Talk:Kosovo/Archive 12

message: A controversy over the introduction of this article, has recently lead to an arbitration case, which was concluded with putting this article under probation, among other measures. Before editing the introduction, please review the talk page archive and the arbitration case on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArbCom made a weird decision: to ban Vezaso for one year - regardless of the fact that User:Vezaso is indefinitely banned as per being one of the many sockpuppets of User:Dardanv. --PaxEquilibrium 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes that is the one year ban from editing Kosovo-related articles, that probably should be Dardanv instead of Vezaso. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: Why is it then that Serbs in the Ottoman Empire were peasants and pig farmers, while Serbs in the Austrian Empire were normal Europeans? Both were occupied by empires, after all. --estavisti 21:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet it is that all those Serbs that were "pigs & farmers" produced dozens of Patriarchs of Pech (1557-1766), the most cultured Serbs in the world that were in reality moral, spiritual, ethical & even political leaders of the Serb people; Omer-paša Latas, one of the brightest military minds of the Ottoman Empire; Mehem-paša Sokolović, quitte possibly the greatest official in Ottoman history as well as numerious poets and other people; the father of the Serbian language: Vuk Stefanović Karadžić; not to mention numerious politicians and other people. --PaxEquilibrium 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Bajica Sokolovic maintained "close" to Serbian conscience and despite being an Ottoman and a Muslim, remained a Serb national "patriot" in a way til his death; contrary to Omer-pasa Latas, who really was the way how you describe. However, what to you define by "normal European-class citizens"? If you consider crossing to another faith "betrayel" that doesn't make Serb a Serb or similliar, you shouldn't look like that. The achievements of the Habsburg Serbs - never surpressed the achievements of the Ottoman ones. --PaxEquilibrium 20:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Bajica Sokolovic kept a Serbian national identity and became arguably the greatest Ottoman official in the history. The best one the Habsburg Serbs got is Svetozar Boroevic von Bojna, who became the sole non-German Austro-Hungarian military general during the First World War; didn't fight for the Serbian national cause, but rather styled himself with Croatian nationalism, despite being a pious Orthodox Christian. --PaxEquilibrium 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, OK you win - I was just trying to fight against a feeling of "superiority" of the HabsburgSerbs towards the Ottoman Serbs, so often expressed by many Vojvodinians & Slavonians in those time. --PaxEquilibrium 21:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Serbs in the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires 

message: The summary section notes that the Dinar is used in 'North Kosovo'. This is incorrect as it also used in the many Serbian enclaves (e.g. Gracanica). In any case, even if the present formulation were to remain the proper reference would be to 'northern Kosovo' to avoid the suggestion that 'North Kosovo' is a distinct entity with a different currency usage. 
As it happens I'm unable to edit the main page as I'm a recently registered user, though I've contributed to these pages in the past as '(JD)'. Any way I can get unprotected? JamesAVD 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You, sir, are correct.  Changes made. Davu.leon 15:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure - for commercial transactions territorial continuinity is required. The Serb enclaves aren't connected to Serbia - whereas North Kosovo is a part of Serbia, de jure & de facto. --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Pax.  It's a fair point, but the phrasing made it sound like north Kosovo was a distinct political entity, which simply isn't true.  And anyway, the Dinar is used in the Serb enclaves throughout Kosovo,  (though they will accept euros too,)  and it would be remiss of us not to mention them.   Davu.leon 08:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really didn't know that. It still sounds illogical to me... --PaxEquilibrium 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency 

message: Why is it that the name of cities/districts in Kosovo are listed Albanian spelling first and Serbian spelling second? Kosovo is stil a Serbian province and the official language in Serbia is Serbian. If you look at the vast majority of new sources, other encyclopedias, academic sources, (even those advocating independence), the Serbian spelling is the one that is used. I hope Wikipedia will re-examine their naming conventions for Kosovo cities and places as the current method seems to be advocating a political stance rather than presenting the information in a scholarly, historically sound manner. MK013 23:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite Kosovo being de jure a Serbian province, Serbian laws do not apply to it because of its UN protectorate status. In particular, Kosovo has its own declaration of what its official languages are, and those are Serbian and Albanian. So they both have equal status. Yet  they have to be ordered some way, and the ordering rationale has to be neutral (have a look at edit history of that box and check how many times it was edit-warred over to see why there is a need for a neutral solution). The present order is the alphabetical order of language names: Albanian comes before Serbian. If anyone has better suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them - just discuss them here before changing it, please, lest we get another edit war. -- int19h 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Serbian laws do not apply? Wrong! According to UN council resolution 1244, Serbian laws apply to all resolution unregulated areas. For instance, judiciary system is based on Serbian laws, so it's not Anglo-Saxonic like one would assume because of the UN and NATO are running judiciary. Even UN placed judges foreigners had to learn Serbian laws to be able to lead the processes. Serbian laws are the ones to be obeyed in many other areas, but the whole point is that it's not Serbian authorities who are using laws, it's the UN administration. The reason for this is that UN is unable to build the whole legal system from the beginning, partly prohibited by the resolution, and the other reason is that the Albanian institutions are simply not capable of bringing "better" laws because of lack of experts which would work on them - it requires a vast effort. 89.216.173.210 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The roadsigns sometimes disagree though – and not just thanks to individual Albanians with pots of paint, I mean. Does anybody know if there's a single agency responsible for these? If there is, and presuming that their decisions about sign spelling are based on local demographics, perhaps there's a committee of some sort which measures that and decides on the language to be used? The results of this would quite likely be more up-to-date than the UNMIK maps. Their records would be a useful source to refer to here if anybody can find them. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 14:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the whole point. There is no official standardization body in Kosovo for names. Those names assigned could only be treated as "unoficcial" - they do not rely on any legal document that defines the process of naming and changing names. In fact, that document is Serbian law on naming. But again, there is no central base of maps and names in Kosovo. 89.216.173.210 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Cities 

message: I think the Kosovo article is very long and has too much information about the History of Kosovo, which already has its own article already. Don’t you think the part “History” should be summarized just to their basic points, making the article more coherent, shorter and easier to read?--MaGioZal 10:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is we get a similar issue as with the History of Vojvodina - removing contents we can never balance the histories of the proper peoples (here when regarding to Serbs and Albanians, respectively, and in Vojvodina's case totally ruining it multi-ethnic order). If memory serves me well, we did try out a tiny version, but then huge disputes came over all those sentences - and the consensus ended up with "..more clarification is needed.." and so we ended up here. :) --PaxEquilibrium 14:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is toooooooo long

message: Can someone add these templates, I think they are neutral :) --Göran Smith 13:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I unprotected the page, you can do it yourself.  Hopefully we won't go right back to edit warring over one sentence, hmm? Thatcher131 02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Dear all: The section on Kosovo during Ottoman rule says: 
"This brought a great shift, as the Orthodox Serb population began to lose its majority when masses of Turks and Albanians moved to Kosovo. During the Islamisation, many Churches and Holy Orthodox Christian places were razed to the ground or turned into Mosques". 
I think the words "masses" and "razed to the ground" are both inappropriate and should be replaced by something less controversial - maybe "large numbers" and just plain old "destroyed". Regards Osli73 19:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Masses definitely implies informality, which is probably inappropriate, but it can of course also be used in the sense of "population movement en masse" — i.e. lots of people moving together in a very short space of time. Is that what happened? I'd agree on "razed to the ground" though; too emotive, unless it's quoting from a source. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kierant, alright, does that mean we can change it? Really shouldn't be that controversial. Since no one else has commented and you don't seem to object I'll go ahead (see my entry above). Regards Osli73 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, be bold :) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 22:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just did, let's see.... Osli73 22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the changes. Nikola 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words "masses" and "razed to the ground" 

message: Would it be a bad idea to add the serbian spelling of Pristina there? Does some one know why they removed it? Litany 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous "Prishtinë / Priština" restored already. - Evv 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I found this 2006 article on AIA on Turkey's policy with regards to Kosovo while searching for info on the Battle of Kosovo (1389). I thought it was rather well written and maybe could be useful to add to the Kosovo article. It's up to you all.
:*"Turkey’s Kosovo Policy: Inexistent, Hesitant or Prudent?" by Can Karpat, 09.01.2006, Axis Information & Analysis 
Roncevaux 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish policy 

message: Well, the World did not make a radical decision on Kosovo. Only 3 countries: America, France and Britain made the request that a solution is imposed, and it be forced independence (with the Fifth Republic of France somewhat on edge with and the United States demanding it fiercely), normally with the support of Albania; but the whole rest of the world supported compromise and negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina, with Russia and China refusing anything that's not a ..democratic compromise where both sides are satisfied, with an amazingly strong support from Argentina as well. Wide expectations are not that Kosovo will simply become independent, but that that will be the result of the compromise (and the current government does not take Kosovar independence as an option - but we'll see which government will be in the next elections). --PaxEquilibrium 18:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you should stop embarrasing yourself PaxEq. Your post dated 19:46, 11 December 2006 was bad enough. You're not here on a diplomatic mission to try and persuade the world against the Kosovar independence.Sanmint 19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm merely trying to present that the whole world (allegedly including Serbia) does not so simply expect that Kosovo will become a country. The world isn't so black&white - the strongest expectations (which are forbidden as per Wiki's policy) are that compromise between Belgrade and Pristina will be accomplished (no need to impose a solution). As for my post in 19:46, I consider it very nice and see nothing wrong with (it tells a lot, actually); what precisely do You not agree? --PaxEquilibrium 20:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be difficult to refocus Serbia away from Kosovo with thousands and thousands of Serb refugees from Kosovo flooding Serbian cities becuase Ceku is a terrorist monster. Keep living in your fantasy land where Kosovo independence means Balkan peace forever. 12-20-06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.254.227 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One thing is sure - Kosovo will get some form of independence, but including dependence (perhaps even to Serbia) - which would soon lead (possibly) to an establishment of a secular new country in the Balkans; this might not happen tomorrow, or not even in a month - and will create some sort of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, but with full international support and a much better status - and no matter when will this happen, this will happen, as shown by every responsible man of the world (including the Serbian President). --PaxEquilibrium 15:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summit 

message: While I try to avoid discussions about Kosovo like the devil, this comment struck me as particularly interesting.
"And I ask you not to downplay the magnitude of Serbian atrocities toward Kosovar Albanians with your weak arguments. No one entered Serbian borders with artilery, paramilitaries and demented criminals released from prisons. No one killed Serbian men or raped Serbian women in Belgrade or any other city or village in Serbia. No one burnt down entire villages in Serbia. No one destroyed national landmarks (read: destruction of Prizren League before withdrawal of Serbs) in Serbia to try to erase Serbian national identity and manipulate historical data. I can give you countless examples that Serbia never suffered." Bardylis 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to that the fact that over 800,000 Serbs in Serbia're actually ethnically cleansed refugees from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, and that their civilizations & heritage have utterly destroyed - well, they're all now citizens of Serbia, so why not count them? --PaxEquilibrium 10:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? The suffers of hundreds of thousands of people are not important to you just because they belong to a specific ethnic group? It could be said that KLA "attacked Serbia", and in way as such, that Albania covertly attacked Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Comment 

message: Bulgaria (see Third Bulgarian State) wasn't nazi or fascist state in the period 1941-1944. Bulgaria was allied with the Axis countries, but its inner political structure wasn't totalitarian or nazi. It could be described as relatively mild authoritarian regime of the monarch with limited forms of parliamentary democracy. The cliche "fascist Bulgaria" was widely used by the communist yugoslav historiography with obvious speculative negative connotation. Best regards, Jackanapes 09:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi or fascist Bulgaria 1941-1944?! 

message: The section on the future status process needs a new sentence to reflect Ahtisaari's revised timeframe.  I would propose: "Special Envoy Ahtisaari is now preparing a comprehensive status proposal that will address all the issues under discussion.  Ahtisaari, supported by the Contact Group, chose to delay sharing this proposal with the parties until after January 21, 2007, parliamentary elections in Serbia." This seems a non-controversial, factual edit (as much as anything on this article is!).  The UNOSEK website has a copy of his November press statement on the matter: http://www.unosek.org/unosek/en/press.html Any objections?  Envoy202 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently none... probably because the page is protected and nobody can edit-war about it :-) If an administrator could incorporate this text or semi-protect the page for a little while, it would be much appreciated. - Best regards, Evv 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When an article is protected you need to post  on the talk page to notify the admins of a requested change. Thatcher131 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that info :-) Best regards, Evv 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to add new sentence on revised timeframe 

message: …the article Serbophobia has been nominated for deletion for the fourth time. If you care, go there and place your vote. That’s it.--MaGioZal 11:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What has that to do with anything on this article? I don't want to spread bad faith, but this user appears to have been balloting for votes, posting this very same message to the up on articles related to, so to say, "Serbs messed up", and which are full of very biased editors: Talk:Kosovo War, Talk:War in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Talk:Yugoslav wars. --PaxEquilibrium 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For those who are interested about…

message: Hey, gang.  I've put up a separate "Kosovo Future Status Process" article.  See what you think.  I know it's light on citations -- I'd be grateful if people could help find citations on the web (google searches should do).  Envoy202 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article on Status Process 

message: I think it is a violation for writing untrue statements.
What I mean is that we have problems to make a NPOV article.
I think some people here state elements of like Serbia has been not involved in the balkan wars or whatever.I think this is like to say nazi Germany did nothing! Is this correct?
This article should be locked only for a long time and in the end we need to write articles that are just neutral and we should take away vandalisers.I tink those who make problems have something against kosovo.82.114.68.30 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation 

message: Kosovo's ethnic Serb minority complained bitterly about mistreatment from the Albanian majority.
First, the context and focus is on the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija alone, not the Socialist Republic of Serbia as a whole; and in Kosovo Serbs were a minority.
Second, that they complained is a fact, and I can't imagine any reader considering that those complains were unfounded, especially after having read the previous section on "Kosovo in the Second Yugoslavia". However, what alternative wording/sourcing do you, Nikola, propose ? Let's see if we can agree on the whole section in a few days. - Best regards, Evv 12:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kosovo Serbs were mistreated by Kosovo Albanians. What's wrong with that? Nikola 06:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  thats a reasonable compromise because some editors would argue that saying the Serbs 'complained bitterly' may suggest that they are whinging or worse that it may imply it may never have happened, also it takes heat out of the sentence, the complaints were of course founded. Buffadren 18:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Serb complains during the 80s 

message: A resolution was just adopted. It forces both parties to negotiate more actively and spend more energy in it, indirectly implying that it's vesting all power to Martti Ahtisaari, who is due to present his proposal for Kosovo's solution. 
The resolution originally included that independence of Kosovo would probably be the best solution to the region, and recommended it; but in the very end, they considered it one-sided and excluded it. Ironically, the Serbian delegation voted against. LOL :D
I suppose we'll just have to wait for Martti's proposal. It appears that Kosovo's solution will be Semi-dependence under supervision and protectorate. What fears most is the reaction of the two sides: as that is step forward to Pristina, and step away from Belgrade, which will finally lose all logic territorial pretensions to Kosovo. But what is frightening is not only the possibility that Serbia won't accept this, but the reaction of the Kosovar Albanians, which some even drastically overestimate as widespread civil unrest (violence?) - some in Serbia (Belgrade) predicted even repetition of the 2004 March. --PaxEquilibrium 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important thing for all Kosovars is that Kosovo is not under Serbian sovereignty, which is what they will be celebrating sometime this year. They don't give a damn about the length of the international presence, most of them I think, would welcome it so that they have enough time to build the country properly. What is clear is that the US and Europe don't have enough energy to see independence through anytime soon, so they will be doing over time I guess, which is a shame since they showed great courage to stop the genocide in the 1999, and now they don't have the bollocks to see the job through.Sanmint 03:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with that. That's not the most important thing to ethnic non-Albanians, and most certainly not to Serbs (and Roms). 90% really isn't 100%. I wouldn't suggest that it will be solved this year, when the UN kicked in, everyone thought they'll go away by 2001, latest 2002 or 2003. Then, they all agreed that it will be "finally" in 2005, and then in 2006. And now, we're in 2007. Who can tell now how further will the bizarre situation go on? You probably heard about the SELF-DETERMINATION MOVEMENT! It's influence in Kosovo is growing year by year. They have been attacking UN officials & vehicles for years by now, and some even gone to the violence of injuring the peace-keepers - they call the UNMIK colonists/ocupators of Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, there aren't. I think you meant to say there will be. It does reflect the reality today. --PaxEquilibrium 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think we have a difference on what reality is then!. My reality check shows that Kosovo has been removed from anything that has to do with Serbia and Montenegro. I think that's good for all, I am not trying to annoy anyone, but show my opinion and believe.161.51.11.2 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice, but what has that got to do with all this? This isn't a Forum. --PaxEquilibrium 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a discussion board, oh by the way just read the news, finally all the mask is down, so-called pro democratic Serbian PM Kostunica blackmailed Nato and the EU by saying if they recognise the Kosovo Independence it will cut ties with them, that was funny....but sad, I think Serbia is going back to Milosevics policies.DOLKOS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.51.11.2 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I and perhaps everyone here agrees with your comment  Evv. However given the sensitivity of the subjuct matter even the coolest editors can drift into POV territory,but in fairness they do quickly return to that issues that we address. On difficult issue pages such as this, hard working editors are given a little more slack. However those that come here to solely let off steam are not of concern provided they stick to the talk page.  Buffadren 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo resolution 

message: I have removed the early BBC report. It is still far too speculative. We shall wait and see. Regards, Asteriontalk 06:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it was POV weighted too Buffadren 09:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, it's been a big day!  These has been an extremely busy week and I'll be glad when it's over.  I'll come up with some draft language to add to the article, as well as a more substantial update to the "Kosovo Future Status Process" page.  I'd suggest that any changes be discussed here first.  Envoy202 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that Davu, excellent draft document  important changes  discussed here forst always helps. Buffadren 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahtisaari's plan 

message: Sounds good, but should we state clearly that Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo will no longer be internationally recognised?  I mean, that is now the case, is it not? Davu.leon 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we state that clearly if no sources state that clearly? I don't think that can be said from this proposal or our current sources.   It seems like the proposal is currently too vague for both sides. // Laughing Man 01:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's stated clearly in the full text of the proposal; I was certainly told as much by someone who has read it, but I don't have a copy myself - which is why I was asking.  I thought that somebody may have come across an easily available source.  Not to worry, we can wait until we have one. :) Davu.leon 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is original research. Besides, god knows what will happen during the UNSC vote. --Asteriontalk 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears that the proposal doesn't mention souveregnity or independence anywhere. Nikola 09:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Laughing Man.  The proposal is not sufficiently clear on the status outcome itself; none of the sources (nor even an original-research analysis of the proposal) would result in that conclusion.  Also, if you saw the transcript of Ahtisaari's statement, he made several references to coming back to the outcome at a later point.  Ahtisaari wanted to get the parties focused on the substance of the proposals -- i.e., minority rights, decentralization, Serbian Orthodox Church protections, etc. -- before actually addressing the outcome.  At this stage of the game, we need to reflect the ambiguity Ahtisaari has chosen to present.  We only have a few more weeks before this becomes much clearer.  Envoy202 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case, per WP:NOR, let's wait until a few analyses of the proposals are published, and only then discuss whether those analyses merit mention in the article. - Regards, Evv 14:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 1 

message: * US and EU opinion should not be directly following proposal, it should Belgrade and Pristina's reaction first, as they are the ones that need to agree with the proposal, with a separate international reaction section following. 
* Your are giving direct quote reaction from Kosovo Albanian leaders, but not of Serbian leaders.
:::*Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica denounced the proposal as "illegitimate" because he said it "violates the U.N. Charter  ... by undermining sovereignty of U.N. member Serbia." http://voanews.com/english/2007-02-02-voa51.cfm
:::*"I told Ahtisaari that Serbia and I, as its president, will never accept Kosovo’s independence", president Tadić said. http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=02&dd=02&nav_category=90&nav_id=39405
* Last paragraph, clarify this is a draft and will most likely be changed:
:::"I'm willing to integrate compromise solutions that parties might reach, and I will then finalize my settlement proposal for submission to the U.N. Security Council," Ahtisaari said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6389054,00.html
...and what it requires to go into effect:
:::In order to take effect, the Ahtisaari proposal has to be endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, an outcome that is not assured since Russia has threatened to veto any measure unacceptable to Belgrade.http://voanews.com/english/2007-02-02-voa51.cfm
:::::::Let me just make it clear, The Russian Foreign Minister Mr. Lavrov on an interview for the Der Spiegel, just said "President Putin Never Said it will Veto any Resolutions on Kosovo" http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03377293.htm 161.51.11.2 22:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   "’Lightly armed forces’ are mentioned, but that refers to a kind of gendarmerie rather than an army, set to operate within the police force. That would not be unacceptable since even municipalities have police, which is not an element of statehood" http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=02&dd=02&nav_category=90&nav_id=39405
* minor - Your text "citing the caretaker status of the current Serbian government" unnecessary and confusing, remove
// Laughing Man 01:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Laughing Man: I agree with just about everything you wrote.  I will add the direct quote from Kostunica/Tadic (I like the ones you picked), plus note that the proposal was a draft and will most likely be tweaked before it is finalized.  Also, I agree that a security force, as described in the proposal, is not necessarily an element of statehood (I don't like the term "gendarmerie," which implies heavy-policing functions, but the point stands).  I think, however, it's important to mention that Kostunica justified his dissing of Ahtisaari by citing the caretaker status of the Serbian government -- otherwise it sounds as if Kostunica refused to meet him solely out of pique.  Why do you think it's unnecessary and confusing?  Envoy202 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The military analyst quote does not need to be added, I just thought it was an interesting interpretation that was different from most others that I have read.  If you can work it in, fine, but don't think it's necessary.   Regarding the caretaker part, Maybe it's just me but I felt it made the entire statement harder to understand, but based on your explanation I understand why you want to keep it there.  Either way is fine with me. // Laughing Man 04:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Envoy202 & Laughing Man, good job both of you. The "caretaker gov." part will look clearer once added to the "Kosovo Future Status Process" article, where readers would have been informed of the January 21 elections just a few sentences above. Regards, Evv 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Every cloud has a silver lining". So the silver lining in this case is found on the analysis of a Serb "security expert" who thinks the Kosovo Security Force will not be an army but a part of police? That's the best you guys could come up with? Any of you bother to actually read the proposal in its entirety? You might be able to find more silver linings. Just a thought.Ferick 05:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 2 

message: Are there economic statistics, such as GDP and GDP per capital, available for the infobox? -- Beland 02:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic statistics 

message: As discussed, I've updated the Kosovo Future Status Process article with recent developments. Envoy202 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on [[Kosovo Future Status Process]]

message: The Kosovo Future Status Process article has a "Neutrality Disputed" tag on it.  I think we've done a good job (see above!) trying to make the article as non-POV as is humanly possible.  Therefore, I would like to remove the tag or, at the very least, have a conversation about why it is there.  I'd encourage people to discuss it on the Talk page for the Kosovo Future Status Process article.  Thanks, guys!  Envoy202 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree, but I will have a closer look later today Buffadren 09:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Envoy202 mentions, let's try to avoid dealing with everything in this talk page, and start using each sub-article talk pages instead (in this particular case, Talk:Kosovo Future Status Process). This would both help to focus the discussion on the topic at hand, and greatly simplify future "article content/discussion" comparisons :-). - Regards, Evv 13:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kosovo Future Status Process]]: Neutrality disputed? 

message: OK, the "Račak comments" have been copyied to Talk:Račak incident.
If nobody objects, I would like to erase most of the comments on Račak from the "Comments on 90s History" section above (providing a link to Talk:Račak incident, of course). - Regards, Evv 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to remove comments on Račak 

message: The external links have been halfed in size with agreement from everyone. Phew!. Shuold we leave the Pro Serian and Pro Albanian links or will I suggest two from ach side to be removed ? Buffadren 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. And, please, suggest any removal you want (more than two if possible :-) Best regards, Evv 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Serbian and Pro Albanian Links 

message: Someone asked for this page to be "unprotected" at WP:RFP and have Turkish added as an official language of Kosovo.  I understand this has been a point of contention in the past.  I found this source:  for listing that Turkish is the official language in Prizren (only).  (see article 2.3).  I can't read the language at that web site, so I can't say that this is a good source or that the law was enacted.  If one of you who can read the language can verify this (the pdf is in English), perhaps the infobox could be edited to add Turkish as an official language in Prizren with this document as the source.    Mishatx   *разговор*  05:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does say that in the Prizren municipality Turkish will be an official language, and depending on certain demographics, Bosnian, Turkish and Roma languages can be conferred an official language status in other municipalities as well. Baristarim 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original request to have Turkish listed as an official language is clearly wrong. It can be associated as one of the official languages of Prizen Buffadren 11:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish language 

message: The border between Albania and Macedonia on the map  (used on this page) looks mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.188.97.134 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate, please ? - Regards, Evv 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Yes, go brevity ! :-) My preferred one:
Almost immediately returning Kosovo Albanians attacked Kosovo Serbs, causing some 200,000-280,000CoE p.30 Serbs and other non-AlbaniansFootnote to flee (note: the exact number of internally displaced persons is disputedUNHCR Critical, USCR, CoE, Judah, with estimates ranging from 65,000ESI ref to 250,000Serbia, UNHCR & USCR refs).
Footnote: Including Roma, Egyptian, Ashkalli, Croats, Turks and Bosniaks. </br>Sources listed here.
Source for Roma, Egyptian & Ashkalli: CoE p.30 & Serbian gov. for Roma. — I didn't search for a source for Croats, Turks and Bosniaks yet, but the Serbian gov. lists 13,500 Muslims as IDPs. 
Will this wording please everyone ? :-) Best regards, the user formerly known as Evv Ev 17:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  Go with it.  Envoy202 20:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is good! Though I think that it doesn't clearly show that current number is disputed and that initial number is not disputed. This should be easy to fix, for example with "note: it is disputed how much the number of IDPs decreased since, with estimates ranging..." Nikola 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just adding "current", link this: "note: the exact number of current internally displaced persons is disputed" ? - Ev 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Nikola 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, but how about 'the current number of internally displaced persons...'  Just to make it flow a bit better. Davu.leon 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Or, 'the exact current number...' Davu.leon 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol Of course ( I should have noticed that before :-) and I like the idea of removing "exact", since we're still mentioning numbers with three or more zeros. - Regards, Ev 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: since the text is almost agreed upon (probably only a couple of more formal "agrees" would suffice to end the matter), I added the text to the article , with Davu.leon's proposed minor change: replacing "exact" by "current". However, the issue is not closed yet, and anyone's objections will be adressed. My edit was not an attempt to forcibly close the debate: I only wanted to get all those references in order :-) Best regards, Ev 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short proposal I 

message: I see that the tragic reality of Kosovo affects Wikipedia as well... this is deeply disturbing.
I think that the Kosovo Status Process sections needs to be re-balanced. There are strong arguments (despite low internet-popularity of it) that Kosovo should remain within Serbia. 
What we offer the people Kosovo is the best solution; we offer everything except factual independence. --Boris Tadić 17:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Tadic, the status section of this article reflects only what reliable sources tell us is likely to happen, not what we believe should happen.  (And believe me there is plenty of disagreement on that.)  However I am sure that your views and contributions would be more than welcome at the Kosovo Status Process article. Davu.leon 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: INow is as good as time as ever to assist this article but most editors here consider the article to be  balanced. Re-balancing seems quite extreme. Buffadren 09:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case, as Davu.leon said, all comments on how to improve this particular section of the article are welcomed at Talk:Kosovo Future Status Process :-) Evv 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tragedy 

message: Does Kosovo have a flag? Sca 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not yet Buffadren 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No. But the Albanian flag does get some use.   Mishatx   *разговор*  17:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah. It depends on which people/where uses it. The Serbian flag is present on the enclaves (for example, you will see only the Serbian flag in North Kosovo), whereas apart from the unofficial Albanian flag, there is no real "flag", unless you count the United Nations flag. It's due to get one very soon, though (just be patient for a while). --PaxEquilibrium 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag?

message: I finally think why he seems POV to the Serbian side. As President of Finland, he held (allegedly) hate speeches against the Russians (that it seemed to them, to the Finnish he was only probably commemorating the Finnish defenders against Stalin's invasion), but appears to have used rather "emotional" aspects for his campaign, and this led so far to him being satanized by the opposition Russian media - plainly because he held commemorations not only to the Winter War heroes, but also the Continuation War soldiers, while Finland was an Axis ally and fought an aggressive war against the Soviets (although defined as only being a reaction war). From this, apparently, Serbian tabloids invented the story how Oiva Ahtisaari "the Norwegian technician", Martti's father, was a Nazi trooper. 
How on earth the international community thought that such a man could decide anything in favor of Slavs is beyond my understanding. 
But this appears to be a totally off-Kosovo topic, considering that (perhaps) Russia might lodge its veto just because Ahtisaari wrote the suggestion, whereas Martti might be pushing just because Russia has expressed its interests and the Serbs being generally considered a "Russian-like people". --PaxEquilibrium 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martti Ahtisaari 

message: I have be bold an inserted the UNOSEK site  in the External LInks.I know I'd be the first to complain if someone else dropped in a website while the links were under talks here. I hope noboby complains because I do feel its important we have this site here. All in agreement ? Buffadren 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Belated agreement :-) Evv 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UNOSEK Special Envoys site