This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Serbia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Kosovo Top‑importance North Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The name "North Kosovo" is never used by Serbs. In fact the three mentionned communes actually have a geographic name, it is Ibar Kolašin (Ibarski Kolašin in Serbian), the region is simply called Kolašin, but to differentiate it from another Kolašin (in the Highlands in the present-day Republic of Montenegro), the term Ibarski (after the Ibar river) is used. Besides, the region of Kosovo itself borders on the Ibar Kolašin. In fact what is currently known as Kosovo is actually made up of the following regions:

• Kosovo (valley around the Sitnica valley)
• Ibar Kolašin
• Izmornik and Kosovsko Pomoravlje
• Metohia
• Drenica
• Sirinićka Župa
• Sretečka Župa

etc.

--Igor82 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is there a "Serb National Council of North Kosovo" and a "President of North Kosovo"? :) This a new political term. --PaxEquilibrium 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article stinks of desperation. The area "maintains its own government", right? However, somehow you seem to be very vague about the subject, you don't describe the legal basis for such a "government", when was it established, when were the elections held and many other very interesting questions.

Also, very interesting description of Oliver Ivanovic as "President Ivanovic". So, when was he elected as "president" and what are his legal powers?

Overall, an article that amounts to a discussion of media reports (Read: "Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung predicts that...") and an analysis of the political desperation of a particular ethnic group. A desperation of people who seem to have lost the battle on the ground and now stage a desperate act of describing and analysing media reports.

One word: Pathetic! Kosovar 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desperation. I don't know if I could put it that way - everything what is Kosovo to Serbia, so is North Kosovo to Kosovo (read: totally the same thing, even geographically :). That presentation means that, despite the firm attitude on no-division of Kosovo, everything is pointing (including Ahtisaari's agreement) at such a thing, and something like is most surely gonna happen. --PaxEquilibrium 11:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Pax. I am yet to see a legal document which mentions the term "North Kosovo" and I would challenge you to produce a (valid) document which mentions the term "North Kosovo". This is a start, first things first, what is the legal term "North Kosovo"? Second, if you want to write about geography or the municipalities with a Serb majority in the north of Kosovo then that is something very different. The three guiding principles of the Kosovo Contact Group with regards to the Kosovo status are: (1) no division of Kosovo; (2) no union with other states (i.e. Albania, Macedonia, etc); and (3) no return to pre-1999 political organisation (i.e. no Kosovo under Serbia). So, when you claim in the article that "the possibility of division of Kosovo has been refused" you are making a false statement, or in other words lying.

Kosovo had a well defined legal and political status within the former Yugoslavia, it had its nationally and internationally recognised parliament (Kuvendi i Albanian or Skupstina in Serbian), a legal system, a Kosovo police service, well-defined borders and so on. So, while Kosovo had all these legal matters well defined, the municipalities in the north of Kosovo have none. So your comparison that "everything what is Kosovo to Serbia, so is North Kosovo to Kosovo" is invalid. There is no such thing as "West Macedonia" where there are many municipalities with Albanian majority, and similarly there is no "North Kosovo" legally speaking, except if you want to talk about geography, mountains, rivers, lakes and so on.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as the 'government' in these municipalities, unless it's a secret underground organisation, which in any case has absolutely no legal powers. A government has a prime minister and ministries, and this shadowy government which I call non-existent has none of these. Please, if you have proof of the contrary then share it with us. Needless to say, a media report is not a legal document, so none of these please. The same goes about "president Ivanonic" -- when was he elected, when did his term start and when does it finish, what are his legal powers.

You also seem to forget that the Kosovo Police Service operates in these municipalities and so do the UNMIK courts.

You say that "over 50,000 inhabitants are settled, all of whom are Serbs", which of course its rubbish. What about the Roma, Bosniaks and the (few) Albanians that live in these municipalities. How about the forced removal of Albanians from the north of Mitrovica?

Moreover, the lies continue with the following totally untrue statement that "most agree that the plan leads to some sort of division in the future". Who is drawing these conclusions? You? Well, if you still live in this planet then of course this is false statement and the bottom line is that it is your Point Of View, not a neutral point of view. There is no references here, absolutely no documents to back up these false statements. If these statements were true, they would represent a direct violation of the Contact Group Guidelines and as such unacceptable to the international community and Kosovar institutions.

However, my personal view that this article amounted to an act of desperation (which, unlike you, I wrote in the talk page, not the article itself) is best summarised by the following statement that "Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung predicts..." (again, no reference, of course) -- which leads me to conclude that "the article amounts to a discussion of media reports".

One last question, if you allow, to all you "authors" of this article: have you actually read the proposal by President Ahtisaari? At present, that is just a proposal, however, you get an idea of what powers municipalities with Serb majority will get, not just in the north of Kosovo, but also in Strpce, Gracanica, etc.

Kind regards, Kosovar 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again you draw at the "legal". :) I remember when you and Ilir pz claimed that the 1244 resolution never mentioned that Kosovo's a part of Serbia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which has dissolved in the meantime) rather - why do you constantly drag on the "legal documents"? :))) Understand, this is an Encyclopedia, and there are no Laws and Constitutions to the likes of those in the real world. So, when you claim in the article that "the possibility of division of Kosovo has been refused" you are making a false statement, or in other words lying. What on earth are you talking about??? You yourself just wrote that (the Contact Group refused the possibility of division). "no Kosovo under Serbia" Are you sure? Doesn't it refer simply to Milosevic's 1989/90-1999 administration?

Considering that the Yugoslavian Republics were rather legally "undefined", so were especially the Serbian Provinces (Vojvodina & KosMet/Kosovo). It's hardly that their borders were well-defined either (for example, Baranja was detached from Serbian Vojvodina and handed over to Croatia, what is today North Kosovo was subsequently included into Kosovo over the time). What was completely sure were only the international borders of SFRY and the Federation itself. Of course, North Kosovo had no "autonomy" (though Martti Ahtisaari's proposal will obviously grant it now), but neither was it a part of Kosovo (politically meaning) for as long as the remainder of Kosovar territory. There isn't such a thing because it never was defined (strictly speaking, I think it would be "North-western Macedonia", rather). But there is a similar/parallel thing, and it even has its article on Wiki: Illyrida. But then again, that has passed, and unlike North Kosovo, it's not separate from the remainder of the entity it's a part of (plus the only other difference is that FYROM is a country, whereas Kosovo's technically in another country).

Ivanovic is the President of the Serbian List for years.

And? The 1244 Resolution also states that Serbian policemen and a part of the armed body returns to Kosovo.

Don't speak "kind regards" and with such fierce speeches, it's unappropriate. :) Anyway, be bold. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Pax, because of the legal status Kosovo is called a province not a state (country) in Wikipedia, so you don't have to tell me what is the importance of the legal status of a territory. The way this article was written gave an impression, or to put it boldly as you asked, it misled people into believing that the three northern municipalities of Kosovo were some sort of a legal (official) entity with a their own government, president and the rest of it.

Official...? No, I don't think so. --PaxEquilibrium 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I am glad we both agree that the legal and official status of the three municipalities had to be clarified. -- Kosovar 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this article was completely rewritten by ChrisO (to whom I am very grateful) a lot of the blurry terms have been removed. More needs to be done, however.

You are wrong when you say that the legal status of Yugoslav republics and autonomous regions was unclear. Allow me to remind you that Kosovo had an autonomous (separate) parliament, police service, legal system to Serbia and the rest of the Yugoslav republics. The members of Kosovo parliament could not come from Slovenia, could they? Of course, the legal status was well-defined! All of this was part of the Yugoslav constitution, so saying that the legal status of Kosovo was "undefined" in former Yugoslavia is laughable. Today we all refer to Kosovo as the same territory that was well-defined in the Yugoslav constitution; there is absolutely no ambiguity about that.

All I am saying is that SFRY was "well-defined" solely on an international basis. The inner divisions, constitutional acts etcetera (official statuses, inner borders) were always changing more than once; they could be reduced, altered, or as with the case of Kosovo (since it wasn't a constituent republic, but merely a province within one of 'em) even abolished. There is nothing "permanent" with Kosovo except the International policy on no-division; I do not believe that that is sufficient, precisely in the matters when division might be the best thing for the local people. The legal system and police was separated from Serbia much latter, and for only several years (the dictatorship of the "Pristinski proleterijat") did that last (up to Milosevicism). Today we do not refer to the same Kosovo as in the Constitution - territory was never defined in the Constitution, partly because it could be changed - as it did; the Kosovo we know today doesn't have the same territory as does Kosovo-Metohija when it was created, in 1945. --PaxEquilibrium 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Kosovo's status set out in Serbia's various constitutions? There's an article on the subject at Constitutional status of Kosovo. -- ChrisO 01:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The status of Kosovo was defined over the ages in various constitutional acts, most notably being the 1971 drafts. --PaxEquilibrium 14:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is absolutely clear, there is nothing ambiguous here. All the former Yugoslav republics and autonomous provinces (Kosovo, primarily) today have the borders that they have had at the point when Yugoslavia broke up in early 1990s defined under the last SFR Yugoslav constitution. There is no point in discussing about the organisation of former Yugoslavia before or after WW2. Doing so is a waste of time because no one can change the constitutional order of Yugoslavia any longer -- that country, thankfully, does not exist! That is why UNMIK rules in the borders of Kosovo based on the 1974 constitution, not of that 1946 because the 1974 constitution overrules that of 1963 and 1953 and 1946. There might be disputes about very small territories between former Yugoslav republics/autonomous regions, however that is nowhere close to 10 percent of their territory, the sort of division you are promoting. I love it how you display your true colours by calling the Serbian nationalism as "Milosevicism" (as if it was a one man show) whereas the puppet communist authorities in Kosovo as "dictatorship". -- Kosovar 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully??? :( I'm actually very disappointed that it no longer exist. Why are you so glad? The politics which led to its dissolutions cost the lives of millions (including mine). Please clarify my "true colors". It seems to me that that's an open bad-faith personal attack. --PaxEquilibrium 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thankfully. I had a quiet suspicion that you were going to pick on that word, hence I put it there so that you understand that I am very glad that the project of a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia led by 'Milosevic et al' failed. Why would I mourn a country of inequality? Ethnic Macedonians , Slovenes, Montenegrins, Bosniaks (probably all smaller nations than Albanians in Yugoslavia) had their republics whereas Albanians did not -- living together in a country where some nations are more equal than others. Anyhow, this is getting too much out of topic. If you want to discuss about the former SFRY then we can start a new discussion somewhere else, ok? If you can explain how can you call the puppet communist authorities in Kosovo as 'dictatorship' whereas the Serbian nationalism of the 1990s as 'Milosevicism' then I will clarify what I mean by 'true colours'. -- Kosovar 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said - Yugo dissolved in a process which ruined millions of lives, so I really don't understand how could you just waste thousands of children, women, elder and several billion dollar worth property as simply an excuse. That phrase is today mostly used by the nationalist-obsessed minority that would gladly kill 500 kids or willingly burn themselves on stake for causes they themselves do not understand. I never referred to FRY, but to SFRY, so I do not know what do you mean. Then again, did Milosevic rule FRY solely? No; what happened after 2000? 3 years of democracy (higher than Serbia hand in over a millennium). That would be the same as if I would be glad if Kosovo now is divided onto two parts (Albanian and Serbian), just because of the highly discriminative actions post 1999- (even to the presence, although obviously not that much, Kosovo is today getting closer to democracy rapidly) and especially the March of 2004. We were discussing about SFRY/FPRY/DFY :))). 'Milosevicism' means power and/or Cult of one man [Slobodan Milosevic] (just like Totoism & Stalinism). It is a term that is slowly entering history/terminology. The "Diktatura proleterijata" is a term used by the Yugoslav Communists to define the "Rule of People", literally meaning "The Dictatorship of the People". The Communist Party of Yugoslavia (later Alliance of Communists of Yugoslavia), and even to an extent the modern Socialist Party of Serbia always used this phrase [for decades] when referring to the communist regime in 1945-1992/2000. As the latter term is NPOV and the first POV (immediately attaching bad connotations to Milosevic), I am really surprised that you react so violently & aggressively. --PaxEquilibrium 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The municipalities which have a Serb majority (not just the three municipalities in the north of Kosovo) will be grated powers by the Ahtisaari plan, however they will not have their own separate police service or courts, but rather will operate within the Kosovar Police Service and Kosovar law. They will have powers to name a police chief for their municipality or a judge. One might call this "autonomy", but what kind of autonomy is that is another topic.

Correct... but as history has shown (in Kosovo's case for example) granting only leads to further greed "Das im nogu, oni traze cijelo tijelo". If such autonomy indeed is officialized in North Kosovo, do you not think that they will ask more (territorial political autonomy)? These are the Balkans. View the recent history from the inter-war period to the presence for reference. --PaxEquilibrium 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovar Serbs might ask for more autonomy later, they might not. I don't know what will happen 10-20 years down the line. That would be pure speculation -- and I am not a big fan of speculations. We will just have to wait and see. -- Kosovar 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are. You predict that Kosovo will become independent. :) Neither am I. That's why I don't predict whether Kosovo will become fully independent, or remain an integral part of Serbia - we'll just have to wait & see for ourselves. --PaxEquilibrium 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ahtisaari's proposal is out now and expecting Kosovo to become independent is hardly speculation. On the other hand, if Kosovar Serbs ask for more autonomy in 10-20 years time then they must have strong arguments for doing so, and a lot will depend on how Kosovar leaders handle all the political challenges. In other words, it does not depend just on Kosovar Serbs if they want more autonomy or not -- so, we would be drawn to wild speculations on what will each side do. I say, let us wait and see. -- Kosovar 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the autonomy it grants to Serbian municipalities is also hardly speculation... just as the fact that North Kosovo is, in a way, a separate part of Kosovo that will never (or so its people believes) re-integrate into an independent Kosovo [same as Kosovar Albanians will never live in Serbia again]. Well, if we go into speculation, I hardly think that there will be any Serb in Kosovo after 10-20 years (perhaps only in North Kosovo, if it doesn't re-integrate with the rest of Kosovo - and I don't see that happening soon, at least not without force). All I am saying is that the strongest argument is plainly self-determination - the evident fact that nearly two million Serbian citizens don't and will never want to live in Serbia. But just as so, those Kosovar Serbs (alluding primarily at the residents of North Kosovo) will simply never live in an independent Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if you have read the "Illyrida" article and that titled "North Kosovo" you would understand the massive difference between the two. Whereas the former talks about "proposals" and "ideas", the latter misguided people in believing that there were governments in place, presidents, etc. Allow me to also inform you that if one is president of a political party or organisation then normally only people within that party or organisation will call her/him "President Such and Such". Surely they cannot be called “President” inside an encyclopaedia (expect if you are referring to them strictly as “President of this of that party/organisation”).

Well, "Illyrida" indeed existed for a short time, when independence from Macedonia was proclaimed and union with Kosovo (allegedly also Albania) sought. --PaxEquilibrium 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree. First of all, independence from Macedonia was never proclaimed, although some non-Albanians wish it had happened (it would have been a good distraction from human rights violations over there). If you think that independence was proclaimed, then please enlighten us, let us know when (date) and where (place) it happened, who proclaimed it (person or persons) and who cancelled that proclamation. -- Kosovar 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely another topic, however, I would just like to add that Albanians from Macedonia did not fight for independence or union with Kosovo/Albania but for their human rights within Macedonia. It is well established that Albanians (at least a quarter of population) of Macedonia were a persecuted minority over there, however I believe that in the long run Macedonians and Albanians will be close allies. -- Kosovar 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many fought for a Greater Albania too - there's no denial in there. I am only very sad and disappointed that you don't think the same thing for Serbs & Albanians. --PaxEquilibrium 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you say something you have absolutely no proof of. So why did those "many" stop fighting for 'Greater Albania' when Albanians did not loose the war? The facts are in front of you, look at them and see the actions on the ground. Albanians wanted more rights within Macedonia and when non-violent civil movement failed to deliver results then an armed struggle started. The moment Macedonians agreed to more rights for Albanians from Macedonia the armed struggle stopped, the peace treaty was signed and Macedonia has not looked back ever since. How can you not see these facts is beyond me. If "many" were fighting for 'Greater Albania' than the armed conflict in Macedonia would still be going on, and the facts on the ground show a very different reality. Yours, Kosovar 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is totally getting out of control. The two of us have already proven that we cannot lead a calm and civil arguments, and let's stop now, when it's heating up - I still remember how rude you were to me the other day. I cannot - because I'm not used to it - discuss with someone simply so... emotionally into this; you might not notice it, but you very frequently have outbursts which come at me (and indeed, many other users) as Artillery barrage from your mouth. The dreams of Greater Serbia and Greater Croatia were well-popular in the 1990s - some factions (even alluded by the Croatian president) still have after over a decade aspirations like that - they were winners of their war, and yet such a thing wasn't realized. The International Community said that the borders of Republics cannot be changed, and thus such plans never came to fruition. Years after 1999 (while a large part of the community still supported Kosovo within FRY), that started to change - as one U.S. minister said "Albanians in Kosovo can and should be granted independence, but only if they prove they're worth it". Just like the World Terrorism site says when it talks about the Kosovo Liberation Army - that Agin Ceku with the coming of the late 1990s and his pals abandoned that policy, and replaced it by the will for an independent and democratic Kosovo, free for all citizens - simply because he and his friends/sympathizers know that that's the only way they'll abandon Serbia (and it became even more critical after; when the pacifist Ibrahim Rugova died and the Pristina leadership was replaced by a rightist [could also say irredentist] wing). It's all very stinky/fishy to me; Kosovo simply cannot be a multi-ethnic society with a dominating Albanian population - still, some use multi-ethnicity as a pretext to strive for their political goals (just like recently in the Serbian parliamentary election, 2007 when most politicians claimed that Kosovo will simply never secede from Serbia). Again, I am disappointed that you generally downside all Serbs behind Macedonians (that's stereotype). --PaxEquilibrium 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I kindly ask you not to break my posts because I find it is a lot more difficult to follow who is saying what. Thanks. -- Kosovar 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind regards, again, Kosovar 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind regards to you too. Bye! --PaxEquilibrium 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is very unsatisfactory - it doesn't answer basic questions such as the demographic and economic status of the area, it's not written in an encyclopedic and it's totally unreferenced. Frankly I think the best thing to do would be to delete the existing article and start again. I think we do need to have an article on north Kosovo, even though the region's identity is unofficial (compare Turkish Kurdistan); it's just that the current article really isn't up to the job. -- ChrisO

Well, be bold & fix it. I put some of the references in the actual article. Improve it; no one's gonna bother remaking it. --PaxEquilibrium 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, I'm glad to say. :-) I've rewritten the whole thing and dumped the unreferenced content (i.e. pretty much everything). If you want to restore anything to the article, please ensure that it's referenced. -- ChrisO 01:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see what you've meant. I'll look directly for the reference to the Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung (if I can find it). --PaxEquilibrium 10:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PaxEquilibrium,

I will write here because I find it hard to read and follow your comments when the posts are broken so many times. So, I kindly ask you not to break this post if you decide to write back. And thank you in advance for your cooperation on this matter.

Now, I was rather hoping that you were capable of differentiating between saying that one is happy that a country no longer exists and saying that agreeing or supporting the way the country disintegrated. Therefore, once again I will say that I am (very) happy that Yugoslavia no longer exists, however that does not mean that I am happy that Yugoslavia disintegrated in the way that it did. These are two very different matters and as such should be kept separate.

Also, I was only referring to SFR of Yugoslavia. The "Yugoslavia" of 1990s for Kosovars did not exists -- and everything that took place during this period is considered as illegal by Kosovars.

Yours, Kosovar 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing - keep in mind that horrifying warfare & destruction was the only way to disintegrate Yugo... so you understand what I mean... anyhow - I disagree that it's all bad. SFRY was most probably the best Communist state to live in (probably like PR China today). Much better than Albania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Germany, Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, North Korea, (North) Vietnam, (then) Communist China, Cuba, Laos and even the Soviet Union (and South Yemen) - you name it.

Correct, we were referring about SFRY, and not FRY. :) So you made a mistake, not me. :)) Anyway, I'd disagree - FRY probably didn't exist to some, but not all Kosovars. And frankly, that does not change that the country did exist and was "legal". :) To me, Kazakhstan might not exist and can seem illegal everything it does in its capital, but that does not change a thing. --PaxEquilibrium 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are on about. I was always referring to SFRY and never mentioned FRY until you dropped a line about it. In case you did not get the point, allow me to explain it to you once again: the topic of our discussion is Kosovo and the northern municipalities, instead you started writing about the break up of former Yugoslavia. As a result, I told you that we should continue discussing Kosovo, whereas the SFRY (and its break-up) can be discussed somewhere else some other time -- I made no mistake. Correct me if I am wrong, but if we are talking about the 1974 constitution then surely we are talking about SFRY -- FRY did not exist then, did it?

Again, we are moving outside of the topic of Kosovo, however if the topic of discussion is the constitutional status of Kosovo (its borders etc.) then any possible changes done by the FRY are considered as illegal by Kosovars and UNMIK, and thus I would not refer to them nor accept them. The only difference between you not recognising Kazakhstan and Kosovars not recognising FRY is that on the ground the decisions brought by FRY are considered illegal today.

Also, while I am discussing SFRY, I strongly disagree with you that the only way for Yugoslavia to disintegrate was by means of destruction. This is yet another completely and utterly groundless conclusion of yours. Not surprised.

You say that the Yugoslav Communists and then the Socialist Party of Serbia used a term called "The Dictatorship of the People" and proceed and use the term yourself. If you want to equate yourself with the communists and the socialists (SPS) then go ahead and use that beloved terms of yours, but if you are not a communist nor a socialist (SPS) then call it Vllasism (after Azem Vllasi) and drop the word "dictatorship". The point is that you treat the two cases differently, i.e. you don't use the term dictatorship for both.

On the issue of Kosovo integration/division, you seem to ignore one very important point. The fact is that the northern municipalities are under NATO control, under KFOR command, and if the Serbs want to divide Kosovo then these troops need to be booted out. I have a feeling that the chances of Kosovar Serbs fighting and defeating NATO are equal to zero. The Americans have just opened a military base next to Leposavic and the Kosovar leaders went to that base this week for the first time in years. Anyhow, I always thought that Gracanica, Decan and Peja/Pec were more important to Serbs than Leposavic and Zubin Potok -- they need to make some calculations here.

Finally, you first accused the Albanians of Macedonia of declaring independence and proclaiming a union with Kosovo. Then when I caught you lying, you changed your line that "many" were fighting for a "greater Albania", and when I asked you to explain why did these "many" fighters stop fighting when they did not loose the war you quietly moved to Croatia and Kosovo and do not support your claims. Are you man enough to simply say I got it wrong, the Albanians in Macedonia did not declare their independence and that I have no proof that they were fighting for a "greater Albania." You talk about Agim Ceku, but he is not an Albanian from Macedonia. Once again, open your eyes and look at the facts on the ground, Albanians did not loose the war in Macedonia, they put their weapons down when Macedonia agreed to grand more rights to the Albanians. Surely facts on the ground should be stronger than lies of a newspaper or politician.

If you don't want the argument to 'heat up' then don't make unsubstantiated allegations. Kosovar 01:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Read what I wrote to the up (talking about civility and rudeness).

2. This discussion is pointless, so there is no point in continuing it:

a) This is not a Forum for discussing, and

b) and what I say is, essentially and finally, totally irrelevant.

So, bye! --PaxEquilibrium 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Best wishes, Kosovar 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong. It is just two: we should & must not make this kind of conversation (at least not here) and two: I am obviously not competent enough to discuss it, especially with you. --PaxEquilibrium 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pax, I understand. My intentions were to merely point out the inaccuracies in the previous version of the article, however the discussion took a different direction, as usual. There was nothing personal, at least not from my side. Best wishes, -- Kosovar 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Ivanovic is the President of North Kosovo, while the Montenegrin, Momir Kasalovic, is Prime Minister. --PaxEquilibrium 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could add them. The recognition of North Kosovar autonomy seems more and more obvious. --PaxEquilibrium 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cone you wretched.............. you pissers masacred our people and still tell lies to the world.You will face your charges by what you have done.I want that incompetent serb facist be banned.

Your posts are just digracefull and misleading.80.80.175.66 (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some members of wikipedia are pro-serb or are serb by nationality.I want these articles to be locked and stoped being vandalised by vandals.AKA:PaxEquilibrium has agressive tendency I have read several times in wikipedia.80.80.175.66 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How come? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not really know?Maybe because of your natinality or unmaturity. As a independant user I see it like that and there are many facts that prove this.Anyway,I want kosovo artiles be locked and stoped being vandalised by serb facists.80.80.175.66 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do; especially because I have never ever met you and practically never ever touch Kosovo-related subjects. :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, mr. 80.80.175.66 please read WP:TROLL and then you must compare your comments with that. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go, another Nike user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawohl (talk • contribs) 09:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Kosovo? It's a very small piece of land and of very little significance to the Serbs because most churches are in the South. Bosniak (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, it's the only place in Kosovo where Serbs don't feel vulnerable. AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true today. With the recent unilateral self-declaration of independence of Kosovo by its provisional institutions, the North Kosovars have found themselves most out of job and divided as the border, usually opened, is now closed. They protest every single day and several days ago they attacked and destroyed the border crossings to Central Serbia, for them only administrative. Total civil disorder is there right now; it's bad that the article doesn't reflect that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is of great significance to the Serbs because:

1. over 95% of its population are ethnic Serbs

2. As the largest Serb enclave / exclave in Kosovo, it is the center of their political activity and life

3. it borders Central Serbia --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then you can take that small piece of land in North Kosovo, and that's it. No need for violence and hatred. It's a small piece of land anyways, it's not like we are talking about 20,000 km2... I don't even think that Kosovar government will object to that small piece of land anyways, but they should definitely demand small Albanian enclaves from Macedonia to be joined to Kosovo. We are talking about very small territory here.Bosniak (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid there is. Prishtina won't let go of this territory, and it has even started to impose measures - forcefully closing the border to Central Serbia, against its people's wishes. The whole region's aflame up there. It is true the basic principles for solution of the Kosovo Status lied in non-division of the territory of Kosovo, but since it is now becoming independent, perhaps this could be "bended" too. Unfortunately, they won't let go this one. Taking to granted how the Serbians react regarding 15% of their territory, how do you expect the Kosovars would react to 10% of their own? In addition to this the UK greatly opposes the Serbs and demands territorial unity of Kosovo under Pristina, which is also I believe supported by the majority of Kosovo-independence supporters (USA,...). About that, that is really redrawing Balkan borders, and it's really impossible and totally unnecessary. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We live in an area that changes borders frequently... this phenomen is known as Balkanization. The independence of Kosovo will guarantee peace in the Balkans. That's the only reason western powers support it. The source of Serbian nationalism (and the cause of ethnic cleansings in Bosnia, including the Srebrenica Genocide) stems from Gazimestan, Kosovo. It all began in Kosovo and it all ends in Kosovo. Bosniak (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how much problem it has already caused, it's definitely not a guarantee for peace. Also, I don't the see the point of your connotation. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an impartial observer I would suggest that nothing good can come of fiddling with borders and awarding land for ethnicity. Handing over chunks of Macedonia to Kosovo or of Kosovo to Serbia will only encourage the Macedonians and Kosovars to take steps to expel or deport until there are no areas ethnically pure enough to be argued over. Additionally, all evidence suggests that the Serbs have a long cultural memory; it's folly to think that they would ever forget or forgive what they perceive as the theft of their heartland. Even if Kosovo can emerge as a viable state, it will have actively unfriendly neighbors as long as it exists. 67.163.163.28 (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "fiddling with borders and awarding land for ethnicity" was just what happened with Kosovo's de facto independence, and has often been used by the "international community" over the past 100 years to solve conflicts, beginning with the dissolution of the Habsburg Empire in 1918 and ending with South Sudan's secession last month, and it seems to be quite succesful, on the large. And given the strong condemnation of "ethnic cleansing" by the international community, no government would seriously try do to this unless they want to provoke military intervention (as happened with Serbia when they tried this with Kosovo). I think that splitting Kosovo may well solve this conflict, if Serbia recognises "South Kosovo"'s independence in exchange for this de facto territorial gain. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article have its own history section going back to ancient Dardania? Nothing in this section is specific to the history of North Kosovo, as opposed to the history of Kosovo as a whole (or even the central Balkans as a whole). The last thing we need now is yet more POV forks of "History of Kosovo". I strongly recommend cutting back the history section to those bits that are actually specific to the region this article is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, this region is under every criteria separate from the rest of Kosovo. Geographically it belongs to a different plain, in WWII all of Kosovo went to fascist Greater Albania while the Serbian puppet-state held this part and in Yugoslavia it was originally a part of Serbia proper, only in 1957 politically merged to Kosovo-Metohija. Since 2005, it's de facto independent from Pristina. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really feel it's de facto independent from Kosovo. Beam (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's under the UNMIK and there are NATO forces there - but none of Pristina's PISG agents at all. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel independent and occupied are different. But hey, it's not enough to argue about, I just disagree. Beam (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we include sentence or two about Serb terrorism in North Kosovo, particularly Serb terror activities in relation to ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians from "Northern" Kosovo. These are very important issues to deal with. Albanians suffered from Serb terror for a long time. I think it's time to re-do this article and balance it a bit better. So far, all I see in this "North Kosovo" article is Serbian POV and I don't think that's right. After all, this is Wikipedia, not Serbopedia. Bosniak (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it needs to include Albanian terrorism that's the beginning of all things. Albanians managed to drive over 250.000 Serbs out of Kosovo in 1999. Almost all of them can't come back 11 years after the conflict. If You think that the article is biased, these are the facts to counterbalance it. So, inform yourself before shouting: "Serbs this, Serbs that." 109.93.95.104 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE FIRST TERRORIST WAS THE ICTY-indicted DICTATOR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC WHO WANTED GREATER SERBIA AND TO WIPE OUT ALL NON-SERBS FROM KOSOVO. The Serb victimisation was only a tool in the hands of this criminal to shape Yugolsavia into his murderous ambitions.--177.32.130.81 (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I contend that you dont need all the Districts of Kosovo that are totally outdated, because now you have north kosovo. that represents more the of reality of the situation. the districts of Kosovo articles are totally outdated. James Michael DuPont (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to work on the Regions_of_Kosovo and Outline_of_Kosovo#Regions_of_Kosovo. The Subdivisions_of_Kosovo needs to reference this. I am working on an article on this whole mess User:Mdupont/Parallel_structures_of_Kosovo, any help appreciated.

mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As at 25 Dec. 2010, the article (near top) says this: "Although the Kosovo status process had repeatedly ruled out formalizing this partition as a permanent solution, it has been increasingly mooted amidst continued deadlock ^[1][2]." By way of support for that statement, two reputable sources are provided but both pre-date the UDI by the Kosovo authorities. In light of the fact that these sources pre-date the UDI, I will rephrase the sentence as follows: "Before the unilateral declaration of indenpendence by the Kosovo authorities, it had been speculated that Kosovo might be partitioned with North Kosovo remaining part of Serbia proper.^[1][2]. The reason for this change is that it seems a bit misleading to suggest that partition is "increasingly" mooted when the sources are relatively old and pre-date the UDI. Thanks. 109.76.222.128 (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From an EULEX Head of Mission Statement:

"09 July 2010. Following the recent incidents the situation in the northern part of Kosovo is now calm and quiet. Kosovo Police is in charge of law and order in the area, monitored, mentored and advised by EULEX." [1]

So, what is the situation in North Kosovo?

• Kosovo police is not in control.
• Kosovo police is in control.
• Kosovo police is in control, but all police members are Serb.
• Kosovo police is in control, but all police members are Serb, and they don't obey the orders from Pristina.

--Enric Naval (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a lot of WP:WEASEL wording from the "Rule of Law" chapter. None of those was supported by given sources, BBC and ICG (IE only), at least that I can see:

• There are allegations of Kosovo Police members being on the payroll of Serbian police, while others operating in plain-clothes. ^{[failed verification]}
• In 2011, Serbian police patrolled the Leposavic-Kosovska Mitrovica road in Northern Kosovo following the visit of Belgrade officials. ^{[failed verification]}
• In some instances, cars of Kosovo Police have been damaged and blockades put by local civilians on the main road corridor to the north. ^{[failed verification]}
• after having been evicted by local Serbs following the burning of border check points in protest of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.^{[failed verification]}
• The contested border with Serbia flickers in and out of sight depending on who is crossing and the mood of the officers, while the demarcation line is not marked. ^{[failed verification]}
• The area is considered by some^[who?] as a lawless where organized crime flourishes freely.
• There are allegations^[who?] of paramilitary structures and mercenary forces operating in the area.^[vague]

I don't think that situation is rosy, but it should be explained in precise terms and following the sources. ICG source contains substantial material, but please cite it accurately. No such user (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what this article, as the way it is structured, want us to believe. In fact, it seems like a Great-Serbist propaganda effort to carve up a piece of Kosovo (since to conquer the rest of the former province, with its thousands of armed European troops and millions of Albanian-speakers — many of them well-armed — that do not want to see any Serbia anymore).

And even today the so-called “North Kosovo” is NOT under complete Serb control, since the Serbian Army and the Serbian Police are BARRED to enter this Kosovar territory — the KFOR, NATO and USA never allowed this to happen… since the victory of 1999. ;-) --201.81.239.129 (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned from editing wikipedia. Based on your victory of 1999 link, i may imagine why. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

201.81.239.129 has never been blocked.--177.32.129.23 (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O, c'mon! Lets talk as adults... --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the following sentence is trying to say: "The most renewed football club from North Kosovo is FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica." If anyone can clarify this, it can be readded to the article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "renewed" meant to be "renowned"? bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, then the sentence probably needs to be removed anyway as that is rather difficult to prove. At least give us some clue as to why they might be renowned. Quality of players, quality of coaches, win-loss record, something.... --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needed a massive overhaul that reflects Kosovo Serbs acceptance of Kosovo Albanians rule and Serbia abolishing all parallel structures! Qwerty786 (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IIn which parts of North Kosovo this has happened? In Mitrovica they are still separated[2], but maybe Mitrovica is an exception because of the river.

Qwerty, if you want changes, I think the best starting point is to provide reliable sources.

P.S.: OK, this looks like a good starting point:

"The local elections were held as part of an April peace deal brokered by the European Union between Kosovo and Serbia. Under the terms of the agreement, Serbia would recognize the authority of Kosovo's government over the police and the courts north of the Ibar River in return for greater autonomy for Serbs in the north. Successful implementation of the accord is widely seen as crucial to Serbia's EU integration ambitions."[3]

And this one[4].

Now someone writes the new agreement into the article.

--Enric Naval (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me. Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927004548/http://www.ks-gov.net/ESK/esk/english/english.htm to http://www.ks-gov.net/ESK/esk/english/english.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on North Kosovo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626234926/http://www.ks-gov.net/esk/esk/pdf/english/population/Kosovo_population.pdf to http://www.ks-gov.net/esk/esk/pdf/english/population/Kosovo_population.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905040651/http://kosovo.birn.eu.com/en/1/70/2698/ to http://kosovo.birn.eu.com/en/1/70/2698/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do those numbers come from? The numbers in this 2018 OSCE report are quite different. --Count Count (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need information from some recent opinion polls, because the latest we have at the moment is 10 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.44.172 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources given here make no sense... River Ibar area and its enclave with entire Lake Gazivode is Serbian is part Ibarski Kolasin. I wrote articles on this since February 2008 and it is confirmed as correct by historian, polyglot, plymath ecpulJ. North Kosovo is truly Serbian, but to claim entire Kosovo is Serbian is wrong as thrughout history it somewhat was, however Ibarski Kolasin truly deserves to be part of Serbia... More later once somebody replies IBARSKI KOLASIN (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

povratakishodistu.org/en/origin-map/northern-kosovo/ibarski-kolasin-area-of-zubin-potok/historiography-of-ibarski-kolasin-area-of-zubin-potok IBARSKI KOLASIN (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what changes you think need to be made. The intro already states: "North Kosovo... is a region in the northern part of Kosovo, generally understood as a group of four municipalities with ethnic Kosovo Serbs majority: North Mitrovica, Leposavić, Zvečan and Zubin Potok... However differences remain and North Kosovo remains under de facto Serbian rule." IJA (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]