This is an archive of past discussions about Kosovo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
If some countries from UN security council (even the majority) recognize Kosovo, it needs a resolution to be recognized by UN. And a resolution cannot be done without Russia or China. So Kosovo may be a nation... never member of the united ... nations. I also wonder how it could be member of EU one day if at list three of its memebers do not even recognize it and it is not a UN member ? We can discuss on if it is good or not, but this is the LAW. LEGALLY, the last UN resolution on Kosovo clearely states that this terrtory is part of Serbia. And if no other new resolution is adopted, this will never change.
Anyway, maybe in some years Kosovo will really be an independent state if Russia and China accept it, who knows ? But wikipedia should wait this moment to write an article about "the kosovo republic" : this is not second life, but real one ! Wikipedia is not here to say: "this is good and this is bad", but only the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.117.203 (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you rambling on about then? Eventuly russia will cave in, Since china says it's "Concerned" and that "negotiations are needed". Basicly, what happend with the us and china can happen here to, eventuly the us recognized china as the dominate china, and this allowed china into the un.--Jakezing (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone bring on the table since when recognition from the United Nations Security Council makes a country independent? Independence is a de facto concept, not a de jure concept. The United Nations may never recognize Kosovo, and still the facts on the field show differently. Many independent countries were there long time before the United Nations, which is a concept of the 20th century. The logic that a country is independent when it's recognized by China and Russia is very poorly defended.--EnCyclopthinker (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
1/ From the 20th century, a country must be a member of the UN to exist. These rules are needed to ensure stability in the world otherwise, all the guys who do not agree with their neighbours will ask for independence.
2/ The "de facto" independence is due to the nato forces in kosovo and the minuk UN forces which failed to their goal: pacify the region and return it to Serbia with a high degree of autonomy. This is a bad example for all the separatists and even terorists (UCK was a terorist group at its beginning). These guys do not speak latin so sentences as "casus sui generis" or "de jure" and "de facto" are not their problem. And this "de facto" independence will certainly lead in some months to a "de facto" separation between the serbs in the north of Kosovo and the albanians in the south. "De facto" means chaos and that is why in any society some laws and rules are set up: to avoid saying "ok now it's done so it's too late". If every body says that, that's chaos !!!
3/ When you say Russia and China, you seem to forget Greece, Spain, Romania and others who are clearely against the recognition of this unilateral declared independence.
4/ Kosovo has no real economy and is full of mafias for instance. Even if they leave in peace they would need 15-20 years to reach the level for entering EU. If you add to that the fact that serbs in the north will be "de facto" in Serbia and the country is not a UN member, and that if NATO and UN forces leave kosovo violence may come back, I do not see how this territory may one day join the EU ? Will north Cyprus be part of the EU one day ? Or maybe Kosovo and north Cyprus are different because Kosovo is a "casus sui generis" :-)... Oh this politics guys who know latin... I admire them !
5/ The purpose of Wikipedia is to be as impartial as possible. So it has to wait and see before doing articles about the republic of Kosovo. Anyway, even the part on independence of this article seems to me a little biased in a pro-independence way. We do not see for example that Romania (a direct neighbour of Serbia) is against this independence.
I disagree with the above. I have never heard that "starting from the XXth century you need to have the approval of other nations to become independent". I have heard for example that in the XXth century the expression "self-determination of peoples" was also coined, so why don't you bring that to the picture? Besides, why did Montenegro split from Serbia? I don't know whether the montenegrins asked around if they could be independent. Did they ask all UN to be independent? I don't think so.
The independence of Kosovo is de facto, on the ground, and recognized by countries producing 60% of the worlds GDP. However, Wikipedia should wait till it's 100%?--EnCyclopthinker (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo does not need the acceptance of Russia or China if they join the EU, which they will.
There are no major obstacles politicly for them to join the EU.
Those few countries in the EU that do not agree with the independence don't have to, but just not to veto against the decision for them to join.
Another possibility is that by the time Kosovo is ready to join, all EU would have recognized it's unique case and it's independence.
Jon
As recognized by the UN, the only supra-national institution on this planet. Wikipedia CANNOT host un article about the Kosovo "republic" until the UN did not officially recognized Kosovo as an independent state (which by the way will never happen). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.75.179 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The main page need a sentence saying that "Kosovo is not recognized as independent by the United Nations because of strong opposition of some security council members" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.75.179 (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Were not the UN though... & the un hasn't stated a offical postion yet now has it, just because 1 of the members has explicitly stated they dont support kosovo(Russia) and the other is "Asking for further..."(china) Dosn't mean the officla un postion is not support. That and THREE of perm. members support kosovo. Your sentence shouldn't be added just because it assumes something that hasn't been stated. Then theres this statement in the dip. reac. article. "The UN has told Serbia to cease its interference in Kosovo". Basicly, the UN itself is in a postion similar to the EU; let the memberstates decide if it's independant and make a offical postion later.--Jakezing (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiki is not part of the UN, LOL, as to US security council, well US, UK, France are members of the UN Security Council and they already recognized Kosova. (not signed)
Thats what i said, then that point got lost. I think we should make a note on the article stating that, see if it ends all this "kosovo is not recognized cause the un dosn't recognize it" crap --Jakezing (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Jon's invitation
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Albanian history about Kosovo is poor in studies and collections. Most of that assimilated by other populations and cultures, or non- existing any more.
But time and history is on their side if they make an effort.
Serb history about Kosovo is based on the idolized figures and the Orthodox Church. No Serb historian speaks any other language form the region, or has ever made studies of the history based on facts and documents of the history archives in other neighboring countries.
This fanatically cultivated history is based on the need of Serb population to feel like they belong. They have been lead to believe this martyr’s and glorified history that they use as a reference of virtue, nationalism and as a defense mechanism.
The success of Serb 'history' and their claims is based on that has not been contested by others, until recently.
Kosovo is not the cradle of Serbia but far from it.
Kosovo has been in the Serb attention only after the battle of 1389 of the Field of Kosovo.
Although in the battle of the Field of Kosovo most of the army that faced the Ottomans were Serbs, they were not the only. There were Albanians, Bulgarians, Vlach and other. The leader of Albanians that fought in that battle also died.
There were thousands of Serbs fighting in that battle for the Ottoman Turks, who were pro, a neutral Serbia to the Ottoman invasion....trade / economical reasons....etc
There was no mass exodus from Kosovo of the Serb population. There is simply nothing to back that theory other than Orthodox Church/ fanatics.
My intention is not to irritate Serbs with this post, but simply to discuss facts rather then just claim history in ways that some think is better suited.
I welcome anybody to discuss with me in a /eye opener/ seeking for the truth/ attitude.
But please bring only facts not stories. Albanian or Serb you may be.
Jon
Jon, you wrote No Serb historian speaks any other language form the region...
How can I make any rational argument with a person that makes such an ignorant generalization. As far as I can tell, ALMOST ALL Serbs that lived on Kosovo speak Albanian language. I have few friends from there, and yes, they do know Albanian. Some of them may as well be historians. No, your ignorance does not irritate me, it just makes me sad. Lakinekaki (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you friends historians or just people who live in the villages!!! I dont think you got right Jons' view. Piasoft (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to stay away from a distant past, in order not to look as a fanatic, yeah?
Well, the fact how many Serbs from Kosovo no loger live there, the facts which are obvious from demographic maps of the region in the past 10 years only, the fact that Serbs suffer daily provocations and attacks (and that can be checked by simply living on Serbian ghettoes on Kosovo and Metohija), the fact how Serbian and ortodox monuments of culture are treated, the fact how you talk about Serbian history of Kosovo and people who believe that to be true.. well, all those facts only prove your so-called neutral point of view. Either your intention actually IS to irritate Serbs, or to try to convince people who don't know what was happening in that place during the past. There is one more option, you're writing your own stories and believing them to be the truth, but still asking from others not to place theirs, but facts.
You want facts? Well, sorry, if you live there and you still fail to see the facts, you either don't want them or don't care about them. If that's not true, then visit the places where Serbs still live, check with THEM, not with the Orthodox Church, nor my stories. Try to find sources (neutral sources, not Serbian, not Albanian, not pro-Serbian, not pro-Albanian.. NEUTRAL) to compare number of Serbs living on Kosovo and Metohija now, and only 10 years ago. Try to find sources to compare places in Kosovo where Serbs were majority only 10 years ago and now, when those places are 100% Albanian. Go and visit the remnants of freshy ruined monuments of culture. Don't check with the Orthodox Church, check their burned monasteries. And after that come here and tell me more of your stories about non-existing exodus and non-existing facts to prove it.
I don't care about history more than knowing it. Present should influence the future more than past. The fact that a piece of serban land is no longer in Serbia is completely unimportant. I mean, it's unimportant comparing to the fact HOW Serbian people live in that piece of land. For now, no need to tell more stories, check how they live. Until recently I could, and I did, twice a month at least, and every time I return I had more "stories". Nothing I invented, nothing I was told, only what I saw. Right now, I cannot go there to visit my family, those who decided to stay (the rest had to leave in that latest "non-exodus", or they would be burned together with their property). But, I assume you're closer, you can check and you can go and see.
There is no future for Serbian people in independent Albanian country. Now I'll have to have a short peak in the past.. I don't know for 100% who lived there longer, but I know that north Albania was also under Serbian rule in the history. Now there are no Serbs living in Albania.
ArhangelSerbia (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear ArhangelSerbia!
First of all I didn't make a generalisation or ignorant comment. I think you are making that mistake based on emotions and the events happening in the country at the moment. I just spoke of a ‘‘‘fact’’’ that even Serbian Historians themselves know about it.
I don't remember the TV program I watched in relation to this but there were interviews with quite a few /Living/ Serb Historians admitting the fact that much of the Serbian history when it comes to Kosovo, is not based on what you would call historical facts.
That was the point I was trying to make!.
I spoke about Historians contributing to this history living or dead, when I said that there was or is no one speaking the languages or made studies evolving other points of view expectably those ones of their neighbours.
Sad is more the fact that you do not know that who wrote, or even who took the bother to look at other neighbouring countries historical say in it.
Kosovo has been a region of poverty and analphabetic for most of its History. Even if there was somebody talking history based on facts and studies from neighbouring countries, they were probably censored or even worst. There is nothing there to say that was a Serbian Historian who wrote about the History of Kosovo and survived, that was based in an impartial source or a study they made on this and that Fact based on the study of that country's history or historian of that country's writings .
Don't get me wrong Serbia is not the only one in the region. Greeks, Albanians, Macedonians, Bosnians, Croatians and other have the same Problems.
You are right when you say that are a lot of Serbs that have left Kosovo during the past decade and that is awful.
But if you look at the history Serb rulers or governments have tried continuously and managed partially to ethnically cleanse that region, and the worst happened in that past decade that you talk about.
You talk about the situation where the monuments of culture have been destroyed. I'm completely and utterly against those acts and do know for some to be true, but after to what happened in the region it's impossible to say that you didn't expect some sort of radical behaviour on the other side as well.
For what I understand the situation is that, Orthodox Church in Kosovo is a Serbian only party, with radical figures leading it, who repeatedly call for war to drive the 'Turks' meaning all Muslim population out of Kosovo.
I have not seen or heard an Albanian / Muslim clergy to do that up to today out in the open.
There are historical facts and historians that know that many of the churches built By Serb rulers are built on the ruins of what use to be Churches from the Byzantine Empire or in some cases Mosque.
You are right, Albania was occupied by Serbia and not only the north. But you are wrong to say that there are no Serbs in Albania. There are Serbs, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Greeks, Check, Russian, Jewish, Egyptian and other in Albania, but they are all assimilated in the Albanian population. Their names or surnames sometimes tell you where they are from.
It's great that you think that you think we should focus in the present and the future and in deed we should. There are problems I know, that you will still continue to have unless you become a member of the Kosovo society not Serbian in Kosovo but Kosovo. Did you really think that after what happened every thing was going to be normal or better? I am afraid that that is the price to pay for what happened.
I think that positive thinking and a bit of more understanding between one another would help the situation rather than accusation and differentiating your self from each other. I think time would be the healer for the region.
In this website we are talking about history so you can understand that I’m focusing on that. I do believe also that bad leadership and distortion of the history influenced a lot, in the problems you have today.
Jon,
Hello Jon, and fellow viewers i am a 16 Y Old albanian and i want to make clear a thing the ethnic population of Kosovo is pure Albanian they come from the mountains of Rugova. I dont know how they call it in english but in albanian language we call it "Fis" a "fis" is like a big big family,same bloodline. When Albanians bulgarians serbs etc were fighting agaist the ottomans we were together . When we putted out of our maps the ottomans serb lowlifes came and ocupated our territory.Back to the "Fis". In Kosovo we ethnic albanians (Ilyrians) who live in territory of kosovo, we have 12 fiss'es we all came from those 12 "fis'es" im gona tell you few of them : Gashi , Krasniqi , Kelmendi , Hoti etc etc nowadays we have the surname but we also have the "fis" surname .ask pure ethnic kosovar what's his "fis" and he will tell you! anyways . Serbs were never a part of kosovo and they never be a part of it. you see they were here. Why they needed to kill us to kill babys , old man, rape our sisters , burn our mosques . In my city (Pejë-Pec) 12 (80%) mosques where burned to the ground on 1999 90% of the houses where burned to the ground . We had to make somthing out of nothing and now that we have our independence the lowlife dudes (serbs) are jealous. KOSOVO WAS STATE IS STATE AND WILL BE STATE FOREVER SCREW THE LOWLIFES
Hello again, and of course I'll ignore the post above me.
So, Jon, if you compare your latest post with your first one, you'll have to say that you actually did make some ignorant comments. Much of Serbian history about Kosovo is not based on true facts, neither is Albanian, though, but you still presume in your posts that the land was Albanian and taken/occupied/conquered by the Serbs, and still asking for others not to post stories, but real facts, and although you admit that Albanians have the same problem, you still say that "history and time is on the Albanian side". Why on theirs? Or better, why on theirs only? Serbian history on Kosovo is not completely based on real evidences, that is true, and I can't see anyone trying to hide it, but most of that history actually is based on evidences. Some of those curches might be built on ruined Byzantian churches, or in rare cases mosques, but still the teim when they are built suggests something else. Also, most of them are not built on foundations of something else. There are still much more historical evidences of Serbian history on Kosovo than on Albanian. Yeah, evidences on ALbanian history might've been ruined, destroyed or assimilated, but they might've aswell never existed.
The point you were trying to make is still true, although I don't understand the point of making such point, nor the point you were trying to make in your first post, it seems a bit like you tried to make 2 different points. However, if that's the only point you were trying to make, then OK.
Also, building one church on ruins of another, or building a mosque on ruins of a church etc. etc. is sadly common to the region of Balkans and there's no reason to connect it to Kosovo and Metohija only, nor to connect it to ortodox churches build on ruins of mosques on Kosovo and Metohija in special.
Next.. those famous ethnical cleansings in Balkans again.. *sigh* First of all situation is a bit different than "Serbs are leaving and that is awful". Serbs are constantly being forced out of Kosovo, and their monuments of culture systematicaly destroyed. And that didn't start to happen only 10 years ago. I mentioned that period only because it's closest to us and it's most obvious to see. Also, if I do like you said, if I look in history, I cannot see any Serbian leader or government which commited systematical ethnical cleansing of Albanians on Kosovo, and completely no evidence that something like that ever happened, other than Albanian claims, and other that sole exeption attempted under Idiotsevic's rule. On the other side, systematical ethnical cleansing of Serbs started much longer ago. I don't have strong evidence to present as a proof that it happened much before WWII, but after WWII there are a lot of them. First things started during the occupation of Yugoslavia, when Albanian guerrila groups gahterred on establishing Great Albania, were performing terroristic acts over Serbian civilians. It continued after the war, when Tito's government forbid those Serbs who left Kosovo and Metohija during the war to return to their homes. It conitnued, in a smaller radius, until 90's. And it reescalated after in a much larger scale. So, if you look it that way, then those crimes against Albanians at the end of Milosevic's rule might also be something you'd expect, right? But is that an exuce? Is there any excuse good enough? No, there is not, and I'm not the one trying to make it, nor I'm saying "yeah, that's awful, poor them". No, criminals and murderers are criminals and murderers, and they should be treated like criminals and murderers, not like heroes. And, for example, Albanian terrorists gathered in so called KLA, are treated like heroes, although they were those who continued ethnical cleansing of Kosovo Serbs. Literraly tons of pages of evidences of KLA members' crimes agains Serbian civilians exist, only after 1990.
Next, that what you say about Serbian orthodox clergy in Kosovo calling for violence is simply a lie or desinformation one can find in Koha Ditore and nowhere else. I can only hear for such calls in soccer games here in Serbia, or on web sides of Serbian neo-nazi organisations. The rest you speak, like I say, is simply not true. Again, you can keep on saying it's true, but don't say that to me, there's no reason because I know myself from the first hand.
And that "Albania was occupied by Serbia" comment is again based on your stories, was the land Albanian or Serbian, blahblahblah.. I would rather say that the region today known as Albania was occupied by Serbia, that's true, during the conquest of Emperor Dusan the Great, but the region which today represents North Albania was Serbian land much before Dusan, as it was one of the first regions South Slavic people settled when they arrived on Balcans. Was that land Albanian before, in more distant past, is something I don't know, but that's something you don't know either, but you claim it as a truth.
Let's say it is truth, but that won't make my comment much different. Albanians still live in those lands, Serbs do not. "They were assimilated.." True. Mostly true, at least, but I have no evidence to prove otherwise, and I also believe that heppened. I know that happened, actually, from the events in my family, but that's completely different story. My point is still the same: Serbs no longer live there.
Also, it's a bit ironic to say that time would heal all wounds. I wish I could be an optimist. My people was terrorised only because of their heritage, Albanians did what they wanted, and not what they deserved, and you say to me that we have to be optimists, that te time will heal the wounds? This will not stop until Kosovo is cleansed of Serbs. Kosovo Albanians didn't want to be part of Serbia, but Serbs have to be the part of Albanian Kosovo? Why? Albanians were not fighting for freedom, they were fighting for independance. Right now, Kosovo Serbs struggle to survive.
Part of the problem Serbs have is based on bad leadership, but much larger part is based on Albanian aspirations to create ethnically clean Great Albania, and their actions are visible all over Balkans. That way, Kosovo much be cleansed, too, and that's the ultimate goal. Otherwise, simple inter-national lack of tolerance wouldn't make a piece of land ethnically homogenic.
Also, like I said, you don't need to tell me your stories. Honestly, I won't have time neither for them nor for this chit-chat. It's pointless. My friend once said "fighting over internet is like racing in special olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded". And noone will "win" here. You cannot change my point of view after all I had the opportunity to view. I won't even bother to change yours, as I believe you're here for a reason: to spread the word. Go ahead. And I'd give a message to those who would listen: try to check them with Serbs on Kosovo.
I'm not here to fight over the internet or spread the word or win it.
But I love History as an art.
Since this page is to discuss history I spend some of my spare time to write my thoughts about it.
I consider this page as an informing discussion between people that like and know history.
If you are considering it as a fight, do your self a favor. This is the last writing I'm addressing to you if you think that way about what we are doing here.
The article about Kosovo has put across more of the Serbian point of view, that's why
I'm defending the Albanian point of view.
The reasons I'm saying that history is on Albanian side is that:
Finally the Albanians have something going on for them selfs, after a history of oppression
and poverty.
It's their time to have some input in their History, something they have not done academically.
When Serbia had an University and developed quite well, Albanians were still struggling to read.
About Serb Orthodox Church calling for WAR is not a Lie.
Euro News Showing images and translating the speech of Orthodox Church leader in Kosovo
the Bishop of Artemija if I'm not mistaken. The news in that channel about Kosovo's Serbian police officers that refused to take orders from Kosovo new governing institutions
or Albanian colleagues.
CNN after Kosovo declared their independence the same bishop calling to take Kosovo back by war.
Serbia Occupied Albania only for a short period of time there was not enough time for Serbian settlers to settle in the country, although a few did remain.
Serbia occupied Kosovo for centuries and still they are only 5-10% of the population.
About Serbs Constantly Leaving Kosovo and their Monuments Destroyed.
Serbians started leaving Kosovo since 1998 when the war broke like many Albanians did.
I know of one Church being torched, but not ruined and another robed.
What other monuments are you talking about? What destruction?
Secondly :
Why do you consider them Serbian churches? Those are Churches are they not? Churches are for every one who believes, Serb or not.
They are part of Kosovo's inherited culture and monuments, not Serbian only.
About Serbia being Albanian land .....
I do Know not to be.
I never said or wrote anything about it.
What I might have written is that it was Illyrian land not Albanian.
The Albanoi were only one tribe in the Ancient Illyria.
Slavs occupied Panonia as well as parts of Dalmatia and Dardania and some smaller tribes of Illyria .
Population of which did not just all disapear.
That's one of the reasons why, I believe that Serbs of today have more in common with
Balkans than Russians race or culture wise.
If you want to discuss Albanians, being Indo-Europian that's a different mater,
which I can discuss in the right talk page.
There was never a settlement of South Slavic population as you call it, in Albanian territory.
They came down as far as Montenegro but not in Albania.
Only Administration and soldiers settled in Albania during the Occupation of the country by Dusan and only a few stayed after.
sorry not finished but I have to go....... will finish when possible though.
Jon
Not that I'm not enjoying your discussion, but could you guys just stick to proposing possible improvements to the article.?This is Wiki's official Kosovo article,NOT the official forum.(And don't take this as an invasion, I was given the very same advice while doing...well,exactly what you are doing).Amenifus (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Size of Kosova =
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Kosova is not 10,887km squared. There was an agreement by Slobodan Milosevic right before he was sent to the Hague with Macedonia on border
demarcation which Slobodan Milosevic gave Macedonia over 10km squared to Macedonia. That is why there are talks between Kosovar Government and
Macedonian Government for this land. The correct size is 10,902 or 10,912 (not sure which). I think we should keep an eye on this fact or have a disclaimer perhaps?? 128.206.160.181 (talk)Kosova2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
country box - not recognized
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In my view it doesn't make much sense to have something like "not recognized" in the country info box. Since this would necessarily include even those countries which are undecided, have initiated the recognition process or whose positions are unknown. Either we change the wording in something like "explicitly not recognized by xx countries" or we give the total # of countries minus the # of countries recognizing Kosovo (obviously that doesn't make much sense) or we leave it out altogether. Gugganij (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the country infobox needs something like a "partially recognized" flag. Then we can just set that. After all, there are just about half a dozen countries in the world for which this description would apply. dab(𒁳)17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Mujahideen
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The history section currently states that the KLA were supported by mujahideen-fighters, with no citation. Is there any evidence for this?--Barend (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we have the permission of Chris Stephen to reprint US TACKLES ISLAMIC MILITANCY IN KOSOVO in this section? If not, please remove it, and then link to wherever it was originally published.Beamathan (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It's just an article of The Scotsman some 10 years ago.We're not posting the whole thing and it wasn't copyrighted anyway.Amenifus (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't aware of that.Didn't see any copyright warnings when I found it though.Besides, it wasn't used in the article and I merely presented it as further reading or secondary sources, if you will.Amenifus (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Citations, please
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think nearly anyone reading the above would have to conclude that there exists dispute over almost everything said in the article. Accordingly, editors should adopt the highest standard of scholarship they can manage in documenting their statements. As of this writing, most citations are incomplete. Rather than endless bickering over which side of each dispute is right, why not get on with improving the citations that are there. For an article this active, it should only take a few days to get them all properly cited. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think for the moment the History of Kosovo should be left at main generalities of what we know for a fact from the history.
Without going to talk about Serbian exodus or Ancient Dardanians the so called
Albanian Kosovars of today, or other disputed parts of the known history that is not based on facts.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This is a WP:SS article. The history of Kosovo is discussed at History of Kosovo. What we want here is a brief summary of that article, just like with the remaining h2 sections in this article. I intend to mercilessly compress the excessive detail duplicated here, with the aim of compressing the "History" section, at present taking up over half of this article, to below a third of total article length. In particular, the "20th century" section is excessive, per the {{shorten}} tag. There is 20th century history of Kosovo, and I would ask people interested in discussing the 20th century history of Kosovo to work on that article. --dab(𒁳)16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the history section needs cleaning up by admin, it's repeating itself:
"The Ottomans brought Islamisation with them, particularly in towns, and later also created the Vilayet of Kosovo as one of the Ottoman territorial entities. Kosovo was taken by the Austrian forces during the Great War of 1683–1699 with help of 6,000 Albanians and their leader, the Catholic Archbishop Pjetër Bogdani, who published his classic Band of the Prophets in 1686. The campaign resulted in a brief liberation of Kosovo, but after a plague breakout among Austrians and Kosovars, the Turks soon recovered all their lost areas. Bogdani himself died in December 1689, while his remains were inhumanely exhumed by Turks and Tatars and fed to dogs.[8] The loss had a negative impact on the wellbeing all inhabitants of Kosovo, whose liberation was not realized in an 18th-century Austrian endeavor either.
During the Ottoman period, nonetheless, there was recorded a great amount of endeavors to promote the Albanian language and culture. The Catholic cleric who authored the earliest known Albanian book, Gjon Buzuku, is believed to have been of Kosovar origin. Moreover, the Catholic bishop, Pjetër Bogdani, a native of Kosovo, published his classic Band of the Prophets in 1686, and later headed the anti-Ottoman movement. His engagement in the national cause culminated in 1689, when he raised a 20,000-member army comprised of Christian and Muslim Albanians, who joined the Austrians in their war against Turkey. The campaign resulted in a brief liberation of Kosovo, but after a plague breakout among Austrians and Kosovars, the Turks soon recovered all their lost areas. Bogdani himself died in December 1689, while his remains were inhumanely exhumed by Turks and Tatars and fed to dogs.[9] The loss had a negative impact on the wellbeing all inhabitants of Kosovo, whose liberation was not realized in an 18th-century Austrian endeavor either." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.249.192 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3?
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This may be somewhat presumptive of me...but would a decision on the ISO (and other organisation) codes be made any time this year? Or has one already been decided? In the back of my mind I half-recall a website suggesting KOS or KSV but I guess this may be nerdish dreaming....doktorbwordsdeeds15:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
Kosovo is never not will be independence the state.in Kosovo is never not will be freedom and democracy a country. Never!!!--123FM (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of today's states have been created during the last 100 years.They also belonged to another territory before that
. Yugoslavia was divided into a lot of states already in the 1990--ies and only last year Montenegro got its independence. Why is Kosovo so special? --Muniswede (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
They also belonged to another territory before that
What is another territory? Kosovo is half of Serbian territory and belonged only Serbia...Also Kosovo is not special region. The NATO occupation this territory.--123FM (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Please speak english. Second, guess what, we said the same thing of the PROC. and 3rd, take your serbian bullshit off this article. Were here to discuss improving the article AND keeping it NPOV--Jakezing (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo shouldn't be called "a state" or "a Serbian province" or "a former Serbian province" becauYouse calling it any of those things constitutes POV. In southern Kosovo the Albanians consider Kosovo to be an independent country. In northern Kosovo the Serbs consider Kosovo to be a Serbian province. The United States and most of the EU consider Kosovo to be an independent country, but the UN, the rest of the EU and most of the rest of the world consider Kosovo to be a Serbian province. All that should be said about Kosovo's status is that "it is a region that is the subject of a territorial dispute between the Serbs and the Albanians" we shouldn't say more about its status than that because it's status changes depending on where the editor lives and who you ask. That being said, it might be a good idea to have one section of the article explain the Serbian claim to Kosovo and another explaining the Albanian claim to Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
At fist I don't speak bullshit.
Secondly The guest 216.162.196.155 right. Whay do you write Republice of Kosovo? While, you write necessary Kosovo or Kosovo and Metohia. You are correct this article is now! --123FM (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ya, your taking the serbian bullshit that it isn't a country and putting it here, and you still cant speak englisch!--Jakezing (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Your write bullshit off about Kosovo! Your write incorrect! I write correct.I speak English. Do you speak English?
United States of Amerika and EU infringe all international lawies and rights but recognize as independent state.What for USA muslim country in Europe? What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123FM (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
census
I hardly think it is fair to refer to Kosovo as either an independent state or as a province of Serbia since there is no international consensus. Until there is a reasonable consensus one way or the other (from all major nations) it is neither one of those two things. This doesn't seem likely in the near future, but there is nothing wrong with this. Some "countries" exist in this state of limbo for decades.
Also, I strongly dislike it when people bash non-native speakers of a language for their grammatical errors on forums or talk pages. It is expected that articles should be grammatically correct, but talk pages are quite another matter. As an example, I'd be pretty miffed if someone started ranting at me on a Spanish forum because I'd phrased something backwards. My Spanish sucks. I know that. But there are times when I want to get a basic idea across anyway, and, as long as I put out an effort to be as correct as possible, I expect people to be reasonable toward me. The same is true of English language pages like this. Gopher65talk02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes... what when they say their bad form of englisch is good. And i don't expect people to know english perfectly, when i know that isn't their native tounge, i didn't know it wasn't his native tounge totaly u ntil he said "amerika." Hell, i understand why; In the short time modern english has existed, it's been rapped into non rcognisition and made incred. hard to learn.--Jakezing (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo is not a part of Serbia, not any more. Kosovo was occupied and held by force, it didn't just belong to Serbia.'
The majority of the population over 90% of it, like any other population wanted to be FREE from bad rulers regime.
It's about time that People felt free in their own country.
As for the recognition of the Autonomous Republic of Kosovo the countries opposed to it's independence are the ones that lack freedom and democracy.
Also those, who for internal politic reasons choose not to oppose,but not to recognize it either.
A lot of you seem to be blinded by bias. I like the opening right now as it is. It first speaks about Kosovo, and then defines it by stating its declaration of independence and then the feelings of Serbia, Russian and Spain being that it is, and always will be a part of Serbia. It's very well done as far as I can tell. You guys need to leave your bias off of Wiki. Thanks. Beamathan (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosova was never part of Serbia, the truth is that Kosova was occupied by the neighboring country Serbia.
Controversy over the “Kosovo is the cradle of Serbia” and “Kosovo is Serbia” affirmations
Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments12 people in discussion
"Kosovo is Serbia", "Ask any historian" read the unlikely placards, waved by angry Serb demonstrators in Brussels on Sunday. This is rather flattering for historians: we don't often get asked to adjudicate. It does not, however, follow that any historian would agree, not least because historians do not use this sort of eternal present tense.
History, for the Serbs, started in the early 7th century, when they settled in the Balkans. Their power base was outside Kosovo, which they fully conquered in the early 13th, so the claim that Kosovo was the "cradle" of the Serbs is untrue.
What is true is that they ruled Kosovo for about 250 years, until the final Ottoman takeover in the mid-15th century. Churches and monasteries remain from that period, but there is no more continuity between the medieval Serbian state and today's Serbia than there is between the Byzantine Empire and Greece.
”
Well, maybe it should be useful to cite this in the article or in the article about the history of Kosovo, anyway.
the quote states straighforward historical facts, and does not take any position on the current dispute. All it is saying is that the perpetual harping on medieval history employed by both sides is inherently flawed. Historians know that ethnicities are malleable constructs. National mysticists by definition ignore that fact. Therefore any national mysticist appeal to "history" is bound to be debunked by historians. This holds equally true for Serbian national mysticists and for Albanian national mysticists. dab(𒁳)10:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is untrue that Kosovo is the cradle of the Serbs, since they settled a much larger territory in the western part of the Balkans, and at first have centered around other territories, such as Duklja for instance; but on the other hand, it is of course certainly true that Kosovo is "the cradle" of Serbia, which this quote from the Guardian misses to point out. The mediaeval state of Serbia was truly centered around Kosovo, which is therefore poetically referred to as its cradle. Towns in Kosovo such as Peć, Prizren, Novo Brdo etc. were the important centres of the Serbian Church, Serbian nobility with the ruling house of Nemanjić, Serbian industry of that time and so on. This quote from the Guardian cleverly uses weasel wording, proving that Kosovo is not cradle of the ethnic Serbs but omitting its significance in the history of Serbia, so it’s not neutral at all to be cited in the articles on Wikipedia. --George D. Božović (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In any event the history section of this article is flawed and it needs verification. Most of the statements are not sourced. There needs to be neutral sources from scholarly works. Anything else needs to be removed. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Statements from a controversial journalist that just represents a pro-Albanian POV (like Hugo Roth is pro-Serbian) isn't really a scholarly work. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please did the Guardian list the name of the historian - I think not! By the way I study history and not one of my professors has stated to me when asked are the Albanians the direct decendents of Illyrians that they are I have always got a resounding "NO". So where this reporter got their Historian from I don't know. Majority of Historians actually agree more that Serbian history is correct than not.
Also Dardanians were not the only tribe to live in that region which they so purposely seem to leave out the Scordisci who's name actually comes from the Sar Mountain lived their as so the Thracians. Do they ever mention this - NO! Also there any evidence beyond any resonable doubt that the Illyrians alone lived there and that the Albanians are the direct decendents of them?! Once again no! Also if you read several historical the Romans conquered that particular region in 3BC! I only wish I had the text books with me so I could cite them.
Also it is quite hilarious to see that Kosovo had hardly any history on this page until February 2008. Also it is funny how you always use N.Malcolm for your so called historical evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.95.6 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the relationship between the Albanians, Illyrians, Dacians, etc. The only consensus is that all of these groups speak or spoke an Indo-European language. Azalea pomp (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes but Albanians don't speak Serbian so somebody is lying here :-) Perhaps the Serbs? Don't represent an entire people (Serbs) positioning your argument in a place where it could be proven to be a total lie :-), you will exterminate the reputation of that people. 77.78.209.74 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
the "cradle of Serbia" I suppose would be ... White Serbia. Yes, that's a completely different place in Europe. They just decided to move it and walked south. After all, this was 1,400 years ago. Be that as it may, it should be obvious that tribal territories back in the migration period are completely irrelevant for the discussion of modern day politics. dab(𒁳)17:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn’t agree with you. "They" who decided to move south were the Serbs not "Serbia" as such. Serbia is a country in the Balkans, and its mediaeval centre — or "the cradle" from which it developed — was Kosovo, regardless of its ethnic structure. Kosovo is not the cradle of the Serbs (who came from White Serbia), but it is "the cradle" of Serbia, as it is where Serbia was founded — Serbia wasn’t founded in the place you are referring to. Regardless of the tribal and ethnic territories, the country of Serbia as a political unit was founded and centered around Kosovo, as all or most of its important centres were located there (Prizren, Peć, Vučitrn, Novo Brdo, Trepča). --George D. Božović (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
then your definition of "cradle" is arbitrary. The earliest known settlement of Serbs is White Serbia. All later movements are Serbs moving from A to B and founding some new settlement. Which will you pick as "cradle". According to our Medieval Serbia article, the "cradle" of the kingdom of Serbia may be the Principality of Zeta (today in Montenegro, not Kosovo). But how is that relevant? The kingdom of Serbia has ceased to exist centuries ago. Today, there is just a Republic of Serbia, the "cradle" of which appears to be Belgrade, where the Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro in 1992 created the "State Union of Serbia and Montenegro ". You can pick any other definition of "cradle", but it's just going to get more and more arbitrary. Maybe a reason to ask why we are discussing "cradles" in the first place, and what this has got to do with anything. dab(𒁳)15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You’re right. Except that the migrations and settlements of Serbs do not matter at all. I was trying to say that the mediaeval Serbia was centered around Kosovo, regardless of its ethnic structure. Serbia as a country is a geopolitical unit, and may not be related to the Serbs as an ethnic group. Zeta (Doclea) was another kingdom that was founded in the Balkans and is the "cradle" of the present-day Montenegro. And of course, Kosovo is not the "cradle" of modern Serbia, as you point it out, but of the mediaeval kingdom and empire of Serbia. Perhaps it may not but it also may be relevant to mention, as the fact that Kosovo was the centre of the 13th—14th century Serbia, the location of its important institutions, industry, agriculture, the church etc., certainly belongs to Kosovo’s history. --George D. Božović (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, you're funny people, all this talk about nothing :) Sorry, but it is a bit funny. It's not the point WHERE Serbian state begun, if you take it that way India is a cradle of Serbia, as well as Albania.. Don't get it literally.. The region of Kosovo and Metohija maybe really was Albanian, maybe Serbs really took it by force like in XVIII century, heh, and other stories.. but the point is that during the time Kosovo and Metohija became something like sacred land for Serbian people. Not because fanatical Orthodox Church decided to make it sacred so Serbian rule over the place is firmly established, but because of historical events it simply happened that way. Kosovo and Metohija is not a cradle of Serbian country, government, empire, blahblahblah, <enter another unimportant word here>, but it definitely is a cradle of Serbian Orthodox spirituality and religion.
Wether Albanians lived there even before dinosaurs dissapeared, or if they invaded Serbian piece of land in more recent past is completely unimportant. That land is both Serbian and Albanian, not Albanian, not Serbian, not "Kosovar". Both Serbian and Albanian. Both sides have to understand that, and Albanian side has to show that they understood. Why? Right now the power is in their hands, if not justice and law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArhangelSerbia (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How could anyone say that article is unbiased? Read the first sentence:"Kosovo is Serbia", "Ask any historian" read the unlikely placards, waved by angry Serb demonstrators in Brussels on Sunday. Why would the opinion of Serb demonstrators be considered a good source for the Republic of Kosovo being part of Serbia? I'm just saying that this article at the beginning of this section should not be used in the Wiki.
Also, what does The Republic of Kosovo being the "cradle of Serbia" have to do with it beign an independent country? Beamathan (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If ortodx sllavs wount thate the moto "Kosovo is Serbia" they most chanche the name of the national state of Serbia and make clear thate medeal age Serbia is not a same with National State of Serbia. A ortodox albaner, macedonian, dalmatinen etc. with other words a population of greece tradition can go to the Serbian ordox church, this is not meaning thate he is a serb nationalty or race???
Latest comment: 16 years ago26 comments18 people in discussion
Kosovo is, in fact, a partially-recognized country, like Israel. It can’t be called a region since all of Kosovo is controlled by the forces that assisted the independence of the country. To call Kosovo a mere "region" is to bend to pro-Serb POV. It would like to all in the article about Israel that the country does not exist and it's a mere "Palestinian territory under Zionist occupation", which would be very pro-Arab POV.
As for now, Kosovo is a country. It could be unjust in the opinion of the Serb nationalists, but this is the fact on the ground. Even in the case of the article about Northern Cyprus (which is recognized only by Turkey), the first description treats it as "a de facto independent republic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.171.54 (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Israel is recognized by most other nations as well as by the United Nations. So it is a far different situation. Kosovo independence isn't just disputed by the Serbia. Russia, China, and other nations - including some EU members with seperatists like Spain and Cyprus - emphatically still recognize Kosovo as a Serb province. Joseph (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. Kosovo is internationally recognized country and the number of countries recognizing Kosovo is growing... Kosovo will never be part of Serbia, again. Never.Bosniak (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, internationally recognized? I think you have made a mistake. Also please stop with all that "Kosovo will never ever be a part of Serbia again". ;P It's spamming and WP:POINT, making you look as if you're some sort of a lobbist. :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo has not been fully recognised by all the UN members, as a result of this Kosovo is not fully recognised as a country. No country can classify itself as one until it has complete UN backing. Kosovo is not a country.
That's correct. I see some recent vandalisms, in the meaning that they violate the NPOV, therefore I have undone the recent changes to more factually correct ones.--Arbërt • ? 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be two pages, one for the state/country Republic of Kosovo and one page about the historic region or province? This can be like Moldova/Moldavia. Kosovo like Israel is a country recognized by some and not others. We should not be POV and have a page that it is a state. Azalea pomp (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the labored "partially recognized" phrase is entirely unsatisfactory. A country is either recognized by another county or not. It may not be recognized by all countries, but then very few countries are. I would move to strike the qualifier and move the details to another sentence ("declared independence on, recognized by several states so far, but several other states have explicitly denied recognition"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
But Schulz, in legal terms, it is either recognized or not. 19 countries recognize it - 176 do not. In that manner, for countries which will obviously recognize Kosovo such as Slovenia, according to them Kosovo is still right now a part of Serbia. A Declaration of Independence is not an act that demands some sort of an open statement, which is just as political as any other - there is only one reaction: recognition or not. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The term "region" or even "territory" (as in "This article is about the territory in the Balkans. For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation).") is a far more NPOV term than either "country" or "Serbian province." Any country or state or province or even a city is a "region", so the term does not imply either statehood or non-statehood. And considering at last count that under 20 countries, out of 200+ worldwide nations, recognize Kosovo sovereignty and even the United Nations does not recognize it (in fact the UN Security Council [under resolution 1244] still recognized Serb sovereignty over Kosovo) it is prudent to use a NPOV term in the lead. Afterwards the aritcle can explain the differing opinions. Joseph (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not comparable. Israel is an internationally recognized country (perhaps the status could be compared to that of Palestine, rather), whose independence is questioned by some, and not Kosovo which was/is officially a part of Serbia (in a way, sort of, right now), which's independence is only recognized by some. The main also difference is that Israel is a sovereign country (in a way, so is North Cyprus) - Kosovo has a long way towards constitution. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There should be a separate article for Kosovo as a partially-recognized country under Republic of Kosovo. It's quite possible northern Kosovo will be de facto separated from the rest of Kosovo so it may not be all of Kosovo in the country of Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds way too much like a POV fork, and one based heavily on speculation that Kosovo will be fully recognized, only to lose the north in a retro-secession. While I agree that 'the facts on the ground are that it is a country' to paraphrase above, and would prefer to use 'country' or 'nation', I can accept as compromise 'territory' as that word denotes some ownership, while 'region' can be used to describe the Sea of Tranquility and other unowned geographic features. ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Serbs were majority on Kosovo and Metohija until Tito ordered by a declaration that all Serbs who were driven away from kosovo(around 450 000) cannot return to their homes,that happened just after the WWII.That is when Serbs became minority on Kosovo not in 19. century.--89.216.200.42 (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this? Probably not...I have a 1910 Hammond "Peoples of Europe" map and it shows Kosovo as being mostly Albanian with Serbs in the northern part of Kosovo. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The post by 89.216.200.42 stated that Serbians were the majority prior to Tito's actions (circa mid 1940s) and made no mention of Kosovo's demographic composition in 1910. Anyway its a minor point fun for bickering over. If you intend to use single items of "information" for the purpose of writing quality entries or educating others (especially for such hotly disputed topics), then I suggest you leave the Wikipedia community. Your kind of thinking is the kind that results in lowering of the quality of our articles. Simply refer to the Wikipedia article on Kosovo's demographic history and you can observe for yourself the varying (and somewhat contradictory) information with respect to demographics. Gkmx (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-------- -------
I think Wikipedia should just give up on having an article on Kosova. Clearly it will never be anything that anyone can rely on for solid information about the place. One hour it is biased towards one version of history, and another hour it is biased towards a second version. I really do not see any academic or other type of scholar choosing to pick something out of this article. It has pretty much turned into a "Let's see who can edit faster" game, going back and forth with rediculous frequency. Clearly the "officials" who run this project are too incompetent to do anything to bring stability to the article. So why not just shut it down completely and let people rely on other websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.92.25 (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated before, I do not know why the powers that be on wikipedia do not just create two articles, one for the Republic of Kosovo and another article for the region. This can relieve a lot of the problems because the article as it is now is garbage. It is biased, unsourced, inaccurate, and should not be viewed by anyone. As many people use wikipedia (for better or worse), there needs to be some responsibility for these articles. Azalea pomp (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't share your view of the article's quality. I suppose it is as fair as is at all possible.
The suggestion to {{split}} this into two articles has some merit, though. But it would not change much. We'll have an article at Republic of Kosovo and one at Kosovo (region). Then what will we do with Kosovo? Redirect it to Kosovo (disambiguation)? That's a possibility, but the only change will be that this article will then reside under a different title, it won't really affect its content. dab(𒁳)14:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
To describe it as a mere region goes too far towards the Serb POV. The facts on the ground are that it is independent state. It is unlikely to become a UN member but that is solely due to the Russian veto. The two Germanies didn't become UN members until 1973 - does anyone claim that Germany had not been independent before that date? Kosovo is recognized by 3 permanent members of the security council and six in total. The Serbian Governments POV that Kosovo ought not to be independent needs to be included but the fact is that it is.Dejvid (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
that's beside the point. A country can be independent. It will then have a certain territory. And the territory can correspond to a geographical region. In this case, that region is known as "Kosovo", and the state is known as "Republic of Kosovo". Compare "Italy" vs. the "Republic of Italy": not synonyms, although the shorter term is often loosely used as a short name for the state. "Italy" is literally as old as the hills, while the "Republic of Italy" dates to 1946. It is advisable to remain very clear on the distinction of "Kosovo" (the region) and the "Republic of Kosovo" (the state established 2008) in the case at hand. dab(𒁳)14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That is a valid way of looking at it. However if you check you will find that is not how Wikpedia does it. Italy is a page on the Republic of Italy while the region is described in a (rather short) article on the Italian Peninsula.77.101.50.139 (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Signed by Dejvid (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
To have a "Kosovo" page and a "Republic of Kosovo" page would allow for less edit disputes. The Kosovo page can continue functioning as it has until recently and the "Republic of Kosovo" page can be the place where people can write about the self-governance in the Region and things related to the current Republikë of Kosovë.
All in all, it would just make edit disputes more avoidable as "Kosovo" can continue offering factual accuracy and "Republic of Kosovo" can offer insight into the current state of affairs from the Albanian side.
Gkmx (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Israel controls its own territory and is recognized by the UN and a majority of nations. Kosovo does not control its territory and is not recognized by the UN or a majority of nations. Kosovo is not like Israel. The way I see it, this is no different than the 1991 UDI. In 1991 the Kosovo-Albanians declared independence from Serbia and were recognized by Albania. They've just done the same thing again, the only difference is that they got recognition from more countries this time. The UDI does not change the fact that the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) controls the territory and the UN has not recognized Kosovo's statehood. UNMIK has peacekeepers from China, Canada, and various other countries which do not recognize Kosovo's independence. The way I see it Kosovo's status should remain in the article the same as it was before February 17th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As I state above I think the way it is now takes care of any idea of a split. State that Kosovo is in the Balkans, than state that it declared its independence, and then state the countries like Russia and Serbia that disagree with it followed by those that support it. Can we agree that this is a great way of presenting it? I sure think so. 75.67.137.34 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosova redirect missing
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I agree. Kosova should be redirected to Kosovo. It's the Albanian name for Kosovo. Albanians are 90% of the population of Kosovo.--EnCyclopthinker (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Name Box
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why is the Serbian name in the name box "Kosovo i Metohija"? That does not seem to be the translation of "Republika e Kosovës"... Shouldn't the name box always give the official names of the country in its official languages? Instead, this one give two different names in two different languages.. This is both confusing and inconsistent with the Wikipedia standard. Luis rib (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
KOSOVO: CIA World FactBook
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
I would like to see, based on what they have concluded on that the history of Kosovo is what they write about.
Only Serbia has had a say so far in that regions history.
Nether Albanians from Kosovo or Albanians of the republic have had any say in it.
Albanian representation in the international communities did not exist until recently.
That’s why the world only knows that version of the history and not a consolidated true history.
The Kosovan page is updated and Kosovo is treated like any other sovereign state: Kosovo - on the map, the Serbian/Kosovan border is marked as the UNMIK-line... Also the Serbian page has been updated accordingly: Serbia, with the border on the map marked as the UNMIK-line. Maybe the CIA will update the border when the EULEX takes over after the UNMIK... --Camptown (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, since the CIA World Factbook represents the views of the US government (which has recognized Kosovo) that is not very surprising (it would have been surprising if they hadn't). In general, the CIA World Factbook is not a good source of information on matters like this (or most matters, one could argue).Osli73 (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If CIA World Factbook is not a good source of information on such matters, could you please bring another source, better than CIA?--EnCyclopthinker (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The map, again
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As we have saw before here, there are people who again and again alterate and/or revert the map of Kosovo in the main box of the article to say in a subtle way that “Kosovo is Serbia Forever”.
The current map on the article shows what I’m talking about:
And the map that was there before was recently altered by some recent user called… Serbish:
I think that this does not reflect the current situation on the ground, and as the same way that happens in other Wikipedia articles about other partially-recognized countries and territories (like the Falkland Islands, which Argentina still considers part of its territory occupied by UK):
Could we please have both the accepting and denying nations shown on the map? i understand that the 'maybe' nations aren't shown, but i feel the map lacks the 'naysayers', i suggest using red color for those if the supporters remain green, that is good for the visual backing of the difference (Jorian Drake (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
Split?
Latest comment: 16 years ago68 comments23 people in discussion
Would it be better to have one article discussing Kosovo as a region (history, demographics, geography, culture with a section following to articles on the recent declaration of independence and governance) and another article for the Republic of Kosovo as a partial recognized state claiming the territory of Kosovo (newly adopted symbols, economy, etc.)? These two articles already exist, but I think most of the information on this article should be transfered to the Kosovo article. --Hegumen (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No it won't be better - here Kosovo is associated with the republic/province of Kosovo, which consists of the entire geographical area of Kosovo. This is different than the case of RoM and Macedonia, where the republic IS NOT associated with the entire region... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.91.72 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hegumen, although the Peoples Republic of China dominates the Chinese mainland and is informally referred to as China, there is the claim by the Republic of China (situated in Taiwan) to the entire Chinese continent. Wikipedia currently has a section called China which is simply for the region, it divides into the two titles above for both states that lay claim to it.--R-41 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This is just nonsense. The article starts off calling Kosovo a region, yet we have an infobox right there calling it Republic of Kosovo, the name of the newly-declared nation, and the article has the same basic format of an article on an independent nation, yet it calls it a region rather than a nation. Then we have a separate article for the region of Kosovo which is really just a redirect for the article on geography of Kosovo. In fact, the article here is what you get when looking for Kosovo and it's treated like any other regular nation, which is far from what it is. With Macedonia where the only real dispute is the name, a rather silly dispute I might add, Wikipedia does not automatically go to the article on the nation, but goes to a disambiguation page. The same is true of China and Taiwan. Neither will send you to either country because one is not recognized as an independent country or as a having that name and the other is part of the official name for both countries. Since many large countries recognize Kosovo still as a province of Serbia under the official name of that province and other large countries recognize it as an independent na
tion under the name of Republic of Kosovo the fact Kosovo is automatically the article for the latter is just completely biased. I suggest having Kosovo go to the disambiguation page and actually have a separate article on Kosovo as a region rather than link to the geography page since it does generally correspond to a region of some historical significance. Then the contents of this article now would be under the article Republic of Kosovo which could actually call it a partially recognized state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to implement such a "China" solution for now. Please review it. I do think this is where we will end up eventually, but perhaps I have been over-bold. In this case, let's just revert the split for now and look at other options. dab(𒁳)13:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not good in any case. Because of your copy-paste move, the history is not seen. Please, use the redirects and correct the mess. --Tone14:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As opposed to simple moves, it is impossible to split an article without copy-pasting I am afraid. What would you like me to fix? I am also unsure how to deal with arbcom probation. I suggest it is reasonable to assume that both articles inherit the pertinent restrictions. dab(𒁳)16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am opposed to the whole idea of the split. A simple fix for both GDFL issues resulting from the loss of article history and loss of authorship data as well as all other issues is to undo the split. I see that this suggestion was already formed above as, "but perhaps I have been over-bold. In this case, let's just revert the split for now and look at other options." I won't revert it myself since the article is on probation but I vote for exactly this solution the reverting of the split. Hobartimus (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
GFDL has nothing to do with it. Articles are split all the time. But if there is opposition to the split on grounds of content, I invite you to undo it and explain what the problem is. dab(𒁳)17:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I always thought that GDFL said something about attributing the authors, which we do via the history. If the text is moved, at the new place the authors will no longer be visible. It's true that sometimes it can't be helped of course or my understanding of the whole thing might be simply weak. I'm against the split on content also but these types of choices should be made based on consensus maybe a survey is in order. As I said I won't touch the article with respect to the article probation, if split is what most editors want I'm fine with that too. Hobartimus (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
can we take technical and legal issues of article splitting to WP:SPLIT or Template talk:Split please, and focus on the topic itself here, please? My edit was intended as an illustration of what a "China / Republic of China" solution might look for in the case of Kosovo. If people don't like it, we can revert to where we were. But let us not drown this question by discussing technical details. dab(𒁳)18:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I oppose merely because in English language standard Kosovo is referring to the political entity primarily (if not solely). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
!vote OPPOSE. Wasn't this vote JUST taken last weekend? This repetitive soliciting for !votes till one side gets its way is asinine. ThuranX (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh geez. IT'S NOT A POV FORK! Fact is, presently this article is strongly biased just by the mere fact it is under Kosovo. A search for Kosovo on Google gets this article. This is a Western bias towards the Western position on Kosovo. That or it's Albanian bias, I don't know who started the article. However, this is simply unacceptable. There has to be some sort of split. I think having a separate article "Republic of Kosovo" and having this page be a disambiguation page is the only fair thing to do. Presently Russia, China, India, Argentina, Venezuela, Spain, Ukraine, and South Africa among others do not recognize Kosovo as a nation and continue to recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia. In particular, Russia, Spain, Venezuela, and Argentina are some countries which have made this explicit.
Having the article put Kosovo on the same level of nations like Germany, Canada, and Japan is just ridiculously biased. Kosovo is a highly controversial and rare case and should be approached with great caution. There is no caution with this article. This article is like a big "F-U" to Serbia. The whole thing is a mess because some people here want to assert their personal opinions on Kosovo. It's simple Kosovo's status is disputed, hotly disputed, and Wikipedia should not be taking sides. Right now Wikipedia is taking sides.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyways dude, who cares about Serbia, they are irrelevant. Kosovo is independent, and neither you nor Serbia will change it. Bosniak (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You see, that's kind of my point. Many people wanting this article kept as is are biased towards one side, which is exactly the problem. The article represents a bias. That is simply unacceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There is simply no reason to create a POV fork. I don't understand if arguments like "This article is like a big "F-U" to Serbia" were supposed to be taken seriously or not? Since the protection of the article was lifted the article was massively edited to conform to a Serbian POV by a series of edits. The evidence is all there in the history anyone can compare the two versions. Hobartimus (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes exactly. What they are trying to do is to conform this article to the Serbian POV. But no matter what I say, no matter what they say, no matter what God says, Kosovo will never be Serbia. And instead of wasting my time debating indisputable facts (such as that Kosovo will never be Serbia), I am going to get my champagne and celebrate Serbia's loss of Kosovo. I have been so happy since Kosovo's declaration of independence, I trully feel NEWBORN.Bosniak (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to conform it to any POV. That's why I'm suggesting this article be split, because right now it does conform to a POV, one favoring Kosovo's independence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing to do with a pov fork. There is a Republic of Kosovo (since 2008). This article is about the region of Kosovo. About 60% of this article discusses the history (pre-2008) of the region which ostensibly has nothing to do with the disputed Republic. Implying that "Kosovo" is equivalent to the "Republic of Kosovo" is pov. It is one notable pov, but nevertheless pov. Now that the events have slowed down a bit, it appears likely that the status of the Republic of Kosovo will remain disputed at least for the next few years. There will be no way around treating the region separately from the Republic in order to comply with WP:NPOV: Doing so does not prejudice against independence, as is evident from e.g. Italian peninsula vs. Republic of Italy (nobody disputes the independence of the Republic of Italy, yet its territory can still be treated as a separate entity. dab(𒁳)06:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
ok, reviewing opinions above, the only "oppose" vote with a recognizable rationale is PaxEquilibrium's. The rest appears to be either trolling or failure to understand what is being proposed ("pov fork", "GFDL"). ThuranX, we are not "voting". We discussed the possibility above, and are now looking at its implementation. Until The RoK has at least UN recognition (which will take a couple of years at least it would seem), I really see no way around the split that would satisfy WP:NPOV. A possible alternative would be keeping a "Republic of Kosovo" h2 section within this article, and moving the country infobox to that, but country infoboxes pertinent to a section only are discouraged, and I do think the Republic of Kosovo is notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. PaxEquilibrium seems to propose that Kosovo should redirect to Republic of Kosovo, while the article on the territory could be at Kosovo (region). This is arguable I think, but open to criticism. The only entirely unbiased approach would be redirecting Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation). If we really can find no other consensus, we'll have to do that, but it's not nice in terms of navigability. dab(𒁳)13:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't dismiss valid reasons for opposing as "failure to understand". I can understand the proposal and arguments very well and I still think splitting this article would be unnecessary, redundant and a POV fork. Húsönd13:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but how is a split a pov fork? It goes without saying that a split should avoid pov forks. It is valid to keep summaries of dedicated articles in WP:SS articles. Otherwise, this article would already be a content fork, of History of Kosovo and other articles. Please explain why (a) you think the split is "unnecessary", and (b) why you (it appears) think it would necessarily result in a "pov fork". Unless you can explain some rationale for these claims, I do not think you should be making them. This article has de facto already been split into History of Kosovo, Geography of Kosovo, Politics of Kosovo, Demographics of Kosovo and Subdivisions of Kosovo. An article on the 2008 Republic at Republic of Kosovo would just add one more to these. How, do you argue, is it "redundant" or "pov" to have that, while it is ok to have "Ottoman Kosovo" or "Kosovo (UNMIK)"? dab(𒁳)13:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You're confusing content that is taken from this article so that its size won't be excessive (leading to the creation of sub-articles such as History of Kosovo, etc.) and a POV fork. By creating an article about the region of Kosovo, you will provide Wikipedia with an article that is redundant (content about the region has its rightful place in articles such as Geography of Kosovo), thus unnecessary, and allowing the creation of a duplicate article of Kosovo that doesn't mention its de facto independence (purpose- pov). Húsönd13:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not confusing anything, since I happen to argue there is no "pov fork". A "pov fork" is an article with a scope identical to another one but pushing a different view. No such thing is happening here. Nobody suggests "duplication". There is a "Republic of Kosovo", declared 2008, which can have its own article just like the one declared 1990 can have one, here. What does this have to do with pov forks? Is China a pov fork of Republic of China? Is Indian subcontinent a pov fork of Republic of India? If not, pray explain how you can argue that Republic of Kosovo is a pov fork of Kosovo region. (the question of where unqualified Kosovo should redirect is independent of claims of "pov forks"). Needless to say, the "Kosovo region" article will mention up front that the region since 2008 is claimed by the Republic of Kosovo. I do not understand where you get your assumption that the article "doesn't mention" the fact, since it ostensibly did, and nobody suggested it shouldn't. dab(𒁳)13:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
China is not the same as the Republic of China, and neither is the Indian subcontinent the same as India. The region of Kosovo coincides with the newborn republic, we need an article about the region of Kosovo as much as we need an article about the region of Belgium or the region of Finland. Húsönd20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Except both of those countries are actually UN members, recognized by all relevant countries. No one seriously disputes their claims to sovereignty and nationhood. With Kosovo there's a huge division of opinion and right now this article takes a side.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
plus, the Republic of China in fact claims all of China as its territory. Just like the Republic of Kosovo claims all of the Kosovo region, while the region de facto remains under UN control, plus the Provisional Government has little or no governance over Northern Kosovo. You are dodging the issue. The point is that identifying the region and the Republic is not NPOV. The discussion should really end there, since WP:NPOV is not negotiable. Both povs are notable. One is held by the RoK and the "West", the other by Serbia, Russia and China. We do not favour one pov because it is held by the Western Hemisphere. dab(𒁳)20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
UN membership and Kosovo's recognition have no relevance to this proposal. The dispute is already very well described in the article. I don't think this article takes a side, it is actually quite neutral. Húsönd20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
the description is fine. The country infobox is not. If we can agree to remove the country infobox, the problem will be solved, but then we'll need a Republic of Kosovo article so we can place the infobox there, won't we. You can't slap a RoK flag on this article and still claim it is neutral on the dispute. dab(𒁳)20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the infobox is fine, it reflects the de facto and partial de jure political situation of Kosovo. I would not oppose the insertion of another infobox that would reflect its status as a province of Serbia though. But again, the current infobox must by all means stay, it wouldn't be encyclopedic otherwise. Húsönd20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
this doesn't make sense. the infobox is for articles on states. the "Republic of Kosovo" is a state. "Kosovo" is a term in a sort of Schrodingerian state of flux, and this article is the untenable result of terminological confusion and conflation. The split is necessary to get straight on article scopes. What do you propose is the scope of this article? dab(𒁳)17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You're obviously running out of civilized arguments when you're barking "stop trolling". Why did you redirect the article if we were all so wrong? Where are your expounded coherent arguments when you actually need them? --Camptown (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The article was redirected already back to Kosovo there is no reason to clutter this important main article with extra banners. There is still a great deal of outside intrest in the article such things make it look amateurish. Hobartimus (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the Republic of Kosovo article was initially redirected by 2007apm, not Dbachmann, as claimed by Camptown. Second, it doesn't matter who redirected it because this issue is being actively discussed. It doesn't matter if there's outside interest either. We need to have an open discussion, and that means leaving the banner up. Superm401 - Talk16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That's nonsense. I never claimed that dab initiated the redirect in 2007, but did so yesterday, but left the tag on the Kosovo article for reasons not known to me. --Camptown (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I support a split until Kosovo is recognised by a majority of UN member states. Until then the state of Kosovo is disputed. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
it is clear that we need a split one way or the other. Either keep this article under "Kosovo" discussing the 2008 state (which imho is non-neutral), or keep it as discussing the region and its history. One or the other needs to be branched out. Which will it be, Kosovo region or Republic of Kosovo? dab(𒁳)17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If you feel so strongly about it I suggest we create a survey with the possible options such as 'Keep as is' 'Split and create Kosovo region' etc. It would be a good opportunity to gauge consensus regarding such a move. Survey should run for a standard time to allow in those user who don't edit the article every day I don't know what is the standard in such cases.Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no fixed opinion at all, except that WP:NPOV needs to be observed carefully. Slapping a country infobox onto "Kosovo" clearly violates this policy. There is a number of ways how this could be addressed. I also strongly recommend that "votes" along the lines of "Oppose!!! Kosovo will [never/always] be Serbia!", and unconstructive non-sequiturs of the Camptown variety, be ignored or even just removed per WP:TALK. Only contributors that appear to be aware of the problem wrt Wikipedia policies need be considered. dab(𒁳)09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Options
opinion poll:
1. accommodate the "Republic of Kosovo" under Kosovo, "Kosovo the Autonomous Province" under Kosovo (UNMIK) and Kosovo the historical/geographical region under "Kosovo region".
Yes, that makes sense and this is common under other Wikipedias, for example the German Wiki, on which I am also working. But I would suggest to merge Kosovo region with Kosovo as it it a part of his past and belongs to his history. --Tubesship (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
2. accommodate the "Republic of Kosovo" under Republic of Kosovo, "Kosovo the Autonomous Province" under Kosovo (UNMIK) and Kosovo the historical/geographical region under "Kosovo".
This one, or the one under this. It's the most suitable... And until the disputes have been settled (which may never happened, just look at China/Cyprus/Macedonia etc.). Chandlertalk20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, this would make it equivelant to other entities under dispute as there are a number of countries on Wikipedia which are not directly called by their short title, but by their official title due to disputes, such as the article Peoples Republic of China often referred to as "China" though the Republic of China often called "Taiwan" also claims the title of being "China"; Republic of Ireland often referred to as "Ireland" is disputed because there is British sovereignty in the section of North Ireland, and the Republic of Macedonia often referred to as "Macedonia" even though Greece condemns the country's use of the name, as "Macedonia", they claim represents parts of Greece. Finally, the Tibet Autonomous Region often called "Tibet", has its own article, the article Tibet speaks of the general region itself, rather than the political infrastructure. The Republic of Kosovo should be treated the same as these Wikipedia articles on disputed regions.--R-41 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We should avoid putting everything into the same salad bowl. In the case of China, there are two countries calling themselves "China", so having separate pages for them makes some sense. In the case of Ireland, the country of Ireland does not cover the whole of the island, so it makes sense too to have an article on the whole island. In the cases of Macedonia and Tibet, edit warring led to present situation. I could see a case for having a single Tibet article, and for having Macedonia being actually the page of the Republic of Macedonia. Just because these two cases were solved badly that does not mean we should do the same here. Khuft (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This is indeed the only sensible option, the only option ultimately consistent with NPOV. It works well with so many other cases and where it isn't used yet (Abkhazia) this is only because no one has made serious work of it yet. sephia karta00:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This looks guaranteed to piss off every POV, but label things extra tidy for each to bitch about equally. Thus, I support this. Let's keep no one happy. ThuranX (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I support this for the same reason ThuranX does. A compromise is a solution that everyone finds equally unacceptable, and this is certainly that. Ok, now for my real reason: The use of a disambiguation page will also make it easier for people to find the exact information they are looking for without preference or bias. Every other option favours either "province" or "state" except for crazy options number 4 and 5 (EDIT: But which comes first on those pages? You just KNOW there will be edit wars over which option shows up first on the page, and which one gets the "loser spot" at the bottom)Gopher65talk 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC). Unless I am blind this is the only option that offers a disambiguation page, so this is the one that I support. This option is the least unfair to all parties. Gopher65talk15:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. keep all of "Kosovo as Autonomous Province of Serbia", "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo as geographical and historical region" in a single article, without a country infobox.
5. keep all of "Kosovo as Autonomous Province of Serbia", "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo as geographical and historical region" in a single article, with one customized infobox under "declaration of independence (2008)", and another one under "UN protectorate (1999 to present)".
I agree the split should be made. However, untill that time, we should delete the flag, coat of arms, etc from the Kosovo article, since they are specific to the Republic of Kosovo and not the region of Kosovo.Osli73 (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Camptown, you quite clearly have no idea how this works. If we decide not to split the article, we'll just redirectRepublic of Kosovo back here. There is no way we'll delete the title, since it is the official name of the country. Comments like your "Maybe we should split Serbia instead - the land of splitting image" shows that not only have you no idea what is going on, but that you are actually trolling this discussion. dab(𒁳)12:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Just another typical comment from an editor who spends most of his time cracking down on other editors who don't agree with him, but actually care for this project. Yet, indeed, if it's "just" soooo easy, I'd ask this editor to redirect Republic of Kosovo right away (as it was until two days ago before this silly split). And if, in future, the article Kosovo grows out of proportion, there is always an opportunity to move some material to Kosovo (region) etc. --Camptown (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
well, except that instead of "cracking down", I'm actually expounding a coherent argument, while you seem to prefer random personal attacks, incoherent muddying of the issue and the occasional trollish aside. Now please stop your non sequiturs, contribute to the discussion coherently and in good faith, or else make use of your right to remain silent. dab(𒁳)20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
sic, indeed. "expounding" as in "set forth, declare, state in detail". "coherent" as in "of which all the parts are consistent, and hang well together" and "argument" as in "a reason urged in support of a proposition". Are there any questions, or are you just echoing my words back at me because you have run out of things to say? dab(𒁳)17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This sentence: "Serbs, like Russians, are mainly Slavs by ethnicity while Kosovars are mostly ethnic Albanians." has no obvious connection with the chapter Declaration of independence under which it is written. Not to mention it is erroneous (as Slavs are not an ethnicity but a group of ethnicities speaking simmilar languages. And Serbs are claerly Serbs by ethicity and Russians, Russians) and irrelevant. I propose that the sentence be deleted; or at least be put in some sort of context. Rokpok (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
NO, NO, NO. You are deeplig wrong. Ethnitc (Rase) is somthing els als member of a Church. The ortodox church must make reform´s to be sayed so clean thate Serbs are Serbs and Russians are Russians!!!. This hase no to do with politic but Russians are like the Arab. We have the peopel in Maroko, they call himself arab, but they hase nothing to do with arabs ethnity. It is simpel, they speack some santens of arabish with ther old laungege and they call himself arab. There cultur and blut hase nothing to do with arabs more with fundamenta muslims witch makes masakers like in Algeria. Biologicel and politicel they are not arab (Simpel they are muslims, but not arab). It is a same situation with Russians and Serbs (Simpel they are Ortosox, but they are not all Serbs and Russians).
True .
The Serbs of today would be suprised to know that most of them are not slavic any more,
but behave like one, because of their invasion of that land as Salvs.
There are 10 different races that have shaped Serbian race of today, like most of the
Balkans.
Some like Illyrian Panonians, Dardanians, Albanians, Thracians also Celts, Dacians,
Germanic and a lot more.
The things that Serbs have in common with Russian are:
The origin of their language and religion.
It would be a very small minority with a clean Slavic race in Serbia of today.
I think a soon as they realise that the better they will do for them selvs.
Meaning that rather then looking at Russia for help, they should be building their future with the neighbours.
The most prosperous periods in Serbian History has always been, when they made an effort to
co-exist with their neighbours.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
...I would like to point out that there are some discrepancies when it comes to links on the bottom of the page...For instance: There is a link to Sovereign states of Europe article, while Kosovo is not included in that article...it can be found in Unrecognized Republics, Territories or Regions, so link should be changed to match the List of Countries in Europe article.
Also, there is a dead link on the bottom - International membership and history...it should be removed.
24.199.84.132 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)G
Infobox removed AGAIN!
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
The "no consensus" is mainly because people with a blatant POV want to push Kosovo statehood down everyone's threats and make them swallow. This article shouldn't exist as it does now. At the very least this article should be renamed to "Republic of Kosovo" and Kosovo being made a disambiguation page. At the most there should be a separate article for Kosovo as a historical region. Kosovo wasn't always called Kosovo, but China hasn't always been called China either. China in ancient times also did not cover the area it does today. So I see nothing wrong with having an article on the region of Kosovo in the mold of the article on China.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have made very clear that as long as we do not implement the split, we have no dedicated article on the Republic, just one on "Kosovo" in general. Until we implement a split as laid out above, there is no way this article can be tagged with the "country" infobox. Camptown, you have repeatedly shown disconcerting lack of good faith, and unless you begin showing appreciation of this problem, and take some sort of coherent position wrt it, I don't think your continued objections should carry any weight. dab(𒁳)07:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
But that's Dbachmann's personal opinion. Dbachmann needs to get support before making important changes to articles such as this. And Dbachmann shouldn't remain a WP admin if he cannot understand that simple rule of order. I don't take any particular notice of Dbachmann's freshness against me, but the wp project doesn't benefit from admins who are repeatedly ignoring the rules and behave badly towards other editors, gets involved in endless debates etc. Dbachmann is not a roll model for an admin, and Dbachmann knows that perfectly well. --Camptown (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
uh-huh. a few diffs of yours from this page should suffice to establish where are you coming from. Further personal remarks to my talkpage please. now do you have anything you wish to say on the topic itself, or do you simply enjoy disrupting the debate here? dab(𒁳)15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious camptown, what problem do you have with my proposal? What exactly is your objection to having this Kosovo dispute resolved through a separate article on Republic of Kosovo? Why don't we treat this issue with Kosovo like the issue with China? Kosovo is a historical region like China and like Macedonia, but it's also the name of a partially-recognized country, it's also the name of what is currently recognized by many countries as a Serbian province. So why do you have a problem with having the subject dealt with in the same manner as China?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The reasons are more practical than sentimental or logical in a historical perspective. Kosovo differs slightly from the Chinese example. There are not multiple Kosovan states (not yet anyway), so there is no practical need to distinguish one Kosovo state from another. Compare instead to the Russian example. "Russia" is by many Russians considered a territory somewhat bigger than the Russian Federation. Yet, the link Russia leads you to the article about the state (with links to disambigious links to other meanings of Russia, such as the territorial concept). The Republic of Kosovo will most likely be called just Kosovo, just like the Republic of Serbia will be called Serbia and so on. Therefore, the renaming of the article to "Republic of Kosovo" appears unnecessary as long as the country/fake state is not called that in daily speech (and now we are taking about the English speaking world outside Serbia). However, I'd support a split, but only if the country/fake state is called "Kosovo", and the territory is called e.g. "Kosovo (region)". After all the present region of Kosovo is even smaller than the country/fake state, so a split might be very well be justified. I also understand thate there are some Serbian concerns that the new country/fake state should not be "awarded" the part of the history which is so much related to Serbia and the Serbian Orthodox Church. But, as many countries have shifted greatly in size during the history, that shouldn't be to hard to solve. --Camptown (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you have to realize Russia and Kosovo are not similar. That's actually the problem. The question isn't whether it's practical or not. I'd say remaining neutral can be quite impractical. Perhaps instead of China I should specifically mention Taiwan. While most media call the nation Taiwan (like I just did) the article on Taiwan talks about the island or region, not the actual nation. The article on the nation is under its official name, not Taiwan. What I'm suggesting is basically the same thing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The China argument is extremely weak and might even damage the case of arguing for a split. The proposal is to follow a China/Taiwan structure as presently exist on Wikipedia but this structure was entirely made up by Wikipedia editors. If the proposal is to stick to and follow existing structures then we can easily find closer examples like the KOSOVO article in it's present or past state that was made up the same way as the China/Taiwan article structures. So this argument is actually for the status quo as it's for favouring pre-existing solutions in Wikipedia so this would be an argument against any possible split. That aside I think using China/Taiwan article structure as an example in an argument for anything relating to the case of Kosovo is known in Wiki terms as a variant of the classic WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Hobartimus (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can pull a policy out and say it proves their point. I'm saying we should use those as a model, not a justification. The present article is woefullly inadequate from various approaches. The best way to resolve this problem is by having a split.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't the best way. Please go read "Proposal to Merge" and other talk sections that discuss the weakness of your argument for split. Thank you. Beam (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
flag of kosovo
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I removed User:Dbachmann's most recent NPVO-tag. We all know that Kosovo is a mine field, so adding NPOV-tags is not very helpful, especially when the tag doesn't come with any elaboration of why it was put there in the first place. --Camptown (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying it shouldn't be there? Just read the "split-discussion" and you'll see that the article's neutrality is disputed. Chandlertalk20:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
indeed. You might state your position in the "options" poll above. Or then of course you might continue your trolling campaign in the present vein until some passing admin takes pity on this page and clamps down on you. dab(𒁳)21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've protected the article for 3 days in response to several ongoing edit wars. All involved users should mind the article probation, which will lead to sanctions if edit-warring continues, and use the time to discuss and try to resolve the disputes. If there's a desire to lift the protection early, you can make a request at WP:RFPP. MastCellTalk19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Please also try to do something about the commons images. Protection was circumvented earlier by editing the main locator map on commons to push POV via the unprotected image. Hobartimus (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Use of the word region
Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments13 people in discussion
Hi, although I understand why the word region was used ("Region in the Balkans") I think that "a partially recognized country (or nation, either one) should be perfectly acceptable to all, and the most accurate & timely, which is of course what is important in an encyclopedia.
No one can deny its partial recognizition. As of today, 27 countries have recognized it. It may be hurtful to some, but it is fact.
"Region" would be more appropriate for places such as "Herzegovina" or "pre-1867 Italy".
I feel the use of the word region here is inappropriate/unnecessary.
Matt W.
Geographer/Historian/Current Events Teacher
Canada
I'd like to support Matt's choice of language. "Partially recognized country" is an accurate description of the situation on the ground in Kosovo today. Darkspots (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose This is a rehash of the above discussion. The current terminology is perfectly neutral. Additionally, "partially recognized country" could be added without necessitating any change of the "region" terminology. (In other words a sentence to the effect it is a partially recognized country could be added.) Joseph (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a region! - Kosovo is not a region, it's a state, a country, independent country, partially recognized country, separate from Serbia... recognized by major world powers.Bosniak (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo IS a region... just because there's a country called Kosovo "on top" of it, doesn't make it any less of a region, when talking about the history of Kosovo you can't talk about the history of this republic, because it has no history, the region of Kosovo however, have. Chandlertalk05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo is now a partially recognized independent country. That's a fact. Also Kosovo does have history. I know serbs whish it not have. Piasoft (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Serbs do not "wish it not have" [sic] a history, as it has a rich Serb history. In any event, you can add that it is a de facto partially recognized republic without removing the fact that it is also a region. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The name partialy recognized is more nuetral then country, or region, unless we split this into country and area.
Bascily, this is going to be th same war betweeen people. Naming it a region either implies we will make a article just for the country, or that it's part of serbia. Naming it a country is pov in that it masks the fact the majority either do not recognize it, havn't finished the planning to recognize it, or are "Nuetral". Part. recognized, is about as nuetral as we can get besides disputed territory.--Jakezing (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Basically, I see three ways to express the current situation:
Kosovo is a region.
Kosovo is the partially recognised Republic of Kosovo.
Kosovo is the partially recognised Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
The first option is true and unambiguous. Depending on whom you're asking, either the second or the third option is true, but both options are never true at the same time. This results in an ambiguity. Simply claiming that Kosovo is a region would avoid any ambiguity: all partially recognised republics, as well as all partially recognised autonomous provinces, can be referred to as regions. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
Yes, Chandle I see your point about it beign a Region. It is a region. But countries (including partially recognized ones such as Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus) START OUT their article by saying that they are either a republic or de facto country. This should not be any different for Kosovo.
Question where did the Kosovo borders come from, who defined them??
They are well known borders and there was no dispute about it.
Kosovo was an autonom repuplic within Yugoslavia. So a recognised country long time before.
I think that is the difference!.
Republic of Kosovo is the country.
When you talk about it in History, like any other country you refer to it as 'that region'
Kosovo region.
To compare, Italy is a region too, but that wikipedia article STARTS out by saying it is a country.
The point is, what an article initially calls something is what is most important. FIRST and FOREMOST, Kosovo is a country (partiaslly recognized or not) and secondmost, a region. Hence the term region shoul dbe considered secondary to the term country or republic.
The difference is Abkhazia is not recognized by any country yet. However, Northern Cyprus is a different case from that, but only in that it's recognized by one country. However, Kosovo is unique from both. Taiwan is a more appropriate comparison though Taiwan does not officially declare independence. Unlike Northern Cyprus, Kosovo had a formal existence before independence and there was at least some legal basis for its independence. In effect, the recognition could be seen as a belated acknowledgment of the legal basis of Kosovo independence. This of course also separates it from Taiwan as Taiwan would have no legal basis to claim independence. It does share a legal basis for independence with Abkhazia, but Abkhazia is not recognized.
The uniqueness of Kosovo is why there's such a controversy and is also why this should be dealt with differently by Wikipedia. I'm in favor of having "partially-recognized state" but only if this is article is named "Republic of Kosovo" rather than just Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Shopteacher yes, I know, I'm not saying it should say "is a region" I'm just pointing out that it is a region. I'm for the partially recognized beginning :) Chandlertalk09:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
To further my point even more, this page has the table on the right stating the varipus apsects of the country, (president, PM, population, etc.)
So on that note, whoever decided that "region" is appropriate when these stats are shown, is mistaken. The logic here is faulty.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article "Kosovo" should be about the region of Kosovo to follow Wikipedia's own standards such as the articles China and Ireland which do not link to the countries commonly attributed to their names (i.e. "China" often refers to the People's Republic of China and Ireland often refers to the Republic of Ireland) but to the regions called by those names. Due to political controversy about the use of those names, Wikipedia's standards to them should apply to the article Kosovo. A separate article called Republic of Kosovo should be created on the fact that the claim to independence is highly controversial.--R-41 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection tag
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago30 comments8 people in discussion
Notwithstanding any future decision to have a split I think an appropriate response is to at least do the following:
Rename article to Republic of Kosovo calling it a partially-recognized state which declared independence from Serbia.
Make current article Kosovo a disambiguation page with the line "Kosovo is a disputed territory under international administration in the Balkans partially-recognized as an independent state under the name Republic of Kosovo or as a province of Serbia." With links to all other articles on places named Kosovo.
Have a new article under Kosovo (region) dealing with Kosovo as a region in the model of other articles on similar regions named on this discussion page.
This would be a sort of de-facto split, but ultimately this article would only change names with the rest being edited into articles from existing redirect pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This article really needs to be protected for a few weeks to let everyone calm down. You propose something it fails to get consensus days later you propose it again slightly differently? At least wait a few weeks before asking for the same thing that just was turned down. The article is on probation that should count for something. Hobartimus (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Splitting Kosovo into 2, 3, 4 or even more articles should only be a measure of last resort and there is no need for that yet. Indeed, what kind of content would be different in the "Kosovo region" and the "Republic of Kosovo" article? History, Geography, Demography, etc. should all be the same anyway - the only difference would be Politics. Why not incorporate this in the current single "Kosovo" article? Khuft (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
the problem is first and foremost with the infobox sporting the flag of the RoK right in the lead. The flag can be under "#recent history" alongside the UNMIK flag, but it cannot grace the lead unless we ostensibly make this article about toe RoK, not "Kosovo" in general. dab(𒁳)14:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
the history of the Republic of Kosovo will be dedicated to the formative process of the Republic, since 1989 or so. The history of Kosovo (the region) will discuss the timeframe reaching back to the Prehistoric Balkans. Yes there is a difference. The Devil's Advocate's suggestion is perfectly arguable, and is equivalent to option 3. above. Nothing has been "turned down" btw. Only two people, Chandler and myself, have even bothered to express an opinion wrt the possible options. If we count TdA's suggestion as a vote for option 3., we have in fact three votes in support of option 3. and no vote in opposition. Unless other people still want to chime in, I'd say this is a consensus (both Chandler and myself favoured option 2., but stated that option 3. is acceptable). If you object to option 3., pray express your opinion as to how you want to resolve the problem instead. (two infoboxes? no infobox? no flag in the infobox? two flags in the same infobox?) What we clearly cannot have is an article under "Kosovo" that shows a country infobox with only the flag of the Republic of Kosovo. This is a breach of WP:NPOV about as plainly as they get. I have nothing against the RoK, and I wish the UN would see their way to recognizing it already so our problems will go away, but at this point in time this simply isn't the case. dab(𒁳)14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This split is completely unnessary. If "History of the Republic of Kosovo" only begins in 1989, then what happens to "history of Kosovo" after 1989? What will "History of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" be after 2008? Contrary to the previous mentioned cases of Ireland and China/Taiwan, we only have one territory here, the status of which is currently disputed, but with only one history, geography, etc.etc. Khuft (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just saying that the history of Kosovo and the history of the Republic of Kosovo are the same anyway. So it makes no sense to have part of Kosovo's history under a "Kosovo" article and another part under a "Republic of Kosovo" article. Khuft (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Two infoboxes might be an option. However, we have to consider what additional info such an infobox would contain... is there still a Serb government of Kosovo and Metohija in exile somewhere? As for flags, Kosovo didn't have its own flag (I believe) - contrary to Vojvodina. So does this infobox really add a lot of additional info? Khuft (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
the infobox suggests this article is about the Republic of Kosovo, while it is in fact about all of Kosovo, regardless of the various positions regarding the Republic. If we move the infobox to the relevant section, we'll just end up with a "main article: Republic of Kosovo" in that section, and will eventually export the infobox to a main article. That's just splitting the article in two steps. But I agree that if we move the infobox to the pertinent section, we'll at least have addressed the most urgent issue of NPOV violation. dab(𒁳)19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There aren't two Kosovos. There's just one, but the status is disputed. All other countries have their infobox on the top, however, so it wouldn't be consistent to have Kosovo's somewhere hidden inside the article. Khuft (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
it wouldn't be "inconsistent", it would reflect the fact that the status of Kosovo as a "country" is disputed. --dab(𒁳)20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus and ROC both have infobox country at the top of the article. If this helps... In any case, I am against having two articles, there is one Kosovo with a disputed status. --Tone21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but both deal with those areas as states and there seems to be no perspective on what this article is actually about. We call it a region but have a country infobox and deal with Kosovo in the article as though it were a country. So the talk of it as a region is completely inconsistent. However, if it's changed to partially-recognized state there's likely to be an uproar.
I'm not calling for a formal split, but really just a rename, creation of a new article, and having Kosovo redirect to the disambiguation page. This article would only be changed to make it consistent with other articles on states, there wouldn't be a need to move information or take anything out of this article. At the very least I think renaming this article to Republic of Kosovo is a good idea.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So what would the other article contain? I see the danger of having either duplicate information on two articles, or of having two very biased articles (one pro-Kosovar/pro-Albanian, one pro-Serb). Khuft (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That's very vague and doesn't give a convincing argument for having a separate article instead of including everything on the Kosovo page. Khuft (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think having two articles (RoK and Kosovo (region)) is really unnecessary because this would be something like this: The RoK article explains everything about Kosovo (the region ,the country ,the province) while kosovo (region) only tells about the geoghraphy and history of Kosovo (which is already told at Geography of Kosovo and History of Kosovo , as well as in Kosovo).These two articles would have no additional information that isn't already in Kosovo article.Having two articles would only create confusion to other readers. We need a article for the region of kosovo as much as we need an article about the region of any other state in Europe. The region of kosovo , The Republic of Kosovo and the province of Kosovo are the same thing.So instead of having three articles about the same thing and with the same information (except one having less than the other (which only creates confusion)) it would be better to have one article (Kosovo) where we could explain in some section that it is a disputed territory--Cradel22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at the articles on China or Taiwan to get an idea of what an article on Kosovo would contain. All the same this doesn't preclude the other points about renaming this article and having Kosovo lead to a disambiguation page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this could be solved by having three articles?
So instead of having one article which we can still try to make more or less NPOV, we would have two definetely POV ones... Is that really an improvement? Khuft (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
no, we will have two articles that are completely NPOV. The "Republic of Kosovo" one will state the RoK is only partially recognized, but it will at least be ostensibly about the Republic, without the implication that the Republic is somehow equivalent to Kosovo in general. Now what about this is so difficult to understand? dab(𒁳)20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe there's already an article on Kosovo as a province. So really nothing would need to be created except a disambiguation page and page on the region. Also I pointed out China because there is some relevance. The article on China deals with the etymology and naming of China, which would certainly be legitimate in an article on Kosovo as a region. Dealing with it as a region would allow us to have an article on Kosovo that deals with the full extent of its history, geography, demographics, culture, and religion without having to worry about leaning to one side or another because we'd deal with it as a region not a nation or province.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:Devil's Advocate. The main reason being that having a separate article on Kosovo (region) would enable us to deal with history, geography, etc, without having to commit to defining it as a country or as a part of Serbia. The article of Republic of Kosovo could then deal exclusively with the politics and institutions of that state. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So instead of one article where you can say everything there is to say about kosovo , we need two articles :one for the geography etc. and one for the politics. Wouldn't that just confuse the readers. Why cant we just have this article where we could explain that it is a disputed territory ?--Cradel11:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly - totally agree with you Cradel. Everything that needs to be said about Kosovo can be put in this article; and if you need two infoboxes, than let's discuss about that. Khuft (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's really the point. The point is things like geography, history and such are currently exposed to a bias in this article. The idea that we can have the article on Kosovo be for both presently recognized entities is just nonsense. Fact is, there already is an article on Kosovo as a province and international protectorate so it would just be duplicating already existing articles. The article should be changed to represent Kosovo as a partially-recognized state disputed by other nations, but in keeping with that change it should be renamed to "Republic of Kosovo" to avoid bias. Presently this article directly associates Kosovo with a country when it is recognized as a province by many nations. It's taking a side in an international dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If "geography, history and such are currently exposed to a bias", it is of course our duty to repair this. However, this does not necessarily mean we have to split the article. By having two infoboxes, you can also avoid taking sides. Khuft (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you don't get the problem or my suggestion. I'm not proposing a split. All I'm proposing is having a new article for Kosovo as a region and putting this article under Republic of Kosovo, and having it be about the declared country. Then Kosovo would lead to a disambiguation page. A new article would be created and ultimately incorporate information from those relevant articles like History of Kosovo, Names of Kosovo, Geography of Kosovo, Demographics of Kosovo, Culture of Kosovo, Religion in Kosovo, and so on about the actual region, not a nation of province. The Vilayet of Kosovo roughly corresponds to where Kosovo is today as does Dardania. This makes Kosovo a distinct region similar to Macedonia or China. Also dealing with it as a region allows for an avoidance of any favoritism or awkward wording. An article trying to deal with both will either slant to one side or will be an uncontrolled confusing mess.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Disputed
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
"Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence is disputed by Serbia, Russia, Spain and 18 other nations."
How are nations counted? Shouldn't it say that all countries not yet recognising Kosovo (= much more than just 18 countries) are disputing its independence? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
Of course not - dispute means oppose. For example Lithuania has not yet recognised Kosovo, but its parliament is expected vote to recognise Kosovo on Monday 10 March. Only those nations that have stated that they are against Kosovo should be recorded as opposing Kosovo. 2007apm (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
A country is not required to say that it doesn't recognise Kosovo for it to not recognise it. It can do nothing if it likes and still not recognise Kosovo. So really all countries that haven't "officially recognised Kosovo" do not recognise recognise Kosovo as an independant state. So only 28 countries currently recognise Kosovo, all the rest do not yet. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Disputing, no.. Not recognizing, yes."
What's the difference? Do we distinguish who 'disputes' and merely 'not-recognizes' the republic of Taiwan? The only significant factoid about this whole scenario is this: only 28 of 192 UN members recognize Kosovo as an independent entity, not nearly enough to give Kosovo international recognition beyond anything other than a NATO puppet. Vlad Dracula (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
we do indeed. it is undisputed that the Provisional Goverment has de facto governance over most of Kosovo (excepting Northern Kosovo) Stating this fact is very different from accepting that this governance is legal. Taiwan is very different: That government claims de jure sovereignty over all of China, while it is completely undisputed that the People's Republic of China has de facto government over that territory. Yes, this boils down to a dispute of NATO vs. Russia+China. Both sides are notable forces to be reckoned with in world politics, so we certainly cannot brush off either view as irrelevant. dab(𒁳)08:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the "Provisional Goverment has de facto governance over most of Kosovo (excepting Northern Kosovo)". The provisional government may claim de jure governance, but de facto governance is exercised by NATO and EU. Let's not pretend that Kosovo isn't occupied territory. Imagine the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation sending a mission to the Basque country, against the will of Spain and the UN Security Council, that's what you have in Kosovo right now.
The question whether you distinguish between states "disputing" Kosovos so-called "independence" and those merely "not recognizing" it, is moot. It depends on how you define consent. For state recognition to happen, usually explicit consent (action by the state authorities) is required. There's no point in distinguishing between "explicit" and "tacit opposition" to Kosovos independence, unless you are pushing a POV, that "tacit opposition" is in fact "tacit consent".
I also agree that "secession" or "puppet state" would be a more appropriate technical term for the situation. Unfortunately, everybody keeps calling it "independence", which is clearly an ambiguous political term. (Independence from who? Certainly not from NATO occupation. Reminds you of the "Independent" State of Croatia in WW2.) --El Cazangero (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nato occupied Kosovo !? How silly this sounds. Never heard this from Kosovo people and governement. The Only "puppet state" is the governement of Serbia, Oh yes, there is no government any more in serbia, Adios Koshtunica!!! Piasoft (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Also good point Reminds you of the "Independent" State of Croatia in WW2.) I can see where Croatia is now in 21'st century. Piasoft (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
split poll
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I draw everyone's attention to the split strawpoll above. We have only three votes so far. I ask everybody to express their opinion there instead (or at least before) indulging in revert-warring. If you don't have an opinion on that question, it hardly makes sense for you to edit-war about it. dab(𒁳)09:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Three votes so far.... You ask everybody not to "indulge in revert-warring", but you can't keep your hands off the article yourself, well, well... --Camptown (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
These five options are not satisfactory. I miss the following options:
- Keep everyting in this article, with one infobox on the Republic of Kosovo - this is the situation curently of the article on Somaliland - a region of Somalia that declared independence a few years ago. (This would correspond to keeping the article as it is, basically).
- Keep eveything in this article and have two infoboxes on the top. This is the Abkhazia option - Abkhazia also declared independence (but nobody recognised it) and we manage to have everything (the Abkhazian infobox, the Georgian infobox, plus the whole info on the dispute) in the single Abkhazia page - no need for split pages on "independent Abkhazia" and "Georgian Abkhazia".
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Reverted split. There is absolutely no consensus about a split. This article has been protected for some days, and the first thing dab does when the protection is lifed is to split the article again. dab only proves that he is not able to fulfil the responsibilities inherent in the adminship, and should be stripped from his admin credentials. --Camptown (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus, in fact i'd say there's a consensus the other way. And I'm not from the region, I'm an American, born and raised. I also have no family from that continent. As far as a neutral point of view goes, it doesn't make sense to split them in this manner. Beam (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
POV-pushing
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This is what keeps Dbachmann (talk·contribs) busy. POV-pushing and edit wars, and it aint over before dab gets the last word. I think dab is a disgrace for all admins who are doing a great job, but also problem, a serious threat to this project. --Camptown (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Basis of Split: Wikipedia's articles on other disputed regions
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
I fully understand that most of Kosovo is de facto outside the jurisdiction of Serbia, I also understand that its independence is disputed by Serbia, Russia, Spain, and deep resentment has been cast in the Peoples' Republic of China which claim that Kosovo did not have the legal right to separate under Serbia's constitution I believe. As neither an Albanian or a Serb, (I am a Canadian - 75% British background, 25% Italian) I can say from a neutral perspective based on the crises over recognition of the Republic of China, the Palestinian National Authority as composing a Palestinian state, historical disputes between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom over the sovereignty of North Ireland, among others all have warranted caution on Wikipedia not to inflame disputes, Wikipedia's actions regarding the status of Kosovo has been a bizarre exception. The article must be split, with one article for the Republic of Kosovo which will speak of the politics of the republic; the Autonomous Province of Kosovo existing since 1990 - even though almost non-existant I presume that most Serbs of Kosovo endorse this as the legitimate authority; and finally an article for Kosovo as a region - representing the history, culture, and geography without political contexts. Wikipedia must not base its standards on pressure posed on it from nationalist rhetoric by either side but instead base it on how Wikipedia has responded to other disputed status regions, as mentioned above, which validly point to the necessity of this article needing to be split up.--R-41 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The Abkhazia article shows representation for both the Georgian claim to the region and the claims by the republic's government. If that were to be done on this page, I would gladly accept it as a solution, but the current edit wars make that seem impossible. The Somaliland article in my view should be called the "Republic of Somaliland" as it is still in international legal terms part of Somalia, if there is not open dispute over the issue of Somaliland independence it is most likely due to the political dissarray in Somalia, the country has been unable to form any viable opposition to the secessionist government of Somaliland. In the past, when Somalia was politically secure, it fought civil war with Somaliland separatists, so it is contentious and I think that Wikipedia should split that article as well into Somaliland as a region and an article for the Republic of Somaliland, to respect the current legal Somali claims to the region. But back to the point on Kosovo, the articles on Tibet and Wikipedia's neutral article on China. It would be easy to say that yes, the Peoples Republic of China holds the best claim to the title "China" because it controls mainland China, but watch out for giving simple titles to disputed entities, if the article on the PRC were to be changed to just "China" POV complaints would explode on that article, which is just what is happening for the article "Kosovo".--R-41 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but its going to be really hard to post the Autonomous Province of Kosovo material on this site, nationalist Albanians won't have any of it, just as nationalist Serbs will not have anything for the article Kosovo representing the Republic of Kosovo. The most realistic way to keep the two sides from fighting is representing both both claims on independent articles, while an article on "Kosovo" should be like that of the articles on "China", "Tibet" and "Ireland" which Wikipedia has had the good judgement to talk about the history, culture, and geography without averting to divisive and controversial political status, which is represented elsewhere for the claimant parties.--R-41 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
you've got it right. This is a no-brainer to anyone serious about NPOV. By not implementing a neutral solution right away, we are giving nationalist pov pushers more weight than they should ever have on Wikipedia. dab(𒁳)21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hooray: so our solution is to have two pages where each party can present its own POV... How the hell is that supposed to be neutral???? (BTW R-41: the case of Ireland is obviously different, as the island of Ireland contains two states: Eire and Northern Ireland - so in a sense it's like the article on Hispaniola, which contains Haiti and the Dominican Republic)Khuft (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree on Ireland being a poor example. Taiwan and Western Sahara, however, are great examples. Taiwan has all the institutions of a national government and all trappings of sovereignty, unlike Kosovo, and has a clear territory under its control. Yet, the article on Taiwan doesn't go to a page about Taiwan the independent state, but Taiwan the island.
Western Sahara is recognized by more nations than Kosovo, though like Kosovo doesn't control all the territory it claims, but unlike Kosovo is fully sovereign in the territory it holds. Yet Western Sahara's article isn't about the nation and government of Western Sahara. Well rightly so as Morrocco controls most of Western Sahara and is recognized as having sovereignty over the rest. This position is officially supported by numerous nations. Yet it does not lead to an article on the Western Saharan provinces. No, the article on Western Sahara deals with it as a region disputed between two parties, with neither claim recognized by the UN.
While I'm not interested in dealing with Abkhazia that article does have a clear slant towards the Georgian position and it's fairly easy to make that slant when both are dealt with in the same article. Ultimately one position is going to be favored over another or the article will end up just being a big sloppy block of text.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, Western Sahara really provides one of the best examples of what I mean. Abkhazia and Somaliland are not recognized, but Western Sahara and Kosovo are recognized as independent by many nations. They're both also recognized as provinces by many nations. However, the article on Western Sahara does not lead to either the article on it as a province or as a nation. It leads to an article on Western Sahara the region. One might argue the disputed control is a reason for doing this, but really there is a dispute over who controls Kosovo. Presently the Serbs in Kosovo are mostly reporting to the UN, not the Kosovo government and are refusing to be subject to rule from Pristina. We already have an article on the UN-ruled Kosovo and that is not the same as the declare nation. Presently Kosovo's government does not have authority over Northern Kosovo. So really there's already a dispute over whether all of Kosovo is controlled by the declared nation of Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I draw your attention to Palestine: "State of Palestine" doesn't redirect to Palestine, it redirects to Proposals for a Palestinian state. "Palestine" doesn't sport any flags. Proposals for a Palestinian state has both the Palestinian and the Israeli flag. Applying this to the case at hand, not only wouldn't Republic of Kosovo redirect here, it wouldn't even be a separate "country" article, it would just redirect to the declaration of independence one. I wouldn't go quite as far as that, since after all two dozen states do recognize the RoK. A China style solution will suffice. But I repeat that there is no way this article will not be split and still keep the RoK flag in the lead. dab(𒁳)21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"There is no way this article will not be split"...Is this suddenly your wikipedia? I certainly am not the only one not seeing any need for a split, and hope there won't be any unilateral moves in that direction before this has been thoroughly discussed.Khuft (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
EVERYONE CALM DOWN, DON'T MAKE THIS PERSONAL! Let's get back to the basics, support for split = China, Ireland, Tibet articles all are for the region. Against = Somaliland article and the Abkhazia article (though it is different in that it represents the claims for both the secessionists and the government of Georgia).--R-41 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As for the issue of Western Sahara it is a de jure state, recognized, but with no sovereignty, Somalia has no government but it still is recognized because the UN is unwilling to recognize the tribal factions. Until the legal powers that be at the UN either decide to recognize the Republic of Kosovo, or not, or simply leave it up in the air, the Republic of Kosovo should be an independent article in my mind not part of a "Kosovo" article. I say this because I suspect that Albanian and Serb nationalists on Wikipedia will fight and fight and fight if the page recognizes both the autonomous province and the republic will be repeatedly vandalized by Serb and Albanian nationalists.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
They won't because Wikipedia is luckily free of pesky world politics. The creation of two articles that are actually the same just differing on the way they are presented to readers (so the please them) is futile and counterproductive. Permanent semi-protection is a much, much easier solution. Húsönd02:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
As explained above, there is no way there can be a "Republic of Kosovo" infobox on the article titled Kosovo as long as the RoK's status is disputed. That's a simple corollary of WP:NPOV. See Talk:Kosovo#Options, where I note you have not even bothered to state a preference. Stop edit-warring and either try to be constructive or just go away. There are several options, either move the article to Republic of Kosovo and keep the infobox, or keep it at Kosovo and remove it, etc. The present version is not defensible, and semi-protection will not affect this situation. dab(𒁳)13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
External Link
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Recommnend an external link be added to article from Canada's reputable Maclean's magazine, interviewing Serbia's new ambassador to Canada Dusan Batakovic, a very good matter of fact summary provided on Kosovo.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please add this photo, with Serbia shaded, which is the compromised version. The current version suggests that Kosovo is a widely recognized country (the same map is used for all internationally recognized countries) and completely ignores the vast majority of the countries of the world that still consider Kosovo a part of Serbia. If Serbia is shaded, it suggests that there is a dispute and it is absolutely neutral. Thank you, --GOD OF JUSTICE04:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Interview with Hashim Thaci (TV8)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In an interview of March 11, 2008, by the Swedish reporter Lars Adaktusson, Kosovo's prime minister Hashim Thaci is optimistic about Kosovo's future. He says that Kosovo aims to become member of the NATO and the EU, and that Kosovo is a nation for all its citizens, also the Serbian minority. Hashim Thaci reveals that there are informal talks going on between his government and Russia; and he points out that the official Russian reaction differs from its pragmatic view shown during the informal talk. Hashim Thaci even says that Spain has indicated an intention to establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo now when a majority of EU member states have done so. Hashim Thaci says that he is not worried that the Seriban part in the north will break away, and that he would show Carl Bildt (Sweden's foreign minister) also the northern part of Mitovica next time he comes to Kosovo. On March 8, Carl Bildt became the first foreign minister to visit Kosovo since its unilateral declaration of indepence.
See the program here: Interview with Hashim Thaci - 2008-03-11 (Video) (Interview in English). --Camptown (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Country Information Box
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I wonder how come. Anyway I've just removed the copy now. No reason whatsoever for its presence. Húsönd02:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
that's clearly a bad faith edit. The two infoboxes are the provisional outcome of a huge discussion above, in which you were involved. Remove both or none, this isn't the Republic of Kosovo article. If you remove the infobox, you are revert-warring, and you should at least have the decency to restore the NPOV tag at the same time, since you know your edit is controversial. --dab(𒁳)13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1989 is not starting point in Kosovo crisis
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
"In 1989, Milošević, employing a mix of intimidation and political maneuvering, drastically reduced Kosovo's special autonomous status within Serbia. Soon thereafter Kosovo Albanians organized a non-violent separatist movement, employing widespread civil disobedience, with the ultimate goal of achieving the independence ..."
This is not true... Kosovo Albanians stared their project Great Albania much earlier ... read here http://www.globalpolitician.com/21149-albania ... also there you'll find more references. it is middle age concept that waited till XXI century to become true... that sentence NEED to be corrected, Wikipedia becoming propaganda media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.91.24 (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And stating that this is all due to Greater Albania aspirations makes that part of the article NPOV? Your sources are all but neutral.Amenifus (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
to User:Amenifus
Please Amenifus, find sentence or part of the sentence where i stated "... that this is all due to Greater Albania aspirations ... " You are probably Albanian with very bad concesnes - small internet solder for Great Albania project. Please, provide facts and give sources for your statement that my "sources are all but neutral" ... Looking forward to read something smart and to learn something new from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.248.164 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright.I know somewhere along the run I'll regret answering you but I'll try anyway.Yes, you are correct on one thing, I am Albanian(which isn't a secret anyway), but you'll find a great deal of non-albanian users here that will attest to the "partialness" of your comment(and sources).Your comment:"Kosovo Albanians stared their project Great Albania much earlier" and "it is middle age concept that waited till XXI century to become true" renders my first comment correct.1989 WAS the starting point of the Kosovo crisis, even if reasons and factors may go a millenium back.Historically, there wasn't any unified Albanian state in the middle ages, and there was hardly an albanian identity to begin with.I don't see how the Albanian princes and nobility could've been plotting a Gr Albania.As for :" You are probably Albanian with very bad concesnes - small internet solder for Great Albania project", I'm assuming you meant "consciousness" or "conscience".Either way, that description fits you more than me(replacing the word Albania of course).During my short time here I've never promoted or supported ANY Greater Albania aspects whatsoever, so spare me the personal attacks.Overall, seems you were just looking to blow off some steam, and you should probably be redirected to an appropriate forum.You'll find plenty of small internet soldiers there.I hope this was smart and new.Amenifus (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
To User: Amenifus
Nice political talk. quite emotional. still you didn't provide any evidence that deny sources that I referred. 1989 was nothing more important then 2004, 1999, 1998, or 1981, 1941, 1912 ... and so on. Many smaller or bigger crises induced by mentioned project happened on Kosovo during those years. It is very arbitrary and in my opinion kind of propaganda attitude statement that exactly 1989 was starting point. If you have problem to go far in the past, then maybe 1981 is more appropriate year. But I guess that year is problem for Albanians because it is hard to explain violence against serbs in the name of Great Albania that happened 1981. But if 1989 was starting point that is much easier for Albanian propaganda machine; because that year can be easily connected with Milosevic (well recognized bad guy) and easily claim that all problems started 1989 with him. That was my point, that's why I provided references about Great Albania project. Great Albania project is main reason for Kosovo crisis - year however not very important. That’s why demographics structure of Kosovo was significantly changed in last 100, especially 30 years (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo - though this article is not accurate) , that’s why Albanians cannot stand to live next to serbs, that’s why so many churches and Christians grave yards were burned(http://www.kosovo.net/news/archive/2004/April_28/1.html just list from 2004). Simply, Great Albania should be a country for Albanians, i.e. Muslim Albanians and there is no space for Christians especially any Serbs.
1989 was bad year for all, mostly for Serbs because Milosevic got in power, but not starting point in Kosovo crisis.
So please provide references and facts, not political and emotional phrases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.69.114 (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
...and this is where I start regretting.Most of your points have been discussed time and again in wikipedia, so I don't even need to elaborate on them.I will only answer to one thing:"Simply, Great Albania should be a country for Albanians, i.e. Muslim Albanians and there is no space for Christians especially any Serbs.".What you seem to ignore is that in the entire albanian population a percentage of 65-70% are muslim, the rest are mainly orthodox and catholic.During the Kosovo crisis(you pick the starting point) Albanians had no pan-Islamic notions and movements.Again, this is not a Kosovo forum and this is clearly stated at the head of this discussion page.If you plan to improve the article in any way, be my guest, but you must provide some actually neutral sources, not forum links carrying the impersonation of extremism.If you simply wish to continue with more Greater Albania warmongering again I would advise you to join a specific forum.People here in wikipedia are going through a hard time maintaining as much article neutrality as possible, and continuing this discussion I feel that I'm undermining their efforts.In other words, I'm stopping this futile conversation here.Amenifus (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To User: Amenifus:
This is not forum; you are the one that use this space as a forum. You STILL haven't provided ANY reference -just judgments without citations. I'm amazed by the speed of your response - I guess there is more then one person behind this user name. Probably the most points have been discussed, but still that means nothing. You and people like you are (i.e. internet solders for Great Albania project) believe that 100 times repeated untruth becoming true or fact! That's why you "don't even need to elaborate on them"... Instead to provide link to valid source (the simplest and easiest would be f.ex. www.wiki.x.io ) you are keep repeating that my sources are not neutral. Here is one more untruth in your last response.
" in the entire albanian population a percentage of 65-70% are Muslim, the rest are mainly orthodox and catholic"
read here about real numbers. again reference is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo in the section Religion. I am also stopping here with defending my statement form you because you are the one that basically spreading untruth and use this page as forum in propaganda purposes.
One more time 1989 was not more important then any other year of the Kosovo crisis and Kosovo crisis is strongly induced by Great Albania project (see references that I inserted in previous text). I hope the page will be revised and I believe improved. Thank you :o) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.91.24 (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Maddog
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
First of all i wonna say that main mistake of this article is thatis its all wrong. In the begining of it`s said that the Kosovo was in Ottoman empire since 1455. until 1912. But you didn`t said that Kosovo was the part of Serbia, and that Serbia too was in part of Ottoman empire. Thats mean that Kosovo was, is , and will be the part of Serbia untill the end of time. Everything else is just imagination of world leaders who only looks for his own benefits. Kosovo have a lot of black gold, and thats the main reason why America involved in this situation. You just have the wrong facts, and i don`t blame you. I blame yours guverment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.172.3 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Your reasons and logic defy NPOV. If i remember, several states, modern and past were like that. Oh, guess what; the ENGLISH wikipedia isn't exactly american, Considering the united states, NOT america(Note the difference between america and the US) isn't the only english speaking country in this world. #rd; your "America is only supporting kosovo because it has oil" idea is VERY, VERY, POV and isn't allowed here. Now, when you have a npov thing to say that wil IMPROVE the article and still keep it as close to npov as possible, i won't be critical of you, ok? (Sorry abnout being so harsh, but i'v grown tired of you people and your pov idea's on how kosovo will or will not be a state.)--Jakezing (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed i think were all getting sick and tired of pro-Serbian and pro-Albanian propaganda ruining the article and having it protected from editing every couple of days it is disrupting the Article and is quite frankly getting annoying. Can we all just state what the facts are Keep a neutral point of view and keep our opinions to were they belong. To ourselves or on our userpages not in an article and not in a discussion about an article that is meant to reflect a neutral point of view and is meant to be a debate on how to improve an article.
Gr8opinionater (talk)
Excuse me did you just say "neutral point of view"? I believe this isn't as simple as it sounds and verbally attacking someone who is expressing his opinion is also against the rules. By all means look at a history book and you'll read that serbia streched over Kosovo for centuries. But seeing that this is not the main problem let me tell you that being neutral means having influence by no-one and what I've seen these last days is that this is almost impossible. I've seen Albanian nationalists reflect their ideas on supposedly "neutral" articles, which are offending Serbian readers. I recommend that the article is split before we have to deal with more harsh nationalism in here. Lastly, I thought that this encyclopedia worked with historical facts, culture evidence etc. What I've seen is that the Albanians in their lust for power (Greater Albania) are causing problems to Wikipedia which is NOT a battlefield in which they can claim territories. The least we can do is split the article so that there is some kind of balance. And I suggest that it happens soon because nationalism is bad in this article and it's getting worse each day, if you ask me. 85.72.138.131 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
per capita income
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I request to include the 2004 estimates of Kosovo's Dometic Product and Per Capita income in the country information box. It is reported below in the same article and there is no reason not to inlude the information in the coutnry information box.
Regards
--Ivazir (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo (geopolitical region) article
Latest comment: 16 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion
Well, well seems like there's already an article for Kosovo the region. I guess my proposal changes. This article should be renamed to "Republic of Kosovo" and Kosovo made into a disambiguation page leading to Kosovo (geopolitical region), Republic of Kosovo, Kosovo (UNMIK), and Autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Jakezing, we are trying to find a solution which is acceptable to both sides, Albanian and Serb. As your user page indicates that you support Kosovo independence, you have a vested interest in promoting Kosovo independence, which is why your judgements must be taken cautiously on Wikipedia. I am a Canadian who has no Balkan heritage, though I am interested in Balkan history, I would like to see this dispute resolved in a manner than does not offend either side. I recognize that opposed to you are many Serbs who claim that Kosovo is still a province within Serbia and do not accept the Kosovo government's claim and have noted that the Serbian constitution does not allow autonomous provinces to separate. Serbs do not recognize Kosovo as an independent state, as neither do Russia, Spain and other countries and the UN is in deadlock over the issue. At present, "Kosovo" solely refering to the republic is controversial. The article on China does not give credit to the People's Republic of China's huge landholding of mainland China, the article takes a neutral stance, taking into account the Republic of China's (based in Taiwan) claim to the mainland. The China article is the kind of article I and many others would like to see for Kosovo. The Kosovo (geopolitical region article respects the claims of both sides, and presents a neutral standpoint recognizing that the region is in dispute. No solution will come from one side trying to beat the other, only a compromise, which the article Kosovo (geopolitical region) represents.--R-41 (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is very NPOV. NPOV is neutral point of view not no point of view. Few people and no nation oppose identifying the Federal Republic of Germany with Germany. So from a neutral point of view an article on the Federal Republic of Germany can be rightly put under Germany. This is not the case with Kosovo. A lot of people and countries do not identify the Republic of Kosovo with Kosovo. However, all would identify Republic of Kosovo as the declared state in Kosovo. So this would be the neutral point of view to have an article with that title on that subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
How the hell does my support of kosovo cloud my judgement. Furthermore, i was againsta article named republic of kosovo, how is that showing my support? Well? WELL! I'm german and irish, with no balkan blood in me at all, besides the slavic blood in the poles. Oh, taiwan is in a different postion then kosovo...--Jakezing (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it seemed natural to assume that someone endorsing Kosovo independence could be Albanian. Still someone endorsing independence of Kosovo affects their judgement. Further, your user page shows that you have strong opinions on issues in the former Yugoslavia. For whatever reason you have these, they affect your judgement because it gives you an agenda to support one side over another. Neutrality must be pursued on Wikipedia to avoid inflaming one side or the other. Take a look at Kosovo (geopolitical region), it is a better article, there are no outstanding disputes there as of yet unlike this page.--R-41 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I endorse Kosovo's independence and I can't really see why should that interfere with my evaluation of NPOV on this article. By the way, I don't think we reached an agreement for the existence of this POV fork Kosovo (geopolitical region). Húsönd18:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal endorsement of Kosovo independence by users is only a problem if they intend to impose that view on others. If you respect the right of the opposing view to be heard then there is no problem. The opposing view is that of Serbia, Russia, Spain, the Peoples Republic of China and others that claim that Kosovo cannot legally separate from Serbia because it was not constitutionally permitted to. If you respect the alternative view then there is no problem. I do not back one side over the other, both have their arguments, but as of yet, the UN has not determined whether Kosovo constitutes an independent, sovereign state. Until then, in my view, it would be against Wikipedia's tradition of neutrality to have a page which displays Kosovo as an accepted country.--R-41 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to remind once again that Wikipedia is not a branch of the UN and we do not abide by its decisions, nor by the decisions of any country. The only elements for changing, adding or removing content on Wikipedia are sources and consensus. Húsönd01:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not just a matter of any sources or uninformed consensus, it is a matter of GOOD sources and INFORMED consensus. The UN bases its decisions on world consensus, yes Kosovo is a functioning state, but it is not a recognized state. I recognize that Kosovo's government is in control of its territory and has become effectively independent of Serbia. But if Wikipedia declares its recognition of Kosovo and does not follow traditional UN standings on international boundaries, Wikipedia would be bound by its own precadent to display all de facto states as being legitimate (and there are many), Wikipedia have to change all its maps of the world, recognize micronations, show every single disputed border, perhaps even create multiple alternative maps of the world to represent every single land claim by one state over another. That would be a very chaotic situation, Wikipedia can't just recognizing the legitimacy of Kosovo's de facto independence without having to recognize the de facto independence of the many other de facto states, if you believe that Wikipedia should recognize every de facto state, things would become very complicated as I mentioned earlier. That is why Wikipedia follows the traditional precadent of recognizing the UN's positions on states. I would like to add that I have nothing against a "Republic of Kosovo" article, which would recognize the de facto state as existing. But the word "Kosovo" directly linking to the declared state, is not universally popular, as we can all see, which justifies my proposal that the word "Kosovo" link to Kosovo (geopolitical region) which will neutral on both sides claims.--R-41 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encylopedia, you're referring to it as if it possessed actual sovereign ability to recognize a country. Wikipedia is not a political entity. Kosovo lacks wide recognition but you can't say "it is not a recognized state". And, it's a de facto independent country. The Wikipedian community understood that this combination were grounds for exposing the article about Kosovo as mainly an independent state that does not currently possess recognition by most countries. You will not find any other similar situation. Again, we're not bound to the UN, and the UN sources have no supremacy over other equally valid sources. And last but not least, I don't really think I can agree with your statement "UN bases its decisions on world consensus". Where did you get that from?! Húsönd03:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you follow your decision and belief by changing every single map on Wikipedia to recognize every single de facto state and every single disputed border. I know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I know that encyclopedia's usually base their information on widely accepted sources, the UN is an accepted source by many countries to define what the borders and countries of the world are. The Kosovo government, like the Somaliland government and others is in the situation that the UN has not been able to determine whether these two entities should be legally recognized as states. "Kosovo" for Serbs refers to the province which they claim still is legally operable, while Albanians in Kosovo claim that "Kosovo" is the short-form name of the state which they endorsed creating. Wikipedia should consider the UN's decisions as a good source because most of the world considers the UN's decisions to be a good source, that is why maps of the world don't show thousands of micronations. Like I said Wikipedia must follow its precadents, if links "Kosovo" to an article about the republic and the article "Kosovo" does not recognize Serbian claims to it, then we must change other pages to be fair and neutral, for instance the Somalia article must have its maps changed to show that the Republic of Somaliland has separated from it.--R-41 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Husond, you you understand my points or not? I understand yours, you say that Wikipedia does not need to follow UN rulings. What I say is if it doesn't and effectively says "Kosovo is a country" then many many other de facto states will need to have the same treatment on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia we can't just pick and choose which countries we recognize and which ones we don't, there is a precadent set by saying "Kosovo is a country" when the UN has not endorsed it. I understand your viewpoint, if you don't understand mine, and just keep insulting it as being "pro-UN" then I cannot and will not continue this debate with you.--R-41 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not insulting your point of view. I understand it but I keep telling that your point of view lacks validity on Wikipedia. Which other de facto independent countries do you think that Wikipedia should be treating as independent in order to conform with our treatment of Kosovo? Húsönd14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Those regions lack any recognition. They cannot be compared with Kosovo, whose independence is recognized by 28 countries representing most of the world's democracies. Húsönd15:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the same argument that shows up every so often with taiwan. We should follow taiwans precedence, considering it is one of the best to look at when the situation is that of a country like kosovo.--Jakezing (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Even Taiwan is far from being a similar situation. Let's not forget that the Republic of China is a country that claims the entire China but controls only Taiwan (whereas the People's Republic of China is a country that claims the entire China but has no control over Taiwan). It would be like the Republic of Kosovo claiming the entire Serbia far beyond Kosovo. No, not really that similar. Húsönd00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
28 countries endorsing Kosovo's independence is far from universal, should we ignore that over 100 countries have not endorsed Kosovo's independence, including major world powers like Russia, the Peoples Republic of China, and Spain.--R-41 (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not up to us to ignore or designore. The community understands that Kosovo is de facto independent AND de jure recognized as such by most of the worlds powers/democracies. And honestly, I personally think that's the way it should be. Serbia's fight for a lost cause can go on in the international political sphere, but has no place in an encyclopedia that treats things as they are, not as some wish they would be. Húsönd12:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been amused to read the opinions of many people (both pro- and anti- Kosovo independence) try to invent their own standards for determining whether an entity is independent or not. These putative standards have included: whether or not an entity is a member of the United Nations (or any other international organization), the relative geopolitical importance of countries that recognize the independence of an entity, whether or not the UN Security Council has taken a position on an issue, the absolute number of countries that have recognized, etc. The reality is that all of these factors interact and play some role in determining independence, but none of them singly constitutes the definitive guide to whether an entity is independent. The end result: when assessing statehood, we have to make a subjective, "you know it when you see it" judgment call on independence. In Kosovo's case, I think it's pretty clear that this week Kosovo turned an important corner in achieving legitimacy for its young state. Today's recognitions by Serbia's neighbors (Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria) were very important, especially considering the weight international law gives to the opinions of neighboring countries. The fact that Europe, the region most affected by Kosovo, has overwhelming, if not unanimously, endorsed independence is also important. Yesterday's recognitions by Canada/Japan, two important non-European countries, add further credence to the "you know it when you see it" standard of legitimacy. We should discount the fact that most countries of the world have not taken an affirmative step to recognize independence, especially since under international law there is no affirmative obligation to recognize any country. To argue otherwise, it is to make the argument that there is some magic number of recognitions that constitutes the defining criteria of statehood -- if so, then what is it? 50% of countries? 2/3? I further reject the notion that there is a "UN position" on independence. The UN's highest organ, the UN Security Council, is obviously divided on the question (and therefore Kosovo will not achieve membership in that organization any time soon); the UN General Assembly has never spoken on it; the UN Secretary-General and Secretariat have studiously avoided taking any position on status or the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence. While UN membership or UN Security Council support for Kosovo's independence would be significant in determining its statehood, it is by no means the definitive or the only standard. Considering all these factors, you can see that I feel comfortable making the subjective judgement that Kosovo's quest for independence has achieved sufficient legitimacy that the "Republic of Kosovo" should be in the infobox and that Kosovo should be referred to as a state. Of course, this must be accompanied by a robust explanation that Serbia, supported by Russia and others, challenge Kosovo's independence as illegitimate. As more countries recognize Kosovo's independence in the coming months and Kosovo joins various international organizations (such as the IMF, which has rules that will probably allow membership), then the case for making the judgment call that I propose will become strongly. Envoy202 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not against Kosovo independence or for it, but I claim that Wikipedia has to have universal standards on articles like "Kosovo" refering to the Republic of Kosovo. If the Kosovo page should be left like this then the Peoples Republic of China should be renamed "China" because it rules almost all of the Chinese mainland. Be aware that Kosovo independence is highly controversial, Serb Wikipedians do not relate Kosovo to being the Republic of Kosovo, this makes the title "Kosovo" non-universal and having POV towards the Albanian side. Opponents have explained that in legal terms, Kosovo as a province did not have the constitutional right to separate from Serbia unlike when constituent republics separated from the former Yugoslavia.--65.95.139.89 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely right, especially on the part of Albanian influences in the article. Plus, I want to add that Kosovo does not exist as a national entity. This is a fact, for if you check the demographics of the area then you'll find out that the area has Albanian and Serb population. Oh, by the way, is it actually democratic for Wikipedia to recognize a state that declared its independence without the agreement of the Serbian part of the parliament? I can't tell for sure but this situation is a tricky one and as far as I can tell, this article leans towards the Albanian POV.85.72.138.131 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I should have logged in when I posted the section above anon user 85.72.138.131. I want to be clear that I believe it is pro-Albanian POV not because I have anything against Albanians, but because they naturally will support Kosovo's independence in light of the atrocities they suffered under the regime of Milosevic and from Serb ultranationalist paramilitaries during the Kosovo War. I know that Wikipedia democratically decides its decisions, but its current decisions have not solved the continous problem of the page being in lock-down due to vandalism. My proposal of moving the page "Kosovo" become that of Kosovo (geopolitical region), is a way to avoid making a controversial political statement on Kosovo sovereignty. This is an encyclopedia that is supposed to have grounded facts to support its articles, not to be based solely on personal beliefs, like debating whether Kosovo "should" be independent - that is not the issue here. The issue here on Wikipedia is whether the Republic of Kosovo should be allowed to be recognized by the title "Kosovo" alone when Serbia claims that through its constitution it also has the right to the title "Kosovo" as recognizing the autonomous province.
What are the facts?
1) A number of countries have recognized the territory of "Kosovo" to be under the sovereign rule of the Republic of Kosovo.
2) A number of countries have opposed Kosovo's declaration of independence, including Russia, Spain, and the Peoples Republic of China.
3) The UN and many other countries have not yet made a decision on whether Kosovo should be recognized as being sovereign from Serbia.
These three facts should be taken into consideration before saying "Kosovo" = Republic of Kosovo. For me the answer to the problem for the time-being is "Kosovo" = "Kosovo (geopolitical region)" which is represented by: 1) "Republic of Kosovo" 2) "Autonomous Province of Kosovo"--R-41 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
R-41: I strongly agree with you that one's personal opinions about Kosovo's independence (either its legal or moral legitimacy) are not relevant here. Like you, I'm trying to enter a Zen-like state of ethnic neutrality!! My question, though, is this: what exactly is the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo" supposed to be? Since 1999, Kosovo has not been under a Serbian legal framework -- UNSCR 1244, combined with the subsequent decisions of UNMIK, makes it pretty clear that Serbia does not govern Kosovo and the Constitution of Serbia has not been relevant in Kosovo since then. As a practical matter, there is no existing government that calls itself the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo. Furthermore, Serbia's control over Kosovo is both practically and legally non-existent. As discussed above, the current government in Kosovo has been recognized as an independent state by a significant number of countries, including important neighbors. Considering all these facts, I'd argue that by legitimizing the term "Autonomous Province of Kosovo" -- considering the little evidence that such a thing exists other than in the mind of Serb nationalists -- implies a Serbian POV. The Republic of Kosovo, however, does exist, albeit in a status that some countries have challenged. To guard against Albanian POV, I'd argue strongly that the article reflect the fact that its status is challenged and, preferably, include the concise legal argumentation that Serbia and Russia use to oppose it. Finally, I strongly reiterate my previous statements about the fact that there is no single "UN position" on the legitimacy of Kosovo's independence. A big chunk of Security Council members have recognized Kosovo's independence; others have not. The Council is deadlocked and therefore cannot provide guidance or the legitimacy that Security Council blessing would bestow on any international question. Envoy202 (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
CIS, CSTO mentions are redundant
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to suggest a change to the sentence that currently reads: "As of today, no member-country of CIS, CSTO and SCO have recognized Kosovo as independent."
The CSTO has seven members, every one of which is a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Therefore listing both organizations in this sentence doesn't really add any information about the member-countries' decisions about recognition. I think it does not serve the reader, who might conclude there is a greater unanimity in one particular direction than there really is.
I suggest this sentence be changed to the following: "As of today, no member-country of CIS or SCO has recognized Kosovo as independent." (The current version of the sentence should likewise say "has recognized" for grammatical reasons.)
I believe this change would be uncontroversial, but I don't want to put up the editprotected flag before floating the idea on this talk page.
Njm0 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Pax that ESTIMATION isn't a number picked out of a hat. SOK is a professional organisation that is using formulas not one country that it can claim that their accuracy towards their population count is 100% not even the SUPERPOWER America. Also SOK is overseen by a lot of NGO and I think UN/USAID Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
recognition number update
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Yesterday Japan decided to recognize Kosovo. This brings the tally of countries that have recognized Kosovo to 28. Could an admin update the infobox and the introduction to the new figure?
Not done - I see no reason why this information needs to be updated after each new recognition. In the introduction it says "as of March 5", so that statement is still accurate. I don't see where in the infobox needs to be updated. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu13:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It is highly misleading to give an outdated number in the lead and infobox. I'm against removing the whole recognition part, it is a really important question now politically for both the Kosovar and Serbian sides. I don't see your problem with updating the article as the situation changes. Not such a big deal. Zello (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Canada will be recognising Kosovo, that is according to the media. Sources inside the Serbian embassy have said that the Canadian government informed them this morning that they would be recognising Kosovo shortly. As for why the article does not really call it a country... Well the worlds only Superpower says so, so its so. Thats just how it works in the world. Sorry. --134.117.151.251 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
there is no reason not to update this number. it is a purely objective number and as such not subject to edit wars or disputes. dab(𒁳)11:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo Albanians had separatist movement before milosevic
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"Soon thereafter Kosovo Albanians organized a non-violent separatist movement, employing widespread civil disobedience, with the ultimate goal of achieving the independence of Kosovo" This should be corrected, because it is partly true. Kosovo Albanians had separatist movement, before this event (New York Times 1982-07-12, "Exodus of Serbians Stirs Province in Yugoslavia" in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/History_of_Kosovo#_note-nyt19820712) and it was inspired by The Great Albania project (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Greater_Albania). You can state that Milosevic politic speed up their activities but not that they soon after his speech organized separatist movement. Hope my comment will improve this article and harmonize it with other Wikipedia articlse related to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IGøR (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Also you should remove "a non-violent" ... In the other wikipedia articles that deal with this matter you'll find how violent they really were... so please delete "a non-violent" becuase that is incorrect
I do not understand why do you keep referring to the article written in Wikipedia, when this talk page exist based on the dispute of the very same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.11.216 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In those articles disputes are have been mainly resolved... And it is easy for editors to check comments,,, also referring to Wikipedia articles helping harmonization of articles that deal with same matter. Cool down mr. Bold letters, no need to be nervous ;ø) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.69.114 (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Canada recognized Kosovo
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion
I am making a small break from my Kosovo-party to login to Wikipedia and let you know that another World Power - Canada - has recognized Kosovo independence, and according to some reports, Croatia, Bulgaria and some more countries will follow suit tommorow. Please include this info in the article. Got2 go now, I intend to get drunk today, there is just too much happiness in my life as a result of Kosovo indepdence. Heroic Albanian people are my idols. Bosniak (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh. This is the first time I've EVER heard Canada referred to as a world power. Careful, you'll give us even more inflated egos than we have already. Gopher65talk02:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Canada's "power" status is without consequence for the purposes of this article. It has long become clear that geopolitically, this is a matter of the "US-sphere" vs. those countries that are either "anti-USA" have their own secessionist movements to deal with. Reasons to not recognize the RoK are either an "anti-US" position (South American countries), or fear of secession (Azerbaijan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Cyprus) or both (Russia+China). dab(𒁳)11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well as far as recognition goes there are about 12 small countries (many in the caribean) which usually follow Canada's Lead on international affairs. More recognitions will come shortly. --134.117.151.251 (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Canada, Our Home and Native Land!!! Canada's recognition was significant. First, it's a G8 member and important economic contributor. Second, its foreign relations are generally seen as a positive moral force that upholds principles of international law. Third, it's not in Europe, so its recognition shows that the logic of Kosovo's independence appeals outside of the immediate region. The recognition of Canada -- as well as Japan, which is also important -- deserve noteworthy reference in the article. Envoy202 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Another update is needed because Monaco, Hungary, Croatia and Bulgaria recognized Kosovo. Now the number of UN member countries who recognized the new state went up to 33 (the infobox number is also wrong) while only two remained in waiting (at least officially). Zello (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Number of Serbs who fled Kosovo in 1999
Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
According to Yugoslav statistics the number of Serbs in Kosovo in 1999 was approx 200 000. 130 000 are left and this means only 70 000 fled Kosovo and not 200 000 as some for propaganda purposes are claiming. This should be corrected. I have plenty of sources but to avoid any NPOV discussion I am using only non-Albanian sources. In the books Kosovo author V.Knaus currently working for ESI writes that the correct number is 70 000. I think Wikipedia should change the paragraph dealing with this so the correct number is made available for the readers of WP. --Noah30 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ack, this is a contentious issue! Many words were shed over this issue several months back. Here's the problem: the most "official" numbers are based on UNHCR sources. Everybody knows that the UNHCR numbers were inflated and made no sense considering the demographic realities you cite above. Nevertheless, it's hard to come by any other numbers. There was an European Stability Initiative piece a few years ago that established a compelling methodology proving a much lower number (check it out on their website). When this issue was last discussed, there was a wave of people who said that the European Stability Initiative was biased against Serbs (I never quite understood this...) and that the number was unreliable. The bottom line: we don't know the exact numbers and the statistics are so controversial that any reasonable estimate will be challenged. Envoy202 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. The same is with the over-inflation of numbers of Albanian refugees during the 1990s, of the Georgian refugees from Abkhazia etc...but I guess that's standard practice. :P --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Bradt book on Kosovo: The claim that more than 200 000Serbs have fled Kosovo since 1999 has been one of the most persistent myths created in post-war Kosovo. repeated by Serbian government and internatioanl organisations it has become something of an Orthodoxy; but a closer look at offical data - including Serbian government souces- confirm that it i snot true. According to Yugoslav census in 1991, there were 194 000 resident Serbs in Kosovo. The 1990s saw a steadt net outflow of Serbs from Kosovo...In 2003, the Kosovo Co-ordination Centre published a report about Serbs in Kosovo. According to this report, 129,474 were still living in Kosovo.
You seem to forget about the Montenegrins: the Montenegrins all had their national (re)awakening and there are no more ethnic Montes in Kosovo. The total figure then given is 215,000. Then you have to also remember that the precisely cited number is 260,000 as well as that it includes all non-Albanians, as is traditional in not only the Yugoslav wars, but elsewhere too. As for ethnic Serbs themselves, the UN stated after 1999 a figure of 100,000, which is probably close to reality. You have got also to remember that some refugees from the Croatian and Bosnian wars settled in Kosovo, and that estimate for the moment before the Kosovo war was 244,000 Serbs (possible overestimate). All in all, we can see that it sort of corresponds the percentage of non-Albanians after the war, that is today (some sources also cite "and Roms", some even mention "non-Albanians" - but most, as you saw yourself, just say "Serbs"). In any way, that is perfectly same to the manipulated numbers of Albanian refugees during the 1990s (850,000). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This is very simple maths. According to Serb sources in the beginning of 90's Albanians made 88 % of Kosovo population which means 12 % were non-Albanian. Serbian government also claimed that approx 1.9 million people lived in Kosovo. 0,12 * 1 900 000 = 228 000 non-Albanians. These calculations leave very little room for interpretations. By the way the way interpret the numbers is original research since you are guessing (when they said Serbs they meant non-Albanians etc etc) a lot while arguing.--Noah30 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
For example, CeSID (which is pretty neutral) published that in 1998 there were 273,449 Serbs/Montenegrins in Kosovo-Metohija. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I don't agree but I will come back to you after some months and explain why you are wrong and I believe you know that. --Noah30 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1991 population census: 194,190 Serbs, 57,758 Muslims, 44,307 Romany, 10,455 Turks, 9,091 Albanians, 8,062 Croats, 3,457 Yugoslavs. 1,596,072 was estimated as a true number of Albanians, forming 81.5%. You claim that there were 88% Albanians and 12% non-Albanians (or 228,000). The real number of non-Albanians, 360,124 according to the calculator. I'm sorry, but you're the one who's wrong and I think it's pretty obvious. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Templates to be added
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Done, but in future please put the editprotected template down here so it's easier to tell what you want done. Hersfold(t/a/c)17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Editprotected
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion
After another editor pointed out an article already exists for Kosovo as a region and given that there are articles on Kosovo as a UN protectorate and autonomous province I think talk about a split is no longer necessary and instead this article should simply be renamed Republic of Kosovo and have Kosovo redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Basically, the article already is split. However, Kosovo is still trying to describe the region, partially recognized state, and province, which clearly isn't working. I agree that Kosovo should be redirected to Kosovo (disambiguation), which is basically option #3 above, and a separate Republic of Kosovo article should be made somehow. Superm401 - Talk06:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any good reason why we should split the Kosovo article in so many articles. What do people want to achieve?Create confusion? All Kosovo articles should be merged to one Kosovo article since we are talking about the same area in all the articles. Now Kosovo is independent and a republic. In the history section we can explain that Kosovo until 1999 was a Yugoslav province and etc. Kosovo should direct to the main Kosovo article. --Noah30 (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's insane there obviously needs to be a separate article for Kosovo UNMIK and Kosovo as an autonomous province as both are historical entities not simply different perceptions of the declared state. The article on Kosovo as a region was created the day of independence, likely due to the fact that such a dispute over Kosovo's status was known to be coming up. So really the only question is what to do with this article not whether there should be a split. That's why I suggest a simple rename for the article and redirect for the present title of Kosovo to the disambiguation page. There needs to be an article dealing with Kosovo solely as a self-declared state, but presently it would be very biased to make the article under its current title into such an article. This article under the title Republic of Kosovo can be focused entirely on the self-declared state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
For me it is very difficult to understand why you want 10 Kosovo articles when we can have one instead and explain all the things in one article. If we split (you have already done it) we will create confusion and the readers will have to click 10 times in order to understand what Kosovo is all about. Kosovo is Kosovo and there is no difference between Autonomous Kosovo, UNMIK Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo. They have same borders, same people, same cities, same history etc except the political status. The UNMIK will very soon leave so it is not necessary to create new articles. Kosovo is not a self-declared state anymore, was that only during a few days. When you are recognized then you are a real state, unlike e.g. North Cyprus that is recognized only by Turkey. Happy Eastern --Noah30 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think your support for Kosovo might be preventing you from looking at the situation from a neutral point of view? We can't have all of Kosovo's history present in the same article and we can't treat Kosovo like a regular nation such as Germany when Russia, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Ukraine, Algeria, Georgia, Spain, Romania, and others are saying they will continue to recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia. Serbia has apparently proposed formalizing the de-facto partition in Kosovo. Kosovo's government does not control its own borders or control the areas with Serbs. It's possible the Gorani community might also become part of this de-facto partition. Ultimately this partition is based on Serbia's sovereignty claim and Kosovo's independence claim so favoring one claim over another, no matter the reason, is a clear bias.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
My support for Kosovo does not have anything to do with the way I am proposing we should present Kosovo article here at WP. We can treat Kosovo as any other country and at the same time be able to present that some countries oppose Kosovo’s independence. It is very interesting fact that those who read this article mostly come from Western, English speaking countries and we both know Australia, USA, Canada, UK have recognized the independence. Yes I know that WP should not present the views of English-speaking world but this is the reality on most articles since people in Algeria, Senegal does not care writing about Kosovo here at WP. People are already confused by Balkans and if we create more articles on Kosovo the confusion will be total and they will have to read for hours in order to understand why we have different articles. But let’s say we split, anyway we can only have to articles the first Kosovo, and the other Rep. of Kosovo. The first is the Kosovo according to 1244. According to 1244 Kosovo is a UN protectorate and UN have control over everything in Kosovo, so a Serbia-controlled Kosovo is not recognized by any country since UN Sec. Res. are binding for all other UN members and 1244 states Yugoslav forces have to withdraw. The second is Kosovo declared on February 17th, but I don't see and discontinuity between pre- and post- 17th of February Kosovo. They are the same and we have continuity in form of a transition period where constitution has to be approved, vital laws based on Ahtisaari package, receiving recognitions etc. To me you proposal sounds as we should create different articles where we present, Albanian, Serbian, Russian point of views. I think it is possible to have Republic of Kosovo on Kosovo and mention that Serbia is against and is supported by Russia. Excuse me if I make any grammar or syntax errors while writing.--Noah30 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
None of those arguments make any damn sense. The question here is simply whether this article should be renamed to Republic of Kosovo and have Kosovo redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation). It is the appropriate way to address this issue at the present time. Should Serbia change its mind, unlikely, then we can change back to Kosovo but for know the uncontroversial and neutral title of Republic of Kosovo is more than suitable as it treats the partially-recognized state as a partially-recognized state. The result would be the same situation we have with Western Sahara.
I also find it interesting that every pro-Kosovo editor seems to be against any changes which do not treat Kosovo like a normal independent country, when it is clearly not normal, often describing any article which does this is a POV fork as you just did, yet every last one of them says their support for Kosovo independence is not why they're against the proposed changes. Most curious indeed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate, comparing Kosovo to West Sahara is nonsense since Kosovo is recognized by 33 countries in the world that make up 65 % of the world GDP while West Sahara is recognized by a few or maybe none. You accuse us of being biased but I don't think you are totally without bias; maybe you are pushing an anti-EU/US/globalism bias? Who knows... Your argument that Kosovo has to be recognized by Serbia in order to be treated as any other independent country is also without any substance. Kosovo meets/will meet all of the criteria of an independent country and that's why it can be considered independent. You have the same problem with Israel; only a few of the neighbors recognize it but they are considered independent. I would ask you to be more polite when you answer and not try to impose on us your POV and stop acting as you are the owner of the truth, as you do sometimes when you answer to us. --Noah30 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Western Sahara is recognized by more countries than Kosovo right now. I believe the number was 44 and they have a much better claim to independence as their independence would just be continuing decolonization and the UN has come out and said they have a right to self-determination. Morocco, in fact, agreed to this but then changed their mind. So Western Sahara has an international agreement saying Western Sahara has a right to independence and Morocco agreed, which is a lot stronger basis for independence than Kosovo's, which is primarily based on the fact they were cracked down on by Milosevic, who is of course dead and was deposed by Serbians. So their main basis for independence is no longer an issue and no section of international law, Serbian law, or Yugoslav law says they can declare independence, though I myself thought the old Yugoslav did it apparently does not.
As far as bias, I'm not against the U.S. as I live there and while I'm not fond of the EU or globalism I fail to see what that has to do with Kosovo. If anything Kosovo's independence actually endangers the EU and globalism.
In spite of everything you said none of this justifies the current article. For one there is a substantial difference between Israel and Kosovo. Israel's government is not officially recognized by some countries, but not a one considers Israel to be a part of any other country. This puts them in stark contrast with Taiwan, Western Sahara, Kosovo, and others which are recognized as part of another country by at least some countries. The only article that is similar to your proposal for Kosovo is Abkhazia and that article presents a very clear argument against doing the same with Kosovo as the article on Abkhazia is a messy POV piece of trash article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I have the answers I needed. You are pushing anti-independence propaganda and therefore you are one, if not the most, biased editor on the Kosovo article. When you display such strong anti-Albanian sentiment by glorifying the hell Albanians went through during the 90's but also before, then I can not consider you independent in this issue. You are wrong about Israel since they are not recognized independent by Arab countries and this means Israel, the whole or just parts of it, are considered parts of other countries by many Arab countries like e.g. Syria. Self-determination applies to Kosovo, have this in mind and I wonder what do you get when you type West Sahara? Unfortunately I will not be able to contribute in the coming weeks but I will come back. I am a senior editor and will come back in a few months with much more facts and get things right. I hope other editors will do what is necessary to keep Kosovo related articles NPOV, something I really doubt but PLEASE try at least. I know you have a difficult task but you WP admins have to be committed to NPOV. Good luck to all those of you who are working for a neutral Wikipedia. You are making a great contribution for humanity. Shame on those who are using all their energy to make POV edits. --Noah30 (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for demonstrating exactly how biased you are. It seems that just because I question the legitimacy of Kosovo's independence by pointing out nothing in the Yugoslav or Serbian constitution gave them the right to secede and the only justification for independence became a non-issue years ago it not only means I'm anti-independence it also means I'm anti-Albanian, the most biased editor on the article, and "glorifying" the suffering of Albanians. My point was that the legal situation with Western Sahara is overwhelmingly in favor of its independence and it is recognized as independent by more nations yet the article that comes up is not an article on the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic but an article on the disputed territory itself. So if the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic isn't treated like a regular country then why should Kosovo? The only thing keeping this article from being treated like that of any other disputed country is a bunch of pro-Kosovo editors coming in an sticking their bias into the whole situation.
Renaming the article is a simple way of getting rid of most POV problems. If the situation over Kosovo changes, like Serbia deciding to recognize Kosovo, then the article can be adjusted to treat Kosovo like any other country. For now however, to treat Kosovo like it was Germany or even Montenegro is demonstrating a bias because Kosovo is not accepted as a country by a large number of nations. The comparison to Israel is just nonsense. No one honestly disputes their independence, those not recognizing are simply refusing to recognize Israel as the legitimate government of the territory it governs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
None of the articles have redundant purposes, and you are being ridiculous by suggesting "readers will have to click 10 times"; the three options will be obvious on the disambig page. As Devil's Advocate notes, it is untenable to claim Kosovo has a status equal to other fully recognized countries. The comparison to Israel is invalid, because again as noted, no other existing state claims the territory. Finally, stop arguing about who has a "better" claim, or who violated such-and-such UN resolution. We're talking about the article, not whether Kosovo should be a state. Superm401 - Talk10:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose move. Articles can cover parts of the history, it is standard for most articles on geographic locations. We still don't have to disambiguate anything, when people type Kosovo, they want to know about this geographic location. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)06:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
What is "this article"? The article says, "is a region in the Balkans, presently under the ad interim control of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo". That is not the article everyone is expecting. Many will be expecting to read about the partially-recognized state Republic of Kosovo, which currently redirects here; that is not what the article is. Others will want to read about it as a province of Serbia; the article doesn't do that well either. Many people saying "I agree" and "Indeed" does not a coherent argument make. Superm401 - Talk10:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Provocating!!
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I belive that this fact is uncorrect!!
"Up to 20,000 Kosovo Albanian women were raped by Serbs during the Kosovo carnage"
on what studies is this fact based on???
REAL FACTS
______
"Human Rights Watch documented 96 cases of rape by Serbian and Yugoslav forces against Kosovar Albanian women immediately BEFORE and DURING the 1999 bombing campaign"
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
According to CIA The World Factbook GDP (ppp) for Kosovo is $1,800 (2007. estimate). Please add this.
I think GDP should be PPP-adjusted. I have read something by UNDP and they said PPP-adjusted GDP was around 3000 dollars. It is fair to PPP-adjust it since you with one dollar much more in Kosovo than e.g. USA or UK. --Noah30 (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The UNMIK-line
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well, this CIA map (in English language) also use Albanian names as main names for Kosovar cities, so names of the articles about Kosovar cities should be also changed. Claim that Serbian names for Kosovan cities are most common English names does not stand any more. 81.18.54.227 (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
this is the CIA FactBook. Which obviously takes the official US pov. Wikipedia doesn't take the official US pov, it takes the npov. dab(𒁳)10:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You should learn to accept facts and realities. The CIA map is correct, Kosova is independent, get over it, please. --Tubesship (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Dbachmann, you're obviously correct about NPOV here, but the new CIA map is a good way to present the pro-independence view. However, I won't add it until we resolve the underlying split issue. Superm401 - Talk18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
References (making the article smaller without the big list...)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I suggest that the references chapter could be made smaller like one many articles - like Estonia article where i added such code line:
This reduces the article length a lot, also it gives better view upon the hole page as the end of the article would not be filled with endless line of notes, books and links. I hope that this edit cabn be made here. Or if not then I will make myself after the page protection has ended. I wish only that the Kosovo article would be improved and futher developed :) --Karabinier (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions for Editing
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
{{editprotected}} Can we add the CIA Factbook MAP that shows Kosovo as a country in the declaring Independence section of this article please? Perhaps if applicable, we can also add the pre-declaration CIA World Fact Book MAP, or maybe even just a map that shows Serbia with Kosovo included as Russia and Serbia maintain as fact to this day. I really think that the reader of this Wiki would benefit from a map of how the USA and other countries see Kosovo now. Visual aides like that are always welcome in my humble opinion. I don't feel this should be controversial as long as the map is defined as what it is: The CIA's and those who support the declaration, map of Kosovo.Beamathan (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be agreement for this, and in general we avoid edits to contentious pages under protection. I'm disabling the editprotected template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Cradle of Serbia"
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
Why can't Kosovo be considered the "cradle of Serbia" and be an independent country? I don't see the issue that some people have with this. Can people who are more knowledgable about this explain that to me? Why can't we say in the article that The Republic of Kosovo is(or will always be) considered the "cradle of Serbia." You can even further define it by adding by Serbians. Of course try to stay away from weasel words...so I'd be willing to find a good source for it that doesn't really address the independence but just addresses the "fact" that Kosovo is the "cradle of Serbia." Again, I don't see why The Republic of Kosovo isn't "the cradle of Serbia" but Kosovo as a part of the country of Serbia is. Beamathan (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Cradle of Serbia" it is a serbian termin and history point of view. I agree that this is risky to use as it can be missunderstood very easily. Karabinier (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It should simply be presented as the Serb point of view, alongside the Albanian view. It's not "risky" in any way. Superm401 - Talk09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact is it is regarded as "the cradle of Serbia" by the Serbs (and possibly by Serbia, if you make that distinction). It should be mentioned in the article that it is regarded as such, i.e. not stating as fact that it is, and not stating as fact that it isn't. The reader can choose to agree with the view or not. BalkanFever10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Cradle of Serbia" as description for Kosovo is not even an Serbian point of view - it is only point of view of some radical Serbian nationalists, but this point of view contradicting historical facts because objective Serbian historians agree that cradle of Serbian civilization was in fact Sandžak. Kosovo was conquered by Serbia only in the 12th century. 81.18.54.227 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This map do not contest my claim - these churches are mostly built between 12th and 15th century. Serbs however settled in Balkans (Sandžak region) in the 7th century. 81.18.54.227 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Your claim only proves that Serbs didn't start building churches on Kosovo before 12th century. Maybe the reason is that they were not Christians when they settled. The map proves that 'cradle deniers' are trying to get rid of all the evidence that proves how important this land is for Serbs. This history link may be useful to you to read, as well as demographics of Kosovo article which shows that there were significant number of Serbs living there up to Balkan and World War. Since then Serb population proportion only went down while Albanian skyrocketed. I wonder how could this happen if Serbs are such a genocidal nation? Lakinekaki (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Kosovo indeed is the cradle of the Serbian civilization, it does not have (much) to do with nationalism. Yes, the state fully included it only in the 11th and 12th centuries - but if you look it that way then, the greater part of Czechia and the German Lusatia are the "cradle of the Serbs", since the first Serbian state known as White Serbia was there. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't care whether it "indeed" is. How anyone could possibly claim "cradlehood" is an objective fact is beyond me. It is a POV, and Wikipedia's job is to report significant POV's. Superm401 - Talk
To be or not to be
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I'm watching this moving up-and-down. But, the question is not Kosovo, but Wikipedia. The Kosovo problem is popular all over word. And with this "Load of serbian propaganda" in wikipedia, the speed of growing the Wikipedia is going to be not so easy. The fact is that, nevermater what is saying Serbia and Rusia, in english books, in english offical documents Kosovo is going to be a Republika of Kosovo. This is clear for all of as. I thing, I dont have to remember you for the newspapers, for CIA fact ect.
Because of this, how you see I don't know english so gut, but I know that the "River of the en.Wikipedia" is part of the "River of english languge". English Wikipedia, with articles about Kosovo is losing the step of the time. I am a Kosovar, I know that the future of my country is not depending from Wikipedia, I am a Wikipedia member and I know that English Wikipedia has lost the chance to be firs witch is wolking with time and now is losing his pull position with some articles which belong to history.
Before two years I have started to help with arguments in the article about Kosovo, not only that I'm Kosovar, but because the Kosovo Status is popular in the World. And this it was good chance for wikipedia to be the firs.
Even some serbs thing that they cane contibute to they idea about Kosovo if they write some sentens that they are not thru or that they are not compatibel with the time, the don't have to forget that the solution about Kosovo is not depanding from Wikipedia. And so they are damaging English Wikipedia and they don't help there interests.
Because of that, please if you (serbs, rusians) are not intersting for English Wikipedia make a forum alswhere for your "War" and late the people work for the people. This is not a War-area, this is Wikipedia. - Hipi Zhdripi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 88.70.184.110 (talk·contribs)- 13:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well said - All the people of Kosovo ask for them to control their own destiny, to be governed by their own people, to live in a free country and not to be foreigners in their own land. Serbia was once ruled by foreigners, the Otherman Turks, and they were given independence, so why can't the Serbs and the Russians accept that the Kosovars have a right to be a free and independent nation.2007apm (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
'... please if you (serbs, rusians) are not intersting for English Wikipedia ...'
Why can't then also the Macedonians leave the Illiridan Albanians to live in a free country too? Or the Bosniacs and Croats accept that the Serbs want to be free of them?
Latest comment: 16 years ago58 comments14 people in discussion
It is written: "Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova or Kosovë, Serbian: Косово, Kosovo, see: Names of Kosovo), is a region in the Balkans...". Please replace "region" and write "country" like in the article Albania. --Tubesship (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There are countries that will never recognize. So should we depend on their extortion? And if you rely on an UN recognition: I live in Germany and this country had to wait till 1973 to be recognized by the UN! Was it no country before? --Tubesship (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I thought about it, lets make a compromise: Please write "partial recognized country" instead of "region". --Tubesship (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Extending your reasoning, it should say 'partially recognized country' and 'partially recognized autonomous province of Serbia'. Lakinekaki (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So should we depend on their extortion? No! We should depend on extortion of NATO member states. Look at the destruction link in previous section. Lakinekaki (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say something a bit longer, but more technically correct. "Kosovo is an autonoumous province of Serbia which has recently been recognized as an independent country by several external entities", maybe changing the word "entities" if required. That more clearly indicates the exact nature of the area today. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I did. The Serbian Wikipedia is full of POV-Shit as they even refuse to show the flag of Kosova in the article about Kosova. --Tubesship (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't care whether Kosovo is a legitimate state, only that it is a partially recognized one. That demands we comply with NPOV, and not make a judgment either way. It's indisputably a region; that's why there should be an article about the region, as well as the claimed state, and subnational entity of Serbia. We're not fighting the cause of justice against "extortion", and we're not waiting for anyone. We're writing an NPOV encyclopedia about the state of the world as it actually is. Superm401 - Talk18:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Precedents
sigh. yes: some countries aren't recognized universally for decades. In these cases, we keep one article on the historical/cultural region, and the other on the disputed sovereign government:
any questions? From these precedents, it follows that Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo need to be two separate articles. If necessary for the next few decades. Anything else is flies straight in the face of WP:NPOV, which is Wikipedia core policy. Violating WP core policy isn't ok just because you happen to violate it in favour of the US/NATO pov. dab(𒁳)16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
To place Kosovo in the same category as Palestine, Western Sahara and Taiwan is to make a value judgment, one that conveys a POV itself. I believe that value judgment is just not borne out by the facts. Already, only a month after it declared independence, the Republic of Kosovo's statehood has arguably achieved greater international legitimacy than any of those three entities, including in numbers of recognitions and the quality of such recognitions (i.e., key regional players, UN Security Council members, neighbors, G8 countries, countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands known for their dedication to international law, etc.). In the coming months, Kosovo will surely achieve even greater legitimacy, with membership in various international organizations (IMF and World Bank membership application is already happening) and more recognitions. This is in spite of the fact that there is no affirmative obligation under international law for states to recognized other states (I'd note in this context that some countries like New Zealand have a policy of never formally recognizing the independence of other states -- they merely go about their business of interacting with entities in certain ways). Putting Kosovo in the same category as Western Sahara/Palestine/Taiwan is to advance a very distinct POV of its own, a subtle anti-US/anti-globalization/anti-Western POV that has seeped into this whole discussion. I'm not arguing that Kosovo should be treated identically to countries that have achieved a higher level of international legitimacy (including those who have achieved UN membership, which is an important signifier of legitimacy). I'm just arguing to say that Kosovo and Palestine are in the same category strikes me as very odd. Envoy202 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
nonsense. to say that the sovereignty of the Republic of Kosovo is disputed is stating a fact, not "making a value judgement". "In the coming months"? Well, great, once the Republic of Kosovo has official UN recognition, feel free to come back and debate this further. dab(𒁳)18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You do know that the UN was more or less the Allied nations of the WWI, the countries fighting against Germany... Ofc Germany wasn't apart of the allied forces. And for you Envoy, at this time Ro Kosovo isn't recognized by even close to 50% of the worlds nation, it does fall into the same category as those countries you mentioned. In one or two years the story might be different, Kosovo might have been accepted into the UN. There may always be a few states who won't recognize Kosovo and that will be mentioned at that time. Chandlertalk19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, you really want to ignore the fact, that Kosovo is:
Formally recognized by 7 out of 7 G7 Member Countries or 100% and
Countries that formally recognize Kosova make up 66.82% of the World's Total nominal GDP
and despite these differences you keep on comparing Kosova with the forementioned regions like dab did? Honestly? --Tubesship (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Statistic's can work in anyones favor... 67%~ of the GDP... well yes. But under 15% of the worlds population live in countries that have recognized Kosovo. Chandlertalk21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a proverb in German: "Geld regiert die Welt.", meaning: "Money Rules The World.". So you really want to ignore the facts that I mentioned? Your fact on the other hand is quite irrelevant compared to this as most of the population in the world even do not know where Kosova is located on the map, so they neither cares themselves about this issue nor it is cared about them as it is none of their businesses. --Tubesship (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It's just as much Rwandas business as it is the US or Russias... And that "Money rules the world" is probably one of the biggest problems in the world... It's causing wars and poverty all over... So I don't see why we should give extra respect to countries with more money who don't use it well for the good of mankind, only for their own gain, in questions like these. You can go as far as saying anyone who don't live in Kosovo or lived there before at least the wars of the 90's don't really have a say because it's only the business of the peoples in the region and it's neighbors Chandlertalk08:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Chandler, you are 19 years old and want to tell us that money is the problem and not the solution? Do you earn your own money? Is that why you don't know to appreciate the value of money? --Tubesship (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Money might have been a solution, it's just that the ones with it don't like to give it away. For example the US or any other big country could easily help many countries in Africa... but do they? No ofc not, they want the money for themselfs. Chandlertalk12:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you asserting that membership in the United Nations is the criterion for determining statehood? As Tubesship notes, there have been clearly independent countries that have not been UN members. Furthermore, there clearly is no "UN position" on independence, either its recognition or its rejection. The UN Security Council, the UN's highest organ, is obviously divided on the question (and therefore Kosovo will not achieve membership in that organization any time soon); the UN General Assembly has never spoken on it; and the UN Secretary-General and Secretariat have studiously avoided taking any position on status or the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence. While UN membership or UN Security Council support for Kosovo's independence would be significant in determining its statehood, it is by no means the definitive or the only standard. What we're dealing with is a subjective judgment call and an entity's sovereignty can be disputed to various degrees -- it's not an all or nothing call. My only point earlier is that it's debatable that the degree to which the Republic of Kosovo is challenged is different than the degree to which, say, Palestine is contested. There is no "one size fits all" solution for its characterization in Wikipedia. Envoy202 (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it most certainly is. The only major reason why Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country is because no factor (relevant at least) disputes it, and it has a chair in the UN. Pristina basically has no sovereignty over Kosovo, with the overwhelming presence of UNMIK and KFOR. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
But as dab said, you're comment about "In the coming months" well when those months have come we can change it... This is the year 2008 where I live and in the coming months it will become 2009... But that doesn't mean that we call this year 2009. Chandlertalk19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
My original assertion was that Kosovo had already achieved greater international legitimacy for its state than the other three entities (W. Sahara, Taiwain, Palestine). I separately asserted that its international legitimacy will likely become greater as time goes on. As I've said previously, we're dealing with a subjective judgment call here -- that's why I've not been able to get too excited over this issue! There is no hard and fast rule, no stark categories of "yes, it's a state" or "no, it's not." But to argue that Kosovo exists in a terminal, perpetual limbo so long as Serbia does not recognize or it does not become a member of the UN is too inflexible. We should deal in shades of gray here. I'd note that for many years, the Irish Constitution included a formal claim of sovereignty over Northern Ireland -- this did not, however, prevent most observers (and encyclopedias!) from considering Northern Ireland part of the UK, albeit with an understanding that there was a notional claim against it. Reality is nuanced! Envoy202 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That is false. Western Sahara, the Republic of China and Palastine all have much greater international recognition than Kosovo. Let us wait until 50% of the international community (which is made by internationally-recognized countries, the UN, and UN-sanctioned international organizations) recognizes Kosovo as an independent country from Serbia. So far we have seen even Western critics how the plan of Pristina and Washington didn't realize itself and that even the Serbian PM now yells how "the pro-independence supporters have reached an unenthusiastic defeat in their original desire". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So now you're saying that the defining criterion is "50% of the international community...recognizes"? Where does that standard come from? I'm not saying it's not a bad standard, I'm just noting that it's arbitrary. This is a subjective judgment. As for the pace of recognitions, Kosovo is doing just fine -- it took East Pakistan (Bangladesh) months to achieve as many recognitions as Kosovo has achieved in just one month. Compared to the pace of recognitions of some of the other constituent parts of the SFRY, Kosovo is also doing well. Envoy202 (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying "now" - I have been saying it all along. It derives from the fact that if a self-proclaimed political entity receives recognition from a third of the world and not from two-thirds (and the case for Kosovo is even weaker) - it's inherently POV to consider it recognized. Not according to opinion of not only most Serbian and Russian analysts, but also American. And it's especially not doing well when compared to other ex-Yu territories, since on this one the international community is actually halved - Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia all received major international support. Next to that, you cannot compare Member States with technical legal right for secession to an administrative unit with only some certain elements of self-government and autonomy, rather than statehood. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop being incivil and read WP:CIVIL. You will gain nothing from that. Taiwan maintains de facto state-to-state relations with most countries of the world, like even the USA, Kosovo only has state relations with the US. Let's better compare Western Sahara and Palestine. As I was always saying, Communist and Capitalist China are one country that doesn't recognize each other. In addition to that, the new President is unionist (as were the intentions of the greater "real" Chine), so the situation is unrelated to Palestine, Kosovo and Westerns Sahara. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I brought facts and you just ignored them, instead you keep on telling the untruth. None of the countries you aforementioned have the same or even higher level of recognition than Kosova has. So again, please show us numbers and facts. --Tubesship (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop it please, right now! You wrote above: "Western Sahara, the Republic of China and Palastine all have much greater international recognition than Kosovo." None of them has. Here is the fact about for example Palestine: "The Palestinian Authority issued a Palestinian passport to citizens of the West Bank & Gaza in 1995 that is honored by 29 nations." And it is from the same source that claimes that Palestine is "recognized" by "around" 100 countries: http://imeu.net/news/article0065.shtml Stop it please, you are the one attacking others and distorting facts, not me. The Kosovar passport is honored by every country that recognizes Kosova. --Tubesship (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)BTW: I found no source which claims that 45 countries are recognizing Western Sahara. You also did not gave such a source but instead keep on accusing me of trolling and other things. Again, please deliver facts. We are all waiting. --Tubesship (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This article should simply be renamed. That's all there is to it. Presently this article presents Kosovo itself as the state of Republic of Kosovo. Yet, not all the people in Kosovo agree with this and still consider Kosovo to be a province of Serbia currently under international rule with Serbia's blessing, those people controlling some 15% of the territory. Let's call the partially-reocgnized state of Kosovo what it is, the Republic of Kosovo. They do not control the entire territory of Kosovo so acting like they do is just nonsense.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly why the republic shouldnt be under Kosovo when all of the history of the region is here... probably. Chandlertalk21:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Uhhhh, are you serious? Do you realize that every article on a country deals with more than the country in its current form? Go look up any country, right now, you'll find they never start at the point of independence or formation of the country. Even the articles on the US and Canada bring up pre-Columbus natives in those regions. It would be silly to ignore Kosovo's history prior to independence in an article on the partially-recognized state of Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Demography, history, geography... everything here can be read regardles of whether it is a country or a territory or region. So I see no point in renaming. The dispute is described in the introduction anyway. Well, this article is in a way a test for WP community, to see whether we can maintain a well-written NPOV article... --Tone21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
All of those things are on articles about countries. The problem is neutrality. This article seems to not know what it's about, yet it leans to it being about an independent country. If that's what this article is really about we should rename it as not everyone in Kosovo considers Kosovo an independent nation, or do we only care about what the Albanians thinks?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been agreed even before the then imminent declaration of independence, that "region" would be the most neutral term for the first line. Regardless of whether one recognizes Kosovo's independence or not, it still is a geographical region. Couldn't be more neutral. Húsönd00:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The times they are a changing, it made sense before the declaration but not now. Again, accept the reality, please. As Croatia and Slovenia declared independence no one called them regions although it took them much longer to get the level of recognition that Kosova has. --Tubesship (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
But even then there were newspapers and nowhere and no one named them just "regions" but "independend countries" or "partial recognized independend countries" or at the very beginning "internationally not recognized countries". --Tubesship (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet Kosovo has, unlike the case of Slovenia and Croatia, strong opposition and the world is divided on the matter. In addition to that, Slovenia and Croatia were Member-States of a greater Federation with domestic legal preferences of self-determination, which Kosovo, as an administrative province, isn't. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Pax, your nonsense response has just insulted my intelligence. There is no comparison between Taiwan and Kosovo. Due to its One-China policy, theTaiwan only participates in international organizations where it is not recognized as a sovereign country. In other words, they are still controlled by China no matter how much they are trying to prove otherwise. On the other hand, Kosovo IS NOT (and will never be) controlled by Serbia. So there is no comparison between the two. 24.82.181.243 (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree people need to stop comparing Kosovo with the Republic of China (ROC). ROC has never declared itself to be an independent country. It is simply where the government of the Republic of China is currently located. They happen to control the island of Formosa. Also, wikipedia needs to follow the example of encyclopedias and almanacs when they update. If they have Kosovo as a state then wikipedia must also. Kosovo is an independent country which has been recognized by many countries whose recognitions means a lot. If you look at encyclopedia articles from the 1970s, Rhodesia was included as a country. It had its own profile and flag within those of other nations. It declared a UDI and was not recognized by many countries. Azalea pomp (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering the incredibly rant and trolling you have conducted...btw, Bosniak, you're banned. Further violation will only make your case worse. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Pax, you know what your name means? So curb your disfavour and your hate against User Bosniak but enjoy the video I posted below. --Tubesship (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC) BTW: I can absolutely understand his exaltation but not your hate.
Tubesship, you are consistently taking this off-topic. See WP:TALK. The RoK is recognized only partially, i.e.: only by a minority of states. That's it. Any further comparison to Western Sahara, Abkhazia, Taiwan or Tibet is about as pointless as in turn comparing Western Sahara with Tibet, or Abkhazia with Taiwan. Nobody alleged there is any similarity between these items beyond the simple fact of non-universal recognition as sovereign: end of comparison. Everyone else: WP:DFTT. Wikipedia talkpages aren't for freestyle chatting and general prancing around. dab(𒁳)17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You are obviously mixing me up with user PaxEquilibrium as he was the one brining up the comparison with Western Sahara and other countries, so you should accuse him about the violation of Wikipedia rules, not me. --Tubesship (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It was myself who brought up the precedents, see above. I assure you I do mean you. PE isn't trolling this page, but I suppose he is guilty of over-indulgence towards talkpage abuse. I posted a warning to your talkpage to that effect: if you want to discuss Wikipedia guidelines and disruptive behaviour, do it in user talk space please. dab(𒁳)18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I read this from user PE, he wrote it, not you, he claimed that: "Western Sahara, the Republic of China and Palastine all have much greater international recognition than Kosovo." Should I not be allowed to mention that none of them have a greater recognition, not even the same level of recognition? I proved it with sources, he couldn't. --Tubesship (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
How often do you want me to repeat myself? I already showed that the source contradicts itself. Copy and paste of my previous writings: "You wrote above: "Western Sahara, the Republic of China and Palastine all have much greater international recognition than Kosovo." None of them has. Here is the fact about for example Palestine: "The Palestinian Authority issued a Palestinian passport to citizens of the West Bank & Gaza in 1995 that is honored by 29 nations." And it is from the same source that claimes that Palestine is "recognized" by "around" 100 countries: http://imeu.net/news/article0065.shtml ..." --Tubesship (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Updated maps of Kosovo
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
On March 24, Serbia formally proposed partitioning Kosovo along ethnic lines, asking the United Nations to ensure that Belgrade can control key institutions and functions in areas of the newly independent country where Serbs form a majority.(see e.g. International Herald Tribune) This is interesting, as it seems like a devided Serbian government is starting to realize that it actually lost Kosovo... --Camptown (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Serbia has a divided government ever since the presidential election. Check out the Serbian parliamentary election, 2008. Actually the reason why it was brought down is because a minor part of it (though including the Prime Minister) shares a more thorough view on Kosovo and European integrations; a victory of the nationalist-conservatives is probably expected.
The Kosovo Albanians will never accept that. They have stated it themselves. The UNMIK is excessively pro-Albanian, according to the ICTY protecting KLA war criminals and is corrupted (international investigation of the Special Representative), and it now hands over many things into the local Albanians' hands even against its very mandate (e.g. the border crossings to Central Serbia). There is no reason to expect it would accept such a plan, even if it were formally presented by the Government of the Republic of Serbia, against the will of the PISG. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not true, you are mixing up 2 countries as Kosovars worked togehter with the war crime tribunal (ICTY) but not the Serbs which still harbour Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and other suspected war criminals. --Tubesship (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC) BTW: You violate Wiki rule about NPOV.
stop taking this off another tangent on war crimes. The topic of this section is the Serbian proposal to partition Kosovo. If there is any further escalation I will have to refactor this section per WP:TALK. Avoid flamebaits. This goes for both PaxEquilibrium and Tubesship. dab(𒁳)18:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
We should mention in the article this Serbian proposal, even if it is supported only by a part of Serbian government.--MariusM (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The Serbian authorities denied. The proposal was independently produced by a rogue Minister already known for before for such acts. It also only asks that self-governing autonomy for the Kosovo Serbs and no factual division. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago41 comments9 people in discussion
I am planning to implement option #2 in the split poll above, because it appears to have the most support. I will do this soon unless valid reasons are given to choose another solution.
This option states:
accommodate the "Republic of Kosovo" under Republic of Kosovo, "Kosovo the Autonomous Province" under Kosovo (UNMIK) and Kosovo the historical/geographical region under "Kosovo".
In other words, Kosovo will first be moved to Republic of Kosovo (this is currently a redirect to Kosovo). This article should then be edited to deal specifically with the self-declared, partially recognized state.
Kosovo (UNMIK) already exists, and deals with Kosovo as a autonomous province of Serbia administered under UNMIK.
All of these will be linked from Kosovo (disambiguation). Please make any objections constructive, and focused on NPOV. Telling me Kosovo is Serbia forever, Kosovo is a country has to be treated exactly like Poland, making irrelevant comparisons to Western Sahara, etc. are not helpful. --Superm401 - Talk18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I do object the splitting and the moving from "Kosovo" to "Republic of Kosovo". When typing "Kosovo" it should lead to "Republic of Kosovo" and not to "Kosovo (geopolitical region)". --Tubesship (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Tubesship, there is little acceptance for this. It probably will not be implemented, because it favors legitimacy of Republic of Kosovo too much. Do not reply telling me Republic of Kosovo is legitimate, because you'll be missing the point. Superm401 - Talk19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
the split appears to be uncontroversial. The question is, where will Kosovo redirect to. Let us be careful to implement the actual split independently of such questions of titling and "primary meaning". dab(𒁳)18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what the Kosovo (UNMIK) category is supposed to be. Could you please explain it a bit more? Is it an article that is supposed to endorse explicitly the Serb view of Kosovo? Thanks! Envoy202 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
None of the articles are supposed to endorse any views. However, Kosovo (UNMIK) is supposed to describe the UNMIK administrative unit, and its autonomy within Kosovo. This would also be the right place to discuss the Serb communities within Kosovo, which still use Serbian currency, stamps, etc. I am open to a rename of Kosovo (UNMIK). Superm401 - Talk19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
After rethinking I would make another purpose: Merge "Kosovo (geopolitical region)" into "Republic of Kosovo", because the past is a part of the history of the newborn Republic and should not be cut off. --Tubesship (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I know. I endorse the state Kosova. Please do not see this as a problem as this is no problem. It is the solution. And it is the reality. --Tubesship (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an undisputable fact called reality and you should not try to deny this reality. And yes, it is the job of everybody to face the reality. Kosova exists, get over it, please. Or leave this subject. Now. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have implemented #2, as planned. No significantly better solutions were proposed to resolve the fundamental NPOV issues. Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please help edit these articles to fit their new purposes. Superm401 - Talk03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As dbachmann has noted, the difference between #2 and #3 is where Kosovo goes. #2 says Kosovo will describe the geopolitical region. #3 says it will redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation). I favor #3, but #2 seems to be slightly more favored consensus, so that's what I'm planning to implement. Another reason for #2 is that it's consistent with Ireland and China. Superm401 - Talk19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that a <SPLIT> should occur. I'd urge you not to implement one. I think that if we cooperate and collaborate that a split is not necessary and would only occur out of our lack of collaboration and civility. Seriously. Beamathan (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As dab notes, here is a consensus that there needs to be a split. Otherwise, this article will remain a battleground over whether Kosovo is "really" a country
I disagree too. No splitting like China or Ireland, because there are 2 different Chinas (Republic of China and Peoples Republic) and 2 Irelands (Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland) but there are not 2 different Kosovas. Therefore no splitting, but if so (under my protest), then Kosova = Republic of Kosova. --Tubesship (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually think the way it is now isn't all that bad. It simply states that Kosovo declared independence, these countries support it, these countries don't. I think if we clean up the current version so that both Serb Nationalists and Republic of Kosovo Nationalists are pissed off respectively, we'll be all set. Beamathan (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Geopolitical region was created without consensus when the main article was protected to allow circumventing of article protection right? Hobartimus (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of Kosovo article is going to say the same things (The Republic of Kosovo is partially recognized, self-declared state, etc.), but it won't get bogged down with constant arguments about the first sentence of the article, etc. Superm401 - Talk20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
So that would be one of the gains that presumably the problems with the first sentence would be solved but is that enough to create an identical article? All major wikipedias do have an article under "Kosovo" describing the state of Kosovo is that just a coincidence? Hobartimus (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As I stated in the poll up there, I think #2 is the best alternative Republic of Kosovo for the state, Kosovo for the area and the history, This is because it is so disputed, just as Macedonia doesnt lead to the state. When Kosovo achieves greater recognition (probably in the coming months) it might be suitable to have the republics article redirect from Kosovo or be at Kosovo Chandlertalk20:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard anyone talk about "Macedonia" and not mean the country. Kosovo is disputed over territorial claims from two countries, Macedonia is "just" disputed over the name of territories, so why would this more "severe" dispute not be treated in the same ways Chandlertalk21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
So you never spoke to a Greek, he would strongly oppose! The dispute is about which of both Macedonias is meant when spoken about Macedonia! --Tubesship (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That poll up there is not a consensus and I hope you don't think differently. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This DOES NOT NEED TO BE SPLIT. If we put this energy that we are discussing a split with towards fixing this article, all would be well very shortly. Beamathan (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No split going forward, no consensus whatsoever. I don't know why we are still going around this. Húsönd21:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed consensus. There is not unanimity and doesn't need to be. As noted, at least 5 people support the #2 split, and more support a split in principle. In my opinion, the objections are not convincing from a perspective of NPOV.
It is correct that Wikipedia is not a democracy. I am not proposing this because of a vote, but because I have been convinced it is supported by policy. Superm401 - Talk23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the list below with a few examples of opposition from this talk page can already clearly demonstrate that there is no consensus for a split rather consensus for opposition of a split. And three weeks(!) ago there were already opinions like (Wasn't this vote JUST taken last weekend? This repetitive soliciting for !votes till one side gets its way is asinine) which is certainly something to consider. Hobartimus (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You and many other editors have shown a consistent bias towards Kosovo independence and seem to think anything not treating Kosovo like an indisputable country is biased against Kosovo or will lead to "POV forks" which seems to be a favored argument against the creation or existence of any article that doesn't support the pro-Kosovo POV. It's becoming painfully obvious that majority support let alone unanimous support will not be reached on this issue so certain opinions which are clearly biased should simply not be heeded even if they are more numerous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not Hobartimus but you, dear Devil, who shows a consistent bias aganist Kosovas independence. If you think there are facts speaking against Kosovas indipendence, you are free to insert them into the article. But no renaming of the article, nor moving, nor splitting, and so on. This is an consensus you do not want to accept because you are so biased. --Tubesship (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It is very unfortunate that some editors here pushed for the Split. I'm really sorry to see that happen. I can't comprehend any intelligent reasoning for this. It just seems like laziness, a manner to avoid cooperation. It's definitely going to end up looking like a POV Fork. Too bad guys. Well, it's done I guess, time to get to work on this article. Is it officially named "Republic of Kosovo" yet? Beam (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, especially as a consensus was reached to merge and not to split or rename or move I see the recent changings made by user Superm401 as a clear breach of this consensus. It should be undone! --Tubesship (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose split, move, rename and variants
Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
A statement was made that "The split appears to be uncontroversial" and about going forward possibly soon. It's not a good practice to allow the same things to be proposed over and over and over in slightly different forms let it be "split" "rename" "move". If someone wants to move the title of the current protected arbcom sanctioned article it should be listed on the Rfm process also. Opposition to the "split" should be listed below.
I disagree that a <SPLIT> should occur. I'd urge you not to implement one. I think that if we cooperate and collaborate that a split is not necessary and would only occur out of our lack of collaboration and civility. Seriously. Further, most 'reasoning' for a split can be addressed within one article. And to those who say it can't, you're probably biased towards one point of view over another. I stress that a split is not a good idea. If every article with disagreements was split instead of being worked out than Wikipedia would have 200000000x the articles. I truly hope that we work together and get this article in a condition that will allow it, one day, to be a featured article. Beamathan (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree too. No splitting like China or Ireland or Macedonia, because there are 2 different Chinas (Republic of China aka Taiwan and Peoples Republic) and 2 different Irelands (Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland) and 2 different Macedonias (one in Greece, one the FYROM) but there are not 2 different Kosovas. Therefore no splitting, but if so (under my protest), then Kosova = Republic of Kosova. --Tubesship (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. The main article should be about the European country. --Camptown (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)(copied from section titled "Split?" above diff [2])
No need for different articles. We need only 1 article on Kosovo, and that's Kosovo as a Republic (copied from section titled "Split?" above diff [3])
Strongly oppose spliting. The majority of teh EU, NATO, UNSC permanant members and G8 recognise Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007apm (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)(copied from section titled "Split?" above diff [4])
I oppose merely because in English language standard Kosovo is referring to the political entity primarily (if not solely). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)(copied from section titled "Split?" above diff [6])
vote OPPOSE. Wasn't this vote JUST taken last weekend? This repetitive soliciting for !votes till one side gets its way is asinine. ThuranX (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (copied from section titled "Split?" above diff [7])
Oppose Sounds like a POV fork. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)(copied from section titled "Split?" above diff [8])
There's no point in taking a vote as all the pro-Kosovo editors will flock to it because they're too caught up in their own POV. The article as it stands is biased towards Kosovo's independence, which is completely unacceptable and this is not a matter of argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is pretty good as both people of your bias, and people of the oppisite bias are unhappy. What are you, in particular, unhappy about? And how would a split help it? Beam (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My bias? I'm sorry but I do not have a bias. I'm unhappy because the article is biased and a mess yet people who are biased are preventing improvements because they all flood the discussion page with their biased opinions and then claim no consensus exists so a change can not be made. The article as is simply can not stand. This can't be about the country under this title and be a neutral article because simply by associating Kosovo with the Republic of Kosovo as though the two are one and the same is taking a side in an international dispute. While no disputed country is identical to Kosovo in its circumstances the fact is disputed countries are typically treated differently from regular countries. Even Macedonia, with a dispute as silly as their name, is not given the same kind of treatment as an article on Germany or Canada. The notion that somehow Wikipedia should treat Kosovo like more of a country than Macedonia is so obviously biased it's sickening.
The fact pro-Kosovo editors even object to simply renaming the article just shows how asinine this bias towards Kosovo is on here. Ruling out the clearly biased opinions I think it can be fairly said that a consensus exists for this article to be renamed as it would create the situation that numerous unbiased editors have supported.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
So again, what would you change in the article itself, if you change the name of the article? And no, there is not only one Macedonia but 2 of them, one in Greece and one in Former Yugoslavia. And yes, I see only one biased group trying to rename, it is the group that is biased towards Serbia. No chance, get over it, please. Or leave this subject. --Tubesship (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC) BTW: The english WP would be the only WP in which you do not get the "Republic of Kosovo" when you type "Kosovo". --Tubesship (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I fail to see any acceptable reason opposing the split. I am sorry, but there is simply no way forward with this article until and unless Republic of Kosovo is made the article on the partially recognized Republic. The alternative is just leaving the article protected indefinitely and have edit wars break out every time unprotection is attempted. This can hardly be anyone's aim, least of all that of "pro-Kosovo" editors. I must wonder why all this "opposition" has not been voiced constructively, by taking a position wrt one of the possible options. Just saying "I oppose" without showing a possible way forward, possibly without even having reviewed the possibilities offered imho isn't a valid contribution to this debate. Why do these people not state a preference under #Options above? As it stands, we have a clear preference for either option 2 or 3. I.e., the split is unavoidable, the only question remaining is, should Kosovo redirect to (a) Kosovo (region) or to Kosovo (disambiguation). This is a question of titling that can safely be postponed. dab(𒁳)07:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I realize the split has already been completed. The article on the region is at Kosovo (geopolitical region). Which makes this the article on the newly declared Republic. No further split is necessary, we just need to edit and possibly move this article to make clear its scope. dab(𒁳)07:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There should be a redirect from Kosova to Kosovo
Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion
Like in the German Wikipedia I would suggest to make a redirect from Kosova to Kosovo. Instead it leads to a disambiguation page. No good as most Kosovars like me say rather Kosova than Kosovo. Please be more tolerante. Thank you.--Tubesship (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not a question of being tolerant, it is a question of being neutral. There has been a shorter debate at Talk:Kosova, presenting Wien as such redirect. Since the word Kosova usually (at least recently) makes an association to Kosovo, the redirect seems reasonable (the Kosova article would be then moved to Kosova (disambiguation) and a link provided in the Kosovo article). But I can find at least one case where the most common recent association does not lead to the article, to be precise, Lost is not a link to the TV series. I would like to have more opinions on this. --Tone22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There has to be a disambiguation, the question is only under what name. Another good argument you can use is that presently, the disambig article consists of several redlinks, but this can change. --Tone22:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There seem to exist quite a few Kosovas as listed on the dab page, so it might be preferable to keep it as it is. On the other hand, Kosovo here is certainly and by far the most relevant and searched. Húsönd22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Your comment is not constructive as it shows you did not get the point. The redirect from Kosova to disambig already exists but should be changed to Kosovo. And we do not talk about the redirect of Kosovo. Maybe it was trolling, I don't know. If so, I excuse myself for thinking you did not get the point and for feeding the troll. --Tubesship (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As you may have seen, the question has already been discussed on [[9]]. I don't have an opinion about what is the right solution, but as of now, it is wrong to say that "Kosova redirects here", because it doesn't, and there are two identical articles, Kosova and Kosova (disambiguation), a situation which has to be resolved on way or the other as soon as possible.--Barend (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I just realize that user HUSOND has now deleted the sentence in the article: "Kosova" redirects here. For other uses, see Kosova (disambiguation). This is not the solution I wanted. --Tubesship (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I too prefer that version. Husond himself (who implemented the other one) gave the relevant argument: of all the meanings of "Kosova" documented on the dab page, the "Kosovo" meaning is "certainly and by far the most relevant and searched". That's all that matters. If anybody types "Kosova" in the search box, the likelihood that they expect to end up at this article is far far higher than anything else. Fut.Perf.☼16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I just removed the "Kosova redirects here" line simply because it currently doesn't. I don't have a firm opinion on whether Kosova should or should not redirect here. Húsönd21:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This is fixed now. The redirects are working the way we agreed and there are links to both Kosovo and Kosova dab pages at the top here. --Tone21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Post NATO bombing killings
Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion
Information is missing on killings and kidnappings of non-Albanian population under the 'protection' of KFOR. Also, there is no mention of 1000+ Serbian churches and monasteries. This can be added under 'Religion' or 'Architecture' section. 212.200.241.80 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well how about a brief summary with a few citations and examples. Include reaction to these acts as well is applicable/available. Beam (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There are over 1000 Serbian monasteries and churches on Kosovo. They are property of the Serbian Orthodox Church. After KFOR came to Kosovo to protect multi-ethnic life, hundreds of churches and monasteries have been destroyed, demolished, looted, and their inhabitants forced to leave. video of destruction, another one, history, ethnic clansing
1 or 2 videos, and "Kosovo.net" does not support your statements. It could be part of support though. Beam (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Beam, spend some time actually watching and reading those sources. I am not going to write specific paragraphs and lines for lazy readers. Difference between when I posted these links, and when you posted your reply is 3 minutes. I am not going to waste my time with you anymore. There are most likely other editors here who will consider the text that I provided. 212.200.241.80 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Than what are you talking about? That's what a Wiki editor does! And I'm sorry but a site called kosovo.net probably does not meet the Wiki requirements for a source. Does it? And as I said those videos would be provided in the article if they can be cited as to confirm their content. Beam (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Your logic is brilliant! Opinion of the owner of all those hundreds of churches is not a relevant source of information about those churches?! Interesting. I wonder, why is whitehouse.gov used as a source for white house article? 212.200.241.80 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one you'd have to convince to get a consensus. I think it's 1 source. Get a few more so no one can claim biased sources. That's all. I'm all about cooperation. I want factual stuff in there. But I don't want edit wars or the such so let's make it sourced nicely. And just that one source CAN NOT back up all of what you said. Just so you know. If you come up with more sources I'll give you my humble opinion, and cooperatively we may be able to do something! Beam (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I just read the first half of that, care to give me the first line of the section within that report that supports or directly corroborates the owner's story? I saw the mention of a solution of restitution to previously seized religious properties still not complete. I stopped there, I'd appreciate a quote of a line in the section that you'd like me to read. Thanks. Beam (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
""Some minor attacks on Serbian Orthodox religious sites continued during the period covered by this report. Father Sava reports that in Gjakova/Djakovica municipality, some graves were vandalized in Piskote village, and some family members told him bodies were removed. Serbian media reported on May 12, 2005, that an explosive device was found 200 meters from an Orthodox church in Viti/Vitina; the investigation is still ongoing.
Local media reported that that a Catholic cemetery in Prizren vandalized in 2001, was vandalized again on May 24, 2005.
Many of the churches and monasteries burned in the March 2004 riots were constructed in the 14th century and are considered part of Kosovo's cultural and religious heritage. Father Sava provided a comprehensive list of religious sites destroyed or damaged between March 17 and 19. The list included 30 sites altogether in the following 14 locations: Prizren, Rahovec, Gjakova, Skenderaj, Peja, Ferizaj, Kamenica, Shtime, Pristina, Fushe Kosove, Vushtrri, Obiliq, Mitrovica, and Podujevo. A Council of Europe mission to assess the damage concluded that approximately $11.83 million (9.7 million euros) would be required to repair and restore the damaged sites. ""
So you want a section in the Kosovo article about this subject? It's a little thin by itself, where would you place it? What other topics and events other than this would be discussed? Beam (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Beam
It should be mentioned that all these churches in Kosova were build up again, but not so the burned and dragged down mosques in Serbia. --Tubesship (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, do it up. Cite it and post it in this talk section so we can discuss a final version of the addition. Thanks. Beam (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Albanian repression of Serb population
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
I think there should be some examples from the time of communist and socialist Yugoslavia of how Serbian population was terrorized by Albanian extremists, and why so many Serbs left Kosovo, resulting in Albanian population becoming so dominant.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be quite emotional. Calm down and we'll continue... great. The word dominant and Albanian extremists and the whole tone of Serbian POV is the reason I said that. However, I requested that you type up something and cite it here in the talk page, and if people agree with it and it is factual we'll discuss adding it to the article. Beam (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning emotion only seemed to bring more of it. I apologize. You however, seem to be missing the fact that context is everything when talking about words being POV. I'm not going to expand your suggestion for inclusion. Type of a section you want in there, include citations from good sources (according to Wiki's definition of citations/sources) and then we'll discuss it in a civil manner. Sources other than interviews that have "reported admissions" would be best. Beam (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in adding this to article go ahead and and type a section with good sources (not other wiki articles, although you can of course use those sources) and we'll discuss its inclusion. Beam (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
One thing we should understand...
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
...when making this article. This is not a typical case of secession, because it is not conducted by a supreme legal body for the territory in question. There are two realities that have been created in Kosovo. One, rendering it a part of Serbia, representing the UNMIK, and another, the PISG, considering it an independent state.
The Provisional Institutions of Self-Government have, violating their own Constitutional Framework ("semi-constitution"), according to which (1.4 point) they are subjected to the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and according to which Kosovo is a part of Serbia, self-declared independence unilaterally. The justification given for this unconstitutional act was that the 'semi-Constitution of Kosovo' wasn't legitimized from the people of Kosovo. The UNMIK has not accepted the decision, because it would violate UNSCR 1244. However, it also hasn't abolished it upon the call of the Serbian authorities, creating "two worlds" and leaving to the international community, as per the Chancellor stated, to decided alone - a part of which has so far recognized independence of Kosovo. On the other hand, UNSCR 1244 continues to remain valid.
But now a little observation into the future. The Constitution of Kosovo is being worked by the Pristina provisional authorities which will oversee their transformation into state organs, in order to replace the already-broken Constitutional Framework. But such an act will not be valid for Kosovo until passed by the UNMIK - or will the the division onto "two planes" further continue? Let us also recall the Declaration of Independence of Kosova, according to which the basis for the creation of a State in Kosovo will be the Ahtisaari plan. The Serbs have returned into Kosovan institutions. If this plan and its interpretations thereof are followed by the book, this means that the Serbs could - effectively - block its adoption within the provisional institutions themselves, because it will present Kosovo as an independent country, and not a part of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how this makes it not a typical case of secession. Every secession "creates a new reality" that is "illegal" under the status quo ante. Sure, the RoK is recognized only by a minority of the international community. Which means that the majority implicitly or explicitly continues to consider Kosovo as de jure part of Serbia. However, such recognition as the RoK did get clearly puts it in the "limited recognition" group (33 countries, compared to 95, 45 and 23 for Palestine, Western Sahara and Taiwan, respectively). It's one of five entities with limited recognition worldwide, and, I suggest, quite a "typical case" within this small group. dab(𒁳)11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Would beif the UNMIK declared independence - but it didn't, but rather the non-mandated 'helping' Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. This technically means that according to the very supreme authority and legal body for Kosovo itself, Kosovo is still now a part of the Republic of Serbia - that should be reflected in this article.
Also China is a case where the two entities mutually don't recognize each other and territorially claim one another (and desire reunification), so it's not really much related to Kosovo, Western Sahara and Palestine. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm right now worried about a creation of a third "plane of existence" in Kosovo, which will be set up by the Serbs (secondary institutions, as announced). :( --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Pax, I think you again do not tell us the truth, because many countries are not recognized by every country, Croatia for example is not recognized by Namibia, Burundi, Liberia and so on: http://www.mvpei.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1621 --Tubesship (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC) BTW: And you still did not gave us a reliable source for your numbers regarding Palestine and Western Sahara, although I asked you several times. --Tubesship (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You have crossed the line of politeness and civility and I have no intention to continue pointless and inconstructive conversation with you. The source you even yourself posted (http://imeu.net/news/article0065.shtml), and Dbachmann has also stated, 95. Then again, I don't see the point: What are you trying to say in the first place? Also, non-recognition of countries with seats in the UN is irrelevant - are you actually trying to compare Croatia to Kosovo? :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course Kosova is more comparable to Croatia than to Western Sahara or Palestine. You first gave us the number of 99, now you say 95, in the source: http://imeu.net/news/article0065.shtml they say "about 100" and the very same source contradicts itself by confessing that only 29 countries honour the Palestine passport. What kinda recognition and source should that be? Not a reliable one but a self-contradicting one. --Tubesship (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute, you're comparing Kosovo and Croatia. I don't understand, are you really being serious?
NATO, UN and Serbia Engage in High Stakes Game Over Kosovo
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Professor Stefan Wolff, a political scientist and director of the Center for International Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution at Nottingham University, about the latest developments:
"The violence in northern Kosovo over the past several weeks is both an expression of public anger by local Serbs and something that is at least encouraged by Belgrade" ... "Attacks on the UN in northern Kosovo, or on Western embassies in Belgrade, merely confirm to Kosovo Albanians and many others beyond Kosovo -- and in my opinion wrongly -- that peaceful coexistence with Serbs and Serbia is very difficult to achieve. Making things difficult for the UN, the EU, NATO and other international organizations in Kosovo and the region is ultimately a futile strategy that may pay off for some politicians in the short term but will harm Serbs and Serbia as a whole in the long term. Thus was the case with [former Yugoslav President Slobodan] Milosevic, who built a reputation on "standing up" against the West. The sooner Serbs realize that Kosovo was lost some 20 years ago when its autonomy was revoked and Milosevic and his allies brutally asserted their control, the sooner they can move on with building a viable, democratic, European state." ... "It is unlikely that the situation in Kosovo itself will escalate into a new conflict in the Balkans, but in combination with the instability that Macedonia is experiencing in the wake of the fall of its government and the increasing belligerence of Serbs in Bosnia, it is difficult to see how the region would achieve greater stability in the near future." ... "NATO will need to make sure that any unrest in Kosovo does not spread to other volatile areas of the region, such as Bosnia and Macedonia. It is highly unlikely that there will be prolonged and open hostilities with Serbian forces, but there is always a chance that localized violence might occur especially in border areas. The worst case scenario would be that, following parliamentary elections in Serbia in May, a new government deliberately provokes such incidents. This would be a vey dangerous scenario, and an unwise strategy for any government to follow."
Yes. It should. Go grab some citations, I think there may be some on this talk page. Than edit the section to include Canada and the citations and post your edit in this talk section with an editprotected tag so that it will be added. Thanks. Beam (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
ICJ case
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Serbia officially brings the case of Kosovo independence to the International Court of Justice, rather than sue every state which recognized it individually. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
... clarification: Rather than suing states individually at the ICJ, they'll ask for an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ; for this, they'll need a majority decision in a UN body, and as they won't be getting it from the UNSC, they'll likely get it from the UNGA in September 08. —Nightstallion21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Space for some questioning though, 90 states will support Serbia's motion - they're still missing 6 to achieve through diplomatic activity. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
As I state above it's really unfortunate and sad that it's being split, but apparently reason isn't enough these days. Anyway, when is this going to be renamed to "Republic of Kosovo"?Beam (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is it going to be renamed? I strongly oppose this and I'm sure there are plenty of people who do. There's no proof there's any consensus to do this. bogdan (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Except in a few cases, we keep articles on countries at just their local short name. There is one one Kosovo, so the article title is fine. This was debated a few days ago with users opposing the move. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
seeing that Kosovo (region) is about the region, this artice is a WP:CFORK at present. Upon unprotection, its scope should be narrowed to the 2008 Republic. No, the article title isn't "fine". This is definitely one of the "few cases" where the short name won't do. The majority of editors above opt for redirection of Kosovo to Kosovo (geopolitical region). The second most votes go to redirecting Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation). As you can see above, we do have a (9:2) consensus to move this article, the question is simply where should Kosovo redirect to. To our Albanian editors (Tubesship et al.), simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant to building consensus. You need to justify how your position satisfies Wikipedia policy. dab(𒁳)21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Tubesship is on the right track, cover the region aspect when it was part of Serbia, then this article should cover now, a defacto nation-state. Maybe the article on the Republic of China should give us a clue on how to pull this delicate balance off. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If it isn't going to be renamed to Republic of Kosovo than merge it with the article for Region. It's the only way that makes ANY sense. Beam (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That is true as there are many more against a renaming and many more in favor for merging. Therefore merging and not renaming. --Tubesship (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago52 comments19 people in discussion
I'm proposing to merge Kosovo (geopolitical region). There's absolutely no reason to have two articles which speak about the same thing. The current status quo of having two articles is called POV fork and it's against the rules of Wikipedia.
The idea that there's a parallel with China, Cyprus, Palestian etc are wrong because the countries are not overlap the regions:
China is a region divided into regions controlled by both ROC and PRC.
Cyprus is a region divided into two regions controlled by both Greek and Turkish authorities
Palestine is a region bigger than the territories controlled by the Palestinian authorities. (it includes the whole Israel)
Tibet is a region bigger than the Autonomous Tibet Region, there are several Chinese regions in the historical Tibet.
Western Sahara is a region of which only 20% is controlled by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
Kosovo is more like Bulgaria. They simply control the whole territory. Just like there's no reason to divide Bulgaria into Republic of Bulgaria and Bulgaria (geopolitical region), there's no reason to do this with Kosovo either. The current state is simply the one wanted by the Serbian nationalists, who appear to rule this page because of their larger number. bogdan (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'm neutral on this subject, but I also don't think Serbian nationalists alone (btw, where are they on this talk page?) want that. Next of all, geographic Kosovo is half of current Kosovo. Next to that, geographic Kosovo also doesn't include North Kosovo, which isn't controlled by Pristina since 2005. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Geographic Kosovo (like most regions) had changed its definition countless times in its history. This can be argued about Bulgaria, too. Once, geographic Bulgaria included Dobruja, but now it doesn't.
I have nothing against making an article which discusses simply what was considered "Kosovo" throughout the ages, but I don't think that it should include its own content fork of the history. bogdan (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for speaking the truth. Unfortunately Kosovars are outnumbered by far by Serbs like you said. But this should not effect the article, therefore thank you for your help to keep this subject NPOV. --Tubesship (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you edit the "discuss" from the merge tag at the top to come to this section of talk. That way people don't try to discuss it in the wrong place. Beam (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
comment: this merger will mean we have no article dedicated to the Republic of Kosovo. We can merge it, but this will necessarily mean we'll have to remove the country infobox from this article. The merger thus strikes me as an extreme move towards the Serbian pov, as it were disputing the notability of the Republic of Kosovo as sufficient for a dedicated article. I do not advise this course. dab(𒁳)08:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There will still be an article about Kosovo as a country, infobox and all. Honestly, it will take months to figure out what to do with this article. I never was really on Wikipedia when nations were created, so I am learning about this process as much as you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mister Bachmann, if you remove the infobox I will consider this as an act of vandalism. Stay away from doing so, please! --Tubesship (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
please avoid such bogus allegations of vandalism. It is very simple: if we merge the articles, the infobox must either go, or represent both points of view (Province vs. Republic) with equal weight (both flags, or no flag). If we keep a separate article on the RoK, the RoK can stay there. These are the #Options. For all your activity on this page, you completely fail to suggest any way to resolve the situation within WP:NPOV. Which of the options listed to you prefer? Do you have another option that was left out? Just treating the pro-independence pov as the only "WP:TRUTH" is not an option: this is a dispute, and both sides need to be represented with equal weight. dab(𒁳)09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I made my suggestion and it has been accepted. Please cope with the fact that there will be not a renaming you have persistently and repeadetly asked for but instead the merging I suggested. Thank you for not threatening me with a block on your user page but coping. --Tubesship (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I could live with having two infoboxes after each other, but not a single one presenting both views -- that wouldn't work. —Nightstallion10:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Everything seems to be better than no info box. I would not accept a deletion of the info box as suggested by Mister D. Bachmann. --Tubesship (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so I've been reading all this discussion for over a month now, and I finally feel like I need to speak up. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. As such it contains information on topics that other people might be interested in. An article that is written, and any content therein must keep that in mind. Therefore, when we are trying to decide whether and how to split articles, and whether to include or exclude information, we need to think about what someone coming to this site and typing in a search wants to read.
Thats why I suggest an article on the region of Kosovo. For people who want to read about the history of the region, including its time as part of Yugoslavia, the history of its time as a Serbian province, and its recent history as a declared independent nation. I also suggest an article about the Republic of Kosovo. For people who want to read about the declaration of independence, the organization of the government, international relations and recognition, and the controversy surrounding its declaration of independence. There should be two separate articles simply because someone looking for information on the Republic of Kosovo isn't necessarily looking for information on the region, and vice versa. I think that tie is more important than attempting comparison with any other countries/regions.
No one on here has to agree with the declaration of independence by the Republic of Kosovo. However, it happened. And the Republic, whether legitimate or illegal or a de facto country or whatever, exists. And while it exists, there is a significant interest in the functioning of that Republic. That interest is what requires an article on the Republic of Kosovo.
I would hope that we can separate discussions of the legitimacy of the Republic from discussions about the article on the Republic. Dworjan (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Kosova should not be only about politics, government, legitimation and so on, but it should be also about culture, about language, about history. All this belongs to Kosova as a country and not to Kosovo (geopolitical region). Kosova did not fall out of the sky but it existed even under Serbian occupation. It has a past and this belongs to a country. That is why a merging is necessary. --Tubesship (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering that there are 33,900 English news articles which use "Kosova", we may consider it an alternate English spelling. But of course, in English Wikipedia articles, we should use the most commonly used form, that is Kosovo. bogdan (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of the countries have separate articles on wikipedia for their history and their present government. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a connection between the two, but inasmuch as someone looking for information about the government of the USA or Russia isn't necessarily looking for a detailed history of that country, the same is true of Kosovo. The Republic of Kosovo article should include a broad history, similar to other nation's wikipedia articles, which relates primarily to the foundation of the country; but there should still be a separate History of Kosovo article that covers the detailed history of the area now within the borders of Kosovo. Dworjan (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact the person proposing a merger compares Kosovo to Bulgaria leads me to believe this is yet another pro-Kosovo editor pushing a POV. Comparisons aren't meant to somehow imply the two are the same but point out similarly disputed nations and how Wikipedia deals with disputed nations, basically it's asserting an unwritten policy for such cases. One thing that has to be understood is the article on Germany is not an article on the country because that country controls historical Germany. In fact Germany has historically been larger sometimes much larger. So why doesn't Germany go to Germany as a region? Because in the here and now Germany overwhelmingly refers to the country without dispute.
A great example for why Kosovo should not be given an article like that of a country such as Germany or Bulgaria is Macedonia. Macedonia presently has all the attributes of a state, moreso by far than Kosovo. Macedonia was actually the only uncontroversial secession under Milosevic. There was even a war over Slovenia, but Macedonia was not really disputed in comparison to Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Kosovo. Macedonia is a UN member state recognized by every major nation as an independent state. Macedonia controls all of its territory and is not under the administration of any foreign power. Yet though any reference to Macedonia by pretty much any major country nowadays is going to refer to Macedonia the country the article Macedonia is not on the country, but a disambiguation page going to various uses of Macedonia. The article on Macedonia the country is under Republic of Macedonia and all because Greece doesn't like that name. Because Greece disagrees with the official name of Macedonia, the article on Macedonia as a country is not under the short title of Macedonia.
So even though Macedonia satisfies the qualifications for statehood above and beyond Kosovo and is uncontroversially referred to as Macedonia by most of the world, the mere fact Greece doesn't agree with the name is reason to not treat them like a regular country. Yet somehow Kosovo, the most hotly disputed secession in modern times, should be treated better? It's nonsense and biased.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you did not get the point. Again, Macedonia is not only FYROM but there is another region in Greece that is also called Macedonia. And because there are 2 different Macedonias there is this "name war" between Greece and FYROM. So when a Greek speaks about Macedonia he means a different place on earth, he means not FYROM but the region inside his country. FYROM is a place outside Greece. Again, there is only one Kosova but there are two different Macedonias. And if you do not believe me, just ask a Greek or a FYROM-citizen. You will see, the dispute about the name is caused because they mean different places on earth when talking about Macedonia. And now compare it to Kosova. When a Kosovar and a Serb speak about Kosova, they mean exactly the same place on earth. This is an important difference and because of this difference there should be only one article about Kosova and two about Macedonia. The Greek says this place called Macedonia is inside Greece, the FYROM citizen says Macedonia is the name that means his country inside the borders of FYROM. The Greek says no, it means the region inside his country named Greece. --Tubesship (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I can tell from your response that you probably didn't bother to read what I wrote or consider what I wrote. Most people when they talk about Macedonia as something existing in the present day are referring to the country Macedonia overwhelmingly. There are many places called Kosovo which do not refer to the Kosovo this article is about (hint: look at the dismabig page) so this argument against the comparison is simply wrong. However yet again I was not saying the two are the same. The point is that Macedonia is undeniably an independent country that controls all of its territory and when most people talk about Macedonia today they're talking about the Republic of Macedonia. If there was no naming dispute the article Macedonia would undoubtedly take you to an article on the country with a little mention at the top like "for other uses see Macedonia (disambiguation)" or "for the region in Greece see Macedonia (Greece)" because most people looking up Macedonia would expect an article on the country not the region in Greece. An example would be Mongolia where despite a Chinese province existing called Inner Mongolia takes you to an article on the country of Mongolia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that is definitely not the case if you do what I told you to do: To talk to a Greek. A whole nation (the Greek nation) do not accept your point of view. There might be and there are many and huge disagreements between Kosovars and Serbs but not when it comes to Kosova as a region as both agree that they are talking about the same region. --Tubesship (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk to a Serb, and they'll tell you Kosovo is the region inside their own country. Talk to a Kosovar Albanian and they'll tell you Kosovo is the independent country. The overwhelming majority of people say "Macedonia" meaning the country. Greeks are not the overwhelming majority of people, and yet Macedonia is not the location of the article about the Republic of Macedonia. However, the overwhelming majority of people on Earth don't recognise KV independence, so why should Kosovo be the space of Republic of Kosovo? BalkanFever02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I talked to Serbs and they definitely mean the same spot like Kosovars when talking about Kosova, no matter how much they differ about the status of that country. So we indeed can have a single article named Kosova, the only thing is that we have to put in both views. And that should be possible as they are talking about the same place and not about 2 different places like Greeks and citizens from FYROM. So in contrast to Macedonia there is not only an "overwhelming majority" (I doubt) but an 100% agreement between Serbs and Kosovars, that they mean the same spot on earth when speaking about Kosova. And can we agree about that fact? Finally? Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What about "Kosovo" as opposed to Metohija? That constitutes around half of the area of the almost-former Serbian Republic of Kosovo (AFSROK). Where will you talk about that? BalkanFever03:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
See it as an Albanian slang. Like some say "wanna" instead of "want to" or "gotta" instead of "got to". Language is living and changing. --Tubesship (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Just mentioning that the current "Kosovo (geopolitical region)" article is the final result of moving the original "Geography of Kosovo" (then part of the Wikipedia-wide "Geography of" series, and of {{Geography of Europe}} in particular) to various succesive names since March 10, 2008. Yesterday, "Geography of Kosovo", which had been a redirect for 16 days, was converted into an article again. - Ev (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I just realized it was user Dbachmann, who has changed his signature, so it is not obvious at the very first moment. Sneaky, sneaky... --Tubesship (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I must say there is absolutely no reason of having two separate articles. I'm from the region, neither a Serb nor an Albanian, and this "geopolitical region" is nonsense. Kosovo was always reffered to as a province and now a country. I see current situation as a proof of Wikipedia's weakness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.37.113 (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I only will support a merger, IF the region's infobox is added, which should be followed by an infobox for the Republic of Kosovo, and the infobox for Autonomous Province of Kosovo, representing both Albanian and Serbian claims. Look at South Ossetia article to see my justification. South Ossetia is a self-governing de facto independent state which broke away from Georgia with the support of 98 to 99% of the population. Just as the Republic of Kosovo is endorsed by major world powers, the Republic of South Ossetia is supported by Russia. Meanwhile the Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia, much like the Serbian autonomous province of Kosovo, has little or no jurisdiction over South Ossetia, but its claims as well as are represented just as the Republic of South Ossetia's claims are in the South Ossetia article. The South Ossetia article is a model for NPOV for disputed territories, and should be adopted for this page. To those who say, Kosovo has significant support for independence from countries across the world it is important to note that 31 countries have denied its independence as of March 28, 2008. They are:
Merge, as it is contra productive to have 2 different articles about the same issue and regarding the fact that a person searching for Kosovo wants most probably to be informed about the newest state in Europe. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: Map of Metohija within the geopolitical region of Kosovo and Metohija. The largest cities are also shown. There IS in fact a view that region with name Kosovo is not same as territory of the Republic of Kosovo. Historically, south-western part of the Republic of Kosovo is in fact known as Metohija or Dukagjin, so we could keep article about Kosovo region, which would describe different views what that region is. 81.18.60.5 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm late for discussion but have to put comment about this suggestion (bogdan's I guess):
comment of "The current state is simply the one wanted by the Serbian nationalists, who appear to rule this page because of their larger number" ...
This is statement is nothing else but disqualification of your idea ‘merging articles’. Please name “Serbian nationalists” and then “Albanian nationalists” that are involved in editing and then make statement like this.
Your second (or maybe first) statement “They simply control the whole territory” … Who are “they” ? Kosovo territory is controlled by UNMIK and NATO , is it the same in Bulgaria?
Suggestion. Cancel this discussion about “merging articles”! maybe cancel this article as well… 36 countries are not good enough reason for creating this article. How about fact that this 36 countries have together population of 1119073925, which is 17,6 % of world population. Shall we wait until number increase to 51% and then say OK now we can talk about Kosovo that is more then just geopolitical region and part of republic of Serbia, or shall we wait that Kosovo become member of UN, like it is Bulgaria.. or some other reasonable criteria. Have you really ever asked yourself why do we have just that fact: “number of countries that have recognized Kosovo”, and what is the relevance of that number?
Assistance in editing these articles, and in particular, more information about Serbia's claimed administrative structure for the region, would be useful. Complaining that the split is unfair will not be. Superm401 - Talk04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Splitting the articles is not a logical move. I contest the split and do not agree on this. Because I contest the split, I will clearly make a negative publicity about this all over the net. Because one or two people request a split, it's a logical fallacy to conclude the split, given the rest of the users. What ever happened to the principle of majority? --ArbërT • ? 07:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
And this happened during a merge discussion. Honestly, I feel that one discussion should end before another one begins. I also admit this was a pretty snap decision. I'll look at this later. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not a snap decision. This has been under consideration since at least March 1 (see Talk:Kosovo#Split.3F). There have been constant discussions, and there never would have been a unanimous agreement. Superm401 - Talk08:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Not expressing an opinion about the split as such at this point (not having followed the previous discussions), but as it currently stands, there is far too much overlap in the coverage of the two articles, especially the history sections. What exactly is the Republic of Kosovo article saying that the Kosovo article couldn't also say – except that cursed infobox and the flag? I guess if the articles are to be kept split, the history section should be kept only here. Whatever happened in the 14th century is part of the history of Kosovo as a whole; the Republic as such has no history reaching back before 2008. Fut.Perf.☼05:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Most importend is that when typed "Kosovo" it should lead to the new state of Kosovo and not somewhere else. This state is born already and the majority of users typing in "Kosovo" expects to be on the page of the new country and this is no more the fact after the recent changings done by user Superm401. --Tubesship (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is basically why we had to do this. You still have not accepted that not everyone agrees Kosovo belongs to the "new state of Kosovo". It is a controversy, and controversies have to be dealt with through NPOV. Superm401 - Talk08:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the overlap, and this should be corrected. I would accept keeping the history section only here. Ideally, there would be a brief summary at Republic of Kosovo, but that may be impossible. You are correct that people would have insisted on putting the infobox here, and that indicated the larger issue. Essentially, Republic of Kosovo will describe the trappings of the state (leaders, organization, cabinet, elections, infobox...) while Kosovo describes the people, places, and history. As more trappings emerge, the distinction should clarify. Superm401 - Talk08:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo as geograficel region (Rrafshi i Kosovës) is part of Kosovo.
If you make as geograficel region then as souch Sanxhak of Novi Pazar and part of Belgrad Pashaluk are part of Kosovo. At the firs time the name Kosovo as souch was iused during the Ottoman Empire, Kosovo Vilaet. Beacose of thate if you late Kosovo as region then you must chanche the map or you latte thate like a region (Rrafshi i Kosovës) or you late thate like Vilaet of Kosovo.
This caynd of splitin is saying nothing. Other said Republik of Kosovo it was proclameted 1992.
For this argument and for much more, (you dont have a enciklopedy or sicen point to start a article about the Kosovo as region)
Kosovo article must be Kosovo for witch the english spoken peopel speek and this is oficial Republik of Kosovo.
At the end you are becomen Kosovo field (in Kosovo), Kosovo state (in Kosovo), and Kosovo Vilaet (in Kosovo). How!!! There are three regions with name Kosovo in same place. Witch you wount to choic?????
Kosovo article must be Kosovo for witch the english spoken peopel speek and this is oficial Republik of Kosovo, regotnesed and not regotnased about thate you have a article and tousend others thate are maken clear thate there is somthing dissputed. Who is interesig for details, Im saying again you have her in en.Wiki 1000 articel (this discusion sied to), witch is maken clear thate the Serbia wount this teritory, but the kosovars dot wount Serbia, they wount there OWN STATE.
In year 2008, Kosovo in english offical languge is meaning the intependent state called Republik of Kosovo, his president is Fatmi Sejdiu, the prime minister Hashim Thaçi. In serbian or rusian official languge it cane mean ewerything, perhas Serbia himself, Hart of Serbia, Kosovo is Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.183.85 (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my god. You, serbs, you are so creativ thate from one wilage called Kosovo, you have maked a State. If you are going in this way, is going to becom reality your mitology, Kosovo is going to be a hart (centrum) of Serbia. Then you don´t neede Belgrade, you cane paye taxes to Hashim Thaçi. -- Hipi Zhdripi
Upsss!!! Every city and cityzens of Belgrad Pashalluk is willcomen to Kosovo. We cane build together Prishtina. We cane reonstrouct Ulpiana and the proud of Iliarians Dardania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.183.85 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't get it. This and the RoK article are going to cover the exact same topics in the exact same manner. The only thing I notice is the change of the infobox. Plus, as the users said above, when people type Kosovo, they want the article on the country. We are the few that cover the area, not the country (the other at my last count was the Serbian Wikipedia). I think we can do a lot better than this. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right, and even the info box problem can be solved by merging both information or creating by 2 info boxes, for example. --Tubesship (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to, but everything is being reverted. I added the culture section from here to over there and somehow, they felt like the culture of the state isn't the same as the culture here. I just don't get it. I am lost for ideas now. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to help but after being blocked a few days ago I do not dare to get involved in it as I use a proxy and blocking me leads to a blocking of a lot of other people, too. I hope others will come to help you on the article. --Tubesship (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC) BTW: As I see, you misleaded me as you seem to have the same aim as user Superm. --Tubesship (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This whole splitting will only create unnecessary confusion. There should be one article containing all of the issues raised. Kosovo is independent recognized by 34 Countries but it is also still under UNMIK administration so what is the point of creating so many articles on the same subject. One can put all of the proposed splits under the current political situation. Jawohl (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am going to try, trust me, to put all of this in one article. I am not sure what else I can do, but whatever happens, I need more eyes and more people willing to compromise. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The culture is the same, and that's why we're mentioning it only here (instead of three places). RoK will not cover "exact same topics in the exact same manner". Superm401 - Talk08:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What some people seems not to understand is the fact, that "Kosovo" is indeed the region of Kosovo. So again, why this splitting? Why do you make this distinction between the region and the country? It is not like Macedonia (Greece) and FYROM! --Tubesship (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I know ""Kosovo" is indeed the region of Kosovo". That's why Kosovo says, "Kosovo is a geopolitical region of the Balkan Peninsula in southeastern Europe." Superm401 - Talk09:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
THIS IS BULL****. how can anyone let this happen? I don't give a crap about whether Kosovo is Independent or is in Serbia for 10,000 more years, but this is retarded. There was NEVER a consensus to split it the first time. IF ANYTHING there was a consensus to KEEP IT MERGED. Undo your deed Superm, or I will have to be a lowly internet snitch and tell SOMEONE that you completely went against the whole idea of Wikipedia. Beam (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also against the split. There is clearly NOT consensus. There are surely other, better ways to resolve these legitimate issues. Envoy202 (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
it is. We have done a strawpoll, and no valid alternatives have been suggested. What would be your suggestion, and why haven't you forwarded it before? Two infoboxes? No infobox? No article on the Republic of Kosovo at all? dab(𒁳)12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
well, the split is there, and it's the only valid approach I can see. The question of titling should be addressed patiently, since it is much more open to debate. Let's at first wait for the afd at Kosovo (geopolitical region) to close. (I propose it be speedily closed since it is obviously without merit). Then we can redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation) for the time being, which is clearly the most unbiased solution, and after that consider further options calmly. dab(𒁳)12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all. You're so wrong! When a reader goes for Kosovo, he wants to know about KOSOVO. What it was, what it is, who thinks it's what, etc. Two infoboxes, i don't care 400 infoboxes is FINE. Present ALL THE FACTS. They declared independence, these countries thinks that sucks and why, these countries think it's freaking sweet and why, and what's happening in the UN and ICJ. POST THE FACTS. How hard is that? Why split it up?
Splitting it up is GIVING UP. We can't cooperate? Fine split it to 40 articles, we'll each make our own! So ridiculous. Let's work together one ONE article. THAT'S THE ONLY VALID APPROACH. Unless people like DBACHMAN (AKA DAB) don't want to work together, than fine. Go make your own wiki. Beam (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you follow the argument. We precisely want to avoid a WP:CFORK situation of "all Albanians, please edit Republic of Kosovo, all Serbians please edit Districts of Kosovo and Metohija, on each article pretending the dispute doesn't exist". What we need is precisely one central article which explains the dispute without taking sides. This is Kosovo (region) at present, but obviously it should reside at Kosovo. While the article on the 2008 article sporting flags and coats of arms obviously needs to be subsidiary to the neutral article, and reside at Republic of Kosovo. dab(𒁳)12:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems YOU don't follow the argument. It should all be in one article. When someone searches for Kosovo, they want to know about Kosovo. This article isn't for you buddy, it's for the readers. Also, please see the talk page section proposing a merge, that will have your little China argument wrapped up. You're very mistaken on many issues. It's laughable that SUPERM says "as planned" ignoring the other 90% of the talk page.Beam (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Dieter, is the issue of the infobox (plus flag/CoA etc.) really the only reason why the Republic can't be treated in the same article with the region? Somehow I refuse to accept that Wikipedia should become a slave to its own editorial conventions to such a degree. Has usage of a piece of html boilerplate now become a magic badge by which Wikipedia conveys "official recognition" on a state? Can we really not escape this entirely home-made dilemma? Infopoxes must burn in hell.
Would it be a solution if the infopox was split up in such a way that all of its parts that refer to the political institution of the "Republic" are moved away from the top of the article and into a section dealing with the republic? Possibly with other parts of the box that contain the non-contentious bits (area, largest city, etc.) remaining at the top? Fut.Perf.☼17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I now see that was "Option 5" at some point. Sigh. I would have supported it. This talkpage has become so huge it's difficult to keep up with things. Fut.Perf.☼17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more: let's scrap the infobox (at least for a couple of weeks), explain Kosovo's oddities in the text of a single unified article, and only then discuss what kind of standard or ad hoc infobox/es would provide a better summary of it all. - Ev (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
good to know that consensus means nothing to agenda warriors like Superm401. Why'd anyone fucking talk about anything ,given his unilateral actions? He admits that discussion was ongoing, and gives that as his reason for acting? Requesting an admin revert all such moves till a genuine consensus is found. ThuranX (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but if you use language like that users like DBACH will only point that out, and ignore your actual point. Just so you know. Beam (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Beam, I am sorry, but you obviously don't even begin to understand what is being discussed. May I suggest you take a passive role in this and watch the article unfold. Alternatively, ask somebody to explain things to you. You are not helping. dab(𒁳)15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Dbachman, I am sorry too. Very sorry. If you really can't comprehend what I'm saying, please stop using the internet. Get a helmet, and sit down. For your own safety of course. You don't understand how Wiki works. It's a consensus, not what you want. You don't act because 3 people agree with you. That seems to be what you have done so far. If you want to drop the petty insults littered throughout this talkpage, than maybe we can work together on the article. If not, please leave. Because I promise you I will work and cooperate with everyone here to get this article done. With or without you. Beam (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
the problem seems to be that on top of all the nationalists we are now getting bored USian teenagers who couldn't find the Balkans on a map having fun on this talkpage. dab(𒁳)16:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I promise you I will work and cooperate with everyone here to get this article done. With or without you. Beam (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the page moves
Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion
There's absolutely no consensus for the split: you can see this in this talk page. Before doing any major changes to the articles' structure, REACH A CONSENSUS on the talk pages. Otherwise, you are just disrupting Wikipedia. bogdan (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
there is a consensus. we have some nationalist background noise, but none of the "objections" have been accompanied with a reasonable suggestion how to resolve the problem. As such, they can be safely disregarded on grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm sorry, but just saying "I oppose" isn't enough on Wikipedia. dab(𒁳)12:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
But that's what YOU DID. We never had a CONSENSUS to split it. As I've said 100 times, I don't have a horse in this race. I don't, honestly, care if Kosovo is independent or enslaved. We should report the facts. You should go read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you've gone against everything Wikipedia stands for, and I insist that you and SUPERM stop. Beam (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact you're associating Kosovo being a part of Serbia with slavery suggests that regardless of what race your horse is in you do have an opinion that is pro-Kosovo and it seems that is affecting your behavior on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't care myelf. No, I did not enforce my own preference. I presented five possible options. Either of them would have been arguable, some more than others. Consensus tended towards option #2. If you have some other option I failed to mention, pray point it out now. dab(𒁳)12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see a suggestion. I also fail to see any indication that you even understand the problem, or appreciate the possible resolutions. Try to calm down, go easy on the allcaps, and try to understand the present status and the history of our articles on disputed territories such as China. dab(𒁳)12:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
like, where? There was a single strawpoll on possible #Options. Options 4 and 5 were "merging" scenarios. They got one single vote (without comment) between them, out of eleven reactions. Hardly a "consensus" for either option 4 or 5, no? Can you stop claiming there is a consensus for a "merged" option when 9 out of 2 comments preferred to keep a separate article on the Republic? Can you at least state which option would appeal to you? dab(𒁳)15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
When a reader goes for Kosovo, he wants to know about KOSOVO. What it was, what it is, who thinks it's what, etc. Two infoboxes, i don't care 400 infoboxes is FINE. Present ALL THE FACTS. They declared independence, these countries thinks that sucks and why, these countries think it's freaking sweet and why, and what's happening in the UN and ICJ. POST THE FACTS. How hard is that? Why split it up? - I've yet to see you refute this. Thanks DBACHMAN Beam (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
When a reader goes for Macedonia, China or Ireland they probably want to know about those countries most commonly referred by those names. You have one article for the new republic (see Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija where the articles of the former "states" of Kosovo) and one article for Kosovo summarizing the region through the ages, not that hard Chandlertalk16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see "Proposal to merge from Kosovo (geopolitical region)" for the differences between China and Kosovo. Thanks. Beam (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a informed consensus. There was not unanimous agreement, and there is never going to be. If unanimity is the standard, I could just as easily ask why you merged the articles again without my agreement? Superm401 - Talk01:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Consequences
After undoing the split, Bogdangiusca nominated Kosovo (geopolitical region) for deletion, saying it is a POV fork. Of course, under the split there was no Kosovo (geopolitical region) (it was just a redirect to Kosovo). However, he still blames the split for the continued existence of the article, which is ridiculous.
As I predicted, Kosovo is dedicated to the Republic of Kosovo, having been moved from Republic of Kosovo. The Albanian partisans will probably attempt to leave it this way permanently, endorsing the RoK point of view. Superm401 - Talk01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the best way to get rid of the problem, otherwise a lot of people would lose a lot of time doing a lot of useless things instead working constructive on the article. We should work together, not against each other. Thank you, Bogdan! :-) --Tubesship (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
your main involvement here so far has been wasting people's time, Tubesship. Ah, and insulting them while doing it. dab(𒁳)12:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to stripe that comment of Tubesship. ;))) Just joking. You've been far from polite with me, as even observed by other users, who advised me to take action against you (which I didn't, because I don't want to be harassing newbies - you need a lot of time to actually get adapted to the Wikipedia). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This was actually a good idea. Maybe now we'll may have a clear/official notion of what the community thinks about the split. Hopefully with not so much drama. Húsönd14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Drama, which apparently I'm a participant in, I just dislike people making a change (three times now) without ANY consensus, and even worse claiming a consensus. Beam (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually this article will not endorse a biased POV. It will be NPOV. Please help us in achieving this, thank you. Beam (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Superm401, you are wrong. It is in no way a terrible but a good solution and it is the only solution. Please accept all the facts written here. Like them or not, they are facts and it has nothing to do with endorsing anything because the fact do not need any endorsing, it needs just mentioning. So stop calling the mentioning of facts POV just because you dislike it. The fact is, Kosovo is a state and it should have an article named Kosovo. --Mustafa Mustamann (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Locator map
Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion
What is the point of showing the extent of the European Union in the locator map? The Republic of Kosovo isn't in the EU, nor is it likely to become a candidate anytime soon. dab(𒁳)12:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
click to see <insert insult about other editor here>
Because people know where the EU is, hence where a country in that area of the globe is in relation to the EU is helpful. Beam (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
{{huh}}? How about "people know where Europe is"? I am sorry, but you do not seem to be making any sense, at all. dab(𒁳)12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
EU as in the European Union, or Europe. I think Europe itself helps people know where it is, why would you remove it? If you simply mean the designation of the Union than that's fine. Beam (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
how about highlighting the Balkans, as in Image:Kosovo in Balkans.png, seeing that Kosovo actually is in the Balkans, while it has no particular relation to the EU. Hell, the EU doesn't even have a position wrt the RoK's status. dab(𒁳)14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Italy helps I guess, but a little more zoomed out would be best. What does its geographic location have to do with Kosovos independence? Beam (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Beam, I understand each lexeme you are using. I also grant you your statements do parse grammatically. It's just that they are devoid of sense. I ask you, why is the EU highlighted, and you tell me "because people know where the EU is". People also tend to know where Ireland is. Is that any reason to highlight Ireland in, say, the locator map of Switzerland? Your comments here as in the sections above strike me as complete non sequiturs. dab(𒁳)14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree buddy. If you read what I said above, I have no problem with the actual Union designation removed, however I'll reiterate that Europe is usually well known as far as geographic location, and Kosovo's relation geographically to Europe is a good way for the average lay person to know where it is. Again, I have no problem with the map you just posted, a little zoomed out would be preferable imho. Just to be sure, I'll state this again: I don't think the Union needs to be highlighted. While extra information like that doesn't hurt, I don't see it as necessary. Beam (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
never mind, buddy. Seeing that you were "freaking confused" because "your account was deleted" as a reaction to the speedy deletion of Beamathan sort of indicates the shape of the problem here. dab(𒁳)14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Holy crap... just holy crap. You completely ignored what I said to make a comment on my misunderstanding of my user page? Really. Now that is an indication of a shape of your problem, most definitely. Are you just giving up your claim of non sequitur, or is it more "confusion" on my part? Beam (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
my dear boy. You confused the EU with the European continent from the beginning. You never even began to understand the point of this section. Yet you had to keep spamming this already troubled page. Yes, I suggest you tend to be subject to "confusion". In a bad way. Please try to contribute in an area on which you have some actual knowledge, and try to actually read statements (if necessary out loud, slowly), before posting replies. thanks. dab(𒁳)14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet again, you seem not to take your own advice. If you read what I have suggested in this section I see no way that you make the comments you have. Again, read what I have said. Please. This could avoid further situations of you acting as you are. Honestly, I've said that the map you suggested is fine. What more do you want?
from above, within this section: I'll reiterate that Europe is usually well known as far as geographic location, and Kosovo's relation geographically to Europe is a good way for the average lay person to know where it is. Again, I have no problem with the map you just posted, a little zoomed out would be preferable imho. Just to be sure, I'll state this again: I don't think the Union needs to be highlighted. While extra information like that doesn't hurt, I don't see it as necessary. /from above, within this section
Don't take this the wrong way, but could you indent properly please? i.e. one more colon than the previous comment. Thanks BalkanFever14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
Let's get to the major problem. The Republic of Kosovo is a partially-recognized state recognized by 35 countries including the United States, Japan, most of the European Union, Turkey, and Canada. States which aren't even recognized often have their own articles yet here the Republic of Kosovo does not. What that means is people are trying to make this article under Kosovo the article on the Republic of Kosovo and several opposing a rename or split are actually giving that as their reason. However this is pushing a POV. Many countries around the world consider Kosovo to be a province of Serbia. Trying to make this article about both leads to edit wars as people with competing POVs think their side isn't getting a fair shake or think their view is simply the one which is factual and so it is in fact neutral to have that POV dominate the article.
The reality is the Republic of Kosovo is seen as a distinctly separate entity from Kosovo by Serbia, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Mexico among others. Kosovo to them is a province of Serbia under UN administration and the Republic of Kosovo is an illegal entity. There is an article on the Republic of Kosova which was an unrecognized state yet the Republic of Kosovo recognized by 35 countries does not get its own article.
This is overall a travesty and a mess. There should be an article on the Republic of Kosovo, but not titled Kosovo as that implies the two are the same, which is a POV. I was hoping that while pro-Kosovo editors resisted a split of the two articles they would accept simply renaming this article. Yet it seems they stubbornly want to push their POV that Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo are the same thing. They're not. Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo are two distinct entities as there is not a universal or near universal international consensus that they are the same entity. Since various legal agreements consider Kosovo a province of Serbia this conflict can not be ignored.
Also we can not ignore the fact other entities with no recognition even unrecognized entities with no territory have their own articles yet the Republic of Kosovo which governs a large portion of the territory it claims and is recognized by dozens of nations is not given its own article. So it needs its own article, trying to incorporate it in an article on the region of Kosovo simply won't work and will only lead to POV-pushing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't need it's article. We simply present all the facts. For the fifteenth time something like: Kosovo declares independence, some countries disapprove, some approve, the UN has reacted like this, the EU (european union for DBACH) reacted like this, Serbia is going to the ICJ, and that's that. Use two infoboxes, whatever you have to do to have 1 article. There is no need to split it unless you just can't work with others. Through cooperation I think we can produce 1 concise article. Beam (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but I think you should look at many who are opposing even a simple rename and their reasoning. Most of them have said plainly they support Kosovo's independence and quite a few say the article should stay because "there's only one Kosovo, the Republic of Kosovo" which brings serious questions of neutrality. The proposal is more than just a neutrality issue because right now we have a country recognized by 35 other countries and yet it doesn't have its own article, which is unprecedented on Wikipedia. Even most unrecognized states have their own article including the previous unrecognized state in Kosovo, Republic of Kosova. There has to be a separate article because this would otherwise be unfair.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't give a crap about fairness. 1 article is the right way to do this. Serbs, Albanians need to work with me, the neutral one, to do this. I say splitting is quitting. Beam (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You do not get to make the decisions and claiming that you're the "neutral one" seemingly implying no one else is neutral is not helping. Also most of the people here are neither Serb or Albanian. You don't have to be a certain race to be biased. It's also not about quitting. The Republic of Kosovo is a unique entity which should have its own article just like so many other partially-recognized or declared states but for now the only neutral way to give it its own article is if that article is titled Republic of Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
We have to keep in mind what is in the best interest of the reader, because this is whom Wikipedia should serve, not us the writers. The reader wants to be informed about what is going on in this state that he can find nowadays in every news, so he wants to be informed what kind of state this is and therefore wants also to know about the history of this of this new born state, about his culture, his language and so on, when typing in Kosovo, because without this background he would not be able to understand what and why things are like they are and therefore let us merge and delete "Kosovo (geopolitical region)", please. --Tubesship (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That's why I suggested Kosovo being a disambiguation page so people typing in Kosovo would be able to look and say, "ah this is what I want" and if they're interested in a more comprehensive history they can look at other links. No article on any country or region has the complete history. In fact, this article provides much more of the history than other articles of its kind. Someone typing in Kosovo would likely see either a disambiguation page which would have Republic of Kosovo at the top or see at the top of the article "this is an article about the region of Kosovo for the partially-recognized state see Republic of Kosovo." This is an online information source so it's fairly easy to go from one page to another in seconds. Anyone wanting information on the Republic of Kosovo is likely to be disappointed by this article because it doesn't really talk much about it though seems to be about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I think they just want one article on Kosovo. There can be of course more detailed articles like History of Kosovo, Declaration of Independence, etc.. I was obviously joking when I said I was the only neutral one here. But it's close. ;) I'm starting to run out of energy for this cause. 1 main Kosovo article seems the most legit way to do this.Beam (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
We have a separate article on pretty much every unrecognized or partially-recognized state here on Wikipedia. The Republic of Kosovo is the only partially-recognized state which does not have its own article while the unrecognized state in Kosovo prior to this Republic of Kosova does have its own article. In a sense not having a separate article is biased against Kosovo, but if this article is basically made into the article on Republic of Kosovo then it's biased against Serbia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool, you said KosovA. ;-) Nevertheless you are distorting facts as nobody wants to take away the article Kosova from the Republic of Kosova but you and your companions like Superm and dab. Maybe you should just stay away from articles related to Kosova if you hate Kosova that much that you want to take the Republic out of the article. Uhm, and please stop distorting facts. Thanks. --Tubesship (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Me, myself too think the readers want one main article about Kosova and this should contain the infobox about the Republic and the flag of the Republic of Kosova. Thank you for your patience and endurance, dear Beam! --Tubesship (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo and Serbia article
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
This both aticel must be reconstructit paralel. Other ways English Wikipedia is Confuse, Contradior of here self.
You have 36 states thate recotnez Kosovo, this 36 states don´t regotnaze the old borders of Serbia. Now, Serbia can choic to be acept this chanches from 36 states or, this states dont rekotnaze Serbia anymore.
We can´t have two recotnesed states from one state in one territory. This is confuse, and is saying nothing for the reader. With this english wikipedia is going to be POV. POV is not iporten only for one article, but for WIKIPEDIA at all.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
In Kosovo article you have a mape of Kosovo State and in Serbian article Serbian with old borders. I am only reader of this projeck, what sholld I think about english Wikipedia?????
You are working in internet, and internet is existing only beacose hase adresses. In, english wiki this adresees confuse. Each article is linkin with outher article. And your POV in Kosovo article is not POV in Serbia article, and your POV in Serbia article is not POV in Kosovo article. IS WIKIPEDIA POV--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
you may have heard that the territory is under dispute, and we are doing our best to document that dispute. The Republic of Kosovo, the subject of this article, is one of the parties in this dispute. dab(𒁳)10:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have heard thate the Teritory of Serbia is under dispute. You can do nothing at all, if you don´t see the this article as part of Wikipedia. Everything, what youu are doing is thate you are sepereting this article from a project.
Upss!! This aricel is not a bout teritory, but about Kosovo, with your logic you can say thate it is a Serbian teritory. And I say you thate both, Kosovo and Serbia are dispute'. You are controvers, with yourself.
The start point it is thate two goverment´s have under there resposebility one teritory (recotnesed from many members of the UN). The UN see Kosovo and Serbia as teritory als dispute. This is good for serbs, at firs, but in other side Serbia is protesting and not refusen thate the members of the UN are regotnesen Govermend in Prishtina. Till Serbia is seating together with this states in UN (36 states), Serbia is acceping this rouls of UN, and for thate Serbia is disputed like Kosovo. Beacose you have Serbia in old borers and Serbia in new borders. If Serbia dont wount to be accepty from 36 states in new borders, they must go out from UN. --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not done - I see no reason why this information needs to be updated after each new recognition. In the introduction it says "as of March 5", so that statement is still accurate. I don't see where in the infobox needs to be updated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, but in future please put the editprotected template down here so it's easier to tell what you want done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
