Talk:Kosovo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dispute?

What is current disputed on this page? What would we have to address to be able to remove the neutrality tag on this?2toise 12:13, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I placed the neutrality tag because there us an issue between the view of the Serbs (represented by User:Nikola Smolenski on the one side and the Albanians and the international press represented by User:Dori and some others on the other side. Nikola says the international press does not understand the truth and the reality is different. Dori says that Serbs have been brainwashed and don't understand what is going on. There were several edit wars. Dori gave up. See the page history page. I think there is no other solution as present the views and the arguments of both sides. This is not just a neutrality issue, this also is an issue on facts, derivatively from the issue about which sources should be trusted. However, this a neutrality issue because the facts are to serve to back up political claims.

I myself have not started rearranging the article as this requires enormous research. Andres 13:29, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see - can we get specific on any of it - the page history and previous edit wars are rambling rants which touch on many areas, many of which are not even in the article. What in the current article is specifically disputed?2toise 13:34, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The main neutrality issues are: how the Albanian population in Kosovo arose and whether Albanians have justified claims that Serbs have unjustly taken Kosovo or part of it from Albanians; whether Serbs have suppressed Albanian culture and discriminated them as a minority in Serbia; whether Albanians as a majority population in Kosovo have discriminated Serbs (eben the use of the words "minority" and "majority" is disputed); why Albanians on Kosovo started armed fight; why many Albanians left Kosovo during Kosovo war. This is just what I can say from my memory. There are other issues. It takes research to tell precisely what the issues are.

However, the neutrality issue is based not just on the text of the article but also on what is not said, even if nobody disputes any single specific proposition.

It’s not all right when we just take out everything disputed. Andres 13:58, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... Obviously this is very contentious, but I think it would be a shame if we concluded that it was impossible to write an article that would not be disputed - are you interested in trying to tackle these issues?2toise 22:03, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Of course it is possible. One has to analyze and compare the external links listed in the article (and perhaps other sites as well). Both sides are represented there. One more pro-Albanian source is [1].

In principle, I am interested, but I will be able to do it just in the long run. I don't have enough time right now. I don't have any extra knowledge, I have no other way than research in the Internet resources. Anyway, ideally the account of Kosovo should be much more detailed, and the cause why it isn't is lack of people ready to do the research.

By the way, the situation with the article Kosovo war seems to be similar. That article seems to be biased to the Serbian side. The same is here, but I don't claim that Serbs are wrong and Albanians are right in any point. A more detailed article could avoid oversimplification and be more acceptable to both sides. Andres 22:51, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, since there have not been any edits on Kosovo war for over a month things might have calmed down a little - we might stand a chance at getting something done! I feel that the key to this is to remove much of the attributation of intent from it, and try to stick to what we can find enough verification for.2toise 12:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Just for the record, I am only interested in making sure this article reflects the historical facts. In doing so, the content I have added to this page has been based upon highly authoratative and internationally respected sources such as human rights watch and the OSCE.

Whereas User:Nikola Smolenski seems to be interested in filling this page with Serb propaganda, and removing or watering down any suggestion that Serbs may have done anything wrong, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. G-Man 18:45, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If these are the sources that said that people who were not oppressed greeted as hero someone because he pledged to stop their oppression then they are not authoritative and deserve no respect. Nikola 20:27, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps we can move away from accusations for a little and try to identify exactly what points of dispute there are - obviously, since a war was fought over these issues, sources will have different points of view, but that doesn't mean that orgs like the OSCE, or the Serbian govt, should not be given respect, simply that their opinions need to be placed in context.2toise 20:38, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok - Andres - from your comment above these seem to be major issues we might start with, perhaps we can identify which parts of the text reffer to them, and address them in order?2toise 19:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

1. How the ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo came to be there.

This sentance seems to be the only reference to it - is it stell disputed?: The existing Albanian population is mostly formed by migrants from the south-west (modern Albania) during the centuries of Ottoman rule (particularly during and after the 17th century), when Islam also became the faith of most of the Albanian people.

For instance, this essay disputes this. Andres 22:24, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In introduction it says it does, but it actually confirms it, though making evident that the process was well underway before the 17th century. On the other hand, this further confirms it. Nikola 08:38, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think our article should address all the dispute issues the article mentioned by Nikola lists. Andres 11:55, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Disputes in that articles are with Noel Malcolm, and I'm not sure which of NM's views are shared more videly, but I could draft (here) something at least for the B.C. period at first. Nikola

This would be appreciated.

I think we should not be much concerned about how widely shared any particular view is. I think the very fact that a view belongs to a scholar renders it worth discussing. Andres 13:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Malcolm is a journalist, not a scholar. But as Isadi, I'll do it. Nikola

Here it is: Nikola

There are views that Kosovo and Metohia was a single distinctive region since ancient times. However, archaeological findings indicate that Kosovo and Metohia were homes of separate cultures in prehistoric times: in particular, bronze and iron age tombs are found only in Metohia and not in Kosovo. Later, whole teritorry of Kosovo and Metohia became part of Roman empire and there are two views regarding borders of roman provinces in the area: one holds that Metohia was a part of Dalmatia and Kosovo a part of Moesia (this is supported by archaeological findings) while another holds that both regions were a part of Moesia.

This issue is important because of claims that Albanians are autochtonous people of the region. Apparently, if Kosovo and Metohia was not a distinctive region, then no population could originate in it.

Later still, Byzantian bishoprices divided the teritorry of today Kosovo and Metohia in three parts, which is also the case with later Serbian eparchies. (this could be moved in appropriate points in later history)

I think the article should explain why it is important for Serbs to stress that the province consists if two different territories whereas Albanians regard it as a whole.

If one claims that Kosovo (including Metohia) is the prehistorical home of Albanians (as Malcolm seems to do) then archeological evidence for the cultural heterogeneity of that territory is indeed relevant. I think usually the proponents of the view that Albanian population is autochthonous in Kosovo state that Kosovo was just part of the Albanians' (Dardanians') ancient home. Then maybe archeological data would just correct the borders of Albanians' original home. (This, of course, presupposes that the ancestors of Albanians had uniform material culture.) In any case, data would provide evidence that Kosovo and Metohia had different prehistoric population. (Data about later divisions maybe support their separate later development but don't exclude convergence of the two populations.) The nature of archeological evidence should be presented as precisely as possible.

Now? Nikola 22:30, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think that although the data about the later divisions of the region should be in the article, they don't have much force as evidence of original cultural diversity. Andres 13:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

If noone submits their version, I'll write something about how Albanian population came to Kosovo in a few days. Nikola 08:43, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Further textual issues

There are further issues with the text.

Kosovo's anomalous status is the result of the Kosovo War of March-June 1999, in the course of which air strikes against the Federal republic of Yugoslavia's armed forces and civilian infrastructure aimed at stopping the Serbian para-military crackdown on KLA and Albanian civilians, by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, without endorsement by the United Nations, forced the signing of the Kumanovo agreement which provided for the withdrawal of military and the province's occupation by a NATO-led international force (KFOR) including also Russian troops (no longer serving as of July 2003).

The detailed treatment of this is in the article Kosovo war. This paragraph here is an attempt to balance the presentation. The hidden issues here are: what was the real aim of NATO (the real aim needs not coincide with the declared aim; the question involves further questions: whether NATO's actions were rational (whether the means were adequate to the aim and whether they were effective).

I think that these should be presented in detail at Kosovo War. Nikola

I agree that the overall presentation of these issues should be at Kosovo War. But (1) everywhere the Kosovo war is mentioned we have to be very careful about the wording in order not to hide the issues, and (2) this article should contain a brief treatment of the content of the article Kosovo war. Perhaps the disputes on the wording of this article cannot be resolved before the disputes on that article, and on some stage we should start discussing that article. Andres 12:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

air strikes against the Federal republic of Yugoslavia's armed forces and civilian infrastructure aimed at stopping the Serbian para-military crackdown on KLA and Albanian civilians: this is certainly an attempt of balanced presentation.

I don't understand why the word "para-military" is used. In the "History" section police and army are mentioned. Whynot "crackdown by Serbian police and army" instead of "Serbian para-military crackdown".

How did that managed to sneak back in? My proposal:

Kosovo's anomalous status is the result of the Kosovo War of March-June 1999, in the course of which air strikes against the Federal republic of Yugoslavia's armed forces and civilian infrastructure by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, without endorsement by the United Nations, forced the signing of the Kumanovo agreement which provided for the withdrawal of military and the province's occupation by a NATO-led international force (KFOR) including also Russian troops (no longer serving as of July 2003).

Since 1998, Yugoslav forces were heavily fighting with the KLA, during which, according to NATO intentionally, a number of Albanian civilians was killed, wounded or temporarily driven out of province, and NATO claims that it began air strikes in order to stop that. Nikola

I think this wording provides more information, and this is good. However, without claiming that there are any factual mistakes here, the wording strikes me as an expression of the Serb POV (I am not able to say why, and if orher people don't feel the same then probably I am wrong; and this doesn't imply that I am disputing that view). Andres 12:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Probably there are no more factual issues in the paragraph. But I can't help that the current wording suggests that Serbia is a victim of aggression. This might be true but I think that if we don't explicitly address this issue then the presentation is POV. Andres 12:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Both NATO and the UN continue to recognise Kosovo as a part of Serbia, but with the departure since 1999 of much of the Serb population and the reluctance of local Albanians to see Serbian sovereignty restored in practice, it is difficult to imagine how the removal of de facto Serbian authority in the province can be reconciled with assurances of Serbia's continued territorial integrity given by the NATO powers and reaffirmed (June 1999) in UN Security Council resolution 1244.

At the same time, it is also difficult to see how Serbia would consent to recognizing independence of Kosovo, and without Serbia's approval, recognition of Kosovo independence would be extremely problematic under international law as it would be a violation of the principles of territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs. The most likely outcome is the indefinite continuation of the current situation.

This is sort of editorial. However, it makes the important point that it is very difficult to change the current status of Kosovo, and therefore I think the passage is worth keeping. But it has problems as it stands. The current wording sounds like Serbia's complaint. My proposal is to start from modifying the wording as follows (Serbia's complaint should be presented, but I think in another way'):

Both NATO and the UN continue to recognise Kosovo as a part of Serbia but since 1999 much of the Serb population have departed and local Albanians are reluctant to see Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo restored in practice. On the other side, Serbia would hardly recognize Kosovo's independence, and recognizing the independence of Kosovo without Serbia's consent would violate international law (the principles of territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs). The most likely outcome is the indefinite continuation of the current situation.

I don't see anything wrong with the original version. The short version skips the fact that territorial integrity of Serbia is granted by NATO and the UN and that it is not de facto respected. Nikola

How about this:

Both NATO and the UN continue formally to recognise Kosovo as a part of Serbia although Serbia is not allowed to exercise any sovereignty over it, as since 1999 much of the Serb population have departed and local Albanians are reluctant to see Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo restored in practice. On the other side, Serbia would hardly recognize Kosovo's independence, and recognizing the independence of Kosovo without Serbia's consent would violate international law (the principles of territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs). The most likely outcome is the indefinite continuation of the current situation. Andres 12:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A few minor changes. Nikola 10:35, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The beginning is OK to me. However, I think we cannot say "as since" because the cause why Serbia cannot exercise sovereignty is that it is not allowed to use its police and army. Andres 11:17, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but why it isn't allowed? Nikola 11:46, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Am I right that this is part of the Kumanovo agreement (this is what the "History" section suggests)? But further the text is about what happened next. Andres 12:33, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What is important is the fact that local Albanians don't want the forces back while local non-Albanians do. Nikola 22:34, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The population is currently comprised of a majority of Albanians (estimated at 80% prior to the international conflict of 1999, but now somewhat larger owing to the ethnic cleansing of many Serbs and other non-Albanians; see Kosovo population data-points).

The phrase "ethnic cleansing" does not seem to be very NPOV considering that it's the only place in the article that it appears whereas most of the crimes committed against the Albanian population are "alleged" or "claimed by NATO" and certainly not deserving of the flammatory phrase "ethnic cleansing". Fix this. --Biekko 15:41, 24 Feb 2003 (UTC)

The phrase was absent from this and several related articles until it was reintroduced by ChrisO. It could stay this way or be erased again. Nikola 07:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Format

What format should this page have? It looks pretty ugly, but perhaps the country format is not the right one? Is there something to give it some consistancy with other similar types of entity?2toise 12:48, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Usually subnational entities have the same format as national entities, see American states for that. Nikola 11:55, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Map

Can we add a map?212.112.96.46 07:32, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If you have one, please add it. Andres 09:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have a few different ones, mostly from the UN, I am not sure what the copyright status is on them - I'm fairly sure they are PD, also - do we want political (municipalities) or topo?2toise 09:26, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK, have found some on the University of texas site that are PD, will upload a topo and a pol, and we can decide which is better.2toise 09:53, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I uploaded:

1. Image:UTkosovo rel small 92.jpg (Topographical)

2. Image:UTkosovo small pol98.jpg (Political)

3. Image:Kosovo_adm_small_98.jpg (Administrative)

Votes for them here. 2toise

I think we need both. Andres 11:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The third one is especially valuable. Only the names are hardly readable at least for my browser, in all of them. Andres 21:02, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I reduced the size pretty savagely to keep them small, but can upload the full res if it helps - actually, you can go to the UT site and do it yourself ;)2toise 08:32, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I happen to be quite helpless about these matters. Andres 12:33, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No problem - tell me which one you want in more detail, and I'll upload it.2toise 05:44, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If the political showed some subdivisions or something similar I would vote for both, but as it doesn't show anything that geographical doesn't already, I think that only the geographical is needed. Nikola 19:46, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I actually have one which shows municpal boundaries, but not roads, I will upload it as option 3.2toise 02:59, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

UNMIK changed municipal borders, this map is too old. Nikola

I didn't know that - can you reference a new map? 2toise 08:32, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Isn't that UNMIK simply created superdivisions without annulling the old divisions? Andres 12:33, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure I understand.2toise 12:40, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See here]. You find a map of the municipalities under UNMIK. I guess they are not different from those on your map. And several municipalities are united into one region. This is what I meant by "superdivisions". Andres 16:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry - I can't read this - could you upload it for us? Thank you!2toise 12:23, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think that map cannot be uploaded. I'll see if I find some alternative source. Andres 12:37, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Yes, the municipalities of Gora and Opolje are united in one municipality of Dragas so that Albanians would be majority in it and Gorani would not have a municipality on their own. I don't know what do you mean by saying that old divisions aren't annuled - the UNMIK map simply shows one municipality where there were two. I also don't see why this municipality is "superdivision" while other municipalities aren't.

OK, then I was wrong when I thought that the old municipalities were not altered. (Still I guess there were not many alterations though the alterations made were important.)

But by "superdivisions" I meant "regions", something like provinces, UNMIK's administrative units, each of them comprises several municipalities. The centre of one of them is Pec, and it comprises not only the municipality of Pec but also some neighbouring municipalities. Andres 12:37, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

These must be counties. They also existed before, but are not shown on the map. Nikola 07:25, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But I also have to object on another matter - why would municipalities of Kosovo be talked about on this page and not on Municipalities of Serbia and Montenegro or similar page, as is the case with all other countries? Nikola 12:17, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, that's the old saw, isn't it - you're really talking about whether the whole page should be moved into the Serbia and Montenegro page. While that's an interesting discussion, I'd like to suggest that we keep it separate from whether, and which, map of Kosovo we put on whichever page. 2toise 12:23, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, no, Kosovo needs its own page. But its internal structure (IMO) needs not be described on that page, and if the internal structure is not described, then the map of it is needless. Nikola 07:25, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough, where would you put one? Does it fit onto the S&M pages?2toise 07:32, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, 2toise! The map is perfect.

I still think the other map fits only onto this page here. And the internal structure of Kosovo and Metohia (both municipalities abd regions) should be described here even if this decription is redundant. Andres 08:22, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem putting the other map as well - give it a try.2toise 13:57, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The map renders HUGE on my browser - can anyone help with this?2toise 11:32, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it is huge, but is that bad? When decreased, the text gets impossible to be read. Andres 13:09, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you to the kind soul who solved this - marvellous.2toise 10:51, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Other

Made some reorganisations to put it in the same format as other places, all content is preserved. 2toise 12:50, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Discrimination?

If Serbs living in Kosovo have only alleged to be discriminated by Albanians, why would Milosevic instantly become their hero when he pledged to stop the discrimination? Don't you see that what you write doesn't even have internal consistence? Nikola 04:34, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks, Andres, for adding the paragraphs; I would add them myself but was waiting for you to okay them. But why saying that they are not disputed by me? As noone has substantially criticized them for a period of time, I understand that they are not disputed by anybody. Nikola 08:43, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC).

You are right, probably it was not the best thing to say that you did not accept that. I just wanted to say that the changes were not meant as beginnings of edit wars as they already were accepted by you. I am afraid that no else is following what is going on here.

What really counts is that we made some progress and improved the wordings. As a matter of fact, I think that they need further improving.

And I think, the edit war between you and Gman makes no sense. If what Gman says is factually wrong then the allegations should still be mentioned here as they are wide-spread. They could be mentioned here, for instance, as "it is internationally alleged".

I don't know whether they are widespread. Nikola

Further you could cite what is known in Serbia.

For example, what is known in Serbia is that Politika's monopoly on magazine distribution networks is hindering journalism in Serbia. The fact has nothing to do with Kosovo in particular. I don't think that the article should say "While it is internationally alleged that, though private media was theoretically allowed, laws deliberately made magazine distribution difficult, it is a known fact in Serbia that Politika's monopoly on magazine distribution networks is makes magazine distribution difficult in whole Serbia.", giving four times more space to magazine distribution networks then to second world war. Nikola

The present proportions of the article are preliminary, and always open to changes. When more is written about the World War, the proportions get more adequate. But in any case, disputed topics always require more room than the normal proportions would yield.

If course, the wording should be as compact as possible. I think, the wording in your example would be something like that: "Magazines in Albanian had limited distribution because of Politika's monopoly on distribution networks throughout Serbia; by Kosovo Albanians, this was perceived as a deliberate measure to suppress their media." Not substantially shorter but probably still a better wording. In any case, even if there were no deliberate measures against Albanians, the factual deterioration of their situation (even if it was part of the all-Serbian situation) and the Albanians' perception of their situation should be stated, otherwise the whole story cannot be understood. Andres 13:18, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Magazines in Kosovo had limited distribution because of large publishing companies monopoly on distribution networks throughout Serbia; by Kosovo Albanians, this was perceived as deliberate supressing of their media."? If you agree, feel free to insert it. Same for the rents. Rents in Kosovo were high, but I've never heard that there were higher rents for Albanian magazines then for Serbian magazines. Nikola 07:53, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I think before we settle we should handle the whole paragraph. What about TV and radio? And then, of course, the paragraph on education should be handled in the same vein.

Then, I think, instead of edit wars possible evidence for the disputed claims should follow. When you say that what G-Man says is wrong you should cite evidence, and so should G-Man for his claims. Andres 10:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On this particular subject I have read in several magazines and newspapers but have no idea how to find the information online, not even in Serbian. But I surely will NOT cite my sources whan fixing up after G-Man; whenever I or Igor did it on Pristina page he or Dori have simply erased them.

And as there are disputes here, we should think on expanding the materials by more details, and cite sources. I myself don't know who is right, and therefore I wait for that much information that the reader is capable to decide herself what to believe, and this must not be reached by biased selection of information.

I made a proposal on the passage on the 1989 constitution. Why did you drop the words about that Kosovo was stripped its autonomous status? Andres 09:39, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Because it was not stripped of its autonomous status. It retained its autonomous status, but with a signifficantly smaller degree of autonomy. Nikola 05:22, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Then I think you would agree with the wording "Kosovo's autonomy was significantly reduced". Andres 13:18, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Isn't that what is currently written? "drastically took away the provinces' rights". Nikola 07:53, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But I think this repetition serves better understanding. Andres 10:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I get it that G-Man denies the point that Kosovo's autonomy was reduced. He states it was just taken away. Andres 23:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well I've added sources and references for all my additions, I'm sure most people would agree that the OSCE and Human Rights Watch are reasonably independent and reliable sources. I do wish Nikola would do the same and add sources for his claims, which he has so far failed to do. G-Man 00:00, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good job, G-Man! It's really better now. But I am sure Nikola still will have many objections.

Nikola, please present your objections along with sources, and we'll discuss them. For instance, indicate why you are stating that Kosovo was not entirely stripped of its autonomy. Andres 17:15, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about the Constitution of Serbia from 1989 [2]? Nikola 06:45, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Article 6

The Republic of Serbia includes the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia, these being the forms of territorial autonomy.

VI TERRITORIAL ORGANISATION

The Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia

Article 108

The autonomous provinces have been formed in accordance with the particular national, historical, cultural, and other characteristics of their areas.

Citizens within the autonomous province shall autonomously realize the rights and fulfill the duties established by the Constitution and law.

The territory of an autonomous province shall be determined by law

Article 109

The autonomous province shall, through its own agencies:

1) enact the program of economic, scientific. technological, demographic, regional and social development, development of agriculture and rural areas, in accordance with the development plan of the Republic of Serbia, and shall lay down measures for their implementation;

2) adopt a budget and annual balance sheet;

3) enact decisions and general enactments in accordance with the Constitution and law, to regulate matters affecting the citizens in the autonomous province in the areas of: culture; education; official use of the' language and alphabet of the national minority; public information; health and social welfare; child welfare; protection and advancement of environment; urban and country planning; and in other areas established by law;

4) enforce laws, other regulations and general enactments of the Republic of Serbia, whose enforcement has been entrusted to the agencies of the autonomous province, and pass regulations necessary for their enforcement if so provied by the law; see to the execution of provincial decisions and general enactments;

5) establish agencies, organisations and services of the autonomous province, and regulate their organisation and work;

6) attend to other business laid down under the Constitution and law, as well as by the statute of the autonomous province.

The Republic of Serbia may entrust by a law an autonomous province with the performance of specific affairs within its own competencies and transfer to it the necessary funds for this purpose.

The autonomous province shall collect revenues as laid down by, law.

Article 110

The statute is the highest legal act of the autonomous province which, on the ground of the Constitution, shall lay down the competencies of the autonomous province, election, organisation and work of its agencies, and other questions pertaining to the autonomous province.

The statute of the autonomous province shall be enacted by its assembly, subject to prior approval of the National Assembly.

Deputies in the assembly of an autonomous province shall not be held responsible for an opinion expressed or for casting a vote in the assembly of the autonomous province. The same immunity shall be enjoyed by the members of the executive council.

Article 111

The agencies of the autonomous province shall be its assembly, executive council, and agencies of administration.

The assembly of an autonomous province shall be composed of deputies elected in direct election by secret ballot.

---

Punctuation was ambiguous in the first paragraph of History section. I am note sure I got it right. Andres 17:30, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Constitution

You made a good beginning by quoting the constitution. I think we could start from discussing the issue of the 1989 Constitution. I have a question here. Was it an entirely new constitution or just amendments to the old constitution?

Nikola, you are right that G-Man should discuss his proposals on the talk page. However, he improved the text in the direction of presenting different views and attributing them, and citing sources. He intended to improve the article. Please don't call this vandalizing. Sure, there are some elements of edit war here as to the three paragraphs that were in edit war before. His edits can be easily followed by the History page. If necessary, you may customize to see the minor edits. After G-Man, I made a lot of copyedits. I want them to be restored. My proposal is to revert to the version before your revert and then starting discussion. I think protecting the page is useless, as reverting is always possible. Andres 11:53, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fine, but from now on, I'm doing the same. Nikola 20:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikola, this is a good way to proceed. Andres 21:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I tried to integrate G-Man's and Nikola's versions. I think no point in them is suppressed now. I hope the current version will be a ground for further discussion without revert wars.

I also took into consideration Nikola's quotes from the 1989 Constitution. Andres 23:16, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Early history - rewrite

I've rewritten and greatly expanded the section on Kosovo's early history (to 1455). The period of Ottoman rule doesn't seem to have had much attention, so I'll do some work on that next. -- ChrisO 21:20, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Have located some material covering the period 1878 to 1911 and included it. It would appear that Kosovo was a separate vilayet for a significant part of the Ottoman period. It might be useful to establish to what extent the boundaries of the vilayet overlap with Kosovo and Metohia - unkamunka. 03:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've got a map of the vilayets, so I'll discuss that in the article. It appears to have been divided three ways between the vilayets of Prizren, Vucitern and Skhodra in the early Ottoman period, then reunited in the 1880s in a much larger Vilayet of Kosovo (which also incorporates Macedonia and a large chunk of Serbia). -- ChrisO 08:23, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As some of the material regarding the First Balkan War and the Treaty of London did not relate to Kosovo and Metohia itself, I have removed that those articles. Previously, the First Balkan War didn't cover the impact of the war itself. The Treaty of London article is new - unkamunka. 03:25, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "sloppy edits" that you are complaining about I am unable to recognise. I have only touched "Kosovo from 1455 to 1912" and the first three paras of "20th Century". These are separate edit sections from the ones you have in mind. Software issue? - unkamunka. 11:14, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's not a software issue - check out the previous versions in the page history. Your edit of 21:05, 11 Jan 2004 created this sequence under the history section:

1.1 20th century

1.2 Kosovo from prehistory to 1455

1.3 Kosovo from 1455 to the 20th century

1.4 20th century

1.5 Kosovo War

And at 09:09, 12 Jan 2004 your edit created this sequence:

2.1 Kosovo from prehistory to 1455

2.2 Kosovo from 1455 to 1912

2.3 20th century

2.4 Kosovo from prehistory to 1455

2.5 Kosovo from 1455 to the 20th century

2.6 20th century

2.7 Kosovo War

which was such a mess that I had to revert back to the previous version. I suspect that what you're doing wrong is pasting your edited version into the frame without first deleting the existing content from the frame - this is causing your new content to be appended to the old version, without replacing it. It's always a good idea to check your article after you've edited it, as this would have helped to spot the problems. -- ChrisO 12:46, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What you're describing is not the sequence that displayed after the edits were loaded - which I always check. Nor am I doing anything like what you're suggesting in terms of editing content - which sounds utterly bizarre. I have not seen this behaviour on any other page that I have been involved with - including some messy Polish-German pieces. Thank you for restoring the Prizren edits. FWIW both watchlist and message notification are inconsistent during the last few days. You are doing good work and I will move this way down my own list of NPOVs - unkamunka. 23:01, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)