This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Kosovo B‑class Top‑importance 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Serbia B‑class Top‑importance 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Albania B‑class Top‑importance 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Unrecognized countries B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Unrecognized countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesTemplate:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesUnrecognized countries articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Template:V0.5

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Ethnic groups: Albanians 92%, other (Serb, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian) 8% (2008) [3] --12:45, 27 November 2011

I have a brand-new solution when it comes to Kosovo. I suggest that when searching for Kosovo in Google, that Republic of Kosovo is the first one to choose instead of this article that is only about the geographical region of Kosovo. But to do that, you do also have to change this article's name to Kosovo (region). It's the same as when it comes to Macedonia. This is the way it would look like:

         1. Google Search: Kosovo
         2. Alternatives. Republic of Kosovo
                          Kosovo (region)
          Try wich Macedonia and you'll se how it looks like.

And then when you are on the Republic of Kosovo website, and if you click for other languages, the article about Kosovo will come, not as it is right now. I think that this might be a good solution. Hannover95^speaks 21:40, 02 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should request a page move. See WP:RM. Bazonka (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this page should be the first, that is the reason for the split. I disagree with that, but you may ask for rm, if you want... --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will ask for rm. It's a new solution and maps and stuffs are then not so fouced when this all is done. And the page Republic of Kosovo should be the first, not this one. You might look for the Macedonian model. Hannover95 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to undo the split, since it was the product of tendentious editing and there was no consensus for it. bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have massive consensus for this, dont mislead editors... And Macedonia is recognised by entire world, while RoK is still mostly unrecognised disputed entity. Those two are not comparable in the encyclopedia. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, of course, the EU recognizes it, and it's statehood is backed up by the insurmountable military might and power of NATO, in the face of which, the small country of Serbia is totally helpless. Kosovo independence is a fact. Even Serbia is beginning to negotiate trade and customs processes with Kosovo, as it knows it must. A decade from now this whole issue will be gone.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWrtier, as you know, there's a page called Republic of Kosovo. What I say is that we have to request a page move since other languages about Kosovo is not about the region, it's actually about the country KOSOVO. All these pages in other languages have Kosovo's national anthem, flag and so on. But not this one, the English one. So a whatsover RM would solve this problem. And The Republic of Kosovo should be the first, on the grounds that other languages have that system. Hannover95^speaks 21:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia does not have to do what the other languages do, and vice versa. The versions are all independent of one another. If you can put forward a good case for renaming then fine, but "we have to request a page move since other languages about Kosovo is not about the region" is not a strong argument. Bazonka (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find an excellent argument when Kosovo gains its 97th recognition. That would mean that more than half of all countries in the world has recognized it, and it would then be an argument to request a page now when more countries are in favour of The Republic of Kosovo. Official status: 93 out of 193 United Nations (UN) Member States (48.2%). There are only four countries left. Hannover95 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be more exact, Republic of Kosovo the has received 95 diplomatic recognitions. Republic of China (Taiwan) and Sovereign Military Order of Malta are included. Hannover95 (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been a field of battle for a long time now. But, we will have to find a more permanent solution. I trust no editor should act as a guardian for this page (I claim there are guardian editors of this page for two years now). Since I am an Albanian from Kosovo, I might also look biased, that is why proposals from neutral editors should be considered more relevant on Kosovo page issues than my, or let's say WhiteWriters, edits and/or proposals. Personally, I think this page should be solely about Kosovo as a Republic. It is recognized as such by nearly 100 countries, and recognitions are continuing. But we should let other judge that. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the removal of the section "Relations between Albanian and Serb communities", as there is not a single source for the outrageous claims about Serbs' genocidal tendencies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.32.85 (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted much of what I wrote for the relations between Albanians and Serb section that had reliable sources and was neutral, and basically replaced it with b*llsh*t. I am restoring what was there before that was referenced to reliable sources and didn't say any of such rhetoric of genocidal tendencies.--R-41 (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a few related changes to the "early history" section of this article, especially to its third paragraph. All of these changes are suggested in the spirit of increasing the NPOV of the section and directing readers to more thorough entries on the Roman and Byzantine history of the region.

First, the "further information" links should also include one to Moesia; the link to the Dardani should be deleted, as it is neither particularly helpful nor among the most crucial links to include here; and, for consistency, the link to the Illyrians should be replaced by one to Illyria, since the emphasis is then on the region, not to "a broad, ill-defined group of peoples." Given the overlap of modern-day Albania with Macedonia (Roman province), I think there's an argument to be made for including a link to that region as well.

Second, the final sentence of the third paragraph (regarding the "earliest references to an Albanian population") should be deleted, as it refers not to the Kosovo region but to the first proto-Albanian state, the Principality of Arbanon. The inclusion of this sentence is misleading and seems a fairly clumsy attempt to insert Albania into a paragraph that is about the Byzantine-Slavic control of the area--and thus into the history where it doesn't belong (i.e., it's neither accurate nor a NPOV).

Third, should there absolutely need to be a reference to an Albanian population here, it may be worth pointing out that the very same source cited in (current) note 34 asserts that Albanians didn't migrate into the Metohija & Kosovo regions until the 13th and 14th centuries, respectively. Although they were already in the region of modern-day Albania, their territory in the late 12th and early 13th centuries was bordered by Lake Skadar and the Drin river in the north, the Black Drin river and Lake Ohrid in the east, and (roughly) the Devoll river in the south. Madgearu makes the following points over two pages in the first chapter of his history of the region:

• Albanians "were recorded for the first time in literary sources in the eleventh century. They had no political and military role before this period, and therefore no Byzantine history has mentioned them" (25).
• The quotation cited in (current) note 34 reads, in full: "the chronicle of Michael Attaliates" contains the first "indisputable" reference to an Albanian population (again, not in Kosovo, but in general), "the Albanians (Arbanitai) were involved in the 1078 rebellion of Nikephoros Basilakes," which took place at Thessaloniki.
• "The Albanian language was mentioned for the first time in 1285."
• "Arbanon was a small region located in the mountain areas of central present-day Albania, in the northern part of the Shkumbin river valley. This river was always a dividing line between northern and southern Albania, from linguistic and cultural points of view.... The geographical fragmentation determined by this river was considered one of the reasons why no unitary Albanian state could be established during the Middle Ages."
• "At the end of the twelfth century, the Albanians were attested to as a compact group in the mountain zones around Shkoder Lake, in [what is now] northern Albania.... and migration toward the plains of Metohija began after the end of the twelfth century. Albanians are attested to in Epirus in the same period (twelfth-thirteenth centuries), and it can be supposed that this area also belonged to their primary homeland, where they lived together with the Greeks" (25-26).
• Lastly, he also notes that while Albanians began migrating south and east in the thirteenth century, "the decisive role in the increasing of Albanian penetration in Kosovo and Macedonia was played by the Ottoman domination, which favored the Albanians, who more easily accepted the Islamic religion (unlike the Serbs)" (26).

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Source: Alexandru Madgearu and Martin Gordon (consulting editor), The Wars of the Balkan Peninsula: Their Medieval Origins (Scarecrow Press, 2008).Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Ironymobile (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironymobile, you have struck the core problem of Kosovo. But I think, using one source to solve the problem is a bit hasty. —MirkoGashi 46.19.228.27 (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By DUSAN STOJANOVIC Associated Press BELGRADE, Serbia January 13, 2013 (AP) - (snippet) - Serbia on Sunday adopted a set of guidelines for reconciliation talks with the leaders of Kosovo, in a strong first signal it is loosening its claim to its former province in hopes of getting closer to European Union membership. In a resolution adopted by an overwhelming majority in Parliament, Serbia maintained it will never recognize Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence. But in a big shift in policy, the document called for wide autonomy for minority Serbs within Kosovo's borders, indirectly recognizing Kosovo's sovereignty and territorial integrity. While outlining a government plan for the talks with Kosovo's ethnic Albanian leaders, Serbia's Prime Minister Ivica Dacic said "Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo practically does not exist" since NATO's 1999 bombing campaign chased Serbian troops out of the region. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition remains an official (and thus by definition a de jure) act. The Prime Minister's note the fact that Serbia doesn't control Kosovo isn't recognition of anything, just a simple and plain statement of fact. CMD (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there are things going on under the surface, per the news article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this will change much Kosovo-related content, for OR reasons, and because entrenched positions of specific editors do not necessarily change to reflect the nuances of the latest government press-release. It would be nice if we could get more sources that show a more nuanced position... bobrayner (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt sources are going to discuss something very nuanced for now. If this actually does change how Serbia interacts with Kosovo, it'll take time for that to show and then more time for sources to analyse it. CMD (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could knowledgeable editors please be sure to check this recent edit to determine if it is, or is not, properly sourced and sufficiently balanced? It appears POV to me at first glance, and I'm uneasy with the deletion of earlier text to make room for this new material, but I don't know this subject well enough to say for sure. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a horrible NPOV failure. bobrayner (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, do you want to know what a "horrible NPOV failure" is? The fact that reliable sources (e.g. a book written by Paul Mojzes) are replaced with the writings of a Bosniak and Albanian lobby-group leader/pseudo-historian known as Noel Malcolm. That, my fellow editors, is, as bobrayner likes to say, "a horrible NPOV failure." 23 editor (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any intractable disagreements over NPOV or reliability of sources should be taken up at the relevant noticeboards — WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN, respectively. Everyone also needs to note that this article is on ArbCom-imposed probation, including a "one revert per week" limit when dealing with the article text (see here for the notice). Edit warring is not acceptable (here or anywhere else), even if you are convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong — and anything that even looks like edit warring on this article, or any other article "related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted" is likely to lead to people being blocked from editing in order to protect Wikipedia from damage. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make the above warning official and leave no room for misunderstanding, here is the relevant official notice for all to see.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Balkans. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

— Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]