Talk:Kosovo/Intro changes proposal

Comparison of versions so far

Because this talk page is getting cluttered with a lot of comments, I decided to list here once more the versions for the introduction that have been suggested before. A vote seems not appropriate at the moment, so instead I suggest that people give short comments on each of the versions (under the Comments by others: text). This way we at least can get an idea of how also other users feel about these three options. To prevent this turning into a real vote, I would like to ask everyone who adds an opinion, to give arguments for that choice in your own words (so no comments without arguments or by only referring to another editor who gave a comment please). Cpt. Morgan 18:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Please note that I will remove comments not following the rules above. This is not a vote. Cpt. Morgan 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Are creators of other versions allowed to comment here, such as the comment below by Asterion? I thought we were asking for third-opinions here, Reinoutr?! ilir_pz 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. The whole point is reaching consensus. Therefore, I would appreciate if you drop the uncivil comments (ie. "Serbian government propaganda") and provide sensible reasons instead. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is, as I also stated, not a real vote. Because we surely can use some additional opinions here, I see it also as way to make future discussions easier and as far as I am concerned, anyone can reply as long as a comment is argumented and civil. Cpt. Morgan 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Written by: User:Ilir pz

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is placed under United Nations administration, though de-jure it is still defined as a part of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but runs independently of the latter. De-facto the province is run by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), based on the Constitutional Framework[1] of Kosovo. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The negotiations are mediated by the international community, and enforced by the Contact Group [2]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006, and indications from the Contact Group show that "the settlement will have to be acceptable to the people of Kosovo"[3] the majority of which seek recognition of full independence for the province.

Comments by others:

1. Oppose. There is no mention of Serbia. The text also engages in futurology and leading the witness, by a flawed syllogism in the last sentence. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose. This versions is lacking any at all mention of Serbia - a must-have with provinces that are/were rebelling and not fully seceded from their former "liege", to call it. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Agree with the above user. Kosovo is, for good or for ill, currently linked to Serbia, de jure. BovineBeast 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. It describes very closely the very complicated but for now the real situation about the status of Kosova.--Mig11 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose. It does not describe the situation neutral and the history to Serbia can not be excluded. Bad version. Litany 09:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose: since all governments in the world, all major media and international organizations (EU, UN, etc.) and the Encyclopedia Britannica recognize Kosovo as officially a part of Serbia, this version is misleading in that it does not mention Serbia anywhere. Just because Albanians don't want Kosovo to be a part of Serbia doesn't mean that it isn't. This is about facts, not wishful thinking.Osli73 11:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Written by: User:The Tom

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but placed under United Nations administration; in practice the province is run independently of Belgrade by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been succeeded by an independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Comments by others:

1. Oppose - The second paragraph is against the 1244 Resolution, because it does not cite any such amendments added to the resulution, but merely assumes that the succession is as such. The 1244 UN Security Council resolution is a law, and as such should be updated if any such succession takes place. Until then, assuming something else, that the resolution (nor any amendments to it) refer to, is a violation of the law with highest authority in Kosovo as of now. Furthermore, the version above does not comply with point 3 that Reinoutr suggested in order to reach the compromise: 1) It should state that Kosovo is administered by the UN, 2) it should state Kosovo is part of a larger union/country (either Serbia or FRY) and 3) it should state that Kosovo will most likely become indepedent in the near future. Reminder: the third point is what the media keep repeating all the time, and clearly the Security Council said that in its last statement (if you follow the last line of my version) Regards, ilir_pz 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

   Respectfully, ilir, you're making a politicized interpretation of 1244 for nationalist purposes that's at odds with an international legal consensus. In order for the Republic of Serbia to inherit FRY's claim to Kosovo, there does not need to be any amendment to 1244, and I must confess to feeling mildly irritated that after digging around the web and citing the Vienna Convention chapter and verse you're still dismissing my presentation of how international law works out of hand and demanding I supply you with a citation of an amendment that doesn't exist. The Kosovar political apparatus itself has not said a peep about the whole S&M-to-Serbia thing as having any bearing whatsoever on 1244 because it's a non-issue to them. UN news releases post-June-5 refer to Kosovo as legally Serbian. Short of calling up Matti Antissari I don't know how I can make this case any clearer to you. The Tom 23:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

   I thought we weren't supposed to comment on each other here, The Tom. Not serving any nationalistic purpose here, no need to offend me. As much as I did politics courses and international law at the Uni, I did not know a law can just be interpreted without any explicit amendment. Respectfully, too, ilir_pz 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak Support. This version seems best - it's just slightly confusing. HolyRomanEmperor 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. It's the best possible compromise. BovineBeast 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose: This version is confusing and cumbersome to read.Osli73 11:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Written by: User:Osli73 and User:Asterion

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is an autonomous province in southern Serbia. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration (UN Security Council Resolution 1244). Although it legally remains a part of Serbia, it is in fact run independently of Belgrade by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Comments by others:

1. Strong oppose The version mentions the word "autonomous" refering to Kosovo, and furthermore states that it is a province of Serbia, something not mentioned anywhere in the 1244 UNSC Resolution. It merely cites the Constitution of Serbia, which is not taken into consideration in Kosovo, which is administered by UNMIK which has the highest authority in Kosovo, and responds to the UN Security Council only. The third line also violates the 1244 UNSC Resolution, where FRY is mentioned, and not Serbia. The version above is a wording used by the Serbian government, and as such should be flagged because it is a purely Serbian government propagandistic version. Furthermore, the version above does not comply with point 3 that Reinoutr suggested in order to reach the compromise, to which the two users above agreed before submitting their versions: 1) It should state that Kosovo is administered by the UN, 2) it should state Kosovo is part of a larger union/country (either Serbia or FRY) and 3) it should state that Kosovo will most likely become indepedent in the near future. Reminder: the third point is what the media keep repeating all the time, and clearly the Security Council said that in its last statement (if you follow the last line of my version) Best regards, ilir_pz 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support This qualifies as having both neutral and truthful points of view. Version was created by two very neutral and fair editors.Ilir, Kosovo is indeed a province of Serbia, let's quote you above: The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006, and indications from the Contact Group show that "the settlement will have to be acceptable to the people of Kosovo"[4] the majority of which seek recognition of full independence for the province. But then you write: The version mentions the word "autonomous" refering to Kosovo, and furthermore states that it is a province of Serbia, something not mentioned anywhere in the 1244 UNSC Resolution. If it's not a province of Serbia, then who's province is it? Hehe, Regards, C-c-c-c 21:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak support. This version seems perfect in all but - seems slightly pro-Serbian. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

   I assume you mean because the usage of the word autonomous. Well, I would have no problems taking this off but this is how it is defined by many other encyclopedic sources too. Thanks for the constructive criticism, HRE. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Strong oppose: not objective. Noah30 15:19, 10 June 2006
5. Strong support. I find this one objective, simple and neutral. Very good version. Litany 09:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose. Very pro-Serbian and it seems that the real political and status situation in Kosova of today is absolutely ignored by users who proposed this intro. It is everything else but not a good version. I mean:"an autonomous province in southern Serbia„?! Frankly this sounds like e bad joke to me.--Mig11 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: This is not a vote. If you check the bottom of the page, you would be able to read the final compromise version. If you have any problems with it, I would appreciate you give us your reasons and contribute to the debate. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Written by: User:CrnaGora

Note:I don't want to enter a propaganda or anything. Just putting down the facts. Please don't blame me for what I wrote. I think this would be acceptable to write in the article as the introduction. Also, I don't want to enter in these edit wars or clash with Serbs and Albanians because of this. -- CrnaGora Note:: this version was changed by its writer since it was first posted here[5]. Comments might refer to a previous version (see below). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was temporarily placed under United Nations administration (UN Security Council Resolution 1244). By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, Kosovo is placed under United Nations administration and is a UN protectorate, though de-jure it is still defined as an autonomous province as part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but runs independently from the latter. De-facto the province is run by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), based on the Constitutional Framework[6] of Kosovo. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The negotiations are mediated by the international community, and enforced by the Contact Group [7]. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Comments by others (previous version):

1. Weak oppose This version again uses the word "autonomous" and refers to Serbia, without strictly following the description given by the law with the highest authority in Kosovo, 1244 UN Security resolution. That is the main flaw of this version. ilir_pz 23:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral leaning towards oppose. It's slightly confusing. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Its got horrendous grammar for one. C-c-c-c 16:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose: this version is terrible: it's difficult read, the grammar is bad, it's misleading (Kosovo isn't a region but a well defined province and Kosovo is not a part of FRY but of Serbia) and it's too long.Osli73 11:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others (current version):

---

Written by: User:Electionworld

I would stick as closely as possible to the present intro.

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a province of the Republic of Serbia under United Nations administration. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as an autonomous province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia), but in practice it runs independently from the former. Kosovo is presently run by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), while the security is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police Service. Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Comments by others:

1. Support: seems OK to me. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Using weasel words to describe exactly what Osli73 and Asterion's proposal states. Thus unacceptable. ilir_pz 11:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support: this all looks very correct and NPOV to me. Might make sense to mention that the province came under UN admin following the 1999 Kosovo War. Also, I would propose to reverse the order of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and UNMIK since the latter is obviously the senior of the two.Osli73 11:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A compromise version

Based on the comments that have been given on the options above, I decided to try a new draft version. Before giving the same arguments and opinions that we now have heard over and over again, I would like anyone who comments to bear in mind that I explicitely have included the following statements, based on what we have discussed before here. These are not my opinions, but rather statements that I see fit based on all the arguments we've heard. Please understand that there is no other way out of this dispute than a compromise from both sides. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Specific choices I've made:

• Based on the arguments given mainly by TheTom, but also by others, I think it is clear that based on international law and UN regulations, Serbia is the successor state of Serbia and Montenegro, which was the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
• Because the term autonomous is sensitive in this respect and not required for the understanding of the article, I left it out.
• Based on recent news items and UN publications, I feel it is fair to state that independence of Kosovo is a very likely outcome of the currently ongoing talks. This is not futurology, but an observation of the way in which the talks are currently developing.

With these choices in mind, this is my proposal, which is primarily based on the version by TheTom:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a region in southeast Europe. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as a province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia, see below) but placed under United Nations administration; in practice the province is run independently of Belgrade by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been succeeded by Serbia and Montenegro and now the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status and possible independence of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

The contentious issue is how much you want to deemphasize the link to Serbia. Legally it is a province of Serbia. This is agreed by both UNSCR 1244 and the international community at large.

No doubt, Kosovar Albanians prefer to describe Kosovo as a "territory in SE Europe" and "defined as part of FRY" etc. While not technically incorrect, it's a very roundabout way of saying it that really just panders to those Kosovar Albanians who wish the facts to be different.

So, I will take the freedom to propose the following compromise text:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a majority Albanian province in southern Serbia administered by the United Nations since the 1999 Kosovo War.

While the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in 1999) defines Kosovo as a province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia, see below), in practice the province is run independently of Belgrade by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been succeeded by Serbia and Montenegro and now the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status and possible independence of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

Osli73 11:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Osli, I do understand what your are saying, but was hoping you would not make to much of an issue of this point. In the version I proposed it is already stated twice that Kosovo is part of Serbia, so I would like to ask you to reconsider your point and accept, for the sake of compromise, the region in southeast Europe wording in the first sentence. Similar wordings are being used in other wikipedia articles concerning controversial regions, for example Tibet and Western Sahara. This one of the main issues we have been discussing and we will never find a version that everybody is 100% happy with, so please reconsider. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not overly happy about it but for the sake of compromise I'm prepared to to along... as long as you change the wording "region" to "province" since Kosovo isn't a territory in the same sense as Tibet but a well defined province.

Also, I do think it would be valuable to state in the introduction that the UN administration follows the 1999 Kosovo War.

Let's hope this is the end of it.Osli73 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are differences between Tibet and Kosovo. No comparison is ever perfect. But I am ok with the changes you requested (I think the second one your suggested is a very good idea actually, I should have included that earlier). So the version we now have is this: Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a province in southeast Europe. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in june 1999), Kosovo is in principle defined as a province within the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia, see below), but in practice the province is run independently of Belgrade by its Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was renamed to Serbia and Montenegro and has been succeeded by the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status and possible independence of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

And because many people tend to read only the last part of each discussion, again a short list of the choices and compromises leading to this particular version:

• UN Security Council Resolution 1244 does not mention Serbia, only the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
• Based on international law and UN regulations, Serbia is the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
• Because the term autonomous is sensitive in this respect and not required for the understanding of the article, it is left out
• Based on recent news items and UN publications, independence of Kosovo is a very likely outcome of the currently ongoing talks.
• Kosovo is defined as a province (both here and in other related texts), not a region

I'm perfectly content with this version of the intro. Three comments/questions:

• I just read [8] that FRY and SiM are the same country, only that the name changed. So, technically, SiM is not a successor state (it is the same state), only Serbia is. So it might be worthwhile to remove/change the mention of Serbia and Montenegro in the text. Done (see above)
• What is the precedure from here on? Do we need to wait for the comments of everyone, someone in particular or no-one before contacting the administrator to unlock the article? Lets wait at least until we hear from Iliz
• Will we also need to change the template for a lot of other Kosovo-related articles? Yes, but not until this is final

Osli73 14:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Some changes. My objections are mainly about the fact that Kosovo was defined as a province of Serbia before Resolution 1244. This resolution simply recognised the territorial intergrity and sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its member states.

Also, I believe that if we are going to state that independence is a possibility, all other choices proposed should be listed: Double-autonomy (autonomy for the province within Serbia and autonomy for the Serbian and other non-ethnic Albanian communities within the province), self-government within Serbia, substantial autonomy within Serbia, independence as a process in phases, division/partition, "guarantor states" arrangement, condominium, a Balkan Council, trusteeship, or a combination of these proposals. As this would make the intro text incredibly lengthy, I suggest to get rid of all predictions and put together a decent article on the talk process. I have removed, moved and added some wikilinks too, plus corrected UNMIK official name and emphasised its character as a civilian mission (the UN never approved NATO military actions).

Here is my proposed version:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a province in southeast Europe. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in June 1999), it is in principle recognised as a province of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia). However, in practice, the province is run independently of Belgrade by the civilian United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the locally elected Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became Serbia and Montenegro and was recently succeeded by the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The outcome of the talks is still unclear but set to be finalised by the end of 2006.

Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

NB: Please note that I use British English spelling. Therefore I wrote "recognised" instead "recognized" and so on. As from the top of my head, I am unable to remember whether US or UK spelling is used throughout the article, minor copyedits may be necessary once the definitive version is agreed upon. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the changes are fine with me, since they are mainly textual (although I think it would be better to lose the recognised as, it is redundant). I would, however, like to ask from you to reconsider naming independence as an option in the sentence about the talks on the future of Kosovo. Wikipedia is not complete and will never be complete (and most importantly it does not have the intention to be complete), so requiring all the options to be mentioned is not necessary. But I think that leaving that in the article will make this version more acceptable for the other parties in this dispute. You cannot deny that indepence is the what the Albanian Kosovars who are taking part in these talks (and represent 80% of the Kosovo population) are aiming for. So for the sake of compromise, I would like to ask you to reconsider. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we are getting closer here. Two comments:

• take out the "in principle" - that it is run by the UN is apparent later
• most commentators seem to point to some kind of independence (ie not necessarily full independence). Perhaps some wording to that effect could be used as a compromise, perhaps conditional independence (which, in my mind, is also closer to the truth).

Osli73 10:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Both fine with me (see below), but before this dispute is solved, we will also need some input from User:Ilir pz. I'll post on his talk page and ask if he is willing to accept the following version:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a province in southeast Europe. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration. By the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (adopted in June 1999), it was defined as a province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia, see below). However, in practice, the province is run independently of Belgrade by the civilian United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the locally elected Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG). Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became Serbia and Montenegro and was recently succeeded by the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status and (limited) independence of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The outcome of the talks is still unclear but set to be finalised by the end of 2006.

With again a list of the compromises made:

• UN Security Council Resolution 1244 does not mention Serbia, only the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
• Based on international law and UN regulations, Serbia is the successor state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
• Because the term autonomous is sensitive in this respect and not required for the understanding of the article, it is left out
• Based on recent news items and UN publications, independence of Kosovo is a very likely outcome of the currently ongoing talks, but might be subjected to specific conditions.
• Kosovo is defined as a province (both here and in other related texts), not a region

Regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, I need a credible source to believe the second point, which international law? Where is that stated? With the last point(your compromise) I disagree also, the term province is not used eversince that status was revoked by Milosevic in 1989. The UN administration referrs to Kosovo as a "Territory under UN administration". Furthermore, using words like "limited" or "conditional" when referring to a (very likely) outcome of the status of Kosovo (independent) is like saying, yeah Kosovo will become a state, but not really. As such those words are contradicting each other. There will be international monitoring of that recognized independence, but it is not going to be conditional as such. Then we have to say Bosnia has conditional independence, too, or many other countries where there is international presence. Best regards, ilir_pz 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a small grammatical adjustment and took out the independence (conditional) which I didn't feel worked that well in the text. Hope that is OK.Osli73 11:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Osli, I consider that an important compromise towards the other parties in this dispute, I have put it back for now, but now as (limited) independence. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with mentioning it. I just thought it looked odd in the proposed text. First you say "Talks on the future status and (limited) independence of Kosovo started..." and in the next sentence say "The outcome of the talks is still unclear...". I thought it sounded a bit contradictory. But maybe it's not.Osli73 12:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I still think it would be a more sensible option not to list any posible outcome in the last paragraph and create instead a wikilink to the talks (I suggest to create an article named Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo with a header named Talks on the Future Status of Kosovo#Models for future Kosovo, like this:

Since the passage of Resolution 1244, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became Serbia and Montenegro and was recently succeeded by the independent Republic of Serbia. Talks on the future status of the territory started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the local institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The outcome of the talks is still unclear but set to be finalised by the end of 2006.

The advantages are clear as more comprehensive information could be provided on every model being discussed. regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds perfectly fine. Are we ready to go to the administration now?Osli73 11:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any more comments on the compromise version, does that mean that we can go ahead and take it to the admin? What exactly is the current plan?Osli73 11:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that neither Ilir nor Mig11 have produced any relevant criticism and alternatives, I would favour to wait till Sunday at the most and then go ahead with the final compromise version (which has been put together based on all previous versions). There have been well over a dozen people involved, we have all put more than enough time and effort on this. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is hard for you to believe, but some of us do have a life outside of Wikipedia and sometimes there are more important things than this encyclopaedia. That is way I didn’t react until now.

Ilir did give his opinion, as I can see now, but of course for you Asterion, as usual, it seems that every opinion different then yours it is not relevant.

I absolutely disagree of using the term province, since it has to do nothing with the reality. It was not either used by the Serbian government many years before Kosova war nor is it being used after the war from any legal institution in Kosova.--Mig11 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to be uncivil here. Everyone of us have a life outside wikipedia, there is no need to demeaning people by comparison, thank you very much. You are welcome to offer constructive criticism instead and propose any changes to the compromise version. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you read only the first part of my reaction. You were also not being civil by claiming, that neither I nor Ilir brought any, as you think, relevant criticism and alternatives. So I will repeat myself again:

I absolutely disagree of using the term province, since it has to do nothing with the reality. It was not either used by the Serbian government many years before Kosova war nor it is being used after the war from any legal institution in Kosova.

Well I don’t know what is for you constructive criticism, but I hope that you will really think about my proposal to change the term province into territory or region. --Mig11 20:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, although I think Ilir will have some comments (he reacted on his talk page today). Also, I am ok with a special article on the future status of Kosovo, but might I suggest that we merge that with cleaned up version of Contact_Group? Also, I would like to ask the two of you to contribute (a bit) to that article (so will I), so we at least leave a link to a decent article on the options for Kosovo. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems contributing to the new or merged article, depending on my own wiki-schedule (I promised to mediate on another controversial article too). I have done this before (see PISG article). It would depend on the time I have but in all cases I could provide you with links and/or Lexis-Nexis articles. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 13:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If Ilir is not willing to compromise about Kosovo being, technically, "a province in Serba" then I'm not sure there is much more we can do. Osli73 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply disregarding any opinion is not a good idea on Wikipedia, it will only result in a new revert war. The only reasonable alternative will be a vote. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not disregarding. We have been waiting for weeks, so I can perfectly understand Osli73's frustration. We cannot just change the facts to please someone, I am afraid. There is absolutely no problem with the current version, which is a continuation of everybody else's. We have compromised more than enough indeed. If Ilir does not want to discuss at all, it is up to him. At the end of the day, he still finds the time to edit war on other articles[9]. This is getting nowhere because of him, as it has always happened. We ought to wait no longer than Sunday evening. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reacting to something Osli said before he changed his remark [10]. Also, as I said, I agree with waiting until Sunday. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's complete this and get on with the article

I'm hoping that we can, finally, agree on a common introduction. Since there seems to be not willingness to compromise and/or just endless proposals and adjustments, I suggest that we go ahead with a vote. Below I have put forward Asterion's and my version (with the autonomous taken out).

• I realize that some Kosovar Albanians do not like it for political reasons, however, I don't see that as a valid argument against it.
• The view proposed by Ilir that UNSCR 1244 does not mention Serbia is an interpretation not supported by any government in Europe nor by the EU or the UN. Also, the BBC and Encyclopedia Britannica refer to Kosovo as a province in Serbia.

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is an province in southern Serbia. Following the Kosovo War in 1999, Kosovo was placed under United Nations temporary administration (UN Security Council Resolution 1244). Although it legally remains a part of Serbia, it is in fact run independently of Belgrade by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. Security in Kosovo is maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the Kosovo Police Service.

Talks on the future status of Kosovo started in Vienna on February 20 2006, between the Kosovo institutions' negotiating team, and the government of Serbia. The future of the province is set to be determined by the end of 2006.

So, can we please have a decision or a vote on this otherwise we will have a neverending discussion?Osli73 08:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that version is good. You have my support Osli73. Litany 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A more comprehensive proposal

With apologies to the authors of the previous versions, I'd like to propose (yet another) version. I felt that the previous versions were lacking. Some points to note:

• An intro should be a summary of the article. It shouldn't go into specific detail but should clearly outline the general subject matter. Stuffing it with references and discussions of controversial topics is not the way to go. I refer you to Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Lead section. Specifically, we shouldn't go into specific detail on the final status talks or the UN resolutions pertaining to Kosovo. This should be dealt with in the article body, not the intro.

• The intro shouldn't focus on one aspect of the article to the exception of everything else. All of the previous versions of the intro suffered from this flaw. Believe it or not, Kosovo's political status is not the most important fact about it, and the article discusses a good deal more than just politics. The previous versions of the intro simply don't summarise the article properly and they aren't typical of how we treat subnational entities. For this reason, I've broken the intro into two paragraphs: the first is about geography and demography (the most important single set of facts) and the second is about politics with a little bit of history.

• On the question of whether Kosovo is a "province" and a territorial unit within Serbia, the UN and every other major international source clearly describe it as such. Ilir's position simply doesn't have any support in terms of the generally understood reality (otherwise why would Serbia even be involved in the negotiations?). I've referred to it as a province in Serbia rather than of Serbia in order to sidestep the contentious question of "ownership".

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of two provinces in Serbia. It is located in the far south of the country adjoining Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. (The other province is Vojvodina in the far north of Serbia.) Its capital and largest city is Prishtinë/Priština. Kosovo has a population of around 2.1 million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs and other ethnic groups.

The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and before then, Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's Albanian population. Although still de jure a part of Serbia, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999. The province is governed by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the indigeneous Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, with security maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). Negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo.

Comments welcomed... -- ChrisO 21:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Hi Chris. Thanks for your views. Yes, you are completely spot on here. This is a geographical article and we were missing details so important as its population (even if the figures are contested by some). I would suggest some minor changes to this version: To change "adjoining" to "bordering" (in plain English), and replace "indigenous" with "locally elected". Not being pedantic here, but indigenous means "born or produced naturally in a region" (emphasis mine). The sentence "although still de jure" should be turned into "Althogh de jure", as still implies a prediction of independence. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, with some tweaking (including those suggested by Asterion) I think your proposal is refreshing and I support it. The old version got a bit too caught up in definitions and UNSC resolutions.

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a provinces in Serbia. It is located in the south of the country bordering Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. Its capital and largest city is Prishtina. Kosovo has a population of around 2.1 million, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs and other ethnic groups.

The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and before then, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) government and Kosovo's Albanian population. Although de jure a part of Serbia, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999. The province is governed by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the locally elected Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, with security maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). Negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo.

How about that? Should we add something about topography and largest towns? Osli73 07:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, Reinoutr asked me to put back in the reference to Vojvodina (see my talk page). I have no problems with this if it will help move us towards unprotecting the article. I have also adjustd the population figure to be more in line with what is in the article (1,8-2,0 million). So, here is the latest suggestion (incl. reference to Vojvodina):

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is one of two provinces in Serbia (the other is Vojvodina, in northern Serbia). It is located in the south of the country bordering Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. Its capital and largest city is Priština. Kosovo has a population of around 2 million, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs and other ethnic groups.

The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and before then, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) government and Kosovo's Albanian population. Although de jure a part of Serbia, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999. The province is governed by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the locally elected Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, with security maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). Negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo.

Are we happy?Osli73 12:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've no problems with this. Can we all agree and move on? E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 17:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is also a good intro proposal. I say agree and move on. Litany 17:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I do agree with this proposal, I would like to hear some comment from the other parties involved. It is prone to develop into a new revert war otherwise. But I agree those comments should be put here soon, otherwise we are getting nowhere. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. I think these modifications are fine. -- ChrisO 18:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinoutr, I think it would be good if you, as the administrator/moderator, on this topic, put in a message on Ilir's talk page (since I believe he is the only other party which has taken a serious interest in contributing to the discussion) and hear what he says.Osli73 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, I hope he has a chance to react soon, since he mentioned he is quite busy these days. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with this phrasing at all.This is not some kind of compromise between an Albanian version and a Seria version.It's very close to how a serb would phrase it. And besides, as someone else said above, there is two parties involved here. I don't see anybody from the opposing view saing ya. Something alone these lines would be far closer to reality( with some changes):

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë/Kosova, Serbian: Косово и Метохија/Kosovo i Metohija) is a provinces in the former Yugoslavia, currently under legal jurisdiction of the U.N. It borders Albania to the southwest, Macedonia to the southeast and Montenegro to the west. (No need to say anything about Vojvodina)) Its capital and largest city is Prishtinë/Priština. Kosovo has a population of around 2 million people, predominately ethnic Albanians, with smaller populations of Serbs and other ethnic groups.

The province is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and before then, Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's Albanian population. Although still de jure a part of Serbia, it has been administered by the United Nations since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999. The province is governed by the UN Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the indigeneous Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, with security maintained by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Kosovo Police. Negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo.Ferick 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This version is simply factually incorrect (i.e. "former Yugoslavia" instead Serbia, "legal jurisdiction" instead administration, link to SFRY instead FRY), the wording is unclear ("still de jure") and a drawback from previous consensus and also uses non-English denominations (i.e. Prishtinë). I simply cannot accept it, let's go back to ChrisO's modified text as discussed. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of "former Yugoslavia" also constitutes ineligible original research, since it's not supported by any source I've ever seen. However, "legal jurisdiction" may be accurate, given that UNMIK is in charge of executive functions and has established a legal framework for Kosovo. The link to SFRY should also go to Yugoslavia (undisambiguated) given Kosovo's long history of conflict with central government. -- ChrisO 06:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, just as ChrisO wrote in his proposal, Kosovo is de jure one of two provinces in Serbia. However, it is administered by the UN. It's as simple as that. These talk pages are full of sources showing the validity of this. Asterion, ChrisO, Reinoutr or myself, who are obviously not Serbs, think this is a good way of describing what Kosovo is. We are not "taking sides" or trying to push a "Serbian viewpoint". We are very simply stating the facts, as they are recognized by the international community.Osli73 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Legal jurisdiction" is indeed correct and it should definitely be included. Serbia has no legal jurisdiction in Kosovo whatsoever .Kosovo is a special case: There has never been a case (as far as I am aware) where a country did not have legal jurisdiction under International law over a part of its territory, yet it continued to claim that territory. When a country doesn't have legal jurisdiction over a territory, we cannot say that that territory is a part of that country. We all know that Kosovo was legally a province of Serbia at one point, but it was snatched away by force. Kosovo does not have the same legal status as Vojvodina, which is an actual province of Serbia.Ferick 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose leaving the reference to Vojvodina out would not be a problem. I was the one who asked it to be put back in, but I am fine with a version not mentioning Vojvodina. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no good reason to leave out Vojvodina; given that Kosovo is one of two provinces over which Serbia is sovereign, I'd say that mentioning Vojvodina is a logical thing to do. Our Vojvodina article mentions Kosovo, after all.

As for Ferick's point, he confuses legal jurisdiction with sovereignty. Serbia's legal jurisdiction doesn't run in Kosovo, although some of the applicable law is taken from Serbia (see [11] for more). However, international law still recognises Serbia as having sovereignty over Kosovo. This was a key point in the agreement that ended the 1999 war. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 explicitly states that the Member States reaffirm their commitment "to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2". In other words, Kosovo remained legally a territorial unit of the FRY even though it was under the administration of the UN. There was no "snatching away by force". That's the whole point of the current negotiations - to determine what happens to Serbia's sovereignty.

By the way, there are plenty of cases of governments not having jurisdiction over their territory but still retaining sovereignty. Think of the exiled governments of Norway and Kuwait in 1940 and 1990 respectively. Their territory was under the control of another power (Germany and Iraq) which exercised legal jurisdiction on the ground, but the governments-in-exile were still regarded as the sovereign authorities. When the wars ended, they returned home and resumed legal jurisdiction. -- ChrisO 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, your point on sovereignty vs legal jurisdiction is very good. Your proposal is NPOV while it is quite clear that those who oppose it (or similar texts) have a very clear political agenda / partisan view. That is fine with me (I even support it to a certain extent). But it should't be allowed to influence the wording used in a Wikipedia article.Osli73 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was about to quote the Annex 2 text but it seems ChrisO got there first. If Ferick/Ilir wants to comment, this is fine with me. If not, please let move on. We are way over the standard protection period limit. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Asterion. - Litany 21:48, 23 June (UTC)

You are making an absurd argument: A country has sovereignty over a part of territory that it controls. To be more precise, here is the definition of sovereignty from wikipedia:

Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme legislative, judicial, and/or executive authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty. Serbia has none of these rights over Kosovo, but it has all of these rights over Vojvodina. Bringing WWII examples is a far fetched comparison. The international community did not recognize Saddam Hussein’s and Hitler’s right to legislate over Kuwait and Norway, respectively! The fact of the matter is that Serbian laws do not apply to Kosovo for 7 years now, and this is recognized by international community. Does anybody dispute that Serbia has no legislative, judicial, and/or executive authority over Kosovo as of this moment? Perhaps we need to change the definition of sovereignty?

That is certainly your personal opinion. The fact that there are talks going on in Vienna demonstrate the opposite. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What is my personal point? I don't follow.....Ferick 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Serbia did not abandon, renounce or lose sovereignty over Kosovo in 1999. Formally, Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo is delegated to the United Nations. The key point of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 is that it reaffirmed Serbia's sovereignty ("the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"). Ferick may not like that but we have to deal with the world as it is, not how people would like it to be. I note that in all of the discussion above Ferick hasn't cited a single source, which makes it very clear that he's relying on his own inadmissible original research. -- ChrisO 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the article was put under protection in the first place? A one sided discussion will not resolve the issue- it will just postpone it. For which part of my assertion do you need sources? Everything I have said so far is common knowledge.Ferick 00:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving on

Further discussions on the intro seem to be pointless, as we've already reached broad agreement and Ferick's preferred version is simply inadmissible OR and POV. I've unprotected the article and added Osli's suggested version with minor tweaks for readability.

As for what to do next, there are still major problems with the article. In particular, much of it is unreferenced and the history section is far too long (it should be a summary of the main history article, not a mini-article in its own right). I suggest that we should trim the history section drastically - I'd say at least a 75% reduction - and move whatever we can out of that section and into the main history article. -- ChrisO 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not moving anywhere. There is been no agreement, just a one sided debate! Nice try. Ferick 00:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, I agree that the article could be improved considerably, including trimming the history section. As an economist, I would be willing to contribute to the Economy section.

Ferick, there has been an agreement by everyone except you. This intro may not be what you would prefer, but let's move on. I would very much like your help on finding sources (many likely in Albanian) for the article.Osli73 08:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this can be called an agreement, just because a bunch of Serbian editors, and some whom I suspect VERY MUCH of being sockpuppets or meatpuppets from all around, very well coordinated, have expressed "their" opinions. I will keep removing parts which are completely inflammatory. The current intro is worse than it was before protection was applied. Horrible. ilir_pz 11:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, there most certainly was an agreement by all editors, except you. To say that we are "a bunch of Serbian editors" just because we do not agree with your views is an example of paranoia. You seem to see a Serb bogeyman behind every bush.Osli73 20:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Asterion, Reinoutr, Osli73, Litany and myself are not Serbian or sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Don't assume that we are any of those things simply because we disagree with you. Frankly, I consider it an offensive claim and I'd like to remind you of our no personal attacks policy. Second, you and Ferick are blatantly pushing a personal POV that is not accepted by any reputable sources, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. If you continue, action will be taken against you. -- ChrisO 12:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Serbian people and I do not particularly care much about whether you call me a Serb or any of your pointless accusations. I guess this is a cheap attempt to demonise editors who you perceive as your opponents. As for sockpuppetry, I just want to point out these events decreased to almost nil, coinciding with a certain wikipedian's self-declared offline period. And to make this clearer, Ilir, you actually suggested once you would be switching to IP spoofing/open proxies, in case you forgot all about it. I let this be as it is my belief indeed that people are entitled to make mistakes as long as they change to realise the gravity of their actions. Nonetheless, I have no problem requesting a checkuser if this problem resurfaces. So, please, start by respecting the majority understanding. There is a lot to do with this article to bring it up to standards and edit-warring just keep good wikipedians away. I am personally growing fatigued of your personal attacks and revert wars. I have vouched for you in the past[12] but I am not willing to do this ever again. This has gone too far indeed. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, we will continue and there is nothing you can do about it. Nobody gives a rat’s ass about your threats. Being an administrator doesn’t mean you have the right to force other to toe your line. Your threats will amount to nothing, and you will fail. Ferick 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, if you are to function on Wikipedia you need to learn to compromise (as you need to do in the rest of the world). Believing that anyone who does not agree with your views on Kosovo has to be a Serbian nationalist (or hold such views) is paranoid extremism. Your foul language and vandalism will not only earn you a reputation as a fanatic, it will most likely end in getting you banned as well.Osli73 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong about there being "nothing you can do about it". Wikipedia's editing policies are enforcable, and there will be enforcement action if it's needed. But there's no need for it to come to that - if you stick to our basic policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS) there will be no problem. These are non-negotiable policies, so please don't think you can ignore them. -- ChrisO 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, neither of you seem to get it, but I will repeat: There was no agreement above, just a one sided debate. Therefore, all of your arguments are fallacious because they are base on the assumption that there was an agreement.

Since there is been no agreement, the struggle for the truth continues( notwithstanding harassments and threats)!Ferick 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How can it be "the truth" if you haven't found a single source to verify it? It's purely your personal original research and POV, therefore completely ineligible for inclusion. -- ChrisO 00:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"All of your arguments are fallacious because they are base on the assumption that there was an agreement".Ferick 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, since you (and Ilir) were so completely unwilling to compromise, produce any external sources for your interpretation or to participate constructively to the discussion at all, everyone else agreed on a version. So yes, there was agreement.Osli73 06:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilir, Ferick, where have you been for the last month? This is definitely going too far. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 06:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out the following on Ferick's talk page:

It's simple enough. The UNMIK constitutional framework page that you like to quote says nothing whatsoever about sovereignty, which is dealt with in UNSCR 1244. See the reference on that page to "pending a final settlement"? The "final settlement" is of the sovereignty issue, which is the fundamental issue in the current talks (see e.g. [13]). There wouldn't even be talks if Kosovo was already independent - there wouldn't be any need to discuss independence, would there?

Your preferred version fails on every count of our fundamental policies - it's blatantly POV, it's simply untrue, your source doesn't support it and it's original research (see What is excluded?). If you can find a reputable source that explicitly supports your position then we might think about including it. However, if you don't want to follow Wikipedia's fundamental policies then I suggest you go somewhere else.

(Same applies to Ilir, of course, as he's pushing the same version.) -- ChrisO 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, as is often the case with you people, things have to be repeated. If you want to rely on your beloved sovereignty, here you have it: According to wikipedia: Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme, legislative, judicial, and/or executive authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. Serbia has none of these rights over Kosovo. I suspect that neither of you will care to address this issue due to the fact that you don’t have any counter arguments.Ferick 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the need to argue about the exact meaning of the word, since it is not used in the introduction of the article. The article states that Kosovo is a de-jure part of Serbia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"I suspect that NONE of you will care to address this issue due to the fact that you don’t have any counter arguments". The issue is indeed sovereignty- see above.Ferick 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even Ceku accepts your theory. Why would there be talks with the Government of Serbia then? --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's pure POV-driven nonsense, I'm afraid. I note that (once again) Ferick has provided no sources that describe Kosovo as anything other than a de jure part of Serbia. Ferick, we have literally thousands of sources - books, newspaper reports, UN resolutions, encyclopedias, government papers etc etc - what do you have, besides rhetoric and selective quotations which never seem to refer to Kosovo's status? -- ChrisO 19:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"I suspect that NONE of you will care to address this issue due to the fact that you don’t have any counter arguments". Still waiting.....Ferick 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I really have no idea what issue you are exactly refering to. If you are talking about the meaning of the word sovereignty, I already explained that I see no use in discussing it, because it is not used in the introduction of the article. If you mean anything else, please try to explain what it is that you want to discuss. If you have a problem with the current introduction, please explain in clear english what the sentence is you object to, what your objection to that sentence is, and give references to neutral sources that support your opinion on the matter. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it’s implicit. Do you understand what that means in plain English? What else could you imply from this sentence: Kosovo is a part of Serbia? You have problems deconstructing English sentences? Let me know and I will try to write more descriptive ones.Ferick 21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy my friend, I should not have included the words in clear english, that was an inflammatory statement, my bad. But in my opinion, you still have not given neutral sources (other than resoluton 1244) for Kosovo not being in Serbia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ferick, I hope you understand that stating that (de-jure / technically / legally), Kosovo is a province in Serbia is not taking sides in any conflict - it's a statement of fact. All world governments agree on this, all maps show this and all other encyclopedias acknowledge this. Now Wikipedia does so as well. Saying this does not imply anything about the future of the province or constitute a judgement as to what that future should be. Please understand this. If you wish to make this article a forum for discussiong what the future of Kosovo should be, you have misunderstood the purpose of an Encyclopedia.Osli73 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The introductory sentence in the article does not say Kosovo is de jure part of Serbia: It simply says: Kosovo is one of two provinces in Serbia (the other being Vojvodina, in northern Serbia). It is misleading, and frankly an untrue statement to say that Kosovo has the same legal status as Vojvodina in the eyes of the law. Now, if your purpose is to mislead readers, then that sentence would be fine.

Contrary to popular believe here, I am not concerned too much about the future status of Kosovo. That has already been decided, and most level headed people know about it.

My primary goal here is to make the article resemble the actual reality. Right now it doesn’t! The initial statement has to reflect the fact that Kosovo is under the legal authority of the U.N, and that Serbia’s sovereignty over the region has been suspended indefinitely since 1999. Anything short of this is not acceptable because it doesn’t represent reality.Ferick 03:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the more baffling things to my mind about this dispute is that neither Ilir or Ferick have made any attempt to refute the vast number of sources that say that Kosovo is a province in Serbia. Is the CIA wrong? [14] Is the BBC wrong? [15] Tony Blair is meeting Vojislav Kostunica today to discuss Kosovo, among other issues - is he wrong to "urge [Kostunica] to accept the inevitability of independence for Kosovo, the breakaway Serbian province under United Nations administration, by the end of this year"? [16] If Ilir and Ferick's position is correct, it follows that everyone else is wrong and has been getting it consistently wrong for the last seven years. What do you think the chances are that our two editors are right and the world's major international organisations, governments, academics and media are all wrong? -- ChrisO 23:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the CIA has been wrong on several occasions in the recent years, but that’s beyond the scope of this argument. You want to mislead people into thinking that I am arguing against the fact that Kosovo is de jure part of Yugoslavia or Serbia or whatever creation you like. Most media use the word de jure in explicit terms when talking about Kosovo-so no; my opinion does not contradict the world. It is interesting to note, however, that you explicitly excluded the word de jure in the interdictory paragraph.

According to you: “Kosovo is one of two provinces in Serbia (the other being Vojvodina, in northern Serbia)”. What kind of impression would someone who reads this (a novice reader) get? Obviously a skewed version of reality!

As I said above, my primary goal here is to make the article resemble the actual reality. Right now it doesn’t! The initial statement has to reflect the fact that Kosovo is under the legal authority of the U.N, and that Serbia’s sovereignty over the region has been suspended indefinitely since 1999. Anything short of this is not acceptable because it doesn’t represent reality.

And just the fact that you tried to force the issue down our thoughts due to some phony agreement was not in keeping with your responsibilities as administrator. This in itself speaks volumes about the way you see your job!Ferick 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to make it exactly (not almost exactly as it is now) look like a version that Milosevic's regime would make, I propose that the intro removes the part that Kosovo is one of the two autonomous provinces, as in 1989 its constitution was abolished, and no province existed. Kosovo in a way is just as Sandjak is today, just a region in Serbia. What do you think? I like this idea, as then it would be much clearer that this version is a pure Serbian-government-fabricated version, and not as it is now, using weasel words to make it sound as neutral. Right now it is not a compromised version, but just an admin-proposed version which should not mean it is holly and untouchable. Call your senses people, making Kosovo seem equal in status as Vojvodina? Insanity has taken over in Wikipedia. ilir_pz 14:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Serbia never reversed the 1989 suspension. So Kosovo should not even have its page in wikipedia-everything should be pasted in the Serbia page. According to Serb Law, Kosovo is integral part of Serbia, not a province. What you say? Ferick 15:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)