Talk:Kosovo/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Kosovo and Metohia dispute again

I would like to sum up all pro et contras:

Kosovo and Metohia

pros:

Non-ambiguous
Official legitimate local title

contras:

Less widely known in English world
Albanians don't like it

Kosovo

pros:

Most widely known ~~in English world~~ (by Googlecheck)

contras:

Ambiguous. Kosovo is a part of Kosovo and Metohija

*Derogating Serbs

- Note: according to User:Nikola Smolenski, the usage of Kosovo is not insultive to Serbs, and a Google search for "Kosovo i Metohija" in Serbian returns 13,000 pages while search for "Kosovo" in Serbian returns 70,900 pages, so it is mentioned four times as much.

Without taking sides, the above Google search is completely useless - first of all, every hit for "Kosovo i Metohija" is also a hit for "Kosovo", so you would at least have to subtract that. Also, the word "Kosovo" is a part of other names, like "Kosovo polje", not to mention that it also means "blackbird's", or even "pertaining to KOS (the former military intelligence service)". Also, Slavic languages are heavily inflected and this only gives you results for the nominative. Zocky 14:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

please add NPOV facts to this list. Thanks! Drbug 20:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

A Solution for Kosovo?

Copied a discussion about the problem from User talk:Chris 73 with permission from Nikola, so that others can add their comments

To solve this problem, shall we organize a vote about when to use Kosovo and when Kosovo and Metohija? You make proposal A and list your arguments for it, I make proposal B and list the arguments for it, we discuss about it, and then have a proper vote. Just an idea. -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. Was there ever a vote on such an issue? Nikola 10:52, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

What would you suggest to solve our differences? -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

First and foremost, I would suggest to wait a day or two and see if there are any comments on them. Nikola 11:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I will be away from home and offline from Saturday till Wednesday, so I suggest we wait till wednesday. I will refrain from reverting till then, and hope you do, too. I also added a brief note on Wikipedia: Requests for page protection and Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions, hope this is OK with you -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:38, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to come up with a compromise formula. This notes the geographical position of the town (in Kosovo) and its administrative locality (in Kosovo and Metohija) with the caveat that governance is currently exercised by the UN. You can see an example of this at Djakovica (diff). What do the two of you think? -- ChrisO 13:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

That looks acceptable to me. A bit long maybe, but useful for towns and places. Not sure how to adapt this for example to Kosovo Liberation Army or Kosovo War, but it would be a start. Thank you for the suggestion, I guess Nikola and I got a bit too enthusiastic. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a compromise. First of all, Djakovica is in Metohia. It is some 60 km away from Kosovo. Saying that it is in Kosovo is ambiguous at best. Then, saying that it is in Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro is misleading; the province is an administrative unit of Serbia, not of Serbia and Montenegro. Additional sentence is plain wrong. The city is nominally and factually governed as part of the Serbian autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija BY the United Nations. The fact that the UN govern a province of Serbia doesn't mean that it is not a province of Serbia.

I think I'll try a novel approach: Chris 73, why do you think that these articles should link to Kosovo and not to Kosovo and Metohija? Nikola 05:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

First of all, naming this province is difficult, since there are a lot of different names in use. K&M is probably disliked by Albanians, (Republic of ) Kosova is probably equally disliked by Serbs. This brings up a whole new can of worms about who the province belongs to. Legally, its Serbia. Practically, its independent under UN control. Only future will tell where the place ends up. Meanwhile, the rest of the world seems to be using the name Kosovo (for google counts etc. see Talk:Kosovo). This also seems to be a logical compromise to me, being somewhere between Kosova and K&M. Note for clarification: when I refer to Kosovo, I mean the entire region, not the smaller part within the region I think you call Kosovo.

On Wikipedia, there seems to be consensus to use the most common English name for places, but I am sure there are also lots of exceptions. Based on the vote on Talk:Kosovo, it seems a majority of the Wikipedians prefer to use Kosovo, and I think this preference is not limited to the location of the article alone. For me, Wikipedia majority is what counts. Ask yourself, if there would be a vote about the name usage, what would you expect the answer to be? Of course, there are valid exceptions for using K&M, for example List of geographical pairs, Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro, or Project Rastko to name a few. And, it should definitely be listed at the top of Kosovo. A mentioning of both names as suggested by ChrisO or similar is also possible.

Ok, your turn. Why do you think these articles should link to Kosovo and Metohija and not to Kosovo? -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:48, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

(Note: Please answer underneath of my answer, and do not write your answer/rebuttal within the lines of my text. This makes it very difficult for me to answer your answer, and very hard to read for everybody else. Thanks. BTW, did you like the fireman?)

OK.

Answering to your first point, I want to say that, as there are more Serbs then Albanians living on this planet, I think that, all other things being equal, it is better to have what is insultive for Albanians than what is insultive for Serbs.

Having said that, I can assure you that calling the province "Kosovo" is not insultive to Serbs. Google search for "Kosovo i Metohija" in Serbian returns 13,000 pages while search for "Kosovo" in Serbian returns 70,900 pages, so it is mentioned four times as much. But what is insultive is calling the province "Kosovo" officially.

Who cares if in the middle of a three-foot-long article someone writes "Kosovo"? I don't, and I don't think that many people do. On the other hand, if there is such a mention of the province in an article definition, I do care. If an article says that "X is a city in Kosovo, a province of Serbia", I would be quite right to stamp that article with , citing that neither the Constitution of Serbia nor the Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro mention existence of such a province. A province of Serbia called "Kosovo" simply does not exist.

You are wrong when you say that the province is independent uner UN control. The province is autonomous under UN control. Actually, it has less autonomy under UN then it had under Serbia, at least formally.

I remain unconvinced that Kosovo is English for Kosovo and Metohia; Kosovo is English for Kosovo. Situation here is not like Kiev/Kyiv, where a government wants to prescribe new spelling of an existing name; the name remained the same, and English language speakers have every right to choose which spelling they will use in their language. Situation is more similar to Burma/Myanmar where a government changed the name, and rightfully expects everyone to follow that change; Burma remains English for Burma but Myanmar is English for Myanmar (I don't know how are they called in original but you'll understand the point). The fact that old name is a part of the new name is not important.

To answer your question directly, I think that Kosovo and Metohija is both unambiguous and correct. As I said, if in a middle of some article it is mentioned as a sideline that something happened in "Kosovo", that's fine. But if in a definition of a town or something similar it is said that it is in "Kosovo", that's not to good.

To finish with a question I asked Kosovar: if the parliament of Serbia would tomorrow, or later today, renamed the province to "Abvgd", should the article be moved to Abvgd and all (except historical) references be changed to Abvgd?

Fireman is nice. If I had a digital camera, I'd send send a photo of me with an axe... ;) Nikola 14:02, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I am glad that Kosovo is not insulting to Serbs. One problem less. Regarding autonomous vs. independent: According to my dictionary they are synonyms. Either usage is fine by me, and I don't know if there are any legal differences. I unfortunately disagree with "Kosovo and Metohija" being unambiguous. I know more about it now, but when I first heard Kosovo and Metohija, I got confused because I knew only a place called Kosovo, had never heard of Metohija, and was wondering what other region Metohija was. To English speakers, Kosovo is a clear reference to the region, as Kosovo is used almost exclusively in the English language to refer to both the region and the province. A possible compromise would be to say e.g. Prizren is in Kosovo, which is legally the Serbian province Kosovo and Metohija, but practically an autonomous region under UN control. It is a long phrase, but it contains both the information you want and the English reference to Kosovo. Would this be acceptable to you? I also think that K&M needs to be mentioned only once per article, and later use the short form Kosovo. About the province Abvgd: The parliament of Serbia can name it anything they want, and it will be properly mentioned at the top of the Kosovo article. But as long as the place is better known as Kosovo, then it should be called Kosovo within Wikipedia. The statement that "Prizren is in Abvgd" would be more confusing than helpful, I think. Also another minor point, I don't see the need to link to a redirect [[Kosovo and Metohija]], if [[Kosovo|Kosovo and Metohija]] achieves the same results, as for example on List of geographical pairs.

Could you consider discussing this problem on Talk:Kosovo, so others can participate in the discussion? I know you didn't like some of the discussions there, but I think my talk page is the wrong place to sort this out. I will post a copy of my suggestions on Talk:Kosovo

Glad you liked the fireman. A photo of you with an axe is fine, as long as it is only a photo, and not the real thing ;-) -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify: calling province "Kosovo" in a casual conversation is not insultive. But even vaguely implying that it is its real name is.

Difference between autonomy and independence is huge, and I believe you shouldn't trust that dictionary in the future. Serbia is independent. Any law passed by the Parliament of Serbia becomes active the moment it is passed and remains active until (eventually) it is deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Serbia, which is in turn elected by a previous parliament. Kosovo is just autonomous. Any law passed by the Parliament of Kosovo and Metohia (notice the difference?) becomes active only when it is approved by the Parliament of Serbia or, in these days, by UNMIK. That is not the only difference, but I think that now you understand how different these terms are.

Your proposed solution is, again, incorrect. Kosovo is both legally and practically Serbian province Kosovo and Metohija, and an autonomous region under UN control.

I don't dispute the fact that most English-speaking people don't know what is full name of the province; but this wouldn't be the first time that Wikipedia is smarter then the world. But I am thinking about this solution: Prizren is a city in the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija (Kosovo). Shorter then your version, leaves out any implication of province's legal status, wouldn't confuse you if you encountered it (I hope). To avoid any special treatment later in articles the province could almost always be referred to as "the province".

There are several reasons why I think that links to redirects should be kept linking to redirects. As I said, I think that a link to B simply confuses people. Another reason is visibility on search engines. For example, if all links to [[Milutin Milankovitch|Milutin Milanković]] would be replaced with [[Milutin Milantkovic|Milutin Milanković]], former would have no hits at all on Google search for "Milutin Milankovitch" (because article URL is taken into account). If all links which mention Kosovo and Metohija would point to just Kosovo, Wikipedia would be much lower when someon is searching for "Kosovo and Metohija". I believe that the easyest way to maintain indexability of all terms is to let users to enter any of them at will and not to change one version to another where there isn't some special need to do so.

As for Talk:Kosovo, as I said, it insults me to have to write on that page. You can copy/paste my conversation there if you would like, but I won't talk there.

I can't upload the real thing. One day, when axes make it to MIME, maybe... Nikola 08:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Seems we're getting closer to a solution. How about Prizren is a city in Kosovo (Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija). ? About the links to a redirect: I don't see why Wikipedia should optimize the google results for Kosovo and metohia. In any case, Wikipedia is the fourth google result for "Kosovo and metohia" after three serbian sites. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

For the sake of disambiguation and precision, I'd propose to write something like that: Prizren is a city in Metohija, Kosovo and Metohija (Kosovo for short), Serbia or Pristina is a city in Kosovo, Kosovo and Metochija (Kosovo for short), Serbia). Drbug 18:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, the solution looks long and akward to me, and most links end up at the same place (Kosovo). I still prefer the use of Kosovo only, and have the official name on the page Kosovo. Its short, everybody understands, and the full credit is given to all the name variations on Kosovo. I guess we may need a vote or quickpoll to sort this out. -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:28, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is it that longer?:

Prizren is a city in the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija (Kosovo)

Prizren is a city in Kosovo (Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija)

Prizren is a city in Metohija, Kosovo and Metohija (Kosovo for short), Serbia

But it contains more information, it is much less ambiguos, and definitely NPOV, isn't it? Drbug 12:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Prizren is a city in Kosovo (Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija) seems to be a possible compromise to me. I still think it is inferior to Prizren is a city in Kosovo, however. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:43, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. In the second case, it might be "Pristina is a city in Kosovo, Kosovo and Metohija (Kosovo for short), Serbia", but yes. It is quite long, but consider "Luxembourg is a city in the Luxembourg district of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg"; such cases might happen and are sometimes inevitable (note that such a solution is inapplicable here as the moment you sau "Autonomous province of" you are stating an official name and you know very well what is the official name). But if you think that regions should not be included, it's OK. I still prefer the use of Kosovo and Metohia only but am willing to accept a compromise. Kosovo is short and everybody understands it, but it is ambigious, incorrect and might be insultive. Regarding the vote, I don't think that there has ever been a vote which attempted to decide the content of all articles on Wikipedia, even articles that have not yet been written, and I am not sure that such a vote would be acceptable. Further, I don't see that anybody has joined our discussion except DrBug, which means that either nobody knows about the issue, or that nobody cares. This is a complex issue and I can't accept that people who don't know about it decide about it (which is one more reason why the previous vote was invalid; of ten voters perhaps eight have edited any Kosovo-related article prior to the voting). Whether Kiev or Kyiv is preferred English variant any speaker of English language can decide. Whether official or unofficial name should be used to refer to this province is something which only someone who knows about issues around the name can decide. Nikola 08:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, point by point: Where did you get the Luxembourg example from? It was not on the Luxembourg page, and i would consider it excessive elsewhere in most cases. Kosovo is short and everybody understands it, but it is ambigious contradicts itself. I also don't think Kosovo is insultive, after all you had no problems with e.g. Prizren being in Kosovo until the vote on Talk:Kosovo started, so the insult can't be that big. All alternative names are listed on Kosovo anyway. I also think a vote would be quite possible, there are lots of votes that set guidelines for Wikipedia. BTW it is not required to edit an article in order to vote on it. About the official name: If the BBC, the CIA, the UN, the EU, and pretty much everybody else outside of Serbia calls it Kosovo then that is fine for me. You also stated that even in Serbian, Kosovo is more common than K&M. However, I would go with the wikipedia majority anytime, we just have to find out what the majority thinks. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I constructed that example just to show that such cases might arise; Luxembourg is defined as "Luxembourg City, population 82,268 (2002), is the capital of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg." I should have said "everybody thinks to understand it"; most people don't know that it is ambiguous but that doesn't make it unambiguous. Those who know that Prizren is in Metohia will notice the error. I have explained nicely when Kosovo is insultive and when it isn't. I don't know why I haven't changed that in Prizren article, after all even unrelated to this it implies that Kosovo is an administrative unit of Serbia and Montenegro. This is not about a guideline, this is about contents of articles; if you say "Kiev is the capital of Ukraine" or "Kyiv is the capital of Ukraine", or perhaps "Red is a color" or "Red is a colour", these are two same thing expressed in a different way. If you say that "Prizren is a city in Kosovo" it means something completely different then "Prizren is a city in Kosovo and Metohia". It is not required to edit in order to vote, but if a vote is determining contents of an article, I expect the voters to know about the topic they vote about; maybe some of the voters did know enough, but haven't edited the article, but I doubt that. For Prizren, probably I didn't thought it is so important; now I do. Anyway, to make long story short, if such a vote would be held, and if it would go in your favour, I would stamp all of the pages with ; Kosovo, the province, simply does not exist. It is fine for me too that the BBC, the CIA, the UN, the EU, and pretty much everybody else outside of Serbia calls the province Kosovo; they may continue to do so, but I will never fail to point out that they are wrong. I said that Kosovo is used more frequently as an informal name. By the way, you have still failed to explain me why numerous pages with "Bombai", "Kyiv" or "Mecca" don't bother you but these few pages do? Nikola 13:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nikola, I am very sorry to inform you that there is no such thing as informal name of a territory when the United Nations are concerned. Nor are there any such thing as internal documents of the United Nations, as you once told me. UN Resolution 1244 on Kosovo is the most important political document regarding Kosovo today. It is this document that overwrites any document or law passed by either the Kosovar Parliament or the Serbian Parliament, you can?t deny this. It is this document that uses the name Kosovo. Like it or not, this is what we have. Whether it's right or wrong, that's a personal opinion. People will laugh at you if you say "I am right, everyone else is wrong".

Also, saying things like informal name of a territory is at the very least stupid. And failing to understand this is even more stupid.

One question: what do you think we should write about a town in Drenica? Srbica is a town between Kosovo and Metohia (because it is not in Kosovo plateau nor in Metohia plateau)? Or Brod is a town in K&M, not in Kosovo, not in Metohia, but in K&M?

Obviously, my preferred description is ?Prizren is a city in Kosovo?, whereby there is a link to Kosovo article, and the visitors can check for themselves names used by different ethnic groups. --Kosovar 23:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The place is known as Kosovo. Kosovo and Metohija is used only in Serbia, and even then the place is usually only called Kosovo. If even in Serbia Kosovo is more commonly used, then why can't we? After all, the other names are all listed on Kosovo. Which, just as a reminder, was voted to be Kosovo, not Kosovo and Metohija with a majority of 10 to 0, so the preference of Wikipedians seems to be quite for Kosovo. -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:02, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are we close to solution?

I think that I have a solution: "X is a city in the province of Serbia called Kosovo (officialy Kosovo and Metohia). Though it isn't real name of the province, noone can argue that it is called that way. If this fails, I don't really know what to do. Nikola 07:45, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like we're getting close again. Hopefully this time we'll find a solution. Basically, the above suggestion would be acceptable for me, but would this small modification also be possible for you: "X is a city in the Serbian province of Kosovo (officialy Kosovo and Metohia)"? -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:16, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd recommend to avoid "Serbian province" wording because for foreigners it might sound like "province populated by Serbs". Maybe "province of Serbia called Kosovo", "Kosovo province of Serbia", or "Kosovo province, Serbia" instead? Drbug 15:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about "X is a city in the autonomous province of Serbia called Kosovo (officialy Kosovo and Metohia)? That is also pretty close to Nikolas suggestion. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:43, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer to put disambiguous Kosovo and Metohia links. Not only Kosovo and Metohija instead of Kosovo and Metohija, but also Kosovo instead of Kosovo. I think, internal Wikipedia cross-references should be as non-ambiguate as possible. However, "X is a city in the autonomous province of Serbia called Kosovo (officialy Kosovo and Metohia) is fine for me, despite first Kosovo is not disambiguated. Drbug 07:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. The reason for moving the main article to Kosovo was that that is the name used in English and by most organisations. Why would we make readers go through a redirect for most articles? Dori | Talk 14:48, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Totally agree with Dori. I prefer to link to Kosovo not because it's shorter, but because it's officially used in english to describe the province (english outside of serbia that is). -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What you are talking about?! Redirect doesn't reqire any action from the reader to be taken. But making links as disambiguos as possible (and may be even overkill excessive disambiguous) allows easily renaming of articles without changing this huge bunch of links. Please point where I'm mistaken. Drbug 17:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Redirects should be avoided in the texts. The reson for their existance is for when people don't know where the article is. In this case it's at Kosovo (that's what the vote was about), so why would we link to a redirect? It doesn't make any sense to vote for moving the article to Kosovo, and then use a redirect to Kosovo. Dori | Talk 17:17, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have argued why they should be used. Now you please argue, why they should not. And remember, please, that advice to avoid redirects stems from disambiguation purposes, supposing that article is not ambiguous. Please, don't consider common use as a dogma, and don't apply it when it is not applicable. Drbug 17:55, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I already told you why. The vote to move to Kosovo wasn't just for fun. It's the most commonly used name, so that's where links should go. What was the point of moving the article according to you? Nothing else should point to Kosovo. If it did, then you would fix those links so as to not be ambiguous. Dori | Talk 18:14, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't scan all these articles. If articles that have already handled link to Kosovo and Metohia, I can check all links to Kosovo and replace them with either Kosovo and Metohia, or Kosovo (plateau), or some other Kosovo. If they all refer to Kosovo, as you propose, to find a false link, I have to thoroughly read all the articles, that is near to impossible. Ambiguous naming is prone to errors. Therefore, it should be avoided whenever possible. Do you agree? Drbug 19:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(indent x10) For 99% of the people out there it's not ambigous so there shouldn't be that many wrong links out there. Dori | Talk 22:50, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Anything that is not along the following lines is completely unacceptable: "X is a town in Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Serbian: Kosovo and Metohia)". You refer to the territory as Kosovo in English, as I have proved to you in many occasions. In addition, the above quote sound more straightforward than the previous suggestions. Also, why is it that the name of the territory must be given in Serbian, but not in Albanian? Kosovar

Apologies for cutting across the discussion. NPOV would have 'Kosovo and Metohija' as the formal title of the province, and either Kosovo, Kosova or Kosovo/Kosova (international community usage) as the short form. The long form should certiainly be used in the definition and long-form references, or when you want to make a distinction, but the short form should be more often used in the body of the text - much as most people will refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the UK or just Britain. Of the various short forms, the international community usage is most commonly found in Kosovo itself, and is probably the least offensive to any side. Many towns and villages also have their Serbian and Albanian forms, and the UN standard is to use both (which is the case on roadsigns across Kosovo). It should be used here, and there will be references on the UNMIK website for those who want to get it right. Having said this, as you will have noticed from my last comment on 'Kosovo', it makes sense after naming the province or a town once or twice as Kosovo/Kosova or to revert to whatever usage is simplest for you - if your addition or comment is neutral few will mind if you start using your own favoured term. An Kosovar can call it Kosova and a Kosovo Serb, Kosovo, just as long as their additions are NPOV. And using KosMet is about as dated as referring to the UK as Blighty. JAD

Kosovar:Kosovo

Another interesting discussion but, the issues remain the same.

What does it take for some people (namely Nikola) to understand that the English name for the territory is Kosovo?

Nikola pointed out something very important that Kosovo is a territory under United Nations control. United Nations and United Nations only can approve the laws passed by the Kosovar Parliament. Serbia and Serbian Parliament can do nothing, absolutely nothing. This is the bare truth. Now, it is the United Nations that uses the name Kosovo. The United Nations are neutral and impartial, and surely their opinion must matter.

Also, Nikola mentioned the Kiev example.

Well, I have another interesting example for Nikola. How about Nicosia? If you don't know what Nicosia is, or where it is, well consult Wikipedia. Even better, I shall explain it to you. Nicosia is the English name (that say that again, the English name) for the capital of Cyprus. Nicosia is a divided city; Greek Cypriots call it Λευκωσία -- whereas Turkish Cypriots call it Lefkoşa. Wikipedia article is called, as expected, Nicosia.

Nikola would like to take us for a ride, and tell us that Wikipedia could be "smarter then the world". First, even the English spelling of this statement is wrong, let alone the meaning. Nikola meant "smarter than...? Second, how can Wikipedia be smarter than all the international institutions, legal organisations, and governments? Is it because a Serb must always be smarter than the rest of the world?

In Kosovo we have a very good saying: "Don't try and be more catholic than the Pope!" But no, Nikola would like us to be. He says, lets be "smarter" than the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and every other English encyclopaedia you can think of.

In addition, according to Nikola publishing something that is an insult to Albanians is better than being neutral. So, according to your thinking Nikola shall we stop talking about the Holocaust because this is embarrassing for the Germans, and there are more Germans than Jews, so fewer people would be insulted? This is plain stupid.

You are distorting Nikola's words, but in general you are of course right - it's definitely wrong to insult anyone.

Finally, if you still "remain unconvinced" that Kosovo is the English name for the territory, well then this is not our problem. Go and see a doctor if need be.

As far as I know - please point if I'm mistaken - Kosovo is the Serbian name as well. More precisely, it is often used by Serbs to refer Kosovo i Metohija. English Kosovo is a part of English Kosovo and Metohija like Serbian Kosovo is a part of Serbian Kosovo i Metohija. However, the province is rarely named precisely in English. Drbug 19:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

English Kosovo refers to what Albanians refer to as Kosova, while Serbs refer to as Kosovo and Metohija. Clear enough? --Kosovar 16:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

English Kosovo is an ambiguous word. Clear enough? I suppose it would not be hard for you to find English usage of Kosovo in sense of "real Kosovo" (not "Kosovo and Metohija"). What's wrong with my prepositions above? Drbug 11:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No Drbug, it is not clear at all. It is very unclear in fact. Kosovo is not ambiguous, since the United Nations never use ambiguous names (check the following UN Resolutiont which can also be found at www.un.org -- http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm )

Now, that is what is wrong with your prepositions. If you want, I can send you countless examples that prove that your prepositions are wrong. For example, go and open the Oxford Dictionary of English now! --Kosovar 23:54, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My suggestions:

1. Prizren is a city in Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Serbian: Kosovo and Metohija). This makes sense because for English-speaking world Prizren is in Kosovo, for Albanians Prizren is in Kosova, whereas for the Serbs, well, let them decide whether it is in Kosovo or in Metohija or in "Abvgd".

Can you please explain in more details what does Albanian "Rrafsh i Dukagjinit" mean? Is it correct to say that "Rrafsh i Dukagjinit" is a part of "Kosova" (or "Kosovё")? Drbug 19:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Rrafshi i Dukagjinit is a plateau within the borders of what is today known as Kosovo. It's a plateau, it has no borders, no administration or anything of that sort. Let me tell you something more important, the people who live in Rrafshi i Dukagjini consider themselves as Kosovars, because they are Kosovars. They and all of us see Rrafshi i Dukagjinit as Kosovo. --Kosovar 16:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation! Drbug 12:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for prolixity, but who are these "all of us"? Kosovar Albanians? Drbug 11:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All of us is the people of Kosovo, or at least 90 percent of the Kosovars (whether they are Albanian or not) -- plus the United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe, European Parliament, U.S. Government, U.K. government, French government... i.e. all of us. --Kosovar 23:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

2. For the Kosovo article, I suggest that the Serbian name is used only once, just like the Albanian name is used only once. Why is the Serbian name used twice, in Latin and Serbian Alphabet? The Serbian name should be used only once, and Serbs should decide which alphabet to use.

Consider that Serbs chosen Cyrrillics, but latin transliteration is included for English readers, as it is done for other regions (for example, for subjects of Russian Federation) and countries. Drbug 19:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

If the name of the territory is given in English, I think there is no need to transliterate the Serb name.

If we do this for other countries and territories, why wouldn't we do for this one?! Drbug 11:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, Nicosia article does not have it. --Kosovar 23:54, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--Kosovar 16:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

3. The population of Pristina is at the very least 500,000.

Sorry, how does it relate to the article?! Isn't it another point of deadly fightings between Albanians and Serbs? I'm really impressed, sure. Drbug 19:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I apologise here. I previously requested that this information is updated, but no one did anything about it. Shall I go ahead and correct the page than? --Kosovar 16:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to keep old number as well, mentioning that situation is changed due to after-war migration... Drbug 11:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In that case, shall we meantion the number of Albanians that were forced to migrate to the West during the 1990s due to the repression by the Serbian regime? I can tell you that that number is at least twice as big as the number of Serbs that left Kosovo. The figures on this article date back to 1970s, and are totally out of date. --Kosovar 23:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--Kosovar 17:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd still prefer the exclusive use of Kosovo for most wikipedia articles, and all other names (including local alphabets) only in the Kosovo article itself, but I am willing to compromise with the majority. -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:00, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Again, we should go with the international standard. There is a dispute here which should be recorded somewhere in an entry, noting that the 'Albanian' preference, and that used for UNMIK-issued documents is Kosovar, but that 'Serbs' consider themselves Serbs (and all have Serbian nationality and passports), and that the international community often refers to Kosovo Albanians and Kosovo Serbs. Kosovo is a common international short form, but we need to record the Albanian language Kosova and the international Kosovo and Metohija, as well (if necessary) as the Serbian Cyrillic form and Albanian script forms.(JAD)

A Solution for Serbia?

By the way, I have an excellent idea - let's rename "Serbia and Montenegro" to "Serbia"?

Proof by Googlecheck: "Serbia Montenegro" - 1,53 mio, "Serbia" - 3,75 mio, "Serbia -Montenegro" - 1,32 mio. By the way, arithmetics article should be modernized too 1,53+1,32=3,75 by Google, while the Wikipedia article suggest 2,85... Drbug 19:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Wow, a really brilliant idea! How about this one: Shall we rename "Russia" to "Russia and Kaliningrad region"? After all that's what Nikola and the Serbs are requesting in Kosovo. If we were to listen to Serbia soon we would talk about countries like "Russia and Siberia".

Rrafshi i Dukagjinit is a plateau whithin Kosovo, it has no borders, it has never had, it has no seperate administration, hence when you write an article about a city in Rrafshi i Dukagjinit you refer to it as a city in Kosovo. --Kosovar 16:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro (or Srbija i Crna Gora) is the name of an internationally-recognised entity. There is no easy short form. Calling it Serbia, would be like calling the UK 'England' - wrong. Have no idea what this Rrafshi i Dukagjinit, it appears in no international refences, but if Kosovo Albanians prefer it, we should note that in a reference article. (JAD)

Overlooked Stuff v2

Perhaps someone can tear themselves away from trying to figure out what to call the place and fill in something about its apparently rather wondrous mineral wealth, maybe in that now-piddly Economy section? Some think it's so vast as to be the real reason for the war. 142.177.21.14 17:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The word "Kosovar" also exists in Albanian, but its use in English owes more to the grammatical rule that demonyms formed from nouns ending in -o should end with -an. Hence, for instance, an inhabitant of Sarajevo is a Sarajevan. "Kosovan" is therefore the variant following standard English morphology most closely, but this has been modified in common English usage (no doubt influenced by the Albanian spelling) to "Kosovar". Although "Kosovar" has often been used to refer exclusively to Kosovo Albanians, the term is not ethnically exclusive; it can also be (and has been) used to refer to Serbs.

It should be noted that the appearance of the letter "a" in the English-language demonyms "Kosovar" or "Kosovan" has nothing to do with the Albanian spelling of Kosovo (i.e. Kosova); both demonyms derive in English from "Kosovo", not "Kosova". The confusion arises because "Kosovar" in Albanian does derive from "Kosova". In other words, the same word is arrived at in two different languages from two different derivations because of a coincidence between English grammar and Albanian spelling.

"Kosovian" is a nonstandard variant, though it has been publicly used, by President George W. Bush, for example. The Oxford English Dictionary endorses the use of "Kosovan" and "Kosovar" but not "Kosovian". [1]

Total nonsense. The correct word in English is the most used. The inhabitants of Monaco are Monegasque, not Monacans. Bogdan | Talk 16:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kosovo and Metohia dispute again

Let's refer to "live" examples (in English): Albania, not Shqiperia (Alb.) Serbia, not Srbija (Serb.) Ukraine, not Ukraina (Ukr. translit, Pol.), not Ucraina (Rom.) etc. Ukrainian, not Ukrainets (Ukr. translit) Kiev (common name till 1991), not Ky(y)iv (Ukr. translit) Moscow (Eng.), not Moskva (Rus.), not Moscau (Ger.) etc. Germany, not Deutchland, Niemcy, Allemagne, Almania etc. so KOsovo, not KoSOva (Alb.), not Kosovo and Metohia (Serb.) - more complicated and rarely used and Kosovan, not Kosovar (Alb.) We don't follow German or Ukrainian names, so why shall we follow Albanian ones?

Postal system

Could anyone judge changes claiming that one can't send a letter to Kosovo and Metohija via Serbian postal system, but only to Kosova via Zurich?

I don't know situation, but new insertions sound rather nationalistic. I dind't find any information confirming this one, I'd like to see references or independent opinions on this topic.

Thank. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 09:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's so nationalistic about having an independent postal system?

In fact, just so that people will be informed, I shall create an article about Kosovar Postal System, together with images of Kosovo post stamps [2]

If you wish to send a letter to Kosovo, however, by mistake you address it to Serbia and Montenegro, then the letter will be returned with the following explanation "Nije trazio" (meaning, did not ask for it). I mean, can you really imagine Serbian Post operating in Kosovo? Get real people.

Independent postal system, unlike say passports, need only be recognised by one country, i.e. Switzerland, as that's where all international mail is sorted. So, last month I went to Slovakia and I sent a postcard home addressed "Kosova via Zurich" and it got home in 3 days. Not bad! Since Kosovar authorities have reached an agreement with Swiss authorities, any international mail addressed to Kosovo will be sent directly to Prishtina, Kosovo -- not Belgrade, Serbia. Needless to say, Kosovo has no agreement with Slovakia, but then one is not required for international mail.

Just for your information, there are three weekly flights for international mail: Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. More information about Kosovar Postal System should be available soon in the upcoming Wikipedia article :)

I have personally sent letters/postcards from United States, France, Italy, Switzerland, Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, England, Scotland, Ireland, Iceland, Spain and Portugal to "Kosova via Zurich" and all my letters were received at home.

I also need to go down to my local post office and get some new postal stamps, and the latest ones are priced in EUROs. We are sorry, we don't take Dinars in Kosovo any longer! I shall scan them and post them up just for you! Kosovar 11:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Kosovar, your information is interesting and of course I appreciate your scans, but I'd like to have an independent or pro-serbian side confirmation that Serbian postal system will reject messages with any valid address (comprehensible by Serbs) within Kosovo. It's hard for me to believe that Serbs within Serbia proper can't send a message to Serbs within Kosovo. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 14:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you can send mail to Kosovo via Serbia proper, and via Serbia from overseas if you wish. Just don't expect the Kosovo Serb postman to risk life and limb leaving one of the Serbian minority enclaves.

Yout can send mail through Belgrade although you usually have to go and pick it up in Fushe Kosove (Kosovo Polje). And don't every think of mailing something valuable. It will never get past Belgrade.

I don`t understand last one - I use the same postal system, nothing ever got lost or was stolen (from Belgrade to any part of Serbia or from foreign countries). It might get a bit smashed if not packed good, but not that "valuable things won`t pass Belgrade" (???) user:Rastavox