerations about Orthodox monasteries. That’s it. --MaGioZal 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you choose 825 as a starting point of Serbian political Serbian statehood? (1180 years seems a little well, little ;) There is nothing significant that happened in or around the year of 825 in then's Serbian realm (Rascia-Doclea-Zachlumia-Travunia-Pagania-Bosnia-whatever). Also, it is not quite relevant enough in this case (political statehood). We could also say that Slavonia and/or especially Dalmatia is barely even "Croatian territory" (even much, much less than in this case). Metohija (western Kosovo) was (or better said, its greater part) a part of Rascia ever since its first creation in the first half of the 7th century (620s/630s).

Kosovo (most of it) was fully integrated within Rascia in the 1090s. I say "integrated" because even before in the 1070s and/or 1040s around those times whole of Kosovo was within a Serbian state. In 1208 did Stephen conquer the very last territory of south Kosovo (Prizren), fully integrated. In the end, Kosovo was not conquered by the Ottomans from the Serbs in 1389, but later, in the first half of the 15th century (1400s). So, depending on which part of Kosovo within Medieval Serbian states you're referring to, it could be 800 years, or just 400. --PaxEquilibrium 14:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence of History of Serbia says: The first Serbian state, Raška, was founded in 800s by the House of Vlastimirović. Or do you think there was no Serbians before 1054?…:-P--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good that you pointed that our; will correct is as soon as I can. The Principality of Rascia was created in the early 600s by (Eastern) Roman Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos who gave the White Serbs that were unsatisfied with their lands in (southern) Macedonia that realm, among others, to settle. As such Rascia "maintained itself" until the term went completely out of usage by the mid 14th century with the creation of a Serbian Empire. I do not understand your reference to the year 1054, could you please clarify? --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the link again.--MaGioZal 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. --PaxEquilibrium 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then again, within the Ottoman state political statehood of Serbia was continued through the Serbian Church that contained both Kosovo and Metohija in 1557-1766. The Patriarchs were the leaders of the Serbs, very powerful people that at times led even massive armies, etc... so in Serbian history, the entity (as a part of the Ottoman Empire) is actually referred to Serbia itself.

And if you are referring to the post-Ottoman modern Serbian states, than you should better say 1912-present; but then again Metohija was not within Serbia, but Montenegro rather (though, Montenegro was back then a "Serbian state"). --PaxEquilibrium 14:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Kosovo (and its population) since its conquest by the Ottoman Empire until 1913 had never been governed by the Serbians from the Orthodox churches and monasteries nor by Belgrade; Kosovo was administered from the viziers at the service of the supreme Sultan from Constantinople.--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Like I said, from 1532 up to (but not exactly, the Ottoman-controlled Constantine Phanariots took over later) 1766 Kosovo was "de facto" ruled from Pec (which is BTW in Metohija i.e. present-day western Kosovo) by the Serbian Patriarchs. The Ottomans (and their viziers) had numerous troubles with the people, almost to an extent like in Montenegro (which they never really had). The majority of the population (who were Orthodox Serbs) did not recognize the Ottoman "occupiers" as legal, and answered to the... ahem, "..Serbians from the Orthodox churches and monasteries". It is only later that the Church of Serbia was with the Istanbul's support became a "puppet-state, er, puppet-church" of the Constantine Ecumenical Ottoman-controlled Patriarchate. Aside from that in the late 1700s the Ottomans removed most Christian rights (including all special rights as an endangered population) and eventually abolished the Pan-Serbian Pec Patriarchate in 1766. This is also around the time that Kosovo no longer had an Orthodox Christian, but Muslim rather majority, the time when hundreds of thousands of Serbs were systematically removed from Kosovo or in more often cases Islamized, while colonization was being conducted to "fill in" the missing population, mostly by Albanian nomads from the mountains southwest (first in 1690s and then in 1737-1739;... numerous other which led to the systematic destruction of Serbs and Christians in general). All opposition ended together with the removal of the last major Christian populations (400,000 in the later 1800s) by the end of the 19th century. But then the dominant Albanian population became a much larger problem for the Ottomans, and despite really controlling it, the late 19th century Prizreni League really made things harder, not to mention the early 1900s Albanian rebellions. --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In the end history like this should not be a relevant factor (though considering that you're not quite correct on that one, you should have on mind that years would approximately more like amass to more than a millennium). Also, I believe that there are 1,800,000-2,000,000 Albanians in Kosovo, so "millions" is not quite correct wording.

*Math lesson number one: anything that happened before 1007 CE happened more than a thousand years (millenium) ago.

I'm sorry, I don't understand to what are you referring to. --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

*Math lesson number two: anything greater than 1 million can be counted in millions.--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you a counter-lessen. "Millions" can be referred to 2 million at least (I don't think it reached that criteria). :))) --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And of course I agree that their will is relevant; just like I agree that the will of all the Bosnian Serbs is relevant and the will of Albanians living in Presevo in south Serbia, or any will of such magnitude anywhere (Serbs in Montenegro? Albanians in Macedonia?). Cheers. However the problems of fulfilling their expanding desires, is a global problem. --PaxEquilibrium 14:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But you didn’t (or you can’t) answer my prime argument about this matter: there is no reason, other than merely religious, to not to give independence to Kosovo. In the Western perspective, international decisions should not be based on religious thoughts, but in Reason. And nation-stastes, to be truly free and democratic, must be formed and based in Reason and Liberty, not gods, religious legends or dogmas.--MaGioZal 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh* That's because I do not want to do that; it's both filthy and, in a way (to me), sick. But if you must: for example the fact that a lot of people not belonging to the dominant people has been removed from Kosovo, their return evidently impossible in 8 years' time and that the transitional government has proven to be not only quite disabled to help solve those (and much, much more problems if we don't refer to ethnic tensions; economic for instance) problems and AFAIK endorsed and helped ethnic hatred and atrocities in the "interregnum" and because the government is composed out of very suspicious people, led by criminals, former enemies of the very peoples who are jeopardized. Roughly said, there's your reason. :X Vladimir Putin (I'm not gonna side here, just quote him) once said that "unleashing further a lion that already ran away from its circus owner to attack an already bitten lamb could never ever be a good thing to do". --PaxEquilibrium 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to make things a little less confusing, I’ll reply the questions above here:

• I do support the majority of population of Kosovo, who wants a free and independent new country within the current borders administered by UN and NATO;

• So do I (really), but yours and mine opinions are irrelevant (also see WP:NOR). --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The current borders of Kosovo wasn’t drawn by the 1999 war; they were drawn many years before the dissolution of Yugoslavia;

• Point? They were "flexible" in Yugoslavia's time anyways. --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, the borders are not so flexible — in fat, they didn’t chenged for about forty long years, since Tito’s government redesigned them. And again, it seems like you’re applying souble standards: the borders of Bosnia and Croatia should be altered in favor of the Serbs, but the borders of Serbia, including “the Holy Land of Kosovo and Metohija” are “eternal”?--MaGioZal 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• No said "how much", but that they were planned to be easily changeable (and did change a lot in the 1940s and 1950s). There is note one instance in which Tito's government redesigned them, there are many. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Where did I say/claim such a thing (I know because that's a thing I'd simply never do; I never ever use double standards for anything in my wiki-life whatsoever). --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• The magnitude of crimes is a pointer. People (or organizations) that killed 1 person deserve (and generally get) more time in jail than others that killed 10 — any judicial system in any part of the Civilized World would agree on this. And the greatest perpetrators and killers of the Yugoslav Wars were the Serbian state government led by dictator Slobodan Milosevic and its allies. And most of the people and media outside Republika Srpska, Serbia and Russia do agree with this fact;

• That's something with which I perfectly agree. However you totally missed the problem: that's OK, naturally; but what is wrong is that people that killed 10 people of one gang go to jail, while the people of the other gang who killed 1 man do not go to jail at all and get rewarded for their acts. It's not fair that you generalize just on RS, SERB and RUS, that's not quite a correct generalization. So are you saying that we should screech around ex YU searching for war criminals and asking their, ethnicities, and award them or punish them on the basis of their ethnic origin? --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The “people who killed 1 man” are not being “rewarded” with nothing: they are just receiving (partially) back what the Serbian dictatorial forces took away during Yugoslav Wars.--MaGioZal 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Receiving back that, and gaining in addition much, much more...I wonder why you ignored the "do not go to jail at all" bit. :D --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I’ve never said that war non-Serbian war crimimals would go unpunished; I just say that the crimes of the Serbian forces at the time of the Yugoslav Wars was 'FAR BIGGER than the anti-Serbian forces — as the fact-finding of ICTY and courts of international law have found out. --MaGioZal 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Right. But tell me the point. In the end, it's irrelevant: what is relevant is who the victims were if it were an ethnic-based crime. For instance, the article Serbs should contain the ethnic cleanses of Serbs west of the Drina and from Kosovo - but not Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. the article Croats should not mention Ante Pavelic and/or Ante Gotovina - but the atrocities committed against Croats in that which practically was called Genocide by some (ICJ Genocide case Croatia vs Yugoslavia/Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nowadays NATO overwhelmingly supports the independence of the entire Kosovo;

• And? Please re-read our discussion, the military organization's opinion wasn't even (the main) subject. --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The opinion of the greates military organization of Earth is very important in this question, because without NATO support, Kosovo would never be independent.--MaGioZal 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's off-topic to the very discussion we're talking about, concentrating not on anyone's opinions, but real facts (for example I could add below under "reasons" the fact that oil-duct will be passing through Kosovo and the US need it under control for it, separated from Serbia; but that's not quite a "reason", and is still a controversial topic). --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Milosevic’s plan was to remove all the non-Serbian-Orthodox population from Kosovo and kill those who would resist to stay (most of the media around the World reported about the more 800,000 Kosovar Albanian-speaking refugees that prompted Bill Clinton and NATO to start the Operation Allied Force). If this is not “to wipe out” and population, I really don’t know what it could be.

• That's a very controversial subject, and you cannot claim such a thing, at least if you haven't been closely involved or saw anything first handedly. The Operation Horseshoe is a very controversial thing. In the end all agree that even the most devilish minds of Belgrade (perhaps/probably including Milosevic himself) wanted "only" to "better" the scale somewhat in favor of Serbs. Even the whole figure is controversial, it ranges from 500,000 up to 800,000 (the most correct figure that might be the closest to the truth is I think 700,000). Do you know that in Croatia allegedly there existed a similar plan? Did you know that President Franjo Tudjman talking with General Ante Gotovina and their closest advisers about a plan to remove the hostile Serbian population (the conversation is recorded, and is one of the evidence used by the ICTY for accusations of crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing in the Hague)? They agreed that most of border should be secured by the Croatian armed forces except a "pocket" at the Una river through which they would force the Krajina Serbs into the Serbian part of Bosnia so that they don't have to kill them. By the end of 1995, 450,000-600,000 Serbs have been removed from Croatia, and only 150,000 remained. Then again, controversies lie in here as well. BTW, the very same orchestrator of this action is today in power in a democratizing Croatia. Do you see what I am trying to tell you? In the end we could twist around that proportionally to their respective population sizes, the Serbian population had suffered more than the Albanian. Point? NONE. --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• What statistics you’re talking about? Sorry, but I do not believe in any that came from Serbian (or pro-Serbian) institutions. And if Clinton and NATO didn’t madewhat they made, certainly Kosovo would be today wiped out of Albanians, Muslims and Catholics — in a very similar manner that happened in Republika Srpska. And about what happened in Croatia, well, I don’t agree with the expulsion of the Orthodox Slavic people, but I think this cannot be used as an excuse to justify the actions of the Serbian forces in other places… and facts point that the atrocities the Serbian forces commited in Croatia war far bigger (remember Vukovar Massacre) than the actions of the Croatian or Bosnian forces.--MaGioZal 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? What statistics precisely are you talking about? BTW, what do you mean by not believing any Serbian or pro-Serbian institution (which obviously includes BBC)? Does that mean you only believe anti-Serbian institutions? :) I cannot agree with your opinion on the Croatian war, man, if not elsewhere, you're definitely showing bad-faith stereotype and using double standards over there (heck, they're just Serbs, so they're evil no matter what). In such same manner the Croatian government claims that Operation Storm was fully justified because the Bosnian Serb forces were just attacking Bihać. In the end over 250,000 Krajina Serbs fled to Serb-controlled Bosnia and over 3,000-3,500 killed (mostly civilians). The organized plan with sole need of the wholesome removal is just something that's documented. You may not agree with it - of course neither do I approve it - but it's something that happened (with of course attached controversy there too, but slightly less than in the case of Operation Storm). Do not use double standards. Many have said that the casualties might be bigger (for example the Croatian side suffered over 200,000 refugee and thousands killed). But saying that "facts" point that the atrocities of the Serbian forces committed were bigger than the Croatian simply do not correspond (note: a lot' of controversy here; as usual). Of course, Vukovar massacre did occur; but so did the Gospić massacre, Operation Medak pocket, the Dalmatian Crystal Night, the ethnic purges in West Slavonia, Operation Flash, Operation Storm,... Fact is also that the Croatian Serbs were in 1990-1991 in the exact very same situation as Albanians under Milosevic (precisely as quoted by the BBC and UN). which were all full of the most vile of crimes against humanity. Sure, if there would be today still a Republic of Serbian Krajina like its "brother" in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I guess that "the weight" (the very terrible thing to which I do not know why You constantly refer) and the burden on the Serbian side - but it is not the Serbian side that practically succeeded in the very, in effect, (OK, I'll even harshly overestimate to point you out) in the extermination of "the enemy", i.e. the hostile people, to which some (but on very rare occasion, mainly due to the fact that they share Your opinion respectively) call it "Genocide" (and together with the individual crime of Srebrenica Massacre, wholesomely the worst atrocity in Europe committed after WWII). In the end, I shall say once more: point? None (except if you practice stereotype). --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I’ve read the article of the ]… and I’ve discovered that the number of dead people was at least half of the number of people massacred at Vukovar. In this and in many other occasions, fanatic nationalistoid “Orthodox Serbs” tries to distort the facts trying to convince the World that they were the main victims not the MAIN PERPETRATORS of the crimes committed during Yugoslav Wars. Happily the World (mainly the Western World) is not listening. --MaGioZal 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• You must not be so emotionally touched by this; Sir, You have to open Yourself to further possibilities (like I try ) and be broad-minded. Accept the possibilities that just maybe You're wrong at something. No one's perfect.
• Why did You tie Yourself to the Gospic massacre? There was also the Croatian 1991 offensive into West Slavonia which expelled the entire 15,000-35,000 Serbian civilian population, burned down hundreds of houses, killed hundreds of innocent civilians and destroyed cultural heritage (like Pakrac). In 1991 at the early beginnings there was also the "Dalmatian Crystal Night", a mass pogrom throughout the Serbs living across Dalmatia (Zadar, Sibenik, Split, Trogir,...), in which among many other most Serb-owned houses in Zadar were burned, including the famous Serbian cafes. And of course, none is greater than Operation Storm (in which more than 3,000 people were killed; not to mention the horrors like the destruction of two UNESCO beautiful monasteries dating to the 14th century), which fully put your (and not anyone else's) view of "national crime guilt" directly to the Croatian side. Sad is that You share such a bad (I'm not going to say primitive, but it's surely past-type) opinion, and I am sure (know, I know) that the whole West isn't a "spoiled child". :)
• The "main perpetrator" could not have been the side that passed total destruction and much, much greater atrocities. Then in the end (as everything above that I wrote to You was utterly pointless, just like that which You with all due Your respect claim) - getting to the point over 'ere - ethnicities cannot be perpetrators, ethnic groups are dying-out social communities who do not even belong to the modern Humanity 21st century. I suggest You get a time machine and go to France in the late 18th century. :))) Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Histories (and legends) about supposed “Serbian resistance”, “Turk domination” or “Kosovo was stolen from the holy Serbs and colonized by savage Albanians” that mostly happened many centuries ago should never be used to justify the atrocities that Serbian forces committed during Yugoslav Wars in general and Kosovo War in particular. As I said before, the grandsons don’t have to pay for their grandparents;

• No one ever said they should. Though, remember, a crime never gets old.

• So, are you affirming with this sentence that the grandsons deserve killing or prision for the acts commited by their grandparents? This is very undemocractic.--MaGioZal 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, but that a crime should never be forgotten. This is often happened when claiming that Serbs were never victims in recent history in Kosovo, but that only Albanians were - which is slightly incorrect, taking to granted the oppression and to an extent even brutal discrimination by some of the Communist Albanian political leaders, who are still enjoying and are in power in Pristina (BTW, there are no children or grandsons over 'ere; those are the very same people). Such is an excellent example on turning a blind eye to their crimes because they happened before (a good example is Kosovo's Premier, Agim Ceku; I might also mention former Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj, a vicious gangster that is evidently going to be freed because of the harsh program or rooting out witnesses who aren't even protected outside Kosovo , as Carla del Ponte said herself). --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the same manner the Serbs cannot be punished for the acts of Milosevic and his men in the 1990s. In the end no nation should be punished, neither Albanian nor Serb. Individuals are guilty, and not social communities numbering millions of diverse people. AFAIK, such generalized crime guilt you are referring to (BTW, could you please stop doing so? peoples are not guilty, but their individuals), cannot be applied to the Albanians for that time, but the Turks, rather (if you already generalize, but I think that that's a very wrong thing to do). In WWII did the Albanian armed forces committed genocide against Serbs and the violent of the second Yugoslavia Albanian Kosovar (among whom by the way, some are today still in power in Pristina) ringleaders who're directly/indirectly responsible for removals of hundreds of thousands of Serbs in the late 1960s to early 1980s (or veterans from the 1940s). Why do you say "supposed"? Are you saying that such things never occurred? --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The horrors that happened in World War II (more than half a century ago!) can never be used as an justification for the barbaric and monstruous acts that Serbian forces commited against thousands of innocent people (remeber the rape camps and the Sniper Alley) in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo.--MaGioZal 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Of course I didn't mean that as a justification. Could you please stop doing that? My whole discussion is rotating around explaining that a) you cannot blame people what people related to them in any way did (wrong) and b) You cannot blame Social groups for wrong things, but individuals. This is the very wrong (to an extent harshly stereotypic, with an inherent and unavoidable POV) that You, with all due Your respect, keep practicing here. I'm trying to tell You that such archaic beliefs belong to the 19th century and WWII, and not the 21st century (they didn't belong in the 1990s either, but some Yugoslavian dumb-asses applied them, and it led to what became known as the Yugoslav wars. --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• And once again, I repeat: there is no reason, other than merely religious, to not to give independence to Kosovo. And it’s much more important to hear the plea of millions of Albanian-speaking native people that were victim of decades of persecution, discrimination, killings and a recent war waged by their former master than to hear the plea of a little minority of discontents. Some Serbians should learn with the West some things about liberal democracy and mainly about the importance of the separation between church and state. There is hope: Greece, Romania and Bulgaria had already learned much things about these concepts. And there’s Serbian open-minded people, too.--MaGioZal 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I already responded to this, if you go to seeking reasons to alter the lives of millions (and essentially like I already pointed out at your talk page, play God), then seek both sides and listen to people (me for starters, I already mentioned it to the above). Are you saying that the minority of "discontents" as you pejoratively call them weren't also subjected to decades (or if you'd like, centuries) of persecution, discrimination, killings, etc (refer to the moment when I said that people of one ethnic group should be punished, while the others not because of their ethnic origin, to the up) (by the way, to which decade are you referring to other than the 1990? you said decades, which is plural)? Jovanovic? I sympathize with his Liberal Democratic option, but not with his person. Cedomir Jovanovic has a dark past cooperating with street criminals (mostly drug-dealers) and the alleged controversy of himself being a drug-addict is not nice either. Some of LDP's goals are also legalizing of marijuana,... and if that's what the west is about, I think I'll pass ;) Liberal Democracy is one thing, but Liberal Anarchism - totally another; I do not prefer it... Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, and what you can say about people like the criminal Arkan? As far as I know, Cedomir has never been prosecuted for murder, rape and war crimes nor got rich with the products of lootings from the civillian population.--MaGioZal 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, because he didn't do such things. :) That was not even the point (read between lines). BTW, no one in the current democratic Belgrade government has such tags, while the Pristina transitional ruling elite is full of such people, among whom many are, you'll pardon my expression, warmongers in Arkan's style (Agin Ceku for instance). I myself generally despise everyone involved in the foul 1990s from ex Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remember that the ICTY have been putting many non-Serbians on trial, too. And until nowadays I’ve never been herad of facts pointing out to the existence between the Kosovars of something similar to Arkan and their monstruous acts. Agains, here’s the old creepy radical “Orthodox Serb” tactic of distorting the facts known to the whole World to justify what happened and put “good Serbia” as a “victim” of the “bad radical Catholic Fascists (Croatians), fanatical Wahabi Muslims (Muslims Bosnians, Albanians), etc…. --19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On contrary I am stopping You from continuing (such) a crude generalization. For example - if I didn't know You better - I'd say the only important thing to You are the ethnicities (especially on the line Serb/non-Serb) of criminals and nothing else at all. Things run much, much more deeper in this, my friend. --PaxEquilibrium 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another link about Kosovo

From BBC News site: Memories of Kosovo. It has some more info about the problems between Albanian-speaking people in Kosovo under perspective of its inhabitants.--MaGioZal 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This section has been trimmed back. I see no value in adding this now. Buffadren 14:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not agreed

This has been parachuted into the article. I feel it should be removed for many reasons. Is there agreement please.

Articles by Slavenko Terzic, Ph. D. SANU - Albanian ethnic cleansing of old Serbia, Kosovo, Serbian issue, and the Greater Albania project, Kosovo and Metohija in Serbian history

Buffadren 15:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support/Oppose

Let's make a list of all countries, that oppose or support independence of Kosovo (for information's sake). Anyone is free to add/remove. Sources next to each country are not needed, but are recommended. Thanks to everyone for participation. --PaxEquilibrium 22:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The countries are listed in alphabetical order. --PaxEquilibrium 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Oppose list includes:

• countries which have directly officially declared (that) they do not want an independent Kosovo
• countries which have indirectly insinuated (that) they will not recognize Kosovo's independence

The Neutral list includes:

• countries that support compromise between Belgrade and Pristina
• important countries that do not have any official standpoint

The Support list includes:

• countries that stand for an independent Kosovo
• countries that think independence is a better solution and/or will probably recognize independence of Kosovo
• countries which support an (internationally) imposed solution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Oppose

• Republic of South Africa
• Republic of Armenia
• People's Republic of China
• Republic of Cyprus
• Georgia
• Republic of Ghana
• Hellenic Republic
• Republic of Hungary
• Russian Federation
• Romania
• Republic of Serbia
• Slovak Republic
• Kingdom of Spain

Neutral

• Republic of Peru
• Republic of Indonesia

Support

• Republic of Albania
• United States of America
• Republic of Austria
• Kingdom of Belgium
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• Republic of Croatia
• French Republic
• (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia
• Kingdom of Norway
• Federal Republic of Germany
• Italian Republic
• Republic of Montenegro
• Kingdom of the Netherlands
• Republic of Panama
• Swiss Confederation
• Republic of Slovenia
• Republic of Turkey

Discussion

Should we include Northern Cyprus and Cyprus differently? (74.122.179.59 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Cyprus sure; but I'm skeptical about North Cyprus, since it's not really a globally-recognized country. --PaxEquilibrium 01:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this a rather bizarre and premature discussion. I think everybody understands by now that Ahtisaari's final report will be distributed to the UN Security Council on Monday (it's been leaked...the Washington Post and Le Monde already had decent summaries). After the report is out there it will be much clearer where countries stand on independence (paraticularly after Ahtisaari's April 3 presentation to the Security Council). The EU states most squishy on independence have been Romania, Greece, Slovakia, Spain. Otherwise the consensus is reasonably strong in favor of independence, although there are some lingering disagreements about the "how" and the "when." Among the non-permanent UN Security Council members, the Africans (Congo-B, South Africa, Ghana) and Indonesia have been the weakest, with the Latins and Qatar more or less on board. I'd suggest this whole conversation be revisited in 3-4 weeks after more countries have shown their hand. On a side note, I'd observe that the status-related sections of the article will need some serious revisions after the events of next week. I'll try to get around to it, although I'll be traveling for part of the week. Envoy202 02:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I must agree, this proposal is bizarre and odd. Meritless Buffadren 11:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well since we've been dealing with a lot of predictions before, I decided to join in. :) There is no point in delaying, if things change we'll just add/remove correspondive countries. Italy, for example, says that consensus is impossible... anyway, this should give some sort of an image, and it can't be premature since it deals about presence and not future. Cheers. It's here to give us at least some sort of an image to the situation. --PaxEquilibrium 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that Ahtisaari's proposal is well known, I think that this can be in the article. Probably every country should be sourced... Nikola 10:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cultur Monuments in Balkan

I have a text. The Writer of the text his hand the monument of Serbs Vuk Stef. Karadzic. It is a text in witch the peopel of the west are going to understend way the albanians in Kosovo dont have nothing agains the so called serbians Chrurch in Kosovo. In fack the text is explening have the Church in Balkan hase chanche from roman rit (catholic) to grece rit (orthodox).

.... pa kad se 1810. godine potuže Kotorani zakona grčkoga francuskom maršalu Marmontu da je njih više nego rimljana, pa rimljani imaju više od 10 crkava, a oni samo jednu manju nego ijedna od rimskijeh, i opet u njoj rimski oltar; onda on ne samo zapovjedi da se rimski oltar iz njihove crkve iznese, nego im još kaže da i od rimskijeh crkava uzmu sebi jednu koju god hoće, osim Svetoga Trifuna (koja je ondje prva i kao saborna), i oni uzmu Svetoga Nikolu, za koju se misli da je i od starine Grčka bila (jer je na istok obrnuta). I to sve tako ostane i pod austrijskom vladom.....

taket from : http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-bo/ljudi/vkaradzic-boka.html (rastko - project)

The French Soldier say to serbs: You can taket every one Catholic Church and maket Orthodox Church.

I think, if we wount to finde the realyt then we must put in Kosovo article thate is not clean thate the Church in kosovo are Serbian Church but under the Serbian Church administrated. - Hipi

Exempel about the sebinasing Kosovo:

Sav ovaj komad zemlje, koji od jugozapada graniči s morem, od sjevera s (turskom) Hercegovinom*), od sjeveroistoka opet s Hercegovinom (do više Risna), od pravoga istoka s Crnom Gorom (od više Risna do Cmilove ulice), a od jugoistoka s turskom Arbanijom, zvao se otprije, dok su Mlečići njime vladali, mletačka Arbanija, kao i sad njemački što se zove austrijska Arbanija; a naši mnogi ljudi, osobito koji odande dalje k sjeveru žive, u govoru uzimaju ovo sve za Boku kao i ja ovdje što uzimam.

For the Boca of Cotor (today Montenegro) the Turks and Germans say Albania, but Vuk Karadzic is saying our land (Serbia). Montenegro it was compromis betwen the Albanians and Ruso-Serbs las centyry. With Kosovo the compromis is over, nothing more thane minorty.

Hipi Zhdripi, is that you? -- ChrisO 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For MaGioZal

To satisfy MaGioZal's desires: well MaGioZal, place here the reasons in which you're so interested.

Kosovo's independence

For

• Self-determination: It is likely that almost 90% of the province/territory's population desires independence

• And deserve it.--MaGioZal 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE MY WRITING. --MaGioZal 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, stay calm & civil. Why do You think I created the Discussion subsection to the below? Don't comment here unless You mean to correct a reason. --PaxEquilibrium 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• suffers of the Kosovar Albanian people under Milosevic's regime in the 1990s: After 1996, or more precisely after 1998, to 1999, more than half a million (estimates range in 500,000-800,000, most mentioned figure 700,000; some even claim one million) Albanians had to abandon their homes in Kosovo/Metohija and the number of killed ranges in 9,000-10,000 (refer to Kosovo war); Albanians were mistreated throughout the 1990s; there has been an alleged organized plan (Operation Horseshoe that concentrated on planned and organized ethnic cleansing of the hostile to the government Albanian population
• end of Kosovo question: independence of Kosovo would finally put an end (whatever it may be) to the Kosovo question which lasts forever and is exhausting the entire world

And the only true “reason” to the Serbian government drag its feet over Kosovo is merely religious — the “preservation of Sacred Serb Jerusalem”, which is a very, very weak argument in front of a population of millions of Albanian-speaking people who were discriminated as non-citizens by the Serbian authorities for many years and now wants the independence.--MaGioZal 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE MY WRITING. --MaGioZal 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then please You delete/move to the appropriate section this. This is not about the reasons why Kosovo should not get independence, the reasons posed in here are the For ones. --PaxEquilibrium 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• de facto independence: the Territory of Kosovo has been already to a certain extent independent from Belgrade for the past 8 years

Error: The whole territory of Kosovo is completely independent of Belgrade since 1999.--MaGioZal 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No. "De facto" only. A part of structure of Serbia is present to the south (ever since 1999, and especially since 2005), especially in North Kosovo --PaxEquilibrium 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul, That is the point/ 'De facto' is always the primary. If I emptied your bank account tomorrow morning and burned the money and then declared myself bankrupt and homeless, you would have a 'de jure' claim over this money but it really counts for nothing more than a legal aspiration. Buffadren 11:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In the past, yes; however, in the modern 21st century, it is de jure international status which counts. For example, the Republic of Serbian Krajina and/or the Serbian Republic in Bosnia and Herzegovina never were "really" independent.

BTW, would you say the same thing for Abkhazia and South Ossetia? --PaxEquilibrium 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Serbs blessed by their politicians and the church, treated Albanians as less beings during the 80 and 90s.
• The current prime minister of Serbia, Vojislav Kostunica, is an ultranationalist and anti- Albanian when it comes to Kosovo and support ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo. He never mentions Albanians when he talks about Kosovo. Someone who wants to be prime minister for 2 million Albanians in Kosovo calls Albanian population of Kosovo, terrorists. During the Kosovo war he posed armed in Kosovo.Kostunica
• Serbs want Kosovo but not the Albanian people making 90 % of the inhabitants according to different polls.
• Albanians in Serbia are the most hated minority due to antialbanian campaigns supported by the government of Serbia and nationalist organizations.
• The remaining Albanians (Presevo valley) in Serbia are not allowed to own an Albanian flag.
• Serbia has not presented any alternative to independence. Yes to the territory of Kosovo but NOOOO to a multiethnic Serbia.
• Under 10 Serbs have been punished for crimes they committed against Albanians during Kosovo war. Government is not interested in finding and punishing them who committed crime.
• If Kosovo does not get independence, Kosovo and Serbia will continue to be the destabilizing corner of Europe.
• Serbia is still governed by the people who supported and put to action the killings, ethnic cleansing and systematic discrimination and harassment of Albanians.
• If Kosovo does not get independence, Albanians in Kosovo will be treated as second-hand citizens by Serbian Government and new colonization with Serbs will be implemented.
• A Kosovo within Serbia will delay the integration of Western Balkans into EU. --I DREJTI 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Please let me express myself. I can say whatever I want in the talk page!

Against

• Law: Kosovo is in the legal status a province inside the Republic of Serbia. The 1244 United Nations resolution that's still in power in Kosovo as the international legal act also speaks of this aside from the Constitution of Serbia

The current Constitution of Serbia (with less than 3 months old) was approved hastly by an almost-falied referendum (the president and Orthodox Church leaders had to come to the television on the second day of voting to urge the population to vote) was created just to write in its text that “Kosovo is inseparable from Serbia” and that the official language of the country is “Serbian with cyrillic script”. Well, the reality shows a lot of advertisements in Latin Script in the streets of Belgrade and Kosovo operating as a de facto independent country since 1999.--MaGioZal 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE MY WRITING. --MaGioZal 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK; please remain WP:CIVIL. I've just said that no discussion at all should be led here; why do You think I posted a "discussion" section to the below? Your post to the up was off-topic so it does not belong here; anyway, why don't you delete/move it Yourself? --PaxEquilibrium 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Less then 3 months? No... it's more than 3 months old. What does the referendum have to do with that (the Montenegrin referendum had much, much more problems)? The theory on whether the mention that Kosovo and Metohija are a part of Serbia was the sole the reason is unfounded. Do you like better the 1990 Milosevic's Constitution? It was delayed, and delayed and delayed because of the Federal controversy (statehood with Montenegro). Yes, the Cyrillic script is dying out in Serbia, and that Constitution's goal was to pun an end to it (the the transionalists no longer use Cyrillic at all and the conservatives use both now, only a minority of the people pushes Cyrillic alone); but what does that have to do with Kosovo? Also, would you like that Serbo-Croatian remained the official language? The whole Milosevic's 1990 Constitution was seriously outdated (for one thing, it mentioned that the Republic of Serbia was a member-state of the greater Yugoslavia!). Immediately after the Republic Of Montenegro became independent, the need for a new Constitution was born; true, the Kosovo issue only hastened the whole action. And besides, I wasn't even referring to this Constitution. You could view any Constitution of Serbia from 1947 (1953, 1974); regardless of anything Kosovo(and Metohija) was/is a part of the (People's/Socialist) Republic of Serbia. In the end, what was the point of that which you said about the Constitution/its referendum? Does it mean that the Mitrovdan Constitution is invalid? No, it does not. I removed Your sentence unrelated to this topic (and slightly incorrect). --PaxEquilibrium 12:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Belgrade: as the, eh, "sovereign" of Kosovo, does not accept its province's independence; The Constitution of Serbia and the United Nations Charter are guaranteeing Serbia's territorial integrity and its invulnerability

The UN could have this charter, but this could not be used to justify the forced occupation of a territory whose population doesn’t want to be submiss to their "sovereigns" — even more when the "sovereigns" tries to deprive this population of self-expression, full citizenship and try to wipe out them from their own lands. And Kosovo will not set a precedent for other “republics” to separate. Forget anout it, nor Sarajevo nor NATO will never accept an independent Srpska — and the latter has a lot of soldiers, weapons and bombs to prevent any kind of adventure.--MaGioZal 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AND DO NOT DELETE MY WRITING. YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO DO THIS. --MaGioZal 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Read up: 1) Not a place 2) Not related. --PaxEquilibrium 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will remove this comment; as per being totally unrelated to this dot. --PaxEquilibrium 12:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• separatism: Kosovo (regardless if many claim that it solely isn't, perhaps trying to find justification for the action) will become a precedent for future separatism across the globe (Transnistria, Abkhazia, North Cyprus, South Ossetia, Bosnian Serb Republic,...)

Kosovo will not set a precedent for other “republics” to separate. Forget anout it, nor Sarajevo nor NATO will never accept an independent Srpska — and the latter has a lot of soldiers, weapons and bombs to prevent any kind of adventure.--MaGioZal 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Point was that regardless what you say and regardless how specific any separatist movement is, feeding one's demands will always increase (and nourish separatism). This is something that simply is as it is. OK, let's make an ending point to this: if Kosovo becomes an independent country, you will see that separatism will drastically jump. Also, I will repeat - opinions of 3rd factions should not be mentioned here; it's not about what Greater Powers decide to do to allow/disallow weaker nation's demands (thus I cannot put "wide International support" under the Reasons for independence to the up). Also, try not to make look like the meaning of life is to.. ehm... "bow" to "Western Imperialism". --PaxEquilibrium 12:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This cannot happen because international law and agreements apply to most of these countries mentioned above and there sovreign status may even be resolved within these legal zones. Each case is individual. Buffadren 11:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

International Law (United Nations Charter, 1244 United Nations Mission in Kosovo Resolution, Constitution of Serbia) and agreements (Kumanovo Treaty) guarantee Kosovo's remain within Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 12:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

United Nations charters have no guarantees I'm afraid. We work from the basis that each case is different. There is a long standing UN resolution on Kashmir yet it still has yet to get its independence. A Russian veto has much wider implications. Buffadren 11:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The UN guarantee the status of internationally-recognized borders. Keep on mind that that's not the case with Kosovo (not recognized by anyone at all, not even itself). --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Instability: everyone already knows the term Balkanization, and an independent "Republic of Kosovo" might lead only into further rifts, tensions and controversies in the already enough balkanized Balkans
• atrocities against the non-Albanian population: a lot of non-Albanian people have been ran out of the province by the Albanian army known as the Kosovo Liberation Army with the help of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to an extent (Hashim Thaci declared this himself): 200,000-250,000 (with a hundred thousand displaced alone in the key ending 1999), some even speculate 300,000; between 1,000 and 2,000 have been killed all in the Kosovo War; the crimes were in the same motif and had the basis (on the grounds) of an ethnically pure Albanian Kosovo

Just one remark. The riots and exodus of Serbian people from Kosovo started many years before Slobodan Milosevic rise to power. Aware of terrible situation in this Autonomy’s region, Federal Government of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, made out of the representatives of all six federal republics made a decision to send additional police and military forces to Kosovo and Metohija in order to prevent further escalation of conflict. Before this decision of Federal Government, police force in Kosovo, made mainly out of Albanians did nothing to protect ethnic minorities. The first additional police unit that arrived to Kosovo was United Police Task Force (Zdruzeni odred policije Saveznog MUP-a Jugoslavije) made out of the policeman from all six republics and under the command of Federal police which answered directly to Federal Government. Additional units of Yugoslav Peoples Army at that time were also made out of the members of all nations and minorities including Albanians. Only after the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia this task was transferred to Serbian police and army. --Marko M 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Marko M, we're listing reasons here, rm this (or move it to the appropriate section for organization). I won't delete/move it myself, I might anger MaGioZal again. --PaxEquilibrium 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• no statehood basis: there is absolutely no basis (historical, or otherwise) for creation/recognition of Kosovo's statehood (the medieval Kosovar feudal dependency has no connection to this modern state)

If this was a supreme truth in the 18th century, the independence of the United States would be illegal, too.--MaGioZal 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

However, this is not the 18th century, this is much after the International Community started to gather its many colors and dedicate itself to stabilization of the world (i.e. "freezing the borders that are present" at all costs as possible). The main pretext which Sarajevo politicians use(d) to claim that the Serb Republic cannot secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina is AFAIK the fact that Republika Srpska is not a historical entity in any imaginable way. This very same "statehood basis" was used to justify independence of Montenegro (to which every imaginable person on earth agreed). The very same "statehood basis" was used for other separatist movements across former Yugoslavia; there is no need to use double standards and make an exception in Kosovo's case. --PaxEquilibrium 12:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Every country is created under similar environments. Kosovo is the same. Buffadren

Correction, many countries were. This is the 21st century and not the 19th century (to an extent 18th, at some places like the Balkans even 20th) Age of romanticism and nationalism. Would You say (just like political analysts from Washington say) that the Bosnian Serbs should not be denied of the same thing? --PaxEquilibrium 12:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a lie. Until today, borders has been changing from time to time; and democratic countries can do it in a civilized manner (like the Velvet Divorce that separated the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the German Reunification ); dictatorial countries often do it (or try to prevent it) in a savage manner. And Srpska does not and won’t seccede from Bosnia — the United States, EU and NATO won’t let this happen in ANY way. To the opposite, Srpska powers have been slowly dissolved — one of the last stones in the way is their police forces. --MaGioZal 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Peaceful with full consent/consensus without (major) opposition, yeah. But where do you see such acts illegally (i.e. changing of borders by force) beside former Yugoslavia? Nowhere. The political strengths, yes (in Serbian Republic) - but the dissent amongst the population - it's nowadays even higher than it was in the 1990s. I do not understand why are You so emotionally moved into this. Tell me, is this subject personal to You? One notable Washington (high-ranking) political analyst said that there's absolutely no chance that Russia will use its veto and that Kosovo deserves independence, but that double standards cannot be used and that the same thing should not be taken disallowed to Republika Srpska. Regardless, I think you're forgetting what we are editing right now. Also note: Misplaced Pages is not a soap-box and Misplaced Pages is not a Crystal Ball. This whole discussion (in its wholeness) was a violation of WP:POINT, with the essential and/or sole need to present You what You've been claiming - how this is highly an unappropriate place to claim it and how essentially, You weren't wrong, but saw it from a wrong angle, basically meaningless one. --PaxEquilibrium 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• no independence for former Yugoslavia non-republics: the one rule applied always by the International Community's significant factors and other important factions (adopted in 1991, factually still on strength) is that 6 Republics of (ex) Yugoslavia can get independence in their full compactness and territorial integrity and no other territory; the one rule used to quell under all costs any other separatist tendency (Albanians in western Macedonia, Albanians in Presevo, Albanians in eastern Montenegro, Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnian Krajina Serbs, Romanian Serbs, Herzegovinian Serbs, Serbs of Eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina), Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungarians in Vojvodina, Croatian Serbs (Serbs in Krajina, Serbs in West Slavonia, Serbs in east Slavonia, Baranya and western Syrmium), Bosnian Muslims in Western Bosnia), and many, many other minor separatisms; why make an exception in Kosovan case?
• comparison to other ex Yugoslavia hotzones. The (olden) Croatian government managed (one way or another) in forcing out practically the entire (450,000-600,000) Serbian population (that tried to secede) and today is on its way to EuroAtlantic integration; Serbia would practically be "punished" for not trying/succeeded to remove the Albanian population from Kosovo

AFAIK, Croatia does not prohibit the the return of the their Orthodox Slav population (a case very different from the Republika Srpska, where is very difficult to the Muslims and Catholics to go back to their former homes) — in fact, many of them simply doesn’t want go back anymore.--MaGioZal 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, I think you have a far too little knowledge on this issue. Truth is that a lot of people want to return home (I myself and my family has filed the required documents for 40 times; my father gave up even though hiring a lawyer, the case became too much twisted and controversial because the judge referred to him as a "Chetnik lawyer" so even the court was found under investigation; so my father hired a lawyer of somewhat high prestige from Zagreb; in the end he ate 1,000 Euros without telling us he cannot help us). I know a lot of people in person that want to return, but also know many who do not want to return because they cannot. My (family's) apartment for example was stolen and awarded to a Janyev refugee (who by the way, was exiled by the KLA, and not Serbian forces). Almost every single work done to repair all the thousands of houses burned down is actually not done mostly by the Croatian government (in Kosovo Pristina has a much larger share in the expenses), but by foreign investors - my grandparents' house was rebuilt by a Norwegian humanitarian company. Another reason is fear. The 150,000 Serbs that remained in Croatia were directly after the war in 1995-1999 subjected to a most vile, even worse than in 1990-1991 discrimination (for example 2 villages were totally burned to the ground by alleged deserters from the Croatian Army and all the people slaughtered directly after Operation Storm in 1995). By the way, the "..justification for crimes.." is actually mentioned here, as the very Croatian (then's, Tudjman's) authorities have referred to this as a ..mere retribution for the Genocide that Belgrade had attempted... Various incidents back while Tudjman was in power, and increasings now while Ante Gotovina awaits trial at the ICTY in Hague also contribute to this greatly. And talking about Kosovo - I'll give you an example: ever since NATo took over in 1999, all the way to 2004 barely more than 3,000 people returned. And do you know what happened? Each and every single one of the 3k+ people where expelled in a brutal organized campaign of ethnic cleansing. And everyday incidents occur even up to present day (if you hear the news, only yesterday a bomb blew up in Kosovo Mitrovica). The situation in Republika Srpska is a much better place (-the 2001 anti-Moslem riots) compared to Kosovo. In the end, such theory on how one's sides refugees are "victims" and the others are "just doing fine" is a bad faith concoction coined by both sides (you just probably heard one version of the story). A good example of the same thing you're claiming is that the Serb mayor of Bijeljina claimed that the Bosniak refugees are sending letters to him thanking him for the "resettlement" that brought a lot of joy to their lives (allegedly they're all "doing fine, do not want to return, overjoyed in the western countries"). The sole and very single purpose of the alternative You (with all due Your respect) mentioned (though I do not blame You, millions bite the infamous Catch of All Evil that haunts the Balkans), that is yet another ultra-nationalist theory presented, is to present how the Serbian ethnic group is inherently evil (or in Your mention's case, the Orthodox Church ;), when compared to the other Balkan nations like the Albanians, Bosniaks and Croats. it can be mostly seen with the huge tenacity (that strangled a vast amount of Wikipedian articles themselves) to present that "Bosnian Muslim were ethnically cleansed from eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina by aggressive Serbian armed invaders in a planned action of organized genocide", while the "Krajina Serbs left Croatia by themselves because they were starting to regret about all the evil they did before and because they betrayed their supreme sovereign, Zagreb" (as presented by User:Kubura on Misplaced Pages, for example). I have to alert You MaGioZal, be carefully where You step around Balkan controversies, or you might get stuck in the very sick mud that eats men alive... --PaxEquilibrium 12:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you threating me?. --MaGioZal 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Heavens, no! Did You read my post? I warned You that the Balkans is a place where a lot of people - especially outer - meat their doom and their very hearts and minds get eaten by the vile stench that screams and beams from all over the wretched place. There is little evil which You cannot find in the Balkans - all the people who have studied the Balkans "fell" (in the heroic meaning of the word) in Europe's Hell. Two British soldiers that spent not years in Bosnia shot themselves in their heads with shotguns. I'm wondering sometimes how I remain sane (if I am at all ;) these days... friendly cheers, mate. --PaxEquilibrium 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• reason of the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia: It implies as if the (one of the main) reason(s) for the bombing campaign was to take Kosovo from Serbia/FRY (which was totally not pointed out back then)
• no independence: in 1999 and to an extent after it a guarantee came (from both the Kosovar Albanian and various international sides) that Kosovo will remain under Belgrade's sovereignty. Nothing has changed in the mean-time to affect the opinion (at least from Belgrade's or any at all of its allies' sides)
• nations & nation-states: Every nation has (at least now) got their own states. It would a - to create another Albanian state in the Balkans (i.e. the world).

Well, nowadays we have Serbia and Montenegro — two Serbian-speaking nation-states. And in a scientific-logical-linguistic point-of-view, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro generally speaks the same Serbo-Croatian language. In Europe, we have Austria, Luxembourg, Liechenstein and Germany, four German-speaking nations (and if you count Switzerkand, with its 5 official langauges, we have five German-speaking nations); United Kingdom and Ireland, two English-speaking nations; and here in Latin America, most of the nations speaks Spanish… and are independent, as the same way that happens with USA and Canada. Do you read The Economist? Recently an article on this magazine showed a research that affirms that most of the current population of Kosovo doesn’t want to be annexed to Albania; this majority wants to be Albanian-speaking Kosovars, just that.--MaGioZal 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there'll be a thousand years before the majoty in Kosovo writes "Kosovar" on the censuses. :) Anyway, this has got nothing to do with languages - but nations. I believe You do not consider Yourself Portuguese, but Portuguese-speaking Brazilian? Almost all of the Austrian population is, well, Austrian; only a part is German. The greater part of the Montenegrins consider themselves Montenegrin, only the smaller Serb. The greatest part of the Moldovans consider themselves Moldovan, only a bit Romanian. The largest ethnic group in Bosnia and Herzegovina are the Bosniaks (if Serbs or Croats were, the eventual outcome would've been totally different). BTW, Albania and Kosovo practically did function as a single state immediately after 1999 (just like members of the European Union for example). There is an Austrian, Moldovan, etc... "nation"; but there is no "Kosovar" nation.

BTW Montenegro is not yet a nation-state. And by the way, the very same birth of the Montenegrin nation instilled the birth of a Montenegrin language under the direct phrase that every nation of ex Yugoslavia should have its own county and language (a "Kosovar language" will never exist, at least not in the near future). --PaxEquilibrium 12:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why do you think that majority in Kosovo will write "Kosovar" on censuses ever. Nikola 15:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• independence declaration/need: The need for an independent Kosovo did not appear after or as a result of the late 1990s atrocities against them by the Yugoslav-Serbian forces. Independence of Kosovo was declared by the shadow Albanian political leadership in 1990, as the very first separatist act that started to tear the greater Yugoslavia (although the movements for an independent Kosovo has a lot of origin back in the 1960s all the way to the 1980s). Back then the movement had much more to do with local nationalist tendencies, above them (as openly inclined back then) the creation of a unified Albanian state in the Balkans (a theoretical alleged dream published ever since 1878 and in numerous times attempted to be realized, successfully in World War II on the Axis side)

• You forgot the fact that in the turn of the 80’s-90’s, the Slobodan Milosevic’s government stripped away the autonomous status of Kosovo and Vojvodina, and removed their respective governors from the collective Yugoslav presidence, putting these provinces under the boots of Belgrade police and troops.--MaGioZal 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. Antonomy was reduced, but still remained significant. Nikola 15:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Milosevic did replace the provincial government with "more loyal ones"; he also did that in Montenegro (sadly bringing to power Milo Djukanovic, the most horrifying Montenegrin politician and cursed Montenegro to be binded with him). MaGioZal: I didn't forget: 1960s-1980s Albanian nationalist control; 1990s Serbian nationalist control; 21st century Albanian nationalist control (we could go further into the past, if You'd like). --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• non-Albanians were tricked (politically): they (Serbs in precise) were called (ever since 2001) to participate in all transitional government's Kosovar elections, promising them that it will be better; and so they did - in the end, the (ethnic) situation has only gotten worse, and there was an assassination attempt on one MP; in addition to that, the 13 Serbs and other non-Albanians in the parliament were used as a pretext to show that Kosovo is no longer an Albanian state, but a multi-ethnic community, and this was used as a (false) pretext to push Kosovo into independence.

Pretext? If there’s 13 non-Albanians in Kosovo Assembly, this is a proof that is possible to have an democratic and independent Kosovo — while in Serbia, Albanian parties are struggling to get into the Parliament for the first time.--MaGioZal 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the 2002 Serbia Census the are 61,647 (0.82% of the total population) Albanians in Central Serbia plus Vojvodina. In the recent election the Albanian Coalition from Preševo Valley recieved 16,973 votes (0.42% of the total vote) and one of the 250 seats. This was the first election they had taken part in for a decade and even if all the Albanians had voted for the coalition then you wouldn't expect them to get more the 2 seats in any cae. Not really a fair comparison. -- Phildav76 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The reason why Riza Halimi barely entered the Parliament is this: There are 4 parties in Presevo; 2 of which stood by Halimi and ran at the parliamentary election - with the other two (significantly stronger) boycotting (still) all Serbian elections and institutions. The other two promise a "Illrida" (just like Riza H. spoke of it), a dream of a Pan-Albanian unified Balkan state and promise the people that unity with Kosovo will be achieved, no matter what cost. A great part (according to MaGioZal's generalization, the "nationalist" part) boycotted, so no wonder the Albanian Coalition from Presevo Valley had difficulties.

And as for the Kosovar parliament: like I said - even You note that it's "possible to have an independent and democratic Kosovo" - which is the very result of this, "trickery" to call it. You fell for it Yourself. There is absolutely no purpose for those Serbs (and non-Albanians) in the parliament except as a show-off. In the meantime there was an assassination attempt on one Serb MP and AFAIK the most horrible things of the age of UNMIK's administration (like the 2004 March pogrom) happened in the meantime. --PaxEquilibrium 12:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• atrocities against nonAlbanians after 1999 occurred, keep occurring and will keep occurring: Those not belonging to the Albanian ethnic group (primarily Serbs and Roms; but Gorans too) have been subjected for the past 8 years (ever since 1999 NATO/UN took over) to brutal discrimination and regular torment practically everyday, with the "finest" example of such thing the 1244 anti-Serb riots, when more than 4,100 non-Albanians were expelled from Kosovo, much more was internally displaced, over 800 houses levelled, over 40 Monasteries and Church (some of Medieval bastion) destroyed and hundreds beaten with severe injuries. Restrictions of electricity were planned done in Serbian settlements in sole purpose to chase the people off Kosovo (again?). The Kosovar Albanian transitional government in Pristina not only ignored these actions (to an extent), but it's "lower" levels are even orchestrators (remind: the very government that is manned by several criminals, Albanian nationalists and evident "Serbophobes"). Such a radical situation is bound to be further fed by another campaign (or similar) in an independent Kosovo. Might I also remind that one of the reasons for this campaign was the return of refugees; more than 3,000 of the exiled were previously exiled people that passed through it all over again. Might I also add that Ibrahim Rugova and Veton Surroi (of whom I am fond) did a very peculiar thing: invited the International Community to settle the situation and make Kosovo independent (logic: the more Serbs and other non-Albanians suffer, the more should the lion who ate the lamb be appeased). Another shocking think happened only recently, when Prime Minister Ceku threatened the international community that he will not be able to guarantee Serbs' safety if Kosovo does not become independent

As I see that people are commenting, I'd like to make a few comments myself. Nikola 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Albanians in Serbia ara a minority, and minorities have no right of self-determination. Nikola

They might be a minority in Serbia, but they are/were one of two constitutive peoples of a territory of the Republic of Serbia on a more localized level (in Kosovo and Metohija). AFAIK, nowadays Kosovo might be referred to as an Albanian nation-state. --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They wer not a constitutive people, ever. Kosovo might be referred to as an Albanian nation-state by some idiots, it is not actually. Nikola 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Operation Horseshoe is complete fiction. Kosovo Albanians were not mistreated throughout the 1990s (at least, no more than Serbs were), and the only reason for their phlight are actions of terrorist KLA which they created and NATO who allied with it. Nikola

It was proven to be far more controversial than the plan to remove the Serbian population from Croatia (Operation Storm) yes, but I would never call it "complete fiction". Certain parts of high government in Belgrade (very likely including Slobodan Milosevic) wanted to and did mistreat the Albanians in the (late) 1990s. Keep on mind that NATO allied with the KLA in 1999, with the sole need to run out the Yugoslav (apparently incapable) forces - NATO considered KLA a terrorist organization before than. Huge atrocities against Albanians did occur, Nikola. Also keep on mind what a certain Washington politician said - "We only needed the KLA to stop the greater evil that's happening. Choosing between a lesser and a greater evil is not an easy choice". The only thing that remains controversial is allowing the KLA to be transformed into the KPC (which tried to be multi-ethnic, but failed because the non-Albanians in it were highly mistreated, one Serb even killed by their very own colleagues). I suppose because the extremist part of the KLA seceded and today is still known as KLA, it's dedicated to fighting against the NATO and the UN peacekeepers this time (remember the bomb on UN vehicle in Pristina). They work in cooperation with the "Ventevendosje!" movement. --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are oftenly trying to find some equality where there is none. Operation Strom was planned and executed. Operation Horseshoe is fiction invented by NATO to make excuse for its bombing campaign. There does not exist a slightest shred of evidence that it was planned, and even if it was being planned it was never actually done.

Not to go into discussion about whether Kosovo Albanians were mistreated and how much, I will only say that nothing Serbian government did to Kosovo Albanians approaches what Albanian governments of Kosovo did to Kosovo Serbs whenever they ruled the province.

Huge atrocities against Albanians did not occur. Certain Washington politician is a lying crook. USA's help to KLA is not controversial at all, and KLA is extremist in entirery, it doesn't have "extremist" and "non-extremist" parts. Nikola 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Kosovo Albanians have settled on Kosovo while forcing Serbs and other non-Albanians out of it. This is why their wishes are irrelevant. Nikola

That's history, and cannot be irrelevant. Are irrelevant the opinions of Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Vojvodina? BTW some anons (including DREJT) keep adding "fact" to the actual place in the article that mentions migrations of Albanians. --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• If Albanians in Serbia are hated, wouldn't one rather say that a few terrorist groups created by said Albanians and bombing of Serbia caused by the same Albanians might have something to do with it? There is no anti-Albanian campaign in Serbia. Nikola

Don't try to justify it. Now You sound just like MaGioZal. --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, and note that I didn't say that they are actually hated. Nikola 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding Presevo: Serbia is a free country, and you can own any flag you want. Of course, you can't actually use it on the buildings of the institutions of Serbia, as is the case in any other country. Nikola
• Serbia has presented various versions of significant autonomy for Kosovo. Serbia is a multiethnic country. Nikola
• Certainly more than ten people have been punished for crimes they committed in Kosovo during the war. Nikola
• If Kosovo does get independence, it will destabilise entire world. All minorities in similar position will want to do the same Kosovo Albanians did. And no, it will be a precedent, and no, Kosovo's situation is in no way unique. Nikola
• Serbia is in no way governed by people who supported and put to action the killings, ethnic cleansing and systematic discrimination and harassment of Albanians. Nikola

Not now (now it's vice-versa, with Ibrahim Rugova and his idea gone, Kosovo is government by people who supported and put to action the killings, ethnic cleansing and systematic discrimination and harassment of Serbs and other non-Albanians and keep doing so still today). --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not now, and not ever. Nikola 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no reason to think that Kosovo Albanians would be treated as secondary citisens by Serbian government. No colonisation of Kosovo is planned in foreseeable future, and even if one would happen it is not clear why would that be bad (colonisation between two world wars was fairly limited and without significant influence). Nikola
• As Serbia is in Central Balkans I don't see how can anything related to it can delay integration of Western Balkans in EU :) Nikola 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: I know this is unorthodox, but if you want to make a point, please do write reasons for and against, cheers --PaxEquilibrium 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• My point: And here's the end of this huge WP:POINT violation of mine which occurred to satisfy MaGioZal:

1) Misplaced Pages is not a soap-box nor a crystal ball. You should/can't use it to propagate/present Your personal views

2) This whole discussion of mine was utterly pointless and completely false and irrelevant to this Project; and so were Your arguments; there is no logic in the huge discussion we had to the up, beside nationalism, ethnic hatred and 19th century Age of Romanticism and Nationalism Theory of Logic.

3) The world is not black and white.

4) Man, You have got to release Your inner child (spirit) and not be so narrow-minded. Open up to other possibilities (there are' cases in which You might be wrong) and essentially, do not bind Yourself so emotionally to everything bad the Serbs ever did (calculator shows more than 90% of your edits are about Serb War crimes, Kosovo, or anywhere else where ethnic Serbs "messed up"). I also do not like the huge amount of stereotype You carry - and that's what brought me first to the conclusion, as it is completely impossible that someone who lives on a different continent and heard only second-hand stories gets so emotionally and heavily involved into this subject. I'm not going to say "hate", because that would be a high violation of Misplaced Pages's neutral and civil policy - but this is very close to it; especially strange is this edit of Yours, where You said "undone unexplained revert by Laughing Ser…ops, Lauhing Man to my revision.". Do You know that that's not spoken but written? I do not hate, nor have any general bad opinion at all about Serbs, Croats, Macedonians or any other people of ex Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Can sombody who know serbian explen my what is meaning: mletačka Arbanija , Mlečići and Church vojvod (in alb. lit. :"vojvodë të kishave"). I am not joking bur realy Im traing to find out what is differe betwen the Serb Volk and members of the Serbian Church. Is logic that not every ortdox in west Balkan is a serbian volk member (montenegrien is serbian church member but not a member of the serbian nation=religion terminologie "rase"). Realy is not a jocke. I need thate even if I dont like the truth. Till now I was supposing and holping that is not thru, but now I know, somthing is in bush. - Hipi

Pleace let this quesqen of indipendent, this is out (is finished now take a seat and wayt the proclamation of the new UN-resulution, time is mony). Also if you sombody wount to help me is wilcommen but I dont wount nationalistic propagander.

For peopel who understend what a but Im talking see this:

• Dr. Gaspër Gjini, Skopsko-Prizrenska biskupija kroz stoljeqa, Zagreb, 1986
• Mark Krasniqi, Rojtarët e kishave në Kosovë, ‘’Gjurmë e gjurmime’’, Prishtinë, 1979
• Michel Aubin, Du mithe..., f.2;
• G. Ostrogorski, Serska oblast posle Dushanove smrti, Beograd, 1965; S. Novakoviq, Srpske oblasti X i XI veka;
• Skënder Anamali – Muzafer Korkuti, Ilirët dhe gjeneza shqiptare, Tiranë 1971

And somthing for me is not clear: Way Karagjorgje is speken about "zakona grčkoga" and is not saing "zakona srbi" or "zakon crnogorraca" (What is meening with: zakon=law or perhaps zakon=tradition).

Mletacka republika means Venice republic. Mlecici were citizens of Venice republic. Mletacka Arbania is probably a name for Venice domains in Arbania.

It means the arbresh in Zara, Dubrovnik and Split (But, Vuk Stef. Karagjigj is talkin about Boka of Kotor?), this is a big ? for me. Beacose he say thate the peopel down ther, iuse this term for german arbania too.

I don’t know what Church vojvod means because it’s pulled out of context. Vojvod is a short of vojvoda or duke (as medieval title). --Marko M 09:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I can not understade the sentence from Mark Krasniqi: Durin the Ottoman Emper in Kosovo they have givet to Serbian Church personalty, all rights over the christians and right to take a takse from they. To do this and to take care about the Christians object they have maked "Vojvodë të Kishave", engl: "Church vojvods". This was "tolereitet" (not-official) from Vezirs and Pashas.

In fackt the albanian peopel never iuse the name metohia, they say Dugagjin or iuse osman terms about thate but not metohia. This is maken me trubel, in regel case they iuse the toponim "Crkva", for a part of Vilage is not a special case when they iuse sebian toponims. The seme situation is in albanian folklor and literatur.

I think thate in serbian languge the name "Metohia" has comme in from this "Church Vojvod". Vojvod (in this case) it most be somethin like rouler of some land with some rights. (Otoman - Vasal who adminstrate some land). M. Krasniqi hase translete like "watchkiper/bodygard" (strazhari) of the church. It looks like the Church has work area over the Duk of Gjin, and in rest they diden haved "vojvoda".

Perhaps hase somthing to do with Church hiarchie way they say Kosovo i Metohia. The Church in Peja and Prizren was till late in XIX under the Bitol Church, but I dont know the border betwen the Serbian Church (centrum Belgrad or old Rashka) and the Church in Dugagjin ( thate time under Manstir/Bitola Church in Makedonien). Is not a jocke I am traing to understand what was happend.

Metoh or Metohija is a medieval name for church and monastery lands with special privileges. Church Vojvod could also means a church land. Vojvod could be short from Vojvodstvo which also means a piece of land under the control of a feudal lord. --Marko M 10:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am right , The Serbian Church in Kosovo was a Vasal of the Ottomans?

Interesting conclusion. How can church be a vassal of any earthly kingdom when it answers only to God?

Anyway don’t bother. Soon there will be no orthodox churches and monasteries in Kosovo. The latest news from Kosovo, Mortar attack on Visoki Decani --Marko M 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How the Church cann have a land (territory) when in answer is God? Let this things they need mony to be in life. Anway for me is interesing way only the part of Gjinis Duk is Metohia and not Kosovo part. And please if you wount to help, then help me to understand but stop with soucht things. I am not a religiose-fundametalist men, I belive in god and the religion is a way in witch I wount to respect the God. A bout wat are talking here hase not to do with god but with the institution Church witch organised the way of the respect for God. We are talking for 15 centery not for the national Church i later time. You dont have to forget since the Serbian Church was declaretit like a national Church to many albanians was declaretit als muslims, the church members in Knin (Croatia), Bosnja elswehr, even today dont understand what thate is meaning. My friend is not a same to be a "grecee zakon" and serb (the contes in witch the Belgrad is iusen). If you make this mistace soon or latter you are going to pay about thate and this peopel are going to hait the Serbian nation more thane albaners in Kosovo and more thane enybody else in this planet. But, how I say for me is importen to understand way, is existing metohia as term in serbian languege only for Gjins Duk.

And for the Decan manastir dont wory, ther is tha folk (alb. fisi ) Gashi, they have maket the bazamet of thate Church and they will never let to bee destryed, they diden let thate during the Ottoman time. The Church is more older thate the serbian natialist church is saying. This church is going in future to pruf thate the this folk was durin all the time in this area. This is a problem of Serbian national Church with centrum in Belgrade. At the day in witch the arceolgs are going to be free to go in, the Serbian National Church is going to lose the "old Serbia" as theyer area. See the boock in serbian languege "Putovanje u novu Serbi" (correkt: L. Popoviqit “ Putovanje po novoj Srbiji ”)(The tuor in new Serbia)

Wow. Sorry man. I am trying to help you to understand, not to make such unsubstantiated conclusions. Does any of the books you listed in your question say something like that? If I understand correctly you only found a fact that orthodox monasteries on Kosovo owned some land even under the Ottoman rule. This lands were granted to the monasteries by Serbian monarchs before fall of Serbian empire. Since the monasteries were economic and cultural centers, Ottoman Turks respected their privileges in their own interest. If you want to know more about this you should read a book “Ethnical and demographical processes on Kosovo and Metohija” by Milovan Radovanovic, Liber press, Belgrad, 2004, ISBN 86-7556-018-5 --Marko M 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

year 2004. I dont read soutch books not beacos he is a serb but beacose the time in witch was writet 2004, the propagander war. But thank for this : This lands were granted to the monasteries by Serbian monarchs before fall of Serbian empire (empire=? it was Bosnien Kral Tvrtko the empare of Bosnia, Dalmatia, Zeta, Rashka from latin dokument). Since the monasteries were economic and cultural centers, Ottoman Turks respected their privileges in their own interest.. Also is thate what I am saying the church was a vasal. I dot see here somethink else. The fackt thate it was not only a culturl but econimcan center to, and the fackt thate they have keeped this and they have loste only the political right it is maken they to vasal. O.K you cane call this proces how you wount, but the fack wasal , beacose the for ottomans this was not importen if they are ortodox, bajraktar, zhupan, duk or king all they most pay and dont have political and military (a bout the last I am not shore, in Mirdita they have keepet they military sturctur and in they area they was like to say today "Police") right.

Some explanation

Actually, the Serbian Church was re-organized in 1557 by Ottoman Grand Vizier of Serbian origins, Mehmed-paša Sokolović, who placed his brother (or just relative) Makarije Sokolović as the first head of the new Church. The SOC gathered all the territories where Serbs lived: Rascia, Zeta/Montenegro (with Scutari), Bosnia, Herzegovina, Slavonia, northern Macedonia, Thracian Macedonia, Banate, Bacs, Slavonia, Syrmia, Hungarian Serbia, Baranya, continental Dalmatia and the western Frontiers. It lasted until 1766 when the Ottomans subjected it fully under the puppet Ottoman Ecumenical Patriarchate (although for years "de facto" it already took it, Phanariot Greeks were Serbian Patriarcs). When it was created, it did have large territory, and de facto control over entire Kosovo much more than the Kosovar Vizier or Ottoman Emperor (Consider that the Ottoman Empire much more depended on the Porte, and was not absolutist under the Sultans as it crumbled into misery). Although the Ottomans were rulers, the people never obeyed them and listened to the Patriarchs Serbian always. At times the Serbian Patriarchs even led armies to maintain the rights, as the Serbian Church had enjoyed autonomy as an independent Church but was de facto vassalaged to the Ottoman Empire. And yeah, it functioned as a "state". BTW these exact same territories became the borders of the later plan for a Greater Serbia (and I don't think that's an accident). --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pax, your remark that Serbian Patriarchs lead armies to maintain their rights could make a wrong impression that Serbian Orthodox Church had its own army. Patriarchs only lead Serbian people against Ottoman rule during Austro-Turk wars in 17 and 18 century. Maybe you can say that Pecka Patrijarsija had some state like features but it didn’t have army. --Marko M 08:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you wery mutch. Your commets I take like a influence of the new time. I know thate is not easy to seperet the feeling from realty. Any way I have "taket" thate the nationalty of the peopel in this time it was non-sence and it was more easy to breack-out and finde realty. The peopel witch was born in Shkodra, Kosova, Manastir, Janina - Wilayed hase coorpereted with Sulltan or with Hight Port. I am asken beacose Sami Frashëri was agains Sulltan, The Egypian Governer and the Bagdat Governer hase maked war with Sulltans army like Ali Pash Janina.

The Albanian nation is not born from religion, but they have as center point the blood. Serbian nation is not clean if they are a nation they are more church members. Beacos of this in Kosovo they moust moust deal with Serbian Church but, here is problem with the Serbian state. I think they moust deal with Church and not with Serbia. The Kosovo ortodox Church after the situation is cool most desaid if they ount to be independent from Belgrade and if they wount to take the titel Serbin Ordox Church, beacose the Belgrade Church dont have this right. Et the end Kosoo Church is a cultur of Kosovo and not of Serbian State.

I don’t deny that there was some kind of relationship between Serbian Orthodox Church and Ottoman Turks in Kosovo and Metohija but that relationship could hardly be called vassal. You can read here on Misplaced Pages what Vassal means. If there is such a conclusion in any of the books you read, please quote it. And about the book I suggested, I knew what you are going to say but you are wrong. The author of this book used as a reference many books written by Albanian authors. If you want, I could list some of the used books of Albanian authors on you user page. --Marko M 08:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. This hase not to do with albanians or serbs but with the time in witch it was maked. And somtimes I have problem to understande what you are meaning with Serbian Church. I know that the Church in Istambol it was not so strong but Officel it was strong inoft. And oficel name of the church it was not Serbian but Constatinopel. This is proved from Serbian peopel whan they iuse "grcki zakon" they diden say "serbian zakon". The Belgrade hase proklamedet as protecter of the Churchis in this contrys after 1766 and hase started to remake a new image "serbian image" over the "old tradicional image". This is a logical proces. A iusely muslim in Balkan (Bosnia, Bulgarian, Albanian, Serbien , Turkie (Balkan site) ... ) hase to his old tradition putit some arabish worlds and now with the Raki in ther hands ae sayin thate they are muslim. Cann you tall my way? How can you explen the konflict betwen "tradicional islam" and "islam" over the all Balkan? There are soutch thinks thate nationalty and religion make you problem to be in writgh way to finde out Who is Who? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.177.142.40 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Abot the Vasal. Of corse thate from church side this can not be vasalitet, but from the vie poit of Sulltan this is clear Vasal. The church in one way is representing a instutition and in secend way is a spiruturel manifest. And the Church als institution in fackt was Vasal. You don have to forget thate I am not saying thate was Serbian Church but the ortodox Church in and over Balkan.

Thanks, realy.

Now, for me is the big quesqen, did the ortodox Church let the folk dow , or the folk hase let the ortodox Church foling down, in Kosovo. (with Catholic Church I know there is every thing clear). I am saying this beacose now in Balkan are some "profesors" (how to say the hoxha with scool) and they dont hawe a chanche to breake the tradition of the peopel, event thate thate, they say thate they are muslims. This is crasy but is thrue. It must bee something (in memory) thate this peopel make to be so strong dependet in tradition.

I have foundit the a answer:http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en

Such, also, were the boundaries of the archbishoprics of Ochrid, Pec and Turnavo: i. e. Churches within drawn boundaries. They were neither constituted by reason of phyletism nor were their members of the same race and language. The later expressions “Latin, Greek, Armenian Church” and so on, do not, in general, express discrimination by nation, but differences in dogma. In the same way, the Church of Greece, of Russia, of Serbia, of Wallachia, of Moldova, or, more improperly, the Russian, Greek, Serbian etc. Church, mean autocephalous or semi-independent Churches in autonomous or semi-independent realms and with definite boundaries: those of the political realm, beyond which they have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It follows that they exist not because of nationality, but because of the political situation, and that their members are not all of one race and language...

Kosovo Independent State by June 2007

The United States and NATO have stated they want Kosovo to become independent by June 2007. Even if Russians use "veto", the United States and NATO allies will recognize Kosovo as an independent Albanian state. My question is - how do Serbs feel about this, considering that Serbs make up only about 5% of Kosovo's population? Bosniak 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only they, but the European Union, Belgium, Panama and several other. Actually, Serbs form about 5% of Kosovo's population. How do they feel? Well, depends on whom precisely You mean when You say "how Serbs feel". :))) --PaxEquilibrium 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, I think you're confused. NATO member states are not under the control of the American government over who they do and do not recognize. Don't be surprised if Spain, Greece, Romania and many other NATO member states decline to recognize an independent Kosovo.--Domitius 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum. --Asterion 23:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Amerikans, Rusians, Europians, Otomans, Romaks ect... are goin to comme and to go the albanians are going to stay in Balkan together with serbs for a long time (perhaps infinit, wher know). I thik is not a time of War, but the time of compromis for a better life for our children. It was a war time, it was a diplopatic war time, now it is time for a "war for a better life - peace" in Balkan. We was and are going to bee in top of the Word History, we was and are going to bee a centrum of god and bad thinks in this Planet. Good joop, and pray fr the inesans peopel witch was kiled from criminels - Hipi

What? (74.122.179.108 12:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Kosovo will gain independence and become a new European state by June 2007. Bosniak 18:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Explenation

Will someone explain to me what does this means, quote:

Kosovo and the breakup of Yugoslavia

Inter-ethnic tensions continued to worsen in Kosovo throughout the 1980s. In particular, Kosovo's ethnic Serb community, a minority of Kosovo population, complained about mistreatment from the Albanian majority, which was his ways of achieving his means of occupation of a foreign country that is Kosova.

I urge administrators to delete second part ot this sentence from the article since Kosovo wasn't a foreign country at that time, regardles of the final solution of Kosovo status. --Marko M 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You should have removed it yourself, you are not prohibited from editing the article. Nikola 10:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that. I was thinking that maybe someone could offer a valid explanation for this statement. Anyway you already did it. --Marko M 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council

OK, this is how's the big picture:
Support

Permanent

• United States of America
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• French Republic

Temporary

• Kingdom of Belgium
• Italian Republic
• Republic of Panama

Oppose

Permanent

• People's Republic of China
• Russian Federation

Temporary

• Republic of Ghana
• Republic of Indonesia
• Republic of Peru
• Slovak Republic
• Republic of South Africa
• Republic of the Congo
• State of Qatar

It will be a hard decision. Especially because of Russia (and Communist China to an extent). BTW why is nothing mentioned in the article? --PaxEquilibrium 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An article about the above topic --Andrija 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it relevant? --PaxEquilibrium 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Paul, The United Nations position is far from secure as your chart shows, I agree with you it should be inserted into the article albeit not in the form above, but in text. There is also the Russian stated 'dual standards' issue That is Why should Kosovo get independence when South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the Moldovan region of Transnistria bordering the future EU be denied their independence too. . All this is becoming incresingly interlinked and the future security of Europe will be determined by how Russia plays its hand here. Precedents are being created that will have a bearing elsewhere to. Buffadren 12:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My friend this is not a quesqen of Kosovo (Kosovo is so large like Hamburg), is not in quesqen Ossetia or what you are saying, there are large places with more thane 80 milions peopel about witch you have lernit like a State of XXXX. Kosovo is only the key (So hase toldidet Milosheviq to Serbians) and so is going to comme. The borders witch was maked with pensil after Berlina, Versai or S... konferenc. The reality and the memory of the peopel is comming out and they are supported now. The answer of the quesqen for Kosovo is clear since the NATO trups was driven in. It is something new in the east Europe but they are going to like it. Only the centrums of the powers they dont like it this era. For the individum is freedom, for the power centers is ocupation. You cane taket how you wount but if it was not this era you dident haved this PC to writte in internet. The power centers in east Europe (Rusia too) cane not eny more keep the human peace with the terminolgy from midel age. Today the peopel cane ride and write (they have "Misplaced Pages") and there locig is growing up. And this is god for human being. Ofcorse I dont support the speed in witch this is happend but they say thate the dont have so much time.

Exempel: Today in Balkan a logic of a men with 8 years school is large then the logic of the prister (pastor, hoxha, ect...) in midel age. Today in Balkan in each Home (perhapse Room) you have a Church or Xhami (the pepopel dnt have to comme to the prister the prister is commen at your home and learn and explean you the work of God). It depend on individum if he wount to respect the God and in witch form he wount.

I have no idea what you are talking about Hipi, but what do you mean by this: Kosovo is clear since the NATO trups was driven in? --PaxEquilibrium 18:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Religious Demography

Kosovo has an area of approximately 4,211 square miles and its population is approximately 2 million. Islam is the predominant faith, professed by most of the majority ethnic Albanian population, the Bosniak, Gorani, and Turkish communities, and some in the Roma/Ashkali/Egyptian community, although religion is not a significant factor in public life. Religious rhetoric is largely absent from public discourse, mosque attendance is low, and public displays of conservative Islamic dress and culture are minimal. The Kosovo Serb population, of whomapproximately 100,000 reside in Kosovo and 225,000 in Serbia and Montenegro, is largely Serbian Orthodox. Approximately 3 percent of ethnic Albanians are Roman Catholic. Protestants make up less than one percent of the population and have small populations in most of Kosovo's cities. Approximately 40 persons from two families in Prizren have some Jewish roots, but there are no synagogues or Jewish institutions.

Foreign clergy actively practice and proselytize. There are Muslim, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant missionaries active in Kosovo. There are approximately 69 faith-based or religious organizations registered with UNMIK which list their goals as the provision of humanitarian assistance or faith-based outreach.belgrade.usembassy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.176.134.163 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Artemije OR Amfilohie

Who is going to bee after Pavle?

I think this is importen for Kosovo, afte the memorndum betwen Kosovars and Pavle for rebuildin the destroide church in Kosovo. Artemije till the meeting betwen Pavle (Amfilohie) with USA it was modereat and now he is more ultranationalis as Amfilohie. If Artemije winns is going to be beter for Balkan, beacose in fackt he is more moderate but poltic is politic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.176.134.163 (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Population

I want to solve all the populace controversy that rotates around Kosovo. Data shows that the non-Albanian population of Kosovo-Metohija before the war was something not much more than 360,000. Of those, less than 300,000 were Serbs. That statistics to the up claiming that a hundred thousand Serbs live in Kosovo and two hundred twenty-five thousand outside is I believe, just another example in which typically Serbian sources count a lot of non-Serbs among the Serbs. Now, 360k+ were non-Albanians, and below 200k are today (much below, but the figure is not known) of whom around 120,000 are Serbs (taking to granted that the figure isn't 150,000 as other sources say). Now it is known that Milosevic transferred tens of thousands of Serb refugees from west of the Drina to Kosovo. So before calculating the figures before and after the war, we must take to granted that during the war there were nearly 462,000 non-Albanians. It must be also taken to granted that this (referring to the last) could've been be an overestimate.

Estimates of non-Albanian refugees are 65,000-100,000-200,000-250,000-300,000.

Before the war there were more than 1,500,000 Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija. Now there should be between 1,800,000-2,000,000 Albanians in Kosovo (with most of the refugees from the war returned, and an additional over 100k Albanians from Albania that moved in). Throughout the 1990s there were (note: very roughly) around 1,360,000 Albanians in Kosovo. In the peak of wide-scale warfare across Kosovo, there were around 917,000 Albanians (although the figure might be underestimated).

Estimates of Albanian refugees are 500,000-700,000-800,000-1,000,000.

I hoped this solves the controversy at least a little. --PaxEquilibrium 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but do we need to consider ecomonic refugess as well as political conflict refeugess, I am not an expert on this area but is this a factor Buffadren 12:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of ignoring the refugees completely to avoid lengthening the confusion instead of solving it. I'd just note the 462,000 non-Albanians because of Milosevic's transfers, because those people that left in truth became Kosovars and were victims too (twice, once in Krajina and then in Kosovo). --PaxEquilibrium 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I think its wrong to whitewash the issue but I agree the article is too long. Perhaps do a small edit on it. Buffadren 09:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why are you starting this discussion when we have just painfully resolved it. You are performing an OR, and completely neglecting the fact that people have children and that number of people in 1998 was not the same as the number of people in 1991. Nikola 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is laing about the Churchs in Kosovo

I dont know who but somebody is laing about the ortodox churchs in Balkan.The supporters of the today serbian Church are saying something els and the mother church somthing els. It is so confuse.

...bla, bla ...
This wide jurisdiction of Constantinople started slowly to decrease through the granting of the autocephalous status to local Churches: to the Church of Russia in 1589, to the Church of Greece in 1850, to the Church of Serbia in 1879, to the Church of Romania in 1885, to the Church of Albania in 1937, and to the Church of Bulgaria in 1945.
...bla, bla .... http://www.ec-patr.org/patrdisplay.php?lang=en&id=5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.184.176 (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Huh? --PaxEquilibrium 10:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Violence erupts

Albanian extremists (KLA?) invade Serbia and terrorize the area around Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

where is that text Buffadren 10:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo Symbol Page

I'm not quite done yet, i only finished the flags section and i'm not quite done that yet. I still need more descriptive descriptions of the flags, and i need to find the sources, Find a National Anthem, and write the symbols page.

But this is an overall look of the article, come see it at my User Page and comment on it in it's talk page. (Niceferret1 17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

The article about the flag could only speak about proposed flags; and I believe that a valid article could be made about it; but what would article about anthem talk about? I never heard that there are any proposals? And why do you call it national anthem, Kosovo is not a nation? Nikola 19:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not nice

I can't believe that you people are now edit-warring about WWII. Someone even removed the reference to the genocide an Holocaust conducted! Holocaust denial is in Germany banned by law.

Didn't everyone hear of Adolf Hitler, the Axis forces and similar articles?

It would be the same as if someone removed all the suffers of Albanians throughout the 1990s (all the 500,000-800,000 expelled, everything). --PaxEquilibrium 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

yah it's not exactly nice when someone edit's something with wrong information/taking out information. (Niceferret1 12:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

WWII and the Holocaust

I didn't expect that someone would actually dispute this and rm it, but I've been searching a little. So far I've found claims by a Serbian Orthodox Bishop that was the sole survivor of an extermination camp near Gnjilane that housed 900 Serbs. According to him, and another man who survived in Pec/Peja, 95% of all Serbian settlements (from simple villages and housing to arable land and vineyards) in Metohija (western Kosovo) were raised since 1941. He dedicated his life to the research of crimes after WWII.

I've also found the orders of the Second League of Prizreni from 1944. Then the world was crumbling upon them as the Allies were approaching and there was a democratic uprising back home in Tirana. The order called for a general draft of all Albanians aged between 16 and 60 and an immediate execution of all Serbs, Jews and Romanies on controlled soil (most already were prisoners). It also contained a list of advices regarding which execution types should be used (they were scarce on both gas and ammunition).

It also planned that in case of an allied offensive, every single city and land is to be destroyed behind retreating across Montenegro to meet with the Ustašas on the retreat to the northwest to defend Nazi Germany from allied invasion under the flank of the SS Scanderbey. --PaxEquilibrium 13:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03397388.htm
2. http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2007/02/02/norwegian-minister-in-support-of-un-plan/
3. http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.361011962&par=