Talk:Republic of Kosovo - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ottomanist (talk | contribs) at 23:32, 5 July 2012 (→Source dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:32, 5 July 2012 by Ottomanist (talk | contribs) (→Source dispute)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republic of Kosovo redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

In accordance with sanctions authorised for this article:

All editors on this article are subject to 1RR per day and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see (subsequently modified by ).

Useful information for this article

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Misplaced Pages:Etiquette.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Kosovo, or whether it is a 'country', 'state' or 'province'. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
You may wish to ask factual questions about Kosovo at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Misplaced Pages policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.
The opening paragraph to the article was decided upon, by consensus, following lengthy discussions. It is based on reliable sources, providing a neutral point of view. The first sentence, in particular, must call Kosovo a "country", reflecting the consensus found in the RfC held in the spring of 2023.
This article is written in British English, which differs from American English in some ways. See American and British English differences.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Kosovo received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Countries

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Kosovo Top‑importance

	Republic of Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo
Top	This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Serbia Top‑importance

	Serbia portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
Top	This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albania Top‑importance

	Republic of Kosovo is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania
Top	This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unrecognized countries (inactive)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Unrecognized countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesTemplate:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesUnrecognized countries

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 17, 2012.

This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

State Religion in the Republic of Kosovo

With accordance to Kosovo's constitution I added that the Republic of Kosovo is a secular state with no state religion whatsoever in the overview of the article, partly because there is no header named "Religion". Later however a certain user named "WhiteWriter" reverted all my edits without justification to do so. I will re-type my former edits with hope that there won't be any further interferences with important facts like these.

Epicurus B. (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Islam the predominant religion? Why no mention of religion or Islam, that seems to be the major reason for splitting off on its own 131.107.0.89 (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The only verifiable information is that the great majority of Kosovo's inhabitants are from Muslim family backgrounds. This may or may not mean that they have any religious views of their own. It is perfectly obvious from a walk around Pristina or most other large cities that the predominant culture is firmly secular. You occasionally come across someone in identifiably Islamic dress (headscarf or even burqa for women, "Islamic" beards or short trousers for men), but a lot less often than among Albanians in Macedonia - or, come to think of it, walking down Oxford Street in London. As far as I can see, Islam had nearly zero influence for Kosovo "splitting off on its own". I would have thought that having one's autonomous status revoked and having 70% of people employed having to leave their jobs might account for this! The 1991 Declaration of Independence specifically mentioned Kosovo's right to rejoin a reconstituted Yugoslavia (i.e. one not dominated by Serbia).--Markd999 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

just "Kosovo" with a star (*) and a footnote

I suppose this article should be renamed to "Kosovo", since both parties agreed to rename it like that. I don't know how you will add the star (*) and the footnote, but I suppose212.178.229.102 (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC) that should be added as well.

They haven't agreed to rename it; they keep their positions on what it is called; they have agreed only on how it should be designated in certain regional organisations - rather like the "provisional designation" to be used by Macedonia while its name dispute with Greece continues.--Markd999 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

INTRO

Undue weight in the introduction seems to be given to its history and status. A sentence or two should suffice, not a whole paragraph. This seems to be influenced more by politics than consideration for the maintenance of wikipedia norms. Ottomanist (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If nobody is going to discuss this, then I'll go ahead an edit. Ottomanist (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is about political creation, and not historical one. For history, you may see article Kosovo. Also, i dont understand your proposition here, you have edited entire section, without any special meaning to me. What exectlx is your problem with this lede? Also, this article is under 1rr per week, per WP:ARBMAC. Please, revert your second revert, or your may be reported for violation about that. --WhiteWriter 19:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No your missing the point here- the lead was useless and read more like a law essay about the status of the (self-proclaimed) Republic. I care nothing about the politics of the region- I edited the lead so it better reflects the standard of other Misplaced Pages articles about countries/states- whatever you wish to call it. Any editor who values good editing will be pleased with the new lead. It is all well-sourced. Ottomanist (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, without trying to be rude, your standard of English is very poor- maybe that's why you misunderstood what I wrote. Ottomanist (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You have violated 1RR per week sancion imposed on this article. Please, revert your self, as you have just breached wiki rules. It is not important what have you edited, this article must not be reverted more than once in a week. You have been also warned on your talk page about ARBMAC restriction. Please, revert, and then come back here to talk and agree. Anyway, sorry about my english. I will give my best. :) --WhiteWriter 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood, there was no contention about my editing of the lead, and no one contested it on here. The new lead changes nothing that wasn't in the lead before. This conversation is over, if you have any queries, see my Ottomanist (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A "standard" can hardly be "poor", User:Ottomanist. I think you mean "low". My standard of English is rather "wealthy", however, and I'm also having trouble making sense of your edit - so it seems that's all besides the point.

The bottom line here, Ottomanist, is that your edit is opposed. Achieve consensus on the talkpage and stop edit-warring for once. -- Director (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also this article is under 1RR protection, you are not allowed to revert more than once or you will be blocked immediatly--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 19:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You guys are getting really, really boring with this now. And yes it can be 'poor' but you wouldn't know that because your not a native speaker. Cheers, have a nice day! Ottomanist (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Your"? I think you mean "you're", Ottomanist. I share Future Perfect's amazement with the fact that you've still not been sanctioned . To add to all your previous disruption on Talk:Kosovo , you've now breached 1RR on this article that's under WP:ARBCOM probation . What's worse, you've breached it pushing non-consensus deletion of sourced data.

@WhiteWriter, you may find this interesting. Apparently we're a "group". -- Director (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahahaha, you and me? Never! :) :) :) Just to let you know, i moved this to AN/I... --WhiteWriter 19:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Serbian Name

I shall change this to "Republika Kosova", unless anyone objects: the genitive of "Kosovo" in Serbian is "Kosova", and this is the form used within Kosovo.--Markd999 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Markd99. You are right that the genetive form of Kosovo produces Kosova, however when it comes to naming convention in the Slavic languages, it is not phrase by phrase the same between English and the Slavic language. There is no sense of the word "of" when saying Republic of something in Serbian. As such you have: Republika Srbija, Republika Hrvatska and Republika Crna Gora - never Republika Crne Gore or Hrvatske or Srbije. It is as if they are all saying, "the republic CROATIA" or "the republic SLOVENIA" - or maybe "the republic THAT IS Macedonia = Republika Makedonija". Make sense now? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but the point is that the Serb-language version of the Constitution is "Republika Kosova"; and the Serb-language heading on Kosovo government papers (including letters from Serb Ministers) is "Republika Kosova". It is not as if anyone in Serbia for the foreseeable future is going to refer to "Republika Kosovo", so we do not have to judge whether to use Serbian-Serb usage or Kosovo-Serb usage. However the difference with normal Slavic language conventions came about (my bet is simply incompetence on the part of government translators) it is here to stay. It is, after all, a lot less and less absurd than some of the neologisms in Bosnia or Croatia, or even now in Crna Gora, to distinguish their languages from Serbian: think of the absurd name they have invented in Croatia instead of "kravat" ("tie") when the origins of kravat were anyway Croatian ("hrvat"). --Markd999 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt faulty government translations has anything to do with it. Obviously if any Serbian language source is referring to the constitution or any other property pertaining to the republic, it may be doing so in its own way but this doesn't mean "Republika Kosova" is the Serbian way of saying Republic of Kosovo. This is a politically-fuelled topic and the majority of ordinary Serbian people can barely utter the words, whilst the national institutions don't recognise the entity therefore to what degree it even needs to be included is open to debate. Obviously the architects of Kosovan independence have themselves declared Serbian an official language and likewise they publish documentation in that language among others. But this is certainly a controversial area where linguistic factors meet political sentiments. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to refer you to Misplaced Pages guidelines on Official Names, and argue the point again, but checked someone's Kosovo passport and there is "Republika Kosovo" in Cyrillic. So there are two forms in official usage within Kosovo, and it would be silly to insist that both forms should be referred to in the article, or that the less natural one should be used.--79.126.147.231 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an unclear area. No guideline dictates whether we should or shouldn't use the Serbian name and much of it is down to local custom. If Kosovo were peacefully led to independence by a joint Albanian-Serbian committee who had planned to make the new entity a federation with two equal language per ethnic groups (despite demographic disproportion, just focusing on key areas), and they did this with Belgrade's authorities present at the inaugural ceremony, then we would have a Swiss-style territory so could easily give two languages for everything pertaining to the state. Because of the actual controversy surrounding the full picture, nobody knows what should be included and what not. For instance, the Serbian title was never included in the Western Outlands as it was felt this could be an insult - but an insult as nothing to the one which would be generated if use of Serbian appeared to endorse Kosovan independence. But nevertheless, anything in Serbian or Croatian following Republika does not take the genetive form but the nominative, this is why we have Republika Bosna i Hercegovina - never Bosne i Hercegovine, as I said - there is no sense of the word "of" so no grammatical call for genetive case. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply, "Republika Kosova" is grammatical nonsense. In Serbo-Croatian the name of this state is "Republika Kosovo" ("Kosovo" of course meaning "of the nightingale" or simply "nightingale's" in SC). -- Director (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: frontier

"The remainder of Kosovo's frontier to the north and east is the subject of controversy and is with the Central Serbian region."

This can surely be put more factually and strictly neutrally. Serbs will presumably object to the term "frontier" or "border". But "boundary" is neutral. There is no controversy over where this boundary lies. There is obviously controversy over whether this boundary is a border between states, over the future of this boundary (i.e. whether it should be changed), etc. But the boundaries of Kosovo as they are at present are surely not questioned by either Serbia or Kosovo.

I propose: "the remainder of Kosovo's boundaries to the north and east are with the Central Serbian region" --Markd999 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree - go ahead with that one. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting around it has been hard. Given this is about the republic, I suppose we can circumvent controversy by stating something like this:

...borders Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania; the remainder is the republic's border with Serbia - however from the other side, it is seen as such: explanation.

But it will be long. Cannot avoid that. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

1990-92 Declarations by the Assembly on "independence"

The article contains the sentence "On 2 July 1990, the self declared Kosovo parliament declared Kosovo an independent country, the Republic of Kosova."

This is incorrect. According to Noel Malcolm, A Short History of Kosovo, pp 346-347, the Albanian members of the Assembly passed three resolutions, one on 2 July 1990, declaring Kosovo a Republic within the Yugoslav Federation; one on 7 September 1991 producing a Constitution which said that laws of Yugoslavia and Serbia would only be valid if compatible with the Constitution, but apparently did not say what its international status was (while this would have made Kosovo theoretically sovereign, in the sense that Swiss cantons are theoretically sovereign, it would have also theoretically allowed Kosovo to remain part of a Yugoslavia transformed into a confederation; and a third resolution in September 1992 explicitly declaring Kosovo to be a sovereign and independent state.

I had thought there were only two resolutions, in 1990 and 1991. But I see no reason to doubt Noel Malcolm unless someone can give chapter and verse.

Incidentally, on 2 July the Assembly of Kosovo was not "self-declared"; it still existed in law (although not for much longer - three days I think!).

I therefore propose to amend this sentence to "On 2 July 1990 a majority of members of the Kosovo Assembly passed a resolution declaring the Republic of Kosova within the Yugoslav Federation; in September 1991 (after the dissolution of the Assembly by Serbia) they passed a Constitution which would have given the Republic effective sovereignty but which would have also been compatible with a Yugoslav confederation; in September 1992 they declared the Republic a sovereign and independent state".

--Markd999 (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a shady area with very little known about the events of the time. My only knowledge is that the Republic of Albania recognised Kosova and the sources seem to agree that this diplomatic recognition came in 1991. I think there's more to it, not that the events listed in "Short History" are wrong, I know they are accurate. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not really "shady" at all if one reads the countless books written about this period. I can suggest some if your interested? Ottomanist (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: the North

The lead contains the phrase: "while North Kosovo, the largest Kosovo Serb enclave, is under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia".

I think this oversimplifies. In the first place, the Kosovo Police Service operates in the North, although its Serb police officers may act more under the orders of Belgrade than Pristina (or just operate on the basis that they want a quiet life). In the second place, the Kosovo Customs Service does now control the border crossings jointly with the Serbian Customs. In the third place, there is also KFOR, which from time to time exercises some degree of control (as we saw over the clashes with Serbs over the border crossings. And in the fourth place, although some institutions of the Republic of Serbia operate openly (electricity, telephones, courts) there are also parallel structures which may be funded by Belgrade but cannot be claimed to be "institutions of the Republic of Serbia"

Underneath the appearance of a monolithic political unity, the reality is quite complex. If you are a criminal who is arrested in the North, the officer who arrested you is in a Kosovo uniform, you will be sentenced in a Kosovo court, and you will serve your sentence in a Kosovo prison. If you are transferring property, you may register the transfer in a Serbian court but you are also likely to register it in a Kosovo one.

I therefore propose to edit this to "although North Kosovo, the largest Kosovo Serb enclave, is largely under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia or parallel structures funded by Serbia". Seven extra words, I am afraid, but it gives a bit more idea of the complexities in the North.

--79.126.145.19 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The topic is subject to a lot of confusion and misinterpretation. Situation: Belgrade relinquished all de facto power within the territory of Kosovo in 1999 when it agreed to remove its security forces as part of the Kumanovo meeting which saw an end to the NATO bombing campaign. Resolution 1244 was drafted to keep Kosovo a part of Serbia's (then Yugoslavia) sovereignty, administered locally with an international U.N. presence supervising operations. An ethnic Serbian majority in four of the municipalities enables the nation to run its affairs free of Priština's central influence, and the location of three municipalities - which adjoin Central Serbia - further facilitates the concerted effort between Belgrade and its representation within the all-crucial Kosovan territory. However, although the Serbs from the enclaves can keep Kosovar influence at arm's length, they are not directly controlled by Belgrade. The desire to remain united with the rest of Serbia is inherent; the use of Dinars and observation of Serbian law is also part of the uniform, but if Kosovar Serb authorities were to fall out with Belgrade as happened in the 1990s involving the Serb rebel states in Bosnia and Croatia, Belgrade's government has nothing within its powers to amend things in Kosovo. So essentially, Kosovo both pre- and post-declaration of independence has functioned as two de facto independent states. I don't think that an arrest in Zubin Potok will result in a trial in Priština because the two entities recognise different laws, and the border arrangement is mutual in how it operates - what exactly this means I don't know. But just to clarify, there is no official Belgrade representation anywhere in Kosovo - no freedom of movement for security forces. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis - I think the Kumanovo Agreement is a red herring. Politically it did not matter that much. The rather quick sequence of events was a political agreement brokered by Ahtisaari/Chernomyrdin, the Kumanovo Agreement (properly known as the Military-Technical Agreement- MTA) to get Serbian Security Forces out of Kosovo as quickly as logistically possible, and then UNSCR 1244. Obviously it is UNSCR 1244 which is binding in international law. The significance for the Serbians of the MTA is of course that it envisages that at some future date a KFOR Commander might authorise limited numbers of Serbian forces to guard Serbian cultural sites and the border. Obviously (I think) this is never going to happen, nor did either side expect it happen.

I think that an arrest in Zubin Potok will indeed result in a trial, not in Pristina, but in a Kosovo court in Zubin Potok or Mitrovica -in any case before a Serb judge: and there is a Kosovo-administered prison in North Mitrovica (known, not perhaps surprisngly, for the number of escapes).

So "control" is, I agree with you, whether it be from Belgrade or Pristina, a dubious factor applied to the North. But as for the centre and south (two-thirds of Serbs in Kosovo) it is a different matter. In any case, I would suggest that we need to be clear that there is a lack of clarity. North Kosovo is not like North Cyprud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I only mentioned Kumanovo because it transformed the status quo. I know 1244 to be the most significant factor - though its legality is also questionable but that's another story not worth exploring here - and as you say, that is not the issue when explaining North Kosovo. Firstly for Serbs living inside the Albanian-dominated municipalities, yes these are fully subjeted to Priština. It's their choice to continue living and working in those areas and they know the de facto governance and are bound by it. Don't forget, a Serb majority in the northern municipalities does not mean that there are no Albanians there - there are some indeed and likewise, where you live is how you are governed. Kosovo is administered capriciously it would seem. Cyprus is not comparable because North Cyprus claims to be independent, North Kosovo doesn't! So the forumla is such: Priština governs with its law, trans-Ibar Kosovska Mitrovica governs with its law! Everything is done locally and Belgrade plays no part, not even indirect. One entity - two systems, but one is committed to its parent organisation it sees over a boundary. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

War crimes

Present text reads: "Since May 1999, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has prosecuted crimes committed during the Kosovo War. Nine Serbian and Yugoslavian commanders have been indicted so far for crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Kosovo in 1999: Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milošević, Serbian President Milan Milutinović, Yugoslavian Deputy Prime Minister Nikola Šainović, Yugoslavian Chief of the General Staff Gen. Dragoljub Ojdanić, Serbian Interior Minister Vlajko Stojiljković, Gen. Nebojša Pavković, Gen. Vladimir Lazarević, Deputy Interior Minister of Serbia Vlastimir Đorđević and Chief of the Interior for Kosovo Sreten Lukić. Stojiljković killed himself while at large in 2002 and Milošević died in custody during the trial in 2006. No final judgement concerning the other defendants has been produced so far. The indictment against the nine has alleged that they directed, encouraged or supported a campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians and aimed at the expulsion of a substantial portion of them from Kosovo. It has been alleged that about 800,000 Albanians were expelled as a result. In particular, in the last indictment as of June 2006, the accused were charged with murder of 919 identified Kosovo Albanian civilians aged from one to 93, both male and female."

The Trial Chamber of ICTY acquitted President Milutinovic in 2009, but found the other defendants in that trial guilty and sentenced them to between 15 years (two defendants) and 22 years (three defendants). Djordjevic was separately found guilty in September 2011 and sentenced by the Trial Chamber to 27 years imprisonment.

While it is true that no final sentence has been given (assuming that they have all appealed) this is also true in the Haradinaj case in the same section (also out of date). If trial chamber judgments are referred to in the case of one side of combatants, trial chamber judgments should be referred to in the case of the other side.

I intend (unless there is strong disagreement) to edit to reflect these judgments. Some reference needs also, perhaps at a later stage, to be made to war crimes prosecutions undertaken in the Kosovo and Serbian jurisdictions.

I expect that it would not be considered neutral if I referred to the outstanding indictment by the "District Court of Pristina in exile at Nis" of Bernard Kouchner, Agim Ceku, and (I think) Hashim Thaci for genocide.

--79.126.141.251 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - it logged me out for some reason. Entry posted by --Markd999 (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose to add that the Republic of Serbia War Crimes Prosecutor has indicted a number of Serbian (and Albanian) defendants for war crimes within Kosovo, of which perhaps the most significant so far is the alleged massacre of 44 civilian males at Čuška/Qusk on 18 May 1999. ICTY has never had sole jurisdiction over war crimes, and is now not able to launch new prosecutions.--79.126.145.104 (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For what you have sources, you are free to add without consulting the talk pages. These are more for achieving consensus where disputes emerge, in your case I doubt any editor will take exception. By the way, you don't seem to log on very often do you! I know who you are but most of your contributions are as an IP!! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the compliment! I will try to deserve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis: You will see that the University of Belgrade (supposedly) does not seem to take your view that no editor will take exception to cited facts.--Markd999 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whitewriter: I find it odd that someone from the University of Belgrade undoes an edit which refers to the results achieved by The Republic of Serbia Office of the War Crines Prosecutor, and cited under the Office's web-page. I had already, on the talk-page, said that I intended to put in something on the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor's results. I give 24 hours for comments/disagreement. Next time I report you for vandalism.--Markd999 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't get too heavily involved on that issue because it's not something I've explored in detail. I did say you can use sourced information but I didn't realise your edit involved removing extant sources. Where sources contradict each other then yes, it requires discussion. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Whitewriter/Evlekis: you are, I think right, on the removal of sourced material. Sorry and thank you. The reason why I removed the last sentence was that I did not believe that a June 2006 indictment could be the "last" one in a trial which lasted to 2009 (given the frequency with which ICTY indictments have been amended). But this is more easily fixed than by my thoughtless removal of the sentence; just amend it to "according to the indictment as of June 2006".

Would you both be happy with this change and my addition on the Republic of Serbia war crimes' prosecutions? --Markd999 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

UN administration period

There is an unnecessary duplication involved in having two sections, one headed "UN administration period" and one headed "UN administration 1999-present". The second paragraph of the second heading is worth keeping; the first paragraph is pure duplication. I propose to edit to remove the duplication, and keep the heading of the first section. (Even if, unlike pro-independence people or the ICJ, one thinks that Kosovo should still legally be under UN administration, not even UNMIK claim that it is de facto; and the heading of the first section implies no claims either way) --Markd999 (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Whitewriter - Nice to meet you. You have undone my edit, and suggested that I put it on the talk page first. I had already put it on the talk page, above, and am surprised that you had not noticed this (?!). I am happy to put all proposed edits on the talk page and give 24 hours for any comment. I will not now report you for vandalism, but if this goes on.... --Markd999 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, you removed sourced data that you Didnt adreess here first. That one removal is/was explained, but what with the rest of the edits? :) --WhiteWriter 08:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not remove sourced material in this section which I did not address here first. I made one grammatical change, changed the election of "Prime Minister" to "Government" (because under the Constitutional Framework the Assembly did elect the Government, of which of course the Prtime Minister is a part, and described the Parliament's legislative role (under the supervision of UNMIK). If you object to any of this, please let me know why. --Markd999 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

But what about www.icty.org ref? And the rest? Please, see your edits, you have removed few sources from article... --WhiteWriter 15:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter - please see my last comment on "war crimes" where I propose one small change to the sentence where the www.icty.org references are (leaving the references untouched)--Markd999 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics

This section, and to some extent the main article on which it is based, is very outdated. ORA has ceased to exist. I think this also the case for the Serbian List for Kosovo and Metohija; in any case it cannot be described as dominating politics in Serb areas. Oliver Ivanovic is now, of course, State Secretary in the Serbian Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija (although I think he still has an office in Kosovska Mitrovica).

I would therefore propose to remove the three sentences about these parties, and in place of the third sentence (about the SLKM dominating politics in Serb areas) substitute "Politics in Serb areas south of the River Ibar are dominated by the Independent Liberal Party (Samostalna Liberalna Stranka), led by Slobodan Petrovic; Serbs north of the river almost totally boycotted the Assembly elections of 2010" --Markd999 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Provisional Institutions of Self-Government

Current version reads: However, since 1999, the Serb-inhabited areas of Kosovo, such as North Kosovo have remained de facto independent from the Albanian-dominated government in Pristina. Local politics in the Serb areas are dominated by the Serbian List for Kosovo and Metohija. The Serbian List is led by Oliver Ivanović, an engineer from Mitrovica. Within Serbia, Kosovo is the concern of the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija, led by minister Goran Bogdanović."

This is, apart from the last sentence, which belongs elsewhere because (I think) the Ministry for KiM was formed after the Declaration of Independence, very outdated, as argued for the Kosovo Politics Section. Moreover, if I remember correctly, the SLKM was only created in 2004 for the elections, and the "participationist" strand of Serb politicians in Kosovo was previously called something else.

In addition, the current version talks of the "current" government meaning the one which existed in 2007-2010. this needs to be corrected.

The Article should have something about the Ministry for KiM. I shall put this somewhere else, unless someone objects. I would suggest that the final sentence cited in my first paragraph might read: "Within Serbia, Kosovo is the concern of the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija, led by Minister Goran Bogdanovic - former Minister of Agriculture in the Kosovo Provisional Institutions of Self-Government - and State Secretary Oliver Ivanovic, former deputy in the Kosovo Assembly and former leader of the Serbian List for Kosovo and Metohija" --Markd999 (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: ICJ

The President of the Court used the words ascribed to him here while reading the opinion; in other words, it was not just a personal statement.

I propose to edit this sentence to "...did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence': nor did the declaration of independence violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244, since this did not describe Kosovo's final status, nor had the Security Council reserved for itself the decision on final status", citing the advisory opiion itself (pp 3 and 4)

--Markd999 (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Background: Serb Exodus 1999-2001

Current text reads: "Some 200,000–280,000, representing the majority of the Serb population, left when the Serbian forces left. There was also some looting of Serb properties and even violence against some of those Serbs and Roma who remained. The current number of internally displaced persons is disputed, with estimates ranging from 65,000 to 250,000. Many displaced Serbs are afraid to return to their homes, even with UNMIK protection. Around 120,000–150,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo, but are subject to ongoing harassment and discrimination due to physical threats for their safety."

There are obvious contradictions here. The first sentence says that 200,000-280,000 Serbs left. The third sentence estimates the range at 65,000 to 250,000. 280,000 Serbs leaving would constitute not only the majority of Serbs, but, I think, more Serbs than there were recorded as living in Kosovo in the 1991 census; it is not compatible with 120,000-150,000 Serbs remaining, and (if explicable at all) can only be explicable by including Roma etc in the number of displaced persons.

To try and be neutral (because I do not think that anyone can give exact estimates or judge the motives of everyone leaving) I would replace with:

"Estimates of the number of Serbs who left when Serbian forces left Kosovo vary from 65,000 to 250,000. (X,000 Serbs were recorded as living in Kosovo in the census of 1991. Many Roma also left and may be included in the higher estimates). The majority of Serbs who left were from urban areas, but Serbs who stayed (whether in urban or rural areas) suffered violence which largely (but not entirely) ceased between early 2001 and the riots of March 2004, and ongoing fears of harassment may be a factor deterring their return" --Markd999 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Provisional Institutions of Self-Government II

Whitewriter: you restored the sentence referring to PDK and ORA accusations that the LDK/PDK coalition government of 2004 was corrupt with the explanation: "important thing. dont remove it, it have vast historical importance! corruption in the first government.) (undo)"

It's low on my list of priorities, but you might like to revert. This was the second coalition government, not the first. The first (and all subsequent) governments have equally been accused of corruption. I doubt whether one can find a case in the Balkans where opposition parties do not accuse the government of corruption (in my opinion, correctly, although in individual allegations they may be wrong), or, for that matter, coalition governments in the Balkans where the parties in the coalition do not (in private) accuse each other. I think that corruption should be treated in a separate section.

And - please - remember that proposed edits should be put it on the talk page first. --Markd999 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ок, i will comment on something else. This vast spamming of all kosovo related talk pages have to stop. You opened 10+ threads with controversial edits, and if none respond in 24 h, you just pov pushed your edit. DONT open any new threads, and gather all of your propositions in one thread. Then, wait until someone respond there. This way of "editing" is pointless. I question your edits very, very much, but i cannot run from page to page, and from thread to thread to stop this madness. Please, slow down, this pages are under ARBMAC. --WhiteWriter 20:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, revert this vast removal of sources, of which you didnt gathered consensus. And that is not optional. You cannot say that you disagree. I dont care. Gain consensus for your edits. This looks like political cleanup to me. Also, you are quite familiar with wiki guidelines, so can you tell me the name of your previous account, in order to follow wiki rules up to the end? --WhiteWriter 20:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC

Dear WhiteWriter,

In future I will give 48 hours from proposals for edits to doing them,if you agree to doing the same. (OK?). I will NOT open all edits in one thread. Unless they are clearly related, they should be considered on their own merits. I have no previous account. Although our personal views on Kosovo would seem to be different (though not always) I think that the over-riding factor has to be that articles have to have a NPOV. That's not "political cleanup" because articles have to reflect views with which I disagree, to the extent that facts or references may support them.

Pozdrav od mene. --Markd999 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose to delete the last sentence about Serb politics in Kosovo being dominated by the SLKM, led by Oliver Ivanović, beacause they are not. Oliver is now State Secretary in the Serbian Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija, and I think the SLKM no longer exists. Somewhere else in the article, under the current situation, I will put in that Serb politics south of the River Ibar are dominated by the Srpska Liberalna Strana (Serbian Liberal Party) led by Slobodan Petrovic. --Markd999 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, that is old data, need updating. --WhiteWriter 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sovereignty

@ Evlekis: Do not edit war, or I will take the issue straight to WP:ANI, and they will decide what to do. Majuru (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Another dramathread on AN/I is the last thing we need. We should discuss changes on this talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You should be reported Majuru, this is 1RR parole per week. Revert your self, or you will be reported for breaching ARBMAC restrictions, again. You have to gain consensus for this highly controversial edit.--WhiteWriter 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Further to the sensible remark by Bobrayner, discussion is definitely the solution. Obviously I have no fear of Majuru consulting the admins because it is patently obvious that the comment being inserted is that badly in breach of NPOV policies that its cancellation is imperetive. In theory, Kosovo can only be one of two things: an independent country per Majuru or an intergral part of Serbia per international law. In practice, it is a disputed territory with about one half recognising independence and the other half Serbian sovereignty. To this end, we neither declare the region independent nor a province of another land - we merely explain the facts in the intro and then allow the reader to draw his own conclusion. But no way does a board of incompetent halfheads convene to pronounce Kosovo, or Abkhazia, or the State of Palestine "fully sovereign" or "partly sovereign". If we deduced matters this way, then it would debase the entire structure of careful editing that has taken place over the years to ensure the scenario be treated fairly; furthermore, it would derail every aspect of the article and render it senseless. The most important entity when acknowledging sovereign status is the outgoing host: for example Belgrade's assembly which recognised Montenegro but not Kosovo, and Khartoum in recognising South Sudan. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on several counts - the most important entity when acknowledging sovereign status is not necessarily the 'outgoing host', since the Kosovo 'liberation' army wrestled control over the territory from from colonial master Serbia without really asking it. Neither did the Algerians ask the French when they started their anti-colonial war of independence. The issue is that Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo articles need substantial rewriting to present reality. It is not as some claim, the work of years of careful editing. Ottomanist (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The so-called "liberation" army wrestled control from nobody, the deed of changing their nappies was done by NATO which provided an airforce whilst its members provided the rebels with arms and tanks. Every Kosovan separatist knows that one on one vs the rest of Serbia and Montenegro and they would not have been militarily successful. The edit by Majuru concerned the term sovereignty and this is something which does indeed involve the overlord in question, because the legislation is international law and not arbitrary de facto standing. Furthermore, we as editors have the task of being neutral and observing all vantage points and most of us have edited carefully to reflect this. The lifting of supervision of Kosovo's governance elevates the region to the chunk of Western Sahara controlled by anti-Moroccan forces and South Ossetia. This does not suddenly award "sovereignty". As far as Kosovar Albanians are concerned, the land was sovereign once it delcared independence. This steering committee business is not a milestone for the international picture. When the Ottoman Empire lost its territories following the First Balkan War, it came to recognise its losses and did this when redrawing its own borders to only include East Thrace within Europe. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

O my god, people, what are you doing? This article is under 1RR per week restriction. That means that no one can revert anything more then once per week! Please, all of you regulars must follow that, despite your personal POV's. I agree that Majuru's adit was wrong for several reasons, but you must not revert this article! --WhiteWriter 08:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, wrong again, Evlekis: everybody knows that the Serbs lacked the will to fight in the wars (massively high desertion rate proves this, particularly among the urban educated ones). Comparing Kosovo to Western Sahara only proves your bias. And I agree with the above, you must revert your self or I will report you all for breaking the revert rule, which many users have been banned for in the past. Ottomanist (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ottomanist, I believe you have crossed wires and evidently have no idea who the Serbs are or about their activities during the 1990s. At the precise point NATO began its actions in 1999, FR Yugoslavia (of which Serbia was a part) was at war. Had the war been going smoothly in favour of NATO's chosen belligerent, it would not have needed to involve itself in the way that it did. So desertion or not, it had an army strong enough to fight the KLA fairly in 1999, was showing no signs of slacking, and there was no way the Albanian rebels were going to beat them without external help. I may also add that FRY forces continued to fight even during the NATO strikes and the war was brought to an end by agreement and not decisive conquest as you believe. The way you talk, you make it sound as if the Kosovar Albanians drove Yugoslav forces out of Kosovo with their might and will. You must have dreamt it. They can't even control three municipalities in the north NOW. But this is way off-topic, we were only discussing the definitions of sovereignty within international law and this is very shady, and how we as editors go about tackling the issue. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's beyond the scope of this discussion but I suggest you read a bit more about the war and the massive desertion of troops who weren't willing to die for Milosevic's crazed nationalist dreams. Please read more, enlightenment is the only way forward. Simply put, the nationalists only wanted the rich northern mines and that's it. Only ignorant soldiers in the villages and towns being fed lies by RTS were willing to fight. Ottomanist (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Source dispute

Which part of the sentence "Kosovo to gain full sovereignty" is difficult for you to grasp? You are falsifying sources, the government of Kosovo is mentioned only once in both articles. Sovereignty, on the other hand, is usually enjoyed by states. Majuru (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The part that you evidently do not grasp is the source itself. The Tom, Dick and Harry who proclaimed this comment carry no weight in international affairs. It is not as if China, Russia and India will now scratch their heads and reverse their decisions on recognition based on one committee cancelling its supervisory status. The message you are trying to impart is that Kosovo's governance will no longer be subject to supervision; of course its proponents will use the language "now it is sovereign" but the factors which actually govern this alleged milestone lie within the realms of international law. Look at Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, nobody supervising it and wholly governed from within. Would you like to edit the article to pronounce the region as "sovereign and independent" (by removing de facto)? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom, Dick, Harry and Evlekis do not have a law degree; Spindelegger, Austrian foreign minister on the other hand, is a Doctor of Law . So if he says Kosovo will gain full sovereignty, then it's a perfect, reliable source to me. Majuru (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a perfectly reliable source proving that Spinelegger himself deems the region sovereign, nobody else seems to agree with him. It is also the case that his nation deemed the same territory independent years earlier. Let's see now if Spinelegger's wisdom can revise Belgrade's appraisal of the situation and whether he can speed up the process of Kosovo's dream of U.N. membership. You really don't have a clue do you. Thousands of people on this Earth have law degrees, not all agree with Spinelegger; it is not a law degree that deems Sweden independent and Transdniester a rebel state. I think you need to read your own sources back to yourself, possibly a hundred times until it has sunk in. The committee only referred to the supervision of Kosovo's assembly, in that they feel they no longer need to change Hashim Thaçi's nappies for him - he has learnt to sit on he potty on his own. The language they use is "it is fully sovereign" but in reality, the very fact that they were part of a "supervisory" venture only further testifies that these individuals favoured Kosovan independence from the outset. It is not as if Russia's decision not to recognise was down to awaiting this major announcement. To be honest Ottomanist-Majuru, you are making a big deal out of nothing, I have restored your sources, what more do you want? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you told this to Jeremić? Does he know? Majuru (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Vuk Jeremić know what? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

INTRO

I take it everyone is happy with the changes to the intro - cleared up massively unnecessary legal jargon yet retained essential

1) Kosovo is self-declared Republic 2) This is contested by Serbia

Any grammatical issues can be brought up here. - Ottomanist (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories: