Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

The article pushes a Serb irredentist point of view

I think this articles gives way to much weight to a Serb irredentist point of view. Kosovo is both de facto and de jure a souvereign country, that is recognized by the international community including the U.S. and all major European nations as well as all of its neighbour states except Serbia. Kosovo is primarily a souvereign country, not a "disputed territory". Presenting it primarily as a "disputed territory" makes the article push a Serb irredentist point of view and is inappropriate. (Republic of Kosovo redirects here, which means this is the Republic of Kosovo article). Urban XII (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo may be de facto a sovereign country, but it is certainly not de jure sovereign. If this were the case then why is the matter of its independence being taken to the ICJ? It is utterly incorrect to say that it's not disputed. Clearly it is - and it's not just Serbia that disputes it. It doesn't matter whether you support the Kosovo side of the argument or the Serbian side, this article must give a balanced point of view. Saying that Kosovo is unquestionably a sovereign nation is POV and hence not allowed. Bazonka (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Republic of Kosovo redirects here because it was judged the overlap of a potential "Republic of Kosovo" article with this one would be too great. This still isn't the "Republic of Kosovo" article, "Republic of Kosovo" is clearly a sub-topic of this article, and it is in principle possible to create a WP:SS sub-article at Republic of Kosovo. --dab (𒁳) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

They would accept to create RoK if the Kosovo redirects to the RoK like most of the republics here in wiki. Also if this article is about territory i dont see any reason why dont they create Kosovo Territory-- LONTECH 07:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry, this doesn't make any sense. See Kosovo (disambiguation) for things called "Kosovo". As this article plainly states, Kosovo is a disputed territory, claimed both as a province of Serbia and as the territory of a sovereign state. Wikipedia does not and will not favour either side of this dispute, and hence we will not redirect Kosovo to either Republic of Kosovo or Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. I have no idea why people keep bringing this up as there is really no WP:SNOWball's chance of such a move. Perhaps we should compile a FAQ page as it is becoming kind of boring to reply to the same WP:POINT "suggestion" over and over again. --dab (𒁳) 07:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
If this is coming up "over and over again", it's because the article is POV (it favors a Serb irredentist point of view, unseen of in other articles) in the opinion of many editors. This should be fixed instead of "explained", as there is clearly no consensus that the current article complies with WP:NPOV and other core policies. Rather it's used as a vehicle for Serbian political propaganda. Urban XII (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

de jure VS de facto

de jure (concerning law), de facto (concerning fact) - I think the expression de jure is not being used properly. De jure is the whole problem of Kosovo, that is why the case is on the Court of Law. So Kosovo is not de jure a Serbian province, that is the real dispute. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

the "de jure" part is dodgy any way, because there is no binding international law concerning secession. The UN de jure prohibits states from annexing territory of other states, but it doesn't deal with secession. Secession movements for the purposes of the UN are internal affairs of member states, in this case the internal affair of Serbia. There is in fact a 2006 publication by the UN on international law and secession[1], but this is a collection of essays, not binding international law. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The organisation also leaves out conditions for lands which may unify by mutual concent. And if that territory once broke away from another country, there is nothing the system can do to stop it happening - one of the many flaws of the UN. Evlekis (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
so, we should probably leave out any comments on "de jure" altogether unless we can attribute them. As for the UN, nobody ever claimed it was even close to perfection, it has always just been "better than nothing". The UN has never been some sort of utopian world government, it has always just been our current best attempt at keeping the geopolitical powers-that-be from unleashing World War III. --dab (𒁳) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. But the UN is to START WWIII, not stop it. Get your facts right dab, geez. Beam 05:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
in fact, judging from last week, the UN is a self-help-group for ageing, lonely dictators like colonel Qaddhafi. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


Geography propaganda

I suggest removing "Metohija" because this is not geography this is Slobodan Milošević propaganda

I vouch for that. Lover Of Democracy (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

and replace that paragraph with

Kosovo is situated between the 42° and 44° parallels of northern hemisphere and between the 20° and 22° meridians. Positioned in the centre of the Balkan Peninsula -- LONTECH 07:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Milosevic went back in time to the 13th century and, in his tyranical manner, imposed the name and Metohija on the local populace. Hxseek (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fake de facto North Kosovo

"except for North Kosovo, which remains under de facto governance of Serbia." this is Fake

Municipalities in the north including north mitrovica use UNMIK stamps not republic of Serbia Stamps

Courts use Eulex Stamp there is no Republic of Serbia in the Courts

Kosovo Police in the north reports to EULEX police there are no Republic of Serbia Police in the north

There is No Police of (Republic of Serbia) in North Kosovo Customs

the person who edited this probably dont know what is governance?-- LONTECH 14:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed this issue before. It is a bit of a sticky point, not easy to define. Three municipalities in North Kosovo and two others elsewhere are not controlled by Belgrade, but by locals. The locals of the five municipalities have a Serb majority who govern themselves in such a way as to deliberately observe Belgrade policy. Then again, Serbia does and has always recognised UNMIK and sees this as the highest body with the authority to rule over all matters. I believe that the governance within the five municipalities operates in such a way as to also respect this position. But what is unclear is: with there being an Albanian population within the Serb enclaves, how does it happen that Pristina leaves this region alone? What would happen if Pristina decided to assert its control over these areas? Does it really not wish to on account of the Albanians forming a minority? Or is it really EURALEX which is stopping them from doing so in order to keep peace? If it is the latter, then it is clear that local Serbs are maintaining influence in their zones. But these questions I believe nobody can answer. Evlekis (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding UNMIK - Stop PROPAGANDA please

KOSVO ASSEMBLY is the HIGHEST body

Unmik and Eulex serves as Bridge beetween Prishtina and North Kosovo after independence UNMIK is DEAD

Serbs are maintaining and will maintain influence in all Municipalities as long as they are majority in those municipalities In order to give serbs more independence from Prishtina and according to DECENTRALIZATION Prishtina will create at least 5 other municipalities with serbian majority ex.(Gracanica) which now is part of Prishtina, Municipality OF NORTH MITROVICA, Prtesh etc -- LONTECH 21:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no propaganda. UNMIK, NATO, UN, EU, EURALEX, call it what you wish. There is an international presence in Kosovo. The Kosovo Assembly is heavily dependent on this presence because left to fight one against one with no logistical support from or arms coming from the side, Kosovo would not last long against Serbia. They kept the war going by forever running for cover in Albania to regroup every time the VJ advanced, but take away outside help (from Albania too) and arms and support (from the US) and Kosovo will not have the power to fight. Sufficient is it to say that in the event of a dispute between Kosovo's "assembly" and the international authorities, the so-called "HIGHEST body" is in no position to give EURALEX orders. So the "assembly" has de facto control of most of its municipalities and that is the end. The other five are governed locally. Evlekis (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reply is Demagogy and no one here dont like to hear Demagogy

the "assembly" dont have de facto control of most of its municipalities and that is not the end because the Assembly of Kosovo dont control local governments (local cities) local Assembly

You dont have idea what is Assembly?

Every city (municipality) has its own Assembly they are independent from the Assembly of Kosovo-- LONTECH 05:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Lontech, if people don't want to know about demagogy you should have thought about that before starting this provocative and disruptive section "North Kosovo is fake". I know what an assembly is (скупштина, skupština, sobranie, knesset, seimas, Russian Duma, mejlis?). It is parliament. The powers of the townships and municipalities are limited and cannot violate the constitution, neither can they overlook provisions laid down by the assembly. If the ministries which form the assembly state "drive with these plates, use this currency, this is our phone code etc" then all who serve that assembly are obliged to comply. The assembly of Kosovo implements nothing at all within the Serb enclaves and it seems according to you that the international heavy mob stands to ensure that this status quo remains in place. Evlekis (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"under de facto governance of Serbia" - do you agree that this statement this is Fake -- LONTECH 04:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not fake, just de facto as you say. Nothing de facto can be fake. How it is de jure governed is a different matter but that is the whole source of the dispute. --Evlekis (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

De facto - No courts no police no army there are no Republic of serbia in the north and there are Kosovo Police in the North and the command of the Kosovo Police is in Prishtina

you misunderstood the term defacto or you forgot that there are no institution of republic of serbia in the north

stop propaganda

this should be removed or renamed under Eulex administration -- LONTECH 14:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Lontech, will you please refrain from constantly reproducing this isolated "Stop propaganda" slogan. You are not here to demonstrate, and this is not a protest. Nobody is spreading propaganda. The loyalty of the Serb enclaves to Belgrade is optional and is not a claim that the municipalities form some sort of "Serbian sattelite state". They may be making the most of their autonomy and there may yet be a police force controlled by Pristina there, but is that force doing anything more than driving around and carrying out ceremonial patrols? According to my information, the three northern municipalities are taking their orders from the ethnic Serb section of Kos. Mitrovica. This body in turn governs its region in such a way which is unconstitutional throughout the rest of Kosovo. For example, Albanian is an official language. It can either be superior to or on the same level as Serbian according to the Kosovan Assembly. That means that no Serb should leave school unable to speak Albanian for having had atleast one part of his basic education with that tongue as the medium of instruction. You provide me with a list of schools in "Fake North Kosovo" which the "Prishtina Police" is ensuring that Albanian is taught to non-Albanians. --Evlekis (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Its is not just porpaganda but it is also Demagogy You have a lack of information about official languages in kosovo According to constitution of Republic Of Kosovo Official languages are Albanian and Serbian

what about your state tetovo city in macedonia etc. does this cities take orders from albania and not from skopje (since albanians govern this municipalities) this is demagogy

again i thought you agreed in your in your first reply you said it is not controlled by belgrade but by locals

do you agree to remove under de facto of governance of serbia - they can take orders but they are governed by locals as you said -- LONTECH 20:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We can add they keep strong ties with serbia -- LONTECH 20:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I see what you are proposing. Well certainly I agree; at no time did I personally suggest that North Kosovo was with the rest of Serbia. Locals govern for sure, and what degree of their governance is accepted by Pristina and what is beyond its influence is a different subject. I can safely say that I see no problem with your idea. No demagogy or propaganda now! :) --Evlekis (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo Article is now read by my program!

http://www.archive.org/details/KosovoWikipediaArticlesVideo Here is the full 127mb 02hours of reading from this wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I solved the infobox problem at long last by taking out the irrelevant one and placing the national ROK box on the top as people need to see it. Can't argue with democracy and that is how all Kosovars see the state (because Serbs are not real Kosovars and they are down to about 1% anyway). In addition, this is how a vast amount of countries recognize the region. This is also as per concensus on this page (ie. Kedadi, myself, Anna Fabiano, Factarius, a gang of others). The "anti-Kosovo" party lead by Dab lost out and run out of steam a good month ago. They have given no arguments and are grappling onto the lost cause "it is Serbia" rebuffed view. Lover Of Democracy (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This sort of behavior makes me ashamed to be on the same side as you. While I am in favor of Kosovo independence, it is rather rude and bigoted to refer to people who have lived their entire lives in Kosovo as not being real Kosovars. As far as the infoboxes go, as long as this page is not officially the Republic of Kosovo page that infobox should NOT be at the top. This page should be reformatted into a disambiguation page leading to articles dealing with each phase in Kosovo's history and each government that currently claims it. Also a "lover of democracy" should have asked for input from others before doing this. Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you dont have a Good reason to oppose INFObox on top STOP Replying

There is a Big HUGE propaganda about this article

There is a fact that: We are using double standards for Kosovo and other states (Abhkazia) etc even editors dont know the reason why they are opposing Coat of arms cause they change their statements every hour


Finally: There is a Consensus about this-- LONTECH 00:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All serious Wikipedia editors are tired of having discussions about the same thing over and over again. If you don't have the will to look over the previous discussions about the matter and do not want to put some effort into reading all of them, I do not have the will, nor will I put any effort into, repeating it all. Show some respect for this web-site and project. --Cinéma C 01:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

there is a broad consensus to put ROK in top.-- LONTECH 02:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

nonsense. There are no "double standards", we are judging each case on its own merit as we should. This has been discussed to death. The current revision is perfectly stable, and any attempts at edit-warring over it should be met with sanctions per the hatnote on this page. Any bogus claims of "consensus" just go to illustrate bad faith on the part of those making them. Now please find something else to invest your wiki time in. --dab (𒁳) 09:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
in fact, I must concede that the Abkhazia and South Ossetia articles appear to be biased in favour of the secessionist viewpoint. Please take this to Talk:Abkhazia and Talk:South Ossetia and stop complaining about it here; see also WP:OTHERCRAP, one policy violation is no defense of another. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no "double standards" you said also I'll post one of your statements here -> There is no UN resolution recognizing any "Republic of Kosovo". but my friend i'll repeat it again UN dont recognize states

and i think that you dont have knowledge about Diplomacy and International Law

You maybe are admin but that doesn't mean you know everything

Also you are breaking every Wikipedia rule there is a broad consensus 80-90% about this and if you want i'll add names.-- LONTECH 18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All you have done since you arrived on this page is post incoherent inflammatory comments and general accusations of pretty much everything. Please try to contribute more constructively in future. ninety:one 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"United Nations has maintained a position of strict neutrality on the question of Kosovo's status".[2], and so has Wikipedia. Slapping the secessionist flag at the top of the Kosovo article hardly amounts to "a position of strict neutrality". Now please stop trolling this talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not neutral to slap the flag of Serbia with a miniscule Kosovo inside. We're trying to be consistent with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I would advise that you stop bullying around and revert edits when there is a consensus. We are not doing the same thing to Serbia's page, but given your behavior, probably we should.user:sulmues--Sulmues 21:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we go back to the version of Lover of Democracy. user:sulmues--Sulmues 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop comparing articles, read what dab wrote. Georgia has a map that doesn't have Abkhazia and S. Ossetia shaded, while the map of Serbia has Kosovo shaded in that article. So what? I could go on complaining that the Serbia article should resemble the Georgia article, but I understand that every case is unique. Besides, even the Kosovo leadership and those who support it use the "every case is unique" argument, so accept that there's no neutrality if one side gets it all, and the other side gets nothing. I know it's easier to just push your own beliefs instead of trying to see things from a different point of view. Tolerance, mutual understanding and respect. Start from there. On the other hand, I'm afraid that some users are using Wikipedia to promote their "national interests" to a global stage (since Wikipedia is a popular web-site) and don't really care that this is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. If this is your goal, leave now. If not, show how you can think above your own POV. --Cinéma C 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cinema C dont act here like neutral . Go check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Kosovo-note

what are you tryin to do with your statements now is clear. you want to win support of other serious editors like dab etc.

so dont act like your neutral.-- LONTECH 11:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Dab You have to accept there is a consensus but that consensus is not valid because you decided like that.-- LONTECH 11:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There was never consensus for three (3!!) infoboxes, that was always absurd on it's face. Wiki practice is a single infobox in all of our articles. Multiplying infoboxes is not an accepted practice, what if there are 8-10 different POVs on a topic use 10 infoboxes on top of each other? Not to mention the horrid redundancy for exl. Hashim Thaci being the prime minister in all Kosovos... All POVs can be properly explained in the text. Serbs believe in Greater Serbia Kosovars believe in independent Kosovo. Usa is for X Russia is for Y etc etc. Hobartimus (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? Serbs believe in Greater Serbia? I'd like a reference showing all Serbs believe in Greater Serbia. Kosovars believe in independent Kosovo? Really? The Serbs in North Kosovo believe in independent Kosovo too? --Cinéma C 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
No the user is stating that they believe in both Greater Serbia and an independent Kosovo!!!!!!!! --Evlekis (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that issues regarding Abkhazia should be resolved at that talk page? Just because that article does or doesn't do something, doesn't mean that this article should or shouldn't do it, nor vice-versa. OTOH, if you think that the situations are essentially the same and should thus be treated the same, and if there are other examples that should follow the same convention, feel free to join or start a discussion about a convention for those cases.

But please, use this talk page to discuss this article. 193.2.132.108 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no change in consensus. I see a single-topic editor repeating over and over how there is supposedly a new consensus, without any evidence that this is so. The current article revision is the stable consensus such as it is, and was developed after months of debate. If you want to do a significant change in presentation, such as merging, splitting or moving about infoboxes, you will need a very clear change in consensus before you go ahead. Before there is any evidence of that, we are just wasting time here. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a new consensus, I even took voting on it and we were told that Wikipedia is not a democracy. That was a 10-1 vote. If that's not consensus... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=314341520#There_is_a_standard_on_wikipediauser:sulmues--198.185.66.249 (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

dab now you have evidence.-- LONTECH 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You are now approaching disruption. This consensus 'vote' was created by one user: [3]. Of that list, this is not valid, neither is this. This is questionable. Please stop. ninety:one 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"This consensus 'vote' was created by one user" This seems false. As the linked diff shows that edit merely summarizes stuff (moves it into one place). And what do you mean by "questionable" that link you gave? What exactly is questionable about it? One thing seems clear is that, the current non-consensus version (3 infoboxes) was never created nor maintained by any agreement of editors(consensus) but by simple reverts to sustain it. Consensus is actually against this as is standard wikipedia practice in all our other articles. Please show just a single wikipedia country article with three (3!!!) info boxes on top of each other. Hobartimus (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that what I created is real consensus. Consensus is not trying to convince everyone, because there will be always someone who will disagree. We are trying to convince people that are philibustering against a very reasonable change (HAVING ONE COUNTRY INFOBOX ONLY). The arrogance is shown with requests like "stop trolling this page!", "you are disrupting!", "you are being rude!", while all I am doing is to bring consensus. And even after I bring it, there is Cinema C saying "wikipedia is not a forum", or "wikipedia is not a democracy". After rehashing those things, he makes his own changes (meaning Serbian POV) and hides behind "be bold". Or starts a war of banning people who are bringing valid arguments. I am trying to bring SERIOUS EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS to understand that we are having an anomaly with Kosovo as:
the only partially recognized country in Wikipedia NOT TO HAVE A FLAG AND COA on top;
the only partially recognized country in Wikipedia with 3 different infoboxes to express two different POVs (one huge Serbian infobox that stays on top, and a tiny Albanian one in the bottom), and one "neutral" (UN) one.
The first infobox is rather generic, the only "pro-Serb" item really being the map. The ROK box is next, followed by the UN box. As for your point about this being the only partially recognized country treated this way, perhaps the others should be changed? (For the record, I am in favor of Kosovan independence and of splitting this article. That should take care of your "only the Serbs are against me" statements.) Khajidha (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me like we are having a gratuitus offense to Wikipedia readers who are not able to read they just look at infoboxes. It's not the case: people read. They also have opinions and by the voting I took it wasn't a good one. I make a call to serious editors and contributors to intervene and based on a consensus reached to make one SINGLE INFOBOX WITH ALL THE DATA OF KOSOVO AND FLAG+COA ON TOP. That would be a great improvement to the article.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


kajidha we are not askin for advisory opinion

cause The consensus already exist

what we are tryin to do here is that we're trying to convince serious editors like (dab,etc) to change infobox because consensus exists and is valid -- LONTECH  Talk  06:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the consensus DOES NOT exist. At least not the consensus you mean. Khajidha (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

provocative reply khajidha When it comes to existence of things they exist or they do not.You dont have at least I said serious editors khajidha not editors who would change the whole wikipedia article infoboxes just to stop kosovo COA on top-- LONTECH  Talk  10:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I fail to see how my reply was provocative. The fact that several editors (including "serious editors" -your term- like dab) are against it shows that there is not agreement with your proposal. Second, yes, things exist or do not exist, but a consensus is a system not a thing. Third, I said nothing about changing all of wikipedia or the structure of the infoboxes. What I said was, that if other disputed countries have their country box at the top of the article perhaps those articles are the ones that need to be changed. This means that there would be separate articles for the history of the regions and the political bodies that claim said regions. This is the approach I have always advocated for this article in particular. I have no problem with the ROK infobox being at the top of the ROK article, this just isn't that article. Finally, it is really disruptive to the flow of conversations for you not to indent your responses. Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

you can call it whatever you want system, democracy, agreement etc even systems exist or do not exist and yes you said "perhaps the others should be changed?"

check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kosovo Kosovo history actually exists

The history of kosovo belongs to the people who lived and live there in that territory for thousands years (Serbs,Albanians etc.) and the people who live there decided to be independent.The histroy of kosovo dont belong to occupations check history of France, etc during Germany occupation the history of France dont belong to Germans

I want to get the approval from dab because he was involved in this article for long time he is wikipedia pioneer he is first or among the earliest in wikipedia-- LONTECH  Talk  18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I will wait for a couple of weeks and will do the change myself if no one enters constructive opinoins. Dab is a very respectable wikipedian, but I cannot wait till he changes his mind. Doing thousands of changes in Wikipedia does not make you a Kosovo expert. This thread will come to oblivion exactly like the other infobox thread where I reached consensus to have ONE INFOBOX ONLY. I won't leave this article in Serbian POV pushers' handsuser:sulmues--Sulmues 13:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Last call, any serious editors' concerns for my upcoming change (MERGE THREE INFOBOXES INTO ONE)?user:sulmues--Sulmues 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, after waiting for more than a month and having no objections, I finally made the change into having one infobox only as Wikipedia standards require. There has been a long discussion and also a vote here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=314341520#There_is_a_standard_on_wikipedia. Improvements are welcome, but please DO NOT SPLIT THE INFOBOX ANY LONGER. Thanks for your patience. user:sulmues--Sulmues 15:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no valid consensus, because a bloc of nationalist editors agreeing with one another does not a consensus make, per WP:ARBMAC2. And rather than making "no objections", it seems more like your proposal was ignored by the community, given it's blatantly POV nature. The motivation here is quite transparent: To make Kosovo appear more "country-like" and by having a single infobox with the flag and all. As such, it is blatantly POV, and the changes were made without the consensus of the wikipedia community at large. --Athenean (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The consensus is valid, because a lengthy discussion occurred for over four months and also a voting was taken. I started this in July 2009. The idea that my proposal was "ignored" is your opinion, I have another one. My proposal is not POV. It required a long discussion and a consensus was reached. As consensuses are not to be there forever (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change), you can start another discussion, another voting and pray not to be ignored. I am a United States citizen and for a lot of countries like mine (the US) (and 62 others), Kosovo is as an important a country as yours Greece. However I am representing both stands: you can see that I have resolution 1244 and the UNMIK representative name in there. I am also not suggesting a political map of Kosovo but only a geographic one. So instead of suggesting that I was ignored and I am pushing a POV, start reading all my postings and then come back with some better excuses. There should be only one infobox per Wikipedia standards and not a bunch for every idea that one has. The ideas can be explained in the article, but the infobox is unique.user:sulmues —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
Sulmues, what you are doing is straight out VANDALISM. There is no consensus to present Kosovo as a republic here, and I doubt there will be one until there is consensus on Kosovo in the world community. Wikipedia is not yours or anyone else's PR firm. Stop your POV pushing now. --Cinéma C 21:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Not so much vandalism, as deceit and disruption. From reading this thread alone, it is immediately apparent that in addition to myself, User:Cinema C, User:Dbachmann, User:Khajidha and User:Evlekis are also against the merger of the infoboxes. The claim that there is a consensus is thus patently false and intentionally deceitful. The only consensus is among a handful of Albanian nationalist accounts, each with a history of nationalist disruption. Making false claims of "consensus" falls under WP:DIS and can be sanctioned, particularly on an article such as this. --Athenean (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There is neither vandalism, nor deceit on my side, but there is on your side (i.e. Athenean and Cinema C). It's really comfy for you guys to jump and change the article when it suits you and not participate in a four months discussion. Athenean, you are being deceitful as User:Dbachmann, User:Khajidha and User:Evlekis have been neutral to the unique infobox: They have neither supported, nor endorsed it. I'll revert your vandalism very soon. I don't expect a Greek nationalist like the "Athenean" to be neutral anyways.user:sulmues--Sulmues 05:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is consensus for a single infobox by the silent majority, in fact there was never any consensus for an unprecedented three (3!!) infobox solution which was imposed by brute force methods, simple mass reverts, instead of consensus. There was never any vote for never any consensus for it, nobody can point to any discussion I know of which supports it. It's high time to put the infobox issue to rest and only apply a non-wikipedia solution of 3-4-10 infoboxes when there is consensus. If we allow 3 infoboxes by reverts, soon others will demand 6-7 infoboxes to suit their POV on other articles, there has to be a limit. Hobartimus (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The mere fact that this discussion is ongoing is proof that there is not consensus for sulmues' move. Maybe there should be a single infobox, but one with "Republic of Kosovo" proudly displayed on top, and the flag? Hardly NPOV. The current infobox is designed to make Kosovo appear more "state-like", and as such is a violation of NPOV. I could agree with a single infobox, but without the "Republic of Kosovo" and the flag displayed so prominently. --Athenean (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sulmues:

Nobody is changing the article the way it suits them. You don't know what suits me or Athenean, so please don't assume anything. Second of all, stop commenting on users, you'll get blocked if you continue doing that. It's not about the users, it's about the issue and topic at hand. Anything else is trolling.

Hobartimus:

Nobody cares whether you think there is a consensus, the mere fact that you have 2 users arguing otherwise disproves your claim. It's not about what you or anyone else thinks, this is not a forum or a PR site. "There was never any vote" - Good, Wikipedia doesn't allow voting for consensus building - arguments are what matters. Also, your argumentation is flawed - considering there's no consensus to make your changes, you assume it's valid to make the changes anyways because the current state of the article was never allegedly agreed on. Actually, everything you see in the Kosovo article has been achieved through consensus - since it's an article under probation you can be sure of this. If you're looking for a discussion titled "3 Infoboxes", you won't find it, as Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Someone introduces one minor edit, someone else another one, and the article is slowly built to what we have now, it didn't just jump to this version out of nowhere. "If we allow 3 infoboxes by reverts, soon others will demand 6-7 infoboxes" - if there is a consensus, why not? But I doubt there will be one, as there are plenty of editors who would, I'm sure, oppose this (such as myself), so don't worry.

The way we have things now is logical - an infobox for the territory of Kosovo (which is what the article writes about) and two infoboxes for the two sides that claim the territory. Nice and clean. I would agree to one infobox under the condition that it's the territory of Kosovo infobox. I.e. the Kosovo flag and the map of Kosovo within Serbia would both go. So, either they're all here, or none of them (except the territory one, which is neutral). Wikipedia does not take sides. --Cinéma C 20:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"If we allow 3 infoboxes by reverts, soon others will demand 6-7 infoboxes" - if there is a consensus, why not?" I rest my case. If you don't understand why 7 infoboxes are not desirable and why they are not used anywhere else on wikipedia I can't help you. I didn't say anything about Kosovar symbols being on top of the single (1) infobox you can have a map or anything else there for all I care. But increasing the number of infoboxes without limit is absurd. Hobartimus (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If you don't understand how Wikipedia works, then I can't explain it to you here. Sulmues has been blocked, and I suggest you stop with your POV pushing - the flag and coat of arms are not Kosovar symbols, they are symbols of the Kosovo Albanian government which has declared independence. Those who do not recognize that government as legitimate, i.e. don't recognize their act of secession, follow the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 which presents Kosovo as being administered by the United Nations. The flag and coat of arms were declared by that secessionist government and are not recognized by the majority of the world. Unlike Vojvodina, for example, whose symbols were declared by a government recognized by the entire world, Kosovo's symbols do not represent Kosovo, as the government which declared it represents only one ethnic group and is not recognized by most UN states. The flag and coat of arms would fit in perfectly on top of the Albanians in Kosovo article, but even that might be disputed, considering the fact that almost all Albanians in Kosovo consider the flag of Albania as their flag. And only the "government" institutions have the "Kosovo flag". So, de facto and de jure, that is not Kosovo's flag. --Cinéma C 21:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I filed a report on WP:ANI on sulmues disruptive behavior. This has got to stop. --Athenean (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You can have a map of Serbia with Kosovo shaded differently inside - on top of the single (1) infobox and it would be still better. Or a geographic map or anything else, there is no need for the coat of arms of anyone and the solution would be much much better. Why? Because increasing the number of infoboxes looks... bad, ugly and is not a standard anywhere else on wikipedia. We have the text of the article body to explain the intricacies of the situation. To list the countries exactly who recognize and who deny recognition. Two (2) infoboxes could be perhaps defended but the current three (3) just shows everyone that the article got out of hand. Hobartimus (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

user Hxseek did a lot of distruptive edits in the article of kosovo history edits including Dardanian Kingdom, territory etc You can see history [4] of the article he removed the text a couple of times and reverted

I warned him to stop these reverts check his talk page Hxseek talk

You can verify that this kingdom existed just go to google books and type dardanian kingdom you can find hundreds of books about this kingdom.

Kosovo represents the core of the Dardanian territory-- LONTECH  Talk  09:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

read WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

UN Security Council

This article alleges that the NATO action in Kosovo was contrary to the provisions of the UN Charter. In fact, Article 52 of the UN Charter allows regional organisations such as NATO to take such action as is necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security, provided such actions are consistent with the purpose of the Charter. In other words, an explicit Security Council endorsement is not a necessary condition of every intervention, assuming a regional organisation meets the criteria laid down by the Charter (which the North Atlantic Treaty quite explicitly does - cf. the North Atlantic Treaty), and that the reasons for intervening are consistent with the Charter (given that there was an imminent danger of genocide in Kosovo, this criteria was also met by NATO).

While it common to mistakenly assume that the UN Security Council has to agree in every instance (frankly, very few people bother to read the Charter), there is no reason to endorse that mistake on the Kosovo page or elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.CollisonBaker (talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dardanian Kingdom

I know just about zilch on this topic, but I'm starting this section to encourage User:Hxseek and User:Lontech to get to discussing this topic, which they seem to be arguing over in other places.

After a cursory search, it seems to me the name "Kingdom of Dardania" itself is original research. The name would therefore need to be left out of the article. That doesn't mean Dardani shouldn't be mentioned at all, though. Perhaps some cues should be taken from the Dardani article. References for information relevant to Kosovo could probably be found there too.

Sorry I can't be of more help; I'm no historian. Please start discussing this issue here. Remember, this article is under a 1RR restriction, so there is to be no more reverting until this dispute is resolved. I'll be watching this page, and if anyone has questions (about policy etc, not Kosovo :) ) feel free to contact me. Good luck. Equazcion (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I just found this: http://albaniaonline.org/the-dardanian-kingdom/ . Not sure if it helps. Equazcion (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
What dispute there is no dispute at all the only person in this world who dispute this kingdom is Hxseek-- LONTECH  Talk  09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
When someone disagrees with you on the content of an article, that's called a dispute. Equazcion (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

disagreement without any reference or change of credible referenced text is vandalism-- LONTECH  Talk  09:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Vandalism means intentionally compromising the integrity of an article. If an editor is making edits that he believes make the article better, it's not vandalism. Read WP:Vandalism, and always assume good faith about other editors. Equazcion (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Lontech changed the original standing version to In antiquity, Kosovo formed the central part of the Kingdom of Dardania. This is wrong for several reasons. This "kingdom" - if it existed at all (it was more of a temporary tribal hegemony over neighbouring tribes, even by Antiquity standards)- lasted a couple of generations. Antiquity was a period which spanned several centuries. Error # 1. Secondy, the phrase in non-sensical and anachronistic. Kosovo is a later ethnomym. Lontech's statement is like stating that "France was the centre of Gaul" ! For this reason, I reverted it to older versions. In antiquity, the Dardani - a Thraco-Illyrian tribe, inhabited the territory roughly corresponding to present-day Kosovo. I do not even need to explain why this version is better. Whilst I understand that Lontech might not be a native English speaker, I do not understand his incapability to accept someone who is making good faith edits, who clearly has a better command of English and grasp of historical reality.

Moreoever, lontech's provided reference states nothing in support of his quote. It is a text about Ancient Macedon which makes a passing mention of on Cleitus "king of the Dardanii". This is blatant misrepresentation of the text. Moreoever, Lontech asserts that my edits are 'nationalistic". Not only is he obviously incorrect, but he is rather comical. I cannot see how one can harbour nationalistic sentiments against an ancient peoples which no longer exists :) Hxseek

Thank you for your help Equazcion. But that site is an unscholarly production by the Albanian government. People can try and claim whatever they believe. But on an encyclopaedic site like Wiki, it is hardly WP:RS. Whenever one writes "based on irrefutable facts and evidence", any scholar takes alarm. The very first sentence just shows this unscholarly POVHow can theories about a distant era about which we have little solid evidence be "irrefutable". The entire premise is to prove a lasting link between Dardania and Kosovo-Albanians. One that, whilst possible, would require us to forget the 1,500 years of discontinuity. Whatever the case, the matter is peripheral to the main thrust of the article anyway Hxseek (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


This is not the place for serbian nationalism. | GoogleBooks about the Dardanian Kingdom

i dint revert to kosovo but to present day kosovo i left your text ive removed the provocative nationalists text like "was integrated into serbian empire" etc

If you carefully read the his text he inserted in the name of MINOR CHANGE you can understand that he intentionally compromised the integrity of an article.-- LONTECH  Talk  10:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have outlined my arguement. Yours, on the other hand, is non-sensical rabble filled with personal attacks (which are mis-directed, given that I am not even Serbian :) ) Unlike the alleged Dardanian-Albanian myth (see the very books you provide a link to), there is a plethora of evidence that Kosovo was part of the Serbian kingdom. Provide one scholar that denies this (even Albanian) ? Hxseek (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I proved that you are lying the discussion was about the dardanian Kingdom. Dardania was conquered not integrated and the territory of Kosovo represents the core of the Dardanian territory

read the books before you come here next time to change the histroy.

| GoogleBooks about the Dardanian Kingdom -- LONTECH  Talk  10:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You provide no counter-arguements, instead vear off into another topic, which - again- you are wrong about. Dardania ceased being an entity, even as a region, after Late Roman times. There was no Dardania in the 7th century, no Dardania in the 13th, no Dardania in the 21st century. Hxseek (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talkin about. DEMAGOGY . You denied the existence of this kingdom. Now you keep me lessons about dardania.

i added this links for other editors to see his PROPAGANDA | GoogleBooks about the Dardanian Kingdom


I Call editors to revert those changes he did.-- LONTECH  Talk  12:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

this article, not to mention its lead, is no place to discuss patriotic antiquity frenzy. Just leave it. If you're genuinely interested in Dardania, discuss it at Talk:Dardani, but don't trouble this already busy page with it. --dab (𒁳) 13:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is very little information on anything resembling a "Dardanian kingdom" in antiquity. Any such claims smack of antiquity frenzy, as dab pointed out, and I have removed the passage about the so-called "Dardanian kingdom" as a result. For what it's worth, I think the whole paragraph about the history, beginning with the Dardanians, should be removed from the lead. It is repetitive and virtually identical with the History section. --Athenean (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Remove the paragraph and put there Serbian History.Check the books i added now i'll add at least 10-100 references about this kingdom and i'll change your revert you cant revert credible referenced text as POV because your revert is POV. Sorry but you have lack of knowledge about this Kingdom | GoogleBooks about the Dardanian Kingdom -- LONTECH  Talk  19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


I agree with Dab and Anthenaean. Lontech accept this and stop exclaiming racist remarks. If we accept this Dardanian kingdom, which I accept is mentioned by historians, it was (1) unstable (2) temporary and (3) lasted only during the reign of Bardyllis and his immedieate successors. So to say that during Antiquity there was a Dardanian kingdom is wrong. Antiquity is a period of one thousand years. There was no kingdom for 1, 000 years. Moreoever, your wording is non-grammatical. To say "Kosovo was the centre of Dardania" is a non-sense statement. Yu have to say something like the territory of present-day Kosovo roughly corresponds to the lands occupied by the Dardanii, if you really have to mention them. It is that simple. Stop accusing people of nationalism and accept suggestions by people who have a more technical and less abrupt (ie POV) grasp of the English language Hxseek (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


dab dont agree with you cause he reverted your disruptive nationalist vandalism edit. Athenean is greek and im not surprised with serbs, russians, or greeks statements about kosovo. You acted like Vandal you changed the 6-8 lines of referenced text under MINOR CHANGE mask and you've added disruptive text and funny terms like pe(r)turbations - with grammatical mistakes of course.

you misunderstood the term Antiquity - (Ancient times)(the people of ancient times) get a dictionary and learn whats antiquity.

more over you denied existence of this kingdom (check the revert history) now you trying to explain your demegogy.

Lack of information again:

The Dardania Kingdom managed to become a great military power during the reign of Kings Bato and Monun. Of all alliances, Dardania appeared as the main force in the Balkans.
The Dardanian Kingdom survived the Roman invasions of the 5th – 6th century.


While, the Slavic peoples, including Serbs, immigrated from the Carpates and Asia to the Balkan Peninsula between the 7th- 12th centuries. Faced with the Christian culture of the consolidated Dardanians, Slavs took almost 300 years to finish the long process of their Christianization.



...-- LONTECH  Talk  00:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL. You're a comedian. Let me ask you - where in the world did you learn history ? You have a very imaginative mind. Instead of disrupting real historical articles, maybe you should pursue a career in creative writing/ fiction Hxseek (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2009

You should be banned from Wikipedia for these remarks.user:sulmues--Sulmues 19:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Lontech, I am not a specialist in Kosovo's history but I know Byzantine history well enough to know that what you claim does not resemble the worldwide accepted history of the Balkans. First, every territory south from Danube river was under Byzantine control till the end of the 7th century. Well, this control was very loose at some times and there were different tribal alliances against the Byzantine rule in the Balkans as well as many invasions from outside the peninsula but nevertheless there were no kingdoms or other forms of state organization in the Balkans in 5th-6th century. Just some tribal alliances and nothing more. Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LocationByzantineEmpire.png to see the Byzantine territory in the 6th century. Ah, and by the way the "great" king Bato is considered to be only a tribal chief as far as I could find something about him.Scheludko (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is laughable. By material culture, the Dardanians were the Thraco-Illyrians, it means that their material culture was something between as symbiosis of two, or that their culture had components of both. They have been usually (by serious scholarship) described as one of the bigger Iron Age tribes in the Western Balkans, but also significantly heterogenous, more like an union of many smaller tribes, than one unique. It's considered that they were not too strong (except for a last period) mainly because they constantly fought among each others, only when this inner struggle stopped they managed to be recognised as some local force (but nothing close to "the main force in the Balkans"). And to say that Dardania was kingdom is... no comment. Zenanarh (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the Iron Age is off topic here. If you are interested in the Dardani, go to Talk:Dardani. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton Statue

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8336789.stm

New Bill Clinton Statue unveiled in the Republic of Kosovo, I think this should be added to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

why? this is Kosovo, not list of statues in Pristina. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dbachman, it's irrelevant to the article of Kosovo.user:sulmues--Sulmues 14:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Information at the start of the article

"Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" redirects here. For the SFR Yugoslav entity of the same name between 1946 and 1974, see Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946-1974). For an account of the period between 1990 and 1999, see Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999). "Republic of Kosovo" redirects here. For the state proclaimed in 1991, see Republic of Kosova. For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation).

The first line of this sentence should not be "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" redirects here. In such sensitive cases, every small detail is important. So putting Autonomous Province... firs can be considered a POV. Why not put "Republic of Kosovo" first? —91.187.96.236 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The redirects are listed in alphabetical order (and chronological order for items spelled the same). This is as NPOV an order as can possibly be used. Khajidha (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely agreed with the observation that "Republic of Kosovo" is far more important to Kosovo than "Autonomous Provicen of Kosovo and Metohija" and deserves to be first mentioned. The "Autonomous Province" is a historical entity, far less relevant than the current existing Republic of Kosovo. Alphabet ranking is therefore not a necessity. Made the change in the article. user:sulmues--Sulmues 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased templates abound

I thought since this is a related issue I might bring this to light here in the absence of a more elegant solution.
I just had a quick browse through the templates at Category:Kosovo templates. An effort appears to have been made to present the issue of RoK recognition in a biased way via these templates. Obviously

  • templates that deal with Kosovo as a whole should not include any emblems of the Republic of Kosovo.
  • templates that deal with the Republic of Kosovo, such as Template:Foreign relations of Kosovo, should not use the term "Kosovo" as synonymous with "Republic of Kosovo". They should be renamed with "Republic of Kosovo" replacing "Kosovo" (e.g. Template:Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

--I don't understand why that differentiation is necessary. The Abkhazia template has the same format as any other countries, so I don't understand why Kosovo's would be any different. Unless ALL disputed entities, from Palestine, to North Cyprus, to South Ossetia lose their Templates, then Kosovo should continue to have the same template as a non-disputed territory.--Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding, I think. The issue has little to do with Kosovo's recognition, and more with the fact that the term "Kosovo" is not synonymous with "Republic of Kosovo". This is not my opinion, but is the view expressed here by the Kosovo article, reflecting (I hope) the stance of the Wikipedia community. "Kosovo" is a "disputed territory in the Balkans", the "Republic of Kosovo" is a state encompassing the majority of that disputed territory. The "Republic of Kosovo" does not span the entirety of "Kosovo", the issue is more similar to "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland", than South Ossetia.
Are we to assert here that "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo" are synonymous terms? This is something altogether new, I think, and I dare say quite controversial. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that using the two terms synonymously is a touchy subject. However, the only rational, NPOV remedy for this would be to create parallel articles for Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo, as exists for Palestine and State of Palestine. However, this seems needlessly redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrofreak92 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The two separate articles would probably be opposed by the "Albanian faction" in this dispute, so I don't see that happening. However, regardless of all that, the terms are not used synonymously and the distinction between them is of paramount importance for maintaining NPOV in this dispute. The templates I've mentioned are trying to do away with the Serb enclaves altogether it would seem. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Still, trying to force a separation of Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo is like trying to separate Republic of India, which does not control all of the territory known as India, from India. I don't think there would be any good reason to do that, and I challenge you to find one. In my opinion, there is no reason to remove the Kosovar symbols from the article on Kosovo, as no parallel Republic of Kosovo article will ever be created. I understand your issue with this situation, but it is the aim of Wikipedia to be helpful, and it will probably be too confusing for the vast majority of the users of the English Wikipedia (the five of the largest English-speaking countries: UK, US, Canada, NZ and Australia all recognize the Republic of Kosovo as sovereign over the entire Kosovo region), to have an article on Kosovo that does not at least appear to describe a State.--Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While strictly speaking "Kosovo" and the Republic of Kosovo are not the same (eg the history of Kosovo goes back many centuries, but the history of the Rebpulic only goes back to 2008) it is not nessassary to have two seperate articles. No other country has two articles, for instance the article of "France" is about teh Republic of France. I'm never confortable asking one country if anogther is independent. Kosovo is a democracy and the Assembly of Kosovo voted for independence and everyone should accept that. I don't think the people of Kosovo would like two seperate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007apm (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Template jungle

  • Long, confusing, bad:
"Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" redirects here. For the SFR Yugoslav entity of the same name between 1946 and 1974, see Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946-1974). For the SFR Yugoslav entity between 1974 and 1990, see Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo. For an account of the period between 1990 and 1999, see Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999).
"Republic of Kosovo" redirects here. For the state proclaimed in 1991, see Republic of Kosova. For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation).
  • Short, simple, better:
For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation).

My 2 cents. --Xeeron (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Better this, it gives a clue of what this article is about:
"Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" redirects here. For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation).
--Enric Naval (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Failing to mention that this article also describes the Republic of Kosovo (As per Enric Naval) is a bias in favor of the Serbian argument. I believe the template should remain as is, MAYBE shortening it as per Xeeron would be appropriate, but leaving it as seems best.--Astrofreak92 (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Milan Milutinović

Can someone update Kosovo War section Milutinović was found not guilty in tribunal, here is ref but you can google-it too http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/legal-procedures/milan_milutinovic_519.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telephood (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Minister Samardzic was succeeded by Bogdanovic

Serbian minister for Kosovo Samardzic was succeeded by Bogdanovic. Please update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanese76 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

UNMIK Country infobox

I note that their are three info boxes in this article: 

- The Republic of Kosovo
- Kosovo, UN administration
- Kosovo

I understand that these were inserted to reconsile the difference of opinion between those who consider that Kosovo is independent and those that support the Serbian claim and consider that Kosovo is part of Serbia, albiet outside the control of the Serbian Government.

As its more than 18 months since UNMIK passed its last law, I think we can safely delete the "Kosovo, UN administration" infobox. http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/02english/E2008regs/E2008regs.htm

What does everyone think? 2007apm (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Read the archives why there are 3 infoboxes. And don't change their order as you did on 27th December, such behaviour will only result in a block. --Tone 15:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree I think it would fair to change the UNMIK box into an EULEX box. Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree I think that that's a good NPOV compromise. 2007apm (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support 2007apm, but first off we need to wait for more support. Once we have enough support we can change it to an EULEX info box IJA (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
AgreeI would support such a change.Khajidha (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree+ my support for the change. kedadial 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree Don't change it. Thanks! Beam 01:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you please say why? IJA (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree Per Tone argument. Kosovo is still very disputed province. --Tadija (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 is still in force and Kosovo is still technically under UN administration. This is one of the few things both sides agree on, the template should not be removed from the article.--Ptolion (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree UNMIK still exists and works, even if it doesn't pass any laws. EULEX is in Kosovo only with UNMIK's and Serbia's permission. (BTW, is this some new voting style?) Nikola (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree Per above arguments.--Andrija (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we cannot vote this. Per United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, this box is crucial, so it cannot be deleted. --Tadija (talk)

no Disagree The final status is not solved, until then it must stay. As Tadija says, somebody like it or not, the resolution 1244 is still active. FkpCascais (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree Per Tone and Ptolion. --Athenean (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree- agree with the reasons above, and the box is not crucial since it doesn't contain any information that the boxes above don't have (like capital city...) and the resolution can be mention in the article anyway-- CD 23:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree The fact that 18 months have passed since NMIK passed its last law and since Kosovo declared independence doesn't mean anything, because the resolution 1244 is still in force. As per United Nations, Kosovo is under administration of UNMIK, and it will stay like that until the resolution is changed. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree leave it alone please. This has been discussed enough. The territory remains under UNMIK control de iure. EULEX is just a police force, it does not pretend to have any politial jurisdiction. EULEX is an international aid package if you like, providing a resource not available in the country (rule of law). EULEX is not an occupation force and its presence is entirely dependent on UN sanction (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244). --dab (𒁳) 17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree also per Tone's and dab's arguments. According to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, UNMIK has de jure control over Kosovo, and this resolution is still in force. --Cinéma C 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree UNMIK has very tiny, to say the least, control over Kosova therefore it's info box should be deleted.--Poltergeist1977 (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree, its simple. Eulex is not in Kosovo to govern or rule, only to support (official site). There hasnt been a formal transfer of powers from the United Nations. No matter how insignificant the actual rule of UN is, its still the legal governing authority, and it should remain so until the status is decided by the world court. So, its too early for this motion. FC Toronto (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be unrealistic to condense the three boxes into one? Unofficial flag next to the UN one with location of Kosovo below, map of Kosovo in the main body of the article? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree Fully. Human Rights Believer (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
no Invalid vote, Blocked user, Balkan related articles banned. -Tadija (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree I think extremely strong arguments against the removal have been given, while I haven't really seen an argument against removal. Also, I wished to contact user 2007apm, but it's a sock puppet. This entire argument is apparently a troll. Should we delete it? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Updates

The information is outdated. The GDP for 2010 is 4290 (EUR), according to the same source being cited. The population is not at 1.8 both that AideMemoire (source) or Statistical Office of Kosovo both state population is at 2.2 mn.

Can someone look into this and update it for me? Please & Thank You. 216.106.61.194 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Kosova2008

De Facto control

Excuse me, but Kosovo government does not have de facto control. Look up the meaning of the term. UNMIK, EULEX and KFOR have what could be termed "de facto" as well as other forms of control over the region. You could say the Gov't of Kosovo has about as much control of the area as the Gov't of Serbia, certainly not "de facto" 99.236.221.124 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Serbia, UNMIK, EULEX have de jure control. Look up your own link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, 99 is correct. The RoK government does not have de facto governance over Kosovo. It would probably be correct to say that nobody does. De facto control of Kosovo is divided between the RoK, UNMIK, EULEX and various unknown crime lords. It is a fallacy to imply that somebody must have de facto control. --dab (𒁳) 13:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also include North Kosovo, over which RoK does not have almost any kind of control. --Tadija (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
that's what I am saying. Who has "de facto control" over North Kosovo? Serbia? The UNMIK? Local militias? The crime lords? I am sure I don't know, let's see some references. --dab (𒁳) 16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Kosova government has both de facto and de jure control of the entire Kosova region. Crackajack Mac (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Who writes the traffic laws in Kosovo? Who issues permits for construction? Who collects the sales taxes? In short, who enacts and enforces the laws that control day to day life? THAT is who has de facto control, whoever that might be. Khajidha (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It´s UÇK, you´re right. (Sarcasm) FkpCascais (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

UÇK was the freedom fighting force which pushed out the Serb invaders. Now Kosova has it's own police force and justice center. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Crackajack Mac has been blocked indef. as a sock of highly WP:DE user Human Rights Believer --Tadija (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at this very useful and informative source recently discovered: [5]

It appears that Kosova has never had anything to do with Serbia so all Serb preferences and mentions must be removed. OK, Kosova fell to a medieval Serbia empire for a hunder years or so but then it went to the Ottomans. The new Serbia which conquered Kosova in 1912 had no continuity from the last Serb empire so it was not the same one. Kosova's 75% Albanian majority also rejected the Serb new Communist rule and then it was drafted, not into Serbia but Yugoslavia where it remained until Slobodan Milosevic destroyed the country. It was a federal county like Croatia so the link to Serbia is weak and illegal. Let's get all Serb mention removed, please, before you argue, read the reputable cource carefully. Crackajack Mac (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That source was not recently discovered. It was published in early 2008 in the wake of Kosovo's declaration of independence; and it has been running around the various Kosovo-related articles like a hand grenade with the pin taken out. It has been completely rejected because of its selectiveness and error content. Sources in any case are not documents which we paste word for word, so let's stop all this nonsense. Evlekis (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I beg your pardon???? I beg your pardon???????????? Errors???? Errors like what????? This is Noel Malcolm not some cronie to Slobodan Milosevic who wrote that report, and do you know where it came from? The Guardian. Not the Serb Communist Weekly. The only people who dispute it are the Serbs. Can't think why. All others, including the neutral observers and international community and people of the world put their turst in the experts who have gone out there and done the work to give true accounts and not distorted pro-Serb (or pro-Albanian not that there is much Albanian propaganda) visions of things. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Serbian empire is with big "E": like this Serbian Empire.
  • "...hunder years or so...", like 200, 300, ... or so...ha, ha, ha...
  • "...The new Serbia which conquered Kosova in 1912...", "new Serbia"?, conquered KosovA? ??? Ha,ha,ha...
  • "...in 1912 had no continuity from the last Serb empire..." well, it may have, because was a Monarchy too, and also called Serbia, need more?
  • "...It was a federal county..." County? What country are you talking about? USA? Oh!, right, the serbian county in Massachusets, sorry,...ha,ha,ha...
  • "...county like Croatia..." yes, right, Croatia is one great Canadian county.
  • "...Let's get all Serb mention removed, please..." OK, but only because you said "please". I agree, let´s aniquilate those Serbs, we´ll pretend they don´t exist!
Excuse me, read the source. It states clearly that Kosova had it's own laws, language, rights, priviliges, parliament and system at the same level and so it was a de jure and de facto county in Yugoslavia OUTSIDE Serbia. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I been/lived there, I don´t need you or some so-called sources to tell me what happend. Ok, Kosova was a county. Ha, ha, ha... You should be banned. You´re a SOCKPUPPET of User:Human Rights Believer, that is already banned. Can someone please do something about it? I just don´t know anything about reporting sockpuppets. FkpCascais (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. I have no time for Human Rights Believer as he was a disruptive user. I talk my way into things on TALK, I follow Wikipedia policies and I gain a concensus for everything I do. Please don't make accusational comments which are unfounded. Thankyou. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I placed a sock tag in his page. The page to report this is WP:SPI. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No sock. Read the above. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's clearly him. I will inform admins. --Tadija (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Got proof? Prove it. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has "there is no more continuity between the medieval Serbian state and today's Serbia than there is between the Byzantine Empire and Greece." This is true enough, but the fallacy here is to equate "Serbia" with "Serbs". Today's Serbia was established in 2006. It is difficult to have any "historic ties" to an entity that is all of three years of age. Serbs, otoh, are an ethnic group, and it is completely undisputed that there was a Serbian majority in Kosovo from the 14th to 19th centrury. Hell, even the name "Kosovo" is Serbian. The controversial question is just, what to do now that there is not any Serbian majority any longer, this being the 21st, not the 19th century. This is a political question, not one of "ask any historian". --dab (𒁳) 12:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Dab. True, no continuity between Byzantines and Greece and you can see the connection. Byzantines were the Latin Italianate Romans and Greece is for the Greeks, Two different subjects. The medieval Serbian empire has no dealings with the newly formed Serbia which conquered Kosova in 1912. I think that's eveything covered. Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Many thanx Enric Naval. Aldouth, it´s not bad to have him around, just to have a bit of a laugh. :) Thanx again. FkpCascais (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
And, as response for dab, the problem is that I do feel that old Serbias are in fact predecessors of the current Serbia. Why shouldn´t they? If not, we will face a dangar of having a continuity break each time something in a country changes, or even a break after each elections... FkpCascais (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Now can we rewrite the page to remove references to Serbs except for the 90's when the Serbs try to reconquer Kosova with their Greater Serbia campaign???!! Crackajack Mac (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And here is the source!!!!!! Crackajack Mac (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I already told you somehere that you should be a song writter. Need a manager?

"...♭L♣e¶ Letá as rid KosovAAAAA out of Serbs, la, la, la ∭, KosovAAAAA, yeah, KosovAAAAAA....ℳd͡ʒ...Serbs, la, la, don´t exist...৳ they only had,...β̞ la, la... like a huge Empire..., la, la ∬, KosovAAAA, yeah, KosovAAAAA...la, la, ¢¿ƒ~♭₮♯ℳɗ ∭. FkpCascais (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And another thing "Jack on Crack". Since you are still not banned, at least respect the order of the comments and don´t put your anegdotes in between, please. FkpCascais (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. I see the Serbs have run out of arguments and cannot reply sencibly and so you resort to acting stupid. I am not banned because I haven't done nothing wrong. And I won't, first I'll get the concensus and then we will redo the whole thing. Crackajack Mac (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sencibly? KosovA? Learn to speak English first, please... Yes, go ahead, "redo" the "whole thing". :)))))) FkpCascais (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And don´t remove my comments. That´s Fascism. FkpCascais (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Crackajack Mac has been blocked indef. as a sock of highly WP:DE user Human Rights Believer --Tadija (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Misleading part of the text: the text says China recognized Kosovo

The text says, in several places (2 or 3) that China recognized Kosovo. The text makes the following claim: "Its independence is recognised by 65 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan)."

It references entity "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to Wikipedia's article on China (Republic of China), which is misleading act by the author of this (part of) Wikipedia's text on Kosovo. Why is it misleading? Because, as Reference 99 states, China DID NOT recognize Kosovo; on the contrary, China claims Kosovo is integral part of Serbia. Reference 99 clearly states, and I quote: "China condemned Taiwan for congratulating Kosovo on its newfound statehood, saying Taiwan does not have the right to "recognize" Kosovo."

Now, that makes the cited claim of the Wikipedia's text - false.

The following text: "Its independence is recognised by 65 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan)." ...should be changed, i.e. part "and the Republic of China (Taiwan)" should be deleted as it is untrue.

I am not sure about the status of Taiwan and its UN status. However, if Taiwan is not a member of UN and if it is a sovereign state, then it should be mentioned THAT WAY, and not in a misleading way (which misleads the readers to believe that People's Republic of China recognized Kosovo as independent of Serbia, even though China did the opposite.; it might be, then, mentioned that Taiwan recognized Kosovo, or that Taiwan recognized but China did not (depending on the China/Taiwan status/situation).

Also, please check if there are other misleadings in the text, if contributions were made by the same "CLEVER" and cunning author.

22/02/2010 user: LepiKoja / neutrino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.109.47 (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: My mistake, sorry. From the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China page: "Not to be confused with the People's Republic of China." I didn't know that Taiwan's other name is "Republic of China". I guess majority of people don't know that, too, so I suggest this info be put in the original text, i.e. the arbitrary sentence to state the following:

"Its independence is recognised by 65 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan; not to be confused with the People's Republic of China)."

This would give the reader the whole information. Without this info, many readers (like me) could be mislead.

Thank you.

p.s. I tried to change the summary now (in the light of new information), but the system didn't allow me to; please, if someone can do that - that would be good thing to do. Thanks.

22/02/2010 user: LepiKoja / neutrino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.109.47 (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is really necessary. I would have assumed most readers were in fact aware that Taiwan (which officially calls itself the "Republic of China") is not the same as the People's Republic of China (the UN member state) — though if the consensus of editors is otherwise, I wouldn't object to a modest bit of clarification (but not so much as to risk igniting a Taiwan-vs.-PRC flame war here). In any case, I really don't think there was any intent to mislead anyone here.
It may be worthwhile to tidy up a few places in the article so as to make it clear that Taiwan is not a UN member state, but I would be hesitant to spend an unduly large amount of effort emphasizing the PRC-vs.-Taiwan controversy here. It may possibly be appropriate to say (in the "Declaration of Independence" section) something like "The People's Republic of China, which claims sovereignty over Taiwan, condemned the Taiwan government's recognition of Kosovo, saying Taiwan did not have the right to take such an action" — with an appropriate reference.
The reason "LepiKoja" wasn't able to edit this page is because it is semi-protected, meaning it cannot be edited by anonymous (IP address) users or by new accounts. Richwales (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to change anything. LepiKoja said him/herself that this article links to the Republic of China page. If he/she was confused he/she should have read that article before storming onto this talk page accusing someone of attempting to mislead people. Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I second this.—Emil J. 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, everyone, let's all remember to assume good faith. Richwales (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It is actually a three-way enterprise. First there was Republic of China which was the big country bordering Russia and Mongolia. Then after WWII, the Communists rose to power and took control over the lands slice by slice. They proclaimed themselves the People's Republic of China, and referred to the entire Chinese territory. Taiwan on the other hand, lies within an area which the Communists never liberated (or invaded if you want to look at it the other way). As such, there exists a One-China policy whereby a country may either recognise PROC or ROC. Taiwain is in ROC, so Republic of China is correct. Now, the rest of the world had eventually chosen to recognise the PROC but some countries do still recognise ROC whilst others have fluctuated between the two, but there can be no recognising both - because they both lay claim to the same territory. More recently, we witnessed this with Afghanistan; the Emirate (Taliban) was recognised by three states even though it controlled over two thirds of the land, and the rest of the world recognised the State which was only active in the multi-ethnic north. TAIWANESE independence however is a separate issue. Yes it has been on the cards but it is something rejected by both PROC and ROC. So while PROC and ROC have developed de jure compromises, PROC generally accepts ROC entering the Olympics as Chinese Taipei (Taipei being Taiwan's capital). But nobody accepts TAIWAN as a sovereign entity. So to confrim, ROC recognised Kosovo, but Kosovo's assembly (for some reason of its own) has chosen to recognise PROC instead, even though PROC is not about the open a consulate in Prizren. ----Evlekis (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of "and not recognised by ..."

I hope this will reduce bias inclined towards statehood. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 20:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I oppose your edits. That sentence that you altered has been discussed to death in the past. If you want to change it you have to reach a consensus first then alter it. kedadial 20:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, not needed. Just to let you know that 127 UN member states don't recognise Kosovo not 93 as Biblbroks. I would support saying something like "Kosovo is recognised by 65/192 UN member states". IJA (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Oppose. Just accept it is a country de facto and de jure. Rob the Invincible (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jock_No_Sock - Tadijataking 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree -Tadijataking 22:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I also strongly oppose the inclusion of that phrase because it sets up the impression that all nations who have recognized or not recognized Kosovo are equally important. In fact, they're not all equally important. Recognition by the United States alone—just in terms of diplomatic significance—is worth as much as 100 of those other nations that do not recognize Kosovo...many of them developing countries in Asia and Africa that have very little influence in world affairs. Beyond the US, Kosovo has been recognized by the likes of Britain, France, and Germany, all heavyweights in global and European politics.UBER (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
oppose non-professional.-- LONTECH  Talk  17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Uber, is the purpose of this section to discuss the number of UN members recognising Kosovo or are we here to evaluate each state by awarding them "points" for their alleged importance? Of 192 members, the United States occupies one single seat just as do the Marshall Islands, Bhutan, Panama, the Comoros, Barbados and Belize. There is no such thing as "one of the big lumps is worth 100 of the minors". User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not necessary to explicitly state how many UN members have recognised as well as how many have not recognised. You can imply one number from the other. To my mind it's a bit like saying that Nelson Mandela was the first black president of South Africa, and then saying that he was the first non-white president. There's just no need to give both mutually-exclusive facts. However, for clarity, we could say that 65 out of 192 UN members have recognised - this will enable readers to more easily ascertain the number of non-recognisers if they so wanted. Bazonka (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All right, look:

The political status of Kosovo is disputed. Having unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in 2008, Kosovo is formally recognised as a sovereign state by 104 UN member states (with another 10 states recognising it at some point but then withdrawing their recognition) and 89 states not recognizing it, while Serbia continues to claim it as a part of its own territory.

This information already features on this template. Perhaps I am not with the topic here but where are we aiming to add (or disclude) the piece? User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change anything. As far as I'm concerned this discussion can be closed. Bazonka (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
evlekis is not ethical to delete the text and the signature of others.-- LONTECH  Talk  17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to restore it, I will not remove it again, but one is well within his rights here to remove irrelevant nonsense. We were discussing a certain issue when Tadija crossed out the opinion of a known disruptive user who has abused many accounts including the current one. User:Rob the Invincible is, or was, a serial vandal called User:Sinbad Barron. I realise that his loss is a blow to anyone arguing matters on a pro-Albanian platform but he and his blatant puppets all have one theme in common and that is not welcome here. Then what happens? Tadija is accused by a user of being a puppetmaster. Unfounded, unproven and not relevant. That's why I removed it. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
check this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tadija&oldid=317084943 -- LONTECH  Talk  20:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Evlekis, when it comes to recognition of nationhood, the diplomatic significance of the nation doing the recognizing is extremely important. The United States is the most powerful nation in the world, and when it decides to recognize a country, that decision reverberates across the world. It's highly inappropriate to compare the US to the likes of Barbados in the context of this discussion. I also oppose your proposed revision and would like to keep the current version of the lead for now.UBER (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I never proposed any revision. The text you were reading was not drafted by me but was from a template which is being used when identifying Kosovo as a state so as not to mention Serbia, if you examine the source instead of reading the main text, you'll see how that message appears. If it were inappropriate, it is only because I was not fully aware of the intended changes. The United States is influential, correct. There are governments however whose decision to recognise Kosovo is not based on inspiration from Washington. Saudia Arabia and the UAE for example can't be said to be following the States' example because both of these states (plus Pakistan who may very well recognise Kosovo soon) had all recognised The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban) when the rest of the world recognised the Islamic State. But there are many nations (eg. former Yugoslav republics, Baltic states, others, etc.) whose governments, as you rightly describe, need their nappies changed for them by the US; no disagreement there. I must maintain however, that the US still only occupies one seat in all institutions where it is signatury, and for all its influence, it still at the time of me writing this, has failed to induce 50% of the world's recognised governments to recognise Kosovo. Be that as it may, there is no way that any editing on Wikipedia can be based on one nation being more valuable than another. (User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Well if there are no proposed revisions, then we're done here.UBER (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Why all of you talk about me? Did i deserve it? :) Please, don't feed the trolls. Lontech was blocked for 4 months and topic banned until recently per trolling. --Tadijataking 16:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Moronic statment

The article says that Ottoman Empire defeated in 1389 the coalition of Serbs, Albanians and Bosnians and reference is, again, on Noel Malcolm. I really cant understand what Albanians had to do with that battle, and if you guys believe that Noel Malcolm is a guardian of all-knowing-truth about Kosovo history maybe you are making a mistake.--79.101.12.177 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is a "guardian of all-knowing-truth about Kosovo". Links to him count as a source but you can use links to all the contrary material too. I am more concerned about the difference between Serbs and Bosnians. Precisely what is meant by Bosnians? People from the territory of Bosnia? These could be Serb or Croat. Does he mean ethnic Bosnians? That for a 14th century chapter is something difficult to prove and it requires more than just plain mention given the sheer complexity of Bosnian identity. Evlekis (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually - its worse, THAT article which is used as refference doesnt says anything about battle on Kosovo in 1389. Look for yourself. And, yes, it is a little bit unsure but as majority of Bosnian muslims call themselves as "Bosnaks" the term "Bosnian" would mean "people from Bosnia" no matter are they Croats, Serbs or (in that moment) members of Bogumilis church. And please, erase Albanians from that battle, it really has no sense. --91.150.79.36 (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
But, there were no Muslims in Bosnia in 1389. So, no Bosniaks either... FkpCascais (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
So, people from Bosnia then - as we know, Islam had not reached the area yet. Evlekis (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no "Bosnian" or "Bosniak" ethnicity in the 14th century, and consequently no "Bosnians" can have fought in the battle of Kosovo. Perhaps we should stop referring to this Malcolm character altogether. --dab (𒁳) 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Read In 1389 at the battle of Kosovo an army of Serbs, aided by Bosnians, Croatians, Bulgarians and Albanians, was decisively defeated by the Ottoman forces The establishment of the Balkan national states, 1804-1920 Volume 8 of A history of East Central Europe Authors Charles Jelavich, Barbara Jelavich Edition reprint, illustrated Publisher University of Washington Press, 1986 ISBN 0295964138, 9780295964133 Length 358 pages [6]. You forget kingdom of Bosnia with Tvrtko I in this sense they are labeled as bosnians as a political entity. Trying to define their national identity in 1389 is absurd Interestingly enough in this other book [7] she left out Croatians and Bulgarians while keeping Bosnians and Albanians. Propably their numbers were bigger than the others and in political situation of that period that makes some sense. Croats were far away, while bulgarians were mostly vasals at that time Aigest (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC) According to Scheville [8] also Vlachs should be included. This ones uses names but again bosnians and Albanians are mentioned [9] and for Ottoman chronicles you have a ref here [10] or here [11]. What we can see for sure in all these references Bosnians and Albanians are always mentioned as allies while the others appear and disappear and this may have the explanation I stated above Aigest (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is something else right? Barbara Jelavich says "army of Serbs, aided by -others-". No "coalition" mensioned. As I said, that statment is moronic.--91.150.79.84 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo under "Ottoman Kosovo (1455–1912)":
"Ottoman occupation left a lasting demographic effect on Kosovo — with full-scale dislocation of Chistian groups" - someone please change it as the article is locked and I don't have permissions.. Van nostrand (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been fixed, thanks. Beam 18:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Passport image

This image does not really contribute to our understanding of Kosovo's declaration of independence, and either way I think better images could be found to gage Serbia's response to that declaration. A photograph of a passport is a little bit underwhelming.UBER (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the passport photo is not needed. However in UberCryxic's edit to remove it, he also (stealthily?) removed the photo of the Gračanica monastery. I then reinstated this image, which Lontech reverted with the comment: "no need to set it here because that picture for a long time is set in the place where the article Gračanica is. also may provoke other religions". That doesn't even make any sense. How can it "provoke" other religions? The monastery is a perfectly normal example of a religious structure in Kosovo, albeit one from the minority religion. Kosovo muslims can't object to it - there's no implication that it's from the only religion, or from a better religion. I just don't see what the problem is. Bazonka (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This article never had religious content (picture), with reason. What you want to do with this is to create new conflicts based on religious views-- LONTECH  Talk  19:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How? Do moslems think that Gračanica doesn't exist? It is a religious building in Kosovo. If there was a picture of a mosque would the Christians object? No. This isn't taking sides. Bazonka (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I second Bazonka here, a picture of a religious building isn't taking a side. Kosovo is famous for it's religious buildings, regardless of what you think of independence. We should keep the picture of Gračanica monastery. That stamped passport image should be moved to the Kosovo Passport article. IJA (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Put the religious picture back now, no objections are apparent that make sense. Beam 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content: ccTLD

Kedadi (talk · contribs) removed this from footnote: 

.rs is the ccTLD of Serbia

As ICANN has not given Kosovo its own ccTLD, it is not neutral to remove this, as Kosovo status is disputed. I am for the return of this sentence, in order to obtain NPOV on this subject. --Tadijaspeaks 18:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, with .rs it is POV. As Kosovo does not have it's own ccTLD, then maybe .eu would be NPOV. Cheers. kedadial 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Do we need to mention the tld at all? It's more NPOV to say nothing. Bazonka (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I Agree on removal of TLD. You are right, it is just better without it. --Tadijaspeaks 21:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Removed. Bazonka (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Dubious" tag

Someone has tagged the intro to this article with a "Dubious" statement - in particular the sentence "Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo, a self-declared independent state which has de facto control over much of the territory". To me this seems entirely clear and correct - I cannot see any reason for the Dubious tag. I propose its removal. Bazonka (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

According to wikiblame, Dab added it. I also see no reason for the Dubious tag. Cheers. kedadial 23:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Removed. Bazonka (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Serb enclaves

Serb enclaves nowadays are under the authority of the Republic of Kosovo, so only the north remains out of control. I guess that this sentence needs to be updated. Cheers. kedadial 23:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Amended. Bazonka (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

RoK control over the territory

This sentence, "... a self-declared independent state which has de facto control over much of the territory" was altered by Dab, by adding "much of" to it. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "most of" instead of "much of"? Or to remove it and say "... a self-declared independent state which has de facto control over the territory; the exceptions are Serb enclaves in North Kosovo." since it mentions where it does not have control? Cheers. kedadial 17:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Much of" and "most of" mean the same thing - I don't care which one is used. However, your suggested alternative sentence doesn't really read correctly without these words. A better alternative would be "...over the territory, with the exception of Serb enclaves in North Kosovo". Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint Bazonka and I support your proposed alternative.
P.S. After reading the intro of the article more carefully, I see that governance/control is being repeated twice:
  • "Its majority is governed[1] by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state which has de facto control[2] over the territory, with the exception of Serb enclaves in North Kosovo.".
Do you think that it needs a review?
Cheers. kedadial 19:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's certainly not right. How about this alternative?
Bazonka (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this is uncontroversial, so I've been bold and made the amendment. Revert and discuss if you think otherwise. Bazonka (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that is not good. First, Serb enclaves are not just in North Kosovo, second, is it true that ROK have no influence only in North Kosovo? What about other enclaves? I doubt that very much. User:Kedadi should verify this, if he said so. Also, i would ask Bazonka to revert previous version until we find better solution together. This is not good. --Tadijaspeaks 12:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Calm down - I have reverted my edit. However I must point out that I did not make any factual changes - I merely reworded it so that it didn't say the same thing twice. Any factual errors were there before, and are still there after the revert. Bazonka (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I know, thanks... Dont know, i am actually against any major edits like this, unless some fine sources are inserted. But thank you, Bazonka, you are quite kind, and neutral. I trust you! :) I am just afraid that RoK does not have de facto control over any of those enclaves, as far as i know. Just that. In that light, those edits are unneeded. What do you think? --Tadijaspeaks 12:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you be happier if it said:
  • The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; [Република Косово, Republika Kosovo] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory, with the exception of some Serb enclaves.
? Bazonka (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but North Kosovo must be mentioned, as it is completely out of RoK government. And it is large. --Tadijaspeaks 12:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, in that case I suggest we use my proposed text above, only ending with either "...exception of some Serb enclaves, the largest of which is in North Kosovo" or "...exception of a Serb enclave in North Kosovo" as appropriate. I am not entirely familiar with the true situation so I don't feel able to say which is best. Bazonka (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Great, Bazonka! Just, largest enclave is entire North Kosovo, it is not just placed in the north. So, i hope this is final:
  • The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; [Република Косово, Republika Kosovo] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory, with the exception of some Serb enclaves, the largest of which is entire North Kosovo.

This is totally Green tickY for me. :) What do you say? It is important to create good heading. --Tadijaspeaks 14:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, North Kosovo is not an enclave by definition... better to use and in this case. --Tone 14:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
And the word "entire" just looks wrong. Bazonka (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest "...exception of some Serb areas, the largest of which is North Kosovo." Bazonka (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That is NPOV. Agree --Tadijaspeaks 15:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Amended. Bazonka (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misinformed

Citizens of these enclavave except north kosovo (municipalities) participated in elections held by the Republic of Kosovo in 2009 and have their deputies and elected their presidents (all serbs)

Check Pages 50 and 68 President of Sterpca and Gracanica also Ranilug

http://www.kqz-ks.org/SKQZ-WEB/al/zgjedhjetekosoves/materiale/rezultatet2009/komune/FinalCandidatesSeatsAllocation.pdf

Expept north kosovo where has been little participation Other enclaves should be deleted immediately.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Easiest thing to do is to remove the words after "Serb areas". The link (to Kosovo Serb enclaves) will provide more information (although that page may need amending). Bazonka (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

also you can not say that does not have control of the north Kosovo because the Kosovo Police also operates and controls the Municipalities of North Mitrovica, Zvecan, Zubin Potok. but you can say that has not extended its authority LONTECH  Talk  21:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Let's make the intro vague enough to deal with all the inconsistencies. Bazonka (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid that that is not true. Kosovo Police doesn't operate in North Kosovo. Do you have any sources for that? --Tadijaspeaks 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, whatever the true situation is - the current wording covers it. Bazonka (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, RoK doesn't have de facto control of any kind over North Kosovo. I also dont think that "...the largest of which is North Kosovo" shouldn't be removed, as it shows that large section of Kosovo is not under RoK government. Sentence with just "Serb areas" is just not enough. --Tadijaspeaks 21:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
is this enough, also the commander of north KP station is Serb also Milija Milosheviq-- LONTECH  Talk  22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Serb enclaves (like Gracanica, Strpce, etc) all over Kosovo, as of November 2009 (last elections held by RoK) are under the authority of RoK (Police, Courts, Municipalities, etc.). They are governed by local Serbs under the authority of RoK. North Kosovo (which by definition is not an enclave) remains with mixed and vague authority, like: RoK with the help of EULEX, UNMIK and the parallel Serb institutions (backed by Serbia).
As for the clarification I made above, I'm proposing this alternative:
  • The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; [Република Косово, Republika Kosovo] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory, with the exception of North Kosovo.
I believe it's NPOV, represents facts from the terrain and makes it clear for the reader to understand the situation. What do others think?
@Tadija: as a side note, Kosovo Police operates in North Kosovo.
@Lontech: <offtopic>Could you please use indentations (with :) for your comments? It's getting really hard to follow the discussion! Thanks.</offtopic>
Cheers. kedadial 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
How about saying something like "limited control in North Kosovo"? Bazonka (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely Agree with you regarding North Kosovo. It's much better saying "limited control in North Kosovo", since "with the exception of North Kosovo" assumes no control at all there. Cheers. kedadial 14:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am still not convinced that it is surely like that, but i Agree also. It is mainly neutral. --Tadijaspeaks 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that "extent of authority" is the appropriate word to use, but if the majority agrees to use the term control I would also Agree.-- LONTECH  Talk  18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems that Tadija agrees too. Bazonka I need your opinion whether this is technically correct:
  • The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; [Република Косово, Republika Kosovo] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory and limited control in North Kosovo.
What do you think? Cheers. kedadial 18:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps say "control over most of the territory", and I would say "with limited control" rather than "and limited control" (the latter wrongly implies that North Kosovo is outside the territory) otherwise fine. Bazonka (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree. So
  • The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; [Република Косово, Republika Kosovo] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory with limited control in North Kosovo.
Is this final? I say yes! :) --Tadijaspeaks 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I say yes too. Bazonka (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I almost agree but I have a couple of more suggestions:
  • The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; [Република Косово, Republika Kosovo] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory, with the exception of North Kosovo where it exercises limited control.
or as Lontech suggested the word "extent of authority":
  • The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; [Република Косово, Republika Kosovo] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), a self-declared independent state, has de facto authority over the territory, with the exception of North Kosovo where its extent of authority is limited.
What do you think? Cheers. kedadial 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No because that implies that North Kosovo is the only part where there's limited authority (there may be others). How about:

  • The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; [Република Косово, Republika Kosovo] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory; in North Kosovo its extent of authority is limited.

Are we there yet? Bazonka (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Now i don't agree. :) Kedadi, you proposed "limited control", what happened now? "extent of authority" is just wrong. None of those two are good, and sentences sound a bit awkward. "where it exercises limited control"? This is my best, as we all agreed above:
  • The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; [Република Косово, Republika Kosovo] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory with limited control in North Kosovo.
So, Bazonka? :) --Tadijaspeaks 22:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
@Bazonka: Nowadays, only the north remains with mixed and vague authority. Until November 2009 (last parliamentary and local elections held by RoK), all Serb enclaves were like that. I agree with your last proposal; the only dispute that we're having seems to be: "over the territory" vs. "over most of the territory". Cheers. kedadial 23:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Kedadi, that is not important. We cannot know that, as there are no sources for ALL other enclaves. Previous version is neutral, anyway. It suppose to be just question of wording, not meaning. As i told, i agree to "over most of the territory" --Tadijaspeaks 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Serb enclaves didn't bind to RoK, until November 2009. Here are some sources that prove my point, that all Serb enclaves except North Kosovo are under the authority of RoK:
Cheers. kedadial 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I know all of that, but we cannot trust RoK government regarding this. It is logical that they want to merge all Kosovo into RoK. :) And it means nothing when someone from RoK visit someone else. None can forbid them that. I am talking about parallel institutions, not paying taxes, disputed government, regular, ordinary life is not present. That is missing in Serb enclaves. RoK does not have "control over the territory", only over "over most of the territory". Even if it is just North Kosovo, and it isn't, it is more then three entire municipalities. That is large. By not saying "most of", North Kosovo importance can be minimized, and that is not neutral, or needed in the article lead. I am still for the previews version of mine. With most of. --Tadijaspeaks 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I am happy with Tadija's last suggestion. Bazonka (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with any change of the current version unless references are provided. Kedadi brought his references, so I'll wait for those who disagree with him to bring opposite references.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What? Why? Tadija's latest version above is broad enough to cover the situation where only N Kosovo is outside control, and the situation where there are other areas outside control. No references are needed. It fits all eventualities. Bazonka (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I personally support the last alternative that you proposed:
  • The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; [Република Косово, Republika Kosovo] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory; in North Kosovo its extent of authority is limited.
Then we'll start a new thread regarding RoK control over Serb enclaves. What do you think? Cheers. kedadial 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I support "over the territory" Technically is not correct to use "most of the territory" because the territory is not divided into 2 parts and these three municipalities do not cover more than 8% of the entire territory This part is also controlled but limited for the reasons mentioned above.-- LONTECH  Talk  17:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, we are running in circles. Bazonka, I and Kedadi all agreed on "over most of the territory", per reasons explained above. Also, now on Kosovo page it is "over most of the territory", as that is neutral, and true, as agreed. Question is only how to write about North Kosovo. Bazonka and I agreed on "with limited control in North Kosovo", while Kedadi proposed "in North Kosovo its extent of authority is limited". So next, Kedadi should explain why he prefer this version over agreed one. I disagree with this one as it is not quite clear what this means. When you say for something, with limited control, it is easy to understand, and it is also more neutral then extent of authority. So, Kedadi, what do you say? :))) --Tadijaspeaks 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not true because this alternative was proposed by banzoka A better alternative would be "...over the territory, ........". Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC), and was supported by kedadi. Also I support extent of authority because this part is controlled by the KP. If we use word control then we should remove all limited control. Also control is more war term.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Read Bazonka at 07:36, 20 April 2010. Waiting for Kedadi respons. RoK in reality have only very limited control over North Kosovo, while term "extent of authority is limited" means that someone's authority is expanding over recognizable borders. As RoK borders are not internationally widely accepted, and as RoK clames part of it's own imaginative territory, it is not expanding anywhere, so that term is wrong. Lontech, please, add another section for your disputes, as this question has been disputed in a good and constructive way. If Kedadi dont respond in next 12h, it means that he agreed also to Bazonka and mine final version, so we can add it. Also, as no reliable source has been added here, i and we can also doubt that KP control North Kosovo. Even if it is like that, much, much more is needed for complete control over territory. As your arguments are already rejected per above discussion, and as Bazonka said that this version "fits all eventualities", which i agree also completely, please start another discusion about our second question, and that is how to include in the lead "Kosovo Serb enclaves" question. That was leaved for later, and that will be highly constructive. Thank you for your understanding. --Tadijaspeaks 21:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
oh really Eulex isn't reliable source and now you are some kind of admin and you give other editors ultimatum.-- LONTECH  Talk  22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the article to the "extent of authority is limited" version. It may not be perfect, but it's better than what was in the article previously. Most people here seem to favour this version anyway. Bazonka (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion on Kosovan passport biased title

I am planning to put a pov-title template on the Kosovan passport article as per discussion on the talk page. The discussion appears to have come to a stalemate so I am asking for some other opinion before I tag the article. Please discuss at the Talk:Kosovan passport for the time being. The issue may be connected to similar articles (Abkhazian passport and others) and I am not sure where to post this request. Best regards, --Biblbroks's talk 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't put a pov-title template until you get at least most of the commenters to agree with you. 68.114.198.186 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what Biblbroks is complaining about. As Bazonka told him there, any entity claiming to be a state has citizens and may issue passports to them for those citizens to attempt to use for purposes of travel. Whether other states accept said documents is a separate question. The Republic of Kosovo exists, it claims statehood, and issues documents accordingly. Some states accept the passports, some don't. Some states accept the statehood of the RoK, some don't. Neither point affects the fact that the document in question is a Kosovan passport, just as the title states. 97.82.152.134 (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I broadly agree with you, and do not see why a big POV warning is necessary, but I think it would be best to use the Kosovo passport page when discussing fine details of Kosovo passports. :-) The discussion is long enough already; splitting it onto another talk page is just asking for trouble. But then again I went there to offer a third opinion rather than to get bogged down in epic debate... bobrayner (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

@User:97.82.152.134, as Bobrayner said it, please don't split the discussion. If an entity claims to be a state it doesn't necessarily have citizens. Only if it *is* a state - then it has citizens. Vice versa: if it has citizens it is a state. They are intrinsically connected. State without citizens is simply a territory without inhabitants and not a state - it must have a constitution to be a state, and constitution presumes citizens. Also citizens without a state are simply inhabitants of some territory and not citizens - again they ought to have a constitution to define a state. But simply having a constitution isn't enough - because other states may disagree with existence of a new state. Until they all agree that it is a state then it is a state. Perceive it as a club with restricted membership. Since there is no president of the club, all members must accept a new member. Also User:97.82.152.134, I am not complaining. Actually you are by questioning why am complaining. Please discuss on the Talk:Kosovan passport in the future. For the reason of having a compact discussion I will copy this whole section to the Talk:Kosovan passport and expect the discussion to continue there. I will disregard all the future comments on the subject made here. Regards, --Biblbroks's talk 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


The Name Dardania

Except from the albanian Wikipedia Kosova (historikisht: Dardania,[2] serbisht: Косово, Kosovo), zyrtarisht Republika e Kosovës (srb.: Република Косово,[3] Republika Kosovo; anglisht: Republic of Kosovo

In the Albanian Version of Wikipedia, its written the right way. I think there is something missing!

Its about the historical name of the country. Its called "Dardania". That's the exact name the former President Ibrahim Rugova, had written on his version of the Kosovarian Flag.

If you don't believe me, check it up for yourself. You just have to type it in Google, in Web or Pictures. And you will see, that its the historical name of the country, given in the time of the Roman-empire, and many people call it still Dardania, and want to rename it again with the old name...

Because that's the Albanian Name for the country, Kosova or Kosovë is just the "albanized" version of the Serbian Name.


--Ban187 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Albanian names.

I made this change following this RfC. Albanian names should be put accross Serbian names per RfC and this would contribute to an NPOV article. Actually my edit just put lang-sq, because the Albanian name was already there. Please let me know if there are disagreements with the RfC or with my edit, dropping a line on my talk page. Thank you! --Sulmues Let's talk 12:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo note

Please note that there is currently a discussion here about the content of Template:Kosovo-note. Your thoughts would be very welcome. Bazonka (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has reached an impasse, and so I have started a vote. Please participate. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Refers to the Republic of Kosovo"

Is the change to the description of Kosovo reflected by my edit in this dif] actually controversial? I was reverted pretty quickly over something that is a fact on the ground. I completely understand the sensitivities to the Serbian point of view on a break-away province, but Kosovo is currently an independent country with control of its territory, and this independence is disputed by many countries. That said, "disputing" something is a far cry from "controlling" something. Why don't are articles clearly reflect this? Hiberniantears (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The controversial part is your sentence: "The Republic of Kosovoa has de facto control over most of the territory of the Serbian province of Kosovo", which I feel is POV. We cannot say that Kosovo is part of Serbian territory, in the same way that we cannot say that it is an independent nation. Wording must be done very carefully to maintain a neutral stance, and your edit didn't do that. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Good point... How about "The Republic of Kosovo has control over most of the territory of the former Serbian province of Kosovo, which is still claimed by Serbia"? I'm trying to make sure we clearly state that this is a real country that controls it's own territory while recognizing that Serbia still claims the territory, but no longer has control over it. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't like that either, because "former Serbian province" implies that it isn't Serbian any more. Serbs would vehemently disagree with this (Serb POV = even though Serbia doesn't control it, it's still Serbian). I honestly don't think the wording needs to change at all - surely it is biased to say that Kosovo is a real country, when the majority of the world says that it's not. Bazonka (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Article

To be honest have any of you read the entire article in a sitting? The article needs to be re-written, some information is redundant, some information seems out of date. I checked out for example the Economy section only to find out that the section is out of date. For example the trade balance (exports/imports) for April 09 was 7.4% whereas the trade balance for April 10 is 14.1% --- this shows that the economic conditions are improving. I also saw no information in regards to CPI, inflation, etc. Honestly guys this article seems poorly written with 99% of editors fighting to change the first two paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh.... yeah the article isn't pretty. But the fact that we even have an article is pretty impressive. Also, go ahead and rewrite EVERYTHING but the first two paragraphs. Thanks. Beam 20:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Kosovo-note

The Template-note is intended as an NPOV status description for inclusion in all Kosovo-related articles. It describes the level of international recognition/non-recongition of Kosovo-statehood internationally. At the moment, the Template-note includes the opinion of those states that are not UN-members but do recognise Kosovo. However, the Template-note does not include the opinion of those states that are not UN-members but do not recognise Kosovo. Some users (including me) think this is biased and want a change. Please contribute your views and participate in the vote. 84.203.72.8 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two possible solutions to this: (1) include both UN recognized and non-recognized states that recognize or do not recognize Kosovo; or (2) only include UN-recognized states that recognize or do not recognize Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

“Self-declared” independence

In almost every paragraph here in this article the word “independence” is inside the term “self-declared independence” or “unilateral declaration of independence”.

But wait… practically every act of independence is self-declared! The United States independence was self-declared, as the same way that happened with Belgium, Latvia, Estonia, Indonesia and many other countries.

The constant use of the terms “self-declared” and “unilateral” terms seems to push the article to the POV that the Kosovar independence is essentially illegal and non-existent… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.195.174 (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Independence can be agreed by both parties beforehand. But not in this case, so the "unilateral" label is appropriate. Bazonka (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
But the USA declaration of independence, for example, was never “agreed by both parties” — to the contrary, Great Britain did not recognize American independence and even went on war to revert it. And nobody talks about “unilateral” or “self-declared independence of the United Sates”, but simply “Independence of the United States”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.194.43 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you take this discussion to the United States article because that's where the problem seems to be. It is entirely appropriate to refer to a unilateral declaration here, because it's important to show that it was made without Serbia's consent. Bazonka (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The US declaration of independence was indeed unilateral and self-declared, and if we were writing Wikipedia in 1770's, we would have every reason to label it as such as we do with Kosovo. The reason we don't do it now is that it is no longer controversial, the UK has relinquished any claims to US a long time ago. In contrast, there is an ongoing controversy about independence of Kosovo. There are plenty of examples of bilaterally (or multilaterally) agreed independence in recent European history, such as Montenegro and Serbia, or the successor states of former Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia.—Emil J. 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
But even the dissolution of the USSR was not made with the consent of the Soviet Central Asian republics, for example.
And whet about the independence process of Slovenia? It was made without the consent of Belgrade, which even went on war to revert it. And nobody talks about “"unilateral, self-declared independence of Slovenia", but simply "independence of Slovenia".
The article tends to the POV that the Kosovar independence was "an ilegal, temporary rebellious act of a little group of Albanians against Sacred Serbia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.193.153 (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with saying that Kosovo's declaration of independence was unilateral - it was. If you want to say that other declarations were also unilateral then fine, but that is not a matter for this talk page; take it to the relevant articles. Bazonka (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The secession of the republics of Croatia and Slovenia from SFR Yugoslavia was a constitutional right of those two republics, i.e the Yugoslav constitution guaranteed each republic the legal right to secede. Kosovo, as an autonomous province and not a country, never enjoyed such a right, either in the Yugoslav or Serbian constitutions. Hence there was never an issue of a "bilateral" declaration of independence or the consent of Belgrade, both were never required by international or Yugoslav law. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
But we are not talking about the right-or-no-right of the former Yugoslav Kosovo to declare independence from Belgrade; what we are discussing here is the necessity of the constant use of the adjectives "unilateral" and "self-declared" together with "independence" in the case of Kosovo — compared with other cases of independence declarations from other countries around the world — and its consequences over the genereal POV of the text of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.198.207 (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
But the declaration was unilateral and self-declared, and since it's still disputed then surely this is of relevance. It's in no way POV to state this. Your gripe seems to be the inconsistency with articles about other declarations which don't say that they were unilateral. As I've said at least twice before, that is a matter for those articles' talk pages, not here. We're going round in circles with this discussion. Bazonka (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jews in Kosovo? Jews from Kosovo?

Were there in Jews in Kosovo or from there? Till WWII? Now? (at least there were at some time, wait! that was Dobrovnik, here and here, where I finally got a full answer....)

I know Kossovsky, Kossov, Kazov and many other Jewish family names. Here's the story of the Holocaust of Kossov in Hebrew. Here's a link to the Synagogue of Rabbi Moshe of Kossov in Safed Israel... But these are probably of a city in the Ukraine named Kossov.

While writing the question I found the answer... See above. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Add Kosmet to introduction

Right now it only functions as a redirect to the article, but I noticed a good amount of such use for Kosovo by Radio Srbja of just that term in the English-language press of theirs. Thoughts? --Mareklug talk 21:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this term is used frequently enough to warrant a mention. Bazonka (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Added. --Mareklug talk 15:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ak71vie, 23 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} per bobrayner & BritishWatcher Jarkeld (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

change "Currency" from "Euro" to "no currency (with footnote)". The footnote should say that "The Euro is widely accepted" or similar; as Kosovo is NOT a member of the European monetary union. Ak71vie (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Membership of the "European Monetary Union" (hmmm) is not strictly necessary for a country or territory to use the euro as a currency; other places have adopted the Euro despite not being EU members.
The Euro is legal tender in Kosovo: [12] - if that's what the central bank says, and if that's what people and organisations routinely use in transactions, then that's the currency - regardless of whether or not the government of Kosovo has signed some special agreement with a third party.
bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, Euro belongs there and the note in the infobox explains it is not a formal member of the eurozone. Dont see any need for a change on this BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree, this is not a case of Dollarization, where the country's currency circulates along the foreign currency. It's a case where the central bank of that country doesn't issue any local currency and where all bank accounts are legally required to work in euros. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a link could be made to Seigniorage, as the EU central bank is probably making a nice profit from the use of Euro banknotes in non-signatory countries. Incidentally, I heard on BBC Radio 4 that the ECB is firmly keen to stop any more non-EU countries from using the Euro as currency. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

An article on the subject from the Bank of Albania: http://www.bankofalbania.org/web/pub/M_SVETCHINE_1329_1.pdf Brutal Deluxe (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to add ccTLD in Infobox

We could add the ccTLD section in the Republic of Kosovo Infobox. We could put .ks and/or .ko and put a footnote stating that the ccTLD is still pending. --Gimelthedog (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ICJ verdict

Events regarding this article are very likely to develop tomorrow. Can I ask for all regular contributors to keep an eye out on the article, watch out for vandalism and controversial edits. Also can I ask for everyone to keep NPOV in mind and to get a consensus before making certain edits to the article, which could possibly be controversial. Cheers IJA (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the UN says Kosovo independece is "not illegal".[13] This does indeed change things. I have always said that a change in the current structure of the article will have to depend on a change in the real-world situation. This may be such a change, and we will have to review the infobox situation. I would suggest it is now fair to collapse the two infoboxes into a single one. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Which two of the three infoboxes have you got in mind? Anyway, I'm all for independent Kosovo, but I don't see how today's verdict changes the real-world situation. The ICJ has no authority over the status of Kosovo, it only issued a non-binding advisory opinion.—Emil J. 14:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The fundamental objection to Kosovo being presented as an independent country has been the ambiguity of its status and the questions surrounding its legitimacy as a state. The ICJ ruling has secured its legitimacy, if not its legal status, as a lawfully-formed polity. Kosovo has 69 recognitions. UN membership is not a prerequisite to being presented on Wikipedia as an independent state, as the articles for Vatican City and the Republic of China attest to, nor do the number of recognitions matter, as the latter also attests. These questions, I think, have for the most part been put to rest. We can continue to note Serbia's sovereignty claim, just as the PRC's sovereignty claim to Taiwan is noted in the ROC article. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Fully Agree. Cheers. — Kedadi 15:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Fully Agree. — --NOAH (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
well yes, it's a gradual process. Unless and until Kosovo joins the UN, there will always be room for debate. We just need to compare the situation here to that of the other partially recognized states. Kosovo is now probably the "best recognized partially recognized state not in the UN", excepting perhaps the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
I note that in the latter case, we keep one article on the state and another on the territory, SADR vs. Western Sahara. Perhaps based on this, it might now also be an option to separate Republic of Kosovo from Kosovo (region).
The verdict by no means changes everything overnight, but I think it is still an important step, forcing us to reconsider our stable consensus.
If we are going to treat the Republic of Kosovo like the Republic of China, as Canadian Bobby suggests, we will also have to opt for the two-article solution:
(Republic of China:Taiwan)=(Republic of Kosovo:Kosovo (region).
--dab (𒁳) 15:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Can we please have the consensus reaching process on the infobox separate from the consensus on the article split? It's kind of difficult to obtain consensus in one thing, let alone two. --Sulmues (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
After the split, where should Kosovo point to, Republic of Kosovo or Kosovo (region)? Cheers. — Kedadi 15:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
probably Kosovo (region), or else Kosovo (disambiguation). --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be the least confusing to have it go to the disambiguation page. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
NO! There are 2 Chinas (different geography) but only one Kosovo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.84.236.47 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC) — 109.84.236.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 109.84.236.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I Agree with one Infoboxs and I no Disagree with Split

I Agree with one Infobox and I Agree with Split, I've said all along that this article was trying to be too many things at once. --Khajidha (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote dab: "we will also have to opt for the two-article solution". I seem to remember this was tried before and promptly suppressed. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with having just one infobox but I'm not sure about the creation of the article [[Kosovo {region}]] as there are already too many articles about it. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with the one Infobox proposal of dab and I no Disagree with Split

  • However please make this consensus reaching process only with the infobox proposal and get the unique infobox on top first. After that let's start a separate discussion and consensus reaching process for a potential split. To me a split doesn't make any sense: The Kosovo region will bring lots of issues as far as the size is concerned: Are we talking about Kosovo today? The vilayet of Kosovo? What is Kosovo if not the entity of the Republic of Kosovo and its history? Furthermore, Kosovo has always been more of a political and administrative area, rather than a geographical region, and it just doesn't make sense to have a separate article.--Sulmues (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with one Infobox and I no Disagree with Split, since differently from the Republic of China — wich controls not only Taiwan but also Pescadores Islands and some other islands on the coast of continental China — Kosovo controls (completely in most of the country, and partially in the case of North Kosovo) all of the territory of the former Yugoslav Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, and Pristina controls no territory beyond these borders that were set since the end of World War II in Yugoslavia.--BalkanWalker (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with one Infobox and I Agree with Split -- Al™ 01:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with one Infobox and I no Disagree with Split bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, the so called "split" was rejected by the Wikipedia community at least 10-15 times during the years. There is no reason to bring it up again especially after the Court's decision. This is a very significant step in the process of full recognition, so Agree with one Infobox. Hobartimus (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I also believe that splitting the article is not the best possible idea and I fully Agree with having only one infobox. It generally seems that all editors engaged in this discussion agree on having one infobox, should we go on with the change? Cheers. — Kedadi 03:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You could do the change if you feel bold enough, but the article is under all sorts of parole and such so watch out for 1RR. Hobartimus (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, someone should do it now. I also Agree with one infobox and I no Disagree with split. --109.84.199.76 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I fully Agree with one Infobx (the country-box) and I absolutely no Disagree with splitting, renaming, forking or whatsoever. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC) — 92.74.20.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
sorry, this is not a vote, and a pile of Albanian patriot IP addresses saying "do it" doesn't really do anything. We need to have a coherent discussions of the pros and cons. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Dieter Bachmann, why do you care about my race? --92.74.20.221 (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I also Agree with one infobox for the article and no Disagree with splitting the article as I believe everything should be included on the one article. IJA (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree with splitting of article. We don't have any Spain (region) or France (region), we place everything in the same article. No opinion on infobox. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
We must have proper discussion about this, not just vote with 100000 albanian editors. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so all of this votes are pointless. --Tadijaspeaks 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
If you would like a more detailed discussion, nobody is stopping you.
However, complaints about "100000 albanian editors" are irrelevant hyperbole. Discarding the opinions of those who disagree with you, just because they have a different background, is not proper discussion. If you would like to raise more detailed points, I'm sure other editors would happily discuss them.
I would agree that wikipedia is not a democracy but it's interesting to see when people raise this point - usually when they realise that many others disagree with them. I would point out that you have participated in votes here before (and crossed out the votes of others you felt unqualified). It might be uncivil of me to suggest that your commitment to democracy depends on whether or not most people agree with you; perhaps you have simply changed your mind about democracy over time.
bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Νot all these users or even the majority are Albanians. There seems to be an agreement regarding at least the infobox by most users so like kedadi said should we go on with that change?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


@ Tadija, hang on a second, a proposal has been made to just have one infobox, now everyone has that they agree, this shouldn't be taken into account because everyone who agreed didn't write a dissertation to why they agree? If you agree with something you usually don't have to explain why you agree, you just simply say "yes, I agree with that". However if you were to say that you disagree with something, then you go on and say why. What we have here is editors saying that they agree with the proposal to have one infobox. Anyway I see no opposition to it, so what is the problem? IJA (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Also most editors have explained with a sentence as to why the agree, making them not simple votes as Tadija has wrongly stated. Also we're not all Albanian. Hardly any of the people who have agreed are Albanian. IJA (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I've merged the Infoboxes into one as agreed here. There was no opposition to doing so. Ive kept the map of Kosovo which shows that there is a dispute to maintain NPOV. There is also notes in the info box to show that independence has only been partially recognised. IJA (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a proponent of making small step-edits instead of wholesale revolutions. Accordingly, getting rid of multiple infoboxes in favor of one is the upper limit of that. Furthermore, Kosovo has one present tense -- it is the Republic of Kosovo. Other competing claims and descriptions are either in counterfactual space or in the past. We should make note of them, but they are not of the same weight (anymore). Furthermore, our model should be other countries in Europe, not Republic of China (Taiwan). We don't have Russia (region) or Spain (region), even though these could be said to be well-defined regions with shifting borders and polities over time. Let's collapse the infoboxes and keep the article (and redirects) largely the way it has been, while observing international developments. --Mareklug talk 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I support step by step changes. Essential changes like ( Introductory text ) should be modified because now the independent Kosovo is not only de facto State but also de jure.-- LONTECH  Talk  16:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And just to remember: this is not a vote, but a discussion where the arguments in favour of non-splitting and one infobox are winning. Anyway, it always seemed strange, even befor the ICJ ruling, that the articles about Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, governments that are far less-recognized worldwide, had only one infobox while Kosovo had... three! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.195.132 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that the ICJ was ruled that the declaring independence was legal, not neccessarily the independence itself. Technically it's a legal loophole and really hasn't changed the situation. Just some food for thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.72.16 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo is not member of UN. So technicly nothing is changed. --Alexmilt (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@Alexmilt, this is wikipedia not UNipedia. IJA (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

UN membership is irrelevant from the point of being a legitimate country, just think of the case of Switzerland and when that country became a full UN member. Hobartimus (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

IJA, wth is that supposed to mean? UN membership would hardly be irrelevant. If the RoK was in the UN, we would not be having this discussion. Sure, you can be recognized by everyone and still not be in the UN, as used to be the case for Switzerland, but this isn't the case for the RoK.

The ICJ vertict is an advisory opinion. It is important, but doesn't change anything in the de jure status of Kosovo. All it did was disappoint Serbia's hopes that it would get backup along legal lines. Now there is no probable scenario of how Serbia is ever going to regain control over Kosovo. They cannot act with military force as the international community would just dump a ton of bricks on them, and they cannot act legally, so their hands are really tied now. This will perhaps convince them that their best bet is to try and compromise and get at least control over those regions that are not loyal to the RoK, and in exchange forfeit the rest. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It has changed everything

Kosovo was not considered a state for reasons that its independence was illegal so in terms of de jure "concering international law" kosovo was not a state.Now in terms of de jure "concering international law" kosovo is a STATE. UN Court has given ksoovo legal right to extend its authority throughout Kosovo and has shown the world that Kosovo is same state as all other countries of the world Kosovo and Kosovo is an equal state with other states and should have all the international rights belong to any state ICJ has removed ambiguities regarding the statehood of Kosovo. To respect international law Kosovo should be recognized by those states that had some recognition dilemma and Belgrade's policy should come down from sky to earth to agree with its independence.If Serbia as a country respects international law should recognize Kosovo-- LONTECH  Talk  18:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Status of Kosovo

After the hearing by the International Court of Justice, should Kosovo be considered a country now?

Wai Hong (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please .. this is no place for us to speak of what "should" and should not be! We just report on what's going on. The new court ruling shall be reported here in all neutrality, along with the Serbian rejection and reaction. No need to make a point to anyone here in the Encyclopedia. Thanks, Maysara (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Trade and Commerce

This section states: "Kosovo has a reported foreign debt of 1,264 billion USD that is currently serviced by Serbia."

I believe it should read 1,264 million USD (or 1.3 billion) not 1,264 billion. Tiddy (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

“Kosovo is a disputed territory in the Balkans. The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo…”

Shouldn’t it be better in the first paragraph to replace the above with the simple sentence “Kosovo is a partially-recognized country in the Balkans”? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.197.116 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't... :) --Tadijaspeaks 21:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, It should be. Kosovo is not just a "territory". Only it's Indipendence is disputed by Serbia and its supporting allies, but no one disputes it as a territory. Piasoft (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, Kosovo is not a disputed territory. I think what's disputed and partly-recognized about Kosovo is it being a "sovereign" state. The article should simply say something like: "The sovereignty of Kosovo is disputed and partially-recognized by world states." Please be bold and make the necessary changes. :) Thanks you, Maysara (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah right... settle down there, calm and quiet. No. Kosovo is not synonymous with the Albanian Republic of Kosovo. See North Kosovo for more info. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
But Kosovo is synonymous with the Republic of Kosovo, see info box. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
For majority of the world Kosovo is still part of Serbia. "its supporting allies" is highly POV. --Tadijaspeaks 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Of those countries that make up your "majority", how many have expressed disagreement with Kosovo's independence/support of Serbia's position and how many have simply not said anything (and possibly couldn't care less)?--Khajidha (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Only 44 countries expressed disagreement with Kosovos independence. This is less then the 70 countries (including Taiwan) that recognized Kosovos independence. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • User:Tadija please stop your provoking statements, and please remember that the Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation because of statements just as these you make here. Please try to be helpful. It doesn't matter what is your personal opinion about things. We are just reporting matters here in order to create a good encyclopedic article. Maysara (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Meeso, you are knowingly fostering conflict. This sort of edit-warmongering should be reported instead of tolerated in this manner. You are fully aware that the long-standing Wikipedia consensus (WP:CONS) on the issue of the Republic of Kosovo is that it is not synonymous with Kosovo, any more than the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and yet you are trying to have an IP newcomer who does not know this to do your dirty work for you and push your POV. You are knowingly trying to entice others into acting against consensus, incorrectly citing WP:BOLD in a thoroughly deceptive manner. Had this turned into anything more I would surely have brought this to the attention of those same admins you are threatening people with. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Judging from the above threats and conflict provocation, you are not the one I am likely to learn that from... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Although it's tempting to comment on other contributors rather than on the article (and I have succumbed to the temptation sometimes), I think you two are taking it a bit too far. Could I suggest that you try to focus on improving the article? Please?
bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

have you really reached an agreement regarding the single country infobox instead of the previous 3?

nothing else to add, but, if you havent, Im pretty sure some serbian nationalists will revert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.88.227.175 (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem are not the serbian nationalists but rather admins that supported their doing. But luckily one of these admins ("dab" aka "Dieter Bachmann") seems to hold himself back. And as long as he does we need not to fear any serbian nationalists. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
can somebody block this returning troll please? We haven't reached "an agreement" on this because once again the discussion was disrupted by the patriot IPs. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping he would hold himself back. Maybe someone should hold him back? --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

no dab we have reached agreement even if it does not suits your opinion. Being admin does not give you the right to act as wikipedia is your personal property and just because you do not have someone to watch over your actions.-- LONTECH  Talk  19:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

who is "we", and where is the diff where I threaten administrative intervention? If you cannot provide evidence to back up your accusations kindly piss off, thank you. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not say "piss off", this is not polite. Even not as an administrator. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
user has zero edits to articles. This talkpage is degenerating into a sock circus. --dab (𒁳) 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your warm welcoming. And again, please do not say "piss off", even not as an admin. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Albanian name of Kosovo is just Kosova, not Kosovë

There seems to be a misunderstanding in the Albanian naming. Indeed Kosovo is also called "Republika e Kosovës" in Albanian but you will never read just "Kosovë". --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovë is the Albanian name for Kosovo, while Kosova is the definitive form. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Try to convince the Albanians: http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosova As you see it is only Kosova. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You are right, and it's a mistake. The indefinite form should be used per standard Albanian as Kedadi pointed out. Unfortunately the Albanian wikipedia is so poor that I have given up contributing there: even Albania is given in the definite form. Shame. Shqipëria--Sulmues (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Country Profile

It seems that the whole issue of "infobox/s" has been resolved.

id like to point your attention to the rest of the profile, it doesn't seen too good.

its too cluttered and doesnt have many pictures to make the profile seem nicer.

can we please take this into consideration when making future edits and have the Kosovo profile looking similar to that of other countries around the world.

please feel free to add your comments and i look forward to seeing new changes to the rest of the profile.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.24.78 (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One infobox?

After removing all other infoboxes, i invite editors to respond this questions.

  1. It is POV to have only one infobox, without information's about United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo
  2. For majority of the world, Kosovo is still part of Serbia. Where is infobox about that?
  3. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus claim only one part of some territory's. As you may see with Vojvodina article, Kosovo should have "Autonomous Province" infobox, under UNMIK regulation, as it is claimed as part of Serbia.
  4. How intro can be neutral without all of this?

--Tadijaspeaks 12:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

About point number 3, when did Kosovo claimed whole of serbia? It claimed only part of serbia. It is the other way round, serbia is claiming "Kosovo is serbia!" and not the Kosovars claiming "serbia is Kosovo!"--92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
RoK is claiming entire Autonomous Province of Kosovo. --Tadijaspeaks 12:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus do the same thing about their territory, so where is your point? They do not claim whole of Cyprus or Georgia or Moldova. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Another problem about point 3. Looking at Vojvodina#Legal_status, the region has not declared independence, it seems to consider itself an autonomous province, and seems to be regarded by all countries as an autonomous province. The situation is very different from Kosovo's situation. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, one Infobox, that was the consensus, where this was discussed. Opening a new thread on the same thing, is a big no-no when the thread is still up here, you should have posted in that thread (titled ICJ verdict). Hobartimus (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We can keep the article as is, but then it would probably be a good idea to move it to Republic of Kosovo to avoid confusion, and to point Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation). There could also be a separate Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article for Serbia's administrative entity, as in ru:Республика Косово vs. ru:Косово и Метохия. Frankly, I do not think there was consensus for the bold edit by IJA (talk · contribs). We had an ongoing discussion, but then that discussion was trolled by the returning German-IP trolls, and things got out of hand. This is not a basis for a change in consensus. Block the trolls first and then see how consensus stands. --dab (𒁳) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No splitting, renaming, forking, moving or whatsoever. We disussed this over and over again, see history. So let me ask who the troll is that you mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=375544255&oldid=375540819 --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
wow, so you manage to say "we disussed this over and over again" and to pretend not to know what has gone on before? Nice one. We have indeed discussed this many times, and the outcome has always been "two infoboxes". The question now is exclusivel whether the ICJ verdict changes anything. For your information, there are also two articles for Abkhazia, one on the Republic of Abkhazia vs. one on the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. I think there will be no way around splitting this article one way or the other now, the question is just where to point Kosovo. The most neutral thing we can do is make it the disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you show us Abkhazia and want to convince us to a disambig page? Not so clever as there is no such a disambig page in the case you showed us. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That is a problem for the Abkhazia pages, there should at least be a disambiguation sentence at the top of those pages. The logical thing to do here is just what dab is suggesting. --Khajidha (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Republic of Abkhazia" is just a redirect to Abkhazia. "Abkhazia" has two governent spinouts due to size problems: Government of the Republic of Abkhazia and Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. I don't see any disambiguation page, and I don't see the need to disambiguate "Abkhazia" to each of the governments. Government of Abkhazia is a disambiguation page (by the way, I am going to add hatnotes to the two government articles). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion of Dbachman to follow the Russian Wikipedia example is enigmatic: why should the English Wikipedia follow the Russian example? And why shouldn't it be the other way around? The so called Autonomous Provice of Kosovo and Metohija rightly has a redirect to Kosovo and I don't see any reason why it should be a separate article. In addition, last year after 5 months of discussion that I made and a 10-2 voting for the single infobox, the only result I got was a block for disruption and a ban from Kosovo topics. Thank you for your attention. --Sulmues (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User Sulmues. We are not the problem. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Dab is right. This is POV fork like this, and it cannot remain like this. Those two must be separated, as RoK is not equal to Kosovo! IP user is equal to sock puppet for me, as it have 0 edits other then here. I agree on split, and ask Dab for further actions in this direction. --Tadijaspeaks 13:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The one info box is just for Kosovo in general, just like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc. Also I am strongly opposed to splitting the article. All that splitting the article would do is encourage Forking and each of the articles would be POV and that goes against all what Wikipedia stands for.. IJA (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You didn't responded any of my questions above. If you are opposed to the forking and povs, then infoboxes should be returned. If it is for Kosovo in general, then remove flags and coat of arms. RoK is not equal to Kosovo, and never will be --Tadijaspeaks 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
A precedent has been set on WP to show Partially recognised countries like Kosovo, Abkhazia etc with one information box. Kosovo is de facto governed by the RoK just like Abkhazia is de facto governed by the RoA. Kosovo should be presented like all other partially recognised countries. The former APKiM and UNMIK do not administrate Kosovo. Also I do not see the point in having three infoboxes. Have the relevant information in one box. IJA (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Every other region, country, entity, territory etc on Wikipedia all have one infobox. It is rather bizarre to have three for this article. IJA (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I too am strongly opposed to splitting the article because that would lead to fork articles. Tadija's arguments are personal deductions and not based on any policy.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As others already pointed out, there are no policy-based reasons to split anything, and similar articles are not splitted. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have updated the infobox to make it more NPOV. Under Government you can see that I have added Lamberto Zannier as UNMIK Special representative. I have added to events in the infobox, UNSCR 1244 10 June 1999 and EULEX 16 February 2008. Also Under government I have added UN administration. Please see my edit here. IJA (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Well done, but I guess even this will not be enough to convince admin dab and his friends not to split the article, therefore we should be vigilant. Again, thank you IJA! --92.74.20.221 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have also changed the conventional name of Kosovo at the top if infobox from "Republic of Kosovo" in English, Albanian and Serbian (c and l) to just plain Kosovo in all three languages. Please see my edit here [14] This also makes the infobox NPOV as it just refers to Kosovo as Kosovo, it doesn't suggest if it is a country or a province, it just uses the same name as the title. IJA (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so can we now remove the split template in the article, please? --92.74.20.221 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, no formal split proposal was made, so I propose to remove the template that is currently appearing. --Sulmues (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I would support the removal of the split template as the split suggestion was about the infobox. However I have since changed the infobox to be more status neutral and I have added relevant UNMIK information. So now we basically have what was in the three previous infoboxes all in one now. IJA (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No, the split tag was entered by Dab to reflect Tadija's words and also Dab's own proposal to split of the article itself between RoK and APKM, not of the infobox. However I believe that Tadija is not following any formal split proposals and neither is Dab, so his tagging at this point is inappropriate, unless Dab wants to make a less formal discussion on split. --Sulmues (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Dab you are acting like this is your private article. Consensus was very clear where most of ediors oppose absurd split Kosovo now is not only de facto state but also de jure. Do you know what it means de jure.-- LONTECH  Talk  16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the splitting of the article and agree with the proposal to remove the split. It was fine the way it was and no consensus on this move was sought. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I too oppose a split.
It is unfortunate that dab keeps on complaining about troll IPs. They appear to have been relatively civil; their main offence seems to have been disagreeing with dab.
However, even if you don't count the IPs (which would be absurd), a majority of contributors opposed a split.
dab also said: "We have indeed discussed this many times, and the outcome has always been "two infoboxes"."; this surprises me, as the most recent poll clearly supported a single infobox and opposed a split. Furthermore, it was not disrupted by "troll IPs"; if anything derailed the discussion it was the people complaining about troll IPs; complaining that thorough discussion hadn't been held (but not actually putting forward a thorough argument of their own); complaining that wikipedia isn't a democracy, coincidentally after it became clear that a majority of contibutors did not agree with them; and so on.
I think we should stick to the point and find ways to improve the article, rather than looking for excuses to ignore a clear consensus if it doesn't suit our individual political beliefs.
bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I support the split. Despite occupying the same physical space, the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo are two very different things occupying very different conceptual spaces. They no more belong on a page together than do Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990-1999) and Republic of Kosova. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting a new article called APKM that starts from 2006 or from 1946? I would personally support a good article rather than many weak articles, but I really want to know your thoughts. --Sulmues (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I am suggesting that every era in Kosovan history deserves its own good article. Eras with competing governmental claims deserve good articles for each claim. To me, having to try to satisfy the competing demands of the pro-Serb and pro-Albanian positions means that neither is covered very well. --Khajidha (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree every era in Kosovo's history does deserve an article however this article is about contemporary Kosovo therefore you have disassembled your own argument about splitting the article. IJA (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You missed the second part of my statement, "eras with competing governmental claims deserve good articles for each claim." --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Good content on each part of Kosovo's history? I'm all for it. And of course linking to a detail article from here. But separate content to avoid the problem of competing claims? I would oppose that because I think it would worsen the problem rather than solving it - the same problem would reappear on several different articles. If we tried to create separate articles that showed one party's perspective, then each little component article (particle?) would still encounter difficulties in satisfying NPOV, reflecting the arguments of a variety of balanced sources, &c.
It is difficult to write any text that reconciles competing claims for pro-serb and pro-albanian positions; but if the alternative is to write separate texts or to ignore one of the claims in any given article for the sake of easier composition...
bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
If separating competing claims is a bad thing, then why are Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990-1999) and Republic of Kosova separate from each other? When you can't even get a good infobox because half the items in it have two (or more) things that could be listed, each of which will upset large portions of the readership how can you get a good article? --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think both articles show the negative side of splitting. They should be merged with Kosovo, as it is part of the history. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
They are both historical articles.-- LONTECH  Talk  18:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That seems a trivial difference. If it can be admitted that people in the past experienced things differently depending on which government they considered themselves to be living under, then it follows that the same is true today. --Khajidha (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Both articles should be included in Kosovo history and should be deleted-- LONTECH  Talk  19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it that the UN infobox was removed, I thought we were passed this sort of bias on this article. It seems constant persistent POV-pushing against consensus pays after all. There is really no question at all that an article dealing with both political entities (Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province) should have two infoboxes for both of them. I am still trying to understand under which excuse the United Nations infobox was wantonly deleted in the first place, and how such POV could've possibly escaped unopposed on a closely monitored article. The edit is virtual vandalism, destroying the objectivity and neutrality of the article, the sooner it is reverted the better.

If the article is to be split into Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, that would probably be the best solution. I would, however leave this article on as a summary article on the region of Kosovo itself. This would probably be the ideal situation, and we have ample precedent: there is Ireland with Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, not to mention China, etc. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Ireland is not geographically the same as Northern Ireland which is only a part of that island and the same goes to China as there are 2 geographically different Chinas, the continental one and the island called Taiwan. So how can you compare Ireland/Northern Ireland and China/Taiwan to Kosovo? Therefore no splitting, please. --109.84.213.75 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)PS: And the same goes to the also mentioned case of Cyprus/TRNC: Not the same geography as TRNC is only a part of Cyprus but RoK is Kosovo.
Both Chinas actually claim the entirety of the territory of China (mainland and island), they may not actively pursue these claims but they are incorporated into the structures of their governments. So, yes, we can compare Kosovo's situation to China's. --Khajidha (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you got it wrong as Kosovo does not claim the entirety of Serbia. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I was comparing PROC/ROC to Autonomous Province/Republic of Kosovo, not Serbia/Kosovo. --Khajidha (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
But PROC and ROC are not the same geography, one is a continental state, the ohter is the island state - Republic of Kosovo is the same spot as Kosovo! --92.74.20.221 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Both states actually claim both the mainland and the islands, see One China Policy. --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It is still not the same like PROC/ROC as serbia clamis Kosovo AND serbia but Kosovo claims only Kosovo and NOT serbia. --109.41.255.238 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, I was comparing ROK and APKM. As this is the Kosovo page, those are the two polities that are relevant. BOTH of them contain the entire region of Kosovo. --Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
And I told you that there are 2 different places called China but there is only one Kosovo, therefore you cannot compare those cases. --109.84.218.200 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Both governments claim that there is only one place called China and that that place includes both the island and the mainland. The two governments are mostly identified with different subregions, PROC with the mainland and ROC with the island but both consider "China" to mean the combination of the two. So, by the definitions of the Chinese, there aren't two places called China.--Khajidha (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR, it wasn't removed it was merged into one infobox. Please tell me what information was in the UN infobox which isn't in the current infobox? IJA (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh, nice. :) Funny how the merged infobox looks almost exactly like an infobox for the Republic of Kosovo would look like. Must be coincidence?
Do not try to present this as an issue of "presenting all the information". The issue is neutrality (WP:NPOV), equal representation in the article. I do not recall that being the flag and coat of arms of any Serbian autonomous province. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR should be aware that the coat of arms was adopted after Kosovo declared independence - long after the musical chairs of provinces and sub-provinces within Yugoslavia. I do not understand why that point was raised. Of course, it would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV to simply reject any content which didn't imply that Kosovo belongs to Serbia.
I realise many people would like to pretend that the declaration of independence never happened; but it did, and the article must reflect that.
bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the whole text before you post coments there is a clear consensus about this. and revert will be considered vandalism-- LONTECH  Talk  19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you are perfectly free to "consider" any edits you disagree with as "vandalism". :) You should definitely report any such alleged "vandal-like" edits immediately instead of trying to use (very empty) threats on experienced wikipedians. I will however recommend that you read WP:VAN, and with care, so as to avoid embarrassing situations in the future. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


@ Director, don't you think it is rather silly to state three times that the capital of Kosovo is Pristina, state three times that Kosovo's common name is "Kosovo" and to have three maps of Kosovo etc. There was very little information in the UNMIK infobox and very little information in the Rep of Kosovo infobox. All the information has been merged into one infobox. I think you should have read this discussion before commenting, I shouldn't have to explain the same thing to every individual user who joins in the discussion. Also back to the question I asked you, what information that was in the UN infobox isn't in the current infobox? IJA (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Direktor, try to read all the comments and the consensus reached before throwing heavy punches on editors: there was a consensus on the light of the recent decision of the ICJ, which is the judiciary of the United Nations. Also please see changes that were made to the infobox from IJA, which include all the info necessary on UN administration. The Kosovo triple infobox case was unique in Wikipedia and it was finally solved. --Sulmues (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather disappointed to see an editor being so smug and arrogant. You are not the king of the article just yet, Director. We had a consensus and it was acted on. You can't metaphorically throw the table up and assault the rest of us with the broken pieces because you don't like the consensus. You can't demand neutrality with feigned outraged innocence while simultaneously, and not-so-surreptitiously, demanding changes over the objections of the majority of us to suit your own point of view. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The APKiM didn't have a flag, that is the only flag Kosovo claims to have and has ever claimed to have. Also I could use your same argument for TRNC, Abkhazia, Tawian etc IJA (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, the issue here is not information redundancy, but neutrality (WP:NPOV). To use your own example, the fact that the Autonomous Province had no separate flag of its own does not mean we can now use the flag of the Republic of Kosovo to represent it.
Personalizing the issue as "my own POV" is quite an old ploy and not very effective. It is obvious to any non-involved observer that if two (hostile!) political entities are to be covered by this article, then the two cannot be represented by the same one infobox, sporting (among other things) the flag and insignia of just one "preferred" one. Furthermore, if one of those entities is not an independent country, how is it "neutral" to represent the one that is not as an independent country? "Elegance" should never override factuality, still less neutrality.
As for my perceived arrogance, it is instead rather mild outrage at the current state of the article. I do, however, invite all to ignore the tone of my post, as it can be deceptive, and concentrate on arguments. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Then how come we use the Flag of Abkhazia to represent Abkhazia? Oh I forgot, that is ok because Abkhazia isn't Kosovo and we have separate rules and standards for Kosovo. Well that in itself is extremely POV. It is better than your idea of showing the "UN" flag in the UNMIK infobox. The UN flag is the flag of the UN not UNMIK. IJA (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems it is necessary, for the millionth time, to emphasize that Abkhazia is NOT an adequate comparison with Kosovo, for very many obvious reasons that were listed far too often for me to repeat them yet again to the same users.
In the end, I am sure it does not take a lot of argument or elaboration to show the inappropriateness of covering two countries with one infobox, even if that infobox did not look exactly as the infobox of just one of those countries, the one fervently supported by most of those who removed the second infobox. Now does the source of my outrage seem more obvious? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Kosovo has an official flag. Removing Kosovo's flag is blatant POV pushing because it conveniently omits a key symbol of Kosovo's sovereignty. It is not neutral to remove it - that would be an explicit endorsement of Serbia's position. Only four countries recognize Abkhazia, but there seems to be no issue of showing its flag. Same with South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, etc. Nobody has displaced their flags. This is not an argument you will win, Direktor, because it's ridiculous and dilatory. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
We are not showing two countries with one infobox, we are showing RoK and UNMIK Kosovo with one infobox. It is the only flag Kosovo has therefore it seems appropriate to use it. I could understand and sympathise with your argument if there was more than one flag for Kosovo. However since there isn't I can't see any credit in your argument. And thank you Canadian Bobby, finally someone with some sense. IJA (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
So Kosovo is not independent because you or Serbia say so

No my friend KOSOVO now is independent because UN ICJ say so. This decision has closed every issue regarding KOSOVO statehood.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Then your problem is that this article also covers the Autonomous Province, go change that and come back. You know that, though, so I frankly have no idea what is the point of such "declarations of independence!". Except perhaps that they vividly display your bias in this issue? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The infobox clearly covers that it is also for APKiM. So I don't see what you're on about now. IJA (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No. It most certainly does not. In response to a repeated statement all I can do is repeat: covering two countries with one infobox is highly inappropriate and very much unheard-of on enWikipedia, it would be inappropriate even if that infobox did not look exactly as the infobox of just one of those countries, the one fervently supported by most of those who removed the second infobox - which is exactly the case. It is very obvious, I think, to any objective observer that the neutrality of this article (such as it was) has been undoubtedly diminished. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
What two countries are you on about? Everything that was in the UN infobox has been added to the infobox and the UN apparently administrates APKiM. What information do you think is missing about the APKiM that should be added? State Secretary for Kosovo Oliver Ivanović? IJA (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I am puzzled at the necessity to incessantly repeat the same responses. Again. Please do not try to pretend that the issue here (on one of the most controversial Wikipedia articles) is about information redundancy or efficiency, it is not. As I have said, this discussion is about a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality, about depicting the two entities covered in this article as objectively as possible - for which we need either a custom infobox or two ordinary ones. Exempli gratia, is the flag in the infobox the flag of the Autonomous Province? (the Autonomous Province does not have a separate flag, but that does by no means mean we can use one of a completely different entity) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this objection is clutching at straws. If the historic entity had no flag, why is it POV to use the current flag of the current entity on an article?
Right now, on the main page, we have Belarus. It shows the current flag of Belarus. Previously, Belarus (or states with other names on the same territory) has had a variety of different flags over the years - but none of them are shown on the front page or indeed in the Belarus article. Where's the outrage?
Go look at the other articles on other countries, territories, and provinces around the world, and you'll find a similar pattern - including Serbia. Current flags are used because they are current.
bobrayner (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Um... there appears to be some misunderstanding. The entity is obviously not historic, but current in both the legal and territorial sense. It exists today simultaneously with the Republic of Kosovo (much to the apparent dislike and disapproval of the Albanians), and is covered in equal measure in this article. Hence we have an article that covers two very distinct and even hostile political entities - with one very biased, pro-RoK infobox. A situation which is I think quite unheard-of on enWiki.
Certainly it is utter nonsense to represent the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija with the flag of a completely different country, which is in addition also a rival and opposing entity. I'm still trying to understand how this could possibly be justified, still less described as "clutching at straws". It is fallacious and misleading in the most obvious way imaginable. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The unified infobox already says that there are two different administrating entities for Kosovo. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, the article is still not NPOV, and quite glaringly so. Aside from the flag and coat of arms issues, have a brief look at this thread. To an objective uninformed reader, the appearance is that the Republic of Kosovo is synonymous with "Kosovo", which is of course equivalent with the complete recognition of the RoK's status in the Wikipedia community - and is contrary to established consensus. This is in obvious violation of both the said consensus and Wikipedia neutrality policy, and must be rectified in some way.
I for one can think of only three ways: 1) two infoboxes (as was the previous solution), 2) one custom infobox, if one infobox there must be, and 3) an article split into the Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo articles, with the Kosovo article remaining as a summary dealing with the region itself (mirroring the stndard Wikipedia approach to such issues, e.g. Ireland and China, among others). All are fine as far as I'm concerned, just as long as the error is corrected, though I personally think that an article split is the only long-term sollution to this mess. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR: Sorry. I had read your comment about "Autonomous Province had no separate flag..." and hence I mistakenly thought you were talking about the very real historic examples of an autonomous province (ie, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946–1974)
I did not realise that you were arguing that there are two countries in one territory. I'm sure we could all agree that there are two claims, but the position that there are actually two countries is... interesting. I thought Kosovo had declared independence. Who recognises this other "autonomous province"? Has it been recognised by the UN? When was the referendum? ;-)
Which consensus do you suggest the infobox violates? There was a poll recently which had a clear consensus in favour of one infobox, not two (or three).
bobrayner (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
(Pardon the longer response.:) By default of recognizing the Republic of Serbia within its borders, every country that does not (yet) recognize the Republic of Kosovo of course "recognizes" the existence of Serbia's Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, which redirects here and is covered in this article alongside the Republic of Kosovo. The Autonomous Provice is still in existence in a territorial (de facto) sense in "North Kosovo", which is not within the Republic of Kosovo (though the latter claims it of course), and in a de jure sense it can certainly be said the Autonomous Provice holds more legality than the Republic, as far as international law is concerned (which of course is the cause of all RoK's recognition troubles).
All the above has caused the (admittedly unfavorable) situation of this article covering both simultaneously existing political entities by Wikipedia consensus. I do not like it but there it is, this is why the article had two or three infoboxes to begin with. Now the paradoxical situation is exasperated further with the idea that these two countries should be represented within one infobox, one that "surprisingly" looks very much like an infobox for the Republic of Kosovo would look.
It must be remembered that the long-term goal of the Albanian side of this dispute here on Wikipedia has always been this article covering only the Republic of Kosovo. Hence "Kosovo" would mean "Republic of Kosovo", much like "France" means "French Republic". This is why this side has continuously boycotted any attempts to split the silly two-entity article in two, a most disruptive stance diminishing greatly the quality of Wikipedia's coverage and turning this hybrid article into a perpetual battleground. It seems now that the United Nations infobox has been removed as well, that we are inching closer to a highly biased pro-Albanian view on this dispute - the idea that the Autonomous Province "does not exist" at all. I mean, here we have the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, strangely represented by the flag and coa of a completely different rival hostile country. I personally cannot imagine any neutral justification for it.--DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
So show me the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", when we travel to Kosovo, where are their institutions? You cannot? But I can show you the institutions of the RoK. So tell me, what does exist in reality and what does exist only in imagination? And thats all about Wikipedia, we are presenting the reality, not the hopes and wishes of Serbian nationalists still living in the year 1389. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait while I "show" you... :) What are you talking about? The Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is under United Nations administration. United Nations (UNMIK) institutions are very much in existence I assure you. Come back when the UNMIK becomes "imaginary". It would be a good idea to remember at this point that only 69 out of 192 (36%) United Nations member states have formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo (and that only after noted significant lobbying by the United States). The remaining two thirds (and the United Nations Organization itself) do not recognize that entity, but rather the Republic of Serbia in its borders. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How many times it should be repeated that there are 2 Chinas (1 continental and one island) and 2 Irelands (one of them is just a part of the whole island) but RoK is Kosovo, there are no 2 different Kosovos, therefore no split. --109.84.213.75 (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, "much to the apparent dislike and disapproval of the Albanians..." :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR is absolutely right. Although IJA did created some moves toward neutrality, it is pointless to transform RoK infobox into neutral one, as long as we have flag and coat of arms there. This article should be split, or other infoboxes reverted, per arguments presented very well by DIREKTOR. --Tadijaspeaks 10:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Everything is said, we will keep the country box. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh, how nice that you took the liberty to "decide" everything for us. :) I'm sure everyone here was waiting impatiently for IP 92.'s directive to solve the issue. However if you yourself have "said everything" as you stated, I reccomend you not waste time here anymore. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, don't you realize that you are repeating yourself again and again? Everything is said, you say nothing new no more since a long time. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)To remove the flag would be an endorsement of a pov side so I'm strongly opposed to its removal.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing the removal of the Republic of Kosovo flag and/or coat of arms. That is not what this thread is about at all. Merely that one infobox cannot be used in an article covering two countries. Especially when that infobox uses the flag and coa of just one of those countries, and especially of the two are rival entities. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside view, and sorry if this repeats discussions that have been gone through before: first, I am totally against splitting the article. It's a single geographical entity; two articles could only be POV forks. Second, I am against having several distinct infoboxes, especially if they repeat redundant info (such as maps) merely for the sake of each POV side having the satisfaction of seeing "their" infobox complete. Third, I am also against monopolizing the article with just the R.o.K.-centered infobox with the Republic flag etc. on top. The obvious solution is a custom-made single infobox, which re-orders its elements in such a way that common/neutral parts of information are separated from politically specific ones. Thus, for instance: Title simply "Kosovo", followed by map, followed by geographic/demographic info. Then subheading "Republic of Kosovo", Republic's flag/CoA, info on government; and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And what about this? One article -Kosovo (region)- with regional and historic information's, and all locations on wiki can redirect there. Towns and everything else can be located in Kosovo (region) as it is. Even Kosovo note can stay. Two articles, RoK and APKiM, with all important data there, and that is it. When it is clear what it is about, there are no need for POV forking. Kosovo will be disambig. Fut.Perf? --Tadijaspeaks 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
When "points of view" materialize as separate institutions (governments) I do not think it is a pov fork to have one article on each. Of course people keep confusing the political entities with the territory, this is a common mistake, and this is not the only place on Wikipedia where the confusion leads to dodgy situations. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
We need fewer articles, not more articles, and fewer infoboxes, not more infoboxes. It is a general error to think that POV disputes can be handled better by multiplying coverage across more and more pages. The whole perennial dispute is so intractable only because people remain fixated on the symbolisms of where in an infobox to have this or that flag symbol, or what terms to link where. If people just concentrated on article text, as they should, it would be the easiest thing of the world to treat everything together. – As for the China analogy, I don't believe we even would have separate articles, if it wasn't for the fact that the R.o.C. had its own Taiwan territory and is de facto today perceived as simply a separate state located in Taiwan (with the official claims to sovereignty over the whole of China being no more than an arcane piece of ideology). In the K. case, we already have North Kosovo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I am a mergist myself, but it wouldn't occur to me to propose a merger of, say, Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia with Abkhazia. I understand the Taiwan parallel is less than perfect, but so is any parallel to anything. Kosovo (region) would get an article as a historical region in any case, regardless of its administrative status, just like Swabia or Bohemia.
This article should mostly focus on the current situation of Kosovo (since the Kosovo War, including the declaration of independence and anything related to that). It is simply burdened down by excurses into ancient history and what have you. The first image on this page is File:Dardaian idol.jpg. This is absurd. An article about the Republic of Kosovo and its current affairs can very well stand on its own, detached from historiography of the Ottoman period or the Iron Age. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) @Fut.Perf.. I understand where you're coming from, I am all for displaying information in an organized, elegant manner. However the problem is that here we have these two conflicting political entities covered in one article, an unprecedented situation to my knowledge. In other words, the question is not "why split the article?" but rather "why cover two conflicting political entities in one article?". I myself have no idea how to answer that in light of the numerous precedents advocating otehr methods of covering this (China, Ireland, Taiwan, Cyprus,...), and when one considers the fact that this article has been turned into a perpetual battleground due to this strange situation.
The best solution would be to follow China's example, and turn this article into an article on the region of Kosovo in general and its culture, while the two political entities each get their article to embellish as they feel is necessary without the incessant arguments necessitated by the extremely fine line of neutrality in a hybrid article. I'm sure this would lessen the conflicts greatly.

That said, I would have no problem with any one of the three possible solutions. A custom infobox, either one that removes all flags, or one that features both the UN/Serbian and Kosovar Albanian flags, is a good temporary solution - but not one that will lessen the perpetual conflicts here in any way. Also if I may add, removing the RoK flag and coa from this article is likely to envoke resistance from the Albanian side of this dispute, the custom infobox will probably need two sets of insignia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

obviously, as long as Republic of Kosovo redirects here, the flag should be displayed. It should just be clear that "Republic of Kosovo" is a just a subtopic of the article (concerning the period 2008 to present), not the main article topic. If the Republic of Kosovo is considered notable enough for a standalone article, there should be a split. In fact we split out sub-articles just on grounds of length for much smaller topics, so the only reason this hasn't been split yet must be ideological, not based in Wikipedia guideliens. --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There are already too many articles:

If there are concerns regarding the length of the article then shorten it and add main article templates to each section linking to any of these articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I really need to say those are history articles?? :) Every country on Wiki has a dozen on them. Completely unrealted to the issue at hand... The article is not too long, it just covers two completely different countries, something quite unheard-of on Wikipedia, and the root cause of all this incessant arguing here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Practical question: has a combined custom infobox ever been drafted? Is there an existing draft workspace or something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. It is questionable whether we should go that way at all. Quite a lot of problems that way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If we had to spend less time bickering over the infobox, more time could go into improving the History of Kosovo articles. I do think that some of these articles could be merged, especially History of Ottoman Kosovo (scope 1455-1912) and Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire (scope 1864-1912). --dab (𒁳) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The custom infobox is already on the article and you can revise it Template:Republic_of_Kosovo. Btw, it should be renamed simply Kosovo, as this will be the only infobox. --Sulmues (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC) @dab: Those history articles are in dire need of cleanup, but experience tells me that until you have good wikipedians working on an article a not cleaned up article is better than no articles at all. --Sulmues (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with user Sulmues, the custom infobox is already on the article. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hm, persistence. There is absolutely no way the current infobox could possibly stay on with the RoK flags and Albanian spelling and all the rest. Calling it a "custom" infobox is certainly not about to deceive people. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Why can't it stay with the RoK flag? Why can't it stay with the Albanian spelling? What's "the rest"? What deception are you talking about? --Sulmues (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija covered in this article? Is the flag of the RoK also the flag of the Autonomous Province, or the UN flag? Look I'm not going to repeat the whole argument here, read the thread. Its pretty obvious that the situation is highly inappropriate and biased and needs to be fixed, either by two infoboxes, one custom infobox, or by splitting the whole damn article. I think I'll be moving on to discussing the best solution rather than debating whether the sky is blue at noon on a sunny day... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to expand on the APKM. The APKM is defunct by the way, it doesn't have any formal authority on the region. Please make sure to cover that. Hope this answers your first question. The flag of the RoK is not the flag of the Autonomous Province, because APKM doesn't have a flag and secondly is inexistant. If you strongly feel that you should have a separate Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija for a historical reason, please start it and then we'll reference from this article to the now defunct APKM. I hope you will have lots of things to say on it. Best of luck and I wish you a good DYK. --Sulmues (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not here to expand on the APKM, which I do indeed feel free to do at all times, rather I am here now to remove the representation of the APKM with the insignia of the RoK. Despite the best wishes of all Kosovar Albanians, and much to the relief of the beleaguered Kosovar Serbs, the UNMIK is as yet certainly not "defunct". But I will surely not waste my time with silly "arguments" of this sort, I can but direct you to have a look at the lead of this article. Come back when that is changed by Wikipedia consensus. In the meantime I would further advise you to cease posting provocative political "declarations" on enWiki, even if they are somewhat "disconnected". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
UNMIK was a de facto dead in 2008.
Many of the editors here have argued that de jure UNMIK still exists for that reason we should keep
De jure death of UNMIK has been approved the UN Court itself.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It must be fun to write this sort of nonsense. Perhaps you should inform the UN? Be advised such further "declarations" will simply be ignored on my part, knowck yourself out. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
What "provocative declarations" are you referring to? The APKM as it existed until 1999 has no control over the territory and please let me know if you think otherwise. My knowledge of the area might be smaller than yours, so feel free to enlighten not only me but all the readers of enwiki with an expanded section of the APKM. It seems like you are confusing UNMIK with APKM. --Sulmues (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly the pro-Albanian point of view on these events. It is not supported by Wikipedia consensus nor displayed in the article. Hmm the source of this misunderstanding(?) is that the APKM was certainly not abolished in 1999, merely placed under the administration of UNMIK - and it legally remains a UN-adminiostered autonomous province of Serbia. The APKM is still legally in existence, as the RoK has no power to abolish it, and since the RoK is not in direct control of North Kosovo, that region is obviously territorially (de facto) a part of the UN-administered APKM (despite being claimed by the RoK of course). The idea that the APKM was somehow abolished in 1999 is quite incorrect on all counts I assure you. It is a political entity still very much in existence, despite being marginalized by the predominance of the RoK. Comparable perhaps to the Republic of China's marginalization by the People's Republic of China. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
So what are you proposing? Splitting the article? I think you should read the article UNMIK, do you propose that we should integrate more of that article into this one as UNMIK is still in affect to an extent? Perhaps we could include more of their role in the administration and governance of Kosovo? IJA (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Kosovo
I don't have to tell the regulars on this article that the situation here is bad, trench warfare comes to mind. :) The cause of this is very obviously the absurd unprecedented concept of this article as it is now - presenting two countries in one article. This creates a highly unstable "hybrid article" where neutrality is a very thin line, inevitably causing perpetual conflicts, an all-too-predictable situation.
I would propose the standard Wikipedia solution to such a battleground, as used in every case with the existence of two political entities with the same name - two different articles. Its not something I thought of, its already done on virtually all comparable issues (examples listed above). Instead of this unstable Kosovo article, we would have an article on the Republic of Kosovo and an article on the UNMIK-administered Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (possibly but not necessarily merged with the UNMIK article). The two would be on political structures, the entities themselves, while the Kosovo article (merged with Kosovo (region)) would cover the rich culture, joint history, and all matters of the region unrelated to the state (much like the China article).
Personally I do not understand how this "unholy abomination" of a hybrid could possibly come to be in the first place, still less how it could ever be expected to be free of incessant conflict, two countries in one article is quite unheard-of on Wiki to my knowledge. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I interpret your richly worded post as a suggestion to rename UNMIK into APKM: am I correct? --Sulmues (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
and to split the current article into Kosovo (region) vs. Republic of Kosovo. The split seems the most obvious approach. We would have Kosovo (region) besides UNMIK and Republic of Kosovo. I don't see any problem of WP:CFORK inherent in this approach, but of course all articles will have to be policed for (a) npov and (b) off topic material --dab (𒁳) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


OK DIREKTOR, I'm willing to give your proposal a try; I'm a liberal man ready to compromise and try out new things for the reason of benefit.
  • Kosovo/ Kosovo (region): region for History, Culture, Demographics, Geography, Economy and Society etc.
  • Republic of Kosovo: for the de facto independent disputed country.
  • APKiM/ UNMIK: for the partially UN administrated province which has a disputed claim by Serbia.
We must have clear redirect note at the top of each of the new articles so that people reading the articles can find the correct one they're looking for. Also each article must be neutral and they must not be used as a fork. However DIREKTOR before any of this is done, you need to propose a new split and get a community consensus. My I suggest that you and/or Dab properly arrange a split proposal please? IJA (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If a split between Kosovo and Kosovo region occurs, it should be proposed to the community, but there was an overwhelming consensus two days ago for the contrary. Feel free to repropose it.
  • A renaming of UNMIK to APKM needs to be proposed at the UNMIK talk page as a move request. --Sulmues (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To put it in IJA's words, the jist is this:

Community consensus is, of course, very much necessary - no point otherwise. Its important to note that the number of articles covering this would actually not be increased in any way, so that there would not be any real alck of efficiency. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree! Exactly that was my proposition. And this will be most peaceful proposition, as there will be almost no new material in those articles, we will just split existing, and merge few. I suppose that even vandalism will decrease. Great, i am for it! :) --Tadijaspeaks 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems the proposal just might be agreeable to both sides. :) Quite astonishing when one considers that the two have been pretty much defining themselves as the polar opposite of the other. I am actually worried that Albanian users might not agree simply because Tadija agreed... :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There is clear consenus regarding this issue This repetition and this attempt to create a very new consensus only to satisfy the nationalist ambitions of the serbian editors can be considered as disruptive editing.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahaha, DIREKTOR was right, as you may see from above. :)) --Tadijaspeaks 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
@User:Lontech. Nationalist ambitions of what?? I'm not Serbian, I'm Croatian, if you recall we fought something of a war with Serbs a few years back, and a rather bigger one than the Kosovo War I might add. The very idea that I'm here to promote Serbian nationalism is utterly absurd. As for your fanciful ideas of "disruptive editing", I can only once again recommend you educate yourself as to what that actually is [15], while you're at it please look up WIKILAWYERING. I imagine a clean split might not be agreeable if one actually likes constantly having it out here with the Serbs. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
What exactly would include this new article that isn't already included in any of the current Kosovo articles? As long as there is nothing different to write the article will be just a fork, but this is a decision that has to be made by the community not by a group of users so you should propose it in a RfC.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that one benefit would be to stabilize the article and to lessen the incessant conflicts that constantly spring-up. There is also little doubt that without the restrictions brought on by the necessity of following a very thin line of neutrality on the hybrid article, we would see extenisve unhindered expansion. If the articles are more stable than this mess we would see far more unhindered work, that's actually the point of stabilizing articles. As things stand now everything one side does is usually opposed by the other, for the most part since they share the same article and wish to avoid it being overly lenient to the other side's POV. Without perpetual conflict the articles will be able to expand in any number of ways they cannot now. In short, instead of cramming two countries into one article, they'll each get theirs to expand more freely and in a less restrictive atmosphere.
Plus, with two article there's the added incentive of competetion - which side has the more extensive article? In short I really cannot see how this could be a bad idea in any way. As per the reccomendations I've received on this thread, I'll likely propose an RfC when I can find the time. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the situation is very clear, this article will most probably not be moved to another title, because there is no consensus for it, and never was during a period of years. Meaning this article will stay at Kosovo, for the people who want to look up and read about Kosovo. But this does not mean that the Serbia article can't discuss this "APKM" entity in great detail. There it can be described that the Serbian position is that the APKM is real and the declaration of independence of Kosovo is illegal. We already have an article on Serbia so why not cover the Serbian views, such as the view that the APKM is part of Serbia? Hobartimus (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The article will certainly stay here for the people who want to look up and read about Kosovo. Its the two political entities covered in one place that I propose be moved to their own articles.
Making "proclamations" and flat statements is kind of an empty practice on Wiki, rather I recommend you put forward some sound argument against the split (having read the above first). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
What benefit? Well, as it is now virtually any statement you make about Kosovo must be immediately and directly qualified. In a split article the data relevant to each entity can be given with only a single note/section/disambig/whatever leading the reader to the other viewpoint. This will make the data more easily accessible. --Khajidha (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

@Direktor we fought? what does that means. For Croatia have not fought only Croatians, albanians fought for croatia also ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agim_%C3%87eku After the war the Croatian Army was reformed and President Franjo Tudjman named Çeku commanding officer of the Fifth District Region in Rijeka).-- LONTECH  Talk  17:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo/Archive_25&oldid=1255684138"