Because this talk page is getting cluttered with a lot of comments, I decided to list here once more the versions for the introduction that have been suggested before. A vote seems not appropriate at the moment, so instead I suggest that people give short comments on each of the versions (under the Comments by others: text). This way we at least can get an idea of how also other users feel about these three options. To prevent this turning into a real vote, I would like to ask everyone who adds an opinion, to give arguments for that choice in your own words (so no comments without arguments or by only referring to another editor who gave a comment please). Cpt. Morgan 18:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Please note that I will remove comments not following the rules above. This is not a vote. Cpt. Morgan 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments by others:
Comments by others:
Comments by others:
Note:I don't want to enter a propaganda or anything. Just putting down the facts. Please don't blame me for what I wrote. I think this would be acceptable to write in the article as the introduction. Also, I don't want to enter in these edit wars or clash with Serbs and Albanians because of this. -- CrnaGora Note:: this version was changed by its writer since it was first posted here [5]. Comments might refer to a previous version (see below). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments by others (previous version):
Comments by others (current version):
I would stick as closely as possible to the present intro.
Comments by others:
Based on the comments that have been given on the options above, I decided to try a new draft version. Before giving the same arguments and opinions that we now have heard over and over again, I would like anyone who comments to bear in mind that I explicitely have included the following statements, based on what we have discussed before here. These are not my opinions, but rather statements that I see fit based on all the arguments we've heard. Please understand that there is no other way out of this dispute than a compromise from both sides. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Specific choices I've made:
With these choices in mind, this is my proposal, which is primarily based on the version by TheTom:
The contentious issue is how much you want to deemphasize the link to Serbia. Legally it is a province of Serbia. This is agreed by both UNSCR 1244 and the international community at large.
No doubt, Kosovar Albanians prefer to describe Kosovo as a "territory in SE Europe" and "defined as part of FRY" etc. While not technically incorrect, it's a very roundabout way of saying it that really just panders to those Kosovar Albanians who wish the facts to be different.
So, I will take the freedom to propose the following compromise text:
Osli73 11:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not overly happy about it but for the sake of compromise I'm prepared to to along... as long as you change the wording "region" to "province" since Kosovo isn't a territory in the same sense as Tibet but a well defined province.
Also, I do think it would be valuable to state in the introduction that the UN administration follows the 1999 Kosovo War.
Let's hope this is the end of it. Osli73 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course there are differences between Tibet and Kosovo. No comparison is ever perfect. But I am ok with the changes you requested (I think the second one your suggested is a very good idea actually, I should have included that earlier). So the version we now have is this: Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
And because many people tend to read only the last part of each discussion, again a short list of the choices and compromises leading to this particular version:
I'm perfectly content with this version of the intro. Three comments/questions:
Osli73 14:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of the changes are fine with me, since they are mainly textual (although I think it would be better to lose the recognised as, it is redundant). I would, however, like to ask from you to reconsider naming independence as an option in the sentence about the talks on the future of Kosovo. Wikipedia is not complete and will never be complete (and most importantly it does not have the intention to be complete), so requiring all the options to be mentioned is not necessary. But I think that leaving that in the article will make this version more acceptable for the other parties in this dispute. You cannot deny that indepence is the what the Albanian Kosovars who are taking part in these talks (and represent 80% of the Kosovo population) are aiming for. So for the sake of compromise, I would like to ask you to reconsider. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we are getting closer here. Two comments:
Osli73 10:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Both fine with me (see below), but before this dispute is solved, we will also need some input from User:Ilir pz. I'll post on his talk page and ask if he is willing to accept the following version:
With again a list of the compromises made:
Regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I made a small grammatical adjustment and took out the independence (conditional) which I didn't feel worked that well in the text. Hope that is OK. Osli73 11:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with mentioning it. I just thought it looked odd in the proposed text. First you say "Talks on the future status and (limited) independence of Kosovo started..." and in the next sentence say "The outcome of the talks is still unclear...". I thought it sounded a bit contradictory. But maybe it's not.
Osli73
12:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This sounds perfectly fine. Are we ready to go to the administration now? Osli73 11:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been any more comments on the compromise version, does that mean that we can go ahead and take it to the admin? What exactly is the current plan? Osli73 11:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If Ilir is not willing to compromise about Kosovo being, technically, "a province in Serba" then I'm not sure there is much more we can do. Osli73 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping that we can, finally, agree on a common introduction. Since there seems to be not willingness to compromise and/or just endless proposals and adjustments, I suggest that we go ahead with a vote. Below I have put forward Asterion's and my version (with the autonomous taken out).
So, can we please have a decision or a vote on this otherwise we will have a neverending discussion?
Osli73
08:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
With apologies to the authors of the previous versions, I'd like to propose (yet another) version. I felt that the previous versions were lacking. Some points to note:
Comments welcomed... -- ChrisO 21:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Chris, with some tweaking (including those suggested by Asterion) I think your proposal is refreshing and I support it. The old version got a bit too caught up in definitions and UNSC resolutions.
How about that? Should we add something about topography and largest towns? Osli73 07:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear all, Reinoutr asked me to put back in the reference to Vojvodina (see my talk page). I have no problems with this if it will help move us towards unprotecting the article. I have also adjustd the population figure to be more in line with what is in the article (1,8-2,0 million). So, here is the latest suggestion (incl. reference to Vojvodina):
Are we happy?
Osli73
12:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Reinoutr, I think it would be good if you, as the administrator/moderator, on this topic, put in a message on Ilir's talk page (since I believe he is the only other party which has taken a serious interest in contributing to the discussion) and hear what he says. Osli73 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with this phrasing at all.This is not some kind of compromise between an Albanian version and a Seria version.It's very close to how a serb would phrase it. And besides, as someone else said above, there is two parties involved here. I don't see anybody from the opposing view saing ya. Something alone these lines would be far closer to reality( with some changes):
This version is simply factually incorrect (i.e. "former Yugoslavia" instead Serbia, "legal jurisdiction" instead administration, link to SFRY instead FRY), the wording is unclear ("still de jure") and a drawback from previous consensus and also uses non-English denominations (i.e. Prishtinë). I simply cannot accept it, let's go back to ChrisO's modified text as discussed. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ferick, just as ChrisO wrote in his proposal, Kosovo is de jure one of two provinces in Serbia. However, it is administered by the UN. It's as simple as that. These talk pages are full of sources showing the validity of this. Asterion, ChrisO, Reinoutr or myself, who are obviously not Serbs, think this is a good way of describing what Kosovo is. We are not "taking sides" or trying to push a "Serbian viewpoint". We are very simply stating the facts, as they are recognized by the international community.
Osli73
09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"Legal jurisdiction" is indeed correct and it should definitely be included. Serbia has no legal jurisdiction in Kosovo whatsoever .Kosovo is a special case: There has never been a case (as far as I am aware) where a country did not have legal jurisdiction under International law over a part of its territory, yet it continued to claim that territory. When a country doesn't have legal jurisdiction over a territory, we cannot say that that territory is a part of that country. We all know that Kosovo was legally a province of Serbia at one point, but it was snatched away by force. Kosovo does not have the same legal status as Vojvodina, which is an actual province of Serbia. Ferick 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, your point on sovereignty vs legal jurisdiction is very good. Your proposal is NPOV while it is quite clear that those who oppose it (or similar texts) have a very clear political agenda / partisan view. That is fine with me (I even support it to a certain extent). But it should't be allowed to influence the wording used in a Wikipedia article.
Osli73
20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme legislative, judicial, and/or executive authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty. Serbia has none of these rights over Kosovo, but it has all of these rights over Vojvodina. Bringing WWII examples is a far fetched comparison. The international community did not recognize Saddam Hussein’s and Hitler’s right to legislate over Kuwait and Norway, respectively! The fact of the matter is that Serbian laws do not apply to Kosovo for 7 years now, and this is recognized by international community. Does anybody dispute that Serbia has no legislative, judicial, and/or executive authority over Kosovo as of this moment? Perhaps we need to change the definition of sovereignty?
What is my personal point? I don't follow..... Ferick 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why the article was put under protection in the first place? A one sided discussion will not resolve the issue- it will just postpone it. For which part of my assertion do you need sources? Everything I have said so far is common knowledge. Ferick 00:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Further discussions on the intro seem to be pointless, as we've already reached broad agreement and Ferick's preferred version is simply inadmissible OR and POV. I've unprotected the article and added Osli's suggested version with minor tweaks for readability.
As for what to do next, there are still major problems with the article. In particular, much of it is unreferenced and the history section is far too long (it should be a summary of the main history article, not a mini-article in its own right). I suggest that we should trim the history section drastically - I'd say at least a 75% reduction - and move whatever we can out of that section and into the main history article. -- ChrisO 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, neither of you seem to get it, but I will repeat: There was no agreement above, just a one sided debate. Therefore, all of your arguments are fallacious because they are base on the assumption that there was an agreement.
Since there is been no agreement, the struggle for the truth continues( notwithstanding harassments and threats)! Ferick 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"All of your arguments are fallacious because they are base on the assumption that there was an agreement". Ferick 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ferick, since you (and Ilir) were so completely unwilling to compromise, produce any external sources for your interpretation or to participate constructively to the discussion at all, everyone else agreed on a version. So yes, there was agreement.
Osli73
06:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, as is often the case with you people, things have to be repeated. If you want to rely on your beloved sovereignty, here you have it: According to wikipedia: Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme, legislative, judicial, and/or executive authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. Serbia has none of these rights over Kosovo. I suspect that neither of you will care to address this issue due to the fact that you don’t have any counter arguments. Ferick 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"I suspect that NONE of you will care to address this issue due to the fact that you don’t have any counter arguments". The issue is indeed sovereignty- see above. Ferick 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"I suspect that NONE of you will care to address this issue due to the fact that you don’t have any counter arguments". Still waiting..... Ferick 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, it’s implicit. Do you understand what that means in plain English? What else could you imply from this sentence: Kosovo is a part of Serbia? You have problems deconstructing English sentences? Let me know and I will try to write more descriptive ones. Ferick 21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ferick, I hope you understand that stating that (de-jure / technically / legally), Kosovo is a province in Serbia is not taking sides in any conflict - it's a statement of fact. All world governments agree on this, all maps show this and all other encyclopedias acknowledge this. Now Wikipedia does so as well. Saying this does not imply anything about the future of the province or constitute a judgement as to what that future should be. Please understand this. If you wish to make this article a forum for discussiong what the future of Kosovo should be, you have misunderstood the purpose of an Encyclopedia. Osli73 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The introductory sentence in the article does not say Kosovo is de jure part of Serbia: It simply says: Kosovo is one of two provinces in Serbia (the other being Vojvodina, in northern Serbia). It is misleading, and frankly an untrue statement to say that Kosovo has the same legal status as Vojvodina in the eyes of the law. Now, if your purpose is to mislead readers, then that sentence would be fine.
Contrary to popular believe here, I am not concerned too much about the future status of Kosovo. That has already been decided, and most level headed people know about it.
My primary goal here is to make the article resemble the actual reality. Right now it doesn’t! The initial statement has to reflect the fact that Kosovo is under the legal authority of the U.N, and that Serbia’s sovereignty over the region has been suspended indefinitely since 1999. Anything short of this is not acceptable because it doesn’t represent reality. Ferick 03:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the CIA has been wrong on several occasions in the recent years, but that’s beyond the scope of this argument. You want to mislead people into thinking that I am arguing against the fact that Kosovo is de jure part of Yugoslavia or Serbia or whatever creation you like. Most media use the word de jure in explicit terms when talking about Kosovo-so no; my opinion does not contradict the world. It is interesting to note, however, that you explicitly excluded the word de jure in the interdictory paragraph.
According to you: “Kosovo is one of two provinces in Serbia (the other being Vojvodina, in northern Serbia)”. What kind of impression would someone who reads this (a novice reader) get? Obviously a skewed version of reality!
As I said above, my primary goal here is to make the article resemble the actual reality. Right now it doesn’t! The initial statement has to reflect the fact that Kosovo is under the legal authority of the U.N, and that Serbia’s sovereignty over the region has been suspended indefinitely since 1999. Anything short of this is not acceptable because it doesn’t represent reality.
And just the fact that you tried to force the issue down our thoughts due to some phony agreement was not in keeping with your responsibilities as administrator. This in itself speaks volumes about the way you see your job! Ferick 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Serbia never reversed the 1989 suspension. So Kosovo should not even have its page in wikipedia-everything should be pasted in the Serbia page. According to Serb Law, Kosovo is integral part of Serbia, not a province. What you say? Ferick 15:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Because this talk page is getting cluttered with a lot of comments, I decided to list here once more the versions for the introduction that have been suggested before. A vote seems not appropriate at the moment, so instead I suggest that people give short comments on each of the versions (under the Comments by others: text). This way we at least can get an idea of how also other users feel about these three options. To prevent this turning into a real vote, I would like to ask everyone who adds an opinion, to give arguments for that choice in your own words (so no comments without arguments or by only referring to another editor who gave a comment please). Cpt. Morgan 18:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Please note that I will remove comments not following the rules above. This is not a vote. Cpt. Morgan 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments by others:
Comments by others:
Comments by others:
Note:I don't want to enter a propaganda or anything. Just putting down the facts. Please don't blame me for what I wrote. I think this would be acceptable to write in the article as the introduction. Also, I don't want to enter in these edit wars or clash with Serbs and Albanians because of this. -- CrnaGora Note:: this version was changed by its writer since it was first posted here [5]. Comments might refer to a previous version (see below). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments by others (previous version):
Comments by others (current version):
I would stick as closely as possible to the present intro.
Comments by others:
Based on the comments that have been given on the options above, I decided to try a new draft version. Before giving the same arguments and opinions that we now have heard over and over again, I would like anyone who comments to bear in mind that I explicitely have included the following statements, based on what we have discussed before here. These are not my opinions, but rather statements that I see fit based on all the arguments we've heard. Please understand that there is no other way out of this dispute than a compromise from both sides. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Specific choices I've made:
With these choices in mind, this is my proposal, which is primarily based on the version by TheTom:
The contentious issue is how much you want to deemphasize the link to Serbia. Legally it is a province of Serbia. This is agreed by both UNSCR 1244 and the international community at large.
No doubt, Kosovar Albanians prefer to describe Kosovo as a "territory in SE Europe" and "defined as part of FRY" etc. While not technically incorrect, it's a very roundabout way of saying it that really just panders to those Kosovar Albanians who wish the facts to be different.
So, I will take the freedom to propose the following compromise text:
Osli73 11:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not overly happy about it but for the sake of compromise I'm prepared to to along... as long as you change the wording "region" to "province" since Kosovo isn't a territory in the same sense as Tibet but a well defined province.
Also, I do think it would be valuable to state in the introduction that the UN administration follows the 1999 Kosovo War.
Let's hope this is the end of it. Osli73 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course there are differences between Tibet and Kosovo. No comparison is ever perfect. But I am ok with the changes you requested (I think the second one your suggested is a very good idea actually, I should have included that earlier). So the version we now have is this: Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
And because many people tend to read only the last part of each discussion, again a short list of the choices and compromises leading to this particular version:
I'm perfectly content with this version of the intro. Three comments/questions:
Osli73 14:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of the changes are fine with me, since they are mainly textual (although I think it would be better to lose the recognised as, it is redundant). I would, however, like to ask from you to reconsider naming independence as an option in the sentence about the talks on the future of Kosovo. Wikipedia is not complete and will never be complete (and most importantly it does not have the intention to be complete), so requiring all the options to be mentioned is not necessary. But I think that leaving that in the article will make this version more acceptable for the other parties in this dispute. You cannot deny that indepence is the what the Albanian Kosovars who are taking part in these talks (and represent 80% of the Kosovo population) are aiming for. So for the sake of compromise, I would like to ask you to reconsider. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we are getting closer here. Two comments:
Osli73 10:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Both fine with me (see below), but before this dispute is solved, we will also need some input from User:Ilir pz. I'll post on his talk page and ask if he is willing to accept the following version:
With again a list of the compromises made:
Regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I made a small grammatical adjustment and took out the independence (conditional) which I didn't feel worked that well in the text. Hope that is OK. Osli73 11:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with mentioning it. I just thought it looked odd in the proposed text. First you say "Talks on the future status and (limited) independence of Kosovo started..." and in the next sentence say "The outcome of the talks is still unclear...". I thought it sounded a bit contradictory. But maybe it's not.
Osli73
12:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This sounds perfectly fine. Are we ready to go to the administration now? Osli73 11:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been any more comments on the compromise version, does that mean that we can go ahead and take it to the admin? What exactly is the current plan? Osli73 11:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If Ilir is not willing to compromise about Kosovo being, technically, "a province in Serba" then I'm not sure there is much more we can do. Osli73 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping that we can, finally, agree on a common introduction. Since there seems to be not willingness to compromise and/or just endless proposals and adjustments, I suggest that we go ahead with a vote. Below I have put forward Asterion's and my version (with the autonomous taken out).
So, can we please have a decision or a vote on this otherwise we will have a neverending discussion?
Osli73
08:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
With apologies to the authors of the previous versions, I'd like to propose (yet another) version. I felt that the previous versions were lacking. Some points to note:
Comments welcomed... -- ChrisO 21:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Chris, with some tweaking (including those suggested by Asterion) I think your proposal is refreshing and I support it. The old version got a bit too caught up in definitions and UNSC resolutions.
How about that? Should we add something about topography and largest towns? Osli73 07:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear all, Reinoutr asked me to put back in the reference to Vojvodina (see my talk page). I have no problems with this if it will help move us towards unprotecting the article. I have also adjustd the population figure to be more in line with what is in the article (1,8-2,0 million). So, here is the latest suggestion (incl. reference to Vojvodina):
Are we happy?
Osli73
12:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Reinoutr, I think it would be good if you, as the administrator/moderator, on this topic, put in a message on Ilir's talk page (since I believe he is the only other party which has taken a serious interest in contributing to the discussion) and hear what he says. Osli73 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with this phrasing at all.This is not some kind of compromise between an Albanian version and a Seria version.It's very close to how a serb would phrase it. And besides, as someone else said above, there is two parties involved here. I don't see anybody from the opposing view saing ya. Something alone these lines would be far closer to reality( with some changes):
This version is simply factually incorrect (i.e. "former Yugoslavia" instead Serbia, "legal jurisdiction" instead administration, link to SFRY instead FRY), the wording is unclear ("still de jure") and a drawback from previous consensus and also uses non-English denominations (i.e. Prishtinë). I simply cannot accept it, let's go back to ChrisO's modified text as discussed. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ferick, just as ChrisO wrote in his proposal, Kosovo is de jure one of two provinces in Serbia. However, it is administered by the UN. It's as simple as that. These talk pages are full of sources showing the validity of this. Asterion, ChrisO, Reinoutr or myself, who are obviously not Serbs, think this is a good way of describing what Kosovo is. We are not "taking sides" or trying to push a "Serbian viewpoint". We are very simply stating the facts, as they are recognized by the international community.
Osli73
09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"Legal jurisdiction" is indeed correct and it should definitely be included. Serbia has no legal jurisdiction in Kosovo whatsoever .Kosovo is a special case: There has never been a case (as far as I am aware) where a country did not have legal jurisdiction under International law over a part of its territory, yet it continued to claim that territory. When a country doesn't have legal jurisdiction over a territory, we cannot say that that territory is a part of that country. We all know that Kosovo was legally a province of Serbia at one point, but it was snatched away by force. Kosovo does not have the same legal status as Vojvodina, which is an actual province of Serbia. Ferick 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, your point on sovereignty vs legal jurisdiction is very good. Your proposal is NPOV while it is quite clear that those who oppose it (or similar texts) have a very clear political agenda / partisan view. That is fine with me (I even support it to a certain extent). But it should't be allowed to influence the wording used in a Wikipedia article.
Osli73
20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme legislative, judicial, and/or executive authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty. Serbia has none of these rights over Kosovo, but it has all of these rights over Vojvodina. Bringing WWII examples is a far fetched comparison. The international community did not recognize Saddam Hussein’s and Hitler’s right to legislate over Kuwait and Norway, respectively! The fact of the matter is that Serbian laws do not apply to Kosovo for 7 years now, and this is recognized by international community. Does anybody dispute that Serbia has no legislative, judicial, and/or executive authority over Kosovo as of this moment? Perhaps we need to change the definition of sovereignty?
What is my personal point? I don't follow..... Ferick 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why the article was put under protection in the first place? A one sided discussion will not resolve the issue- it will just postpone it. For which part of my assertion do you need sources? Everything I have said so far is common knowledge. Ferick 00:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Further discussions on the intro seem to be pointless, as we've already reached broad agreement and Ferick's preferred version is simply inadmissible OR and POV. I've unprotected the article and added Osli's suggested version with minor tweaks for readability.
As for what to do next, there are still major problems with the article. In particular, much of it is unreferenced and the history section is far too long (it should be a summary of the main history article, not a mini-article in its own right). I suggest that we should trim the history section drastically - I'd say at least a 75% reduction - and move whatever we can out of that section and into the main history article. -- ChrisO 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, neither of you seem to get it, but I will repeat: There was no agreement above, just a one sided debate. Therefore, all of your arguments are fallacious because they are base on the assumption that there was an agreement.
Since there is been no agreement, the struggle for the truth continues( notwithstanding harassments and threats)! Ferick 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"All of your arguments are fallacious because they are base on the assumption that there was an agreement". Ferick 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ferick, since you (and Ilir) were so completely unwilling to compromise, produce any external sources for your interpretation or to participate constructively to the discussion at all, everyone else agreed on a version. So yes, there was agreement.
Osli73
06:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, as is often the case with you people, things have to be repeated. If you want to rely on your beloved sovereignty, here you have it: According to wikipedia: Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme, legislative, judicial, and/or executive authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. Serbia has none of these rights over Kosovo. I suspect that neither of you will care to address this issue due to the fact that you don’t have any counter arguments. Ferick 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"I suspect that NONE of you will care to address this issue due to the fact that you don’t have any counter arguments". The issue is indeed sovereignty- see above. Ferick 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"I suspect that NONE of you will care to address this issue due to the fact that you don’t have any counter arguments". Still waiting..... Ferick 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, it’s implicit. Do you understand what that means in plain English? What else could you imply from this sentence: Kosovo is a part of Serbia? You have problems deconstructing English sentences? Let me know and I will try to write more descriptive ones. Ferick 21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ferick, I hope you understand that stating that (de-jure / technically / legally), Kosovo is a province in Serbia is not taking sides in any conflict - it's a statement of fact. All world governments agree on this, all maps show this and all other encyclopedias acknowledge this. Now Wikipedia does so as well. Saying this does not imply anything about the future of the province or constitute a judgement as to what that future should be. Please understand this. If you wish to make this article a forum for discussiong what the future of Kosovo should be, you have misunderstood the purpose of an Encyclopedia. Osli73 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The introductory sentence in the article does not say Kosovo is de jure part of Serbia: It simply says: Kosovo is one of two provinces in Serbia (the other being Vojvodina, in northern Serbia). It is misleading, and frankly an untrue statement to say that Kosovo has the same legal status as Vojvodina in the eyes of the law. Now, if your purpose is to mislead readers, then that sentence would be fine.
Contrary to popular believe here, I am not concerned too much about the future status of Kosovo. That has already been decided, and most level headed people know about it.
My primary goal here is to make the article resemble the actual reality. Right now it doesn’t! The initial statement has to reflect the fact that Kosovo is under the legal authority of the U.N, and that Serbia’s sovereignty over the region has been suspended indefinitely since 1999. Anything short of this is not acceptable because it doesn’t represent reality. Ferick 03:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the CIA has been wrong on several occasions in the recent years, but that’s beyond the scope of this argument. You want to mislead people into thinking that I am arguing against the fact that Kosovo is de jure part of Yugoslavia or Serbia or whatever creation you like. Most media use the word de jure in explicit terms when talking about Kosovo-so no; my opinion does not contradict the world. It is interesting to note, however, that you explicitly excluded the word de jure in the interdictory paragraph.
According to you: “Kosovo is one of two provinces in Serbia (the other being Vojvodina, in northern Serbia)”. What kind of impression would someone who reads this (a novice reader) get? Obviously a skewed version of reality!
As I said above, my primary goal here is to make the article resemble the actual reality. Right now it doesn’t! The initial statement has to reflect the fact that Kosovo is under the legal authority of the U.N, and that Serbia’s sovereignty over the region has been suspended indefinitely since 1999. Anything short of this is not acceptable because it doesn’t represent reality.
And just the fact that you tried to force the issue down our thoughts due to some phony agreement was not in keeping with your responsibilities as administrator. This in itself speaks volumes about the way you see your job! Ferick 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Serbia never reversed the 1989 suspension. So Kosovo should not even have its page in wikipedia-everything should be pasted in the Serbia page. According to Serb Law, Kosovo is integral part of Serbia, not a province. What you say? Ferick 15:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)