Jump to content

Talk:2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

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

History section

[edit]

I don't have a burning interest on this, but as I was browsing this article, it became apparent to me that much of the introductory section would probably fit better in a new section entitled "Background" or something similar. I thought I'd toss that on here in case others who are more interested in this article agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.35.171 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent

[edit]

In a number of wikipedia articles on this subject, the wording "precedent" is used (e.g. 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence). In the media, it is widely addressed that some countries fear that Kosovo's declaration of independence is a precedent. In this article, the wording is "It is thus a precedent, affecting other contested territories in Europe and non-European parts of the former Soviet Union, such as Chechnya (which does have republic status).". This is not factual: it is a fear, an opinion, a statement, but not a fact. The text of Kosovo's declaration states that Kosovo is a special case " ... Observing that Kosovo is a special case arising from Yugoslavia's non-consensual breakup and is not a precedent for any other situation, Recalling the years of strife and violence in Kosovo, that disturbed the conscience of all civilized people, ... " (source: Full text of Kosovo declaration retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7249677.stm ). Proposal: change text, but do address the issue as the fear for making a precedent explains the behaviour of a number of countries in recognising Kosovo. Klungel (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Agree. Jawohl (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1990 declaration of independence

[edit]

Should we take to granted that the 1990 self-declaration of independence was not conducted by official Kosovan institutions, but rather an underground 'shadow' parliament? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually conducted by 114 of the 123 Albanian members of the Kosovo Assembly on the steps of the Assembly building, from which they had been locked out by Serbian security forces. I suppose there might be a question about the legality/legitimacy of their decision (obviously Serbia disputed it and I have no idea if they were quorate or procedurally correct) but it seems clear that it was carried out by an official institution, albeit one that had just been deposed by the Serbian government. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But wasn't there a "legal" parliament? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was outright independence which the Kosovar Albanians declared in 1990; I think it declared itself a republic separate from Serbia within the Yugoslav federation. I'm sure that was what it was but I may be mistaken. Evlekis (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis. Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
It was outright independence, hence Albania's act of diplomatic recognition. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to raise some objections regarding this future article. While overall not as bad as it could be, it does have some serious flaws:

  • Term "Republic of Kosova" is used, which is not common term in the English language.
  • Statement "Kosovo's declaration of independence was extremely controversial, as it was opposed by Serbia and its main ally Russia" creates the impression that it is only Serbia and Russia that oppose the independence, while in fact, for example, currently most members of the UN Security Council oppose it.
  • Simlarly, "Serbia and Russia both regard Kosovo's declaration of independence as illegal and its recognition as a violation of international law" also creates the impression that it is only Serbia and Russia view it as illegal, while in fact I don't know of any entity that view it as legal.
  • "Serbia has likewise vowed to oppose" - the annulment of the independence should be mentioned somewhere, this is probably a good place.
  • "Serbia itself attempted to change the demographic balance in the region by settling Serbs and persuading Albanians and Turks to emigrate to Turkey" - if this is mentioned I see no reason why would mass ethnic cleansing of Serbs during 19th century be mentioned too. Similarly, somewhere after "from 1974 to 1989 it enjoyed very extensive rights of self-government", persecution of Serbs during the period could be mentioned too. Nikola (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of Albania

[edit]

Add that most of the flags shown on TV are of Albania. --Leladax (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising - the Albanian flag is ubiquitous in Kosovo. I should mention, though, that it's seen more as a symbol of the Albanian people than Albania as a state (it's much older than the Albanian state). -- ChrisO (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Kosovo will be a "beyond-territorial" settlement for both Albania and United States, which have interestingly good relations in recent years. This partnership would decrease the power of UN on international affairs and that of Serbia in the local conjuncture. We can understand it from the TV broadcasts which show people carrying flags of Albania, United States and Great Britain in Kosovo. I also started to wonder what will happen to the nation-states of the world because nearly all of them have different ethnic communities living on their territory. Deliogul (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if they have organized independence likely minorities, then they aren't truly nation states. 128.227.97.224 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries that have recognized Kosovo

[edit]

Just a suggestion... It would be nice to see a list of countries that have recognized Kosovo, sorted by time of recognition. Uni4dfx (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In due course - it's a bit early at the moment, as nobody has granted recognition yet... -- ChrisO (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Uni4dfx (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be created though, with a brief description and criteria for inclusion (need 1 source or something). Hobartimus (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BBC says that the US and the UK should recognise it on Monday. That is to say, the UK will recognise it just as soon as the US gives it instruction to do so. But tomorrow, it should be official here. Evlekis (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis. Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
The reason why no country has recognised it yet is because it's still a Sunday in many countries, or otherwise early Monday. Parliaments and similar bodies don't tend to work on Sundays (the Kosovan one was an extraordinary session) and there was no reason recognising independence was so urgent as to require them to work. It seems silly to suggest the UK is going to wait for the US's instructions since 1) They would have already receive any instruction, the declaration wasn't exactly a complete surprise 2) Any instruction would surely come from the White House who could have easily issued an instruction today, were it not for the fact they surely would have done so a long time ago... Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to take the "instruction from USA" comment too seriously, I never suggested inserting it into an article; if you'd lived in the UK, you might have been familiar with an ongoing informal phenomenon that Britain is a U.S-puppet. Nobody means it seriously or offensively and I certianly didn't; it's just a passing gag in response to the UK very often voting the same way as the States. Nothing more. Evlekis (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis. Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
Done. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that as it stands, I don't think any country has recognised Kosovo. I expect the first few countries to recognise Kosovo will be Oceanic countries. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're going by the clock, but if you lived on a tropical island would you go to work early on Monday?--Lemmey (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are countries in Oceania which are not tropical islands. For example, Australia has indicated its intention to recognise Kosovo: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/18/2165197.htm --JocularConversation (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has indicated that he has begun the processes needed for Australia to recognise Kosovo, i added this to the article and cited the AAP article sourced from www.news.com.au.Zepher25 (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"President of Northern Cyprus Mehmet Ali Talat saluted the independence of Kosovo and hopes that the state is respected and assisted, in staunch opposition to the position of the Republic of Cyprus." Let's not forget that there is no internationally recognised Northern Cyprus state nor a Kossovarian one.And let's hope for the best cause Pandora's box has been opened again.--Thanatos|talk 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expected/supported - difference between main page and introduction

[edit]

The introduction states "Kosovo's second declaration of independence is expected to be widely supported by foreign states including most European Union member states and the United States." but the main page says "Kosovo's parliament unanimously endorses a unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia with the support of many Western governments". Has it actually been given declarations of support or is it just a general expectation? --Tombomp (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this business, it can be taken as red that expectation invariably leads to deliverance. I recall no time when a country was expected to recognise something; vote a certain way; make an announcement etc. and then surprise everyone in the last minute. Not at this magnitude anyhow. The writing was on the wall. Kosovo's civil administration has been governed by an internal parliament, its defence has been conducted by international forces whose mandate has been to repel the presence of any security forces loyal to Belgrade; so when Hashim Thaçi says that he will declare independence, then such he will, as we saw today. This morning, he had only been expected to do so. We all knew what that meant. So the international governments of the main forces which have been present in Kosovo are very unlikely to back down after having given the independent Kosovo proposal a public thumbs-up. When Croatia and Slovenia parted with Yugoslavia in June 1991, they quickly put their plans on hold. By October, they had redeclared; were recognised by January 1992 and soon after, they joined the UN. The developments here seem to be happening a lot faster, and all the indications are that Kosovo will join the UN and other organisations quicker than people realise it. Evlekis (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis. Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
Actually it still seems fairly doubtful Kosovo will join the UN, since I believe such a matter comes before the Security Council and Russia have veto power there. However it does seem likely that many countries will recognise Kosovan independence Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere in between. The declaration was only able to be made currently because Western governments had signaled their support ahead of time, through positive public statements and indication that they planned to recognize independence if it were declared. However they haven't yet officially recognized it (that's expected on Monday). So I think it's fair to say that it was done "with the support of many Western governments", if you take "support" to mean something broader than formal, declared support. --Delirium (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Pristina government, around 100 countries have said they'll recognise Kosovo. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several notifications (regarding the history bit)

[edit]

1. What's the point in the "for some time" bit?

2. There were Christian Albanians and very large populations of Moslem Serbs.

3. The notion of the Montenegrins is very controversial. They emerged with the recognition of Montenegrin distinct nationality in 1945 and in the censuses of 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991 (former?) Serbs that are descendants of Montenegrin colonists were registered as Montenegrins. However after the collapse of the Communist regime, there has never been any notion of a Montenegrin identity in Kosovo, and parallel with the Serb national (re?) awakening amongst the Montenegrins, it included in the 21st all (without any [known] exception) nationally-declared Montenegrins in Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Kosovo

[edit]

Did the declaration say anything about North Kosovo? It seems to me in any case the article should discuss this more since it's an important part of the background. I suspect there are many people wh don't know that there is a part of what is formally known as Kosovo that is not controlled by the newly independent Kosovan government. Especially since Serbia specifically mentioned increasing protections for the parts of Kosovo they still control, mentioning it will help explain what Serbia was referring to Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC as first source

[edit]

Its anti-Serbian bias on the matter is more than obvious even to non-Serbs. I don't think it should be the very first source on the matter. --Leladax (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrations in Belgrade

[edit]

We could not the reaction from Belgrade. There are numerous demonstrations across the city, police is all around. They were mostly acted against the US and Slovenian embassies. There are injured people and a severe destruction across the streets. Serbian TV also stated that Brazil's embassy has just been demolished. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brazilian embassy wasn't demolished, the ambassador's Mercedes was. If you call a few toppled dumpsters "severe destruction", I'd have to agree with you. 200 hooligans does not make a revolution (and idiots are a global disease). Years of experience taught me not to trust television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.135.2 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags picture is not representative

[edit]

90% of the flags shown yesterday on international TV were the flags of Albania. --Leladax (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the new Kosovo flag was only adopted yesterday... David (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Albania borders Kosovo and there were mass celebrations in Albania; this is information of importance. Concealing it with a completely unrepresentative picture of three flags (and let's all laugh, a flag representing EU, not even 1% were using it), can be considered an attempt to inflict propaganda on wikipedia.--Leladax (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new flag was revealed the day the UDI was declared. How could have people had this flag if no one knew about it? Jawohl (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia

[edit]

I removed the reference to Indonesia having the world's largest Muslim population since although true, in the context of the article it's misleading. From what I can tell, countries with large Muslim populations are generally expected to recognise Kosovo. Indonesia is one of a number of exceptions. According to sources, their reason for not recognising Kosovo is primarily because they have a number of seperatists movements, similarly to Sri Lanka, Spain, Greece, Cyprus etc (who have also rejected the declaration). So they think recognising a unilateral seperatist movement is therefore a bad idea. If the article provided sufficient background to explain why them having a large Muslim population was relevant, then it would be fine but simply mentioning it without explaination, it's irrelevant and potentially misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


== Reactions ==http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence&action=edit&section=12

On international reactions: China is worried about the future peace and stability in the balkan region as a result of this... act. http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/243012.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction of Canada should also be noted. Fear by the national government over the sovereignty of a state has plagued Canada for a long time. Kosovo sovereignty raises issues of Quebec sovereignty. This is a link from the CBC outlining governmental fear and ethnic Albanian reaction: http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/080217/n021746A.html Please update.


Phoebe Yeh, spokesperson for the Republic of China's (Taiwan) Foreign Ministry stated that, "We congratulate the Kosovo people on their winning independence and hope they enjoy the fruits of democracy and freedom. [...] Democracy and self-determination are the rights endorsed by the United Nations. The Republic of China always supports sovereign countries' seeking democracy, sovereignty and independence through peaceful means." i think this is total unnecessary, the status of republic of china(taiwan) itself is disputed, how can it "recongnize" another country.[1] For more info if u read chinese [2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.48.143 (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If you have been reading wikipedia at all you would know that this isn't an issue. Taiwan (Republic of China) is a recognized state under wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore communist propaganda does not count as sources. Mods please change text regarding "...Phoebe Yeh, spokesperson for the Republic of China's (Taiwan) (a state not recognised by the UN) Foreign Ministry..." it is unneccesary, does not add anything to an article about Kosovo's independence, and if we were to keep it, I think it would only be fair to list after every country whether they too were part of the U.N. or not. Also, I also dispute whether China's retort back has anything to do with this article either. There comment is directed at Taiwan whereas Taiwan's is directed to Kosovo, the subject of this article. Vinniereno (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


In general, Kosovo has been recognized by countries like America and France which have a combination of classical liberal ideals and stable, homogeneous populations. Kosovo's independence has been condemned by countries which are worried about the destabilizing force of secession within their own borders or regions. That is, the national aspirations of most of the population of the tiny "country" of Kosovo are being backed by those who have no experience or stake in secession and civil war. Meanwhile, the opposition consists of nations who are terrified that the precedent set by this insignificant Balkan backwater will destroy or destabilize their regions leading to civil wars, border wars, and wars of secession. And, of course this pseudo-state is located within historic Serbia, and has produced aggrieved Serbs on both side of the putative border, as well as stirring up anti-Western sentiment in an already bellicose Russia. On the other hand, at least we Americans will have ONE European country where we are liked. 67.163.163.28 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highway

[edit]

There should be some text on this: [4] Contralya (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes on the map...

[edit]

Some notes about Image:Kosovo recognition.png:

  • Shouldn't Serbia be marked in gray, instead of green?
  • Tasmania, part of Australia, is marked in gray, while the rest of Australia is marked in green. I suspect that something is wrong here.
  • I read somewhere (maybe here on Wikipedia) that Turkey has recognised the independence of Kosovo. If that's the case, Turkey's colour needs to be adjusted.
  • Some French DOM-TOMs are marked in gray, while metropolitan France is marked in dark green. I suspect that the whole French Republic should be marked in dark green.
  • The Ryūkyū Islands and Tsushima are marked in gray, while the rest of Japan is marked in light green.
  • Açores, Madeira, Islas Balearas, Plazas de soberanía and Mallorca are marked in colours differing from those of Spain and Portugal. This ought to be wrong.
  • Some UK dependencies ([[Falkland Islands etc.) have colours differing from that of UK proper. Is this intentional?
  • Shetland is part of the UK, so it should have the same colour as the rest of the UK!
  • Some Russian island north of Siberia are wrongly coloured.
  • The colours of Netherlands Antilles and Aruba should probably be the same as those of Netherlands proper.
  • Crete is part of Greece, and should thus be Greece-coloured. And it seems that some Greek islands off Turkey's coast are Turkey-coloured.
  • Alandia should have the same colour as the rest of Finland.
  • Gotlandia should have the same colour as the rest of Sweden.
  • Svalbard should have the same colour as the rest of Norway.
  • Some Italian islands have the wrong colour. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I had fixed some of those problems already on the Commons version, but it turns out there's already Image:Kosovo relations.png, so requested delete of above. Kelvinc (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Kosovo relations.png": wrong colour of Faroe Islands, Gotlandia and Bornholm. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
And Tsushima Islands, Shetland etc... (212.247.11.155 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Well let's concentrate on "Kosovo relations.png". It's not hard to update it. Just copy the image file and use a paint program. Kelvinc (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotlandia, Bornholm, Azores, Madeira, Tsushima fixed. The islands north of the UK are the Faroes, not the Shetlands: as Danish possessions light blue is correct. Cyprus is now corrected partitioned. Kelvinc (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a Europe issue can we get a second map with a close up of the Europe. It likely has the most weight there with Russia - Balkans- east/west Europe.--Lemmey (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the meeting of EU on Kosovo's independence in Brussels, Bulgaria is among the 6 countries from EU that won't recognize Kosovo's independence. Unfortunately my source is only in Bulgarian. --161.3.1.42 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error on map

[edit]

Please note that the black patch on the map which is supposed to represent Kosovo is NOT Kosovo but Montenegro. This is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.246.10 (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of succession

[edit]

According to this article and the BBC, "Belgrade has said Kosovo's declaration violates international law." Does anyone know what aspect of int'l law they are basing this on? Maybe a section on the declaration of independence as it relates to international law would help maintain NPOV? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the UN principle of inviolability of borders213.131.7.83 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's the UN Charter (Article 2), the CSCE Helsinki Final Act (Article IV), the "Badinter Borders principle" and UNSCR 1244. --El Cazangero (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this should be included in the article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (though far less relevant as not an international treaty, but rather internal). I've disposed most of it over at User talk:Envoy202#1244 UNSCR so if anyone is interested, most/all of it is there. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you've made your own argument. It would be more appropriate to detail the Serbian government's legal argument in 2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Serbian_reaction. Superm401 - Talk 14:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Serbian government's argument or my own, but a general one rather. It deals with both supporters and opponents of Kosovo independence, and the sources are European most legal experts (Presidents of Constitutional Courts of Western Europe, the Brussels European Center,...); most of the sources are non-Serbian IMHO. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

Regarding the nomenclature, say, of Priština, this is a Serbian name. In fact, it has been agreed that the official languages of Kosovo are Albanian followed by Serbian. Therefore, the name Prishtina should be written in Albania. Follow this link for my complete suggestion: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Kosovo, the newborn state.--Arbër (Let's Talk) 10:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, place names should be in English. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, in English, but which name? The article, quite correctly, gives three variants in the definition, without suggesting the merits of any of them. On the other hand, Wikipedia naming guidelines stipulate using the common English name, if it exists, or the name used by the entity itself (a city government on its webpage, in this case) in the English language. Accordingly, since there is no English common name, other than the Serbian name rendered without diacritics in inferior typesetting contexts, it remains by default that we use the name the city webpage uses. In fact, the website consistently uses "Prishtina" on its English-language webpage. I hope this helps while we await the formal adoption of the specific Wikipedia Kosovo naming policy (which also stipulates using "Prishtina", so no change would be involved if we adopt it on generic grounds as motivated here.) --Mareklug talk 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody put a "citation needed" on the February 21st events...

[edit]

The figures are all approximate values, because no official figures have been given. The embassy being nearly demolished was shown on EuroNews, CNN, BBC, and on our local TV stations, all live, from the scene. No chance on citation there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan 410 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of stories from the websites of the news orgs you listed. You just have to find the right ones. I've already added one citation. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Superfan 410 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and Serbia

[edit]

I have put the following notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement:

The 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence a few days ago touched off (or reignited) a ferocious edit war on Kosovo that spilled over to Serbia, the reason being that some asserted that Kosovo was an independent state, while others said it wasn't. It is my understanding that Kosovo was already under Arbcom probation at the time (whatever that means), and that Serbia was likely under the same probation, because of earlier assertations along the same lines. Currently, both pages are protected for a week. I'm not at all sure that this was the right thing to do (I am NOT an admin, so don't ask me), and I'm not at all sure that a week's protection is enough (or too much, for that matter). What says Arbcom? — Rickyrab | Talk 06:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that out of concern that the Serb/Albanian/Kosovar edit war was getting out of hand again. Please stick to NPOV. Thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the maps showing Kosovo in Europe

[edit]

I think that the map



is more neutral than



Because the latter is more adequate to represent sub-national entities, like



Independent of any kind of opinions, the situation of Kosovo is, completely de facto and partially de jure, of much more independence than Bosnia's Republika Srpska. I think it is better to show Kosovo as a separate entity inside Europe, and not as a province of Serbia (which is not the real situation on the ground since 1999 and even more in 2008), IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epcott (talk • contribs) 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree until the final status is solved. Look at Israel and Palestine.Mike Babic (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy photo

[edit]

The source for the embassy photo, Yahoo News/AP, explicitly says the attackers were Serbs. Unless you have a contrary source, don't remove that fact. Superm401 - Talk 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the description bellow is better…

[edit]
Significance of Kosovo to the Serbian Orthodox Church

…since the map is clearly an ecclesiastical, not a political one. Serbia (the country) and Serbian Orthodox Church (the religious group) are two separate entities, at least in theory…


This MAP needs to be deleted immediately considering that this is Kosova's DOI, it serves absolutely no factual importance and is only pushing a Serbian POV agenda. Also the borders (with Montenegro) is completely inaccurate. If this map can relate to Serbia's reaction, which I checked, than you could include it in this article but since this map is not mentioned or tied to the article it is only taking up space and its not nPOV. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction maps

[edit]

Since there arose a protracted and so far insoluble controversy over map content, International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article's editors have settled on a map which shows only the official recognitions in dark green, and renders all other states gray. This happened long time ago, and I just now included this map as the main one in the appropriate section which references that article with its {{main}} template. I also included the other viewpoint in the map controversy, without removing the one which was pictured here all along. I gave them both a neutral and factual common heading, in an invisible table arranged vertically. The two map legends differ substantially albeit say roughtly similar things, and reflect the legends on Commons that accompany these maps. All three maps are work in progress, and are being updated as situation warrants. If the recognition controversy ever gets resolved, with the situation clarified objectively, there'll be fewer maps to show. --Mareklug talk 09:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please include only verified information re: other countries' reaction

[edit]

I have removed some of the countries listed, as well as the claim that 32 countries officially rejected this declaration of independence, because there are no sources that would support this content. Specifically, there is no source indicating that 32 countries officially rejected Kosovo's independence. In fact, far fewer have. There is also no basis for writing, that 23 other countries expressed concern or desire for further negotiations, since, again there is no source that supports this claim as cast. Several countries have made a range of suggestions, phrased in various ways, amounting to wishing for Serbia and Kosovo to keep talking, but these suggestions range from explicitly having them negotiate as equals, or using the old framework: as Serbia vs. Serbia's province. Its best to resist injecting unsubstantiated claims and making a misleading impression amounting to introducing a bias in reporting as well as original research. --Mareklug talk 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


pristina letters ?

[edit]

declaration of independence was written in PRISTINA font, which is standard for programs like Photoshop. That font was developed by Albanian emigrants in the USA. Can anyone confirm this?

www.free-fonts.com/cgi-bin/fsearch.pl?search=pristina www.myfonts.com/fonts/linotype/pristina/ www.fontstock.net/search/0/font%20pristina.html 213.149.105.21 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

[edit]

Here And discuss it there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Albanian bakers

[edit]

An interesting to add would be that ethnic Albanian bakers, which are numerically significant in other Balkan countries (I can confirm this in my town, Zagreb), celebrated the independence by giving away products in their bakeries. It was featured in Croatian news, but I can't cite any sources as I don't remember. 89.201.132.155 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the map of contry have recognize Kosovo is Malwi

[edit]

In the map of contry have recognize Kosovo is Malwi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Malawi has recognized Kosovo, and therefore appears on the map. What exactly is your point? — Emil J. 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship of declaration

[edit]

The question of who exactly issued the declaration and in what capacity was and evidently remains much disputed. For neutrality, we must be precise and balanced. It is not enough to state one thing and then say the ICJ found otherwise. I shall edit accordingly.--Rallette (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military action against Croatia?

[edit]

"When Croatia recognized Kosovo as an independent republic,Russian spokesman in the nato Drnitrij Rogozin said that they could and will use force if Croatia doesn't cancel their recognizing of Kosovo. However,no Russian military action was ever taken" [part]

Any sources on that? Some light googling I tried didn't help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rospaya (talk • contribs) 11:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MkativerataCCI (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting case to compare with

[edit]

BBC News - Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?--189.33.160.48 (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem

[edit]

Antidiskriminator, why have you cherrypicked a detail from a primary source - a court document - and put them in the lede? Is it because it skews the article in a certain direction? That is no way to get a neutral article. Reliable independent sources don't emphasise that point at all - did you know that? bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely because of the neutrality this text should be presented to the readers of the article. Neutrality of the court. "the Court did not require taking a position on whether or not international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence". Per BRD I reverted your bold removal of cited text. You should not edit war and revert me because it is BRD, not BRRD. Please revert yourself. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people keep on distorting the lede by inserting weasel wording from a primary source? bobrayner (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tag-teaming is quite obvious. Stop it. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a good read for you: Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Buttons (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Buttons, why have you cherrypicked a detail from a primary source - a court document - and put them in the lede? Is it because it skews the article in a certain direction? That is no way to get a neutral article. Reliable independent sources don't emphasise that point at all - did you know that? bobrayner (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bobrayer, why don't you take the time to actually address opposing views (as Antidiskriminator has done) instead of just repeating yourself over and over? Show some respect to fellow editors and stop treating them like idiots with your snarky, passive aggressive tone. Buttons (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This cherry picked addition to the introduction is also in violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Also a consensus must be achieved before controversial or potentially controversial content is included; edit warring will not achieve this. I would like to remind users that this article is primarily about the Declaration of Independence, not the ICJ verdict. IJA (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text added to the article is not controversial. The consensus, based on arguments, is necessary for both exclusion and inclusion. The ICJ verdict is directly related to the topic of this article, so argument that this article is not about the verdict is not valid. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is contraversial because people are contesting it FACT. It is being contested on the grounds of it being cherry picked information which deserves no place in the introduction of this article as it gives Undue Weight. What I said about the ICJ was a reminder, not an argument. Buttons is going into far too mcuh detail re the ICJ on the introduction of an article about the Declaration of Independence. Also I never said that the ICJ wasn't related. IJA (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Nobody has ever contested that text you insist to be removed from this article is part of ICJ verdict. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are obviously misunderstood. "Nobody has ever contested that text you insist to be removed from this article is part of ICJ verdict." I don't even know what that means, it doesn't make sense. What is clear is that two users have contested the inclusion of cherry picked info. Another thing that is clear, there is no consensus to have it included in the intro either. IJA (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my comment was not understandable. I will simplify it: Either present sources for your claim that text added to the article is controversial and list of scholars who contested it, or restore the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about you present sources for your argument that it isn't controversial and list scholars who say it is neutral. IJA (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy issue is your argument: "It is contraversial because people are contesting it FACT." (diff). Either present sources for your controversy/contested position (list of scholars and their works) or restore the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ, I'm not saying it is controversial because the content is disputed (which you seem to think I'm saying), I'm saying it is a controversial edit because it is small cherry picked issue which deserves no place in the introduction of this relevant article. It is not necessary for this content to be included in the introduction, it is more suitable in the main body of the article in the ICJ section. It isn't vital for the reader/ audience to be informed of this issue in the introduction of an article titled "2008 Kosovo declaration of independence"; doing so would be purposely over emphasising a small issue (in context to this article) and would therefore be in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. That is why it is "controversial". IJA (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No sources to support your controversy claim - no valid argument to remove text from the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was controversial because it goes against WP:UNDUE and is overemphasing a minority issue re the wording of a question which has sweet FA to do with this article topic. IJA (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IJA, you clearly don't (or choose not to) understand what undue weight actually means if you think providing the entirety of the ICJ's opinion violates that rule. According to you and your tag-teaming partner, Bobrayner, as long as Kosovo independence is presented in a positive light, then its nice and neutral for the reader which is not only hypocritical by violates WP:NPOV. Buttons (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a minor thing which is suitable in the main text of the article but it isn't so important that it is required in the introduction of an article called "2008 Kosovo declaration of independence". The issue regarding the specific question which Serbia chose to submit to the ICJ has very little to do to with the "2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" and therefore is not necessary when introducing this topic to our readers and audience. It is more appropriate to include this issue in the main body of the article, not in the introduction itself. Including this issue in the introduction is overemphasising a point and is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. IJA (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your reasoning, then the ICJ's opinion should not be in the lead paragraph at all. Because including the courts finding that the UDI did not violate international law only, is also cherrypicking to skew the article in a certain direction. Fair enough? Buttons (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the ICJ shouldn't be in the lead, I'm saying the issue re Serbia's wording of the question shouldn't be in the lead as it isn't relevant when introducing the topic. IJA (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, see that's the sort of double standard I mentioned before that you and Bobrayner have made yourselves famous for. Buttons (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Issue re Serbia's choice of wording to the ICJ has nothing to do with Kosovo's Declation of independence. IJA (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with it since it was Serbia that asked the ICJ for its opinion in the first place. Buttons (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Issue re Serbia's choice of wording in the question it submitted to the ICJ has nothing to do with Kosovo's Declation of independence. IJA (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then the ruling should be removed from the lead because apparently, by your logic it has nothing to do with Kosovo's UDI. Buttons (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IJA is right. Serbia tried to get a legal ruling against the declaration of independence; Serbia failed; it's time to move on. The constant attempts to cherrypick little snippets of legalese from a primary source are shameful and embarrassing. bobrayner (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed information

[edit]

In the legality section, the article says that Serbia conquered Kosovo and Metohija in 1912 but that is a blatant lie and propaganda. Serbia liberated Kosovo and Metohija because it was conquered by the Ottoman empire from Serbia in 1455. Than there are some nonsense about the constitution on Serbia that are irrelevant to the reintegration of Kosovo and Metohija as a core part into the kingdom of Serbia and later after the WW1 and 1918 into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.164.170 (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got an evidence to back up your claim is a "lie" and "propaganda"? I'm sorry but at the time, over 75% of Kosovo's population were Albanians as per Serbia's own sources, they certainly didn't see this as a liberation, they saw it as swapping one Dictator (Ottoman Sultan) for another Dictator (Serbian King). The arrival of Serbian forces in Kosovo was not welcomed by the locals. When Serbia conquered Kosovo, Serbian forces massacred thousands of civilians throughout Kosovo which is well documented by Dimitrije Tucović, Leo Freundlich, Lazër Mjeda, Edith Durham and Leon Trotsky. Kosovo was never integrated into the Kingdom of Serbia, after 1912 it remained captured and disputed territory. The Kingdom of Serbia never got round to integrating it because of WW1. It was however integrated into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia after WW1. Shortly after WW1 the Colonisation of Kosovo process began where 1,000,000 to 450,000 Albanians were forcibly deported from Kosovo. It certainly doesn't sound like Kosovo was "liberated". You've provided no reliable sources to contest this, the current source which is by a reliable recognised authority and expert on the subject says it was conquered. "I don't like it" isn't a good enough argument to contest something on Wikipedia. As you've provided no sources I will remove the template. IJA (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a definition of the word Conquered - "overcome and take control of a place by military force". This is what precisely what happened, to say that it was "liberated" is POV. It is possible to liberate a place by conquering a place therefore "conquered" is a neutral phrase for this case. IJA (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Conquered" is most certainly not neutral, and the source used is Albanian-centric in that it is contrived to treat Kosovo as an Albanian-only entity with no regard for the wider region that the Balkan League sought to liberate by pushing the Ottomans out of Europe. Although "liberate" is clearly pro-Serbian if taking into account the heavy concentration of lands with 100% Albanian populations, it is definitely closer to the facts than conquest. Otherwise it would be said that all territories captured through war were acts of conquest, including those created from rebellions. The point is that nobody ever uses "conquered" to describe the Greek acquisition of the Epirus region or the earlier Montenegrin acquisition of Ulcinj despite the Albanian presence. Nobody uses it to describe the Serbian acquisition of non-Kosovan Macedonia which was initially annexed the same time as Kosovo. To qualify as conquest per definition it would need to be totally overcome externally, but when you look at rebellions such as the Kumanovo Uprising you clearly see that there was internal effort from within Kosovo to join the then-Principality of Serbia. In this case it is a liberation hands down. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, it was not the case that Albanians composed over 75% of Kosovo according to the Serbs' own sources, it was the other way around. Their own figures placed them at a maximum of 25% (slightly lower was precise). Albanians were a majority yes, but a slight one, just over a half. A full quarter was Bulgarian (as this is how people were declaring at the time) and the rest were made up of all sorts. Together Serbs and Bulgarians fought on the same side of the first Balkan War. This is because much of the territory of Kosovo then lay within today's Macedonia and the Macedonian ethnicity was in its infancy, the ideology not having spread. If you look at the statistics of the Skopje census of 1911, it gives a Slavic majority split between Serbs and Bulgarians. Their descendants identify as Macedonian, that is the way things change. Either way, even a 3:1 ratio is not a determining factor whether something is a conquest, it is whether it is universally accepted such as the conquests of South America when natives did not even know who these invaders were. The explanation provided in December is just a recount of Noel Malcolm's Guardian article which people have learnt to cite like a prayer. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are clear that it was a conquest. Does your definition of "liberation" include ethnic cleansing? Mine doesn't. bobrayner (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which RS? FkpCascais (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources "opine" that it was conquest based on the narrow arbitrary view of the authors in question, and not on any universal acceptance. Why even they concede that Serbs refer to it as "liberation". Do I call "ethnic cleansing" a liberation? No. But my point is that one cannot focus on those atrocities and on that premise suddenly ascribe the takeover as a conquest. To look at it from the other angle, one day those people were subjected to the Ottoman Empire and after the Balkan Wars, they were certainly free from that rule, so I could call that a liberation. But if one should resist the will of the new power then naturally one will succumb to the fate reserved for dissidents, that is the unfortunate way of the world. The arguments I have read here have said that the handover of Ottoman Empire to Serbia was merely a switch of dictators, Sultan to King. There are three observations I can make on that remark: the first is that Sultan and King were respectively heads of state in their entities and that in both Kingdom of Serbia and the Ottoman Empire there was a multi-party system in place with regular elections (see example); the second is that for Albania to have been successful in obtaining all of its proposed lands according to declaration in 1912 then it also would have subjected hundreds of thousands of non-Albanians to a monarchy; the third is that if the Serbian King is a dictator to one person, then he is a dictator to everyone, regardless of ethnicity. That answers the question I was posed. Now back to the article, I have not used the word "liberated" anywhere and I say this despite the even more reliable sources referring to every chapter in which Ottomans were pushed back over the course of the 1800s onward as a liberation, whether it be Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian or Montenegrin gains. As such, I do not believe I have made an inappropriate edit. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, when an reliable source fits what you want to say, it's a reliable source; but when it doesn't fit what you want to say, it's a "narrow arbitrary view of the authors in question". Understood.
There is only one "reliable source" that you are talking about and that is Kosovo: A Short History which has been read by countless people from the Balkan countries. There are things that can be drawn from such books, such as the Balkan War having taken place, the dates, the belligerents, the victor, the demographics and other statistics. There are also things that cannot be taken from such sources, namely anything that is simply the opinion of the author. Once he betrayed the notion that what he calls conquest other people called a liberation, it no longer became a fact but a point of view - which works two ways. I concur with a point made by another editor on this page which is that a military victory can be both conquest and liberation at the same time - after all, an enemy can be conquered and a population can be liberated, so the two terms are not true antonyms. Obviously in Libya's case it is a true case of both: Benghazi and the east managed to rid itself of Gaddafi's rule hands down, and supporters of Gaddafi were few on that side and therefore suffered atrocities at the hands of the NTC and their followers. The west of the country would not have been taken without the international air strikes, and as more and more regions fell, you eventually got to the Gaddafi strongholds where support for the NTC was non-existent. Whereas Tripoli did have a skeleton uprising in favour of the NTC (originally suppressed), towns such as Sirte and others only fell to the new regime after they were besieged and shelled. No rational person could describe a takeover that requires a siege (with nobody whatsoever fighting on the ground in their favour, unlike Sarajevo which had both ARBIH and Srpska forces within the beseiged city) as a liberation. Subsequently, all sources refer to the fall of western Libya as a conquest and even the regime cannot argue with that. I hope that answers your point. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there has been some confusion. Firstly, a range of reliable sources say that Kosovo was conquered. Secondly, this is about Kosovo, not Libya. I recognise your frustration at having to deal with reliable sources which don't fit your political beliefs; you have my sympathies, but the best way forward is to treat them as reliable sources rather than aberrations. bobrayner (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your sympathies, but all are in vein since I neither have an issue with reliable sources, nor do they conflict with my political beliefs for the simple fact that they are irrelevant to my beliefs which are in any case undisclosed. I was using Libya as an example and will not mention it again. There is no range of reliable sources that say "conquered", there are very few. And as has been stated, they opine rather than assert. Naturally if you find reliable sources from Serbian writers that refer to the annexation of new lands as conquest, sources that hold that the region had never previously been part of Serbia and that there was no pro-Balkan League population within the acquired lands, sources that compare Serbia's acquisition of Kosovo to the European powers' Conquest of Africa, and that the Kumanovo Uprising was a myth then I will be the first to extend the hand of apology and will even clean up the dirty work myself. Until then, please be so kind as to stop continuously relying on such selective and biased data. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does your definition of "liberation" include ethnic cleansing? Mine doesn't. bobrayner (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answered here. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent or special case? to be deleted

[edit]

Kosovo is not a precedent or a special case.The IJC delivered its advisory opinion on 22 July 2010; by a vote of 10 to 4, it declared that "the adoption of the declaration of independence of the 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence'.here, nor did the adoption of the declaration of independence violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244, since this did not describe Kosovo's final status, nor had the Security Council reserved for itself the decision on final status.here.Lindi29 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Cleansing of Albanians

[edit]

This article could use some context in the background section about ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians by Ethnic Serbs and Serbia at large in Kosovo, it kind of just seems to entirely ignore that in the background section. Seems like a very pro-Serbia slant on the article as a whole LordGigapiller (talk) LordGigapiller (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence&oldid=1256594798"