Talk:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Why no mentions of Slobodan Milosevic?

It’s interesting to see that the article talks about many things, but never dares to cite the man behind the creation and administration of the “Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Methija” — Slobodan Milosevic.--BalkanWalker (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the history needs to be improved. IJA (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–)

Currently th APKiM 1990-1999 article contains a section for events after 1999 (including also events after 2008), so maybe Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999) should be renamed to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) - to more clearly represent Serbian POV, e.g. "APKiM still exists, but is under provisional UNMIK administration" (I don't know what the status of "Serbian Assembly for KiM" is according to Belgrade) - currently the article shows both this (section for its existence after 1999) and the contrary (infobox and article name - "1990-1999, succeeded by UNMIK"). See also here. Alinor (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I am not going to oppose this.
sources that talk of APKIM post 1999

In 2006 the New York Times still said "Although officially a part of Serbia, Kosovo has been administered by the UN since June 1999"[1]. Mind you, they also say "Kosovo and Metohija, as Serbs call the province".

A 2007 UN enviromental review of Serbia said that the APKIM was part of serbia but it wasn't covered because it was under UN interim administration[2]. These sources are previous to the 2008 declaration of independence.

In 2010 the Serbian president complained that EULEX called Serbian institutions in Kosovo "parallel"[3] couldn't find sources saying that the APKIM no longer exists.

At this pace, North Kosovo is going to be entirely under Albanian control, and we'll have sources saying that the Kosovo-Metohija province no longer exists de facto. I think that we are still not there. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Eric,"at this pace" ? We are writing this article now, not in the future. As Serbia claim Kosovo and Metohija as province, APKiM exist. That is a fact. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Can we please get some references for this article. I'm not saying that what is in this article is false, I'm just saying that references are need to improve the credibility of the article. If you're going to add something to the article, please add a reference to back it up. Currently there are only three proper references and this is piss poor. Come on people, edit Wikipedia properly. Cheers IJA (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it is a bit outdated. It really should be fixed. I added the tag. --WhiteWriter speaks 10:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Belgrade-Pristina negotiations

Is there an article for them? If not I propose the creation of such an article. IJA (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:KOS

Template:KOS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bazonka (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The forking of the Kosovo article in English language Wikipedia — and what (and who) is behind it

Well, it seems like the Kosovo article has been split, according to the desire of some very prolific editors… but when we navigate trough the other editions of Wikipedia, including the ones with large number of articles and reasonable and credibility (like the German, the French, and the Spanish editions), we see the following pages in the gallery below (all screenshots are from the same june 7, 2011):


As we can see, most editions of Wikipedia treat Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo as the same thing. But when we compare the current English language Wikipedia article page about Kosovo…

…we see it very, very similar to the Russian and Serbian edition versions of the Kosovo article, which pushes everything to describe Kosovo as a non-defined, almost abstract territory, erasing most of the citations to the Kosovo Republic. Serbia and Russia are the most staunch enemies of the independent Kosovo, so I think this is not a coincidence.

One could even say that this could be a good way to describe Kosovo, which is currently a partially-recognized country. But when we see in the English language edition of Wikipedia articles about other two partially-recognized countries and one completely non-recognized country, all of them occupied by Russian troops and supported directly and indirectly by Serbia’s friend Russia:

We see that these countries, though less recognized internationally than Kosovo, receive a better treatment in this Wikipedia, being treated as more legitimate than Kosovo itself, with the right to their governments’ flags and coat of armas at the top of their pages. And the articles haven’t been forked into thing ilke "Abkhazia (region)" or "Transnistria (region)".

Yes, what I want to say is that based on these evidences the article about Kosovo in the English edition of Wikipedia has been hijacked by a minority of Serb and Russian editors that want to use the most -accessed edition of Wikipedia as a way to make pro-Serb-nationalist and pro-Russian-nationalist propaganda. And this is not NPOV. And this is not right.--BalkanWalker (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 

Discussion should be continued on one place to stop forking: Talk:Kosovo --WhiteWriter speaks 11:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede sentence

I strongly disagree with your proposition. I tried to compromise, and leaved everything you added, but this way you propose is not acceptable. This is not Natopedia, we do not care about Nato's attitudes. We can maybe write something different, in order to skip this problematic situation. What do you propose, Ham? --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose you set aside your Serb-nationalism and follow the rules of Wikipedia before this becomes a problem at Rfc. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I propose you to propose something constructive, or i can request RfC in the same opposite way. Now, start being constructive, and stop on commenting on users instead of content in this miserably small content dispute. I propose to remove those two sentences, and just add sentence from consensus version of Kosovo note "Its independence is recognised by 114 out of 193 UN member states." That way we will exclude the problems, and still be informative. What do you say? It is better to gain consensus like normal editors do, instead of asking for help before even trying to talk. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I suppose I'll have to spell it out, although I really was hoping you'd just let this go. 1) I applied a balancing statement in the lead to reflect the reality on the ground via a Reliable Source - you deleted this statement out of silly nationalist sensibilities. That was your first revert without cause. 2) I re-added the statement per every Wiki rule in the book - observing RS, NPOV, etc. You took the statement and "re-arranged" it such that the Serbian-nationalist (note NATIONALIST, not all Serbs go nuts over this topic) was last, in some 10-year old manner of "getting the last word in so that people will walk away with 'our' perception." That was your second revert. 3) I put the original order back, as there was nothing wrong with my edit whatsoever. You have now reverted for the 3rd time. I AM NOT about to get into these silly games that have gone on in these various Balkan articles. NATO is militarily backing the independence of "Kosovo" and whether any other political entity likes it or not, this makes it a de-facto REALITY. I seriously doubt that the Russian Federation will confront NATO militarily to back the Serbian desire to regain this territory and bring the world to the brink of thermo-nuclear war, as they don't have the power in conventional forces to confront NATO in any way. Neither will the new post-"greater Serbia" government in Belgrade be crazy enough to do anything except bang the table at the U.N. over this matter. In 20 years, this whole issue will be in the past and Serbia will have moved on and the independence of Kosovo will have been acknowledged by the other states of the U.N. (although this is just politics and doesn't change anything.) I suggest you remember WP:OWN and just let this issue go. Leaving the NATO statement last reflects reality, best gives the readers of Wiki the actual situation, and does what the project is supposed to be doing. Nobody is "commenting on users" just your actions. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, i would agree on your proposition. But not on this one, as i disagree with usage of NATO as the last force on the world, which is pointless and not encyclopedic, and stunningly irrelevant for this article. So, this version is out. Now, instead of this entire personal opinions monologue, propose something else, and we can talk about that. I will not agree on your version, as it is not good, so you should not push your POV. For the second time, stop with this usage of word "nationalist", please, that is not good wiki practice, i will stop using it also. It is actually unhelpful... Now, also for the second time, PROPOSE SOMETHING ELSE, per WP:DR, so we can solve this question in a peaceful manner. And to show you my good will, i will restore your version up until we agree on something better. But if you disband this conversation, or ignore it, i will restore my version. Then, we did nothing. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
"Last force in the world"? Sorry, I made no such comment-as that doesn't even make any sense. What I added was a factual statement from a Reliable Source to improve the article. You are reverting it constantly. I've alerted an Administrator on this matter. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I asked for third opinion in this. It is very strange that you dont want to communicate or propose anything, so i will wait for someone uninvolved to comment what should we do next. --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I've come to provide a third opinion but it's not very obvious what you're disagreeing about. Is it this [4] or is there another problem? Dental plan (Lisa needs braces) 08:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as i told so, this problem is so minor that does not deserve specific treatment. Yes, problem is order of the two sentences. I disagree with this version, and proposed to remove it completely with "Its independence is recognised by 114 out of 193 UN member states." What do you say? this or this or one sentence from above instead both of those. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • After I read the whole article, I think we have a lot of other overlapping articles which cover the same points (recent history of Kosovo/Serbia, recent war, etc) so I think it's better to keep things short and simple and specific, instead of duplicating.
  • When I read this disputed text at the top of the article, I think the wording is a bit strange - we talk about countries which "do not recognize" but I think this is deceptive. Other countries have a many different positions - support, opposition, apathy, political intrigue, changes depending on domestic politics, etc but we only count them in our set of recognizers if we have clear evidence that they recognize. If we subtract "set of recognizers" from "set of all countries", we don't really get "countries who actively opposedKosovo independence" - what we really get is a set of active opponents, inside a larger set of other countries with different or complex (or apathetic) policies. It is more accurate to say something like "X countries, including NATO powers, recognized independence - but Serbia does not. Serbia still has an administrative apparatus for the Autonomous Province". Keep it simple. Nobody cares what Australia thinks (sorry Australia). Dental plan (Lisa needs braces) 15:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hahah, poor Australia. Sure, that would be the best. I will add as you proposed, just with wiki links, sure and recognition template. "Its independence is recognised by 114 UN member states, including NATO powers - but not by Serbia, who still has an administrative apparatus for the Autonomous Province." And that would be it. Thats it, Dental plan, by third opinion guidelines, we are done. Just tell me will you close 3O request template, or i should do it? --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, thats it. All best. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

General

I realise that this article has been written to reflect a Serbian point of view, even if this is not entirely in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Personally I do not have a very big problem with this: if consensus can ever be obtained in all of the Kosovo articles, then disambiguation can be abolished and articles merged.

But I think that it only serves to make the Serbian point of view look ridiculous if it is expressed too un-neutrally. If I may take only one example, the sentence in the lead about the Autonomous Province having been constituted by Serbia in 1990, presumably as an act of charity by Serbia towards Kosovo, is absurd when the Autonomous Province of KiM had existed before 1974, was renamed in 1974 as the Autonomous Province of K, and was renamed to its old name in 1990 just as almost all autonomy was removed.

If the history of this article did not demonstrate otherwise, I would assume it was written by a Kosovo Albanian satirist to undermine Serbia.--Markd999 (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

1990 elections

Were elections to a Provincial Assembly organised in Kosovo in 1990? I know that the Kosovo Assembly was dissolved in July 1990; I had assumed that it was also abolished. The elections in Serbia took place in December 1990. I had assumed that the elections in which Kosovars were sort of invited to take part were to the Serbian Škupstina.--Markd999 (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Companies

Current text reads:

"The constitution also transferred control over state-owned companies to the Yugoslav central government (at the time, most of the companies were state-owned and de jure they still are)."

This is not NPOV ("de jure they still are"), nor is it factually correct. Most companies were not state-owned but "socially-owned" enterprises (SOEs). Prior to the collapse of Yugoslavia, Ante Markovič had tried to clarify the legally very undefined status of SOEs in order to enable privatisation, and thus determined the shares of privatisation income which were to go to workers, directors, and federal units of Yugoslavia. The transformation of ownership of an SOE was still subject to a vote by the majority of workers. This was over-ridden by subsequent Serbian law, so that Kosovo SOEs were "merged" into Serbian ones without any vote by their employees.

Presumably the authors of this sentence knew all this.--Markd999 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Please, try to be shorter in your explanations. Brevity is a virtue. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Excellent summary of your position, Markd999 - please maintain your style of explanation.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Politics and Government section missing references

Each paragraph in this section has been tagged for missing citations some 10 months ago. Needs to be fixed ASAP or material may be removed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Add references, then. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV fail

Stuff about Kosovo's independence being enforced by external actors - including Australian missiles - are not a good idea. Stop that. bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After rethinking, I've partially self-reverted - I don't think the military side is helpful but it would be a good idea to reflect recent changes in attitudes rather than living in the past... bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

A single newspaper article can hardly be proper reference when addressing the politics of a country. Perunova straža (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Weak sourcing is common in POV forks. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

comprises or comprised

this article is written like the APKM is current, I have not seen any evidence of that in my many visits to kosovo. It is not part of serbia any more. any comments? James Michael DuPont (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

From Serbia's point of view, Kosovo is still part of Serbia and is still governed as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Here on Wikipedia we have separated the physical location (Kosovo) and each of the two competing polities (Republic of Kosovo and APKIM) into individual articles. --Khajidha (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
They are POV-forks. POV-forks are a Bad Thing. Instead of having separate articles supporting competing political views, the correct way to resolve the problem is to integrate the content into one neutral article. In reality, and according to many reliable sources, Kosovo declared independence; in this article, it's still part of Serbia. bobrayner (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Massive Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT violation. We have consensus for this, and you participated in that. if you think differently, raise the question on talk:Kosovo. Until, follow agreement and the fact. Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. . --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

1992?

With this bold edits User:Joy attempted to change the date of constitutional changes which defined this province of Serbia. I restored stable version per BRD.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You're using that term but I don't think you understand what it means. Quoting WP:BRD:
If your edit gets reverted, look at the article's edit history and its talk page for an explanation (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).
Whereas your edit summary [5] had this:
restored referenced content
That's not an actual explanation. The onus is on you to explain how one specific administrative unit can traverse state distinctions, IOW act as if the change in the state is an even so minor it barely has to be mentioned (in 1992) and can be omitted at all (in 2003/2006). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. I provided explanation on this talkpage. This Serbian province was established as AP of Kosovo and Metohija in 1990. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
But by reverting my entire edit you're opposed to even explicating that constitutional changes in 1992 and 2003/2006 had happened? Why? It's as if the country and the province did existed in a vacuum, as opposed to a federation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course not. Tagging entire article because of one or two sentence clarification is missing is wrong. Either add those couple of sentences or tag appropriate section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:V failure

DIREKTOR has repeatedly inserted material: [6] [7]
WP:V says:

Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.

The burden is with DIREKTOR. WP:BURDEN is very simple. If you can't comply with it, don't edit. bobrayner (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I have not "inserted" anything - you removed it. You're the one making the edit here.
Second. It is impossible, by definition, to prove a negative. The burden is squarely on the shoulders of the one making the positive claim. Before you demand support for something having not happened - give sources to show that it has happened. -- Director (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of Kosovo

There are some rather important discussions going on at Talk:Republic of Kosovo and I would like to give all the opportunity to give their input into these discussions. IJA (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Regarding this edit DIREKTOR reverted everything despite the fact that some of the edits were technical. That is out of order.

  • The flag of Serbia is not the flag of APKIM. There is no flag for APKIM, that is why we don't show one. Just like there is no flag of Northern Ireland, we don't show the UK flag do we? A consensus needs building if DIREKTOR wants to put a flag of Serbia on the article. What is next? Does DIREKTOR want to put the flag of Serbia on the info box of every town, village and city of Serbia which doesn't have it's own flag?
  • According to the Serbian Constitution, Albanian is one of two official languages of APKIM so why did DIREKTOR remove the Albanian spellings of Pristina? Why is it ok to show the Serbian spelling but not the Albanian spelling? That is in violation of WP:NPOV.
  • It is in great violation of NPOV to say that APKIM is a province/ still is a province, as I'm sure DIREKTOR is aware that is highly disputed.
  • DIREKTOR changed the spelling of the word "recognised" to "recognized" despite the rest of the article using the "is" spelling, that goes against WP:ENGVAR as we must be consistent with spelling variations.
  • DIREKTOR removed a citation tag for the sentence "In 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was renamed the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. In 2006, Montenegro left the federation, while Serbia became its legal successor." On what grounds did DIREKTOR do that? Why would DIREKTOR object to this sentence being referenced?
  • DIREKTOR reinserted the sentence "The official status of the Kosovo province in the Serbian legal framework remained unchanged" despite me removing it because it was unreferenced and because it says that Kosovo is a province which is in violation of NPOV. I have no objection to that sentence being there if it is reworded to be more NPOV and if it is referenced.
  • What is so important about the word "unilateral"? Is it to distinguish from "bilateral" and "trilateral"?

I think this revert constitutes as disruptive editing. IJA (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you may think so. However:
  • The flag of the country by default represents any subdivision that doesn't have its own insignia (and in most cases, even when it does). I suggest you go over to your local municipality or whatever and have a good long look at the flag there.
  • I thought "Pristina" was the Albanian spelling. Either way there's no need for any translations up there.
  • My bad re "recognized".
  • DIREKTOR objected to pointless WP:OVERTAGGING for WP:BLUE info...
  • As explained, the contention that the status has changed is the positive claim that needs referencing. The WP:BURDEN is there. The sentence is long-standing, and, as explained, needs no explicit corroboration. See argument from ignorance.
You were reverted in introducing opposed changes. Now please - discuss. -- Director (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It is the flag of the country Serbia, not the flag of the claimed Province. You have yet to achieve a consensus to insert this flag into the article, I suggest you remove it until you gain a consensus.
It is POV to refer to Kosovo as a 'Province' because it is DISPUTED! It is disputed as to whether APKIM exists.
"In 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was renamed the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. In 2006, Montenegro left the federation, while Serbia became its legal successor. The official status of the Kosovo province in the Serbian legal framework remained unchanged." Is this even true? If it is then please verify it. If it can't be verified then it has no place in this article. Please provide a reference if you want it to remain in the article. IJA (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
In February 2008 the President of then APKIM, Prime Minister of then APKIM and the vast majority of the Assembly members of Kosovo Assembly in APKIM declared the independence of Kosovo. They were all apart of the Serbian Legal Framework for Kosovo and they say that Kosovo's status has changed. It is POV to say that "The official status of the Kosovo province in the Serbian legal framework remained unchanged" because people who were part of the Serbian Legal Framework (and according to Serbia still are) disagree with this. IJA (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It was not disputed when re-inserted now, and had previously been standing in the article for quite a while.
To my knowledge, "Kosovo" is nowhere referred to as a province, but the word "province" is used as shorthand for the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
If you are not familiar with the most basic, recent history of the Balkans region, I suggest you might be editing the wrong articles?
My good man, what are you talking about? The reference is to the Serbian legal framework, i.e. the status of Kosovo in Serbian law. Your argument makes sense only if you're suggesting that Serbia recognized the said declarations of independence. NPOV has nothing to do with this.
-- Director (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
And the flag keeps getting removed because it is not the flag of APKIM and because there is no consensus to have a flag on this article. Do not try talk your way out of not needing a consensus. You have made a controversial edit without a consensus. If you want to have the flag, gain a consensus first.
Kosovo is described as a province several times throughout the article, that is POV because Kosovo and the majority of the world say otherwise.
You have no place to suggest which articles I should be editing, Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia for anyone to edit.
The PM of APKIM and President of APKIM were very high positions within the legal framework of Serbia when it comes to Kosovo. They dispute that sentence. They say that Kosovo is no longer a province of Serbia and they say that Kosovo's independence is illegal. I know you personally don't agree with them but your opinion isn't relevant on this article, their opinion is; it would be in violation to disregard their views. You still have not provided a reference. IJA (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
IJA is right - there is no need for a flag in this article, unless there is a flag specifically for APKIM. Also, all contentious sentences should be referenced. Bazonka (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
On another point: There was a clear consensus at Talk:Republic of Kosovo that it's inappropriate to wedge in the "unilateral" label. And, of course, most sources don't use that label. Various editors have removed it but DIREKTOR keeps on reverting. How long will this disruptive editing continue? It's quite tiresome that attempts to bring Kosovo content in line with the real world, rather than pandering to Serb-nationalist POV, are automatically reverted on so many articles. bobrayner (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Re the flag. It is entirely acceptable to use the insignia of Serbia to represent one of its provinces. Whether we want to use it, of course, is up to us. So, if you folks want it out, then I have to yield to the majority view.
"Unilateral" is hardly a "WP:LABEL", and is significant in terms of Yugoslav politics, where republics had the right to secede unilaterally, but not the provinces. It was one of the few major differences in status between the two types of subdivisions of the SFRY. In order for a province to secede, it was explicitly stipulated in the constitution that such a secession needs to be bilateral. And it wasn't. That's why Serbs are hung up on the word. As for the "consensus", pardon me - but isn't that a different article? Though again, with three of you against my position, I can hardly insist on anything (everyone knows our project is really a democracy).
As for your references to me personally, I see absolutely nothing disruptive in my reverting opposed new edits and requesting a talkpage discussion (and facing hysterical ANI reports). You can call it "OWN" if you like, but I've done so few edits here that you may find such a claim hard to corroborate. Also, I am not Serbian. In fact, where I live has been shelled by Serbs. So I'll thank you to refrain from implying nationalist bias. -- Director (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Cheers for your understand regarding the flag. It is no different from us not using the Union Jack on the article "Northern Ireland". Another thing is that if someone was completely Alien to Kosovo and the Balkans as a whole and they came across this article, they might think that the Serbian flag was the Flag of APKIM and not the flag of Serbia. It could easily be confusing and misleading for some of our readers/ audience. There is no flag of APKIM therefore we don't show one, simple as that. No point in putting in an extra flag for the sake of it, not to mention it'd pointlessly increase the KB data size of the article. But thanks for your understanding.
Now regarding the Republics which Unilaterally left FR Yugoslavia, they didn't have the right to leave. FR Yugoslavia was a Federation, sub-regions/ territories of a Federation don't have the right to leave; this is why FR Yugoslavia refused to recognise Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia until 1995 after the peace agreement which effectively ended the Yugoslav Wars. The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was a Confederation, sub-regions/ territories of a Confederation have the right to leave hence why Montenegro's succession was recognised instantly. Another example of a Confederation was the Confederate States of America. States could leave and join the Confederacy as they pleased as opposed to the United States of America where States are not able to leave. IJA (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow. I'm gonna have to go point-by-point for this pile of wrong.
  • First of all, clearly we're talking about SFR Yugoslavia, not FR Yugoslavia. No constituent "republic" ever left "FR Yugoslavia". It only had two, and Montenegro left after constitutional changes that reformed the state as the 'State Union of Serbia and Montenegro', which wasn't a "federation" or "confederation", but a "state union" (unspecified).
  • Second. Simply because something is a "federation", doesn't mean its constituent states can't have the constitutional right to secede unilaterally. Obviously.
  • Third. Constituent republics of SFR Yugoslavia most certainly did have the constitutional right to secede unilaterally. The provinces did not. This is really basic stuff when discussing Yugoslav history.
Clearly your understanding of Yugoslav history is kinda based on the American Civil War :P. And even there, you seem not to know of the contemporary controversy regarding whether the secession of the southern states was legal or not. Even today historians are not entirely agreed on that. You folks really ought to do some reading on basic Yugoslav history before you start getting involved in complex disputes on the subject. Bobrayner doesn't seem to have remembered that the SFRY had Kosovo as a constitutional province of Serbia, etc.. -- Director (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
SiM was a Confederation IJA (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
"www.visit-montenegro.com"? :) Sure some people can call it that, but in no official document, no constitutional legislation, is the SiCG referred to as a "confederation". -- Director (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
SiM was a Confederation In a Federation, no-one has the right to do anything unilaterally, that is what a Federation is, everything has to be mutually agreed. But when Cro, Slo, BiH and Mac unilaterally succeeded Yugo along the lines of their Socialist Republics, the international didn't care it was Federated and recognised them regardless. This is why SFRYugo never recognised them and why FRYugo didn't recognise them until 1995 as FRYugo claimed to be the successor to SFRYugo. The 1974 Yugoslavia Constitution stated that the "the nations of Yugoslavia, proceeding from the right of every nation to self-determination, including the right of secession". The 1974 Constitution makes it very clear that there are differences between "nations" (which are people) and the internal "Republics". The Croats, Slovens, Bosniaks ect declared independence and succeeded (which was allowed) on the lines and borders of the "Socialist Republic of Croatia", SR Slovenia, SR BiH ect (which wasn't allowed). This is what caused the Wars as other nations living within them Republics (mainly Serbs) wanted to remain in Yugoslavia and they had the right to do so regardless of which Republic they lived in. Better explained here I never said that the Southern States in the American Civil War had the legal right to leave the United States. I was giving an example of the Confederacy being a Confederation. IJA (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Umm.. No. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about [8]. Neither with regard to what a federation necessarily entails, nor with regard to the SFRY and SiCG specifically. Sure, the Milosevic-controlled rump Yugoslavia did not recognize the right of the republics to secede, based on the disagreement of the Serbian minorities (the war had already broken out), but constitutionally - the republics had that right. It was made explicit in every Yugoslav constitution.
And why do you refer to Serbia and Montenegro as "SiM"? :) The appropriate abbreviation is "SiCG". -- Director (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I just quoted you the constitution which says differently. Nations had the right to leave but Republics didn't. Source: 1974 Yugoslavia Constitution. IJA (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
No, that's impossible! They can't unilaterally secede from a federation! :)
What you're expressing is the Serbian point of view on the matter. The Croats, Slovenes, and Bosniak view is that the right to secession was guaranteed through their republics. Its another complicated debate, and this really isn't the place for it. But either way its "same difference" for our considerations. Albanians weren't a "nation" of Yugoslavia (you can tell by the lack of a seventh torch [9] :)), they were considered a "nationality", meaning non-constituent and without the right to secede. -- Director (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Nations (people) aren't a Federal Unit unlike Republics. To be honest, none of this matters. APKiM and RoK are nothing to do with SFRYugo. And yes, Albanians aren't "Yugoslavs" either, ie Yugoslav = South-Slav / a Slav of South Eastern Europe. IJA (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for clarifying that for me :). Well, actually, Bulgarians are widely considered to be South Slavs as well, and they're not "Yugoslavs". And "Yugoslav" (or "jugoslav"), strictly speaking, doesn't mean "South Slav" ("juzni slaveni" is the term); its a composite word that carries its own meaning. Anyway, I was referring to the fact that Albanians weren't a constituent nation of Yugoslavia, which they very well might have been if there was no Tito-Stalin split (Albania was an effective puppet state of Yugoslavia after WWII, and there were plans to have it annexed as a federal republic). There was certainly no prohibition against Albanians becoming a constituent nation. In fact, that's precisely what Kosovar leaders were lobbying for, all the way up to the Milosevich era (late '80s). They enjoyed some success, particularly with the 1974 constitution, up until Milosevic "turned back the clock" on all Albanian progress on that issue (prompting a revolt soon after). Again, strictly speaking, Albanians in Yugoslavia were indeed "Yugoslavs", or could be referred to by that name, as the term itself is very vague and imprecise (it has been compared to the term "Americans"). So again, this is a whole lot of wrong I'm reading.
As regards did the republics have the right to secede, they did, as they were nation states for the nations that had the right to secede. The right to unilateral secession on the part of constituent nations was guaranteed through the secession of the republics. That's the non-Serbian constitutional interpretation anyway. The point is that Kosovo did not have the right to "unilaterally" secede, whereas others did. Hence the significance of the term... -- Director (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree or dispute any of that apart from the Republic bit, the 1974 Yugoslav Constition says nothing about Republics leaving. Many Republics were ethnically mixed, that is why Nations could leave but not entire Republics. Yes the Albanians of Kosovo and the Hungarians of Vojvodina were certainly Yugoslav citizens and were Yugoslavian in the sense that they were associated with Yugoslavia; but they weren't part of the Yugoslav nation. This is why they were referred to as Nationalities as their Nations were predominantly based in other Sovereign states (Albania and Hungary). Anyway the 1974 SFR Yugoslav Constituion isn't relevant to Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence, I think that is something we can agree on.
Bulgaria as a South-Slav nation was invited to join Yugoslavia by Tito and they were going to be given most of Macedonia in return for joining Yugoslavia but after the Tito-Stalin split, Bulgaria sided with Stalin instead. Stalin was personally against the idea of Bulgaria joining Yugoslavia and this was one of several reasons which caused the Tito-Stalin split. There was even Bulgarian interest in joining Yugoslavia at the end of WW1 and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia even sought a Union with Bulgaria but this never materialised as there was still bitterness between the two after WW1 and the Second Balkan War. IJA (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Tito would very much have liked to annex (alongside Trieste and sections of Austria) both Albania and Bulgaria as federal republics of Yugoslavia [10] :). The Bulgarians, however, wanted a state union between Yugoslavia as a whole on one side, and them on the other. Plus give us Macedonia of course. Then conceivably they could secede at some point in the near future and end up with Macedonia ;) (they really really, really want that bit of dirt for themselves).
But my point was that "Yugoslavs" ≠ "South Slavs", and that it is erroneous to assert that non-South Slavs cannot have been included as constituent nations of Yugoslavia, simply because of their national group. The communists were flexible on these sort of things. And I must correct you again along those lines: there was no "Yugoslav nation" in communist Yugoslavia. Some people did indeed declare to be "Yugoslavs" in census, but officially there were the "Yugoslav nations and nationalities". The nations had the right to secede unilaterally, but the nationalities (e.g. Albanians) were not. Hence the significance of the term. And as I said, simply because a state is a "federation" does not mean you can't secede from it unilaterally. -- Director (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

North Kosovo proposed merger

I just thought of something.. shouldn't North Kosovo be redirected over here? Why have two articles about Serbian Kosovo? -- Director (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Northern Kosovo isn't an article about 'Serbian Kosovo'. I wouldn't object to having some of the political content merged. However I'd certainly oppose merging the Geographic and Demographic content as that is specific to the geographical area of Northern Kosovo, not the claimed Serbian province. Also Northern Kosovo is in a limbo between Belgrade and Pristina; if the Brussels Agreement (2013) is implemented properly, then Northern Kosovo will start to come under the institutions of RoK. If this is the case, then I think there should be a new article called "Association/Community of Serb majority municipalities in Kosovo" which will be about the Autonomous Serb community in Kosovo and it will be autonomous according to both RoS and RoK. IJA (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Different entities. North Kosovo falls within former APKM (it's about 1/10th of it), but they are different entities in size and time. --KazanElia (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose For obvious reasons. North Kosovo is not political entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbianboy (talk • contribs) 19:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Northern Kosovo is a region, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (as opposed to pro Albanian nationalistic POV called "Republic of Kosovo") is also a region. There are no "articles about Serbian Kosovo". Alex discussion ★ 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They seem to be different topics. North Kosovo could be considered a leftover from the Autonomous Province, but it has different geographical limits, different government, etc. "North Kosovo" became a topic of its own after the Autonomous Province died, and under different political circumstances. North Kosovo inhabitants maybe consider themselves the heirs of the Autonomous Province, or even the last bastion of it, but that's a different topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I'm closing this discussion and removing the "proposed merge" tag from the article, as the consensus is obviously strongly against merging. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Official" flag?

I can't understand why the Serbian flag is used as the official flag of the Serbian-claimed Kosovo and Metohia. There is no legal fact that the former's province flag is the Serbian one. --PjeterPeter (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the official flag of Serbia, and from one point of view, Kosovo is part of Serbia. So it's the official flag of the area, and also of the rest of the country. But it is not a provincial-level flag. Bazonka (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Title

Article Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija should be renamed in only Kosovo and Metohija, as has already been done with Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (Vojvodina). --MilanKovacevic (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

--MilanKovacevic (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, but there is a redirect with that name, which has a large edit history, so I've asked an admin to take a look. Onel5969 TT me 11:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Please post a proper move request because odds are there's going to be someone saying this kind of a move isn't merely technical. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I could care less, just thought that WP might want to be a little consistent. Should have known better. Onel5969 TT me 17:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's okay. Just notice the arbitration marker above on the talk page - this might make it more consistent, or it could be some sort of a flamebait. It's better to follow the ordinary process, just in case. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JaventheAlderick, User:PRehse - please don't do copy&paste page moves. Help:How to move a page says not do do so in the opening paragraph. And there's this polite request above. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Joy, I fully understand this article. However, when I tried the "Move" function, it doesn't work because the Kosovo and Metohija article already exists (currently as a redirect). One of the articles needs to be deleted or merged (I'd prefer merging). If the edit history of both articles need to be kept, then merging is the best option. JaventheAldericky (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Once again, please follow the instructions at WP:RM. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I have just requested a move request. JaventheAldericky (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. After over two weeks and a relisting, there is no support for this move. Cúchullain t/c 17:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija → Kosovo and Metohija – per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:Conciseness. (and also perhaps per WP:Recognizability). The article Autonomous Province of Vojvodina has already been renamed as Vojvodina. It is for this reason that Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija should be renamed as Kosovo and Metohija. Also, as stated here, Kosovo and Metohija is a short title, yet already correctly identifies the province. There is even an example provided at WP:Conciseness (i.e. Rhode Island does not put State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations as its article title. (Who would want to type State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations or Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija into the search bar anyway?) JaventheAldericky (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • There is the "Autonomous District of Kosovo and Metohija" (1946–1963) and another "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" (1963–1974) dealt with at Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo. —  AjaxSmack  01:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose to WP:PRECISEly distinguish from the claimed Republic of Kosovo. This is a sui generis case distinct from Rhode Island or Vojvodina because the region is disputed. Note long form names for past entities such as Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, if we accept this province is at least a de facto past entity. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this is wrong proposal. There is already established set of articles, so this one SHOULD NOT be renamed, as it deals with still de jure official Serbian province, per Serbian constitution. So, this articles deals with political province, and not geographical Kosovo and Metohija, so those two are not the same to be merged in title. So again, oppose. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Republika e Kosovës

Kosovo declared its independence in the 90s and that is a historical fact. There where elections, where 98% of the population went out to vote. The fact that only Albania recognized this independence does not mean that an article on this historical event should not be part of Wikipedia. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It is relevant, but your point belongs to Republic of Kosova. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Albanian parallel structures

I don't see how Republic of Kosova could be a standalone article. I suggest a merge.--Zoupan 22:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre

Oppose on the grounds that this was an independent attempt at government which is historically notable. While Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija and Republic of Kosova geographically overlap, they were in strong political opposition. Klbrain (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija/Archive_1&oldid=1144106331"