Wikipedia

Talk:Kosovo/Archive 5

< Talk:Kosovo
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.176.182.41 (talk) at 17:40, 13 December 2004 (→POV claims about expulsions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk:Kosovo: Old resolved discussions are archived at Talk:Kosovo/Archive 1, Talk:Kosovo/Archive 2, Talk:Kosovo/Archive 3 and Talk:Kosovo/Archive 4

Nikola's reverts

Nikola has started to make reverts of ChrisO's version without any explanation at all; this kind of behavior, where he is ignoring the rest of the community and their input, as well as reverting to push his point, is against a number of wiki policies. GeneralPatton 20:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He's now broken the three revert rule. GeneralPatton 20:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To ChrisO

ChrisO, this regards your recent edits, which entailed the erasing or modification of some of my work on the article:

  • Why did you add again the claim that the Albanians drove 100,000 Serbs out of Kosovo during WWII and what neutral source of information did you use? Because the source quoted in Demographic history of Kosovo is some Serbian nationalist memorandum which is as credible as something Milosevic would say.
  • Why does the figure of the non-Albanian refugees from Kosovo continues to stand at some 300,000 people when the whole non-Albanian population of Kosovo was 300,000 in 1991 and when the UN quotes some 150,000 non-Albanians still living in Kosovo NOWADAYS? Where have these additional 150,000 people come from? And why you you give full credit to Serbian sources even when all other sources say the opposite thing?

I am not blaming you for partiality to the Serbian cause, I am sure that you want to contribute to the writing of a neutral and valid article. However, it starts getting increasingly evident that you and several other editors are giving way to the press exerted (particularly) by Nikola Smolenski and forget that the historical truth lies in fact, not with those who scream louder. VMORO

Well if historical truth lies in fact VMORO is just shouting quite loudly to no avail. The whole non-Albanian population of Kosovo in 1991 was 360,000. Keep note, that was in 1991.
--Igor 02:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nope, Igor, you can't count - 340,000 in 1991, as compared to 200,000-220,000 according to the UN approximation for 2002. Which leaves us with how much? 120,000-140,000 *ethncally cleansed* non-Albanians. Can you point me out where exactly I *was shouting loudly to no avail* 'cause I don't seem to be able to see it? ~~VMORO
All that said, Chris revision of the article is still by far the better and more balanced one compared to some of Nikola’s work.GeneralPatton 23:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

Absolutely, Patton, but even his work is still tipped over to the Serbian side. And he has not even bothered to answer my questions. Besides, some of the data here and in Demographic history of Kosovo are grossly manipulated (and one can easily guess who did it). For example, Yugoslav census 1921 posted 430,000 Albanians in Yugoslavia and the map made after the census portrays Kosovo as predominantly Albanian. Despite that, here and in the other article, an idea is given that interwar Kosovo was predominantly Serbian. VMORO

Nikola tends to ignore talk, it's a reoccurring thing with him. He also tends to have some extreme viewpoints, such as that the ICTY is "illegitimate" in his words and that Srebrenica numbers have been "inflated". He’s even admitted in chat that he systematically promotes a certain positions on things (i.e. Serbian hard-line one). You really can't expect a true NPOV from him, but we can do our best to counterbalance his stuff and make the articles closer to the truth. GeneralPatton 23:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Albanian recognition

Does Albania actually recognise the parallel government? Where is this written? Thanks! Intrigue 23:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Relocated?

The Serbian security forces "relocated" Albanians? Heh, did they also permanently relocate those they killed? It would be funny if it weren't for people's lives that we were talking about Nikola. Dori | Talk

Nikola objects to the following sentences in the Demographics sections (I've bolded the relevant bits for clarity, with Nikola's suggested words in italics):

The population is currently comprised of almost a 90% majority of Albanians, estimated at 80% prior to the Kosovo War of 1999 except for a brief interlude during the war as many of them fled the province or were expelled/relocated by Serbian security forces.

The refugees were clearly expelled. The evidence for this is overwhelming; it was reported by literally thousands of people, and the OSCE's postwar report (http://www.osce.org/kosovo/documents/reports/hr/part1/ch14.htm) does a good job of summarising the evidence. The expulsions are also a big element of Milosevic's war crimes indictment. I don't think it's credible to refer to this episode as "relocation" when it was clearly much more than that.

In the aftermath of the war, many thousands of Serbs and non-Albanians (especially Romas) left/fled the province for fear of reprisals from the returning Kosovo Albanian refugees.

I don't know why Nikola is deleting the last part of this sentence. Doing so leaves open the question of why the non-Albanians fled, even though it was very clearly because they feared that the returning refugees or KLA would attack them. This was reported in both Western and Serbian news sources that at the time. See, for instance, "Kosovo's Serbs flee in fear" [1], "Kosovo's Serb exodus" [2] and "Serb refugees return to Kosovo" [3], all of which refer to Serbs fleeing because they "fear that K-For will not - or cannot - protect them from guerrillas of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), who have been coming down from the mountains to return to their towns and villages." -- ChrisO 13:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually ChrisO, all three sources that you give are British, BBC, none of them is Serbian. Serbian sources [4] and [5] speak of something quite different. And so do some other neutral sources such as Human Rights Watch:
When ethnic Albanians returned to Kosovo with the entry of NATO, Kosovo?s Serb, Roma, and other minorities were immediately subjected to violence, causing a massive outflow of non-Albanians from Kosovo.8 High levels of violence against non-Albanian communities?much of it politically-motivated and organized?continued for months, with the international troop presence and U.N. administration largely ineffective in stopping the violence.
--Igor 02:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I recall the reports of postwar revenge attacks. OK - I think we need to add a sentence to say something like: "Thousands more were driven out by intimidation, revenge attacks and a wave of crime after the war as KFOR struggled to restore order in the province." -- ChrisO 10:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thousands? here's the data
22,000 to Bosnia, 63,000 to Serbia, 70,000 to Montenegro, 242,000 to (FYRO)Macedonia, 445,000 to Albania (mid June 1999). Assuming that the flux into Serbia-MG-Bosnia was non-ethnic-Albanian, we get 155,000 "others" and 687,000 ethnic Albanians, meaning 18% of the fleeing people were non-ethnic-Albanian. compare that with the "80% Albanian" claim in the demographics and you get a flow that shows no ethnic bias but a jump of an order of magnitude triggered by the NATO intervention.
Nope, I don' want to assume any such thing as the refugees to Bosnia and Montenegro were all Albanians, which in its turn signifies that your calculations are of no use ~~VMORO


The UNHCR's Kosovo Crisis Updates have some demographic information about the refugees. It's not accurate to say that those fleeing to BH and Montenegro were all Albanians, although it's safe to say that the vast majority were. Here's what UNHCR has to say:
At peak there were nearly 22,000 Kosovar refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of whom around half came after the start of NATO airstrikes in March 1999. The others fled into Bosnia over a period of around one year, following the outbreak of hostilities in Kosovo in March 1998. Most of the Kosovars who have gone to Bosnia have been ethnic Albanians, but there are also quite a few Roma — currently estimated at around 1,000. 20% are estimated to have arrived in 1998, 50% shortly after the start of NATO airstrikes, and the remainder after the peace settlement. [6]
I've not found much information about the demographics of the Montenegro refugees but again they appear to have been mainly Albanian. There is a question mark about the 63,000 who are said to have gone to Serbia. The map you quoted says "[as of] mid-June 1999", which would include the people who fled at the end of the war - I would guess that these are largely Serbs and Roma, but it's possible that some Albanians may have gone to the Sandjak or the Albanian-populated parts of southern Serbia (Preševo etc).
The "As Seen, As Told" document corroborates the evidence. In Chapter 14, one reads: In addition, more than 100,000 Serb IDPs are estimated to have left Kosovo and to have been registered in Serbia and Montenegro. Source: UNHCR, Geneva, 15 October 1999. Doesn't that number represent about 50% of the pre-war ethnic Serb population of Kosovo? Themos


As for the question of whether the refugee crisis was "triggered by the NATO intervention", postwar analyses of the refugee flows shows quite clearly that it was not [7].-- ChrisO 16:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


That is not what that analysis shows. The Policy or Panic document only looks at refugee flows during the period of NATO intervention. It is hence incapable of detecting whether anything was triggered by the NATO intervention, since it does not extend the study to before and after. But we can easily see (because we know that the refugee flows were orders of magnitude smaller before), that, indeed, the NATO intervention triggered the refugee crisis (crisis meaning an escalation, here). Themos


saying "as KFOR struggled to restore order in the province" is partisan. No doubt the same claim is made by any authority to legitimise its presence. -- Themos
Not at all. Law and order had clearly broken down in Kosovo. One of KFOR's first tasks was to restore it. KFOR had a lot of difficulty in achieving this initially. It didn't need to "legitimise" its presence by doing this, as its presence had already been legitimised - the Yugoslav and Serbian governments had surrendered law enforcement responsibilities in the agreement to end the war. -- ChrisO 16:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Would you accept a wording that "the MUP struggled to restore order"? If not, why would you accept the same about KFOR? We already know that during the MUP's reign, the ethnic balance in Kosovo was not significantly affected while during KFOR's reign , it was. Is the ethnic cleansing of Serbs what you mean by order? Claimimg that KFOR's presence is legitimate because the opponent surrendered is quite interesting but would land you into some pretty untenable positions if applied to WW2 Europe. Themos


This is an interesting discussion, perhaps lacking some background to tie it together. Quite a few Serbs left Kosovo during the bombing for safety in Serbia proper, but very many (quite possibly half) left as NATO entered, mostly to Serbia proper but also to Montenegro (which is ethnically Serbian). Many thousands still live there, mostly in temporary camps or abandoned schools and the like - I visited a few whilst in Belgrade working at one of the western Embassies. All of them are quite clear about why they left: fear. All non-Albanians were clear that NATO moving in would mean a return of the KLA and of all those ethnic Albanian Kosovars who had so recently fled to Macedonia and Albania. Even prior to the bombing, ordinary Serbs had lived in fear of a wave of kidnappings and murders or Serbs by Albanians - it was this that led to the massive overreaction by Milosevic and the arrival of gangs of murderous thugs from Serbia (moslty Bosnian war veterans) who began to attack Albanians. So, when the Albanians returned, most Serbs left in fear of reprisals. Senior NATO figures often say that they regret that more was not done at the time to prevent Albanian voilence and encourage Serbs to remain. Those Serbs who do remain in Kosovo live in a climate of fear, and are mosty unable to leave the Serbian areas; a wave of voilence earlier this year, with gangs of Albanians laying seige to the Serbian enclaves, led to the destruction of homes and churches (including a number of historically important medieval monastries) and more Serbs left for Serbia proper - all of this was well covered by media.

The problem of 'returns' of Serbs to Kosovo is one of UNMIKs biggest headaches. Most are living in terrible conditions in Serbia proper, but are still unwilling to return out of fear for their security; they would return if they could be placed in more secure, perhaps Serbian-majority areas. Ethnic Albanians do not want them to return, partially because that would mean a larger non-Albanian voting population, but also because the abandoned homes of all those departed Serbs are now occupied by - guess who? The international community does want the Serbs to return, but cannot be seen to support mass returns to new settlements, as this would be seen as supporting the Serbian case for evential partition of Kosovo (one of the possible solutions to 'Final Status') - only return to 'point of origin' (ie. their original homes) is countenanced, but these have either been destroyed or occupied by ethnic Albanians. All rather difficult. (JD)

Interesting paper

Here are two interesting papers that touch on the Kosovo in the 80s and mythmaking ...

http://www.amid.dk/pub/papers/AMID_34-2004_Diken_&_Bagge_Laustsen.pdf

http://www.ichrp.org/ac/excerpts/50.pdf

GeneralPatton 13:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Fear of reprisals"

My concern is that saying "many thousands of Serbs and non-Albanians (especially Romas) left the province for fear of reprisals from the returning Kosovo Albanian refugees" suggests that

  1. the number of those leaving was under 10,000
  2. reprisals were not in fact carried out, only the fear drove them out
  3. the violence is attributed to returning refugees in general, tarring all Kosovo Albanians with the same brush.

All of these are wrong and the text should be made more explicit. So: "many thousands" should be "tens of thousands", "for fear of reprisals" should be "following a wave of violence" and "from ...refugees" should be "by Albanian-nationalist militant organisations". -- Themos 09:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you read "many thousands" to mean "under 10,000". The reason I originally used "many thousands" is simply because nobody seems to be able to agree how many left Kosovo. If you use "tens of thousands" you will, I'm sure, find people changing that to "hundreds of thousands" or some random number. The wording is just a way of conveying the scale without getting into disputed numbers.
We would not (and should not) talk about "hundreds of ethnic Albanians killed in Kosovo during the war" or of "tens of Yugoslavs killed by the bombing" just to avoid disputed numbers. The way to deal with disputed numbers is to present verifiable estimates from as many sources as we can.Themos
I take your point about tarring all the Albanians with the same brush. However, I don't think it's accurate to say "Albanian-nationalist militant organisations" were solely responsible for the violence. The point was that many Serbs believed that their former neighbours would take revenge for being expelled - given the amount of weapons in circulation, it was understandable that they would see any aggrieved Albanian as a threat. Perhaps we should say something like "from armed militants or former refugees seeking revenge"? -- ChrisO 11:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
two points: a) we need some data on the actual violent acts that happened as NATO went in. I remember reports of houses being burned, looting, etc. The factual basis for the fear should be made clear. b) do we use the word "revenge" for the attacks on ethnic Albanians? I think it was quite clear (from victims reports) that the attackers thought they were taking "revenge" for the NATO bombing when they attacked what they considered NATO's "allies". The problem with the word "revenge" is that it is intrinsically partisan. All sides tend to excuse excesses as "revenge".Themos


I'm a former diplomat and have spent time in Kosovo. Voilence on both sides was carried out in part by armed groups (paramilitaries on the Serb side, the KLA on the Albanian) but also by groups of individual Albanians, mostly young men of course, perhaps motivated or directed by KLA-types. We saw this again earlier this year, with large groups of Albanians destroying Serb homes across Kosovo (see media reports). Guess this does implicate the returning refugess, but most will understand that only a minority were involved in violence. (JD)


Dear JD, I appreciate your comments and I believe you have a rather good understanding of the situation in the Balkans. Nonetheless, you forgot to mention another important factor, i.e. the number of properties that Serbs have sold since the end of the NATO bombing. In case you were not aware of this, a large number of Serb properties have been sold legally and willingly. In particular, the majority of flats owned by Serbs in the capital Prishtina have been sold. Now, these Serbs will never go back to Kosova because they do not want to go back. You need to remember that Serbs under Yugoslavia (that is, since the Ottomans left) have been the priveledged ethnic group in Kosova. Now they know that that will never be the case again, and rightly so. They understand that if the unemployment rate in Kosova is going to be 40 per cent, so will be the unemployment rate for Kosovar Serbs. No longer will a Serb be the director, and the Albanian will do the "dirty" job for them (dirty as in hard labour). This ought to be made clear. High on the list of "new realities" is also the fact that nowadays if a Serb wants to address an Albanian, he or she may need to do so in Albanian. If a Serb man wants to pay an electricity bill, he will probably need to speak some Albanian, not that any Kosovar Serb is paying any electricity bills these days. And so on. Put differently, there will no longer be priviledged ethnic groups in Kosova.
Kosovar Serbs know these issues very well. They may say different things in public, to a diplomat like yourself, or indeed in front of the media. However, the matter of the fact is that a great number of Serbs have sold they properties in Kosova and they won't be going back. Let me illustrate this with an example: the supposedly Serb-owned houses in a small village just outside Mitrovica (the name of the village is Frashër in Albanian, I do not know and do not want to know the Serb name) were attacked by a group of angry Albanians, only to discover that the majority of the houses were Albanian-owned (purchased after the NATO bombing). But, it was too late, the houses were demanged and the Albanian owners kept this quite bacause they knew that the houses would only be rebuild if they were Serb-owned. Similar stories are coming out of other places too.
A quite update in the meantime, 95 per cent of the damaged houses from the March riots have been completely renewed, the other 5 per cent are in the process of being renewed.
Also, we must never fail to mention that Kosova today has a policy of positive discrimination in politics. In fact, Albanians have shown themselves to be gentlemen enough to give no less than 20 out of 120 seats of the Kosova Assembly to minorities, 10 of which go to Serbs. Does Serbia do this for Albanians from the Presheva valley: No! Do the Macedonians have any such policies where 25 per cent of the population is Albanian: No! How about Montenegro where 5 per cent of the population consists of Albanians: No! In addition, two ministries of the Kosovar Government are reserved for Serbs, plus one more for non-Serbs non-Albanians. This shows that if Kosovar Serbs really want to help themselves and improve their lives, they can because there is the political will and there will be a political will in the future. But, will they run the state, hand-pick the best jobs, enjoy priveledges in issues like language and so on, the answer is NO! So, they have to make their own mind.--Kosovar 01:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Kosovar - some very important points. Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo were quite clearly discriminated against for all of the modern period. Worth remembering, though, that under the post-war Communist system, which continued unchanged until the fall of Milosevic, virtually everyone was discriminated against across Yugoslavia. None had the legitimate democratic and economic rights that most of us now enjoy. That Serb Communists appointed fellow Serb Communists to choice positions in Kosovo is no surprise, and as democrats we would all (Serb, Albanian and all of us) have opposed such favouritism. No doubt there was also a degree of discrimination on purely ethnic/religious grounds. Such favouritism also existed, for instance, in Northern Ireland, until modern legislation against discrimination was able to tilt the balance and amend (though not overturn) those historical wrongs. So It is still regrettable that, in Kosovo, the situation has been reversed by equally bad discrimination against Kosovo Serbs: you're right to say that Serbs have been voluntarily leaving Kosovo for a very long time, but a far larger number are forced to sell their property as the threat of violence against them prevents them living there. Past langauge discrimination against Albanians is no excuse for current langauge discrimination (on threat of voilence!) against Serbs. There are certainly wrongs to be righted, but the present situation is only creating more wrongs and so generating future conflict.

I also take your point as regards 'positive discrimination' in politics towards Kosovo Serbs. Every territory of the former Yugoslavia has had to find a balance between its ethnic groups. In Bosnia, the Federation is balanced equally between Serb and non-Serb, each with its own entity, and with sub-entity Cantons allowing balance at a local level. Ethinically divided countries across the world have adopted some type of 'federation' to balance ethnic groups - Canada is one example. Why not a similar solution for Kosovo? Cantonisation or entity-isation would give Serbs in Kosovo a real say in how government works, which the current position (a permanent minority in the assembly) does not. Most ethnic Albanians would oppose this - why? Because they fear a partition of Kosovo? If Serbia is to be partitioned along ethnic lines (with majority-Albanian Kosovo secceeding), why should Kosovo not be partitioned along ethnic lines, with majority-Serbian areas reverting to Serbia? It strikes me that Serbs in Kosovo are willing to consider all solutions, including complete independence, yet ethnic Albanians/Kosovars are not. I hope this does not sound 'pro-Serb' - I would jump equally quickly to the defence of ethnic Albanian rights, and supported the NATO intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing. The unintended consequences seem to have been pretty bad though - perhaps the international community should be using its money and its soldiers to enforce some balance?

Another important point - if we are see real reconciliation in Kosovo, as across the Balkans, we should make sure that those who committed war crimes on all sides are dealt with equally. I suppose you would support the arrest and trial in the Hague of any Kosovo Albanians indicted for such crimes? Something on this issue should perhaps be included on the main page, as the potential indictment of senior Kosovo ALbanian leaders could lead to voilence (most likely against the international community and NATO forces). (JD)


Dear JD, thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your time and effort.
When I wrote about discrimination and favouritism on ethnic grounds in Kosovo, I did not mean only the discrimination in the former Yugoslavia pre-1991. That discrimination did change after the fall of comunism -- Serbs took this discrimination and favouritism to levels never seen or heard before. Kosovar Serbs (approx. 8 per cent of the population) that I know think that they should be priveledged in Kosovo, in politics as well as public services. They think (not only expect) that Kosovar Albanians must speak to them in Serbian only. Although I respect your opinion, I totally disagree that currently there is a language discrimination against Serbs. I know a few Serb MPs, they speak Serbian in the Parliament, every law passed by the Assembly is available in Serbian, every official document is available in Serbian, they can fill in any application form in Serbian, there are TV and Radio stations, newspapers in Serbian -- surely you cannot call this a discrimination. I would love to hear about what you call a "current language discrimination".
It is interesting that you mentioned the divisions along ethnic lines. Why is it that you fail to suggest similar solutions for Macedonia, Montenegro and southern Serbia (Presheva-Medvegja-Bujanoc region)? The latest cencus in Macedonia shows that over 25 per cent of the population is Albanian, yet noone mentions partition of Macedonia (for your information, Albanians do not want the partition of Macedonia, I hope you do not subscribe to such rubish). Isn't it shameful that Albanians in Macedonia had to take up arms for their right to use their mother tongue in schools, and against discrimination in the public services, police, military and so on -- yet Serbs in Kosovo are granted these rights by default. Albanians in Macedonia today have far fewer rights than the Kosovar Serbs, nonetheless they represent at least a quarter of the population of Macedonia. Why is it that they don't have the right to "cantonisation or entity-isation", as you put it? Additionally, Albanians in Montenegro today are in the same numbers as Kosovar Serbs in Kosovo, nevertheless they cannot use Albanian language in the higher education, not to mention "cantonisation or entity-isation". The Government of Montenegro has shown itself to be very mature and responsible, and I have nothing but praise for them, but I must mention it to show you (and others) that what you seem to suggest represents nothing else other then double-standards. Last but not least, what about the Presheva-Medvegja-Bujanoc region in southern Serbia? They have a large Albanian population, border Kosovo and are as you would describe a "a permanent minority". Why can't they have the right to "cantonisation or entity-isation"? I am afraid JD, you will have to answer a great deal of questions before you can ask me, or any other Kosovar Albanian whether we oppose divisions along ethnic lines. Let us not forget that the current borders of Kosovo existed even in the former Yugoslavia (pre-1991) and their is strong basis for Kosovo secceeding. It is not the case, as you seem to suggest, that there are some Albanian-inhabited villages in a part of former Yugoslavia, hence let us make up a border over there.
I do not think that you or your views are 'pro-Serb', as there is no real reason for you or anyone else to side with one ethnic group. Unfortunately, this is a paranoia that has been widely embraced by a vast number of Serbs in their belief that the "world is against Serbia". I do not suffer from such feelings, and rightly so.
Before I move to the next topic, I would like you to know about one more thing. Serbia and the Serbs had a great chance to save themselves and their country (Serbia, not Kosovo) -- and at the same time stop Kosovo from becoming independent in the very near future. That great chance was offered to them (and Kosovar Albanians) in Rambouillet, France. Oh well, as you know, they blew it up! The chose a different path: all or nothing. Stupidly, they went on to flight the strongest powers in the world, and in the end, of course, they were left with nothing. That is why you need not feel sorry for the consequences, intentional or unintentional.
This is why my friend Serbia is, as you put it, willing to consider all solutions. If only some of that willingness existed back in early spring 1999.
If you read carefully, you must have noticed that I wrote stop Kosovo from becoming independent in the very near future. Kosovo was going to become independent sooner or later, no doubt about that. One can never force a solution on 90 per cent, or even more (since the majority of non-Albanian non-Serb Kosovars support the independence) of the population of a country. Only the people of Kosovo can and will decide about their own future and the future of their country, make no mistake about it.
Finally, with regards to the Hague tribunal, Kosovar Albanians are by far the strongest supporters of the ICTY. You are wrong in thinking that Kosovar Albanians do not stand for justice for all (all as in Albanians, Croats, Slovenians, Serbs, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Bosnians). The Hague tribunal has thus far charged 3 Kosovar Albanians and all three today are under the ICTY custudy. None of them refused to go there nor did anyone encourage them to hide, like the Serbs do for example. In Albanian culture true heros do not hide - that is alien to us. Today, as always, Kosovar Albanians are ready for complete and unreserved cooperation with the ICTY, regardless of whom they investigate and subsequently may or may not charge. I do not subscribe, not should you or anyone else, to the Serb propaganda that ICTY is afraid of charging Kosovar Albanians. I cannot image for a second Carla Del Ponte (whom I admire) hesitating to charge an individual or group if there is a case against them. In fact such a thought makes me laugh, and there is nothing else but to feel sorry for such people.
My final message: do not speculate, it is no good for your health. Kind regards -- Kosovar 04:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Think we're in danger of getting moved from this page. But this is a good discussion. Let take language first (also see my points below). I certainly did not intend to say that there was no discrimination post-1991. If anything, it was probably worse as the whole ethnic 'balance' (!!) of Yugoslavia was destroyed by the death of Tito. From 1991 until 2000 the system within Serbia (and inlcuding Kosovo here) was based on the Communist system with increasingly nationalist elements. You cannot blame this system on the Serbs. It was the fault of a post-WWII world obsessed by the Cold War; the rights of minorities and the democratic and human rights of all were undermined in places across the world. After 1991, the Serb nationalists, primarily Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies were guilty for the continuation and worsening of discrimination; many, many Kosovo Serbs, as you well know, opposed Milosevic and would have worked (some more than others) to find a balance in Kosovo. The reaction of some Kosovo Albanians to this discrimination was unacceptable - particularly the kidnappings and murder of ordinary citizens of Kosovo. And the reaction to this by the Millosevic government, by then tipping over into a dictatorship, was even more unacceptable, and so the West interevened. None of this excuses any discrimination now. We start with a clean slate. As the UNMIK constitutional framework states (http://www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm), all have the right to: (a) Use their language and alphabets freely, including before the courts, agencies, and other public bodies in Kosovo; (b) Receive education in their own language; (c) Enjoy access to information in their own language; (d) Enjoy equal opportunity with respect to employment in public bodies at all levels and with respect to access to public services at all levels; e) Enjoy unhindered contacts among themselves and with members of their respective Communities within and outside of Kosovo; (f) Use and display Community symbols, subject to the law. As you well know, the reaction in central Pristina to someone speaking in Serbian would be unpredictable but certainly unfreindly. Given the events of earlier this year, all Kosovo Serbs are afraid to use their language and symbols outside of the Serbian areas - this is completely unacceptable. Protected areas within the Parliament or courts are really not enough. Do you accept that ordinary Serbs are unable to use their language freely outside of the Serb areas? Is this not discrimination, as bad or worse than was committed (in language terms ONLY) against the Kosovo Albanians?

On entities etc. I agree with almost all your points; there needs to be either a more consistent approach to the 'solutions' for ethnic balance across the Balkans, or at least an agreement why this inconsistencies occur. I don't think (and nor do 'negotiators') that historical precedence is sufficient to exert a claim for or against a degree of self-determination. If Kosovo/a had never been self-administering, would you think you had less of a claim to independence? Of course not. Ultimately, as you say, the solution has a lot to do with the treatment of one 'side' by another. In Montenegro the situation has been historically better (but by no means perfect) than elsewhere; this is why there is less pressure for change. I had originally intended to respond to your point about Serbian representation in Parliament - and I think my points now fit within this discussion. If the Serbs in Kosovo NOW feel that they are being discriminated against, it is legitimate and unsurprising if they demand greater defences against this - a range of solutions from stronger legal rights, stronger influence over democratic institutions, or even, finally, a split. If Motenegro started to abuse its ethnic Albanian population, they would be within their rights to demand seccession; same for Serbs in Kosovo; same for Albanians in southern Serbia. Of course, whether or not they get what they want depends on: a) how forcefully or effectivly they pursue their goals and b) what the international community supports. And this is the dilemma for us all - and the only solution I can see is to try and reduce discontent; the only way I can see the international community allowing an independent Kosovo is if the Serbs are (relatively) content to live there. Events such as those of earlier this year, and discrimnation against Serbs as perceived by Serbs and by internationals such as myself actively undermine the case for Kosovo independence. I guess its a case of rights (to self-determination) entailing responsibilities (to not abuse your minorities). Serbia got it wrong and was punished; I suspect the IC will not risk the same in an independent Kosovo. Thoughts?

Totally agree with your points on the Serbs (or, more precisley, the Serbian state as run by Milosevic and his political allies) getting it wrong again and again. Eveything 'done' to the Serbs from 1991 up to now are in large part the fault of Milosevic, Seselj, Karadzic , Mladic and so on. Ordinary Serbs, as I am sure you will agree, were powerless to resist, just as you yourself were powerless to resist the destruction of Serb homes and churches in Kosovo earlier this year. To link in whit the preceeding point, there is a risk if a country/government/people gets it wrong, then the international community will interevene. It has intervened in the Balkans and nothing will happen to Kosovo without the support of the IC - if Kosovo Albanians acknowledge this they will more likely get what they want; and if they do not there is a real risk of losing the prize they have sought for so long.

On ICTY. Some good points. I do seem to remeber than certain of the K Albanian ICTY indictees may have not gone to the Hague SO willingly. It took a while to 'find' one or two of them, then they appeared after behind the scenes discussions with the politicians. But, in the end, they did go, all credit to them. You're right to say that 3 K Albanians (do you mind me putting it that way, I do also mean Kosovars, but we need a common reference) have gone to the Hague, but the right words would be that 3 have been openly charged; there are certainly a number of 'closed indictments' which are not public. Closed indictments exist where there is sufficient evidence for a case but where publication would reduce the chance of bringing the indictee to court or where a public indictment would cause other problems. This is not Carla del Ponte hesitating to charge; these people have been charged, just not yet publicly. It is these closed indictments which are source of speculation, some of it well informed (and I do not include Covic here, although as you well know, he is often well-informed), that very senior K Albanian politicians might be the subject of closed indictments which at some point will become open, requiring those people to stand trial. My question was - what would be result? How would the political parties, former KLA types and ordinary Kosovars react? This is, as I am sure you agree, an important question - and of more than just acadmeic interest. (JD)

Moved history

The article was getting far too long - well above the recommended 32KB limit - so I've moved the history section to History of Kosovo. -- ChrisO 11:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Number of refugees

First, as I said, the way in which this page is moved has insulted me and I find it insultive to comment here since; I hope that this exception will be appreciated.

For the sake of sanity, I will pretend that none of this hasn't been pointed out numerous times already.

I can not comprehend why are sysops reverting the article to the version with lower number of refugees, when that lowered number is provided without any justification and, as I said, references for the higher number were provided numerous times.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040203102745/http://www.serbia.sr.gov.yu/coordination_centre/index.html gives number of refugees as 242,381 and estimates that there are 50,000 more unregistered refugees. UNHCR Global Report 2001 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (to obtain it you may go to http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home?page=search and search for "Yugoslavia") at page 1 gives number of registered refugees as 231,000, report from 2002 at page 9 gives it as 263,600 and report from 2003 at page 1 gives it as 234,826. Note that both sources include only refugees inside SCG, and only registered refugees, so the actual number is higher. As after initial wave of violence some refugees have returned to safe areas, initial number of refugees in 1999 was even higher. So you can see that number of refugees in 1999 is probably even higher than 300,000; it would be fine with me to say something like "more than 250,000" but lowering the number two or threefold is not acceptable in any way. And of course, despite what VMORO might claim, UNHCR is not Serbian source. Secondary sources do take over these figures. For example, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1226542.htm mentions that "Some 200,000 Serbs fled the province"; the first link above gives the number of Serbs (for there are non-Serbs who have fled the province) as 226000. http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/yugoslavia.htm gives "The 277,000 internally displaced people in Yugoslavia" (in 2002).

As for discrepancies between censa and number of refugees, it should be noted that both 1991 Yugoslav and 2002 UNMIK's censa are ESTIMATES of the province's population while refugees are REGISTERED individually; in order to get aid, each refugee must proove to be from the province and register. This is why their EXACT number is known, and as could be seen, the sources don't round the numbers but give them accurate to the last digit. The fact that the numbers don't add up means that estimates are wrong, not that number of refugees is wrong. Further, UNMIK's censa include people who are internally displaced within Kosovo; they are still refugees.

Nikola 12:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV claims about expulsions

Leaving aside the refugee figures, I've removed a statement that Nikola keeps adding:

"many foreign governments, human rights groups and international organisations claim that they were expelled by Serbian security forces, though they are sometimes disbelieved because of their connectedness to NATO."

This is unsatisfactory for a couple of reasons. It's factually incorrect, as it was the refugees themselves who said that they had been forcibly expelled. Ignoring or denying this simply isn't credible. It's also not much more than innuendo to claim that there is a link between NATO and the human rights groups and international organisations stating that there were mass expulsions - the obvious implication is that organisations such as Human Rights Watch, the OSCE, UNHCR etc are just fronts for NATO, which is disputable to say the least. -- ChrisO 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some refugees said that they had been forcibly expelled. Whether they were speaking the truth, represent typical refugees, or were expelled in a typical way is a matter of conjecture.
And if it is a matter of conjecture, then it matters who is making that conjecture. I don't say that OSCE, UNHCR etc. are fronts for NATO. It's almost the opposite: NATO, OCSE, UN and other organisations are all fronts for their member states and their political goals.
To take OSCE as an example:
  • OSCE expelled FRY from its membership in OSCE in a way contrary to OSCE's charter
  • OSCE sent a verification mission to Kosovo to se whether there are human rights violations by Yugoslav government
  • Results of its findings were used to justify NATO's bombing of FRY
  • Its chief "discovered" "Racak massacre", which was used by NATO as pretext for the bombing
  • On the other hand, OSCE didn't sent a verification mission to Yugoslavia to see whether there were some human rights violations commited by NATO countries in the course of their bombing
And now, a report by OSCE is taken as a proof that Kosovo Albanians are expelled from the province? This is laughable to say the least.
To suggest that NATO member countries, who are all also OSCE member countries, would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on bombing of Yugoslavia, but would then allow OSCE to produce a report unfavourable to them (which would then likely result in spending more than hundreds of billions of dollars on reparations) would mean to think that their politicians are all schyzophrenics. To make long story short, you believe that refugees are expelled; but suppose that they aren't. Would OSCE's report be any different? Of course it wouldn't. So you can't take it as an evidence that the refugees are expelled.
Same goes for NGOs. In true spirit of NPOV, in a piece of the article now in History of Kosovo, a statement by European Stability Initiative (for which I've never heard until I saw it on Wikipedia) gains as much space as SCG's report. If we look who's funding the ESI[8], we see:
  • Department for International Development, UK, a NATO member
  • European Commission, most countries are NATO members
  • Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada, a NATO member
  • Udenriksministeriet, Germany, a NATO member
  • Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, The Netherlands, a NATO member
  • US Mission to NATO (no comment)
  • Commonwealth Office, UK, a NATO member
  • Utenriksdepartementet, Norway, a NATO member
  • King Baudouin Foundation, Belgium, a NATO member
I don't know why, but to me it seems that there might be some link between NATO and this particular human rights group, and that it might have been financed by some NATO members, who possibly might want for it to produce a report favourable to them.
To conslude, I don't understand how some people can think that OSCE, UNHCR etc. are not influenced by NATO; but I understand that there are some people who think so. But what I truly don't understand is how there are people who think so and don't understand that there are other people who think differently. Nikola 12:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't compete with conspiracy theories, because I know that you won't believe anything I have to say. I will say, though, that I know from my personal experience with (some of) those organisations that they don't work in the way that you claim. For instance, the OSCE represents 55 countries - it's based in a neutral country (Austria), NATO countries are in a minority and there are pro-Serb countries in its membership, such as Belarus and Russia. It's fair to say that it's working increasingly closely with NATO, but that's because its role is increasingly overlapping with that of NATO (i.e. promoting peace and democratisation). It's also fair to say that it's taken some positions that are similar to those of NATO, but again that's because it has a similar set of core values (i.e. human rights and democracy). Outside Serbia and the Serbian community, I don't think many people seriously doubt that the OSCE was telling it as it saw it in Kosovo.
You take it as given that NATO promotes peace and democratisation and its core values are human rights and democracy. The given is that this is what NATO claims. The actions of NATO in Turkey suggest a very different reality.Themos
I think it's up to you to prove your case of an anti-Serb conspiracy, rather than for everyone else to have to prove a negative. I note that you haven't produced any evidence ("it seems ... there might ... it might..." etc). A matter of conjecture, right? -- ChrisO 00:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The only person mentioning any conspiracy is you. I never claimed such a thing. For example, ESI's donors are proudly listed at ESI's web site where everyone can see them. Have I claimed that NATO is financing ESI secretly, while there are other donors listed on it's page, that would be a conspiracy theory.
Anyway, this is a non-issue. As you say yourself, "Outside Serbia and the Serbian community, I don't think many people seriously doubt..."; that POV, which you acknowledge to exist, as POV in one of the two sides in the conflict, is notable.
(And "it seems ... there might ... it might..." part is irony.) Nikola 21:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no problem with you including this stuff in the article, as long as you attribute it to someone. As it stands at the moment, it's both your opinion and weasel words, but it ceases to be so if you can attribute it to some Serbian organisation, person or thing. I don't think it'd be that hard to find a quote from someone like Seselj which would get the point across. Ambi 01:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know of one interview in which it is suggested that the KLA contributed to the movement of ethnic Albanians, but there is no confirmation or investigation of these claims that I know of. Themos

emperors-clothes.com is far from being a credible source about this issue, its like using stormfront.org for Holocaust. It's an anti-NATO/US/EU propaganda site. GeneralPatton 18:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Nikola seems to be rambling a bit but I think he has a valid point. I'm a former diplomat, having served in the region and worked on Kosovo. Some background - increasing Albanian discontent and voilence against Serbs in Kosovo led to a massive Serbian police against the KLA, with about as much subtlty as used against insurgents in Iraq; hardline, nationalist Serb paramilitary groups (mostly Bosnian war veterans / war criminals) took advantage of the situation and started to attack ethnic Albanians and their homes with impunity, aid and abetted by 'special force' elements of the Serbian police and encouraged by the Serbian President (Milosevic) himself; ordinary Kosovo Albanians began to leave Kosovo out of fear; western media took up the story and we all began to pay attention; seeing the situation moving in their facour, the KLA seems to have encouraged other ethnic Albanians to leave, perhaps using the fear of Serb voilence as a motivator; OSCE produced a report suggesting war crimes were happening; Milosevic blustered, NATO intervened, the Albanians returned and many Serbs left. So, most ethnic Albanian refugess left out of fear of the Serb paramilitaries (who, it's worth saying, were not from Kosovo), but some (no doubt a much smaller number) left under the encouragement of the KLA who had an interest in making the situation look as bad as possible.

Nicola also has a valid point on the neutrality of the international community. We each like to think that our viewpoint is neutral, but foreign policy is complex and sometimes you have to accept some contradictions. For instance - why support (sort of) possible independece for ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, but not allow the same for Serbs in Bosnia? Why do war crimes commited by Serbs have to be tried in the Hague, but not war crimes committed by Iraqis? Why have no senior Kosovo Albanians been arrested for war crimes, when the Hague thinks they were committed by both sides? And organisations such as the OSCE and the UN are not always neutral or reliable - they have vested interests and their own policy goals to pursue. Reports written by individuals in such organisations can lack information or come to an unsupported conclusion - and sometimes those individuals have their own views they want to put across, or their careers to advance. So, whilst Nicola way overstates it, their is a case for saying that the organisations of the international community (the UN, NATO, the OSCE etc) form a system, and that when that system is used with a particular goal (such as stopping ethnic cleansing in Kosovo) there IS a conspiracy against (for instance) Serbia under Milosevic - but its a very open one! The point is Serbia, needs to move on from Milosevic and the events of the past. (JD)


I would like to make a few brief comments. More on this topic I have written above in discussion with JD:

  • First, why support the independence of Kosovo, but not that of Bosnian Serbs? Because Kosovo has historically been an entity, autonomous, and most importantly with clearly defined borders. Kosovo has been autonomous under former Yugoslavia (pre-1991), it had its own assembly, president, police, education system and so on. In other words, there is very strong basis for supporting Kosovo's independence. Bosnian Serbs did not have any of these, hence they got a republic within Bosnia. Negotiators take all these factors under consideration, hence Kosovo is one level higher than Bosnian Serbs, that is, the right to self-determination.
  • I makes no make sense for the KLA to encourage people to leave Kosovo. The KLA was fighting for the survival of these people, for their liberation, not for them to leave the country. These people supported and fed the soldiers of the KLA and one's thoughts must be very distorted to come up with such 'conclusions'. I do not know a single person (and believe you me, I know many Kosovar Albanians) who has been encouraged or has heard of KLA encouraging people to flee. If you do not have any actual facts, then please do not speculate. If we are to fill these pages with speculations, like Nikola does, then we better rename Wikipedia as Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedic Speculations.
  • If there is a case against senior Kosovar Albanians, Carla del Ponte will not hesitate a minute to charge them. Anyone who knows a thing or two about del Ponte and the ICTY know that they are not 'afraid' to charge whoever it is that is accused of war crimes. Anyone who says otherwise is a victim of anti-ICTY Serb propaganda. It makes me laugh when I think that Serbs even managed to accuse the formal Kosovar Prime Minister, Bajram Rexhepi, as a war criminal -- only to be humiliated to a public apology by Nebojsa Covic since there were absolutely no facts.

My final message: do not follow Covic's path? -- Kosovar 04:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kosovar - I have answered points one and there above. On point, two, which has relevance here, I think it is important for us to note that a number of non-Serbs witnessed KLA encouragement of refugees in the period prior to the bombing. I have met a couple, and they remain unwilling to speak about is openly. I'm more than happy to exclude this element (as speculation) from the main article until we have something further, but I am not willing to pretend that it is impossible or just a Serb lie. I'll do some digging around the international study groups and see if there's anything further I can add.

But, getting back to the point of this section, I think its important that we recognise that there is a broader picture to the event prior to the bombing than we acknowledge in the main article. There are many across the world who perceive a bias of opinion amongst a group of organisations (NATO, the EU, OSCE and so on) who have a common membership and common set of goals, and even amongst the more reliable human rights organisations. Personally, I'm with NATO and the UN every time, but I recognise any dissent. The problem is that very few have the whole picture. This is the source of Nikola's comment. Can we not acknowledge this?

Suggestions for resolving the current disputes

I think it might be a good idea to step back a bit at this point and address the two disputed sentences individually.

Economy

Nikola's version of the first disputed sentence is:

The Dinar is widespread in Kosovo because most trade is done with the rest of Serbia and the Kosovo Serb enclaves also use it widely.

Ambi's version is:

The Dinar is not widespread in Kosovo, most trade is done with the rest of Serbia using Euro, and Kosovo Serb enclaves use dinars only when in Serbia.

Could the two of you please cite your sources on this? I don't know for sure either way, though I've heard anecdotally that the dinar is only used on any significant scale in the Serb-inhabited areas of Kosovo. I certainly can't imagine the Kosovo Albanians using it when they have the Euro to hand, and UNMIK doesn't treat the dinar as legal tender for official transactions. Der Spiegel ran an article on Kosovo recently which said: "In these miniature states [i.e. Serbian enclaves]] surrounded by NATO barbed wire, where the valid currency is still the Dinar and not the Euro..." (see http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,323632,00.html ). According to UNMIK's website, "De facto the Euro is used for almost all transactions." (http://www.unmikonline.org/eu/index_fs.pdf ) If you can find any more evidence, please post it here.


The Blue Guide Albania and Kosovo, 1st edition (James Pettifer, May 2001) says on p21: "Most of the same factors affect business in Kosovo as in Albania except that the Yugoslav dinar has become a redundant currency, and is only used for small change, if at all. The only exception to this is in the Serb enclaves....." Key45

I distrusted anon's edit and haven't tried to find references. Anyway, Blue Guide that you quote suggests that Dinar is in use as small change on entire teritorry, so that is a widespread use even if it is small percenteage in total flow of the capital. Der Spiegel also says that Dinar is used in enclaves and not that they use it only to trade with rest of Serbia, if that was what anon intended to say. Nikola 21:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. You can read it using amazon's inside the book search. "If at all" doesn't sound like entire territory to me. If no one can agree between "Is widespread" and "Is not widespread" why not leave that word out entirely, and simply say
The Dinar is the primary currency in Kosovo Serb enclaves.
Maybe it could be said that outside of them it is used sporadically. I believe that it would cover low volume of use, and would be true if it is not used on entire teritorry. Nikola 07:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the way, the kos=yoguhrt thing sounds really unlikely to me too. - Key45 04:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've reverted it - I couldn't find any substantiation for it. I think someone was trolling... -- ChrisO 08:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is as good a point as any to throw in my observation that the classical greek word for blackbird is "kossu^ph-os", some one thousand years before the slavic entry into the Balkans. However, I don't know of any expert linguistic source that evaluates this fact. In modern Greek, the region is called Kossuphopedio. Themos 11:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Having lived in Belgrade until recently, and travelled around Kosovo extensively, I can probably clear this up. The Euro is the main currency for the Albanian and international population. It can't be the official currency as Kosovo is not in the Eurozone. As everywhere across the Balkans, including in Serbia proper, the Euro is also the currency for trade and for large denominations (you might buy a car in Belgrade, in cash, using Euros) and is generally accepted anywhere (you could buy your petrol in Euros anywhere). In Kosovo, the Dinar is still the main and official currency for the Serbian areas (that is, parts of northern Kosovo inlcuding towns such as Mitrovica, and the small enclaves elsewhere) and is used for all transactions from buying bread to paying taxes. Serbian pensions and salaries are still paid to Serbs in Kosovo in Dinars, no doubt a main reason that the Dinar is still used in the Serbia areas. The Dinar isn't used anywhere in Kosovo outside of the Serb areas, for fear of revealling yourself as a Serb! (JD)

PS Apologies for the way I've intserted this, not a very experienced user.

Kos in Albanian means "set yoghurt". In England they call it "Greek-style yoghurt". -- Kosovar 04:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as the currency is concerned, here are some more facts:

  • Budged calculated in EUROs ONLY
  • Electricity paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
  • Telephone bills paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
  • Water bill paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
  • Garbage collection paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
  • Heating paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
  • "Anything you can think of" bills paid (charged) in EUROs ONLY
  • Postage (postal stamps) priced in EUROs ONLY (see the stamps Kosovar Postal Stamps)
  • Banks operate using EUROs only (maybe except Serb-populated areas where both currencies are used)
  • Loans available in EUROs only (no loans available in Dinars, even for Serbs, sorry!)
  • Bus tickets in EUROs only
  • Endless list? Yes!

So, if anyone is living or staying in the country, and needs or uses any of the above must use, you guessed it, the EURO. --Kosovar 04:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Serbian government gives out payments in Dinars ONLY.
  • Serbian government gives out pensions in Dinars ONLY.
  • Serbian government gives out social aid in Dinars ONLY.
  • The list perhaps isn't endless but it certainly exist. Nikola 08:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would guess that this is only in the Kosovo Serb areas? Other than for transactions with the Serbian government and (presumably) for trade between Kosovo Serb areas and Serbia, is the dinar used for anything else in Kosovo? -- ChrisO 14:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is used for trading in the enclaves alongside the Euro and, according to the Blue Guide above, sometimes for small change outside of them. Nikola 03:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh really! I did not know that the Serbian government gives out pensions and social aid at all, because the Pensioners' Fund of Kosovo was stolen by the Serbian government. It was stolen just like they stole the savings of Kosovars stored in the banks of the former Yugoslavia (pre-1991). Kosovar pensioners (non-Serbs) stopped receiving pensions back in 1999 -- and what happened to their pensions has nothing to do with the Serbian government, does it?
Let me tell you one more thing, my grandfather receives a pension from Canada in Canadian Dollars (CAD) for 25 years that he worked over there. Put if he wants to use that money in Prishtina, Peja, Gjakova, Prizren, Mitrovica, Gjilan, Ferizaj, Skenderaj and so on (that is, 95 per cent of the country) he must convert it to Euros first. In fact, he and everybody else can use Euros in 100 per cent of the country, no problem with that. And be assured my friend that the Canadian government has the same influence (power) over Kosovo as the Serbian government, i.e. none.
Norwegian government gives social aid to the poor people of Somalia in Norwegian Kroner (NOK) only, but the point is what currency is actually used in Somalia and what currency the national government and the banks use to do everyday business.
The issue is: on what currency is the country run? And the answer to that question is undoubtably: the Euro. The fact that a few pensions and some social aid are paid in Dinars in less than 5 per cent of the territory of the country has very little, if any, influence on the everyday business and the way the country is run.
Summary: The Euro is the de facto currency of Kosovo, except few areas where, in addition to the Euro, Kosovar Serbs recieve pensions and social aid in Dinars. -- Kosovar 01:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kosovo is not a country, and your other assertions are incorrect in a similar way. Nikola 03:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I knew too well you would give up since there is not much you can say really. Who should know better, me who lives in Kosovo or a person (for example, you) that probably cannot even enter the country. I thought the topic of discussion was the economy, and in particular, the currencies that are used in Kosovo today, right? -- Kosovar 04:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One of telltale signs of trolling is when a participant states an obvious fact, misinterprets it completely, and then proceeds as if the misinterpretation is undisputed truth.
In the above paragraph, Kosovar claims that my reply is short because I gave up and I have no arguments. This is wrong: my reply is short because Kosovar's point are so ridiculous that they need no reply. Nikola 10:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, the essential points are that: 1) the Euro is used for official payments by the UN in Kosovo and by the governmental institutions which it has authorised, across both majority-Albanian and majority-Serbian areas; 2) the Euro is also used by all 'internationals' in Kosovo and by all Kosovo Albanians / Kosovars, again across all areas; 3) the Euro is used ocassionally by Serbs in Serbian areas for large payments and for some trade; 4) the Dinar is used for official payments by the Serbian government to Serbs and a few non-Albanians in Kosovo; 5) the Dinar is also used within Serbian-dominated areas of Kosovo by Serbs amd internationals; 6) the Euro cannot be the official currency of the UN-administered territory called Kosovo, at least until it joins the EU and the associated monetary system. Can we all sign up to these 6 points, or give valid reasons why not? (JD)

Demographics

Nikola's version of the second disputed sentence is:

The population is currently comprised of almost a 90% majority of Albanians, estimated at 80% prior to the Kosovo War of 1999 except for a brief interlude during the war as many of them fled the provincel; many foreign governments, human rights groups and international organisations claim that they were expelled by Serbian security forces, though they are sometimes, mostly in Serbia, disbelieved because of their connectedness to NATO.

My (and others') preferred version is:

The population is currently comprised of almost a 90% majority of Albanians, estimated at 80% prior to the Kosovo War of 1999 except for a brief interlude during the war as many of them fled the province or were expelled by Serbian security forces.

I've explained my own view of this above and I think the onus here is on Nikola to explain who claims that NGOs are "connected to NATO" and to come up with some form of words that is neutral. -- ChrisO 20:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I propose you have a look at, say, the response of OSCE to the crisis in Kosovo (1998-1999) and the crisis in Chechnya (1995-present) or the Turkish Southeast (1990s). I picked OSCE because of the confidence with which its report "As seen as told" states that "Between March and June 1999 forces of the FRY and Serbia forcibly expelled some 863,000 Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo". Do you think you can find a similar report that states equally categorically that Turkish state forces (part of NATO) "forcibly expelled" about 2 million people from the Turkish Southeast? The actual number is difficult to pin down: the latest EU report talks of 3 million on page 51. Is that a fair test of OSCE's impartiality and if not, why not? Themos 13:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You explained your own view, but your own view is not relevant for the article; please, supply a proof that these NGOs and international organisations are universally trusted. I don't see why should I have to prove a negative, which is generally hard and sometimes impossible; However, I have found some articles which show how much NGOs and international organisations are mistrusted in Serbia. True, not (only) because they are connected to NATO, but more because of general mistrust. Also, my wording is more neutral already; it is version which you are pushing that is not neutral.

[9]: Predsednik Demokratske stranke Srbije, Vojislav Koštunica, posetio je juče Kosovo. On je u Kosovskoj Mitrovici ocenio da Prelazno administrativno veće "nije dobra ideja" , kao i da je "neprihvatljivo". Prema njegovoj oceni, taj projekat bi mogao "da padne u vodu" ako Srbi u njemu ne budu učestvovali, a "sa međunarodnom zajednicom treba sarađivati, ali ne sve verovati". - President of the Democratic Party of Serbia, Vojislav Kostunica, [Shortly afterwards, he was elected for the president of Serbia] Visited Kosovo yesterday. [...] He commented that [...] "the international comunity should be cooperated with, but not trusted completely".

[10] and [11]: Demokratska stranka Srbije kaze: »... razbojnicko hapsenje otklanja i poslednje nedoumice o prirodi Haskog tribunala kod onih koji bi ih jos mogli imati. Nesumnjivo je da Tribunal nije ni pravna, ni sudska, ni medjunarodna institucija, vec natovsko, odnosno americko sredstvo pritiska i zavodjenja reda u svetu«. - Democratic Party of Serbia [Currently the ruling party in Serbia] says: »... this barbaric arrest removes the last doubtfullness about the nature of the Hague tribunal in those who still might have it [emphasis mine]. It is udisputable that the Tribunal is neither legal nor judicial nor international institution, but natovian, that is, American instrument for pressure and inducing order in thw world.«.

[12]: [An interview with Sonja Liht, president of the Fond for Open Society] Q: Na nevladine organizacije ovde se nije dobronamerno gledalo ni pre NATO agresije. - Nongovernment organisations were not looked with good intentions befor the NATO aggression. A: Krajnje je vreme da se shvati da nevladine organizacije nisu neprijatelj nego komplementarne i neophodne forme koje pomažu državi da funkcioniše na opšte dobro svih njenih građana. - It is a final moment for understanding that nongovernment organisations are not an enemy but complementary and neccessary forms which are helping a state to function for common good of all its citizens.

[13] or [14]: Nataša Kandić: Zavladala je atmosfera u kojoj se nevladine organizacije koje se bave ljudskim pravima vide kao neprijatelji srpskog naroda, ukoliko ne slede "patriotski" ton koji preovlađuje u društvu; Sve podseća na dane uoči NATO intervencije u SR Jugoslaviji i obećanje Vojislava Šešelja koji je konstatovao da, eto, Srbi ne mogu da dohvate NATO avione, ali mogu njihovu logistiku na zemlji, odnosno nevladine organizacije, među kojima Žene u crnom - Nataša Kandić: [director of the Fond for the humanitarian right] An atmosphere exists in which nongovernement organisations which deal with human rights are seen as enemies of the Serbian people, unless thez follow "patriotic" [quotes her] tone which is overwhelming in the society; Everything remains on days shortly before the NATO intervention in FR Yugoslavia and promise of Vojislav Šešelj [His party currently has more than 33% in the parliament, its presidential candidate came close second to the current president] who stated that, Serbs maybe can't reach NATO aircraft, but they can their logistics on the ground, including the Womeni in black.

[15]: Istraživanje Evropskog pokreta u Srbiji i Instituta društvenih nauka: Građani Srbije ne veruju međunarodnim institucijama i organizacijama, pokazuje ovo istraživanje. [...] Kad je reč o drugim međunarodnim organizacijama, prema UN, OEBS-u i Partnerstvu za mir preovladava nepoverenje [...] Najslabiji rejting imaju NATO i Haški tribunal, koji, kao deo sistema Ujedinjenih nacija, verovatno snižava i percepciju te organizacije, baš kao i njihov protektorat na Kosovu. [...] Poverenje u nevladine organizacije među građanima Srbije kreće se između niskog i srednjeg, u poređenju sa poverenjem u druge institucije. [...] Istraživanje je sprovedeno u periodu od 16. do 25. decembra 2002. godine na teritoriji Srbije bez Kosova i Metohije. Intervjuisano je 2.057 punoletnih građana, u 103 slučajno odbarane mesne zajednice u 68 opština - An examination of the European Movement in Serbia and the Institute of the Social Sciences: Citizens of Serbia don't trust to the international institutions and organisations, this report shows. [...] When talking about other international organisatrions, the UN, OSCE, and the Partnership for Peace are mostly mistrusted [...] The lowest rating have NATO and the Hague Tribunal which, as a part of the system of the United Nations, probably lowers the perception of that organisation, as well as their Protectorate on Kosovo. [...] Trust in nongovernment organisations among the citizens of Serbia is around low and medium, compared to other institutions. [...] The examination is conducted on the teritorry of Serbia without Kosovo and Metohia. 2,057 adult citizens were interviewed in 103 randomly chosen local communities in 68 municipalities

Nikola 22:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Related to this, I see that you were not so diligent to revert the latest anon edits. Do you agree that this article should not have SCG template? Have you found references which claim that the name means "yoghurt" in Albanian? Nikola 22:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to the New Oxford Albanian-English Dictionary kos in Albanian means yogurt or more precisely solid yogurt. In England I have seen that producers of these products prefer to use the expression set yogurt instead of solid yogurt. -- Kosovar 06:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saying that "percentage of non-Albanians has remained fairly constant until after the Kosovo War" is VERY misleading. Percentage of non-Albanians From DHoK:

  • 1948: 31.54%
  • 1991: 18.4%

How can someone say that this is "fairly constant" is beyond me. So I will change this. Nikola 12:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is well known that all the data for the official registrations of population in Kosovo (during former Yugoslavia) were gathered by Serbs, and many Albanians who lived in the highlands have never been included in the official data. As these data became more and more accurate, the percentage of Albanians increased. Hence, whoever made the statement about fairly constant percentage of non-Albanians is correct.
We must not forget that Serbia tried all means to increase the number of Serbs living in Kosovo, by introducing laws that forbid Albanians from legally buying Serb property, as well as bringing over 10,000 Serb refugees from Croatia and Bosnia. I am sure that Serbian government even today includes these 10,000 people in the total number of Serbs that have left Kosovo since the arrival of the NATO troops. -- Kosovar 06:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Language and population issues

I realize this page is a minefield, but a few factual issues. In reverting (though not immediately) my changes in the order of Albanian and Serbian (I had placed Albanian first, since it is and has long been the dominant language), Nikola stated that Serbian was the “official, majority, primary, sourced, etc. language”. I do not know what ‘sourced’ is supposed to mean, and ‘primary’ is almost designed to be subjective and thus indisputable, but if Nikola is actually claiming that Serbian is the majority language of this territory he is the only such person I know of. The only way to make such a claim is to look at Serbia as a whole; and that would be like saying that English is the majority language of Puerto Rico or Québec — a misleading statement, and meant to be so, I think.

I will not change it without some documentation, but it is curious that the 80% figure has slid past the neutrality watch. I can think of no neutral source before the war that used it; the figure in common use (except perhaps in Serbia) at the time was the higher 90% figure — that is, 90% of the territory was Albanian even before the war. Is there a reason why 80% is now being used?
— Ford 13:28, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

This figure is from the 1991 census of Kosovo (which was almost entirely boycotted by the Albanians). It was apparently derived from "official Yugoslav statistical corrections and projections, with the help of previous census results (1948-1981)". It's not regarded as being a credible figure because of the boycott and its methodology, and it's quite likely to have been affected by political considerations as well. The Statistical Office of Kosovo states that "The quality of the 1991 census is questionable." [16] All the figures I saw before the war were certainly in the 85-90% range. -- ChrisO 14:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Khm... Serbian is the majority and official language in Serbia, and this is article about a province of Serbia. In other articles about subdivisions same order of names is used, for just a few examples Chechnya and Ingushetia have their names first in Russian and then in languages of their populations, and Crimea has it first in Ukrainian (population: 68% Russians). This order is also applied to articles about cities etc.
By "sourced", I was referring to the fact that both English and Albanian name are derived from Serbian name, so that is one more reason why it should have precedence.
I won't revert till I hear counterarguments. Nikola 11:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps inadvertently, you inserted your comment between the two paragraphs of mine. I have moved it. In response to your point, I am glad that you concede that Albanian is the majority language of this territory. I suppose we could find examples on both sides from elsewhere in the encyclopedia. In my opinion, those cases where the local majority language is clearly one thing and the majority language of a larger territory to which the locality belongs is another should be resolved in favor of the local language, and in time I will address those as well. Only territorial claims prevent agreement on that matter. I would point out that Kosova (Kosovo) is not a part of Србија (Serbia) de facto; Београд (Belgrade) has no control over what happens here. Yes, there is international recognition of Србија’s claim in public, but everyone recognizes in private that Kosova (Kosovo) is now under the shared control of its elected administration and the Western powers; it is the Western powers, not Београд (Belgrade), who are preventing the territory’s full independence, and they are doing so for domestic political reasons of their own. We have an obligation to present both sides, but the status of the territory de jure is by definition a point of view, and in this case, moreover, a point of view not in accord with reality. We can acknowledge that the point of view exists without conceding that it is accurate, because in this case, it clearly is not.
— Ford 14:21, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Yes, it was reply to your first paragraph while I didn't think that your second paragraph is important.
In my opinion, articles on political or geographical entities should mention their names in official language of the country in which they are in first, because it is a consistent way of naming, sometimes the only available information, and to do otherwise would open a can of worms where a lot of names could be swapped back and forth. I do advocate the same for Serbian cities and villages outside of Serbia. Also, this is not one of the cases where, to cite you, "local majority language is clearly one thing and the majority language of a larger territory to which the locality belongs is another". Albanian name is derived from Serbian name so it is not another thing.
Your other points are blatantly incorrect and anyway I don't see why are they important to name order. Kosovo is part of Serbia both de facto and de jure. Belgrade agreed to give control of the province to the UN, which it had full right to do. Factual independence is prevented by Western powers - as if it would be prevented by Belgrade if it still had control; the Western powers are on the field with Belgrade's permission. I do not agree that de jure status of something is always a point of view, however even if so it is clear that in this case one point of view is prevalent and in fact I have never heard of a different point of view on this matter. Nikola 08:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Western powers are not “on the field with Serbia’s permission”. To say so is ridiculous. Such permission would never have come from the likes of Koštunica, let alone Milošević. The Western powers bombed Serbia. I am sure you of all people have not forgotten that. We may disagree on whether intervention was justified, but surely both of us can acknowledge the fact that Serbia did not invite the bombing; and what happened as a consequence of the bombing was no more by invitation than the bombing itself. I know from past experience that there is no point in arguing these points with you, but for the sake of others reading, I will point out that you have called my points “blatantly incorrect”, when it is you who say things like “Belgrade agreed to give control of the province to the UN”, and “Kosovo is a part of Serbia both de facto and de jure”. Serbia, I will say again, has no control over what happens in the territory. If the Western powers decided to grant independence, it would happen tomorrow. Even most Serbs recognize this fact, even if they do not like it.

If, as you say, the Albanian name is derived from the Serb name and they are therefore the same thing, I cannot imagine why you care which one comes first. That being the case, please leave the Albanian name first. Besides, the so-called English name is listed as ‘Kosovo and Metohija’, which is transliterated from the Serb name, and very few people in English use the full name, so the Serb name is essentially listed first anyway. I cannot imagine why you would insist that it be listed both first and second.
— Ford 10:59, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Yes they did. I don't recall that I have ever had a discussion with you regarding these points, however I would agree that there is no point in arguing them. Serbia has no control of the province because it handed it over to the United Nations, which it had full right to do. It is true that NATO forced this handing over by bombing Serbia (and thus made it illegal) but it is irrelevant - it happened anyway. The Western powers cannot grant independence to a part of Serbia any more than Serbia can grant independence to a part of any of the Western powers and so they cannot decide to do so; at most, they can pretend to be doing so, but they can not really do it, not tomorrow and not ever.
I could ask the same: why do you care which one comes first? I see that you are trying to be bigger Albanian than Albanians; the article was edited by Albanians, even by a Kosovo Albanian - and noone of them changed name order. You ask that I leave the Albanian name first, and thank you for asking nicely - but Serbian name was there first; what you really are asking is to uphold your moving of it to second. A smaller point: the English name is not a transliteration but a translation of the Serbian. Nikola 03:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Small things first, then, Nikola: ‘Kosovo and Metohija’ is not a translation, though it is true that ‘и’ is translated as ‘and’. The two significant words are transliterated, and transliterated, moreover, in the fashion that Serbs do themselves, on those occasions when they cannot or choose not to write in the Cyrillic script. I know the distinction between ‘transliteration’ and ‘translation’, but I didn’t think anyone would seriously nitpick on the ‘and’. Was that really worth mentioning? (And how do you argue that ‘Kosovo’ and ‘Metohija’ are English translations of anything? Do those look like English words to you?) My point stands: saying ‘Kosovo and Metohija’ is essentially using the Serb name anyway.

I'll move to threaded mode since now the points have separated; hope noone will have trouble with this.
If transliteration "in the fashion that Serbs do themselves" is a problem (related to this or not), I am for using Metohia in the article. Though Metohija is more oftenly used, I noticed that it tends to be used by Serbs who write in English while it seems to me that native English speakers use Metohia.
I don't see why is the name not in English when the only motivated word in it is translated. If we follow your point, then we have to conclude that List of cities in Serbia and Montenegro is written in Serbian because most significant words are transliterations of Serbian. Or that sentence "Ten largest cities in Serbia are Belgrade, Pristina, Novi Sad, Nis, Kragujevac, Prizren, Subotica, Pec, Zrenjanin and Djakovica" is a transliteration because most significant words in it are transliterated, while sentence "Five largest cities in Serbia are Belgrade, Pristina, Novi Sad, Nis and Kragujevac" is a translation since most significant words in it are translated. That is ridiculous.
By the way, I might agree that saying "Kosovo and Metohia" is in some way using Serbian name, but again saying "Kosova" is too. So, whichever name order is choosen, a name which is in some way Serbian comes first, so this argument is not relevant. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not judge the rightness or sense of my actions based on what another group of persons does. I don’t suppose that being a “bigger Albanian” than the Albanians is a good or bad thing; the statement has no use. I simply believe that, if we are going to mention local names at all (and we should), we must mention them in the order in which they are used. Most of the persons in Kosovo call it ‘Kosova’. A small number call it ‘Косово и Метохија’. Therefore, ‘Kosova’ should go first. I imagine that the Albanians would prefer to have ‘Kosova’ first, and in fact to have it used throughout the article, and to have Albanian names used for the cities, rather than Serb names. I agree with them, even if it is a spelling issue. But then they have to contend with nationalist reverts. I am not an Albanian or a Serb, so at the very least I am not motivated by nationalism one way or the other.

I understand your point completely. However, for all this time, you have not stated why do you have it. Why would a local name of something have to be mentioned in language spoken by majority of the population of something?
I have stated my reasons why I think otherwise: I believe that stating name of something in the language which is the official language of the country in which that something is should be used because it is always possible, neutral and unambiguous. Why do you think the way you do? Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think you properly understand the distinction between ‘de jure’ and ‘de facto’. We can disagree about whether the Western powers should grant independence to Kosovo, whether under “international law” (which is hardly a definite thing) they may grant it independence, but in the real world of real control, they can grant it independence, whenever they want. They didn’t need Serbia’s permission to occupy Kosovo, and the use of coercion brings us into the realm of fact, not Serbian nationalist theory. Or do you think that somehow Serbia could stop them?
—Ford 05:06, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

I am quite certain that I understand the distinction between de jure and de facto. For example, I know that de jure Kosovo is ruled by UN-appointed administration, and de facto Kosovo is ruled by Albanian mafia lords. But we were not talking about control, but about whether is a part of Serbia. It is, both de jure and de facto.
However, I did not understand the distinction between "may" and "can"; in Serbian, they both translate in a single word. I checked a dictionary to be sure. After some browsing of Merriam-Webster, I came to conclusion that you were referring to the distinction of whether something is allowed versus whether something is possible.
Independence is a term defined in the international law. As I seid the Western powers can pretend to be granting independence to Kosovo, and they can even behave towards Kosovo as if it is independent, but it is simply not possible for them to grant independence to Kosovo. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dear Ford, I am very sorry if I am interfering in your discussion with Nikola, however there are a few things I would like to write to Nikola.
So Nikola, who granted independence to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia? Was it by any chance Serbia? Or maybe Yugoslavia?
In case you are interested, the independence of a country is not granted by anyone. The independence of a country is declared by the people, and then the independence is recognised by other countries. This is the beauty of democracy, people choose what they want.
As this is a point oftenly mentioned, I'll comment on it: its fallacy lies in the fact that the people of Kosovo does not exist. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nevertheless, if Serbia is very interested in granting independence to Kosovo, tell them not to bother. The people of Kosovo, Kosovars, will do it themselves.
Second, the fact that a person is not an Albanian it does not mean that he or she must not have an opinion, in particular since the encyclopaedia does not belong to you. In addition, do not mislead the people in thinking that a Kosovar Albanian has approved of the order of names. From the first day I found out about how Wikipedia works, I have requested and proved by facts that in English the territory is referred to as Kosovo only. I have repeatedly said that the United Nations, who are in charge in Kosovo, use the name Kosovo exclusively, not to mention the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain... the European Union, the Council of Europe, the OSCE ... endless list.
A number of organisations, including OSCE and Amnesty International for the time being are using the neutral form Kosovo/Kosova -- but the Wikipedia community does not seem to be well organised to enforce such a NPOV policy. -- Kosovar 05:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to join the discussion, Kosovar. And I hope you didn’t misunderstand me. I only said that the Western powers are in a position to grant independence to the territory (or deny it) because they have ultimate control — again, it is not that they should have control, but that they do. Clearly the democratic will in Kosovo is for independence; the reason it has not happened is because of a Western veto. Virtually every state has a minority territory that would like to be self-governing, and most of the time these states will thwart such declarations of independence elsewhere so as not to encourage their own minorities. Usually their thwarting is limited to diplomatic isolation and refusal to trade, as with Somaliland; but in the case of Kosovo, they have a more effective tool — actual troops on the ground. The flip side to that is that Serbia, despite Nikola’s empty assertions, is in no position to deny Kosovan independence. In the meantime, if you were interested in lightening the Serb nationalist influence in the main article (which I agree is pervasive), I would back you up.
— Ford 12:53, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Serb nationalist influence? The article is heavily pro-Albanian on all issues it covers. Nikola 10:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. First - I'd like to say, it's actually very good to see ethnic Serbs, ethnic Albanians and internationals debating these issues openly - it's rare on the ground in Kosovo/Kosova. Let's also be clear that this place we're discussing is (de jure - in law, as recognised by the UN) PRESENTLY a province of Serbia. This is not to prejudice in any way its FUTURE status, which is to be determined at some future point. Nor does this say anything of the will of the inhabitants of this place - the absolute majority want an independent nation state; a significant minorty want to remain part of Serbia. In practical terms (de facto) it is governed by an agency of the United Nations with significant elements of self-government, supported by a degree of democratic accountability. None of these present practical arrangements are to prejudice future arrangments once status has been determined. Can we all agree to this?

On names. I guess in part we have to fit in with Wikipedia. The UN refers to this place as Kosovo in English - as in the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK, the body authorised by the UN to run Kosovo. As with all multilingual places, official bodies will use all main local languages and we should make reference to the Serbian and Albanian translation. That the English name for this place (Kosovo) is the same as the Serbian is a matter of historical precedent and not an indication of a preferred status for this place. Perhaps if it had been independent from the 19th century, we would be calling it Kosova (or more likely, something without a slavic root). And if and when this place becomes independent, it can call itself whatever the hell it likes - but it's inhabitants should be aware that the English name for it might not change (Holland, anyone)? Can we all agree to this?

On place names. These need to be in both languages. I'm in favour of putting Albanian first, Serbian second, again with no prejudice to the potential future offical names of these places. (JD)

Another point. On the Kosovo and Metohija issue. The official name of this place in Serbian is Kosovo i Metohija; Serbian can be written in latin or cyrillic scripts, both are official, but cyrillic tends to be preferred for documents. The translation in Enlgish of this is Kosovo and Metohija; anything else (ie. Metohia) is a mistranslation. The common useage in Serbian is Kosovo, and occasionally (ie. if you're over 50!), Kosmet. The common useage in English is Kosovo. The United Nations refers to this place as the Province of Kosovo (http://www.unmikonline.org/constframework.htm). (JD)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo/Archive_5&oldid=8397847"