Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Kosovo is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 articles
Without any discussion, map was reverted to the non neutral version after years of consensus version by pro-kosovo editor. This contemporary map is non standard, and represent Kosovo as independent UN state, which is of course wrong. That was also his breach of 1RR on this article. Any thoughts? --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was supposed to be an article about a region, so I question why any state borders are used at all. CMD (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i agree, but we need a map for location within Europe. Do you have any neutral in mind? --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is not independent sovereign state like the rest of those. So, it must not be presented as such, as that fails the consensus we have on this subject. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the map is not to show what status Kosovo has, but where it is. The map does that just fine: territories that are Kosovo are red; territories that are not Kosovo are white. What could possibly be contentious about that? How else could you possibly show where the freaking place is if not by giving it a different colour? The only detail that could possibly have a political implication is the way the borders are shown. Is the northern and eastern boundary of Kosovo shown in the same style as its southern and western boundary? Then it implies it's separate from Serbia. Is it shown in a different style? Then it implies it's part of Serbia. As it happens, it is actually a different style in File:Kosovo in Europe (de-facto).svg, so, if anything, it favours a pro-Serbian view. But that graphic detail is so tiny you can't really see it anyway, at infobox size, so it doesn't matter. I can understand why one might have a problem in deciding what map to use as a locator map of Serbia, but here? No. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oo, that was quite nice explanation. Yes, i agree, that graphic detail is so tiny, and i cannot see it either. But here, on this map, which stands here for years, i CAN (and i am sure that you can too) see it quite clearly. Therefore, this old map is better, and should be placed back, as Kosovo must not be represented as independent sovereign UN stats, as it is not that. For the majority of the world, Kosovo is part of Serbia, and while things are like that, it must stay like that. And specially when it is pushed by nationalist cross wiki fighter. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need location in Europe? Is that common for region leads? Balkans just has a map of the Balkans and the immediate surroundings, and there's already one of the infobox. In line with this train of thought, why is the country infobox being used? CMD (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i agree with that too! We must remove that! Then none will create new problems like this one again. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What, remove the whole infobox? Well, infoboxes must burn in hell, generally speaking, but this does seem to have some useful bits. Or remove just the top map? Well, some locator map is certainly necessary, and I think the locator inset in the – otherwise excellent – File:Kosovo map-en.svg is a bit too small. I agree a locator map on Balkans-only level might be a bit more useful than the Europe-level map we now have, just because it would make the geographical relations to the surrounding states better visible. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that country infobox should be removed. Regardless of the map issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the map is not in doubt, and neither is its ability to perform its function. However, what you've got there is a political map, wherein we've highlighted Kosovo alone - which is what we usually do for fully-independent countries. Even fully-independent countries that are part of a union like the EU have other associated countries highlighted in this type of map. Make no mistake: by depicting Kosovo in this manner on a political map we doubtless do imply that its entirely independent.
As stupid as that is - we can't have it up. A possible compromise would be a composite map where in one half we depict Kosovo without highlighting Serbia, and in the other half we do highlight Serbia in a lighter shade of the same colour. I could whip that up right now if its acceptable? -- Director(talk) 19:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like it would just confuse readers. Interesting idea though. Can't we just take the yellow map, crop to a Kosovo centred bit, and get rid of the lines? CMD (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of the lines? You mean, of all the country boundaries? No. What use is a locator map if it doesn't locate stuff in relation to what for most readers is the most accessible point of reference – other countries? Fut.Perf.☼ 19:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I suppose. In my experience when one discusses regions one is usually discussing geographical features, be it plains or mountain ranges or whatever, so something can simply be superimposed over country borders (like in Balkans). I though that if it's a map of a much closer area, that shows the recognisable adriatic, readers could gauge the location of the region, which is all that's usually needed, as regions are generally vaguely defined. Since this article is calling a political area a region, perhaps it goes along with the theme of the article to remove countries altogether. CMD (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Sorry, Director, I normally respect you as a sensible and intelligent person, even when we disagree, but this particular suggestion is so utterly ridiculous I really don't know what to say. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken Future :). Though I could include a caption/legend in the individual segments of the map to explain that one depicts the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" and the other the "Republic of Kosovo". I think if anything it would nicely illustrate to the reader the dispute itself, while, at the same time, showing him "where the bloody hell is it", as it were. I think people have heard that there is some kind of dispute here, and that one of those neighboring countries claims the region - highlighting it could be useful. It would look good I think :). But if people don't like it.. -- Director(talk) 19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask me, any version when Kosovo is not independent state is ok. As it was for years before. Old version was here for long years, i dont see any reason why it should not stay there. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is unacceptable to have a map that could be understood as implying that it is independent, why do you think it would be acceptable to have one that implies it is not? If we go down to this level of political obsession, then surely the one implication is just as POV as the other. (The solution, as always, is: stop obsessing, start writing for readers, who don't care.) Fut.Perf.☼ 19:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O, stop with this, please. Yes, it is unacceptable to have a map where Kosovo is sovereign and independent, but it is acceptable to show that Kosovo is disputed, as Kosovo is disputed. And that's it. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the end its impossible to put forward a political map that is neutral in a political dispute. The current political map, that completely ignores Serbia and depicts Kosovo just like an independent state, is 100% to the one side of the dispute. Hence, I disagree with its inclusion per WP:NPOV. The only logical solutions that I can see are 1)not using a political map, or 2) using two political maps, each depicting one view. I would propose we try the latter and put together an elegant two-part image that includes in-map captions explaining the two conflicting political views. I don't think its that crazy, esp. considering we don't really have much choice. -- Director(talk) 19:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate maps is out. Absolutely no freaking way. That would simply make us all look like idiots. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaha, yes i agree, that would be quite too much. But what is wrong with old map? --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, except that it is too small and the color scheme is not clear enough. On my screen, it was showing Kosovo as little more than two or three pixels in a barely discernible colour. As for the question of whether or not to show Serbia shadowed, I personally actually don't care. Although, if I were to take your political POV sensitivities seriously (i.e. acknowledge the need to avoid showing Kosovo as an independent country), I'd be forced to also take the other side's political sensitivies seriously in just the same way (i.e. acknowledge the need to avoid showing it not as one). As I said, the only solution is to ruthlessly trample over both sensitivities, wherever we encounter them, and simply choose the map that is graphically most pleasing and easiest to read, and for no other reason than that. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ahahahaha..."? -.-
Then the only other course of action that I can see is no political map. Which means we can either have no image, or we can use some kind of non-political map with Kosovo vaguely pointed out.. I don't know. Though, mind you, I do not think two political maps would "make us look like idiots" - if there are two valid political maps (one showing Kosovo as independent, the other as part of Serbia).
Though, I must point out, I'm not suggesting two images, I'm suggesting a single two-part composite map. -- Director(talk) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would a composite map not just be very confusing? We should provide readers with clear simple information, not politically correct pandering. CMD (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't make it confusing, obviously... Otherwise, lets have the old map back until there's some semblance of a WP:CONSENSUS for the edit. Apparently what's wrong with the old map is that "Kosovo ≠ Serbia" [4]. Which kinda ignores the point of view that "Kosovo = Serbia".. textbook case really. -- Director(talk) 20:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for a rationale? This article, supposedly, is about a region. How do we show a region? We highlight it. We don't have to highlight any particular country. If we have a shaded Serbia, then we're clearly noting it's in Serbia. If we don't shade anything, it could be a highlighted part of Serbia for all we know, or it could be another state. Given this, a map which just highlights Kosovo and nothing else should be used. CMD (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. Plus, the present map actually has both: it just highlights Kosovo, for the reasons you state, and (if you look closely) it makes a subtle distinction between the boundaries towards Serbia and those towards the other neighbouring territories. Which is okay. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Fut.Perf. "..the only solution is to ruthlessly trample over both sensitivities, wherever we encounter them, and simply choose the map that is graphically most pleasing and easiest to read, and for no other reason than that." - Again, there's a serious flaw in that line of thinking: you'd only be trampling over one "sensitivity".
@Davis. The same problem. It doesn't matter which logic you use to arrive at a conclusion - if the conclusion is not in-line with WP:NPOV. -- Director(talk) 20:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it fails NPOV to highlight a region on a map. By ignoring countries, it even follows the whole point behind the creation of this page. CMD (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, do we use the clearer map except with Serbia highlighted in light gray? -- Director(talk) 20:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'd be trampling over the other side's sensitivities. What makes you think that would be preferable (apart from the fact they are not yours)? Fut.Perf.☼ 20:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps not as much. Note: the "standard" way of depicting a province of a country is not to use a map of Europe at all (have a look at Vojvodina for a rather obvious example, or Trentino, or Papua..). And if we use a map of Europe for a province (rare), we highlight its country in a lighter shade of green (or whichever colour we're using). As I've said before, its impossible to have a completely neutral single political map - but I think a light grey-highlighted Serbia is about as close as we'll get.. seeing as how light grey is as close to white as it gets.
The way I see things, we've moved from a non-neutral political map that's trying to be neutral (that doesn't strongly favor the Serbian side), to a blatantly pro-Albanian POV map. -- Director(talk) 20:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could just as well see it exactly the other way round. If we don't shade Serbia, we are making no statement about their political relation or non-relation at all – the only thing we're saying is that Kosovo is here, and everything around it is not Kosovo. If we do shade Serbia, we are making a statement – namely, that there is a relation between them. If anything, that is taking sides. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, a 'map of Europe with Kosovo highlighted and Serbia in light grey' seems objectively very far from a map like this or this. Whereas it seems only a small step from a 'map of Europe with Kosovo highlighted and Serbia completely white'. So no, I don't think its an entirely reciprocal situation. At best, we're moving from a biased map to a completely biased map. I can't conceive of any valid logical argument that would maintain this political map is somehow less biased.
In addition, it seems useful from an educational, encyclopedic perspective to highlight where this "Serbia" is that's claiming the region. -- Director(talk) 20:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claims? Shouldn't that be something for the Republic of Kosovo article? This one describes a region. CMD (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we shouldn't use a political map at all.. But since we are, its pointless to make a distinction on that basis. -- Director(talk) 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of this article is based on a distinction of that basis. CMD (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What I meant was that the borders of Kosovo and the (claimed) borders of the RoK are identical, so it doesn't help to make that distinction when using a political map (which could not be said for, say, Silesia or Macedonia). -- Director(talk) 20:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the result of trying to create a "region" article about a political area, I suppose. Kosovo is a political area, which means that many will automatically see any map with it shown as political (and they may be right). However, because of the basis of the article, we have to make that distinction. A macedonia which is perfectly congruent with a claimed country, I suppose. CMD (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I agree with that.. Kosovo is a region. The borders in their present state were (un)fortunately created around the historical boundaries of the region of Kosovo. Its not merely a political area.. if anything, the latter was built around the former. The Republic of Macedonia is a political area as well, but since it isn't identical with the region there's no problem of this sort (and the Macedonia region is perhaps an even more disputed Balkans area, a five-sided dispute, no less!). -- Director(talk) 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "region" holds inherent flexibility (except when it's a proper name, such as for French subdivisions), so the fact we're dealing with a place with delineated boundaries makes it a political area. CMD (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The only reason we are using a "political" map (i.e. one that shows country borders) is, as I said, the fact that for most readers countries are the most natural and most accessible frame of reference for locating stuff. – But, now that I think of it, and as you mention the argument about the "encyclopedic information" of "where this 'Serbia' is", there's another argument that might lead me to come down in favour of the shadowing: since this is the article not merely about the present-day status of Kosovo but also about its history, one might argue it makes sense to show it in relation to a territory to which, undoubtedly, it did belong until recently. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FPS, this "new" map is here without any consensus of agreement. If you finds it questionable, then propose new solution, but old map must be restored, until new consensus. Revert your self, your breached 1RR rule on this article, and you may be reported for that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From a neutral observer's point of view, how about File:Kosovo in its region.svg? It neither highlights Serbia nor Albania but only Kosovo, and it presents Kosovo in a closer region (eastern Mediterrean) than the "Kosovo in Europe" maps. If you apply the 500px zoom or higher, you'll find that it has two different styles of political borders: solid lines for sovereign states and a dashed line at the Kosovo/Serbia proper border. I think this could be a politically unobtrusive and graphically appealing compromise. De728631 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd still like to give Serbia the lightest shade of grey there. While it is different from a map of Europe, the main point of contention is the sole highlighting of Kosovo. And the dashed line is, unfortunately, not visible (and if it were, I fear the map would then be unacceptable from the Albanian point of view). -- Director(talk) 21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is too similar with this map which is pushed without any agreement at the moment on the page. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me; again, purely on grounds of readability and graphical clarity of information. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm withdrawing here. WhiteWriter and his buddy Antidiskriminator just started yet another disruptive attempt to rename an article to a distinctly pro-Serbian nationalist title. The very fact I'm agreeing with WhiteWriter thus makes me feel like I should perhaps re-evaluate my position.. -- Director(talk) 21:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, DIREKTOR, you are not agreeing with me, but with your common sense. Dont leave conversation, nothing good will go out of that. Each page for its self. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Points taken. I assume though that the physical map shown in the infobox is not disputed. It does has a small embedded locator map showing "this map in Europe". So do we even need a seperate map for the region? Those who'd like to see a geographical context can click the thumbnail of the physical map for a full view and check the embedded locator map. If there's so much discontent with either version of a regional map then let's not have that at all. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i agree. That would be the best and easiest solution. Agree to remove the map. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think an intermediate level of locator – between the detailed physical map and its own locator inset, which is tiny – is useful. The purpose is to allow the reader to visualize the place in relation to the surrounding countries, which neither of the two others do. I don't agree with the easy way out of destroying useful reader-friendly information merely because it conflicts with the political over-sensitivities of a few editors here. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep a locator, I think the in its region map would be better than the Europe one, being much easier to obtain detail from at a quick glance. CMD (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I among others disagree with this wrong map, per reasons explained above. I insist to restore consensus version until all users agree on new one. --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you call the "consensus version" actually doesn't even get the basic geographical facts right. As somebody noticed on the AN discussion you opened yesterday [5], the geographic shape it shows is simply in the wrong place. So, no, now that we know this, that map is out completely. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and how about a map which looks like first one (standard version) comprise the area of third one, and have shaded Serbia? --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that would be an improvement. If we want pure geographic facts and no political implications, then the only clean solution is no colouring except for that which shows us where Kosovo itself is. No colouring = no political claims. Colouring = political claims. It is as simple as that, and you can shout and holler and refuse to listen until you're blue in the face. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are again distorting the facts. Borders = political connotations, not colors. I added new proposed map above. Then, if you are so fond of no coloring, remove red color from this map. I would agree on that then. --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have crossed the line into "WP:IDHT" territory, so this discussion is now over. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you have failed WP:POINT long time ago, but people must live with that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fut.Perf.; I think the new map is clearly better. This is an article about Kosovo; let's have a map showing Kosovo; simple. Personally, I'm quite surprised that WhiteWriter pushed so hard and so long for a kosovo-the-disputed-state article to be separate from the kosovo-the-area-of-land article... and then feels that the latter article must have a map which shows as part of the Serbian state. bobrayner (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is unfortunately not neutral, as you insisted that Kosovo is independent and neutral state like France or Germany. Therefor, your view is not neutral, but highly pro Kosovo. --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time you tried to exclude the input of those who do not agree with your stance on Kosovo; you really ought to stop that. It's rather corrosive to the wikipedia way of editing. I realise that it's much easier to get a consensus if you can silence the people who disagree with you, but the repeated polls to split the article are far behind us. Anyway, back on topic: This is an article about Kosovo, so let's have a map which shows Kosovo. It's quite simple. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Map removal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There was no consensus for removal of the map. Only the current map and File:Kosovo in Balkans.png showed support for usage, but no consensus was formed over one or the other. If the current image is still disputed, you can start a new RFC on which map to use. It's clear though that no map is not an option though. Regards, — Moeε 02:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing to remove current map of Kosovo, and leave only Kosovo physical map per several reasons. First, as map does not have shaded Serbia, it imply that Kosovo is not disputed, nor pert of Serbia for the majority of the world, but only independent, which is wrong per WP:NPOV, and current Kosovo status. Yes, this is article about region, but as we cannot present this fact in neutral faction, we should remove the problem. Then, this map is exquisitely ugly, and it is not used anywhere on wikipedias, i suppose per its questionable quality. Map is also tilted, as you may see from the locations of eastern countries, and comparation with some other maps. Then, Kosovo physical map have its own locator, and that one can be used without any further problems. Who wants to know more about locations, have several articles in the lede. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. We are not going to destroy useful, reader-friendly information just because of the intransigent political hyper-sensitivities of a few editors who think that any presentation that fails to explicitly favour their view is ipso facto non-neutral. No stop beating the dead horse; your level of stubbornness is disruptive and I will have to report you at AE for the sheer tediousness of your refusal to listen if you continue like this. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see any problem with normal dispute resolution process. As far as i see, only you disagree to remove this problematic and non neutral map, while several users agreed or proposed removal, so we will see what neutral users say about that. Problem can be avoided also, if not fixed. What we should do, as map is not useful, reader-friendly in its current form... And we already have that in physical map. Lets see, FPS, it may be useful for all of us. And i would be much more informed just to see at least someone neutral. That is the main reason for this... Also, i would propose you to calm a bit down, all of this is not so much important at the end, so lets keep it communicative and peaceful. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I tend to agree with FPS regarding your stubbornness. In the discussion above, you seem to be the only one not interested in a compromise but you keep insisting on your point of view. Several editors have already objected to removing a regional map, so let me propose another solution that might as well display the disputed status of Kosovo. A map similar to this could be created that highlights both Serbia and Albania in complementary colours and Kosovo in a mixed colour, e.g. light blue, pink and purple. That way we'd represent both sides of the medal. De728631 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's well-intentioned, but I don't think it would work. There is no competing viewpoint that Kosovo belongs to Albania. Either it's part of Serbia, or it isn't part of anything. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sorry you think that, De728631, as i really want to compromise, but i am afraid that highlighting Albania would be very wrong. Albania is not participating in the medal. There are several views. Kosovo is Serbia (Serbian POV, Kosovo presented in the same color as Serbia), Kosovo is independent (Kosovo Albanian POV, Only Kosovo highlighted, as it is now) And Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (This is my POV, and by that i would somehow show that Kosovo is de facto independent, but officially is largely unrecognized.) That was the reason for highlighting Serbia, with Kosovo in main color. This was done following agreement we had on this page. I would really appreciate opinion on this, as it looks like to me we are all talking in the same direction, but only disagreeing in the technical way to achieve that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No-one would show Kosovo in the same colour as Serbia in a map of Kosovo. That would be highly inconvenient, as an understatement. CMD (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to play around with Inkscape and I now think that a multi-coloured version would be unsuitable for colour-blind people anyway. So either we shade Kosovo and Serbia in different hues or we only highlight Kosovo and are left with the question of how to represent the borders. As to previous agreements, consensus can change, and since you mentioned de-facto-independence let's have a look at the existing options. Commons:SVG locator maps of Kosovo (location map scheme) has some "de facto" maps which are either not readable at all or look quite similar to the current map. And then there is File:Kosovo in Balkans.png which looks like it would suit all requirements of neutrality since all surroundings are highlighted alike with no country being preferred or neglected – a non-political map that only shows Kosovo in its region, something we'd like to have here. And then there's also File:Kosovo in Europe (less biased).svg showing an unobtrusive Serbia in the background but then the map's frame is again all of Europe and the grey on blue combination makes it look awkward at small sizes (200px or so). De728631 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is great for me. Here may be questioned why is entire Balkan highlighted, it looks like a federation, or European union style map... So, what do you propose at the end, De728631? --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And i created same map, but in our wished size. This one is also great for me, it is colour-blind friendly per lines, and it represent only Balkan as agreed. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the hatching supposed to do, and how do you believe it is different from just highlighting? Fut.Perf.☼ 14:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this discussion. De728631 said that multi-coloured version would be unsuitable, and that is ok for me. Also, it look less biased then any map presented before this one. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question. What is the hatching meant to express? Fut.Perf.☼ 14:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing already explained, that region of Kosovo is disputed between two political entities. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would hatching in an area outside Kosovo express any such thing? It just doesn't. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it represent other political entity. That is the way to present both sides. One side is just Kosovo, other side is Serbia with Kosovo. As this is about Kosovo, that region is in main color. Without it, there is no way to present any dispute, in a easy understanding way. That is the reason why is this map more neutral than that one in the article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent): Look, here's a very simple free lesson about map design. If you want to use hatching between two colours in order to express an uncertain or disputed status of something, it only works if the hatched area contrasts with two adjacent areas represented by the two pure colours in question. Say, you have a solid red area that stands for "X", and a solid blue area that stands for "Y", then a hatched red-blue area may be understood as "not-quite-X-and-not-quite-Y". Easy. Here, you have a solid gray area (meaning "territories that are not Kosovo"), and you have a white-and-gray hatched area. But where's the solid white area for it to contrast with, and if there was one, what would it mean? "A territory that is not Kosovo, but of which Kosovo is a part"? If you had such an area, then a hatched one would mean "A territory that some consider Kosovo to be a part of while others don't". But you don't have one, so the reader has no way of understanding what you mean by your stripes. Without this contrast, hatching is just another fancy way of highlighting. You've already been told why you can't have highlighting; this version changes nothing about that. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not "just another fancy way of highlighting". It serves to distinct the territory of Serbia without Kosovo from the rest of the world.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely what highlighting in a solid colour does too. Duh. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely irrelevant data! We are disusing minor, non important fragment, and i think that you are just moving away from the subject. You should show your own will to compromise, and tell what we can create in order to replace this map. You are talking bad thinks about my stubbornness, and you first didn't show even smallest compromise toward different opinions. I will never agree on blank map of kosovo, presented like independent sovereign state as it is now. Absolutely everything else is open to agreement. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one way that readers are likely to interpret that image; that Kosovo is in some way a part of Serbia. Which is why it is inherently non-neutral, incompatible with the situation on the ground, and should not be used. All the other territories on that map are made "distinct" from Kosovo by the simple expedient of shading them grey; since this article is about Kosovo rather than Serbia, I cannot fathom why Serbia should be made some other colour. bobrayner (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, File:Kosovo in Balkans.png (→) seems to be the best solution for me since it avoids all political bias by highliting the Balkans peninsula as such (one might argue that Romania are missing) but it does not give weight to anything in terms of Kosovo vs Serbia. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That map looks reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as reasonable as the one we have now – but I'm not really sure why we would want to highlight the Balkan countries, as a group. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I'd be happy to keep the current File:Kosovo in its region.svg too. To remove the map completely would be unhelpful for readers. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Highlighting the Balkan region is not a good idea. That way readers could be mislead to believe that Balkan States are unified in some kind of federation to which Kosovo belongs. Highlighting Serbia would not be against NPOV, but taking in consideration note about territorial dispute, would be informative to the readers. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point with the entire Balkans highlighted. But if Serbia is marked too I suggest that an informative caption is provided along with the map. E.g. "Map of the Balkan Peninsula. Kosovo (red) is a disputed region claimed by Serbia (hatched)." How's that? De728631 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, by me! Sure, if you ask me, i again agree on that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This whole article is basically nothing but a great big disclaimer about the disputed status; the status issue is right in the intro paragraph, and you want to add yet another disclaimer note just to the freaking locator map?!? Really, how ridiculous can it get? Fut.Perf.☼ 21:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, if the status is already mentioned in the intro then we only need a caption along "Location of Kosovo and Serbia in the Balkans" if that map is chosen. I'm fine with either map version, without any personal preferences or prejudice. but any of you guys should be willing to give in and accept a compromise. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631, I also agree with your proposal to provide informative caption along with the map.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to accept some sort of shaded or status map if this article was meant to describe something which has a disputed status. However, it's not. This article was created on the premise that Kosovo is an area that is so much more than a dispute, and it was split to form the separate Republic of Kosovo article, which is about the disputed entity. To push this split through multiple discussions, and then to desire what was supposed to be an article not about the disputed entity to have a map showing the dispute, seems highly contradictory. Proverbially, you can't have your cake and eat it too. CMD (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that, and you have no rights to search it and post it after i deleted it. Canvasing?!, user already participated on AN/I... And multiple issues should be addressed on different places, as it can be seen in wiki guidelines. And you should not STALKING my edits, that is even worse then anything you falsely listed on my behalf. And again, nothing useful from your side, only attacks, and bad faith toward me, as numerous times before. Very bad wiki attitude, it is not strange that people are leaving this page. At the end, i really cannot participate in this anymore. De728631 finally proposed something that can be good for all, and i hope that this horror is over. I am off for today, it was too much anyway... --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've been pointed to WP:CANVAS before. Picking one person out of a discussion who you think most likely to agree with you, then going to that editor's talkpage to ask for help here, is canvassing. That's a bad habit, and you should stop it now. (Using emails would be worse, of course). bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really AGF to suggest the message on my talk page was canvassing, rather than seeking a neutral opinion. I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of dispute over the status of the territory, nor do I wish to have one, and I certainly have no wish to express one on Wikipedia. It was, however, clear what WhiteWriter was objecting to, on AN/I, though it could have been expressed more explicitly. The issue of choosing or making a map that shows Kosovo as neither a nation-state nor an administrative subdivision seems to be the point. This resolves primarily into the question of how the putative internal borders are displayed, as national or sub-national and for this I would suggest simply colouring the borders of Kosovo with the colour used for the entity itself, this neatly side-steps the question as far as the image is concerned. Hope that helps. RichFarmbrough, 11:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
As far as borders are concerned (rather than shading of territories), I'd be happy with either the current image (dotted border), or with your suggestion (no separately-coloured border line at all). Either would be fine by me. bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In all versions we've discussed so far, the boundaries towards Serbia are in fact already shown differently than the outer ones on the other side, i.e. in accord with the Serbian view, but that's apparently not good enough for WW. As for making the boundaries themselves the same colour as the highlighted territory, it's an interesting idea but I'm afraid it would be suboptimal, because, given the extreme relative thickness of the boundary lines at this small resolution, colouring them in red would have the visual effect of making the territory appear significantly larger than it is. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I am not suggesting we flood-fill the borders, but use a rather more refined approach. RichFarmbrough, 00:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, I'm the author of some maps mentionend in this discussion. If you were missing one map in Commons:Category:SVG locator maps of Kosovo (location map scheme), please tell me at my Commons talk page as long you idea matches my overall color scheme. I'm convinced that I could translate your proposals into alternative maps. I tried to create various maps reflecting the different views on the Kosovo. I won't tell you what map to use or which map is right or wrong - that's up to you. One question that was asked above: what's the point of grey-yellow hatch marks (cf. File:Kosovo in Europe (less biased).svg or File:Kosovo and Metohija in Serbia (Kosovo semi-independent).svg)? That's bascially the logical development when you stick to my color scheme. It means that the Kosovo is either not part of Serbia (if only grey stripes are taken into account) (exactly like let's say File:Montenegro in Europe.svg cleary states that Montenegro is sovereign) or that Kosovo is part of Serbia (if only yellow stripes are taken into account) like let's say Vojvodina is a subterritory of Serbia. (cf. File:Vojvodina in Serbia.svg = File:Kosovo and Metohija in Serbia.svg/File:Kosovo in Europe (non-independent).svg). File:Kosovo in Europe (less biased).svg shows whole Europe. Thus the latter map tends to underline the fact that Kosovo possibly could be independent while File:Kosovo and Metohija in Serbia.svg implies that Kosovo is more likely a part of Serbia. You see: the size of the area shown also matters. The more Wikipedia users are used to this color scheme, the more likely user understand the political implications of such maps. But, and that may be important, the English Wikipedia doesn't adopt this color scheme quickly. So please take into account that English readers may not understand the map concept as easily as - let's say - Norwegian or German users.--TUBS (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've come late to this discussion, but I've been busy elsewhere and just noticed it at WikiProject Serbia. My preference would be for to remain in place. This article already makes it clear that Kosovo's status is disputed. I do not see the need for the map to have a caption also pointing to the dispute. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the original problem. The map shades Kosovo and only Kosovo. I don't see how this makes a statement either way as far as independent vs part of Serbia. And, yes, I do know that location maps for subnational entities generally have the nation they are part of shaded and I find it just as pointless and stupid on those maps. --Khajidha (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kosovo under Communist Yugoslavia
The present text has this rather odd sentence about the 1974 Constitution:
"Kosovo was granted major autonomy, allowing it to have its own administration, assembly, and judiciary; as well as having a membership in the collective presidency and the Yugoslav parliament, in which it held veto power."
But it did not have veto power in the Yugoslav Parliament, and it already had membership there (for what that would have been worth under Rankovic!).
What I propose to replace this with is:
"Kosovo was granted major autonomy, with its own government, assembly and judiciary, as well as representation in the collective Yugoslav presidency on an equal basis with the Republics; while it remained an Autonomous Province of Serbia, as well as a federal unit of Yugoslavia, it had a right of veto over any Serbian legislation which affected Kosovo" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"One of three countries with a large muslim population"
In the religion section it says that there are only three countries lying entirely within Europe with a "large muslim population" - Kosovo, Bosnia and Albania. But the UK and France both have significant numbers of muslims. This should be changed to "a proportionately large muslim population", or perhaps "a muslim majority". Would change it myself but the page is semi-protected.--212.44.62.158 (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bosnia doesn't have a muslim majority AFAIK. Maybe "large "indigenous" muslim population" would be appropriate? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant" is not the same as "large" - while Muslims do live in the UK, France, Norway, etc., the population is not proportionally "large" in comparison to the Balkan states. That's why the various Reliable Sources don't refer to the populations elsewhere in Europe in that way. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but is the religion section verifiable by any census results? For Kosovo, it is perfectly clear that most Kosovar Albanians once thought of themselves, or at least declared themselves, as Muslims. But if you now walk through Central Pristina during Ramadan, during the day-time, you will see the cafe-bars full and people drinking alcohol everywhere. Maybe they would declare themselves [nominal] Muslims if given the choice in a census, maybe not. You see more women in burkas in Oxford Street than in the whole of Pristina. There is a clear contrast with Albanians in Macedonia, where many more Albanian women wear headscarves and Ramadan is widely respected (at least in public). But an encyclopedia is supposed to have verifiable facts, not opinion or impressions.
All that can be factually asserted is that the majority of Kosovars have a Muslim family background. This means nothing if we do not know how many of them think of themselves as atheist, agnostic, or "Muslim-lite" (i.e. turn up at funerals, circumcise their sons, and ignore everything else).
Is this a joke or what, Mark? Are you implying that muslim women should wear burkas? I am from Turkey, a country with around 74 million people, where in every poll people declaring themselves as muslims are around 98-99 percent and yet have not been able to see one woman in burka in my life, even near the Afghan Embassy in Ankara. Also, as a moslem people we Turks have our national liquor, the rakı, which is a highly alcoholic drink. You are not serious with those comments, about society and religion, right? --E4024 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a different point, many censuses in the last century will have had problems with categorisation, which blurs the boundaries between location, dialect, religion, ethnicity &c.; so many statistics will count people as "muslim" because they are ethnically "albanian", or vice versa. bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saygınlı E4204,
It's not a joke. And I am not saying that, if asked, the great majority of Kosovars would not categorise themselves as Muslims. But it is amazing how many people in Kosovo are deeply offended at being classed automatically by Westerners (and with some political motives from the US ("We've saved a Muslim people") as being Muslim just because they are Albanian, and then being seen as the same as Afghans or whatever. Just as the Serbs class them as Muslims to identify them with Al-Qaeda.
I know (and love) Turkey, and lived there for four years. I've seen more burkas than you in Istanbul, but certainly not as many as in London. If I learned nothing else, it is that Islam has as many faces as Christianity, some of them not very attractive and some very attractive; and that what makes someone feel Muslim is not what Westerners, or Wahhabis, or Taliban, believe is demanded by the Kuran-i-Kerim.
Nonetheless, the present text is offensive to Kosovars and not supported by facts. Wikipedia is about facts.
Markd999 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Burqa? Sure? Sometimes I see tourists from the Gulf in Niqabs walking after their husbands in Kapalıçarşı, possibly you are confusing the outfits. BTW which language is the word you added before my user name? I hope it is something good, after living four years in Turkey... --E4024 (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, of course, niqabs. And please don't make fun of my Turkish, since I lived there there thirty years ago and my active Turkish has suffered, though I understand what I hear well enough. "Sayın", of course. But I'm sure that "saygılı" is also true after checking in my Redhouse Sözlüğü.
Markd999 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your effort and was trying to help with your Turkish. If you call me "sayın" it means that you are a "saygılı" person. Nice meeting one more here. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Current text reads:
"The two main religions of Kosovo are Islam and Christianity. Muslims make up 90% of Kosovo's population,[171] and followers are mostly Sunni, with a Bektashi Islam minority.[93] If considered an independent state, Kosovo would be one of three countries lying exclusively within Europe with a proportionately large Muslim population – next to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania – and easily the "most Muslim" of them all by proportion of population. Islam was brought into the region with the Ottoman conquest in the 15th century and now nominally professed by most of the ethnic Albanians, by the Bosniak, Gorani, and Turkish communities, and by some of the Roma/Ashkali-"Egyptian" community. Islam, however, does not dominate the Kosovar society, which remains largely secular.[172] About three percent of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo remain Roman Catholic despite centuries of the Ottoman rule. There are an estimated 65,000 Catholics in Kosovo and another 60,000 Kosovar born Catholics outside of Kosovo.[173] The Serb population, estimated at 100,000 to 120,000 persons, is largely Serbian Orthodox. Kosovo is densely covered by numerous Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries.[174][175][176] Some 140 churches are reported to have been destroyed and partly looted for the black market in the 1999 to 2004 period, of these 30 in a single outburst of violence in March 2004.[177]"
I propose to replace with:
"The two main religions of Kosovo are Islam and Christianity. The great majority of Kosovo Albanians (perhaps 97%) have Muslim family backgrounds, as do the Bosniak, Gorani, and Turkish communities and by some of the Roma/Ashkali/Egyptian community. Kosovo censuses do not ask questions on religious affiliation; it is therefore not clear how many maintain a Muslim affiliation. Kosovo society (like the constitution) remains largely secular. There are an estimated 65,000 Catholics (mostly Albanians, but with some Croats) in Kosovo. The Serb population is almost exclusively Serbian Orthodox. Around 40% of mosques were destroyed in 1998-99, and 140 Orthodox churches were reported to have been destroyed or damaged in the six weeks after the withdrawal of Serbian forces, and around 30 in another outburst of violence in 2004".
It is not true (at any rate by Western European standards) that Kosovo is "densely" covered by Serb Orthodox churches or monasteries.
The "main article" for this section turns out to be a subsection of "Demography of Kosovo". I propose to add a "see also" for "Islam in Kosovo" and "Christianity in Kosovo"Markd999 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources claim it is "densely covered"? If so, the article must reflect that and not "truth" - you know, being Wiki and all that. Also remember that the scholarly source may be using a different set of criteria for what that means than perhaps the common sense of the man on the street might think. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Institutions of Self-Government
Current text 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, currently led by minister Goran Bogdanović.[136]"
Very outdated, and not an NPOV anyway. The SLKM has ceased to exist. So has the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija. I would suggest as a replacement:
"The Serbian Liberal Party (SLS), led by Slobodan Petrovič, is the dominant force in all Serb-majority municipalities south of the River Ibar, and is a coalition partner in the Kosovo Government. Turn-out in local elections in these municipalities approaches turn-out in most Albanian-majority municipalities. North of the River Ibar the picture is different. Turn-out in local elections organised under Kosovo applicable law is almost zero and the de facto authorities in these municipalities continue to reject Kosovo's Government"
"In the 1389 Battle of Kosovo, Ottoman forces defeated a coalition of Serbs, Albanians, and Bosnians led by the Tsar Lazar Hrebeljanović.[45][46]"
How pathetic. Every other Wikipedia or other text that I can access refers to Lazar as a Prince, not a Tsar. It is not clear whether this was an Ottoman victory (it was, after all, the first time that a reigning Ottoman Sultan was killed or captured after a battle, and we do not know which side retired first, which was then the sign of "victory" in essentiually drawn battles)
--Markd999 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording. Hope that helps? bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Kosovo Albanians claim that the Illyrians, whom they claim as their direct ancestors, were the majority population in the region, and continued to be so throughout history despite failing to create any 'national institutions' in Kosovo until modern times and despite encroachments on their native territories.[27] The Serbians deny this claim.[28][29] Moreoever, they argue that, even if there is some linguistic connection between the pre-Slavic population of "Dardania" and modern Albanians, this cannot be used to justify modern territorial aspirations since it relies on territorial claims from pre-Migration Age Europe, at a time where there were no states or nations as we know them today.[30] Serbian claims to Kosovo extend even farther than the migrations dated to c. 6–7th century, on the account of admixture with preexisting Illyrians and Roman populations and their preservation of certain of their customs.[31]"
I do not think that this is entirely NPOV or fairly reflects educated Kosovo Albanian opinion. Noel Malcolm's "Short History" is widely available in translation in Kosovo, is accepted by most as the best history of Kosovo, and concedes (as indeed some previous Kosovo Albanian historians had done) that for much of the later middle ages and even the early modern period people with Slavic names and speaking Slavic were in the majority. There is (see articles on "History of Kosovo" or "Genetic Studies of Serbians") evidence that a substantial part of the genetic inheritance of both modern Serbs and Albanians pre-dates any Indo-European language group (as is the case almost everywhere elsewhere in Europe). The central historical case put forward by Kosovo Albanians in the 1990s was that existing "Illyrians/Albanians" had been Slavised during Serbian rule in the middle ages, and the final sentence of this section, citing Serbian claims, goes some way towards accepting this.
History is generally misused to support different national claims, but very few Albanians in Kosovo would accept that a linguistic connection between ancient Illyrian and modern Albanian was the primary basis of their territorial aspirations, any more than a Wendish Sorb in East Germany would seriously think that history justified or made realistic a claim to be an independent state controlling a large part of present Germany. The Kosovo Albanian claim to independence rests on the claims that those with an Albanian identity today (whatever their ancestry) form an overwhelming part of the population, which I think no-one would deny; and that they have been regularly treated by Belgrade with brutality or discrimination, which few outside Serbia would deny either.
I cannot see that this particular section (as opposed to the detailed historical sections which follow) adds anything. It is consciously slanted towards present Serb/Albanian political issues, something which as a historian I find grossly unprofessional. I propose to delete it, as the simplest solution.
Go ahead. This would require quite extensive reworking to be anything near legitimate. For one thing, it ascribes historical opinions and arguments to "the Albanians" and "the Serbs", collectively, which is extremely inappropriate. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
37,000 families?
The article currently includes the following sentence in the Ottoman Kosovo (1455-1912) section: "In 1690, the Serbian Patriarch of Peć Arsenije III apparently led a group of 37, 000 families from Kosovo to the Christian north,[55] although, this might have been around 30 – 40, 0000 individuals.[56]" Checking the footnotes given, note 55 states "The Serbs. Sima Cirkovic. Blackwell Publishing. Pg 144 Patriarch Arsenije III claimed that 30,000 people followed him (on another occasion the figure was 40, 000)" while note 56 merely refers to "Anscombe, Frederick F. (2006). The Ottoman empire in recent international politics – II: the case of Kosovo. The International History Review 28 (4) 758–793." Does the specific claim of 37,000 families (which would be a much higher number of individuals) actually appear in the source text? If so, why does the footnote not specifically mention it? Judging by what is shown here, both sources would seem to indicate a total of 30,000 - 40,000 people. I am bringing the issue to the talk page for clarification before changing the sentence. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The figure of 37,000 "families" appears only in one monastic source, I think about one hundred years after the event. Patriarch Arsenije wrote, at the time, of variously 30,000 and 40,OOO "souls", i.e. individuals. Serbian historians in the nineteenth century took up the monastic source as an explanation of why the "Cradle of Serbia" seemed to have so few Serbs - a "Great Migration" had taken place. Go ahead and change the sentence; but Serbians seem even more attached than other South East Europeans to the idea that history is a "science" which contains absolute truth, and that the version they learnt as children is the absolute absolute truth. Why they do not go back to pre-Einstein physics or even pre-Galileo physics, if they do not accept that the search for truth involves finding things which reverse their received ideas, is beyond me. But I can only think of one Serbian Professor that I have met who might have said, like a Cambridge physics professor who had to introduce a visiting lecturer who proved that his career had been entirely in defence of a false idea: "Mr X has just proved that the theory I have been teaching for 30 years is wrong. I congratulate him with all my heart, and look forward to real progress in this field".
This is a breathtakingly un-NPOV and unfactual section, with a paragraph of un-NPOV and unfactual Albanian stuff added at the end to a lot of un-NPOV and unfactual Serb stuff. The "History of Kosovo" article does not treat the Second World War in such detail and does so with a much more neutral point of view.
I agree with one thing: Kosovo Albanians took advantage of Axis victory to attack many villages inhabited (mainly) by Serb colonists, and tens of thousands of these fled and many must have been killed. The rest is pretty well nonsense. No source from the Axis occupying powers mentions large-scale immigration from Albania into Kosovo, let alone Italian-promoted immigration. The Italian Civil Commissioner recorded that the Italian military, from top to bottom, took the side of the Serbs. The Vulnetari (if we are to use an Albanian word, lets spell it properly in Albanian- Vullnetari (which does not mean "Kosovars" but "Volunteers", never numbered more than 2,000). The Skanderbeg (another spelling mistake) SS Division did indeed round up 280 Jews in Djakova/Đakovica, but lots of Jews from Kosovo, Albania, and Macedonia were saved by Albanians (and I do not think the same thing can be said for Belgrade Jews). I cannot see any huge successes by Fadil Hoxha or any other partisans in Kosovo, whether Albanian or Serb, and its "liberation" took place as filliing a vacuum left ny retreating German troops whose position had become untenable by conventional Soviet advances and whose war diaries hardly mention pertisans in Kosovo at all.
What therefore happened was a multi-dimensional conflict, interethnic, ideological, and international, in which the first was the prime motivator and the second and third took a much lower place (so the Italian-appointed, ethnic-Albanian Commissioner of Police in Peja/Peč was quite happy to have dinner with a British SOE agent and agree to change sides if crcumstances permitted).
I suggest the following text:
"After the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, most of Kosovo was assigned to Italian-controlled Albania, with the rest being controlled by Germany and Bulgaria. It was a confused time, with inter-ethnic conflict taking primacy over ideological or international allegiances (although both had important consequences). During 1941, and later, tens of thousands of Serbs, mostly recent colonists, fled from Kosovo."
Incorrect. Your claim that "No source from the Axis occupying powers mentions large-scale immigration from Albania into Kosovo, ...." is incorrect. This assertion is properly sourced, like other assertions you mentioned, about Jews, Kosovars, and all other things you referred to as "breathtakingly un-NPOV and unfactual". It would be wrong to replace well referenced and informative text with "confused time" paragraph you proposed. Your comparation with Belgrade Jews is irrelevant and "breathtakingly un-NPOV".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator: I agree that the claim of Italian-sponsored immigration from Albania is sourced, to Miranda Vickers, who does not appear on my bookshelf because (you may perhaps be surprised to hear!) I regard her as too unquestioningly pro-Albanian to be reliable. So I cannot check her source. My claim is that there is no documentary source from the Axis occupying powers mentioning any mass immigration, let alone an Italian-sponsored one; and you cannot carry out a sponsored mass migration of this sort without creating incentives (availability of land, how it will be distributed, how people will be transported, etc etc) without creating lots of documents. Noel Malcolm ("Short History of Kosovo", pp.312-313) discusses this in some detail, and the only footnote to his discussion is also a secondary source (you can't refer to documents which do not exist!) - two Serbian historians who also dismiss the idea of mass immigration.
I shall therefore make my change after 72 hours from now, to give you time to show that there is a contemporary source for the mass-migration story which Noel Malcolm dismisses as "sheer fantasy". If you can do so, I promise that I shall unreservedly apologise.
Markd999 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your approach. Your insisting to provide primary sources for assertions supported by secondary source is not based on wikipedia policies. You can not justify removal of text properly sourced by secondary source with lack of primary sources. Discarding Miranda Vickers as "unquestioningly pro-Albanian to be reliable" simply based on your opinion and in the same time insisting on the view of Noel Malcolm, the president of the Anglo-Albanian Association, does not make much sense. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Počituvan Antidiskriminator,
There are sources on these pages which are simply faked. There are sources on which one should place no reliability, pro-Albanian or pro-Serbian. If I put on the internet that Kosovo people (Serbs and Albanians) were immigrant green humanoids from Mars, and then quoted it on Wikipedia, I think that it would rapidly be deleted. If the wretched Miranda Vickers has a source for her allegation, let me know. Noel Malcolm is a later analyst than the Mirander Vickers work quoted, and seems to annihilate it. I do not know of an even later work than his which questions his analysis, though perhaps it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd999 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove referenced text. Miranda Vickers is not medieval author, but contemporary historian. Don't give undue weight to Malcolm's view. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you cannot just push your pov without agreements. This article is under ARBMAC, and you are disturbing wiki in order to prove the point. You MUSt gain consensus for your edits, before edits. And your way to start 1000 sections, and push after 24h (or 48, doesnt matter) is a way too much. Please, be careful, that way of editing is not helpful. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slightly odd stance on consensus, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been applied to edits pushing POV in the other direction. I hope that wikipedia's little microcosm of Kosovo disputes will not degenerate to the level that any change you don't personally like can be discarded as "unilateral". ;-) bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look who is talking about IDONTLIKEIT removals... --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely prepared to change proposed edits, or even abandon them, if those who disagree are prepared to put forward reasoned arguments for their disagreements. In that case the article should reflect both points of view. In this particular case we have a referenced claim by one contemporary historian (even if I don't rate her very much) who I assume took a Serbian secondary source and did not question it - this happens with most historians; they can't read every primary source - and another contemporary historian who describes these claims as "sheer fantasy" and devotes 20 pages to the events in question, and says there is no primary source for the Serb claims. To repeat: you cannot have a policy of resettling 72,000 Albanians without lots of documentation. You have to define your policy, announce it to possible migrants with inducements for migration, arrange the logistics (petrol and transport in the Second World War was very scarce), settle them on the land with some sort of legal title however provisional, etc etc. Italian archives for this period are quite good, so far as I can see, although it is not my specialist period. So either we should have a section which says that these are Serbian claims and that others say that they are "sheer fantasy" without any documentation, or we should have a section which leaves matters a bit confused, as they are in war. Personally I prefer the second approach. It is shorter and leaves the Serbian version with less potential egg on its face.
Markd999 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Markd999, the source says that the Italian regime "encouraged" such a project, but it doesn't mention to what extent it was implemented and if it was ever implemented. Personally, I don't think that it had any effect on the demographic structure of Kosovo (based on the post-WWII demographic data), not to mention that the Yugoslavs only managed to get ~65.000 colonists in Kosovo during a 10-year peaceful period, so I find it hard to believe that the Italian regime achieved such a result in a 2-year period during wartime.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources which support the assertion about Mustafa's speach: "Mustafa Kruja, the head of the puppet government, delivered a lecture at the Royal Italian Academy on May 30, 1941, on the natural and historic roots of Greater Albania. In June 1942 he visited Kosovo and Metohija and during a meeting with local Albanian leaders publicly said that "The Serb population in Kosovo should be replaced as soon as possible. All native Serbs should be declared "colonists" and as such sent by Albanian and Italian authorities to concentration camps in Albania. Serb settlers should be killed."" - p.31 "Greater Albania": concepts and possibile consequences; Jovan M. Čanak, Ana Selić, Ljubiša Gvoić; Institute of Geopolitical Studies, 1998
I found some work which says that some Serb authors claimed that 260,000 Albanians settled Kosovo in period 1941-1948 and that Malcolm referred to such claims as "sheer fantasy" claiming that number of settlers was probably up to several thousands. I apologize if that work is wrong, but since Malcolm's work is not available online please be so kind to check Malcolm's work and if he referred to figure presented by Vickers or those higher estimations.
Migrations during war time can include much bigger number of people than 72,000. For much shorter time than 2 years. Sometimes in two weeks. I don't think that it is necessary to elaborate that. But if it is I will. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use isolated quotes as after the part the source is revealed to be the infamous Knjiga o Kosovu.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not part of the source but one of the sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surova vremena na Kosovu i Metohiji p.203, Branislav Božović, Milorad Vavić, Institut za savremenu istoriju, 1991 - in this work the above quote is summarized on Serbian language.
Istorijski zapisi p.155 Istorijski institut SR Crne Gore u Titogradu, Istorijsko društvo SR Crne Gore, Institut, 2000 - summary of the same quote on Serbian language --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence i.e. certainly not fringe ones. Btw Istorijski institut is not the author so at least learn to cite sources properly. --— ZjarriRrethues —talk 23:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During past couple of decades there are many published sources which support this assertion. Is there any source which deny it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't add any other unreliable sources. Btw Krestic was called by Milosevic as a defence witness and he was deemed too unreliable[6], but his works were allowed to be presented in the case as It is true that the methodology of the Report is questionable in a number of respects: for example, it contains sweeping conclusions without analysis and is poorly referenced. However, these are matters that may be said to go to the weight that the evidence is given and could be adequately addressed by the Prosecution in cross-examination.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 00:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source which denies this assertion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Knjiga o Kosovu, Dimitrije Bogdanović, Serbian Academy of Science and Arts - 1986: "da treba nastojati da ce srpski živalj na Kosovu i Metohiji što pre smeni... Sve starosedeoce Srbe oglasiti kolonistima i kao takve preko albanskih i italijanskih vlasti poslati u koncentracione logore u Albaniji. Naseljenike Srbe treba ubijati"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Large-scale immigration would have involved land being available or being made available. It does not follow that Serb settlers who were killed or forcibly expelled left a vacuum in land occupancy. Their settlements had been made on land confiscated from Kosovo Albanians, who not unnaturally wanted to take their former land back and who would probably have been almost equally hostile to any immigrants taking the land as they were to the Serbs.
We have two Serbian historians who conclude, like Noel Malcolm, that the new arrivals were only a few thousand (4,000 at most) consisting primarily of administrators from Albania and former exiles from Kosovo who returned, and other Serbian historians who make what appear to me (and Noel Malcolm) grossly exaggerated claims. (Even if the Mustafa Kruja speech is a correct quote, nothing in it implies that he was talking about replacing Kosovo Serbs with Albanians from Albania). We have the choice of either putting in both points of view in this article, which makes the section very long, or putting a short neutral passage. I think that if both points of view have to be put at all, it should be in the article "History of Kosovo".Markd999 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Miranda Vickers has never held an academic post, though she does have a Masters degree in history. I suspect that most members of history faculties would describe such a person (although it also applies to me) as an "amateur historian"
Markd999 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be so kind to reply to my above question (repeated here): I found some work which says that some Serb authors claimed that 260,000 Albanians settled Kosovo in period 1941-1948 and that Malcolm referred to such claims as "sheer fantasy" claiming that number of settlers was probably up to several thousands. I apologize if that work is wrong, but since Malcolm's work is not available online please be so kind to check Malcolm's work and if he referred to figure presented by Vickers or those higher estimations.
This source says that "Vickers' analysis is particularly strong when she discuss WWII and its effects on Kosovo" - Modern Greek studies yearbook,
SANU Institute explains this program which involved 72.000 Albanians from Albania in this journal
"At the same time, over 75,000 Albanians from Albania, settled in Kosovo by the Italian authorities during the Second World War, remained on the property of Serb interwar settlers." A Legal Geography of Yugoslavia's Disintegration - Ana S. Trbovic
"about 75,000 Albanians from Albania had settled on the abandoned Serbian farms" Kosovo and Metohija: living in the enclave - Dušan T. Bataković
"In the same рeriod, around 75,000 рeoрle moved to Kosovo from Albaniа." - Kosovo i Metohija: argumenti za ostanak u Srbiji - Slobodan Erić --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator, Thanks for these references. I think one of them, which refers to a 1941 Italian proposal to resettle up to 75,000 Albanians in Kosovo, may be correct. It does not say whether it was ever carried out, and I simply can't see how it could have been. In 1940-41 the vast majority of military logistics remained horse-drawn, not mechanised, even by the Germans; so one had to mobilise horses for military operations, and there were many fewer in the Balkans than in Western Europe. Civilian transport took second place by a long way. The Italians (or at least Mussolini) had lots of megalomaniac plans; few of them were successful. When the Italian Foreign Minister, Count Ciano, handed over the declaration of war on Britain in 1940, when it appeared almost certain to most people that Britain would be defeated, the British Ambassador responded, according to Ciano's diary: "Your Excellency, I have the honour to remind you that Britain is not in the habit of losing her wars" and Ciano recorded: "Catastrophe". And it was.
Noel Malcolm does discuss the higher claims. He cites a study by two scholars (one Croat, one Serbian) who have investigated war losses for 1941-45; the Serb thinks it was 3,000 Albanians and 4,000 Serbs and Montenegrins. A subsequent study by two other Serbian historians raised the estimate to 12,000 Albanians and 10,000 Serbs and Montenegrins. He then says that after 1945 Serbs claimed up to 100,000 refugees, and that in 1985 (only then) did a petition from Kosovo Serbs claim that 260,000 Albanians had entered Kosovo between 1941 and 1948.Markd999 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming that "Noel Malcolm does discuss the higher claims" which were not claims of Miranda Vickers but claims of other scholars about 260,000 settlers from Albania. It was wrong to imply that his claim about "sheer fantasy" referred directly to claim of Miranda Vickers. When you wrote that "the claim of Italian-sponsored immigration from Albania is sourced, to Miranda Vickers" and insisted that Malcolm disputed mass migration claims discarding it is a "sheer fantasy" I am afraid that everybody understood that Malcolm referred to Vickers, especially after you wrote "Noel Malcolm is a later analyst than the Mirander Vickers work quoted, and seems to annihilate it". I hope it was unintentionally, though I wish I shouldn't have to ask you twice to clarify this issue.
There is a long list of sources about invitation of Albanian president and mass settlement. A source you picked in your last comment does not actually deny mass settlement was carried out.
Your last remark about pathetic Assembly of the Community of Municipalities predominantly populated by Serbs brings additional concerns about neutrality of your edits.
Here are some more sources:
"Kosovo was built as a bridge for Albania to cross over into Yugoslav federation...A blind eye was also turned towards the Albanian settlers who had taken over the land of departed Serbs and stayed behind." - Serbia: The History Behind the Name, Stevan K. Pavlowitch
Your suggestion is not supported by reliable sources nor by consensus so it is time to close this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A 1985 petition referring to 260,000 immigrants, without any previous claims for such numbers, is not the same thing as scholars, let alone scholars who cite primary sources. I do not see how anyone would have thought that Malcolm was referring to Vickers' one sentence; he went for the original sources both of claims of large-scale settlement and whether there were primary sources which supported them. Anyone can come up with seminars where someone lazy has repeated some rubbish which they have read.
I agree that there is no consensus on this issue. But the fact that there is no consensus is not an argument for no change to a section which only presents one side of a disputed issue. (I think the wrong side, but that's not the point). Either the section presents both points of view, or we seek wording which reflects a NPOV. 79.126.158.4 (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another (last) try for consensus, since no-one else seems to be trying. I propose:
"After the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, most of Kosovo was assigned to Italian-controlled Albania, with the rest being controlled by Germany and Bulgaria. It was a confused time, with inter-ethnic conflict taking primacy over ideological or international allegiances (although both had important consequences). During 1941-1945 tens of thousands of Serbs, mostly recent colonists, fled from Kosovo. There were also post-war Serbian claims that there had been large-scale Albanian immigration, but these are disputed by other historians (some of them Serbian) and contemporary sources for these claims seem to be lacking" (References:Vickers and Malcolm).--Markd999 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is not much different than first version of "confused time" paragraph you initially proposed. My position remains unchanged. Taking in consideration dozens of sources I found and presented to support my position, I am even more convinced that it would be wrong to replace well referenced and informative text with slightly modified "confused time" paragraph you again proposed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have presented seven sources, none of which discusses the claim in any detail at all, as Noel Malcolm and his sources do. This is rather as if I were to present the thousands of medieval manuscripts which referred to the Donation of Constantine before it was conclusively proved that it was a forgery, or the thousands of sources which referred to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion before (and after) this was proved to be a forgery, as meaning that the claims resting on these documents were verifiable. One can also go to the 1951 Yugoslav census which shows how many people were born outside the state (as a Serb, will you say that this is a forgery?)If we end up in an edit-war, it will be clear that I have sought consensus and you have not. Otherwise we go back to 1RR a week.--Markd999 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you really sought consensus. Without success. Your proposal to replace well referenced text which contains important assertions with "confused time" paragraph did not gain consensus.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then here's a final try. As a personal comment, I would add that hard-line Serbian negotiating tactics usually seem in the short term to be very successful, but equally ususally seem to end in a solution which is worse for the Serbian position than what they were originally offered.
"After the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, most of Kosovo was assigned to Italian-controlled Albania, with the rest being controlled by Germany and Bulgaria. A three-dimensional conflict ensued, involving inter-ethnic, ideological, and international affiliations, with the first being most important. Nonetheless, these conflicts were relatively low-level compared with other areas of Yugoslavia during the war years, with one Serb historian estimating that 3,000 Albanians and 4,000 Serbs and Montenegrins were killed, and two others estimating war dead at 12,000 Albanians and 10,000 Serbs and Montengrins.
It is not disputed that 1941-1945 tens of thousands of Serbs, mostly recent colonists, fled from Kosovo: estimates range form 30,000 to 100,000. Post-war Serbian claims that there had been large-scale Albanian immigration range from 72,000 to 260,000 people (with a tendency to escalate, the last figure being in a petition of 1985) but these are disputed by other historians (some of them Serbian) and contemporary sources in Axis documents do not exist. "Markd999 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
North Kosovo Crisis/2012 referendum on Kosovo independence
These two sections seem to me superfluous. It is clear from the rest of the article that Serbs north of the Ibar are mostly outside the Kosovo institutional framework and reject it, while Serbs south of the river may not like it but have to make their own adjustments. The "North Kosovo Crisis" never turned into anything much, and could only have done so if Serbia was prepared to intervene against KFOR, and the referendum simply gave the results anyone would have expected. (And how can one possibly judge the results, given that there was no international monitoring of who was entitled to vote, who did vote, and what the process of counting was like?)
I don't think the Serbian case, even though I disagree with it, is remotely affected by deleting thsese sections. So that is what I propose to do.
Markd999 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me. That stuff about "without the consultation..." was problematic anyway; looks like a translation of the standard Belgrade response to actions by Kosovo authorities, "unilateral". (A term which has become very widely used on enwiki articles in this area). bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is bad. There is no a single reason except your OR about this cases. This is article about region of Kosovo, and should be informative and neutral about that. I strongly disagree to remove these sections, as you are in that way removing and hiding real situation on kosovo. People reading this article must know that kosovo is not only RoK as you may propose with this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whitewriter, It isn't an article about a region of Kosovo, but about Kosovo. Burning down customs posts set up under the authority of the UN mandate is all very well, but one has to wonder whether it was all a matter of popular reaction, although I entirely accept that the Serbs in the north will have sympathised, or a matter mainly of economic (illegal) interests (probably Albanian as well as Serb). There were in any event few consequences. If it merits attention, let it be under a separate article on North Kosovo.Markd999 (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is THE most important event on the Kosovo in the past 5 years. It is exceptionally relevant to be here, and on a separate article also. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First World War
Current text reads:
"In 1918, the Serbian Army pushed the Central Powers out of Kosovo."
I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but this is absurd. There is much to admire about the Serbian military performance and the suffering of the Serbian people during the First World War, but the idea that the Serbian Army alone marched from the Greek border with present Macedonia into Kosovo and Serbia is mad. Most of the troops were French.
Easiest and shortest edit: "In 1918, the Allied Powers....."
Markd999 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, although the most precise and accurate would probably be, "In 1918, a combined Franco-Serbian army defeated the forces of the Central Powers in Kosovo."
Languages
Current text reads:
"The native dialect of the Kosovar Albanian population is Gheg Albanian, although Standard Albanian is now widely used as an official language.[168][169] Serbian is the next most common, spoken as a first language by 5–7% of the population. According to the draft Constitution of Kosovo, Serbian is also an official language.[170] Other minority languages in Kosovo include Turkish, Gorani and the other Serbo-Croatian languages.[citation needed]"
Another absurdity. The Constitution (not a draft) of Kosovo, like the Constitutional Framework before it, makes Standard Literary Albanian an official language; it's not just "widely used" (although it may be badly used: it is). Serbian is also an official language, under the Constitutional Framework and the Constitution (it is also badly used). The wording of this section suggests that Turkish is a Serbo-Croatian language. Personally, I have no problem in accepting that Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin are all basically the same language, but others do: and Macedonians seem to think that the Gorani all speak Macedonian. Incidentally, there also the Roma, Ashkali, and Egyptians, whose languaage(s) seem to me to pose insupersble problems for this article if one were to reflect reality.
Proposed change:
"Official languages in Kosovo are standard literary Albanian and Serbian. Laws are also published in English. Other minority languages include Turkish, Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Gorani and Romani. The dialect of most Kosvar Albanians is Gheg Albanian, which involves significant difefrences between generally spoken language and officially written"
Markd999 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Agree . This is non controversial for me... But you must use references for this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Referendum on Independence
Current text reads
"An advisory referendum on accepting the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo was held in the Serb-dominated regions of north Kosovo on 14 and 15 February 2012.[147] The referendum was held in Zubin Potok, Zvečan and Kosovska Mitrovica on both days, while Leposavić voted on 15 February. The voting ran from 7:00 to 19:00 on both days.[148] 15 February is also symbolically Serbia's National Day. The result saw 99.74% of voters reject the writ of the Republic of Kosovo's institutions and only 69 supporters.
[edit]Geography"
Factually incorrect, not NPOV, and with absurdities. Personally, I don't mind a reference to the referendum. But under Serbian law, Kosovska Mitrovica includes South Mitrovica with its overwhelmingly Albanian majority, and the referendum was certainly not held there. Who cares what the voting times were, unless they were grossly abnormal? Who cares, if the referendum results were as reported, whether there was a special symbolic value for Serbs in the day chosen for voting? What might be relevant is who organised the referendum, who was entitled to vote, and who counted the votes (not that I think that a majority of Serbs in these areas would, even without intimidation, have chosen to accept the institutions of Kosovo, but as a democratic exercise this is still pretty dubious).
79.126.141.251 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declaration of Independence
Current text includes:
"The Serb minority of Kosovo, which largely opposes the declaration of independence, has formed the Community Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija in response. The creation of the assembly was condemned by Kosovo's president Fatmir Sejdiu, while UNMIK has said the assembly is not a serious issue because it will not have an operative role.[138]"
I doubt whether this is relevant, and do not even know whether the CAKM even formally exists any more. I do not suppose that many Serbs actually supported the declaration of independence, but many south if the Ibar were resigned to it and cannot now be described as "opposed" to it. I propose to delete, unless convinced that the assembly has areal existence and a real de facto role.
Markd999 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. This way their way of resistance, and this is important data, no matter if CAKM exist anymore or not... --WhiteWriterspeaks 08:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it might have been important if the CAKM had actually done anything that anyone can remember, other than denounce the Declaration of Independence. But it didn't, and the article should not imply that it still exists or has ever had any functionality. The resistance to Kosovo independence of Serbs north of the Ibar is perfectly well documented elsewhere in the article. The point of the CAKM was to demonstrate that Serbs south of the Ibar shared their point of view, as I expect many or most did, and some Serbs from the South joined the CAKM (it cannot be demonstrated that they were very representative, but they were representative enough of Serbs south of the Ibar not to endorse anything beyond suggesting that Serbs should not recognise the Kosovo institutions). So even if Jakšič wanted something which would be more than headlines for a day or two, he did not get it.Markd999 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable source about that, or not? If yes, bring them here. If not, your observation is just OR, so... --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong in talk being about own opinion (that's what talk is!), though own opinionshould not be in edits. But has CAKM decided anything, or even met again, since its first meeting? Do you have any reliable source on this? There are very obvious difficulties in deciding who can claim to represent the Serb minority in Kosovo (no census data until recently, two sets of elections - Kosovo and Serbian - , the question of whether displaced people outside Kosovo should be included as the Serb minority "in" Kosovo, as they were at least in UNMIK times, etc etc). So I was not going to challenge the first four words as being not NPOV. And I do not in any way challenge the view that almost all Serbs in Kosovo would prefer Kosovo to be in Serbia if this could be achieved in a way which was stable and did not provoke conflict again. But the present text implies that CAKM exists in reality, and functions at least in some rudimentary way, if not as an administrative body then at least as a voice of those Serbs who have not decided to come to an accommodation with the Pristina Government. But I have not seen a single source since 2008 which suggests that this is the case. The article already accepts that all Serbs found the Declaration of Independence unacceptable/very unpalatable/sad even if inevitable (some spectrum of opinion existed but I have only met one Serb who was prepared to say that Kosovo should be independent), and that no Serb representatives were prepared to vote for it, CKAM is irrelevant.Markd999 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Antidiskriminator, it still exists and meets. That's what I asked in the first place, and if you had posted this reply then, I would promptly have dropped my proposal to delete the reference - as I now do. I still find the CKAM pretty pathetic, but that's my OPV. If it exists it has a right to a mention.Markd999 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UN Administration Period: UNSCR 1244
Current text reads:
"Resolution 1244 provided that Kosovo would have autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and affirmed the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, which has been legally succeeded by the Republic of Serbia.[109]"
This is a very un-NPOV reading (although I entirely concede it is a possible reading) of UNSCR 1244, and if it was the only possible reading the ICJ could never have concluded that the Declaration of Independence was not illegal under UNSCR 1244. Nor could Ahtisaari, who brokered the agreement enshrined in UNSCR 1244, have possibly produced his plan for supervised independence of Kosovo without being seen, even by supporters of an independent Kosovo, of brazenly acting in bad faith.
Proposing a summary of a UNSCR is always fraught with dangers, because they are usually drafted in the full knowledge by the members of the Security Council that they disagree on certain issues and therefore contain language which is subject to different interpretations. Neverless, I think that the following summary is quite safe:
"UNSCR 1244 charged UNMIK with developing, and progressively handing over power to, autonomous institutions within Kosovo. These would remain provisional until a final status solution, and in the meantime the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (of which Serbia has been accepted as the successor-state) was confirmed even though the effective exercise of its sovereignty was suspended"
The citation should not be a BBC Report but UNSCR 1244 itself.
I think my proposal is NPOV. It allows Serbians and their supporters to argue that a final status solution has not been reached, because such a solution would have to be either agreed by Serbia or imposed under a Chapter VII Resolution of the UNSC; that Kosovo therefore remains legally part of Serbia; and that Kosovo's present institutions are illegal because the Constitution which provides for them has not been specifically approved by UNMIK. These arguments have of course been rejected by the International Court of Justice, but as all the articles which refer to the ICJ ruling make clear, the ICJ opinion is "advisory", unless or until Kosovo becomes a member of the UN in which case it could apply to make it legally binding.Markd999 (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. You removed the very argument of the your obvious "opposing" side. Stunningly unbalanced proposition. --22:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
But you do not say with what you disagree. The factually incorrect bit of the current text is that UNSCR did
not affirm the territorial integrity of the FRY; it affirmed the "commitment of the member states of the UN to the territorial integrity of the FRY". The possible interpretations of UNSCR 1244 were argued over at great length in the ICJ case, with not only Kosovo and Serbia (predictably) disagreeing, but other UN member-states and the judges themselves disagreeing. The submissions of the majority of the UN member-states which bothered to make submissions, and the opinions of the majority of the judges, disagree with the current text. Once again, either we can put a text which can be interpreted in either the Serbian or Kosovo-Albanian (and majority ICJ) point of view; or we can expand the text to include the exact wording of UNSCR 1244, the different meanings both sides (and the ICJ) attribute to this text. My preference is the former, because it is shorter, and in principle I believe that a NPOV description can be arrived at without having to go into all the disagreements between the two (or more) sides which are anyway quite well described in this article.Markd999 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics
This section requires extensive revision. If the 2011 census is accepted as accurate - and it was supervised and found acceptable by EUROSTAT - then a lot of the section becomes nonsensical.
Markd999 (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Economy
No separate section on the economy, which seems a little odd. I propose to import the main section of "Economy" from the article "Republic of Kosovo" since this is not only the easiest solutiom but there has been very little disagreement on it.Markd999 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Society
I think Albanians and Serbs might just agree on one thing: the "Rule of Law", "Relations between Serbs and Albanians" etc do not share the same importance as "Wines" and I suggest that the politically controversial subjects should be put in sections which deal with political controversy.--Markd999 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relations between Serbian and Albanian communities
This is not a badly written section; the bits of it which I would regard as not NPOV are not very so (and my POV, that inter-ethic relations deteriorated badly with Albanians expelled from Serbia in 1878, colonists brought in from Serbia onto previously Albanian-owned lands, etc) would be less NPOV. But all of the sources cited are in fact only one sociological study. What I have seen and heard is that there remains a significant diversity of relations between Kosovo Albanians and Serbs according to local history. For example, a rather famous KLA leader (who for obvious reasons will remain anonomous here), once remarked to me that if it were not for Miloševič he would probably now be declaring his identity as Yugoslav. In Mitrovica the Albanian villagers fed the Serb miners during the strike of the 1930s. In Gnjilane there is a Serb village which exists because they went out and found their Albanian neighbours in 1999, and persuaded them to come back. In Kamenica there were no serious expulsions of Albanians in 1999, no large-scale evacuations by Serbs in 1999-2001; a green market which remains firmly multi-ethnic; and a total of a few windows broken as the casualties of the riots of 2004.
I invite a little more diversity of opion and information, even if the overall picture may not change much. Markd999 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-one has commented, I would propose to change this section to:
"While there have always been tensions between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo, there are also areas where they have had a long history of co-existence as part of what was accepted under the Ottoman Empire to be a multi-ethnic polity. Tensions seem to have worsened in the second half of the nineteenth century and the twentieth century, as ideas of mono-ethnic "nation states" took hold in the Balkans, starting in Serbia. These resulted in large-scale forced emigration of Albanians in central Serbia to Kosovo and elsewhere in 1878; atrocities during the Serbian conquest; attempts to colonise Kosovo with Serbs in the 1920s, 1930s,and 1990s; and projects to "repatriate" people declaring themselves Turkish to Turkey in the 1930s and and 1960s (many of them middle-class who might have acted as the natural foundation of a multi-ethnic regional identity). This process culminated in the forcible expulsion of a majority of Kosovo Albanians in 1999, many of whom found on their return that their houses had been destroyed and who displaced Serbs in their turn. It is therefore unsurprising that sociological studies have found that there was little inter-marriage between the two communities during the late Yugoslav era.
There are, however, some areas of Kosovo in which even the events of 1999 had relatively little serious effect on Albanian-Serb relations: in Kamenica, the vegetable market continues to operate on a multi-ethnic basis, and the 2004 riots resulted in a few broken windows.Markd999 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
Current text reads
North or Northern Kosovo is a region in the northern part of Kosovo with an ethnic Serb majority that functions largely autonomously from the remainder of Kosovo.[155][156] Ibarian Kolashin, a toponym that predates the political partition, is also used to refer to the area. North Kosovo is by far the largest of the Serb-dominated areas within Kosovo, and unlike the others, directly borders Šumadija and Western Serbia. This has facilitated its ability to govern itself almost completely independently of the Kosovo institutions in a de facto state of partition. Although the Kosovo status process had repeatedly ruled out formalising this partition as a permanent solution, it has been increasingly mooted amidst continued deadlock.[157][158]
O dear, o dear, o dear. Are we to have no sections which should not be under the headline of Kosovo politics? Can we not have some consistency with the lead and the political sections, which have been accepted by Serbian contributors?
I propose to delete, I do not see anything in this region which is geographically different from areas to the south.Markd999 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either we change to language accepted (including by you) in several other parts of the article, for the sake of consistency, or we delete. As far as content goes, I am happy with either. But as to style, I think that constant repetition is both unnecessary and irritating to the reader. Good style is to be as short as one can in delivering the information (as Pascal wrote: "I am sorry this letter is so long; I have not had the time to make it shorter") and not to duplicate except where necessary.--Markd999 (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cyrillic
Perhaps this will be taken as evidence of an anti-Serb bias, but actually it is just to make the article shorter. Do we really need, in an English-language article, Serbian names spelt in Cyrillic as well as Latin? (It's not even the case that all the bits of the article which include Serbian names, even those bits written by Serbians, consistently use Cyrillic as well as Latin: names of municipalities, for example. And when I visit Belgrade or Skopje half the advertisements seem to use the Latin alphabet).
The general Wikipedia practice, so far as I can see, is that articles in English use the Latin alphabet only for names etc, unless there is a good reason not to. (Someone will no doubt find examples of articles on China which have all the Chinese hieroglyphs as well as Latin transliterations).
But I don't see any good reason to have Serbian names spelt in two alphabets.--79.126.130.95 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not optional, cyrillic is official letter of Serbia also, and must be used. Dont worry about article size, Wiki have big servers. :) --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, happy to oblige in the lead. For some reason the use of Cyrillic in the section on the name annoys me - you don't find Cyrillic in the articles on Russia, Bulgaria, or Macedonian except for the official name. But it's too minor a change to argue about. --Markd999 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flag / anthem in infobox?
Regarding this material (recently removed and reinstated), it seems to me that information about the flag, coat of arms, anthem, and official languages of the Republic of Kosovo doesn't really belong here. This article (Kosovo) is supposed to be about the geographical region, not about any political entity. I also note that this same material appears to be currently included in the Republic of Kosovo article, where I do think it unquestionably does belong. Comments? — Richwales 14:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this flag, anthem and COA suppose to be removed, as this is article about the territory, and not Republic of Kosovo. Also, User:Bobrayner breached 1RR on this page with this edit, and he didnt even discuss the edit, what is also required per ARBMAC restriction on this article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just came here to comment, and edit-conflicted with you ;-)
It's a consequence of the bizarre decision to split the article. WhiteWriter ran some polls trying to get a consensus to split the article; the polls didn't deliver the right result (despite attempts at ballot-stuffing) so people went ahead and split it anyway. So we now have absurd separate articles on the state versus an article on the area of land which the state occupies. We don't do this for other countries; we don't have two separate articles for Ghana-as-a-country versus the-area-of-land-occupied-by-ghana. Such mental hurdles may be necessary in Belgrade, but not here. This bizarre split leads to some counterintuitive results such as "Oh no, an infobox applies to the same thing which is in two articles but we should only have the infobox in one article...". Back in reality, things are much simpler; Kosovo is Kosovo, and we should really mention things like the flag and anthem of Kosovo in an article about Kosovo.
It's unfortunate, but sadly not a surprise, that a veteran ARBMAC editwarrior threatens to report me for making a single edit which restored information about Kosovo to our article about Kosovo. WhiteWriter must be disappointed that their retaliatory SPI didn't achieve the desired result. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is all irrelevant empty talk. This article is about territory and we have gigantic consensus for the split. But if you question it, raise the question about it here, and not edit war on ARBMAC main subject per your own POV, despite wiki rules, and without any talk page activity (as usual). --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You can't really compare Ghana and Kosovo. Ghana isn't disputed and Kosovo is - we must tread a careful NPOV line in Wikipedia and actually I think that the split has worked well (although I opposed it initially). We cannot say that Kosovo = RoK, and nor can we say that Kosovo = Serbian province. We can say that Kosovo is (mostly) controlled by RoK, but we shouldn't be implying that this is the best or correct situation. Adding a flag and coat of arms does give this impression. Bazonka (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to state that this restriction is actually editor 1RR per week, and not article per day, so this actually was not 1RR vio, but flag and COA obviously should be removed by some admin... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should an admin perform edits on your behalf, in a content dispute? bobrayner (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My behalf? Only me? :) Because you disregarded split consensus, and pushed your POV on ARBMAC subject... --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WhiteWriter threatened me, but didn't threaten Sowakralj for making this edit. Sadly, it's obvious why the response was asymmetric. bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was first edit, anyway not not santionable. Dont play victim, my dear friend. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Bobrayner has a secondary account that I don't know, I can't see where he made two reverts at this article within the last seven days. See the article's edit history. There is no such 1RR violation on his part. The only one to blame here is Sowakralj who reverted something without the discussion required by the ARBMAC ruling and even without an edit summary. Bobrayner was correct to undo this revert by Sowakralj. That said, this section should now be used to discuss the merit of having the Republic of Kosovo state symbols in an article about the geographical region. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We already agreed that we should not have RoK here, there are not other possibilities about it. Why are you admins allowing restoration of this in the article? That is violation of our split agreement, and ARBMAC restrictions on this article. And no, De728631, i am afraid that you are not right. User:Easyas12c (19 edits since 2010) is the first to blame, who added this in article, without any agreement nor consensus. Then Bob reverted back same info, also without without any agreement nor consensus. Now, User:Sowakralj reverted for the second time, but he was never informed about ARBMAC, i mean, he never received ARBMAC notice. Some admin should do it. So, please restore status quo, and remove this pushed coat of arms, flag and anthem. If anyone want it here, must have serious consensus. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to remove the map. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC).
to remain in place. This article already makes it clear that Kosovo's status is disputed. I do not see the need for the map to have a caption also pointing to the dispute. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)