Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Edit request from Estaurofila, 26 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}


Please change the following sentence: Kosovo (...) "is a disputed territory in the Balkans." to read as follows: Kosovo (...) is a disputed territory in the Balkans."

Also make a needed clarification concerning the term "minority". I deem necessary to specify that, since the status of Kosovo has not been truly defined (is still controversial), we have to consider that on one hand, for the government of Serbia, Serbians are the constituent nation of Serbia and, therefore, cannot be a minority in Kosovo (a serbian province according to the Serbian constitution), where the minority are the kosovar albanians; and that, on the other hand, for the self proclaimed Republic of Kosovo, Serbians are a minority in Kosovo and albanians an ethnic majority.

Therefore I strongly suggest to include a sentence that reads, more or less, as follows: "the official point of view of Belgrade is that the albanians in Kosovo adn Metohija belong to a minority in said province, while the official point of view of the government of Pristina is that Serbians are a minority in the partially recognized Republic of Kosovo."

If the proposal is accepted it will be necessary (when necessary) to make other (cosmetic) changes, v. gr., to use other words instead of minority ("Serb population" instead of "Serb minority".)

Estaurofila (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You should read UN ICJ verdict if you still think that status of Kosovo is not defined.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ICJ verdict is non binding advisory opinion. Kosovo status is still very much not defined. --Tadijaspeaks 10:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the idea that from the Serb perspective, cannot be a minority in Kosovo. Could you explain? Maybe I have misread it. Although population statistics have historically been subject to nationalist distortions from all angles, who now seriously doubts that a numerical majority of the population are "Albanian"? (cue epic debate about what that label means).
Some extremist serbs did aim to change the population statistics in Kosovo to fit their ideals (presumably the reasoning went along the lines of: 1. This soil is serbian, ipse dixit. 2. Oh no! The people on the soil are not serbian. 3. Therefore the people must be killed or moved.) - however, these extremists did not succeed and hopefully few people now share their beliefs.
If "for the government of Serbia, Serbians are the constituent nation of Serbia" then why is Kosovo such a big deal? It has few serbs.
bobrayner (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think what Estaurofila means by saying that from a Serb perspective Serbs "cannot be a minority in Kosovo" is that Kosovo's population is not considered separate from Serbia's. That there is no separate "population of Kosovo" within Serbia, the population of Serbia as a whole is all that counts. --Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. AJCham 02:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Cleary, not a simple non-controvertial edit request, so I have cancelled the {{editsemiprotected}} for now; please reinstate it if you can show a consensus, etc.  Chzz  ►  02:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that, with some differences here and there, as far as we know all of the territory of Kosovo is under the auspices of the Pristina government or its police, at least. The Serbian government in Belgrade in fact it has no direct political or military or policing or judicial power over any part of Kosovo, including Mitrovica.

So to describe Kosovo as primarily as a “disputed region” is not exact. Better to describe primarily as a partially-recognized nation claimed by Serbia as its autonomous southern autonomous province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.194.89 (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The description you provide fits perfectly the definition of a "disputed territory", IMO. I think the opening sentence is appropriate as it is; accurate and succinct. The following two sentences adequately offer a brief clarification of the dispute. AJCham 05:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The status of the RoK is very well known: it is disputed. That's the long and short of it, and our article already says so. Also, I don't see the point of complicating the "minority" thing. It is an objective fact that Serbians are a minority in Kosovo, regardless of whether Kosovo is considered a province of Serbia or not. Kosovo is currently "under the auspices" of an unholy alliance of the Pristina government, the UN, the EU and organized crime. It is misleading to say that the Pristina government has de facto governance. If the UN and EU forces would withdraw, the whole thing would probably just devolve into anarchy. It appears that about the only entity that does not have any governance is Serbia. --dab (𒁳) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Organized crime? Anarchy? This clearly showes how biased admin dab is when it comes to Kosovo. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
is no admin watching this talkpage? can you block the socks please? This is getting out of hand. I am trying to have a coherent discussion here, and this guy keeps following me around with attacks. --dab (𒁳) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

,,, just devolve into anarchy" This is not coherent discussion this is prophetic discussion. Although prophetic prediction it is wrong because kosovo has its own police and army-- LONTECH  Talk  23:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

At least I didn't attack it anyone now, did I, but stuck to discussing the topic. The point is that the RoK does not have de facto governance. As does no country which does not have one but two international organisations deploying police forces to uphold law and order. I wasn't suggesting we add hypothetical scenarios of what would happen after EULEX withdrawal. I think it is also very much possible that by 2020, the RoK will have de facto governance. But we'll have to see about that when the time comes around. I do think that the RoK is on a path towards full recognition, it will just take time. Basically, it is just down to Russia. As soon as Russia strikes some deal and drops its objections, the RoK will be home free. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying that RoK doesn't have de facto governance is a little far fetched. An army (Kosovo Security Force) has been established and a police force manages order (read Kosovo Police). Furthermore a Foreign policy is administered by RoK (see Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Kosovo) and Foreign relations of Kosovo), which is the typical example of a functioning de facto entity: it manages foreign policy. Kosovo is not even in personal union with any country. And... would you say the same thing for Iraq? The US Army is there, but no one is saying in Wikipedia that the Iraqis don't have de facto governance in their country. Neither do we say in WP that Germany and Italy weren't having de facto governance of their countries in 1946. --Sulmues (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) As far as your forecast on Russia's tardy reaction: you may know fully well that it is unlikely that Russia or China use their veto in the Security Council for Kosovo, because the United States, France, and GB might use theirs for deals that are more dear to Russia. Eulex will be around until 2012 which is sufficient time to have 100+ recognitions. --Sulmues (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's because the US Army recognizes the authority of the Iraqi government (why, they have even set it up), while UNMIK and EULEX do not recognize the authority of the RoK goverment and act independently.

I am not perfectly up to date on the situation. If there are recent (2010) references that state the situation is stabilizing, that would be progress. But as of last year, things were pretty much falling apart.

Regarding Russia, I agree completely. They are just using Kosovo as a bargaining chip. As soon as some deal comes around that they think is worth it, they will exchange recognition of the RoK for some other favour. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The UNMIK has already delegated to EULEX and both take orders from UN. But where does the UN take orders from? The top 5 bosses. What do these say? Let's see the recognitions, because we won't use the veto (almost never used). The situation is stable btw. --Sulmues (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument that" RoK does not have de facto governance As does no country which does not have one but two international organisations deploying police forces to uphold law and order - is in conflict with these here below

  1. United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO)
  2. United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)
  3. United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS)
  4. United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)
  5. United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL)
  6. United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti
  7. United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus
  8. United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon

So please stop.-- LONTECH  Talk  22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

“Kosovo is currently "under the auspices" of an unholy alliance of the Pristina government, the UN, the EU and organized crime.”

“Holy” or “unholy”, the hard fact on the ground is that all of the former territory of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo is completely outside the political, police or armed forces control of Belgrade. It is not this way because I want it that way. It because it is in reality. Pristina, with their armed forces and police, do control North Kosovo with the help of EULEX and NATO soldiers. And the rebel Serb politicians have no effective power in any part of Kosovo — including the north.

To classify Kosovo as a “disputed territory” first and a country later just because Serbia, and only Serbia, claims it as its territory, is POVing nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.200.214 (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

what is your point? It is undisputed that e.g. the government of Sudan does not have full governance over its entire territory. If you have UN troops in your country, it is a sure sign that something is wrong. But the point is that all other UN missions you list are present by agreement with the respective governments, while UNMIK does not recognize the RoK government. Kosovo is a disputed territory, it is disputed between the RoK and Serbia. Some states take the RoK side, other (essentially Russia and China) take the side of Serbia.

As for stability, it does not seem like much progress has been made. As of July 2010(!), the European Parliament feels compelled to state they are "extremely concerned by the widespread corruption, which remains one of the biggest problems in Kosovo together with organised crime".[1] What I see on this talkpage is 99% wishful thinking of what people think Kosovo should become. But Wikipedia covers the situation as-is, not your dreams of a better future. --dab (𒁳) 07:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

These states are represented in wikipedia as states that have de facto control over their territory.

"all other UN missions you list are present by agreement with the respective governments" this is false because these missions are established from the Security Council resolutions without approval of these countries. ( e. serbia approval in case of Kosovo )

"while UNMIK does not recognize the RoK government". False again - How many times do i have to repeat that UNMIK or the UN does not recognize governments/states this is exclusive right of each country.

Crime, corruption and organized crime have no relation to Statehood these are prevalent in every country some more some less and this doesnt dispute their Statehood Bulgaria Romania and Greece EU member states are ranked 71 regarding Coruption .Montenegro is ranked higher than these EU members Transparency international: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table the high level of corruption doesnt dispute the statehood of these countries or disputes acording to you.-- LONTECH  Talk  15:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is not to define here if Kosovo is disputed by someone or not; in fact, Kosovo is, and maybe will be for a long time, contested by Serbia. The question is to define primarily Kosovo as a disputed territory instead of primarily as a country. There are cases in the world that entire countries have their own existence questioned as legitimate — take the case of Israel, a country that exists since 1948 but up until today is not recognized by many Arab/Muslim countries and political movements because they see Israel as “the illegitimate Zionist occupation of Palestine”. In the first paragraph of the article about Israel here in Wikipedia, it is primarily defined as nation-state which has its territory contested, not a disputed territory governed by a republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.198.223 (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo, American project

What would be interesting is to write article on verdict on Serbia - Kosovo.

It is amazing that all judges who voted that Declaration was not against international law are from countries influenced by NATO allies USA. All countries that opposed, apart few disobedient European countries, are non-NATO countries. Not to mention that in legal gymnastics International court focused only on declaration not or real implications. Of course it had clear task to make things one way.

This should be compared with USA elections 2000. Then all judges appointed by Democrats voted one way and all those appointed by Republicans another. It is also amazing that even after one ruling (at least one) of republican judge turned to be scandalous and that person resigned, it did not had any effect and things stayed as they were. So Judge paid his "debt" to Republicans that did who him favor before to be nominated :-)

So today we clearly now, what has been known few days after elections, and …. Where is this best juridical world system to deliver the Justice?

This is brilliant example of Western "Democracy". I believe wise Athenians are laughing in their graves: Separation of judiciary, executive and legislative power  :-D

YES, SURE. WHO CAN DOUBT IT!

UN must be respected only when it suits USA. When not, then UN is something to avoid. It does not matter that majority of the world is against. Majority only matters when Americans have it. It is unique understanding of democracy that majority only matters when it favors certain things.

What would Canadian Bobby thing on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.101.45 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to move this thread to Talk:International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence and please take a look at WP:NOT#ESSAY. As per judges, BrazilAntônio Augusto Cançado Trindade and MexicoBernardo Sepúlveda Amor voted in favor of Kosovo and they come from countries that do not recognize Kosovo. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I should also point out that the UN is separate from the ICJ. And, of course, American politics is irrelevant.
But more importantly, the case was brought to the ICJ by the government of Serbia, which wanted a decision on whether the independence declaration was a violation of international law. The ICJ answered that question. If 93.86.101.45 didn't like the answer, they have my sympathy, but random rhetoric won't help.
bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, instead of us arguing over and over again about one old point, can't we at least argue about a new point?
I'd like to ask: From a Serbian constitutional or legal perspective, when did Kosovo become part of Serbia? There are some outside parties (like the ICJ) that hold contrasting opinions, and of course the population in Kosovo have their own position, but let's try and keep it simple for now ;-)
I have some concerns about the Serbian side and would be grateful if somebody could explain it, or provide some detail. It may be possible to improve the article on this point.
Thanks - bobrayner (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It must have been in 5 June 2006 when Serbia was created. Before, it was part of Yugoslavia. Unless you might want to consider it being part of the Kingdom of Serbia since 1913 after the First Balkan War. This template is a very good timeline --Sulmues (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Sulmues, but since 1913 Kosovo was allways legally part of Serbia, whatever the country was. The maximum "separation" Kosovo had against Serbia (prior to 1999, of course and with exception of WWII) was during the SFRY and after the 1974 constitution, meaning, between 1974 and 1991, and even then it was a "Province" inside SR Serbia, with exactly the same status as SAP Vojvodina also had, as well. In 1913 Kosovo became part of the Kingdom of Serbia, and as part of it, it became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia. After WWII, Kosovo was allways part of SR Serbia, and it was with the mentioned 1974 "Tito" Constitution that became an "Autonomous province", again, of Serbia. Resumingly, Kosovo was never part of Yugoslavia, but of Serbia, and as so, part of Yugoslavia. There is a funny story about what was behind that Tito decition, but that I leave to another ocasion. :)
I think you know Sulmues that I am not specially a "Kosovo is Serbia" enthusiast (I have my personal touth on the issue), but lets not distorce the historical facts and realities... FkpCascais (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Not right. The current territory of Kosovo was split between Serbia and Montenegro until the formation of Yugoslavia. The whole of the current territory of Kosovo just became part of Serbia (as a republic from Socialist Yugoslavia) at the end of World War II in 1945. From 1980 until 1990, Kosovo has the same political powers of Central Serbia and Vojvodina, including independent parliament, university, press, and the right to vote on the top decisions in Yugoslavia, with the right to appoint a member in the rotating Yugoslav presidency. All these rights were cancelled by Slobodan Milosevic during the “Anti-bureaucratic revolution”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.198.210 (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm, not quite. The territory that was part of Montenegro before 1918 was Metohija. Then it was all the unitarianist Kingdom of Yugoslavia. After WWII, the two were united into the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. In exchange for Metohija, the People's Republic of Montenegro was granted the Kotor Bay, previously considered a part of Dalmatia (Croatia). A good deal, I'd venture. :)
The point is that the term "Kosovo" as a term used for both the regions of Kosovo (in the strict sense) and Metohija was instituted as late as 1974 by President Josip Broz Tito.--DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood the question guys. It is not about our knowledge of Kosovo history, but legal arguments probably presented by Serbia in ICJ court, or in other official documents. Am I right Bobrayner? Aigest (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The Ottoman Empire granted Kosovo to the Kingdom of Serbia by the Treaty of London (1913), I can't imagine any hole in the legality of that simple peace treaty. Albania did not even claim Kosovo at that time, nor did Kosovo itself ever voice any notions of independence at that time (so far as I know).
Quick rundown. Kosovo was a central part of the medieval Serbian state. In modern times the Ottoman Empire granted Kosovo to the Kingdom of Serbia by the Treaty of London after the First Balkan War, being a part of the medieval pre-Ottoman Serbian kingdom. Metohija (or most of it) was a part of the Kingdom of Montenegro before, during, and after the First Balkan War [2], up until the Formation of Yugoslavia in 1918 when all borders were erased. In 1943/45, internal federal borders were drawn-up uniting Metohija and Kosovo into the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. In 1974 the autonomous province was renamed "Kosovo" removing "Metohija" from its name. Prior to 1974 Metohija was officially not part of "Kosovo" in any sense. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Not right. “Metohija” (meaning lands of the church) as a region and description was just a concept in the minds of Serbs — the so-called “Metohija” did not exist in the Ottoman Empire because it was, in fact, a part of the Ottoman Kosovo, as you can see in the picture.
Ottoman Kosovo map.
Note: this map is of the Ottoman administrative province "Vilayet of Kosovo" in the borders it held 1881-1912. It does not depict the extent of the geographic region of Kosovo during Ottoman rule, and encompasses many other regions (such as e.g. Sandžak and Macedonia). --DIREKTOR (TALK)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.192.17 (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Aigest: Yes, sort of. I just want to get a more full picture of the Serbian "side" of the argument. Most discussion here seems to be "Yes!" "No!" "Yes!" "No!" "Yes!" "No!" - anything that can break us out of that cycle would be good.
My interest is, particularly, events in the early part of the 20th century (optimistically, we might even be able to make improvements to the article).
However, I don't want to control the thread with a fist of iron - if people are going in a slightly different direction, then so be it :-)
bobrayner (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
@very rude IP. You do not understand the discussion, so I wish you wouldn't just confront people for confrontation's sake. The point is that no part of the Kosovo region was within the Kingdom of Montenegro. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
But if that was true, the article would be named “Kosovo and Metohija” instead of “Kosovo”. “…and Metohija” was used by Serbia to reinforce the “religious” character of the region in relation to the Serbian Orthodox Church, the oficial state church of Serbia and Yugoslavia until 1945. The Titoist regime dropped the “…and Metohija” because it was officially socialist and secular, so to maintain “lands of the church”, more specifically in the name of a non-Orthodox-majority province would seem incoherent.--189.62.198.87 (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
As I explained, the name Kosovo today encompasses both regions. I believe this was institutionalized in Josip Broz Tito's 1974 constitution. Back then it did not, we're talking about historical legality so modern (post-1913) terms aren't that important.
I don't know what the Serbian orthodox church does or what it has to do with this, but Metohija was/is a very real region. Please find sources to support such statements. I seriously doubt it is an imaginary propaganda construct constructed by communist atheists to appeal to religious nationalism at a time when they could pretty much do what they want and had no need for such games at all in the first place. :)) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Today and yesterday — the map of the Ottoman province of Kosovo encompasses practically all of the modern Kosovo — there is no “Metohija”. If you see 19th-century Western maps of the Balkans, the region of the current Kosovo is described as “Kosovo” or “Kossovo” — I’ve never seen one non-Serbian, pre-1913 map assining a region called “Metohija”.--189.62.203.174 (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
So you agree with me while opposing me? LoL. :)
Please read and understand the point of this thread before simply rushing in with "proclamations". Do not oppose for opposition's sake. This is not a battlefield, this is an encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
What I’m opposing is basically and generally your and Tadija intentions to split the article.--189.62.206.7 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
That's very nice, however this thread is not about that. Again, if you oppose a proposition of mine, please do not follow me around on other threads trying to pick a fight. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Serbia and its government in Belgrade DOES NOT control ANY part of Kosovo

No, this is not a point of view. It is a fact of life. Just check:

1. The NATO page explaining how they are in all of Kosovo;

2. A Radio Free Europe article about a Kosovar Serb from Northern Kosovska Mitrovica serving in the Kosovar parliament in Pristina;

3. A B92 article that shows that THERE ARE Kosovar institutions (in this case specifically, the police) north of the Ibar river.

After reading the contents of these 3 links, can anyone here still describe the current Kosovo as a territory partially governed by Pristina, partially governed by Belgrade? I really do not think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.198.210 (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fact is that Northern part of Kosovo and Metohija is far from albanian control. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Where are your proofs? As far as we know, a group of Serbs waving Serbian flag in Mitrovica does not mean that region is effectivelly controlled by Belgrade. There are some institutions supported from Serbia trhere, but they are not recognized by NATO, EULEX nor UNMIK which patrrol the area 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The Kosovar government on the other side is already there with police, and planning to open Pristina government offices in the region, too. So, even if the population of that region are Serbs, Kosovska Mitrovica is out of control of Serbia — even Serbian censuses are not made there since 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.192.17 (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Spahiju:"Authorities from Priština have no access to North Kosovo".--Andrija (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
A Serbo-Croatian-written text (in an English-language encyclopedia) from a tabloid published in Serbia itself is rarely a good point to start.--201.81.202.128 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Separation

I propose separation into three articles, as proposed by DIREKTOR; me, and few others.

  • Kosovo (merged with Kosovo (region)): history, culture, demographics, geography, economy and society etc. e.g. China
  • Republic of Kosovo: for the de facto independent disputed country.
  • Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija: for the UNMIK-administrated autonomous province claimed by Serbia. UNMIK is an article on a UN mission, it may or may not be merged into this article. It is an issue to be discussed, I myself couldn't say one way or the other.

There are no need to comment other votes for now, but if you want to do so, then use your own vote space for that. Post in your space your vote and your SHORT explanation, backed with ARGUMENTS. I will separate comments with lines, so it will be clean and understandable. IP SPA votes and comments will be, naturally, annulled. Votes MUST have explanations, or those will not be useful to this poll. This is way to important to allow meat and sock puppets to just agree, with no logical explanation. Vote with Agree or no Disagree templates. Vote will last until 15. august 2010. After this, we will go to the next step in reaching agreement, if it is needed. --Tadijaspeaks 12:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your "next step"? Transparency is important.
Also, Bojan, Andrija, and Gedmara have not given reasons; they have failed to meet your criteria. Will you delete their votes?
The first two voted several hours ago. In previous votes you have been much quicker to remove votes of people you felt unqualified, although back then it merely the votes of people who disagreed with you. Now the situation is entirely different; two of those three agree with you. Will you delete, or will you give them a little extra time to meet your requirements?
bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't explained your apparent manipulation of the voting process.
Since then, gedmara added a (very brief) explanation for their vote. Which just leaves two other people who have broken your rules. You have previously been very quick to remove voters when you disagreed with them, but those "Agree" votes haven't been deleted; you deleted my questions instead. That looks like disruptive editing to me.
What is the "next step" that you repeatedly mention? Did you have any specific process in mind, or will the process be decided after the votes are in? If we knew in advance, that transparency would soothe any worries that you might be making up whatever rules will deliver the result you want.
I wonder how many potential voters have been deterred by this system - or how many potential voters gave up after the previous vote. It was very recent.
bobrayner (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - In this way, i am sure that much or the distractions and vandalism will be stopped. Also, more important, those are two opposite and different entities, so it is wrong to have them all together in one article. Current infobox situation is also unacceptable. And Kosovo status is not comparable to any other regular UN state. Kosovo cannot be treated in the same way as all other country articles are treated. China is disputed by two entities, same as here, so that solution should be used. Separation is only logical way now. --Tadijaspeaks 12:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree Having lived independently in both Kosovo and Serbia as a traveller for several months, interacting with both Serbs and Albanians within both countries I can tell you that for all intents and purposes Kosovo functions as one country. There's not much to mention about the autonomous provinces except that you can travel by bus to Serbia without a border crossing, but are then considered an illegal within Serbia itself... Apart from that they're basically like 2 separate countries with different cultures when you're hanging about. Even the Serbs are very different. Genjix (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree as in previous discussions.
I also strongly oppose your plan to remove other people's comments that don't fit your own interpretation of your arbitrary criteria (of course, your own comments are OK). Perhaps you feel that this strategy increases your chances of getting your way since previous discussions didn't return the result you wanted, but it is deeply unfair.
Only a few days ago you declared that "Wikipedia is not a democracy, so all of this votes are pointless". Perhaps it would be uncivil of me to call you a hypocrite; your newfound enthusiasm for democracy is, of course, totally unconnected to your new idea for ballot-stuffing. bobrayner (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tadija appeared on my talkpage complaining that I hadn't explained my vote; apparently the problem is that this page is TLDR and we should overcome that problem by repeating our previous comments. (Oddly, Bojan didn't get a complaint. Bojan voted Agree). Unfortunately tadija did not explain why yet another vote was being held or why these unfair rules must apply.
By way of explanation: I vote no Disagree because I think that only one core article is appropriate and necessary for Kosovo, in line with the vast majority of other country articles on Wikipedia - including many that are subject to serious disputes. I'm saddened at the idea that some details of Kosovo are "non-national" and can therefore be put in an article-about-kosovo-but-definitely-not-about-the-partially-recognised-country, whilst other details would be ghettoised. It will be very difficult to draw arbitrary borders across subjects. Which bits of culture, commerce, or communicaton are specific to the area rather than the country? Alas, we live in a nationalist world. If you wanted to read about France you'd find Sarkozy and the 5th Republic mentioned in the same article as the Loire, the Marseillaise, and the Tour de France.
I hope that this explanation satisfies Tadija. If there are any other requirements or disqualifications from voting, please let me know.
bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - per Tadija. Articles are split for far less important things then this. Kosovo subjects are specific, and should not be treatment the same way as other regular independent states, as Kosovo is internationally disputed. Separate governments should have separate articles. -- Bojan  Talk  13:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree - There was already a discussion on this (Talk:Kosovo#ICJ_verdict) and consensus was to not split: such consensus was barely 9 days ago. I also have to note that it is disturbing how Tadija invites to a non-discussion for an important decision, but only a vote count, still he, himself, made this edit to remind everybody that votes don't count, but only sound argumentation does. I really find this very inconsistant, disruptive, racist, and dishonest, and fully endorse Bobrayner's statement above on User:Tadija. I also find disturbing that he threatens to remove IP editors' comments and also he threatens to remove votes if there are no explanations. I invite him to fully correct his statement above, which goes against several Wiki policies, otherwise I will have to report him to AN. My explanation on why there should be no split is in my vote of 9 days ago [3]. --Sulmues (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I will explain more thoroughly why I disagree to a split of the article. First of all the article’s name should stay as it is, and a proposal to split an article to three pieces is really a poor idea. If Tadija wants to have a Kosovo region article, then this is really not going to pass, because the region corresponds to the Republic of Kosovo borders. It's as if you are going to have two articles on Bulgaria and Bulgaria region, or Italy and Italy region, and so on. One article is enough: In it there will be sufficient explanations that in the past Kosovo (meaning Kosovo vilayet) used to be bigger and included Novi Pazar, Plava and Gucia and also the lands of Presevo, Bujanovc and Medvedja: As a matter of fact it included the town of Nis. This can all be explained in the article: in general a geopolitical entity can go smaller or bigger during its lifetime. The region as a geographical division will be extremely poor in nature, because its political relevance will be far more important than the geographical one. As far as having a separate article on APKM, nobody is forcing Tadija not to have one. I have nothing against starting an article for an entity that is now defunct. If Tadija thinks that APKM is around and kicking, he may feel free to point that out in the existing Kosovo article. --Sulmues (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree This corresponds much better to reality in this moment. There are different administrations on different parts. ---Alexmilt (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Those three articles would reflect the current situation much better. The region of Kosovo incontestably exists. Both the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia and the Republic of Kosovo de facto exist (although their legal status is disputed by some countries) and their administrations govern different parts of the region. So, it is completely logical to have all three articles. That solution would also help to reduce the number of vandalisms.--Andrija (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree Comment:This isn't a vote and all users who have voted for a separation of the article so far are Serbs. Btw I strongly disagree with the proposal. 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 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree Tadija has stated my position quite well. Also, to ZjarriRrethues here's one non-Serb voting for separation. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree per recent consensus at this page, being in line with how all other country articles are treated, and all the comments I have made in the last days. Sorry, but I have found the arguments pro-split to be far-fetched and full of flaws (I should know, I have spent several hours poking holes at them). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, of course, this "vote" has to take into account all the agreements and disagreements in Talk:Kosovo#ICJ_verdict. Otherwise, this is just running forward and hoping to bury all the disagreement under loads of arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In reference's to Vanjagenije's comment: the governments of Cabilda and Western Sahara are both in the exile, the "country" article are Angola and Morocco, respectively, and there is only one article. The State of Palestine and the occupied territories do not occupy the same geographical location (the first one was fixed by the UN, and the second one has been changing its frontiers during the occupation). The actual governments are Palestinian National Authority and Hamas, each of one controls one part of the territory. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree -- for same reasons as Sulmues -- Gedamara 16:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gedamara (talk • contribs)

no Disagree -- The question was already set in the Talk:Kosovo#ICJ_verdict, and there is no such as thing like France (region) or something like that.--BalkanWalker (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree -- As explained, the separation will 1) undoubtedly reduce conflicts in separating the two "warring" parties, 2) allow for more uninhibited expansion, 3) allow for a more detailed coverage of the subject matter. The point of the whole proposal is, however, that the current situation is absurd and untenable. Nowhere on Wikipedia will you find two countries covered in one article, much less two conflicting political entities. Its surprising that anyone actually thought this article could ever be stable in the long term. Once again, the near-perfect example of China presents itself as the standard and mutually-amiable solution. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel China is a near-perfect example?
The RoC and PRoC articles both get over a thousand changes per year - with just the same nationalist and partisan bickering (and plenty of reverts) that we see here. The problem doesn't go away; the "warring parties" are still there, and the same conflicts - they're just spread over additional articles. Both the RoC and PRoC articles frequently have edit summaries like "Revert POV" and so on. The China articles have the same problems we see here (except that the split has been done; there is only a little bickering about that).
A split won't make wikipedians ignore their political differences.
I think your definition of "standard" may be different to mine, too, since the treatment of China is rather different to most other country articles in wikipedia; and the political situation with China is different to that in Kosovo. Your argument also appears to depend on the notion that there are two countries covered by this article - I think you'll find it very difficult to get consensus on that one!
bobrayner (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I will report you for this, You should explain your vote in few sentences, as per propositions of the vote. Only votes will be no useful. --Tadijaspeaks 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BokicaK
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexmilt
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrija.b

and for disruptive editing also-- LONTECH  Talk  19:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

“Nowhere on Wikipedia will you find two countries covered in one article”

But the point is: THERE ARE NO TWO COUNTRIES GOVERNING KOSOVO. Serbia does not govern one square inch of the former Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo — even North Kosovo is not on Serbian hands. The ONLY country governing Kosovo now is the Pristina-based Republic of Kosovo. ALL other institutions, organizations and/or military forces in Kosovo are from international institutions, generally operating in coordination with the Pristina government and completely ignoring any other parallel institutions, including the separatist Serb-run ones. The Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija does not exist in reality — it is a Serbian political abstraction since the end of NATO strikes in 1999.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.206.22 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Serbia is governing Kosovo. There are parallel institutions. -- Bojan  Talk  04:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Not right. There are no Serbian troops or law enforcement in North Kosovo, which as the same way that all the rest of the Kosovar territory has the presence of NATO troops… and the Kosovar police, too.
Very very right. While it's true that there are no Serbian troops or law enforcment in North Kosovo, there are also no Kosovar Albanian troops or law enforcment in North Kosovo. Also, you may be forgetting that there is a Ministry in Serbia called the "Serbian Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija" which has a Department for Administration and Coordination of Local Self-Government Services in charge of the following affairs:
  • Monitoring of administrative procedures in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as of the official use of Serbian language and script in administrative proceedings;
  • Monitoring, analysis, coordination, supervision and control of local self-governments and public services founded by municipalities, as well as provision of support to the Heads of Administrative Districts and Presidents of Municipalities in Kosovo and Metohija;
  • Normative affairs;
  • Improvement of educational system;
  • Situation monitoring, needs assessments and proposal of measures for improvement of health care system;
  • Monitoring and promotion of environmental protection;
  • Monitoring and improvement of situation in the area of sports and physical well-being; and other.
So much for "no parallel institutions"... --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree strongly oppose --Sokac121 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I oppose the view that Kosovo should be a simple redirect page. It is most commonly used as the name for the Republic. And therefore Wikipedia:COMMON should be used for the Republic. --Sokac121 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to editors from an uninvolved editor. Whether you agree or oppose this proposal, could you please provide an explanation of your reasoning? Just saying "oppose" or "support" is not particularly informative and it doesn't help other editors to decide whether or not to back the proposal. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree I don't think that the creation of separate articles will stop edit-warring. It is not only the topic of Republic of Kosovo which creates conflicts. This topic is the last one in a long list. The areas of the conflict are historical, social, political and so on you can continue with every aspect of Kosovo topic. An example for other wikipedians. Just imagine an article Kosovo (merged with Kosovo (region)) which includes history, culture, demographics, geography, economy and society etc. You will have there POV conflicts in every field. History topic? Let's see ...Serbian POV Dardanians=Dacians, Albanian POV Dardanians=Illyrians, Serbian POV Serbs came first, Albanian POV Albanians were there before, Serbian POV Serbs migrated in 1690, Albanian POV Serb didn't migrate...and so on up to our days. Demographics? Serb POV Serb were always the majority up to 1690, Albanian POV Albanians were the majority before and after 1690, Serbian POV serbs were forced to migrate, Albanian POV Albanians were forced to migrate. Politics? Serbian POV Serbs liberated Kosovo in 1912, Albanian POV serbs occupied Kosovo in 1912, Serb POV serbs were maltreated by Albanians during Tito regime, Albanian POV Albanians were maltreated by Serbs during Tito regime.....and so on you can continue with other examples. While I see the summary of WP:FORKING explained In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. I read it that we should get a consensus on this talk page for Kosovo topics, not create separate articles. This proposal looks to me like a perfect example of forking. Aigest (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree The three proposed articles are really about different flavours of the same thing. All best presented together, where distinctions between them can be clearly presented (perhaps this article doesn't do that adequately yet, but that's not an argument for breaking it up). Having three separate articles will be less clear and more confusing to neutral readers, who may only see part of the full picture. It might increase the separation of the Albanian and Serb positions, which is hardly the sort of thing Wikipedia should be aiming for. Bazonka (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Well, the "Republic of Kosovo" is clearly not the same thing as the "Province of Kosovo and Metohija". The two article solution seems good. I've add some examples:

These pairs all cover the same territory, but have separate articles, and it works good. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree For the reasons that Bazonka gave. Different claims for one and the same entity / country. --DaQuirin (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree I personally don't believe that forking will stop edit-warring at all, in fact it will just deepen the _POV-pushing_ in the newly created articles.

  • As for the discussion of who controls Kosovo, it is simple: RoK controls most of it, except for the north where it is shared with EULEX.
  • As for APKiM, it ceased to exist in 1999; today there are only Serb parallel institutions which are not recognized by any of the key players. What do they do? Well, officially they only issue birth certificates and personal identification documents (excluding passports) while unofficially they want to prolong the status-quo as much as possible to make room for the organized crime to do its job in cooperation with some Albanian traders.

P.S.: Tadija, thanks for forcing us to vote with {{agree}} / {{disagree}} templates; what is the next step after the vote process is finished? Can we at least know what is going to happen?

Cheers. — Kedaditalk 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree: Since we have different administrations on different parts, this is much closer to the present situation.Alexikoua (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree: splitting in two is better for the reading and more close to the reality nowadays. Just look to the actual infobox... Oikema (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC).

no Disagree: The only one that has explained the professional way. Fut.perf. Citing "It's a single geographical entity; two articles could only be POV forks."

Comparison with China is completely wrong because if we follow Chinas, we should split Serbia into Republic of Serbia and Serbia (Region).-- LONTECH  Talk  21:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC) and I would also propose separation into articles, as proposed by DIREKTOR;

no Disagree: They would be POV forks. the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" exists as a Servian terrortial claim only. In China the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the PRC (Mainland China) both exist in reality." 2007apm (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree - Kosovo does not have the same meaning as Republic of Kosovo. The Republic of Kosovo is a self-proclaimed entity which is recognized by some, but not by all. Kosovo is a territory whose status is disputed by those who recognize the entity governing the majority of it and those who do not. As the ICJ essentially ruled that the Kosovar government has the right to declare whatever they like (even that they're Martians - there's no law against it), but that doesn't necessarily make it so - Kosovo's status is still disputed. Turning the Kosovo article into an article about a country is very one-sided and malicious - not to mention that it's impossible to have the RoK banner as the only banner on the side when the majority of world states don't recognize that entity and still de facto recognize the UN mission in Kosovo as the sole governing institution in Kosovo. Spliting the article is a fair thing to do - and I'm sure that it's the worst solution for anyone with a pro-Albanian bias who'd rather have Kosovo = Republic of Kosovo, which just isn't so. Just like anyone with a pro-Serbian bias wanting Kosovo to = Autonomous province..... Until the article is split, they'll always argue about this, no? --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • no Disagree I don't get what's the point of the proposal, why does it have to be so complex? First it wants to move the article to another title Republic of Kosovo from the most used and most known name Kosovo, that's against policy so I have to disagree, then use the old name to write about something else???? History, Geography of Kosovo only under the name Kosovo, thats another disagree and then even in the proposal a creation of a third article, that already exists? Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999) Do we really need 10-20 articles on the APKM?? Just remove the dates from the title and there is your article already, what's the problem so all around !!Disagree!! on all points and the format of this proposal itself is so bad that I suspect a lot of people would disagree with not following proper protocol and putting in a request for move if that's really what the propoasal wants. Hobartimus (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree: Kosovo is still heavily under dispute and a split should resolve some of the POV issues that plague it. BureX (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Tadija is not neutral about the conduction of this topic

As I saw in the voters’ talk pages and in this topic itself, he, as a Serb opposing the Kosovar independence, is contesting and directing the votes and opinion of the participants to make his POV prevalent here. Just check for yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.201.51 (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that any IP address which disagrees with the split, or which is favourable to Kosovo's declaration of independence, is automatically written off as a "sock" (see dab and tadija's previous edits).
However, I see no evidence that an SP investigation has ruled against this IP address. Therefore I restored the comment. Sorry if you feel uncomfortable reading comments that do not fit your own political position.
Tadija, may I make some simple requests?
  • Please stop deleting the comments of people who disagree with you
  • Please respect previous consensus
  • Please stop wasting our time with a new vote under rules that you have carefully engineered. There is still no consensus for a split.
It is very difficult to assume good faith when you keep on acting like this.
bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I brought him to WP:AE. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Tadija. --Sulmues (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I wish I could've been here sooner to assist in all this, honestly, I wish Tadija had waited. :) Now this more-or-less turned into classic Talk:Kosovo ethnic dispute (Albanians against, Serbs for). I invite both sides to notice that the plain weirdness of this article's scope is the cause of much conflict.

  • There is no question that two conflicting political entities are covered in this article, the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (the article even had two infoboxes for each). If someone dispute's this, please see the article lead. I would like to challenge anyone to find a precedent on Wikipedia for this imho absurd kind of coverage. Where else but here can we find two countries in one article?
    The question is not "why split the article?", but "why not?", or "how did we get this hybrid mess in the first place??".
  • In my experience, the solution on Wiki for two countries sharing a name with a region/island is - separate articles. There is currently much confusion surrounding what is meant by the word "Kosovo" on Wiki. Is it the Republic of Kosovo? Or is it a "disputed territory in the Balkans"? Additionally, there seems to be little doubt that all three new articles would have ample material to expand upon as well as the undivided attention of very many dedicated Wikipedians.
  • Finally, the main points of contention causing edit-wars and destabilizing the article are linked with the necessity to maintain a very thin line of neutrality and ensure that the article isn't more "pro-APKiM (Serbian)" or "pro-RoK (Albanian)". Nobody could say that the conflict will magically disappear with the article split, but I think we can expect that it will lessen to a significant degree since many issues demanding delicate neutrality would be resolved at a stroke.

Cheers all, I'm back - with a tan! :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You say Where else but here can we find two countries in one article? As far as I am concerned RoK and APKM are governing entities, not countries, the country is only one, Kosovo, only that we can't say it in Wikipedia, because the Serbian side disagrees saying that Kosovo is a disputed territory, not a country. RoK has authority over all Kosovo, APKM doesn't, because its institutions work only in North Kosovo, which is just a small portion of Kosovo. Feel free to expand on APKM in that article. In addition we can, in this article, point through a "See also" to that article. --Sulmues (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
@Sulmues. Allright, I'll rephrase: can you please show me any other article who's scope consists of covering two completely different political entities, let alone two conflicting political entities. It is also interesting that you do not consider the RoK to be a country. Can you find me an article who's scope includes one country and one other completely separate political entity.
The rest is all pretty much besides the point. Please note that the main issue here is that the article covers two political entities, their status is irrelevant in this particular discussion (an irresistible subject though it apparently is). I will respond though, but lets not waste time discussing the same issue over and over again.
You are also contradicting yourself very clearly: "RoK has authority over all Kosovo, APKM doesn't, because its institutions work only in North Kosovo". The sentence is self-contradictory. The RoK claims all of Kosovo, but does not quite control all of Kosovo. Much like the People's Republic of China claims all of China, but does not quite control all of China (which includes the island of Taiwan just as much as Shanghai). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Albanians against, Serbs for? Then I must be an honorary Albanian. This is a surprise. Thanks! When can I collect my passport? :-)
Not for the first time, you frame it as a matter of two countries. I think it unlikely that you'll get consensus on that point - there may well be two claims, and arguably even two governments (although one does not appear to do much actual governing), but each claims the same population and the same territory - which is called Kosovo. They are rival claimants. There weren't three parallel catholic churches in the 15th century, nor were there 3 Polands in world war 2...
bobrayner (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
@Bobrayner. I was making a generalization, of course. :) That's apparently where the battle lines seem to be drawn: since Tadija (Serbian) proposed this, few Albanian are about to support it (as it would be vice versa). Just stating the obvious.
Hm, my mistake. When I say "countries", I mean political entities. Of course these word games are besides the point, Serbia is arguably the "country" represented by UNMIK in its authority over the APKM, and the RoK is a "country".
Basically the word games are not really relevant. A "claimant" is a party that "claims" something. Both the RoK and the APKM "claim" the whole of Kosovo, neither controls the whole of Kosovo. So yes they are both "claimants", but they are also political entities (a country and a UNMIK-administered Serbian autonomous province). Again you have the China paralell, where both the RoC and the PRC are "claimants" on the whole of China. Is the PRC then not a country but instead a "rival claimant"? The point is that the terms are not mutually exclusive, and that it is equally unheard-of on Wiki to try and stuff two political entities into one article, much less two rival conflicting ones.
Imagine if we had one article that included both the PRC and the RoC, you'd likely have a very similar kind of "trench warfare". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
In other words we can't pretend Kosovo is one country on one hand and treat it as a "disputed territory" on the other. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The FACT is that if you check the IPs and Userpages, you will see that most of the people here in this talk page that say Kosovo is “nothing more than a disputed Serb land” ARE Serbs and/or former Yugoslavs, while most of the people arguing that Kosovo should be treated as a nation ARE NOT Albanians. It is not because I like it or not, it is because it’s reality. Once again, just check the Userpages and IPs to confirm it.
The Republic of Kosovo x Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija cannot be compared with People's Republic of China x Republic of China because while Beijing and Taipei govern specific territories and populations that live there, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is just a “theoretical government” that has NO control over ANY part of Kosovo, including Northern Kosovska Mitrovica. In practice, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija ceased to exist in 1999, when the Serb forces of Slobodan Milosevic retreated from the province to make way for the NATO troops.
[please sign your posts] Can we please stop with the ridiculous nonsense discussions, "declarations", and personal opinions? The status of the APKM as opposed to the RoK is not relevant in this discussion. This article covers both - in one article. Can someone find anything similar to this on Wiki? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Folks, could we get a decent discussion going on this? I firmly believe that the objections brought forth constitute little more than word games in "reclassifying" countries such as the Republic of Kosovo as "claimants". I ask this: if the RoK and APKM are "claimants", what is this article about?

  • Is it about a region/territory, claimed by two "claimants"? ("Kosovo is a disputed territory in the Balkans.") If so, where is the country article on the RoK, and why should someone not create it? Furthermore, why is a region article covering two political entities in the first place.
  • Is it about a country, claimed by two "claimants"? If so, which imaginary country is this? The RoK? But the RoK is a "claimant", right? And the APKM isn't a country at all. So far as I know, this article covers both somehow.

A horrid mess. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The above post was for re the more sensible objections. Addendum: Albanian votes above that are based on notions such as "the APKM does not exist" should really take a good long look at the lead of this article. The fact of the matter is: this article covers the APKM as well. You may not like that, however there it is. Wikipedia is not a democracy, please present realistic arguments or your vote does not really mean much in the discussion.
Obviously there is campaigning that the article "Kosovo" be exclusively on the Albanian RoK (i.e. that "Kosovo" becomes synonymous with the RoK). If that were actually the case there would be nothing to talk about. As things are, I hope fellow Albanian Wikipedians will try to understand that this is simply not the case, nor would it be NPOV at this time.
The bottom line in this article is that any attempt at introducing some kind of stability and order is immediately stonewalled by politics. I'm beginning to understand why the state of this article remains so absurd and senseless, causing the perpetual warfare we see here. If attempts at proper organization are continuously stonewalled this article will continuously remain the place where you waste time each day locked in ridiculous discussion over the same issues over and over again (its just a question whether you actually want that). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
1. “Albanian votes above”
The “votes” and opinions expressed above (differently from the the majority of the nationalist Serb-POV-pushers that are Serbs and/or former Yugoslavs) are not only from “Albanians” — in fact, they come from people of many different countries. Check the IPs and you’ll see.
2. “Albanian RoK”
The Republic of Kosovo is not an “Albanian Republic”; its two official languages are Albanian and Serbian, as the same way that happens with Canada having French and English as official languages. There are no troops from Albania, no policemen from Albania, nor politicians from Albania in Kosovo, and the country has no official plans in unifying with Albania, too. And there are Kosovar Serbs in the parliament and police forces of Kosovo. So, to call it an “Albanian” is not appropriate.
3. “absurd and senseless”
Absurd and senseless is to divide the article and create POV-forkings just because two or some few users (Direktor and Taija) here want it. If we check the other language editions of Wikipedia — the German, the Polish, and even the Croatian one — features just one article show the Republic of Kosovo flag and coat of arms in just one single infobox. Why should this be different in the English-language version???
Also, to put the Republic of Kosovo on the same footing with “Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija” is like to put Croatia and the Republic of Serbian Krajina Government-in-exileon the same level.The Republic of Kosovo has its own elected parliament, president, prime minister, police forces, population, budget, international relations… where is parliament, president, prime minister, police forces, population, budget of the “Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija”? To reply “in Kosovska Mitrovica” is not an answer.-189.62.203.174 (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Mr IP, I cannot escape the notion that your input here is not productive. Please do not feel obligated to respond to my posts here. Your posts are little more than aggressive attacks aimed at picking a fight with me, not responses to my posts. Please find someone else with whom to argue this same nonsense issue over and over again, if that makes you happy.
Please note: this article covers the APKM. That is all that matters in this discussion. Your thoughts and feelings on the APKM's existence would be irrelevant regardless of the scope of the discussion.
Funny you should mention the Serbian Republic of Krajina, who's status during its existence was exactly like the current status of the Republic of Kosovo (self-proclaimed, unrecognized country with no legal foundation for secession). :) Your comparison is rather faulty, since that state does not exist today in either the legal (de jure) sense or de facto sense. The APKM exists de jure and arguably de facto as well in North Kosovo. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Community Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija] ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Methohija. The Kosovska Mitrovica parallel Serb organization (in which the accused war criminal Vojislav Seselj’s Serbian Radical Party has great participation) has no recognition by or dialogue with UNMIK and EULEX, has no police forces, as no armed forces and has no functioning justice system. Kosovska Mitrovica, like the rest of Kosovo, is patrolled by NATO troops and Kosovo Police. De facto, the secessionist Serbs in Northern Kosovo has no real force to enforce authority and annex it effectivelly to Serbia.
2. We cannot put the Republic of Serbian Krajina on the same level as the Republic of Kosovo since RSK was never recognized by any state of the entire world (the only country that supported it was Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, a pariah country under international sanctions and excluded from all international organizations — even the IMF). The Badinter Commission did not recognize the supposed right of RSK to exist as a separate country from Croatia, differently from the UN’s International Court of Justice which just recognized the declaration of independence by Kosovo from Serbia consistent with international law. And differently from RSK, the Kosovar Republic is recognized as a independent nation by many countries in the world.--189.62.206.7 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
1. (Nobody even mentioned the CAKM, the UNMIK is the governing institution of the APKM.) For the last time coming from me: your posts are pointless. The only fact that is relevant here is that the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is covered in this article alongside the RoK. Please do not feel obligated to share your thoughts and opinions on the APKM's existence/status in this context. I will not clarify this again, further remarks to the above effect will be disregarded on my part. I hope you understand, I do not like writing the same things over and over again.
2. The level of recognition is of course irrelevant in determining the legality of a state (a general principle of law, e.g. if you steal something and everyone agrees you are innocent - you are still actually guilty). Legality is primary and should (in theory) determine recognition. The RSK was illegal and was not recognized. the RoK is illegal and was recognized by many countries (by virtue of strong US support). However, even if the entire world and the UN recognized Kosovo - without Serbia's consent it can really never be legally independent (this is in fact why the UN still does not recognize it). Here's the USA, for another example. The USA declared independence, and was an illegal state - until Great Britain recognized its secession under French pressure, hoping it will annex it soon enough. Simmilarly this Kosovo mess will only be solved when Serbia caves under US pressure and recognizes Kosovo (which will probably happen in time).
The legal status of the RSK and RoK is identical in virtually every respect. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
1. “your posts are pointless.”
This is a classical rhetorical tactic: to disqualify the arguments of your opponent saying that “the argument is not an argument”.
2. “The only fact that is relevant here is that the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is covered in this article alongside the RoK.”
OK, and I and a lot of people here think that things should remain this way in a unified Kosovo article, differently from people who are arguing that “Kosovo is like Ireland or China.”
3. “The level of recognition is of course irrelevant in determining the legality of a state”
Here comes the doublethink… for most of the time the arguments of the Serb nationalists were in the way of pointing of the “unrecognized international status” of Kosovo was a reason to not to describe it as a independent nation. But when the countries, international institutions and even UN-affiliated ones recognize the Kosovar independence as a legitimate fact, the Serb nationalist argument changes!
4. “a general principle of law, e.g. if you steal something and everyone agrees you are innocent - you are still actually guilty”
In normal Western democracies, you’re innocent until a court, based on evidences, find you guilty of something. What kind of “steal” are you talking about? “The stealing of Kosovo from Serbia by the Albanians”? Well, they were there even before the region was annexed by Serbia. And the process of Kosovo detachment from Serbia and Yugoslavia that was developed trough things like the Račak massacre, the failure of Serbia to comply with the [[]] to return Kosovo to the largely autonomous status it had before Milosevic’s “Anti-bureucratic revolution” and the uncovering of Operation Horseshoe. So… where is the steal?
5. “Legality is primary and should (in theory) determine recognition. The RSK was illegal and was not recognized. the RoK is illegal and was recognized by many countries” (…) The legal status of the RSK and RoK is identical in virtually every respect.
No way. What kind of “primary legality” are you talking about? The act of independence of Kosovo [just been recognized as legal] by the United Nation’s International Court of Justice! So what is the point? To say now the ICJ “is a superfluous talk-shop”? To say the ICJ is a “NATO court” (an accusation generally already pointed to the ICTY)?
6. “However, even if the entire world and the UN recognized Kosovo - without Serbia's consent it can really never be legally independent”
What are you talking about? If things were this way, we would never recognize Israel as a country, despite its existence being questioned by many nations of the Middle East! Serbia is not the “fountain of justice” nor the “perpetual guarantor” nor the “perpetual master” of Kosovo (despite 1389 and Vidovdan), which do not need the approval of the Serbs in Belgrade to be considered a independent nation, as the same way that Jerusalem doesn’t need the approval of the Arabs in Damascus, Beirut or whereevrer other city on Earth to be a legitimate, independent and legal nation.--201.81.202.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

Great, now the discussion is being bogged down in this pointless exchange of essays with an openly hostile IP, WP:TLDR. Look: the status of the APKM is irrelevant since its covered in the article regardless of its status. The only thing that matters is that its included in the scope of this article. Find someone else to waste time on this.
Israel was formed completely legally from the British Mandate for Palestine. To put it simply, not all countries need to recognize you, not at all, just the one you're seceding from, i.e. it must recognize your secession - get it? And no, a region cannot just put together some assembly and legally declare its secession, I assure you - you would have a large number of regions seceding all over the place if that were the case. "Legality is primary" means legality determines recognition, not recognition legality. This is why Kosovo is having trouble in the first place, in spite of US support. This is simply how things are.

Ok I'd done here. Like I said, please find someone else to discuss this with. This thread is about reorganizing one article that covers two political entities, not the status of the APKM. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m not hostile to anyone here… what I am doing here is arguing against positions and propositions about splitting an article that does not need to be split, according to other equivalent articles here in English-language Wikipedia and the sister articles on Kosovo on other language editions of Wikipedia.
In terms of independence of new countries, well, if we determined that independence a nation was only valid if the former master-nation acquiesced to it, there would be very fewer countries in the world today… and about Israel, well, it was born out of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War over the non-acceptance by the Arabs of the 1947 UN partition plan.
In terms of “legality”, we should was ourselves: legality for whom? Legal in which opinion? The independence of Kosovo is illegal to basically Serbia and some Orthodox Serbs, but it has recognized as legal by the decision of the International Court of Justice, which represents a far larger number of countries around the world. So… I think to define Kosovo as a “illegally independent state” is Serb-nationalist-POV-pushing here in this article.
And I reaffirm here that because these and other circumstances, the article about Kosovo should not be split into other POV-forking articles.--201.81.202.211 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"And therefore, based on this weird collection of statements completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, I, the IP, hereby reaffirm my that this article will continue to be the only enWiki article that covers two political entities." :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
From the two “political entities”, just one have real power inside the territory of former Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo. The other one is a Serbian abstraction.--189.62.194.59 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? 1) "Real power" is irrelevant, the APKM is included in the scope of this article. 2) The UNMIK and North Kosovo are "abstractions" only in your political wishes and desires.
I'm sorry, but it seems you are physically unable to understand the irrelevance of APKM's power, status, etc. in this discussion (particularly of your own ideas about said status). Your function here seems to be to write essays and "declarations" degrading the APKM to the best of your grammatical abilities, regardless of the utter insignificance of that subject. Please do not respond to my posts, your responses are simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. The APKM is included in the scope of this article. It is treated equally with the Republic of Kosovo in this article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Introduction

Here is what it currently reads:

"Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë, Kosova; Serbian: Косово or Косово и Метохија, Kosovo or Kosovo i Metohija[4]) is a disputed territory in the Balkans. The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory, with limited control in North Kosovo.[5] Serbia does not recognise the unilateral secession of Kosovo[6] and considers it a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija), according to the 2006 Constitution of Serbia.[7] Metohija (Albanian: Dukagjini or Rrafshi i Dukagjinit) is the western part of the overall territory."

This intro is pretty cluttered and not neutral. I love how you guys put "self-declared independent state", which is a blatant & biased statement. When the intro starts talking about de facto control that is also POV since what standards / criteria is being used for this? This intro really needs to change quickly, this is embarrassing. 68.114.198.186 (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo should be described in the first paragraph basically as a partially-recognized country. And the rest of considerations and claims from other nations should be put bellow it. Sadly the Serb-nationalist-minded editors never allowed this, despite the fact that today even Vuk Draskovic has jumped from this boat.--201.81.202.128 (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
How on earth is "self-declared independent state" biased? Whether you agree with Kosovo's statehood or not, the fact remains that it did self-declare its independence. Bazonka (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Because "self-declared" implicates that Republic of Kosovo is the only entity that recognizes the fact that it's an independent state. Kosovo is an independent country recognized by 69 UN member states. You can't use this term since other countries then are also "self-declared" states. I agree with the editor above about the intro being Kosovo is a partially recognize country (and I would add) disputed by Republic of Kosovo and Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.65.194 (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The term “self-declared independence” is somehow a pleonasm, since that if you have to declare independence from something or someone, you’ll have to do it by yourself!--201.81.202.211 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You're correct, and what I aimed to explain in many words you did it one, pleonasm. Thank You!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.65.194 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. Independence is not always self-declared as it may be agreed by the authorities in both the "parent" nation and the seceding area in advance. However, with Kosovo this was certainly not the case, and so it is quite legitimate to clarify here that the declaration was self-declared. And the use of the term "self-declared" certainly does not imply that RoK is the only entity that recognises it - any subsequent recognitions by other nations are not dependent on the manner in which the independence was declared. Bazonka (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong? It seems like someone is trying to re-write concepts of independence to say “normal independence” is only “normal” when the colonizer admits it! Nobody calls the independence of Ukraine from the Soviet Union or of Slovenia from Yugoslavia as “self-declared”, even when in both cases the independence was made without the “consent” of Moscow and Belgrade respectively.--201.81.207.240 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
What is "normal independence"? It takes many forms, some self-declared, others not. I don't know the history of the Ukrainian and Slovenian declarations, but if what you say is right, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be called "self-declared" - but since these are no longer disputed, then there's probably no need. This has been discussed before anyway, see Talk:Kosovo/Archive 25#“Self-declared” independence. Bazonka (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
No no my friend you are mistaken. This was never "discussed" since you are the sole person trying to divert discussion by asking others to change other WP pages to fit your biased schema of an encyclopedia. If you wish to obstruct by preventing a discussion that may be your choice but it's also my choice to get a third party involved to override you. The simple fact is that on Feb 17, 2008 (17.11.2008) the Provisional Government of Kosovo under UNMIK declared independence (unanimously) from Republic of Serbia. From that point on out PISG ceased to exist and all bodies of the Republic of Kosovo took power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I really don't know how to respond to that - I think you may misunderstand me. I am not preventing discussion, I am engaging in it. And I am not "asking others to change" things at all, simply giving my opinion that it may be useful to retain the words "self-declared". Bazonka (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A plea for common sense

History, ladies and gentlemen, is happening, right now, in Kosovo.

For over a millennium blood has been spilled as the Great Empires fought, and their soldiers died, in Kosovo. The First Bulgarian Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Serbian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austrian Empire and finally the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes later renamed Yugoslavia, all had their time of pre-eminence.

But now, Kosovo is free, a free country for a free people, its independence judged lawful by the International Court of Justice, and its freedom recognised by a majority of European countries and the European Parliament as well.

In the world as a whole, a majority of the permanent members of the UN recognise Kosovo. Economically, Kosovo’s independence is recognised by countries accounting for over 70% of the world’s GDP.

Today many senior Serbian politicions, such as former Serbian Foreign Minister and former Yugoslav Deputy Prime Minister Vuk Draskovic, say Serbia should accept Kosovo's independence and look to the future, not back to the past.

The clock won’t be turned back – the only question for us Wikipedians is whether Wikipedia will reflect the facts as they are now, or as they once were, when Kosovo was a mere province of Serbia. 2007apm (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That has got nothing to do with Wikipedia.
Also, majority of members of the UN do not recognize Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.243.185 (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
But on the other side, the ICJ, which is part of the UN, just recognized the Kosovar declaration of independence as legitimate.--201.81.203.135 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. ICJ deemed that the declaration was not illegal under international law. They did not make a judgement on the legality of the independence itself. Bazonka (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think nobody has ever seen something like “legal declaration of illegal independence”. This oxymoron is only possible in the heads of people who wants to split the truth to suit its deeds. The ICJ said that is was not illegal to Kosovo declare independence from Serbia… and what’s all about? It’s about Kosovo being a separate and independent nation, obviously!--201.81.207.240 (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The truth is that Serbia only asked the ICJ to give an opinion on the legality of the declaration. In my opinion they asked the wrong question, which led to a partial answer with no opinion on the legality of independence. Declaration and independence are two different, but related, things. For example, I could declare my house to be an independent state. No-one would arrest or prosecute me for saying that; but when I act upon my declaration, e.g. by not paying my taxes to the government, then I would be seen to be acting illegally. So yes, the ICJ did say that it was not illegal for Kosovo to declare independence, but this does not necessarily mean that the ICJ and UN etc. have acknowledged that Kosovo is no longer part of Serbia. I honestly don't know what decision they'd have made if this question had been asked. Bazonka (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
But when the home of more than 2 million Kosovars made the declaration, it has already paying no bills and no taxes to Serbian government since 1999. Serbia tried to disqualify the Kosovar independence as “a violation of international law” — but it was knocked out by the court.--201.81.207.240 (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
That may have been Serbia's intention, but they did not ask whether the independence was illegal, but whether the declaration was illegal. Bazonka (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The situation, as I see it, is that the people of Kosovo clearly have a right to self determination, and if they want to be independent, they have a right to be independent. Every international lawyer knows that, including the Serb lawyers, hence why Serbia did not ask the ICJ to rule on whether Kosovo has a right to independence.

Serbia, instead tried to win on a technicality – Serbia’s argument was that • The Declaration of Independence was declared by the Assembly of Kosovo • The Assembly was constituted by UNMIK • The Assembly only has the powers specifically granted to it • The power to amend the law regarding the constitutional status of Kosovo was not granted to The Assembly. • Hence any Declaration could not be legal as the Assembly has no power to adopt it.

However, any eagle eyed lawyer will quickly spot that for Serbia to win, it must prove that the author of the declaration was the Assembly of Kosovo.

The authors of the declaration clearly state that the are “We, the democratically elected leaders of our people...” (ie not “We, the Assembly of Kosovo..”) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7249677.stm (about half way down.)

In the judgement of the International Court of Justice, the “the authors of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not act as one of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government within the Constitutional Framework, but rather as persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework of the interim administration.” http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16010.pdf Section 2(a) The identity of the authors of the declaration of independence - Pages 11 & 12.

As UNMIK nor general international law contains any prohibition on a people declaring independence, the declaration was ruled lawful. 2007apm (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

POV

many reference sources are non link but, they are untrusted like link 50.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanx (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I entered a verification needed since you raised the concern. [4]. I have that concern myself. In general we WP:AGF the editors in wikipedia: I believe someone will come sooner or later and clarify how reliable the source is. --Sulmues (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mongolian case

In the discussions in the topics here, we should remember the case of Mongolia.

What is today Mongolia is still de jure claimed by the Republic of China in Taipei as part of its territory. And there is not juts “one Mongolia” — there is also the Inner Mongolia, currently part of People’s Republic of China.

And despite all this, Mongolia points directly to the page of the country, which is not primarily described as a “disputed territory” or “region” but as an independent republic.--201.81.203.135 (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really comparable. Mongolia is only disputed due to a historical legal anomaly. These days, I'm sure no-one in Taiwan really considers that they are the legitimate rulers of Mongolia. And Mongolia the nation and Inner Mongolia are different places, unlike the two claims over Kosovo. Inner Mongolia is adequately covered by the disambiguation hatnote. Bazonka (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing like “historical legal anomaly” between texts of serious historians and scholars as far as we know. Mongolia had its way because of historical contexts (the fall and disintegration of the Qing and Russian Empires), but even in this case nobody protests the use of “Mongolia” to describe just the country called Mongolia. Today the Republic of China de facto doesn’t want to conquest Mongolia anymore, and somehow it doesn’t want to “retake the mainland” which includes Inner Mongolia, too, even tough the de jure claims were never officially repealed by Taipei’s government. We could even compare this situation to today’s Serbia, where there are lots of politicians and common people who acknowledge Serbia would not govern Kosovo again and don’t care anymore about this fact, and many people, clergymen, soldiers, policemen and politicians who want to stick to the current Serbian constitution and never renounce Kosovo because of that lost battle of 1389.
Anyway, my conclusion is that in the same way that the “Mongolia” title does not redirect to “Mongolia (region)” nor the article about Mongolia does not describe it primarily as a “disputed territory”, the same should apply to this article about Kosovo.--201.81.207.240 (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: “the two claims over Kosovo” is not a reliable description of the situation on the ground, since Hashim Thaci’s government is not a mere “claimant” like some kind of government-in-exile; it resides in Pristina and rules completely more than 90% of the Kosovar people and territory, and partially in the are north of the Ibar river trough the Kosovar police and custom officers — a quite different situation from Goran Bogdanović’s.--201.81.207.240 (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Simple answer is that Mongolia is not primarily a disputed region - it is primarily an independent nation, secondly there's a Chinese province with a similar name, and lagging a long way behind is its disputed status. Kosovo is very much still in dispute, and this is of primary importance. Bazonka (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"Kosovo is very much still in dispute" - there's a lot of opinion in that - on the ground (the so called de facto position) Kosovo is clearly independent and I don't think an yone would seriously dispute it. The de jure position is not as complicated as some make out - the people of Kosovo have a right to self determination and accordingly their declaration of independence was judged lawful by the International Court of Justice.2007apm (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had been around in 1950, the Mongolia title would have been subject to all sorts of disputes. This is 2010. Perhaps you want to come back in 2060, I am sure all the Kosovo issues will have been sorted out by then, and will be seen as a "historical anomaly". While the anomaly is "in progress", it cannot be shrugged off as "just an anomaly", under WP:CRYSTAL. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(I wouldn't be so sure about 50 years being enough. Consider Israel and Palestine for a case in point.—Emil J. 13:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

Ottoman Kosovo, Cirkovic is a biased source

Frederick F. Anscombe in a recent study published, where he gained new information from Ottoman records cast light to many issues concerning that period. It also shows that current history shown by Serbian historians is a basic myth for Serbian nationalism. The study shows that there was no major migration by Serbs (any small migration was done by both Albanians and Serbs), population and ethnicity was not very significant, also the Albanian population was present during the whole period... More info here. The part should be rewritten on a more objective discourse. —Anna Comnena (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We have 6 references from Cirkovic: which alternative sources would you suggest? --Sulmues (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Wickers, Anscombe, Malcolm... —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Anna, thank you so much for this find, I enjoyed reading every page. Best 30+ pages I've read this entire year. It's a great analysis

of the Kosovo Story/Myth we hear spewed from Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have used that material before in Great Serb Migrations article, but website references overflood what was supposed to be a serious topic. Aigest (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Histroy - Second world war

The second paragraph is clearly biased and had dubious sources, I hope someone can verify source 49 and 52, as for Dimitrije Bogdanovic, how on earth can nationalist be a reliable source, it should at least be written in the form "according to...", personaly I have never heard of such a declaration being made by Mustafa Kruja --Cradel (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is Kosovar police in the north

Assailants throw hand grenade at police station in Kosovo's tense north — So how long Kosovo will still be treated in the article as a mere "disputed territory, partially-controlled…" instead of a country?--201.81.201.75 (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

True [5] [6][7]-- LONTECH  Talk  22:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree, this article is lacking in neutrality and fairness, and it is a shame on the Arbitration Committee which does nothing but preventing editors from making the just edits. The introduction must say that Kosovo is a state that is partially recognized and that Serbia refuses to recognize it. THAT'S IT. it's very simple, if there is a dispute, then the introduction MUST be inclusive, and the dispute itself shall be represented in the article in terms of information, not in terms of one-sided truth. shame! Maysara (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • So true, this article is overly pro serbian. And this is due to a biased admin with an agenda who calls everyone an albanian nationalist when people try to change this. Look in the history and you will find his name. As long as this admin is not blocked from this article nothing will change. --188.99.179.90 (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Meeso, perhaps instead of throwing around death threats, you make a suggestion of how to improve balance? The article already says Kosovo is partially-recognized, so I don't really see what you are complaining about. Obviously the article will keep saying the status of Kosovo is disputed for as long as it is disputed in real life. In concrete terms, this means that as soon as the Russians say they accept Kosovo's independence, all other obstacles will go away as well. So please whine to the Russians instead of trolling Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the bar is being raised much more higher for the Kosovo and article case than in other countries. Why just Kosovo needs to enter the United Nations as a member to be called “a country” in this article when in other Wikipedia articles about countries outside the UN don’t get the same treatment?--201.81.193.190 (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is simply not true. All articles on partially recognized states are carefully balanced to meet WP:DUE. Obviously each case needs to be looked-at separately, but in each case, a proper balance needs to be found between secessionist and anti-secessionist editors. The only people who can mediate this are people with no opinion of their own, who are also aware of Wikipedia policies, such as myself. I literally have no vested interest in any secession debate on the planet.

If you look through the contributions on this talkpage, you will see clearly pro-Serbian, clearly pro-independence and neutral editors. But in the case of Kosovo, the pro-independence (Albanian) editors are clearly in the majority. If this article were left to slow edit warring between partisan accounts, the Albanian side would clearly win out, because it outnumbers the Serbian side. Intervention from uninvolved editors is necessary because articles on disputed topics are not to be dominated by numerical supremacy of partisan accounts. In an ideal world, partisan accounts would be banned from editing altogether.

We are very close to enforcing a "no partisan edits" policy on this article, see note at the top. Any account who so much as shows an intention to edit-war is to be blocked immediately. This is the only sensible approach, because clearly the ethnic disputes in the Balkans aren't just going to solve themselves if we ask people to please behave nicely. Ethnic hostility in the Balkans is probably more acute than anywhere else in Europe, and left to themselves people would probably just try to resolve any dispute with knives and clubs, as illustrated very eloquently by Meeso (talk · contribs) above. As long as this is the deal, Wikipedia will just have to stick to a policy of kicking out anyone who cannot behave in a civil and civilized way. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

dab I would like to block you as not once have you offered a balance view. Just reading your rant there any non-blind person can read your bias. Just out of curiosity do you have a WP Ethnic program to figure out that all pro-independence commenters are Albanians? It's people like you that enforce double standards between this page and other pages. Just introduction is a train wreck, if any decent person above you had any decency they would see that the intro should read "Kosovo is a state partially recognized by 70 UN members and vehemently disputed by Serbia." Then in the other paragraphs they would go deeper down about 5 minority EU states supporting Serbia, the Russian and Chinese veto influence, maybe even perhaps mention that Serbia has zero influence in Kosovo since A, B, C, ICJ verdict here, the UN resolution here...etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
sorry, but if you have a vested interest, neutrality is bound to look like rooting for the opposition to you. If you cannot detach yourself from your opinions, please do not edit Wikipedia. Obviously many non-Albanians support Kosovar independence, including my own government and indeed most of Western Europe. But I think it is safe to say that only Albanian nationalists will claim that it is "biased" to state that the question is under dispute. Kosovo is not "partially recognized by 70 UN members". It is fully recognized by 71 UN members, and unrecognized by the remaining 121. Don't shoot the messenger, man. As soon as Kosovar independence is more widely recognized, I will be the first to happily change the article to reflect it. Personally I think Serbia cannot win this, they should cover their losses and cut a deal. But I recognize that the article is not about how I feel about the question but rather about the facts as they stand at the moment. --dab (𒁳) 11:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I am a neutral UK citizen with absolutely no vested interest in Kosovo, and I totally agree with Dab's comments. Bazonka (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
911 Truth CC investigating AL-CIA-da role in sponsoring terrorism in this zone. This is only infs.
  • I think it is you, dab, who is truly acting in an uncivilized manner. You make a fuss about the little things (like what i said above), while you ignore the serious defects, some of which are thought to be caused by your excessive interference in this article, and being an admin, etc. You speak as though you have the moderation and sound judgment, while what you have been systematically doing, is dismissing the many complaints, and arguments that you oppose, and almost automatically attributing them all to bias and nationalism. The mere fact that repeated counter arguments and complaints are raised mean necessarily that they must find their way inside the article. Disputes shall be represented themselves as information in the article. And the fact that people keep talking about this means that you should give it more attention rather than dismiss it so arrogantly as though you are the one who possesses supremacy in wisdom and judgment, and obviously, being an admin, in action too. As admin You are responsible to mediate and facilitate the dialogue rather than come here and speak in the talk page like this: "We will do this, we will do that, Wikipedia will do this, Wikipedia will do that". Who is "we"? and what is "Wikipedia"? And who are you to speak in such authority to us. I think it becomes very harmful when one admin becomes too involved in an article the way admin dab is currently involved in this article, and i think it is better that as soon as an admin is being questioned over his or her positions and actions, to be immediately replaced by another one in monitoring the situation. you say: "As soon as Kosovar independence is more widely recognized, I will be the first to happily change the article to reflect it." which shows both your feeling of possession over the content of this article, and also, your failed judgment. For i can't see what is still required in order for Kosovar independence to be quite sufficiently recognized! Maysara (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Everyone knows Kosova is a state and a legal one, it newly declared independence in 2008. It was NOT unilateral. In two years, 70 COUNTRIES recognize Kosova and these include USA, Britain, Ireland, Australia, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, even Montenegro and FYROM, most of Europe, most of EU, most of NATO, most of UN, World Bank awaerds membership to Kosova. Even Serb cronie allies allow Kosovar passports to travel through the countries. Am I going to sit here and caryr on calling it a disputed territory just because Communist China and imperialist Russia don't recognize it? Or backward Serbia? Please, get real. Prince of Kosova (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) sockpuppet


It will come in time

Patience does it. What will happen will happen and I have yet to learn of international activity influenced by Wikipedia editing. The recent false alarm concerning Qatar puts the number at 70 that recognise Kosovo at the time of writing this. The page is wholly neutral: for those pushing for "Albania is a state" that dispute the status quo, consider that any Serbs and their sympathisers would prefer to begin the article: Kosovo is a Serbian province currently held by rebels. Dab is not from the region and as is evident from Bazonka's observation, he is not biased in the least. Even though the number of recognising states is set to increase until we see the final few that hold Serbia's position, it is folly to blow the final whistle at this point with 122 countries all recognising Serbia's territorial integrity. There is no prerequisite stating that a country must be a U.N. member to be a state - the Vatican is a non-member; Switzerland was a non-member until the 2000s, but this is by choice. Kosovo's government does not qualify to join the U.N. just yet but we know it would like to, just as it would NATO, the EU and various other degenerate intergovernmental institutions. Biased or neutral, no editor can sensibly ignore these details. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I am frankly tired of all the personal attacks just for stating the obvious. Are there no admins watching this page willing to warn/ban the trolls? This page is under arbcom probation after all. --dab (𒁳) 15:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That is rich coming from someone who said "Please tell me his name and I shall put him down for ever!" Bazonka (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Given that some of those 122 countries (specifically Qatar) have made statements that they are going to recognize Kosovo, it is misleading to state that all 122 of them support Serbia. Aside from those who are in the process of recognition, there are probably many others that really don't care one way or the other. --Khajidha (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Believe it or not, on the day Kosovo's institutions delcared independence, even the U.S. recognised Serbia's sovereignty, as did Afghanistan although that was to remedy within a few hours. The order of action is very simple: first the countries recognise Kosovo, then we update the information. We do not however rush into such sweeping conclusions before the events take place. We don't declare a certain horse the winner of a race when it is known that no other participant stands a chance, until it has happened. As at Saturday 11 September 2010, 122 UN members recognise Serbia's territorial integrity of Kosovo. State recognition passes in ones directory from Point A to Point B instantly, there is no intermediary holding account where cetain-to-recognise states place such regions as Kosovo or Abkhazia. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
No we dont believe because it is false statement. U.S. recognised Serbia's sovereignty before 1999 not after 1999. And perhaps would have been good to contribute with your statistics at Montenegro article your state indicating that Montenegro is not recognized by 72 countries. This info is missing there. Montenegro entry must include this info -- LONTECH  Talk  22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Montenegro is missing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_recognized_state#Limited Would not be fair to other states to give Montenegro this privileged status (while more than 70 countries dont recognize as a state) -- LONTECH  Talk  22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant everything I said in the above paragraph. Kosovo was recognised as being the sovereignty of FR Yugoslavia (1999-2003), Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006) and Serbia (2006-2008) by all world nations. UNMIK did not constitute a separate state and the Belgrade government's mandate not to deploy security forces in the designated area no more excluded Kosovo from Serbia than the No Fly Zones over northern and southern Iraq meant that those zones were not recognised as being part of Iraq. Not even the de facto independence of the Iraqi Kurds once Baghdad's forces withdrew from a vast area in Iraqi Kurdistan meant that Kirkuk was not recognised as Iraqi. And Montenegro is a poor example, it is a country that has not established diplomatic relations with about 70 countries and that type of non-recognition is not the same as actually rendering a region to be within somebody elses sovereign territory. It is simple, if they don't recongise Montenegro, they won't recognise an independent Serbia for the same reason, they're recognition will be Serbia & Montenegro as one. As Serbia also divorced itself from the former SCG government by officially declaring independence and then itself recognising Montenegro in a relatively short time, there can be no question of anyone in the world still keeping a Serbia and Montenegro embassy, and having an abmassador to SCG. The SCG government itself dissolved. So it is just a case of if or when Montenegro will establish ties with those states. Remember, diplomatic relations are reciprocal, if they don't recognise Montenegro, Montenegro doesn't recognise them; but Montenegrin atlases display all countries of the world in the U.N and in turn, it features in maps and atlases of those other 70 countries. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes UNMIK did constitute a separate state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Free_Trade_Agreement. The Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) is a trade agreement between non-EU countries in Central and South-Eastern Europe.There you can see Unmik-Kosovo as a State

No its not just a case of if or when Montenegro will establish ties with those states. There are 4 years in question. Montenegro sent requests for establishing diplomatic relations to all of these countries in the months immediately after the referendum on independence and again last year.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=04&dd=19&nav_id=66574. Please add this info there.

19 April 2010 | 13:10 | Source: Tanjug PODGORICA - Almost four years after it became independent and joined the UN, Montenegro is still awaiting recognitions from 72 out of 192 UN member states.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


I told you, and I will tell you again, no country recognises Serbia and Montenegro, so how do they see Montenegro's status? Secondly, UNMIK was not a country. Its representation of Kosovo in CEFTA served as a tool to promote Kosovo's interest when it was clear that Serbia had no de facto control. Nevertheless, before February 2008, Kosovo's status was as a Serbian province controlled by the U.N.. But where this is taking us I don't know, the original discussion was whether to present Kosovo as a country and the current situation is that 122 U.N members recognise Serbia's sovereignty over the territory, allbeit the UNMIK arrangement. Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that they dont see it as an independent state. Kosovo in CEFTA served as a tool this word is part of your Rich imagination. We are not blind and we can read. Kosovo was never part of serbia. It was part of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Every UN document and resolution see kosovo part of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. You cant find only 1 UN document that says that Kosovo is part of Serbia.-- LONTECH  Talk  17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If it was controlled by the UN, then it wasn't controlled by Serbia; and if you don't control it, it ain't yours. Serbia lost Kosovo over a decade ago. --Khajidha (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Elvekis says it's a bad example. So UN member plus 70+ states that do not recognize you DOES NOT constitute a dispute but it's a country. So according to him and people like him (dab) WP defines states as UN members. Can you tell me why China's page doesn't begin with "is a disputed territory with republic of China (Taiwan)?". It is very appearant that in WP there are a lot of double standards placed against this page. Furthermore, it's not true that 122 countries support Serbia, only a handful are against Republic of Kosovo and the rest don't care or simply don't want to give an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not promote double-standards and there is no such thing as according to Evlekis, there is what is and what is not. The Vatican is not in the U.N but it is a country; Switzerland for a long time wasn't a member; this was their choice. It is not Kosovo's choice, they do not qualify to become a U.N member because of their lack of international recognition. Given the chance, Kosovo would join the U.N. China is a separate issue, there is a One-China policy and the two Chinas both lay claim to the entire Chinese territory, so it is not a case of ones sovereignty being disupted.
@Khajidha. "If it was controlled by the UN, then it wasn't controlled by Serbia; and if you don't control it, it ain't yours. " Right? Wrong. According to this argument, any rebel state is not a land of its legal overlord, so Transdniestr is not Moldovan because the Moldovans don't control it. I've got news for you, the world recognises that region as part of Moldova's territorial integrity. 1999: Kumanovo Treaty; Belgrade agreeing to hand over to the U.N was not an act of surrendering territory. The FRY/SCG dissovled in 2006 when Montenegro left the union. Where did this place Kosovo? If it weren't in Serbia then where was it? Montenegro? It can't have been anywhere else. UNMIK represnted Kosovo in CEFTA as Serbia knew that the arrangement in Kosovo meant that it was not excercising power there, so it is only Lontech's wild imagination that somehow renders Kosovo as not belonging to Serbia pre-2008.
@Lontech. If Kosovo was not part of Serbia prior to February 2008, perhaps you'd like to explain to every editor once again the purpose of the unilateral declaration? And what are Serbia's grounds for refusing it? According to you and Khadija, "Serbia lost it ten years ago", so from whom did Kosovo declare independence? From your imaginary Republic of UNMIK??? Do you even know who UNMIK was??? Did you think this was a party from within the region? Well whatever you thought I will tell you, UNMIK was the organisation that comprised international representatives all deployed by their respective governments to administer Kosovo as its highest office from the time of FRY force withdrawal until its own transfer of power to Kosovo authorities. Every KFOR, every OSCE individual in Kosovo is a subject of another country; that can never constitute a state per se. And if Kosovo was a member of FRY then what came of it when FRY became SCG? And when Montenegro left, where did that leave Jablanica and Banat? They were only in the FRY when it existed. Did Montenegro's departure mean that Serbia suddenly became fully fragmented just because some time earlier, it was all within the FRY?
There had been no federation since 2006 and Montenegro's departure changed NOTHING within the former territory outside of it (ie. Serbia/Kosovo). Either of you (or the anon) find me ONE source that states that "Montenegro's split with Serbia has amended the situation within Serbia by officially divorcing Kosovo from Serbia in a way that it hadn't been previously when Montenegro was in the union", even an UNRELIABLE source will be fine here; and then explain again what the purpose of Kosovo's 2008 delcaration was.
Back to the main point. Montenegro is not a disputed territory and nobody denies its sovereignty, diplomatic relations or not. Kosovo's status is disputed. And whatever Lontech/Khadija may say about Kosovo not being in Serbia before 2008, it was somewhere, it existed somehow and that was not as a de jure independent state. And just to clarify fully what I meant with my earlier statement about all countries recognising Serbian sovereignty until recognising Kosovo: before February 2008, the whole world recognised something, the status quo of Kosovo whatever it was. Whether a state chooses to recognise Kosovo or not, until the moment it does so, it continues to officially recognise the status quo ante (previous state of affairs). And if the status quo ante did not favour Serbian sovereignty, then what does Romania mean when it promises to partner Serbia every step of the way and not recognise Kosovo? What has Serbia got to do with it if Kosovo was not part of it? Where and when did Serbia come to change its own position? Accepting UNMIK as a state one minute and then suddenly renewing its claim on Kosovo after the declaration? Wake up! Serbia never surrendered its claim on Kosovo 1999-2008 and every article in every worldly encyclopaedia pertaining to Kosovo and its subjects permanently referred to a Serbian Province controlled by the U.N; to you two (as you have difficulty comprehending "controlled by U.N"), it was Serbian Province, Period". And until a majority of states recognise Kosovo, each of those states recognises the pre-2008 status and with that, Kosovo is a disputed territory.
The final edit made to Prizren (to use one of thousands of examples) before Cradel updated it according to the declaration in 2008, was this edit. Examine it, and see how all pre-2008 subjects were presented in Kosovo. It is too late today but I wish you two would have disupted links with Serbia at the time. I'm curious as to how successful your opinions would have been, how much weight they would have carried. Evlekis (Евлекис) 01:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is declaration Of Independence http://www.kuvendikosoves.org/common/docs/Dek_Pav_e.pdf you cant find serbia there. The fact is that Kosovo declared independence from UNMIK, not from serbia There were no serbian institution inside kosovo in 2008. UNMIK was not the organisation ...... In reality it was a STATE.

A sovereign state is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states

and Unmik had all these attributes and exercised these functions one of them you can see in (CEFTA). And if Kosovo was a member of FRY then what came of it when FRY became SCG? Kosovo left FYR in 1999.

At least Chavez VENEZUELA sees Montenegro part of Serbia. not counting other 71 states.-- LONTECH  Talk  22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Your regretful attestation is flawed from end to end. Kosovo never left the FRY; the FRY handing over to UNMIK was in its eyes an interim arrangement and Kosovo continued to be viewed by the world as FRY sovereignty. The changeover from FRY to SCG did dot redesignate the borders of the country, and when Montenegro broke free, it did not take Kosovo with it, so Kosovo was in the eys of the world a UN-administered region within the Republic of Serbia. You are the only user that has called UNMIK a state that has not been linked to Sinbad Baron (yet). There is a major difference between a land being supervised by an international body that allows it to function autonomously and a country. UNMIK was the former. You show me otherwise all your sources for your precious State of UNMIK, what elections were there to vote in a governor-general or some head of state? What was UNMIK's national anthem? How did UNMIK's coat of arms appear? What was UNMIK's motto? Where was the UNMIK embassy in Mali? What was UNMIK's national currency? What colour was the UNMIK passport cover (not temporary Kosovo travel document)? Whom did UNMIK play in the qualifiers for the 2006 World Cup (football)? As for CEFTA, without Serbia having control of Kosovo, somebody had to change their nappies for them; if they were not represented by UNMIK officials they would have been isolated from the venture. But UNMIK was not a state. If you think it was, just rewrite the whole article. Chavez does not recognise Montenegro as part of Serbia. SERBIA never recognised Montenegro as part of Serbia, the two entities were partners. Anyone not recognising Montenegro doesn't recognise Serbia either because they would only have ties with SCG, and given that SCG has dissolved, there is no continuing SCG diplomatic mission in Caracas. So if Venezuela is not interested in developing ties with Montenegro, that is their problem. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


In response to your point to me --- States exist solely because the people living under them agree that they exist, therefore if the people living in Transdniestria agree that they are not part of Moldova then they aren't - no matter what anyone else anywhere in the world believes. --Khajidha (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course that is true Khadija. During the time of the Empires (Rome, Macedonia, etc.), we didn't have futile intergovernmental organisations such as the U.N. to determin what belonged to whom; what was yours was yours by unwritten laws of conquest. So I agree with you. The trouble is, whenever someone has amended the title to call Kosovo a country, it has provoked an outrage because of all these technicalities and complications. I didn't invent them Khadija, and I only wish these stupid arguments would bury themselves and by that, I want to see Belgrade recognise Kosovo, allbeit on some kind of mutual pact with the administration in Priština; but until then, I am powerless to make an amendment on the intro even if I wanted to. As for Transdniestr, Abkhazia, etc., well they stand even less chance of being presented as countries as they are never likely to be widely recognised as Kosovo is. I hope you don't view my comments in bad faith. Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In 2008, Kosovo renewed it's independence (that's why the campaign slogan was "Newborn"). Kosovo recognized being a self-ruling territory under the UN and UNMIK but it never considered itself a a part of Serbia. So in a way, yes, when Kosovo broke free in 2008, Serbia did renew it's claim on it. Serbia was officially using it's old constitution after Montenegro declared independence from Serbia and that constitution was the old "FR Yugoslavia" paper. Kosovo in 1999 was formally part of FR Yugoslavia so when Montenegro declared independence, the constitution was invalid so Kosovo's declaration is both legal and amounting to a fully fledged state. It was exactly the same when Serbia first conquered Kosovo in 1912, it never legally incorporated Kosovo. Serbia was subject to it's 1903 constitution which said that it cannot change it's own borders from what they were then. Because of that, Kosovo was legally a part of Albania but under Serb occupation. That occupation officially ended in 1999 when Nato pushed the Serbs out and held on until Kosovo "renewed" it's independence. So it was no unilateral action. Happy Democrat (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sovereignty as a state is based on contemporary recognition by other states, not on contorted historical arguments. This is perfectly trivial, as otherwise obviously everybody would arbitrarily pick such a point in time as "relevant" as best suits their agenda. It is unclear why people keep posting their personal opinion to this page. This isn't a chat forum. If you want to discuss the question of the political status of Kosovo, please go to Talk:Political status of Kosovo, where you will at least be on topic. Then make sure you respect WP:RS. Nobody is interested in your personal opinions, loyalties and sentiments. The only thing Wikipedia is interested in is, do you have quotable references that can be used to improve the article. --dab (𒁳) 08:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the Political status of Kosovo is part of Kosovo this would be the excellent locale to discuss such matters. I don't understand why you are always against discussions ... especially with users and arguments in which you do not agree in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Kosovo history of 1400's cannot be biased if both perspectives are shown

The last changes by Hxseek on the history section Ottoman Kosovo (1455–1912) were made because of "revert clearly POV, unscource edit by A.C." are totally unacceptable. The text in the form it was had only one source, Cikovic, which is a Serbian source. In such delicate (not clear-cut) matters we need as much sources as we can get, and of course as much perspectives as we can get. I did not add the Albanian perspective, as I do not agree with it, although if we are going to leave the Serbian view of the history it is only fair to add the Albanian one as well. In the meantime information by international scholars such as Anscombe and Malcolm are more than welcome, considering they are both experts on the field (especially Malcolm). Please do not revert the edit, you can discuss about points where you have more information and we can together make a better and clearer picture of that part of history. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

the cradle of Serbian culture?

Cinéma C took issue with me on because I reverted his edit that "Kosovo became the crux of Serbia's historical culture". I am currently reading up on the 1804 revolt against the Janissaries. At that time Serbian nationalism had little if anything to do with Kosovo. That many Serb nationalists now believe Kosovo is central does not make it true. The claim that Kosovo is "the cradle of Serbian culture" was a first sight referenced but if you check the reff it is that "Serbs still see Kosovo as their Jerusalem - the cradle of Serbian culture and religion." That is say that Serbs believe this not that is actually so. Even that is a bit of journalistic simplification. Not all Serbs believe this. That is why I did not merely ask for a reff but attribution. To say that x claims y may well be even if y is patently false. Stating who x is allows readers to judge for themselves.Dejvid (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about 1804, but pre-1389 Kosovo, which was the centre of the Serbian state, religion, tradition and culture. This is not a matter of point of view, but historical facts. I'm confused why you're mentioning 1804. --Cinéma C 05:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Then please reference those historical facts.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I just reached for my copy of Malcolm. According to the "Nemanjid Expansion" map in the front:
1. In 1196 (abdiction of Stefan Nemanja), part of Rascian territory covered what is now northwestern Kosovo.
2. In 1321 (death of Milutin), the borders had stretched a little in most directions, but slightly further to the south, including Skopje.
3. By 1355 (death of Stefan Dušan) the territory was much enlarged, including all of what is now Kosovo, most of Albania except for a Venetian enclave, most of the Greek mainland, &c.
4. Then those territories were, in their turn, taken over by others. The empire had already disintegrated long before 1389. And for most of this period, "Serb" territory did not stretch as far as Belgrade...
I understand that some modern writers have portrayed medieval Kosovo as being the "heart" of medieval and hence modern Serbia - but it's as absurd as saying that Aquitaine or Normandy is "really" British. And to choose 1389 instead of 1189 or 1589 or 1789 is just arbitrary nationalist cherry-picking. Why not wind the clock back another 200 years and say that Kosovo is actually part of Byzantium? bobrayner (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


I'll try to explain the whole matter fully. First of all, never mind about Noel Malcolm or his publications. If you're driving your car, throw everything with him out the window, best place for it :) Seriously, this is a point that is trite and taken wrongly by a great many people; Kosovo's relevance to Serbia is not even a threat to Albanian aspiration so I don't know why anyone worries. History is confined to the past and today's events need not observe the time gone. Firstly, Malcolm has pointed out that the Serbian state originated outside of Kosovo, in other words, it predates a time when the empire would expand to include Kosovo. If you think about it, a cradle is not where a child is born but where he sleeps as an infant whilst life flourishes. Life in this case is culture. Kosovo's territory was every bit an important field for early Serb culture and there is certainly no documented area elsewhere that is presented as being "the cradle" by Serbs that would contradict this. Remember, it is known that Kosovo was part of Serbia and if it had been another region that was the centre for culture, Serbs would have no reason to deny this and play down the importance of that region just to strengthen their present-day claim. The basis for today's dispute is all that has occurred 1912-onward but especially from the 1990s, not forgetting 1999. One legacy of Kosovo being important to early Serbia is the many Orthodox churches and symbols that remain across the entire territory, then consider that what is in ruins on top of that what has been destroyed, both in the centuries of Ottoman rule and the more recent conflict with ethnic Albanians. Even so, you still do not find as much in the way of culture that can be attributed to a Serbian state outside of Kosovo, neither within Central Serbia where it would be best preserved, nor in Republic of Macedonia where the Orthodox tradition is certainly not hostile to old Serbia. Remember also, it is for a nation to decide its cultural pivot and it cannot be disputed. The whole subject is very subjective and the only sources to dispute it are those that contend that such a centre was somewhere else. Abdications and deaths form landmarks for future interest (eg. Latin Bridge, assassination of Ferdinand), they are not significant to where the heart of culture lies. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Well said. --Cinéma C 19:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You are avoiding the issue of why, if Kosovo is so important to Serbs, do the census data for the last century show an Albanian majority there? --Khajidha (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Cinéma C - why 1804? If Kosovo is central to Serb nationalism (note the if) then not to care about Kosovo is incompatible with being a Serb nationalist. That proposition is disproved if at different times and places there have been Serb nationalists who have cared little about Kosovo. In 1804 Serb nationalism was concerned about issues relevant to the status and life of Serbs in the Belgrade Pashaluk. You might think their priorities were wrong but that is only your point of view. Likewise, separatist Serbs in Croatia in 1990 found Kosovo a distraction for a very obvious reason. It was impossible for them to argue in favor of Serb control of Kosovo without using principles that endorsed Croat control of Knin. But this is Wikipedia. It is perfectly valid to say a specific Serb nationalist group believes that Kosovo is central to Serb identity so long as it is flagged up as the point of view of that specific group. That is to say attributed and not merely referenced. (Of course assuming that said group can be shown to be notable which I suspect shouldn't be too hard)Dejvid (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

afaik it is undisputed that Kosovo was populated with a Serbian majority prior to 1800 just as it is undisputed that there is an Albanian majority now. As for "cradle", the Serbs as an ethnicity began to articulate from a generic South Slavic population in the 6th to 9th century. There was no territory coterminous with Kosovo prior to the 19th century so it can hardly be the cradle of Serbian culture. According to our Serbs article, " The first Serb states were Rascia, Doclea, Travunia, Pagania and Zachlumia." It is undisputed that what is now Kosovo is a part of these territories, but I see no evidence that it was in any sense more of a "cradle" than any other part. "Kosovo" got its relevance only in the wake of 1389, long after Serbian culture had emerged. So yes, what is now Kosovo used to be part of medieval Serbia, but no, I see no evidence it was a "cradle" (or ?"crux") in any particular sense. --dab (𒁳) 16:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The churches, monasteries and religious objects pertaining to a Serbian state in Kosovo date back to well before 1389; Serb tribes populated today's North Kosovo from the 7th or 6th century (the rest of Kosovo was subject to the eastern branch of south Slavs). The region did gain relevance within the first empire period so that historiographically, it may be deemed "the cradle" by the nation. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I restored the BBC source but have changed the text to provide all that the source itself gives, one person's verdict. Although it is not good to play on it at that early stage of the article, Kosovo's actual importance within Serbia was on the increase throughout the 14th century. So in historiographical terms, it is viewed as the crux for its importance during the final decades. That is all but it is more than nothing. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As a new user I cannot edit this page, can someone please undo Evlekis' edit and replace Lontech's more neutral rendition? Evlekis is just edit warring and nothing more. Kosovo was not a Serb cradle because the Serb state began in Raskia a long way from Kosovo. Kosovo is just the place the Serbs lost their war to the Turks. There is a lifelong Albanian majority in Kosovo and even the name Kosovo derives from Albanian. Albanians settled there before the Serbs came to the Balkans and Serbs only ever conquered the place, never had a true Serb population there. I am citing reliable sources neither Serb nor Albanian published by Judah and Malcolm. Neutral Player (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC) sockpuppet

I used good quality books and added a caveat (that it wasn't really the cradle of Serb culture, even if most Serbs think so). Many books cite the "cradle" thing as the reason for the war, or at least a huge detonator, or one of the reasons that it was so cruel. This is crucial to understand why Serbs keep conquering Kosovo during the 19th and 20th century, and it should be mentioned. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

For Enric Naval

Hi Enric. I appreciate your good faith edits and I do not wish to take a militant stand and revert you although I feel you should know a few things (as mentioned above, I will remind you so you don't need to bore yourself reading it all top to bottom). First, Serbia/Kosovo is a very sensitive issue so you have to watch your ps and qs when submitting comments, because "conquered" is the single most offensive term that you can use. Conquest was when you sent battleships across oceans to overcome remote nations' defence forces before annexing the land and subjugating the population. This is not the age of conquest, these are times of irredentism; ideologies based on past glory or past ambition revived. A brief note on the modern history of Serbia: before 1878, it did not even exist on maps; before circa 1829, it did not have a recognised autonomy from within; before 1817, it did not have a functional de facto autonomy; and before 1804, the Serbs were nothing. How do we have a Serbia today? Just as it achieved its first self-ruling entity south of Hungary (the Smederevo palashuk), each time the region expanded, its success was attributed to local uprisings and insurgencies and not just the advancing army from Belgrade. Kosovo was not an exception. Having been larger than today's tinpot region, ethnic Serbs rebelled against the Ottomans from Sandžak towns such as Prijepolje and Pljevlja right down to the other extreme of the vilayet, the town of Štip where the population was mixed in identity between Serb or Bulgarian. There are no accurate figures to determine the demographics of the vilayet but if today's statistics are anything to go by, it would be about 50/50 Albanian-Serb; one needs to bare in mind that the ancestors of many of today's Montenegrins, Bosniaks and Macedonians did declare Serb. So nobody "kept conquering" anything in the 19th/20th centuries, merely Serbia retook the large section of then-Kosovo in 1912. Now back to the subject of a "cradle", this is yet one more misconception that is widespread. There is no Serb that states that Kosovo is where the Serb state was born. If there were, it would be easy to correct them, so much so, they would never repeat it and we would never have to mention it. A child is born when isolated from the womb; nobody has called Kosovo the womb. Likewise, a cradle is not the environment where a baby is born, it is just a place to sleep during infancy as life around it flourishes. Infancy for the Serbian state is in historiographical terms the pre-1389 country. During the final decades (the 14th century), modern-day Kosovo lands became culturally important. This is most evident by the many religious monuments and objects from churches to monasteries that remain today on top of those that were demolished, ruined or converted in the years of Ottoman rule, later communism and more recently the conflcts with ethnic Albanians. However, there can be no comparison between the relevance of the Metropolitan of Peć and Archbishop of Seria from 1255 onward compared to its predecessor in Žiča. There is no evidence that there was a region of greater importance than present-day Kosovo when studying the pre-1389 state; but most essentially, what is a crux anyhow? Who today looks at where the centre of German or Italian culture is? Speaking of cradles is historiographical and it is only the rhetoric of the nation in question. By the same account, the same land can be of equal importance to another nation present on it. After all, it is not important for a nation to have a state in the first place. Kurds may still declare a region as a centre for its cultural identity; by this token, the millions of people scattered across no fewer than four countries still have one standard language. So stating that the Serb state never originated from Kosovo is non-sequitor when discussing a nation considering the land a cradle. Likewise, mention of it does not serve as a tool for either today's claim nor the 1912 claim. In 1912, Serbia was wishing to retake old lost territories; today, Serbia is concerned for what it sees to be the loss of its sovereignty over a region in accordance with constitutions and treaties from the 1990s, especially 1999. It is of no importance whether Kosovo was a bread basket; it is enough to say "it was ours, it is ours", and that is all. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure on what to answer here. I suggest to go here, search for "cradle" (sends you to page 220). Then write a little text on the body of the article about the cradle thing, using this book as a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Lots of books and hours of reading from those titles I see. To be honest, too much fuss is made over such a minor issue; Kosovo being a cradle is not essential reading nor is it important for any part of any discussion. It is so subjective anyhow and the matter is easily bypassed just by all articles concentrating on the events that passed rather than the ideological concerns of the nation. The 14th century saw many transfers from one place to another, and the fact that the "other" place may be in present-dat Kosovo is not vital to the text. It simply suffices to state that a nation considers a certain land to be its cultural hub and no more needs to be said. If Kosovo is or was the pivot of Albanian movement (the League of Prizren is a definite marker) then I suggest that both Serbs and Albanians can all start scratching their heads and realising that the land for which they battle has two-way significance. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Brought the claim for "cradle" in history part [9]. It is way too controversial to stay in the lede. The lede should be a summary of what's in the article and that sentence will (alas) inflame always. Leave the sentence in history part, but please don't put it in the lede, which is the most read piece of the article. --Sulmues (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I actually agree with you here Sulmues, despite our differences in the other ongoing affairs, "occupation of Albania" and the like. In my honest opinion, the matter is very trivial. If I'm not mistaken, the land is of equal historical cultural importance to the Albanians, and no reason it shouldn't be. The problem is when certain users continue to remove the information regardless. One's "cradle" is not a historical fact, nor a story, merely a sentiment; mention it yes, but keep it distant from the intro (as I said in an earlier point), and keep it in context remembering it is subjective. I am sure even the original author Cinema C will agree to this; naturally he won't appreciate having his contributions reverted but we all have to assume good faith when other editors resculpt them. Thanks Sulmues. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Source is required or not?

There is the discussion in russian wikipedia of if source for "South Ossetia is partially-recognized" is required or not. One side say that we need source for if at least one country recognized South Ossetia. Another side want source where "SO" is called "partially-recognised". Please let me know your POV.

Also second side propose to rewrite the preambul in such way.

Republic of South Ossetia (oset. Республикæ Хуссар Ирыстон, груз. ცხინვალის რეგიონი/ სამხრეთ ოსეთი) — separatist entity in the territory of sovereign Georgia.

Please let me know how your reaction if such is proposed here.

I asked your help becase Kosovo has similar political status.--Bouron (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

you have ru:Непризнанные и частично признанные государства, which lists South Ossetia as "partially recognized state with de facto control over its territory". It's up to ru-wiki to establish its own rules and best practices, but people asking for a source saying "partially recognized" verbatim whe you have shown that four UN member states recognize it are evidently just trolling and trying to drag out the issue. Of course four isn't quite comparable to the 70 recognitions of Kosovo. It's Russia (which you can discount as having vested interest), and then Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru. It's "partially recognized" alright, but very partially indeed, and people should not use "partially recognized" to create an impression of a level of international recognition that is not there. --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Bouron (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This is one more grey area in Wikipedia whereby we as editors are compelled to resort to original research for the purpose of linking facts that are sourced. To use a simple term, you have two towns some kilometres apart, but it is down to you as an editor to decide how we get from one town to the other; I say use this road, another editor says use another road, and that is the route of WP conflict. We call Kosovo "partially recognised" but in reality, an institution will either recognise it or not. The government of the Republic of Slovakia is not betrothed to neutrality or internal consensus when it makes its decisions; it chooses not to recognise whilst Portugal chooses to do so. So any self-defined state that is not recognised by everyone and everything is partially recognised. Our arguments have been, "at what point can we start calling Kosovo a country?" and I still say that once this article is changed to observe this description, there will be no problem defining the breakaway Georgian regions as you wish, Kosovo will have moved on so there will be no double-standard. Curiously enough, the party that has demonstrated in favour of WP referring to Kosovo as a state did not wait until the ICJ ruling, nor did they wait for 70 countries to recognise it; they have been on at this since February 2008 when independence was declared, and their biggest argument has been that WP should honour de facto status; in a sense they are right, it is not so open to dispute this way, but my own thoughts are irrelevant because various factors are taken on board and each case is handled individually. As for Russia having "vested interest", I wouldn't worry too much about that, it is just a question of whether Russia recognises or not. It is not as if most of the countries recognising or not recognising Kosovo do not themselves have ulterior motives, that's the way of the world. At the moment, most movement figures in Abkhazia are pro-Moscow but if one day a coup should oust any Russian-friendly authority and replace it with something looking to isolate the region further, I cannot see Russia quite amending its position on Georgian territorial integrity. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The link to Abdul Hamid in the text "The Albanians threatened to march all the way to Salonika and reimpose Abdul Hamid." appears to link to the incorrect Abdul Hamid. I think Abdul Hamid II is the correct one, but I am not sure. 75.85.180.14 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is antiserbian, this article strongly supports only albanian side and point of view, and this will be published in "Politika", most selled newspaper in Serbia! --109.121.31.67 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I hope it doesn't mention my user name in any bad capacity! This article is not that anti-Serbian. Ask the Albanians who would prefer to change the intro to "country" and see if it is anti-Serb. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Republic

The Republic of Kosovo has: its own Controlled Territory, its Population and Sovereignty, which are the three musts for being a state. Majuru (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is highly questionable subject, and intro must have community consensus to be edited in that way. You may propose here your version, and we will talk about it. Thanks! --WhiteWriter speaks 20:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a partially recognized Republic, that means it's recognized by 70 or 80 other countries, but it's disputed by only one, Serbia. It will take time to reach a consensus on that, but eventually consensus will come. Look at Israel, for example. Majuru (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Your theory is incorrect. It is recognised by 70-80 as you say, and not recognised by the rest. The "dispute" factor works two ways, those that do not recognise Kosovo (including those that will at a later date) at present recognise Serbia's territorial integrity over the land, as such, they "dispute" the republic; for those 70-80 that recognise, they "dispute" Serbia's claim on the land, so this way or that way, it is still disputed. In addition, Serbia is not alone in its outright rejection of the republic, there are a handful of sympathising nations. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It's recognized by many countries, which is enough to call it "partially-recognized" (see List of unrecognized or partially recognized countries, a redirect to "List of states with limited recognition")
P.D.: Agh, Diplomatic recognition doesn't have a section for "partial recognition".
P.D.D.: Note that Kosovo is also listed at List of disputed territories, a redirect of "List of territorial disputes". After all, it's a territory and it's at dispute. However, I think that it has gained enough recognition to label it as "partially recognized". --Enric Naval (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is related to the mixed topic issue - see above discussion. Alinor (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


@Evelkis, so what? There are a lot of republics that are disputed, see China for example. Can you give me the WP guidelines for defining states v. "disputed" states? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So what? China is anything but disputed, its borders are clearly marked and the country has ties with every other government in the world. The trouble there is that the land is split in terms of which Chinese authority governs which particular area, and world states in turn recognise one of the two rival authorities. Serbia/Kosovo is not an example of two power bases claiming sovereignty of one entire region making it impossible for one to recognise the other, it is a case of one region declaring independence and the host (or ex-host) rejecting the move. So the analogy involving China does not stretch. Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Your attempt to deflect the question is useless. I would still like to see WP guidelines that defines "states" v. "disputed" territories.

I'm waiting!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not deflecting anything, just stating the differences between the China situation and Kosovo. If we remove the "disputed" part and present Kosovo no differently from Sweden or Bhutan, we are ignoring the fact that its ex-host continues to take issue as well as over half the world's states presently recognising the status quo ante. Evlekis (Евлекис) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable removal of sentence from the lede

I don't understand, and don't agree with, the removal of this sentence from the lede [10]. There is nothing "too disputed" about it, and it is perfectly well-sourced. If the lede is to include a historical summary, then for sure that Serbs consider Kosovo the cradle of their culture should be mentioned. That goes to the very core of the conflict, and our readers should know this upfront. Any sources in the literature on the Kosovo conflict mention that Serbs consider Kosovo the cradle of their culture. Whatever the merits of this belief, it is central to the subject of this article, and any brief summary of the topic should include it. It seems to me that it was removed on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds and nothing more. Its placement was moreover strange and clumsy, and disrupted the flow of the article. Athenean (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am one of a number of editors that has shaped this entry since its introduction by Cinema C. We need to be careful with it because its status as a crux is purely a sentimental phenomenon cherished by the Serbian nation. The land is of equal importance for one reason or another to Albanians. I don't like many parts of it, such as the silly statement that the Serb stgate never originated from Kosovo. Who said that it did? I stated in previous comments, a cradle is where an infant sleeps, it is not the womb. And why do we need Noel Malcolm as a source for the irrelevant remark? All right, he might be a historian and a usable source, but we no more require his services for this than Michael Palin to tell us that Eritrea split from Ethiopia in 1993; it happens to be an international event and people know this to have happened. For historical territories we need maps, not vexatious commentary from apologists in conflict. Evlekis (Евлекис) 12:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't know when Serbs started to consider Kosovo the cradle of their culture. Was it in the XIX century, with the rise of nationalisms? Or was it sooner, and the nationalisms simply took the pre-existing idea and radicalized it? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Both sources strongly suggest that Kosovo was made the cradle of Serbs only during the 20th century rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding historical and religious importance of numerous monuments on Kosovo, and regarding other sources, it seems that it wasn't only in the 20th century. That would be impossible. Peć Patriarchate, seat of Serbian Orthodox Church, numerous monastery's built by Serbian kings and Emperors, site of the Battle of Kosovo.... There are a lot of sources that claim this. Also, i dont see that any source "strongly suggest"... Can you point it out? It seems that it wasn't like like you said. --WhiteWriter speaks 08:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That says nothing about Serbs considering it a cradle. Can you bring any sources that say Serbs considered Kosovo their cradle before the rise of nationalism?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, just wait to collect few, please! --WhiteWriter speaks 08:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Since you reverted me, you should have them already available.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Serbs want to recover "their" land of Kosovo since the Battle of Kosovo Polje) in 1389.Brown Alumni Magazine (not a very reliable source, but somewhere to start)

Also the Western America diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church (there are lots of references to shared culture between Kosovar Albanians and Serbs):

"The Patriarch became Milletbasha or leader of all Serbian and Bulgarian Orthodox, ruling from Pec in Kosovo [he means the Patriarchate of Peć, circa 1330)]. If we look for the seedbed of the idea of a "Greater Serbia," it may come from the Pec patriarchate under Ottoman rule rather than from the medieval kingdoms. This reorganization gave the Serbs the possibility of preserving their religion, language and cohesive identity."[11]

The name "Cradle of Serbian culture" was probably the catchy name that nationalism used, but the sentiment existed already. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Enric, that is precisely what I was going to say when logging back in to catch up on updates. "Cradle" and "crux" are purely rhetorical, and rightly as Zjarri states, have only in recent times been incorporated into the fabric of Serbian consciousness. But as you also rightly say, the sentiment has stood for longer, and is based on actual occurrences that took place on the territory of modern-day Kosovo and not some fiction. Well argued. Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RoK-UNMIK relations

What is the UNMIK position and relations with RoK? Before 2008 the "Assembly of Kosovo", "President of Kosovo", etc. were part of the PISG as constituted by the UNMIK. What happened to the UNMIK's PISG after the declaration of independence? As you can seehere this declaration was not issued by the PISG/"Assembly of Kosovo" (contrary to what most news reports and Wikipedia articles state) - it was issued by the same people that were members of the PISG Assembly, but not in the name of/by the institution "Assembly of Kosovo" (or at least that is what the ICJ states in its opinion - and that's why this declaration does not violate "international law"). I assume that after the declaration of RoK the PISG were somehow replaced by their RoK analogs - but how? Did UNMIK issue some "regulations" about this transfer? Are there documents signed between UNMIK and RoK? What about documents signed between EULEX and RoK? Or UNMIK silently "abandoned" the PISG and these functions started to be provided by the analogous RoK institutions? But there should be some interaction between UNMIK and RoK - UNMIK is still on the ground in Kosovo, right? Does EULEX server as an intermediary between them or what? Alinor (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I know only some of those questions. I will be brief. UNMIK currently is present mainly in north of Kosovo (Mitrovica). It is the only link between Kosovo and Serbia, as you may know, Serbia does not cooperate with Kosovo's Institutions, only with UNMIK. Relations between Eulex and Kosovo are direct. Kosovo's Constitution calls for a mission (such as Eulex) to assist them in state-building. So: UNMIK is only present where there are gaps between Kosovo-Serbia. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, but what about the transfer between PISG/UNMIK and RoK in 2008 and more importantly about the current RoK-UNMIK relations. North Kosovo is one thing, but it is also interesting what is the mechanism of expressing the RoK position by UNMIK in those international organizations/treaties where UNMIK is representing "Kosovo" (here). Before 2008 it is clear - PISG were "part of" UNMIK, thus they had established mechanisms for communication. But now there are no more PISG (or are they? Maybe RoK institutions work in "double hatted" manner - having two stamps, two official gazettes, etc. - one for RoK and one for PISG/UNMIK?). And the opposite - if UNMIK undertakes some commitment in CEFTA for example - how is it going to implement it? Before 2008, the PISG would implement it as they were part of UNMIK, but now - RoK institutions may have a different opinion and may refuse to implement such international commitment. Alinor (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Good questions. I do not know the answers for all that. But I can sure find out. Is there any particular reason why you need all this? —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I would agree this are important questions for the entire Kosovo#Government_and_politics section. Essentially, the question is, who is running Kosovo. This is particularly acute after Thaci lost the vote of confidence.[12][13] We know Kosovo is officially run by an opaque collaboration between UNMIK, EULEX and RoK authorities, but so far I haven't been able to figure out how this works either in theory or in practice. According to the EU at least[14] the situation is really bleak. Not only is EULEX constantly investigating government corruption, now UNMIK is itself accused of corruption[15]. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to find some information about Kosovo-UNMIK-EULEX relations. There are in fact four big factors in Kosovo right now it seems. UNMIK, Kosovo Government, EULEX and ICO (International Civilian Office). ICO is independent while EULEX is filling the gap of UNMIK's third and fourth column or wherever UNMIK cannot function. When UNMIK sends its reports to the UN, it gathers information as an appendix from EULEX. Apparently, even if EULEX was called by Kosovo's Government (I do not find any proof for that, only ICO is called by Kosovo Government) it is still under UNMIK modality somehow. It uses UNMIK legislature to function.
Another interesting fact is, that Peter Faith, is currently holding two positions that are contradictory to each other. One as International Civilian Representative in Kosovo where he oversees Kosovo's Independence (and accepts it), on the other hand he is European Union Special Representative which is a position neutral to Kosovo's status.
There are some interesting things happening. Now that the Government has "collapsed", elections will be held on 12 December—which might be supported by Serbian Institutions. It seems there is going to be change in Government, it remains to see how will all this reflect on Kosovo-Serbia negotiations.
I will tell a joke, I hope it will no be offensive to any community. But it is just a joke that I heard from an OSCE guy, we need to lighten the mood a bit: A Serbian guy going to Kosovo. At the border an EULEX policemen stops him and asks: - Name and Surname? Dragan Milenovic. - Occupation? No. This time only visiting.
—Anna Comnena (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
well, most of the EU member states (all except Spain and Greece) have recognized the RoK, so it stands to reason that the EULEX at least has no interest in making a fuss about not recognizing it, especially as that presumably would not improve collaboration. They just cannot go on record saying they recognize it but in all other aspects they effectively do. I really hope they manage to build a stable government in December, the country could use it. I like your joke by the way, sounds like a genuine soundbite collected in the field :) --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no particular reason I ask - I just find it strange that in pages after pages of articles and talk discussions I couldn't find the answers to such "basic" issue. So, if you can find out - this will be a great contribution to the affected articles. As I understand RoK/ICO (and KFOR?) are in total harmony as RoK constitution mentions ICO and "international military mission". Also, EULEX and UNMIK are in total harmony - EULEX "called in" (and "reporting to"?) by UNMIK. UNMIK and EULEX obviously do not recognize RoK (as UNGA/UNSC and EU do not recognize it), but it seems that in practice they have a good level of cooperation (corruption, law and order, individual president/government of RoK, etc. issues are separate things). Serbia does not recognize RoK and in practice has none (or very tense?) interaction with it. Serbia does work with and recognize the authority of UNMIK (and EULEX?). But maybe "reluctantly"? The logic/link breaks in the point of interaction between RoK and UNMIK/EULEX (this is related to the question "what happened with the PISG?". Alinor (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I know. The reason is that the "basic issue" for our involved editors are questions like, are the Albanians descended from the Illyrians, or is Kosovo the cradle of Serbian civilization. Real-life questions of economy or government are simply too bleak and disheartening to command attention. Imo, that's the difference between nationalism and patriotism. An Albanian nationalist will invest his energy in defending his nation's glorious Illyrian roots. A Kosovar patriot, on the other hand, will devote his energies to the thankless task of fighting corruption in his home country. The Balkans desperately needs less nationalism and more patriotism. --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Since we are on the issue. I try to defend an Albanian perspective, because there are less editors who do so. And that is not because it has less to defend, but there are more editors from nationalities that have prejudges towards Albanians, as a result of their own national myth. Every nationality has a myth (duh!). Since we are on the Kosovo article. I would agree with you that it is an epitome of all these nationalistic problems. I would very much be FOR any change in the article that would strip anything disputable, and (I don't know?) maybe only focus on economy, development, Eulex-Unmik-Government-Serbia issues. But I sincerely doubt that an article about geography is the solution. The article is very long and has much parts that contradict each other. Instead of creating many POV articles, we could focus on making this one better. Maybe a better structure. Shorter texts... —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Anna Comnena's proposal above, maybe the controversy should be shifted away from this article and onto the ones that specifically deal with the controversial subjects that have produced 26 pages of archives so far (Illyrians, Medieval Kosovo, etc.).Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Anna says "every nation has a myth". she is wrong about the Kosovar Albanians because they have no myths only facts. As a nation they struggled for centuries under all sorts of foreign rule until they got their independence in 2008, that is a fact not a fiction. The last years saw them overcome Holocaust style genocide and ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Serbian invaders and Greater Serb enthusaists. I guess we can start the article by confirming that Kosovo is not a disupted territory but an outright country, I mean the USA, UK and 69 other democratic states recognize it and the figure is set to increase, month by moth it has gone up and up. The only myth in Kosovo is the so-called "North Kosovo" question which Serbs still think is theirs, but it isn't, the most powerful force there is UNMIK and UNMIK recognizes Kosovan rule over Kosovo!! Checkmate! Only Serbia still disputes Kosovo but that too will change once they hold another revolution like 10 years ago, cos hey want to join NATO, the UN, the EU and all other organizations and they cannot do that unles they recognize Kosovo. So let's help the Serbs by calling Kosovo a country ourselves. Balanced Justice (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Banned sockpuppet of User:Sinbad Barron --WhiteWriter speaks 11:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify one fact - Serbia is full member of the UN since 10 years. I don't know if Kosovo recognition is condition for EU membership (it may be a de facto condition - I think that the EU hasn't prepared the Serbia negotiations framework yet) and I don't know if Serbia wants to join NATO and I don't know what other organizations Serbia wants to join, but can't because of Kosovo.
"UNMIK recognizes Kosovan rule over Kosovo" - would you clarify/source this taking in account the discussion above your comment - please define "Kosvan rule" (does this mean RoK, PISG or something else?) and please explain the relationship between UNMIK and the RoK/PISG/something else. It seems that UNMIK is not opposed to RoK on practical level, but it remains a total mystery how they interact. If you live in Kosovo maybe you can share with us some information from local newspapers - analyses, etc. on this issue. Alinor (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

On 25 July 1999 the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo Bernard Kouchner issued UNMIK Regulation 1999/1, vesting "all legislative and executive authority with respect to Kosovo, including the administration of the judiciary" in the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to be exercised by the Special Representative, which came into force 10 June 1999. UNMIK authorized the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG) per UNMIK Regulation 2001/9 of 15 May 2001 which explicitly provides that "laws, once promulgated, are binding legislative acts of a general nature", "the President shall sign each law adopted by the Assembly and forward it to the SRSG for promulgation" and "laws shall become effective on the day of their promulgation by the SRSG, unless otherwise specified." Section 1.5 creates the Assembly and all the other institutions of the PISG, which did not exist prior to that, correct?

It was this PISG Assembly that adopted this Constitution of Kosovo of 9 April 2008? If regulation 2001/9 was still in effect, wouldn't the SRSG have promulgated this act? Does anyone have verification the 2008 Constitution was promulgated by the SRSG? Int21h (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija -like redirects

I see that many variants of "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" redirect here (including such written in cyrillic). I propose that we redirect them to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (disambiguation) - or if possible directly to an article such as: Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946-1974), Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999). Alinor (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If it can be determined that they are not referring to the current Serb conception of KiM, then they should be redirected appropriately. If they are making reference to current events, they should stay as is. Unless, of course, we were to split this article. (Note: While I support splitting the article, I don't want to start another argument about it. I was just covering all possibilities.) --Khajidha (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't noticed that this article is not only about RoK. It has only the RoK infobox and no APKiM or UNMIK infoboxes - so I assumed that it is only about RoK - that's why I found it strange for APKiM redirects to go here.
So, the problem is not only in the redirects, it is in the whole structure/topic of the article!
I think the current setup is entirely inappropriate - if the article "Kosovo" is to be a combo-article covering both Kosovar POV and Serbian POV - then it should include infoboxes for both POVs (as the two POVs imply entirely different statuses). I understand that it will be difficult to decide what is put first, but having one of them missing is even worse - and misleading. Also, I don't know if Serbian POV should be represented by APKiM infobox or UNMIK infobox (these are already existing in the respective articles) - after all UNMIK is "accepted" by Serbia.
Such double POV arrangement seems inappropriate to me. Current situation: we have articles for former/current APKiM and UNMIK, but we don't have article for Republic of Kosovo. We also don't have articles devoted to Kosovo as a region/territory (in the sense of physical/natural properties, not in the political or administrative sense), we don't have article explaining Kosovar position on Kosovo, we don't have article Serbian position on Kosovo. The current Kosovo article is an awful mix of all these topics (both such that have their own articles and such that don't have separate articles). I propose the following arrangement (but reading your comment above it seems to open a can of worms):
  1. Kosovo to be devoted to as "general description" of the region/territory with sections
    • about the physical/natural properties of the region/territory - parts of the current "Geography" section
    • about the historical developments up to somewhere in the 20th century (up to 1912 or 1990) - most of the current "History" section
    • with brief section about demographics, languages, culture
    • with a separate section "Status of Kosovo" or similar - somewhere at the bottom where the recent (post 1990) political developments are briefly described - with links to the main articles of RoKosova, APKiM, UNMIK, RoK. Maybe mix it with the current "Name" section in "Status and names of Kosovo"
    • remarks about current political status and Kosovar/Serbian POVs to be kept mostly out of the lead section (otherwise it will become too big) and put into the "Status" section in the bottom
  2. Republic of Kosovo to get most of the sections (and the RoK infobox) of the current article (parts/summaries of them can be put in the general Kosovo article, relevant/ammended parts of them can be put in APKiM and/or UNMIK article) - this can be considered to show the Kosovar POV - or a separate Kosovar position on Kosovo or Albanian position on Kosovo article can be made
  3. Serbian Status Proposal for Kosovo (already existing) - this can be considered to show the Serbian POV - or a separate Serbian position on Kosovo article can be made
  4. pre-lead & disambiguate navigation helps ("XXX redirects here, for other uses see YYY", "This article is about XXX, for other uses see YYY") changes to relevant articles:
  5. The redirects to be changed:
You and I seem to be in complete agreement, but many users here seem to disagree. I don't know why it is so hard to understand that the physical place is separate from the social structure erected upon it and that different social structures can exist in the same physical space. USUALLY this does not occur and the physical space and social structure can be covered in one article. When exceptional circumstances occur, however, this can and should be recognized with an exceptional article structure. --Khajidha (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
But what are the objections? Maybe we should put some "split proposal" template in the article linking to this discussion?
The group of articles about Palestine, State of Palestine, Palestinian National Authority, Governance of the Gaza Strip, Palestine Liberation Organization, Palestinian territories, Israeli-occupied territories, etc. is a good example for another similar case like the triad here of Serbia/UNMIK/Republic of Kosovo. Alinor (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
By similar I mean - it is an example of having different articles for the "general description" of the region/territory, for each of the "opposed to each other" governing authorities. Please, don't start arguments like "Kosovo is not like Palestine, because ..." - I don't claim it is. Alinor (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I Agree completely with this great wonderful proposal! I tried to propose this multiple time alredy, but each time i was sabotaged by few problematic users. Whatever you decide, i would love to participate, PLEASE just inform me on my talk page. Also, i propose split templates, that would be the best. Alinor, i propose to create new section, with your main proposal. Or we can use this one above? Anyway, i am here, and i am willing to help to fix this unbelievable POV horror that we have now... --WhiteWriter speaks 16:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)WhiteWriter please don't try again without consensus because last time a large number of editors tuned your proposal down and some of them ended up complaining at AE about your actions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

I think to add a variant of Template:Split linking to this discussion (if the page protection allows me to), but could someone please point me to the previous discussions on such proposals? Alinor (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
For the most recent of the many split discussions, you may want to read archives Talk:Kosovo/Archive 25 and Talk:Kosovo/Archive 26.
Consensus can change, of course, but it gets a little tiring when some people who disagree with the consensus just want to try over and over again. To complain that one is sabotaged by problematic users is profoundly unhelpful; for people who genuinely believe (or pretend) that they have have The Truth and everybody else either helps or heeds them, wikipedia will be a very frustrating place, because wikipedia runs on consensus.
There wasn't even consensus to place a split template on the page, last time around.
This tends to turn into a very long debate so I would suggest putting it under its own heading if you wish to discuss further. bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I looked at some of the previous discussions (haven't read everything) and if I understand correctly the previous proposal were different - they proposed almost all material to go into the "general" Kosovo article, the RoK was referred to by the proposal "de facto ... disputed" (I think this doesn't help to have impartial debate) and wasn't clear what content will go there, the UNMIK was to go into APKiM article, etc. Then the comments revolved around "Serbia has no control over Kosovo, including North Kosovo", etc.
The current proposal is different than that. First it doesn't deal with the questions of how controls what, what the status is according to different POVs, etc. - the proposal is exactly about that - leave POVs to the appropriate articles and use Kosovo only for physical features/pre-1990 history - with only small section devoted to "Name and status" - mostly linking to the POV-articles.
I don't understand how anybody could be happy with the current status quo - the Republic of Kosovo does not have its own article - the current one is "pested" with APKiM-POV remarks. Even Somaliland article is more Somaliland-focused than this (and Somaliland has ZERO recognitions - for those that like to count recognitions and non-recognitions). On the other side, the APKiM-POV is pushed to the sidelines, there is no APKiM infobox (the reason I misunderstood the topic and started this discussion)! How could anybody claim that the status quo represents both POVs, when it actually represents neither?
What is the problem of putting APKiM and RoK POVs in their own articles (APKiM already has an article), UNMIK POV (that is different from the other two) also has an article. I think that the editors who support one of the POVs should concentrate on explaining it with great details on its own dedicated article - with just small remarks "the other POVs are the following: link1, link2, link3" - not like here to make "essay" delaboration in a mixed article. Espicially for UNMIK and APKiM POVs - they have their own articles, but their POVs are not explained well even there - for example - current functions/mandate of UNMIK, if/how it gave up tasks to EULEX (which tasks), to RoK (which tasks); Serbia position on APKiM - "since 1999 it is under UN administration", OK, but then "elections organized by Serbia produced the APKiM assembly->Serb APKiM Council, President" - so, is Belgrad officially working with these APKiM structures or it works with UNMIK (and what about EULEX?) - and only unofficially supports the APKiM structures? - the RoK POV also leaves many things unexplained - again about UNMIK-RoK relations - PISG were part of UNMIK, now it seems that they are part of RoK - how was the transition made? documents, sources. Is the old UNMIK currency regulation (4/1999) in force ("allowing official payments to be done in dinars, but with additional charge for exchange costs")? etc. And general questions - does Serbia put customs duties on goods coming from Kosovo? And from North Kosovo? Are there serbian border guards and customs officiers at the Serbia-Kosovo crossing, or is it considered by Serbia "internal administrative boundary, not border"? What about foreign debt of Serbia+Kosovo - how/whether it is divided? What about shares/immovable properties in Kosovo owned by Serbian entities/citizens? And vice-versa? What about RoK representation in organizations where the membership is of UNMIK? etc. the list of unanswered questions could continue.
Instead on focusing on delivering content with sources, etc. - we argue if we need source for "state with limited recognition" against "disputed territory with limited recognition" or if we should count recognitions or non-recognitions. I think, that by dividing the article into RoK, APKiM, UNMIK and historical/physical "general Kosovo" - all POVs would be represented much better, each in their own article.
By putting all in the same place is like requiring from Wikipedia editors to agree on common position - a thing that politicians could not do for 20 years. This is just a magnet for reverts, vandalism, etc. - so, the page is protected.
practical question - so, if putting a split-template is not acceptable, what can be done? Alinor (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Creating separate articles to avoid the irksome chore of getting "Wikipedia editors to agree on common position" would be a POV fork. I'd rather get a NPOV here than create two separate POV ghettoes (which would, themselves, still attract lots of reverts and vandalism). bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Alinor, you are very much welcome to propose some solution and add split-templates. None can ban you to propose split. Thats one of the main wiki rules, as you know. You must know that you have here some editors that find this subject very personal and emotional, so they can try to stop you, or there can be some minor problems, as i unfortunately find out. As i told you, just add new section with your proposal alongside split templates. With your fine explanation, every neutral admin will be willing to read what you have. Also, only arguments can win here. This horror needs to be fixed. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Bobrayner, i don't agree that this is a POV fork proposal. RoK and APKiM and UNMIK are three different things, that's why putting them in a single article results in the problems described all over these 27 talk pages. There is one single thing that is common to all three and it is that the three are "administrations/governments" of the same territory - Kosovo. How much any one of these three is "legitimate", how much any one of these has "real control", etc. is irrelevant. I think it is better that we have one article, containing only the common things (Kosovo history pre-1990, geography, etc.) - and the other articles to deal with their own topic (and mention the others only when required in order to explain something about their topic).
WhiteWriter, thanks for the support! But it seems that the issue is very controversial (and entrenched) and right now I don't have time to be dragged into such discussion - I made my proposal above - if the editors here like it - they could easily implement it. I was just passing by and saw the strange redirects (some of them could be corrected even without the article split). Alinor (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
To me it seems that splitting the article would allow clearer presentation of each side. Just as a debate has each participant speak individually instead of having everyone speaking at once and trying to drown out the other side's points. Yes, there should be a prominent note reminding people that these other POVs exist and linking to the presentation of each, but each government/administration should be presented in its own article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I put a "split proposed" template in the article lead on October 30, 2010. Alinor (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree. This was already a long debate. I agree that the current article leaves much questions unanswered. And, really, the whole article requires to be re-edited. It has to be shortened and it should redirect to other pages that are already created, and have much more information (e.g. APKM). However, Kosovo referring to the geographic territory would only be POV, meaning, Kosovo is not a real state. And this in itself is disputable. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
So, it was a long debate, so it shouldn't be debated anymore? Kosovo is not a real state is fact. Kosovo cannot be compared with Poland, America, or any other fully recognized state. Kosovo status is disputed, and excluding that fact is POV.
Agree. absolutely, completely, with no doubts! This split may be only real solution to save wikipedia from being propaganda tool. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree - This is the solution I have always favored. Having both ROK and APKIM in the same article means that neither can be given the full focus each deserves. --Khajidha (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree - per Khajidha. Moreover, I always found it odd that the infobox of this article says "Republic of Kosovo" at the very top. Athenean (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. The previous situation of multiple infoboxes was horrendous and opens us up to debates about to which to give priority. Having just one means that at least some of the information isn't correct from one or the other viewpoint. --Khajidha (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a fact. Without other side, this page is not neutral. And i think that this is almost unquestionable, like the common sense. One side, without other side, not equal to full. :) A bit of a poetry! :) :) --WhiteWriter speaks 19:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree - The only possible solution for ending the Wikipedia dispute! --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Obviously WhiteWriter is trying to gain consensus again only about one month after the vast majority of users without a conflict of interest rejected it. I suppose I'll have to inform them because this isn't a voting competition.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Your comment is completely untrue. Thank god we have archive to check. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree per WhiteWriter, Khajidha, Athenean and UrbanVillager.--Andrija (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree - strongly agree! right way to end this endless dispute. --Alexmilt (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree - This seems quite reasonable and will fix several issues.Alexikoua (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Ca you all just read WP:ARBMAC2 first! —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This split proposal is based on ARBMAC. Wikipedia is NOT propaganda tool! --WhiteWriter speaks 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please let's not start again with trying to move Republic of Kosovo to a different name. This split was already rejected. And stop voting, wikipedia is not a democracy. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is voting - they are just expressing agreement/disagreement with the proposal, right?
As I explained above - former split proposals were different - and if I am not mistaken - they were with POVish intentions and POVish proposed results.
Anna Comnena, this proposal has nothing to do with "Kosovo is/isn't a real state". It is only about arranging content in appropriate places.
Enric Naval, this proposal is not "to move Republic of Kosovo to a different name" - it is a proposal to leave RoK as it is (point2 above: "Republic of Kosovo to get most of the sections (and the RoK infobox) of the current article") and separate pre-1990 history content in another place - so that the RoK article is not mixed with APKiM/UNMIK content.
The current setup is simply wrong - Kosovo POV supporters added all RoK state-article content (including infobox), but Serbia POV supporters insisted that APKiM (and UNMIK?) content should be there too - and added it as well (albeit without infoboxes). This is a horrible mess.
The main question is - what is the topic of the "Kosovo" article?
  1. Kosovo (disambiguation)
  2. Kosovo (region) (history/geography) - currently redirecting to Kosovo
  3. Republic of Kosovo (Kosovar POV) - currently redirecting to Kosovo
  4. UNMIK (UNSC POV)
  5. APKiM (Serbia POV) - currently redirecting to Kosovo, but actually represented here and see also the second sub-point of proposal point5
  6. some mix of the above?
See for example Macedonia - it is a Macedonia (disambiguation) with links to Macedonia (region), Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece). I am sure that both RoM and Greece POV supporters would like their article to reside under 'just "Macedonia"', also Greece POV supporters would prefer the RoM article to reside under "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", etc. But at least each topic has its own article and a sensible balance is reached between the POVs - by using the common name for a disambiguation page, etc.
So, I propose a little change to the proposal - the general description/history/geography sections (point1 of the proposal) should reside in Kosovo (region) (and change point4 sub-point3 and point5 sub-point4 accordingly).
Another question is where should Kosovo redirect - to: Kosovo (region), Kosovo (disambiguation), Republic of Kosovo, UNMIK or Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1999-) (linking to here, see sub-point2 of point5)? I think we should choose region or disambiguation, as the other options would be objected by the different POV camps. The other option is like Cyprus - there is the article for Republic of Cyprus, and it has in the heading a navigation link to Cyprus (disambiguation) - but in this case we will have to decide what POV gets the Kosovo - RoK, UNMIK or APKiM.
In fact, I think that the opposition to the current proposal is grounded in the insistence of RoK POV supporters that their article is under Kosovo and that no other POV should "usurp" this name. But the current result is that there is no RoK article at all - there is only a RoK/APKiM mixed article. Alinor (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
"Kosovo" is the most common name for the Republic of Kosovo, and it's most commonly used to refer to the Republic of Kosovo. This has already been discussed many times, and it was discussed recently.
In the case of Macedonia, there was not a most common use, and so they made a disambiguation page (there was a big discussion in Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia, which resulted in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)).
For Cyprus, see the arguments at Talk:Cyprus#What_is_meant_by_Cyprus. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If there is such consensus reached, then Kosovo should redirect to Republic of Kosovo (or vice versa) - and this article should "get most of the sections (and the RoK infobox) of the current article" plus a little history and a little about UNMIK/Serbia POV, etc. as per the proposal; Kosovo (region) should get pre-1990 history, geography; APKiM material should go to APKiM article; UNMIK material should go to UNMIK article; redirects should be re-arranged accordingly - as per the proposal, but with Kosovo (region) for the general article instead of Kosovo (this affects mostly sub-point6 of point5). Alinor (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think, that in order to avoid such debates in the future, the article should be Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo to redirect there. That way it will be clear what the topic is - e.g. RoK. If in the future someone wants to raise the issue of "what should be in the Kosovo page - a redirect to RoK or something of the other options here above?" - this will be discussed at Talk:Kosovo instead of Talk:Republic of Kosovo - and consequentially any edit-revert wars (or edits that go unnoticed along these wars) would not result in a situation like the current one - an article with unclear topic - and no real RoK article to represent Kosovar POV.
A related issue is if Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999) should be renamed to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) - to more clearly represent Serbian POV - as currently th APKiM 1990-1999 article contains a section for events after 1999 (including also events after 2008). Alinor (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Articles about countries cover everything about the country, including geography, history, etc. And again, Kosovo is the most common name for the country, and the most common use of the name is to refer to the country. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that Serbia POV supporters agree that "the most common use of the word 'Kosovo' is to refer to the 'Republic of Kosovo' proclaimed in 2008".
I don't understand what do you suggest. If the topic of the article should be RoK - then APKiM/UNMIK/etc. should be mentioned only briefly (with links) - in relevant places (such as police/judicary/etc. for UNMIK; Serbian structures like "assembly for KiM"/etc. for APKiM). Also, an article about RoK will not begin with "it is a disputed territory", because it is a country, right? An article about Kosovo-in-general could begin with "it is a disputed territory" (disputed between RoK, Serbia and maybe UNMIK - I still don't see a proper explanation of the RoK-UNMIK relationship), but an article about RoK should begin with "it is a partially recognized state" or similar wording. Also an article about RoK will not have all APKiM redirects pointing to it, would it?
Nobody is opposed to including history/geography texts in a RoK article - but as the pre-1990 is at least "shared" between both POVs - it should be part of the Kosovo (region) or History of Kosovo main articles (with summary history section in RoK article). Also, most of the countries (with enough content) have separate "History of XXX" articles and don't try to include EVERYTHING on the main page.
So, if I understand you correctly you think that Kosovo should have as topic the Republic of Kosovo. Do you agree Kosovo to redirect to Republic of Kosovo (thus having the same effect, but greatly reducing the potential for conflicts - as I explained above - as the topic would be crystal clear)? And what do you propose for Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999) and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) (see above). Alinor (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Kosovo is not a country. Kosovo is disputed territory. Someone think that that territory it is country, but then, it is called Republic of Kosovo. Someone claim it as Serbian province, and then it is called Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo.
Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
Kosovo is mix of those two. But as those two are opposite sides, they cannot be represented together. If you do not agree that Kosovo is disputed, than your help here can be quite limited. It is FACT that Kosovo is disputed. Also, i highly doubt that most common use should be guideline for this, and if that is your main argument, that it is a poor one. We should follow here much more important and significant rules then WP:COMMON NAME. And voting was not rejected, it was sabotaged by few users. And until we all agree, solutions will be proposed. None cannot stop that. --WhiteWriter speaks 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
WhiteWriter please don't make comments like voting was sabotaged by few users. Wikipedia is neither a democracy, where consensus is determined by the votes a faction can gather nor a directory of ideologies, where each pov is represented by its own article.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
These are not votes, i don't think so. This people just express their attitude toward the proposal. And i think that if China, Macedonia, Cyprus, and all other similar wikipedia problems were fixed in "split way", Kosovo shouldn't be exception. And as for now, all i see is that at least 7 (Seven) users argumentatively agree to split this article. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No previous proposal has been as well detailed as this one, that alone merits our attention and consideration. --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not important what people think, Kosovo IS an independent country. It has the control over the territory, it has its own passports (that are mostly recognized), it has its own government, and most importantly, it has sovereignty. As for Taiwan and other examples WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid that it is important what are peoples arguments. That is one of the main guidelines on wikipedia about dispute resolution. If you think that this article and this subject is not disputed, you are welcome to explain all of this restrictions, sanctions, and etc. on this page. Also, this is not place to discuss what Kosovo is, and what is not, this is place to fix inconsistency with article content. This proposition by Alinor is one of the greatest propositions i saw in all of those years on English wiki regarding this page, because it is best way to show every possible pov, and to remain neutral in all related parts of wikipedia. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Republic of Kosovo is independent country - nobody questions that. But there are 'notable' POVs (like the POV of Serbia government) that question the "rights", "validity" (and "existence"?) of the RoK. Thus it is independent, but with "limited recognition"/"partially recognized".
With this proposal we will decouple the two issues. We can have a proper RoK article, a Kosovo (region) article - and then, separately decide if Kosovo should redirect to RoK, Kosovo (region), or Kosovo (disambiguation) (that contains much more uses of the word Kosovo - some even outside of the Kosovo (region) - yes, I know that these are not the "most commonly used").
Anna Comnena, I don't understand your position - it seems that you supports the Kosovar POV, but at the same time you defend the status quo - where the RoK doesn't have its own article. This leads to the question above: 'what is the topic of the "Kosovo" article?' Alinor (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo should be disambiguation page. This page has to be renamed to Republic of Kosovo. Keeping this page with infobox country (without infobox that portray Kosovo as Serbian province) doesn't help much to NPOV. Read WP:TRUTH-- Bojan  Talk  03:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

no Disagree with the split.--Getoar TX (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not a vote. Please explain why you disagree. Alinor (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Where are the arguments of the vast majority of the support votes from the Serb editors that are nothing more than agree per other editors or this is the only possible solution. Alinor you should know that this isn't going to get split just because all semi-active Serb editors decided to vote for its split because we've had multiple discussions (and not votes) that refuted this proposal(although even after all this voting activity there's still no consensus for the split).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, the positions (agree/disagree) expressed above contain at least some limited explanation. And for the "agree" positions it could be assumed that if no explanation is given then they support the explanation given in the proposal itself. In contrast this particular position contains only "disagree/agree".
I understand that some editors are opposed - but why? What is the topic of the article according to the opposers? RoK or something else? Because currently the article is not written as a RoK article. And that is what I find strange - the opposers of the proposal here are at the same time supporters of the Kosovar POV. Thus it is reasonable to assume that they should be very unhappy with the status quo where RoK doesn't have an article at all. But they don't accept a proposal that will make RoK a topic an article!? There isn't any feedback even on the proposal Kosovo to redirect to their article (RoK) - but I assume that this will be heavily disputed by Serbian POV supporters anyway. Alinor (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
My explanation was: If you split Kosovo, it means the it is not a country (Serbian perspective). If you do not split, it will remain neutral, as it has an explanatory text on the lead. You can read from archive, all of these arguments have been mentioned many times earlier. Now that we had a consensus, you sparkled new hopes for "Serbian editors". —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Anna, if we do not split Kosovo and keeping only infobox country, it means that Kosovo is sovereign country. Footnote about status that would actually nobody read is insufficient. -- Bojan  Talk  05:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
My explanation: Currently APKIM redirects here but it is not an article about that entity. The infobox is designed for ROK, not APKIM. On the other side, if this is the ROK article then it should be listed as a partially recognized country not a disputed territory. The region is disputed between ROK and Serbia (APKIM), but an article about ROK must start with the assumption that it exists. As is, the article is a confusing mush of conflicting viewpoints neither of which can be explained properly because the opposite viewpoint is forced into the discussion. In separate articles the appropriate viewpoint can be articulated in full with only a short paragraph noting the dispute and directing the reader to the appropriate article for more information. --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hum, APKM shouldn't redirect to Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija?? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Khajidha.
Anna Comnena, I think that the proposals here are different from the previous split proposals - and implementing these would be neutral, would increase comprehensibility, would reduce the potential for conflicts/edit-wars. Why are you opposed to a proper Republic of Kosovo article (to get most of the current content) without APKiM connotations? (only a small note)
In any case the status quo should be changed - the article should have a clear topic. Kosovo (region), Kosovo (disambiguation) or Republic of Kosovo - whatever, but it should be clear. As it currently stands its topic seems to be Kosovo (region) (as it clearly isn't neither RoK nor APKiM nor UNMIK) and thus should either have both RoK and APKiM infoboxes or neither infobox - but I find such solution worse than the proposed split.
Enric Naval, if you look at the dab APKM page you provided you will clearly see what is the problem with this article. The first entitiy in the APKM dab page is Kosovo. Why? Because the topic of this article contains three separate things - Kosovo (region), Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1999-).
That's why I proposed (summarized):
  • Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999) to be renamed to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) - to more clearly represent Serbian POV - as currently the APKiM 1990-1999 article contains a section for events after 1999 (including also events after 2008)
  • Republic of Kosovo to have its own article (clearly representing Kosovar POV)
  • Kosovo (region) article to be established with the pre-1990 history, geography related to the territory of Kosovo - both RoK and APKiM articles will contain/link to parts of this article (e.g. I don't suggest to make this content exclusive to the "region"-article - the other articles will not be "deprived" of this content)
  • Kosovo to be a redirect. It can redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) or to Kosovo (region) - I think that both POV camps would not agree the other camp to "usurp" the name by redirecting to RoK/APKiM. In any case, any such dispute about "Our usage of Kosovo is more common than yours" will have much less implications if it is over the redirect target - the RoK/APKiM/Kosovo (region) articles will remain "clear" of such edit-wars. As we all see the result of the last such dispute is that we have an article that mixes unmixable topics. Also, making this separation now will ensure that if consensus changes in the future a reversal will be very easy to do - just change a redirect or move&redirect APKiM/RoK to Kosovo. Currently any change goes trough establishment (by utilizing current mixed content) of two "new" articles: Kosovo (region) and RoK (APKiM needs only a change in the years in its name).
So, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija dab page should not link to Kosovo (region) and Republic of Kosovo, but only to APKiM pre-1974, SAP Kosovo, APKiM(s) post-1990. But currently it has to link to Kosovo because of the mixup. Alinor (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I assume that nobody opposes point1 and point3 above? Also, I think that even Serbia POV supporters would agree that RoK exists and is notable enough to have its own article (validity of RoK itself, its actions and claims is a separate issue that may be debated and disputed), so point2 also seems to be not so controversial.
The root cause of the problem, IMHO, is that both RoK and APKiM supporters want Kosovo to be "their" article. But we see the horrible result - no "real RoK" article and APKiM article without APKiM infobox - both mixed into one article.
I think that it would be much more neutral (and has additional benefits as explained above) if Kosovo redirects to Kosovo (region) or Kosovo (disambiguation). Alinor (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I redirected APKM to the disambiguation page, and moved Kosovo to the end of its list (in chronological order, like an older version of the page). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, but what do you (and everyone else) think about the proposal above? Alinor (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Alinor's proposal is overlooking one fact, any solution that does not redirect Kosovo to its sovereign territory is POV, it means that Kosovo is not a country. Also it makes both sides equal. Like, Serbs say this... Albanians say this... We should find something in the middle. When in fact (de facto and de jure) Kosovo is independent. There are no Institutions of Serbia in Kosovo, there is No Army of Serbia in Kosovo. There are only Kosovar institutions and International ones. Kosovo is also recognized in the world (though not fully). A Kosovar can travel with his passport everywhere in the World (including countries that have not officially recognized it's independence).

So a solution would be if Kosovo article would mainly contain information about Kosovo as a country and territory with an explanation about the challenges with Serbia. And another article should be made about Kosovo-Serbia relations. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Some institutions of Serbia does exist in Kosovo. Kosovo is not a country, it is a disputed territory. I fount it is hard, if not impossible, to reconcile two contradictory entity in just one article. -- Bojan  Talk  19:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Some institutions of Serbia exist in Northern Kosovo. That might become Serbia after talks. But on other parts of Kosovo there are institutions of Serbia. So it is only Norther Kosovo that is disputed. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Whole Kosovo is disputed. You know, NPOV is not when you agree with just yourself. -- Bojan  Talk  20:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Anna Comnena, by reading your comment I see that my assumption above was correct - the root cause of the problem is "who gets the Kosovo article".
Where RoK passports are accepted (there is no "Kosovar passport" - there are "RoK passport" and "Serbian Directorate passport") is irrelevant for the topic (a side note: RoK passports are accepted in some countries that don't recognize RoK, but they are still not accepted everywhere). Same for institutions, etc. - who controls what and how RoK has almost total control over Kosovo (region) is irrelevant - nobody questions that.
The fact is that Serbia doesn't recognize the RoK existence and claims that Kosovo (region) is APKiM under provisional UNMIK administration. Yes, on the ground Serbian institutions may have only small influence, but still their POV is highly relevant and notable. And alas, I can't find neither good explanation of the relationship between "Serbian assembly for KiM" and Belgrade government (if any?), nor good explanation of the de-jure/formal relationship between RoK and UNMIK (if any?). As a side note - you speak about "Kosovo-Serbia relations", but the situation is as follows: there are no Serbia-RoK relations. There are Serbia-UNMIK relations, Serbia-EULEX relations and there were Serbia-PISG relations (status talks), but there are no RoK-Serbia relations. Please note the fact how unusable/misleading the wording "Kosovo-Serbia relations" is. I assume that you referred to "RoK-Serbia", but I can't be sure (maybe you referred to "UNMIK-Serbia" or "PISG-Serbia", etc.) - that's why it is better that we call everything with its official name (e.g. RoK instead of "Kosovo" - when speaking about the independent state; APKiM instead of "Kosovo" - when speaking about the province of Serbia).
Anna Comnena, currently Kosovo is not an article about RoK, but about Kosovo (region), RoK and APKiM. In the whole Wikipedia there is no article focused solely on RoK (the state that you refer to by its short-form name "Kosovo"). I assume that you don't like this status quo.
All this leads to the point that each of APKiM, UNMIK and RoK should have its own article. Do we all agree here?
Do we also agree to a Kosovo (region) article with the pre-1990 history/geography? (to be also duplicated in/linked from RoK and APKiM)
If we implement these three articles there will be a huge improvement over the status quo - in fact the biggest change will be that RoK will have its own article - separate from APKiM.
And the only issue left would be - where to redirect Kosovo. Kosovo (disambiguation) is a good point, as there are much more "Kosovo"s that the RoK/APKiM anyway. Alinor (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Alinor, I believe that your initiative is highly appreciated. You have raised the level of argumentation. On these grounds, with the your comment above, I will have to deal with two last points:
1. The root of the problem is not "who gets the Kosovo article"! It is not Serbian Kosovo vs. Kosovar Kosovo! It's Kosovar Kosovo vs "Neutral" Kosovo. At this point of development in Kosovo's history, "Neutral" is a not-recognition! States that are "neutral" towards Kosovo, do not recognize it. This does not mean that we should not have NPOV, but we should read what WP:NPOV really means. Kosovo is a hard case! No simple solution!
2. Kosovo is not more RoK than Serbia is RoS. I really do not understand where did that come from.
Furthermore, an article that would explain the Kosovo issues with Serbia could be much appreciated. (You can call it whatever you want) But that could be an important link of the current Kosovo article.

—Anna Comnena (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if some editors don't say it out loud, it is just about "who gets the Kosovo article". That is only one reason for blocking this logical split for so long. Also, Alinor, if would be time to invite some administrators to see this, and do the next step in here. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, the real sticking point seems to be where to redirect the unmodified term Kosovo. --Khajidha (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. And while we have here this monster mix article, with Republika e Kosovës being first to see, sure that every pro-RoK user will oppose this split to neutrality. Article like this is almost violation of ARBMAC Final decision. Wikipedia is not propaganda tool! And by pointless trolling comments, every discusion becomes TLDR, and none is willing to reread it, and it is gone in the wind. It was like this for long time, even when we have some kind of agreement about splitting. Alinor, as this is greatest proposition in long time, please, invite administrators that are introduced with ARBMAC and Kosovo subjects, and ask for conclusions. There is no unclear or undiscussed subjects anymore. It is time for closure. --WhiteWriter speaks 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't object if someone puts this to arbitration, mediation or some other suitable procedure for resolving the issue, but I have already gone further in this issue than I intended. Alinor (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Anna Comnena, I still don't understand your position fully - do you like the following aspects of the status quo: topic of Kosovo article is not only RoK, but also APKiM; there is no article solely dedicated to "Kosovo as a country" (RoK)? (I suppose you agrees that this properly describes the status quo articles?)
I think that the only reason why RoK POV supporters agree to such anti-RoK arrangement is because they somehow managed to remove the other infoboxes (UNMIK and/or APKiM). At the same time I think that Serbia POV supporters agree to RoK infobox to be the only one in the Kosovo article (anti-Serbia arrangement) only because they somehow managed to make its topic to include APKiM (and thus "depriving" RoK of a Wikipedia article). I don't think the aim of Wikipedia is to have such tit-for-toe arrangements that are at the same time misleading. If the topic of Kosovo article are both RoK and APKiM, then there should be at least two (if not even three) infoboxes. If the topic of Kosovo article should be only RoK (as you seem to suggest, but I'm not sure since you don't seem to reject the status quo) - then it should be rewritten in this way.
The proposal here will put everything where it belongs (let's leave aside for the moment the issue of Kosovo redirect - I find it as root cause - you disagree with me on that).
Now about the two points you have wrote above.
  • "Kosovo is not more RoK than Serbia is RoS." - yes and the Serbia article starts with "Serbia, officially the Republic of Serbia [RoS], is a landlocked country located ..." The problem is that the status quo Kosovo article starts with "Kosovo is a disputed territory ... Republic of Kosovo this and that ... Serbia's Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija this and that" - a true RoK article should start with "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a landlocked partially recognized country located in the Balkans." (or similar wording). In this specific debate (dealing with the topic of the Kosovo article) comments we just have to use the full official names RoK/APKiM instead of "simply Kosovo" - because otherwise it is unclear who we refer to (unless you know whose POV supporter is the user writing the comment). Outside of this debate it is obvious that you won't say "I am going to visit friends in the Republic/Province/Territory/Entity/Whatever of Kosovo" but will simply say "in Kosovo".
  • "root cause is not ..." - I understand your arguments here. It is irrelevant if I agree with them (see below), but as a side note - I find part of them incorrect - not all countries that don't recognize Kosovo are "neutral to the issue". If that was the case Kosovo would have been UN member already. Some of the countries are "actively non-recognizing", they are "rejecting recognition", not simply "don't care to do the paperwork". The obvious example is Serbia, but there are others. Yes, you could say that the "active non-recognizers" are "clearly a minority", but at this stage this is very hard/impossible to prove - so far there are 72 formal recognitions and you can only guess that 30-35 more would recognize it sooner or later.
Anyway, these arguments (and some of your previous arguments) will be relevant to a potential debate about the root-cause-IMHO "where should Kosovo redirect?" (e.g. you give arguments in favor of redirecting to an article about RoK) - but the main point of the current debate is that RoK/APKiM articles should be kept separate. This is a separate issue (that's why I said that these arguments are irrelevant). As I pointed out before - if we decouple RoK/APKiM/Kosovo (region) it would be much easier to focus on the issue of Kosovo redirect - and to have a meaningful debate about it.
It seems that you may have something against a potential Kosovo (region) article. I explained multiple times above that this does not mean that RoK/APKiM articles will be "deprived of their history" - editors could copy as much as they find useful.
So, Anna Comnena (and anybody else that wants to comment of course), would you clarify three things:
  1. Do you agree that the status quo should be changed by separating RoK/APKiM?
  2. Do you agree that we establish a Kosovo (region) article?
  3. Do you agree Kosovo to redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) for a short period during which interested editors could provide arguments for changing the redirect to RoK/APKiM/Kosovo(region)? (if there was already a debate on the issue of "common usage of the term Kosovo" - or whatever the relevant Wikipedia policy is - we can immediately utilize its conclusion) Alinor (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Kosovo (cyan) and Metohija (yellow)
  1. Yes.
  2. Hm. What would this article include? Kosovo is name for one basin and part of on that territory (the second one is Metohija)
  3. Agree, but not for a short period. It should be until final status is known. -- Bojan  Talk  10:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding #2 - it will contain content as described in point1 at the top of this section.
Regarding #3 - nothing is final in Wikipedia - everything can be discussed and subsequently changed. I think that as soon as we implement this change there will be RoK POV editors suggesting to redirect there and APKiM POV editors suggesting to redirect there. The decision will depend on the arguments those (and other) editors bring. Alinor (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Alinor, your persistence is admirable. I want to make one thing clear though. I am only for this status quo as a compromise, anything less than this goes beyond compromise, it becomes Serbian POV. It would make Kosovo's independence relative and it would make it look like only one of many POV's. When in fact this is the main POV.
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Maybe (but I really do not see a point there).
Another thing. I am against Kosovo being treated as a disputed territory. Disputed between who? It's inhabitants and Serbia?
—Anna Comnena (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


Regarding question no 2.: what about area colored cyan? If we have article Metohija, then it is logical to have article on Kosovo basin. Regarding question no 3: you won't see any new arguments until Serbia recognize independence of Kosovo or until Kosovo returns to Serbia.-- Bojan  Talk  16:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC) ently".

About #2. Bojan, what do you suggest? Two articles - Kosovo (region) and Metohija? I think that most of the content relates to both, so maybe it's better to keep them together. I am not opposed to a split - if somebody with knowledge on the subject can sort out the content. Anyway, Anna Comnena is opposed to #2 in any form so, this becomes a moot point for the moment.
We already have History of Kosovo and Geography of Kosovo, so we could easily implement the RoK/APKiM split without #2 - RoK editors will copy content they deem relevant to the RoK topic and APKiM editors will copy content they deem relevant to the APKiM topic (for both I propose a short history/geography summary with link to the main articles - but respective editors could agree on something else).
We can go without a Kosovo (region) article, but then we will have to redirect all links from subpoint6 of point5 somewhere else - I propose to the same place where we redirect Kosovo itself.
About #3. Bojan, you may be right (it depends on what arguments people bring) - I only wanted to point out that we can't decide anything "permanently".
Anna Comnena, the current Kosovo article starts with "Kosovo is a disputed territory". Also it is clear between who is it disputed - between the authorities of RoK and RoS. Yes, a majority (but not all) of the inhabitants support/prefer RoK. This is important, but the positions of the outside world are also important. Anyway, I don't think that a Republic of Kosovo article will be anti-Kosovar. Alinor (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. Agreed.
  2. The existing History of Kosovo and Geography of Kosovo articles could serve this purpose.
  3. Agreed. --Khajidha (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I already agreed above, same as other people. Also, Khajidha proposition for 2. question is fine, although i agree on kosovo region article too. It seems that we all agree! Is that possible!? :) :) Yes, it is!!! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 15:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, since it seems that all agree I suggest to implement the changes. I already moved APKIM1990-1999 to APKiM1990-. The next step is to move content from Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo (plus some wording tweaks mostly in the lead) - but I suggest that this is done by some editor more involved with the Kosovo article. The next step would be to re-arrange the redirects and here I could also help. Alinor (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't all agree, and you are just ignoring past discussions. If you want to make that move, first make a RfC to get outside comments. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
That's the reason why I even posted the merge-proposal only reluctantly - and why I suggested that a more involved editor implements the changes.
Anyway, nobody is ignoring past discussions, but they didn't solve the problems, so we try to address them now.
Enric Naval, do you prefer the status quo? What is your position on these last three points/questions above? Alinor (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Enric Naval, do you disagree with the proposition that this article is flawed? Aside from the issues already raised, am I the only one who thinks it odd that the History section on this page is almost twice as long as the History section on the Egypt page. In fact, the last 20 years of history on this page is almost as long as the entire history of Egypt section! Shouldn't this be condensed and the bulk of the information transferred to the 20th century history of Kosovo article? --Khajidha (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Enric Naval, if you dont explain you attitude with normal useful arguments, your disagreement is irrelevant for us. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You are talking like no one raised any argument at Talk:Kosovo/Archive_26#Separation and Talk:Kosovo/Archive_25#ICJ_verdict. I already pointed at WP:COMMON and at other country articles. I explained why Macedonia was a different case. I pointed to a discussion of why Republic of Cyprus is a redirect to Cyprus, just like Kosovo.
WP:COMMON is the strongest argument for changing an article title, and you are all trying to ignore it. See also WP:NPOV#Naming. In summary:
  • TO POINT KOSOVO TO "KOSOVO (DISAMBIGUATION)", YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT THE REPUBLIC IS NOT THE MOST COMMON MEANING OF "KOSOVO". OR THAT "KOSOVO" COMMONLY REFERS TO SOMETHING OTHER THAT THE REPUBLIC. THAT'S DONE BY SHOWING VERIFIABLE RELIABLE SOURCES
  • TO MOVE KOSOVO TO "REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO" YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT, WHEN REFERRING TO THE REPUBLIC, "REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO" IS MORE COMMON THAT SIMPLY "KOSOVO". AGAIN, SOURCES.
  • TO POINT KOSOVO TO "KOSOVO (REGION)" TO NEED TO SHOW THAT "KOSOVO" COMMONLY REFERS TO THE REGION INSTEAD OF THE REPUBLIC. AGAIN, SOURCES.
The country of Macedonia was moved to Republic of Macedonia because it wasn't the most common usage of "Macedonia", see Proposal B. Republic of Macedonia. Show here that sources commonly use "Kosovo", or find consensys via RfC / centralized discussion / one of the paths at WP:DR. Don't move the article until you have done that. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Enric Naval, have you even readed the above discussion? You refer to 'older' 3 points. The currently discussed are:
  1. Do you agree that the status quo should be changed by separating RoK/APKiM?
  2. Do you agree that we establish a Kosovo (region) article? (the current consensus is to use the already existing History of Kosovo and Geography of Kosovo articles instead)
  3. Do you agree Kosovo to redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) for a short period during which interested editors could provide arguments for changing the redirect to RoK/APKiM/Kosovo(region)? (if there was already a debate on the issue of "common usage of the term Kosovo" - or whatever the relevant Wikipedia policy is - we can immediately utilize its conclusion) - see comment from 09:32, 7 November 2010
So, the question is not to change the article title, but to have a meaningful article topic. As you can see in the discussion above - currently the topic of this article is not RoK, but both RoK and APKiM. If the status quo topic is to remain then a second (and third?) infobox should be added. The proposal above avoids that by separating RoK and APKiM.
Regarding your CAPITAL LETTER comments.
First - do you like the following aspects of the status quo: the topic of Kosovo article is not only RoK, but also APKiM; there is no article solely dedicated to "Kosovo as a country" (RoK) in the whole Wikipedia? (I suppose you agrees that this properly describes the status quo articles? - see above for additional examples)
As the status quo Kosovo article topic are both APKiM and RoK - redirecting to Kosovo (disambiguation) (where these two are linked from) would just retain the current arrangement (in relation to naming) - and anyway this is proposed only as temporary measure during the debate.The arguments you provide could be utilized in the envisioned in point3 debate. If the others agree I won't object redirecting to RoK from the start - and leaving for other editors to bring arguments for changing the redirect (that you seems to disagree). Alinor (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression (and voted as such) that we were looking to make this article the ROK article, to make the APKIM (most recent Serbian conception) article encompass all data about APKIM up to and including the current situation, to condense the history section and move much of it to the relevant history articles, and redirect Kosovo to wherever is most appropriate. I don't see how your objections apply to that scenario. It is not necessarily a POV fork to separate different viewpoints when they manifest as separate things the way the ROK/APKIM "viewpoints" do. For one example of the problems with this article - I'm still trying to figure out what the infobox is referring to because I don't know of any version of Republic of Kosovo that is "within Serbia" the way the map shows. APKIM is within Serbia, ROK is outside of it. --Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
1) they are already separated, Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija_(1990–) and Kosovo (and I redirected APKiM to the desambiguation page, like APKM)
2) there are already those two articles for history and geography
3) no. "Kosovo" is the most common name for RoK, there is no reason to point to the desambiguation for any period of time. About WP:COMMON discussions, looking at archives, the most recent one was in March 2008 Talk:Kosovo/Archive_18#Move. A few discussions cite WP:COMMON for using "Kosovo" instead of "Kosova" Talk:Kosovo/Archive_15#Kosova.2C_not_Kosovo. I'll just open a new section below.
--Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
1)If the articles are separated, why does ANY form of "Autonomous Province" redirect here? Why is Kosovo still shown inside of Serbia on the map in the infobox? If this is the ROK article, neither of those should apply.
2)Agreed, but there still seems to be far too much detail on this page for a summary.
3)Have no opinion as to the target of the Kosovo redirect. --Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

1)Because of Serbia still calling it APKM. The map in {{Republic of Kosovo}} was changed in July 2010 with edit summary "Edits per Kosovo talk page"[16], I have no idea what talk page discussion he is talking about, maybe Talk:Kosovo/Archive_25#Infobox. In my opinion, it should use File:Kosovo map-en1.svg, but I don't really care about it.

2)The solution is editing those sections to reduce their size.

--Enric Naval (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

1)If this page is covering the Serbian conception of the region as APKIM, then it is (by definition) NOT the ROK page. There is already a page for APKIM where that information and viewpoint could be covered. This page should cover the ROK. Yes, there should be a note mentioning the dispute, but the data presented should be consistent with the conception of the ROK.
2)Agreed, that was part of what this proposal was about. --Khajidha (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Enric Naval, the status quo topic of the Kosovo article is 'not RoK. We have already gone trough this above, but I will copy part of it here: "the status quo Kosovo article starts with "Kosovo is a disputed territory ... Republic of Kosovo this and that ... Serbia's Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija this and that" - a true RoK article should start with "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a landlocked partially recognized country located in the Balkans." (or similar wording). " If you insist on keeping the status quo - then we should add APKiM infobox (and maybe UNMIK infobox) below the RoK infobox (each of them showing appropriate map).
Currently on Wikipedia there is no article whose topic is only RoK.
Also I would suggest that you read the above comments on 'the root cause of the problem is "who gets the Kosovo article".' and the 09:32, 7 November 2010 comment about my assumption how the status quo mixup was achieved and why it is supported by both RoK POV and Serbia POV camps. Alinor (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Most common name

In reference to WP:COMMON WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV#Naming.

Looking at the first 100 hits in Google News, all use simply "Kosovo" when talking about the republic. They only use "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" when quoting what Serbian representatives have said. Searching "republic of kosovo" has a lot less results[17]. Articles that use "republic of kosovo" also use "kosovo" to name the republic [18][19] --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

These arguments could be brought forward in the potential debate on "where should Kosovo redirect?". But what do you suggest with them in the current debate on "should we separate RoK and APKiM?" ? Alinor (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You absolutely don't understand, Eric, and per this post you show us that. You are saying that then, this article should represent ONLY RoK, as "first 100 hits in Google News use simply "Kosovo" when talking about the republic". And WE are saying that this article CANNOT represent only RoK, as there are others, much more important rules and guidelines then WP:COMMONNAME in this case. And, Kosovo is equal to "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" also, as you may see in your falsely presented "100 hits only for RoK". So, as both entity's are presented as Kosovo, that cannot be decisive rule for this article. Also, you know that number of Google hits doesn't mean anything special for disputed, important articles like this one. And also, most important thing.
Kosovo ≠ Republik of Kosovo
RoK is only one part of Kosovo meaning. That's why this article should be split. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Kosovo is the common name for the Republic of Kosovo and the region itself. The APKM is used only in context with Serbian claims, so please WhiteWriter don't make or deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
In any case this debate should be held after we have separate RoK/APKiM articles. Because currently it serves no purpose - there is no RoK article.
That's what the proposal above is about - to have a Republic of Kosovo article - and then to focus a separate debate on the Kosovo redirect issue. Alinor (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
What I don't understand is: Why should we separate before we discuss? —Anna Comnena (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Because we all agree that the status quo mix topic is not properly defined and that RoK and APKiM should be described in separate articles.
Separating RoK/APKiM will be a big improvement over the status quo. Also it would allow for the "furious" debate on Kosovo redirect to be conducted on a separate talk page (and resulting edit-wars to affect only a redirect page) from the RoK/APKiM pages and will not affect the RoK/APKiM articles (I think that the current problem of non-topic of the Kosovo status quo article is a result of exactly this - both POVs clashed - and settled for the current awful status quo). Alinor (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
@WhiteWriter. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV#Naming say that RoK should be in "Kosovo". If there are other policies or guidelines, then please point them out here.
@Alinor. There are already articles for the region of kosovo, they are History of Kosovo and Geography of Kosovo. The article for the country occupying the region has a summary of them and links them. Just like Spain, France, Germany, Russia, etc. Heck, just like Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania. Even Yugoslavia has the same structure that Kosovo has now. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
No. Enric Naval, currently there is no "article for the country occupying the region". There is one article about APKiM (not a country) and there is another article about both APKiM (not a country) and RoK (country). There is no article about RoK. Please read my comment right above this subsection. Actually I think that RoK is the only case of state with limited recognition that has no article on Wikipedia. I asked you above what do you think of this situation? Alinor (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Kosovo is the article for "Republic of Kosovo", the same way as Serbia is the article for "Republic of Serbia". I can't say it more succinctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not arguing that point. I am arguing that a Republic of Kosovo article should not have any indication of also being the current Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article. No form of APKIM should redirect to this page, as (to the ROK) that is the past. ROK should not be shown as being within the borders of Serbia on the map. There are multiple articles for different versions of APKIM, all such data should be moved to those articles (or a new one for the current Serbian conception of APKIM). All references to APKIM on this page should be as a historical situation, not as a current fact. This article should only have a short notice saying that countries that do not recognize Kosovo's independence still consider it to be an autonomous province of Serbia with a link to the appropriate article. --Khajidha (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
edit conflict
No. The topic is clearly defined in the lead - Kosovo is a disputed territory with two claimants - 'by the independent state RoK' and 'by RoS as APKiM region under UNMIK administration'. Currently there is no article whose topic is only RoK without APKiM. You may insist that the topic of Kosovo should be changed to RoK, but in the status quo it is not so.
What I am proposing is to have an article whose topic is RoK and not RoK+APKiM. And because of the controversial issue of "who gets the Kosovo article" I propose to decouple it from the RoK/APKiM/whatever articles - by making it a redirect - initially to Kosovo (disambiguation) (as the most neutral destination article) and following a quick debate it can be changed to redirect to RoK or another destination (depending on the outcome of the debate) - the arguments you supply here will be relevant to that debate.
Even if the debate comes to the conclusion Kosovo to be redirecting to Republic of Kosovo the content should remain under the RoK heading so that the topic is explicitly clear - otherwise we will get again to the current status quo situation - where the TOPIC of the article is CONFUSING. This is totally unacceptable. Not to mention that consequently the quality of the content suffers and is susceptible to edit-wars. Alinor (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
@Khajidha. Change those redirects to point to Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija.
About maps, I made a new section below.
The rest of stuff, it can be fixed by editing the article.
@Alinor. This article is already only about the RoK. It only mentions that it was once the APKM, and that Serbia claims it as APKM. The APKM is covered at Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija_(1990–). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
No. The current topic of the Kosovo article is about "Kosovo as disputed territory" (between RoK and RoS) and not about "Republic of Kosovo, the partially recognized independent state". That's why the redirects are pointing here, that's why the map is such. Just look at the lead:
  1. Begins with the topic - "Kosovo is a disputed territory"
  2. next sentence is about one of the claimants - RoK
  3. next sentence is about the other claimant - RoS/APKiM
Above you practically propose to change the topic to RoK. I don't know if this will be accepted, but obviously it wasn't acceptable before - because the result is the current RoK/APKiM mixed topic.
Anyway, if you want the topic changed - please propose that. And I don't see why you are opposed to Republic of Kosovo article with Kosovo redirecting to it (if RoK POV arguments are accepted) or redirecting to Kosovo (disambiguation) (if RoK POV arguments are not accepted - RoK POV supporters will reject Serbia POV proposals for redirect, so it will stay in this way). In both cases the improvement over the status quo will be significant. Alinor (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
@Enric Naval, I have removed the note at the top of the page about APKIM redirecting here as it is not true (I checked). The opening needs to be rephrased slightly, from "Kosovo is a disputed territory" to "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a partially recognized state." The sentence about Serbia's rejection of independence can stay. I will respond to your map proposal below. --Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Double checked redirects and changed any that were explicitly about a non-independent Kosovo. That is, any that included the words autonomous, province, or Serbia or the abbreviation AP. I did not change the various unmodified versions of Kosovo and Metohija, but will not object if others do. --Khajidha (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
People, this is not ok. You already moved APKIM redirect from this article, but RoK CANNOT stay alone in here! This is exactly what are we opposing! It is completely unacceptable to change the topic of this article to RoK. And i will not agree to this, neither one who is introduced to wikipedia guidelines. If you started article separation, then RoK must be moved now to article Republic of Kosovo, as everyone else agreed except one editor. Once again, "Who gets the Kosovo article". Neither one! That is only way possible! --WhiteWriter speaks 17:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I agreed to. I agreed to the separation of APKIM and ROK with "Kosovo" to go wherever seemed best. Usage in English seems to be in favor of Kosovo = ROK, so that is what is developing. --Khajidha (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that in such controversial case the best solution is for Kosovo to redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) (the most neutral), but I will not oppose if other editors agree between themselves to redirect it to Republic of Kosovo.
At the same time I find it a bad idea the topic of Kosovo itself to be "only RoK" - this will lead us back to square one after some time/edits past by. Having RoK in Republic of Kosovo is in no way derogatory to it, especially if Kosovo redirects there. But the main point is to decouple Kosovo article from the RoK/APKiM/whatever content - so that edit-wars over the issue "who gets the Kosovo name" do not influence negatively the articles themselves - the warring sides could discuss and revert as much as they like - and this will not get in the way of unrelated edits aiming to improve the quality of RoK article, of APKiM article, etc. Also, this will remove the need to have a all kinds of disclaimers in lead, humongous history section, etc.
And on the procedure. I was asking about the topic since very long time ago. Nobody proposed "let's change it to RoK", but now this is done "by the back door". Alinor (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
an example. IMHO the question of RoK-UNMIK relations is much more important, relevant, notable, whatever - than the question of "who gets the Kosovo tag in Wikipedia". The proposal to have an article Republic of Kosovo with an indisputable topic - the independent state RoK (regardless of who recognizes it, etc.) will allow these two questions to be separated - editors interested in "who gets Kosovo-tag" would discuss their issues at Talk:Kosovo, debating whether/how to change the redirect. The editors interested in RoK itself would discuss their issues at Talk:Republic of Kosovo - and hopefully would increase the quality of the RoK article (the same is true for the APKiM article - see some questions in my post above from 10:40, 17 October 2010 - the most important one - does RoS government recognize and work (how?) with the current 'Serbian Assembly for Kosovo' and how the actions of this assembly/other APKiM structures in North Kosovo mix with the actions of UNMIK, EULEX or RoK?). Alinor (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is violation of dispute resolution, and violation of agreement of all those people above! We started the separation, and separation must continue. As you, Erin Naval, separated APKiM redirect from this article, YOU ALREADY STARTED SEPARATION! If we don't create Republik of Kosovo article, honestly, as i completely lost my patience, i will report this situation to the administrators. As Alinor told you, this "by the back door" move is unbelievable! If Eric Naval was bold in starting separation, he must finish it, or someone else must do that. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care where "Kosovo" redirects to, but the coexistence of ROK and APKIM in one article needs to be ended. --Khajidha (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Khajidha, Kosovo will not redirect. Kosovo will remain just as explained by Alinor above. "general description" of the region/territory. I created article where we should prepare new Republic of Kosovo article. PLEASE, JOIN, and fix and prepare it for (re)creation.
Also, here we should have just Template:Kosovo infobox, as it once was, and this template should be moved to RoK article. Then in this template we should remove Serbian and other links. What do you say, Alinor? --WhiteWriter speaks 12:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
For future reference if you do anything without a consensus I'll ask for admin intervention WhiteWriter.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I will remember you that consensus is mostly for split now. Also, if you dont have any useful comment, dont troll the discussion. --WhiteWriter speaks 15:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am OK with that, but I think there were editors above who suggested that instead of Kosovo (region) we could use History of Kosovo and Geography of Kosovo. Also, I think that redirecting Kosovo anywhere, regardless where will be a big improvement - since it will separate edits improving articles from edits part of the conflict "who gets Kosovo". Anyway, I don't object using Kosovo for "general description". Alinor (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Please, Alinor, see Republic of Kosovo article prepare area, and fix it as you find it useful. I would love to invite other editors also to fix it, so that would be our general creation. Anyway, it will be fixed when we move it. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)WhiteWriter consensus isn't mostly for split. Alinor at first you proposed two pov articles, while now you're proposing three pov articles in order to please as many users as possible with as many CFORKS as possible.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you mean. Initially I proposed RoK/APKiM/Kosovo-history&geography (located at Kosovo) articles, then it was suggested the general article to be named Kosovo (region) and I agreed; then other users suggested that there is no need for Kosovo (region) because the content is present (will be moved) in another articles - I agreed, now I again agree with Kosovo (region) as WhiteWriter proposed it right above.
At no time was there any POVfork - RoK and APKiM are different things, they exist simultaneously and independently of each other. It is the position of Kosovars and Serbians over each of these two that is POVed - Kosovar POV is "APKiM is a historical entity, its structures are illegitimate", Serbian POV is "RoK is illegitimate" - but these POVs do not diminish the fact the RoK is existing and that it seems that some APKiM structures also exist. Alinor (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
As explained by Naval there is an international term Kosovo, the Serbian version Kosovo and Metohija(in use since 1945 and the Albanian version Kosova as here Favoring one (Serbian "Kosovo and Metohija") or the other (Albanian "Kosova") versus the international ("Kosovo") is a POV pushing. Read hereNotes on Terms and Concepts why Kosovo term should be used. Aigest (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
APKIM and ROK both deserve articles, this current article does not really serve as either one. Once the two articles are separated the question becomes, where should the unmodified term Kosovo direct you. At that point it is a question of English usage. It seems to me that most English sources use Kosovo to mean ROK, thus the ROK article would be the Kosovo article. If this is not true or if it is at least not definitively true (say usage was 53% ROK vs 47% other) the Kosovo page should be a disambiguation. --Khajidha (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Maps

A - Kosovo with Serbia (world view)
C - Just Kosovo (world view)
B - Just Kosovo (geography)

The map has to be changed in {{Republic of Kosovo}}. Back when there where two infoboxes, there was a compromise at Talk:Kosovo/Archive_18#The_Infoboxes and Talk:Kosovo/Archive_18#On_using_the_locator_maps, to use A in one infobox and B in the other. Now there is only one infobox, and I suggest using C. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Such discussion serves no purpose. If a RoK article gets separated from the current RoK/APKiM article - then, naturally, a map of Kosovo outside Serbia will be used in the RoK article. If the status quo remains - then a second infobox has to be added and each infobox will have the relevant map - RoK infobox map of Kosovo outside Serbia, APKiM infobox map of Kosovo inside Serbia.
Actually your proposal above (to use a map of Kosovo outside Serbia without addressing the issue of topic separation) looks like attempt to tilt the balance toward the RoK POV. Such moves would be unnecessary if RoK has its own article. Alinor (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer choice C, but would like it even more if it were like A but without the darker shading in Serbia. --Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This can be accepted only in Republic of Kosovo article. So, with this proposal you basically started separation, so this redirect should be came article now. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
WhiteWriter please don't make OR deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, there is no point in discussing a map, before we have a consensus about the topic of the article. Because, IMHO, the map selection is obvious/automatic - if we have clear decision on the topic. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe now you can understand why is the page the way it is, Alinor. Kosovo is RoK but it is also a bit APKM. That is confusing, of course, but that is also why I would suggest to remove it at all (the APKM part) and make the page only about RoK (as other countries are). As you may have noticed not all editors would agree on that. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the problem with moving the content to Republic of Kosovo and leaving the Kosovo page as redirect (regardless to where, even to RoK). As I explained - in this way we will separate editors who wish to improve the content from these who care only about "who gets the Kosovo article". Alinor (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the problem with improving content where it is now? Those who argue "who gets the Kosovo article" can still do it on the talk page. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Problem is that editors who argue "who gets the Kosovo article" should be banned from editing this article, as wikipedia is not propaganda tool. Also, they will probably not improve content, as they have "more important bissnes". And we should not argue "who gets the Kosovo article", as that is problem, and not solution. None should get the "kosovo" article, if you ask me. That would be only neutral solution, as in real life, neither side don't have 100%. --WhiteWriter speaks 13:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
"That would be only neutral solution, as in real life..." is a Point of View. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the "who gets the Kosovo article" edits are like powerful spam and they come as an avalanche - mostly on the talk page, but also in the article itself. And we see the result - a RoK/APKiM mixed page, no RoK page in the whole Wikipedia. The result includes even a mixed infobox - an APKiM map with a RoK heading. Simply astonishing. I assume that this was a compromise reached between the two camps: "you get the heading, we get the map".
So, what's wrong with placing RoK at Republic of Kosovo and using Kosovo as redirect (pointing regardless where, but you know my opinion)? Alinor (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Alinor, I know you are trying to make the article better. I agree completely that the article should be shortened and more focused on current Kosovo issues (as mentioned some days ago). But, there are some some very delicate issues that have been long discussed. Unfortunately, this is the result. About a new RoK article, I do not understand why do you need it. All the info about RoK are on the current article. —Anna Comnena (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
We need it because RoK cannot stay alone in this article, as that would be breach of NPOV. I suggest you to reread this discussion, so we will not go all over again. Now, moving RoK at Republic of Kosovo, and using Kosovo as redirect? --WhiteWriter speaks 09:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
WhiteWrite please don't insist on claiming the WP:CONSENSUS. Per WP:COMMONNAME(as Eric has pointed out too many times) Kosovo is the common name for the Republic of Kosovo, while the Serbian name is used only regarding Serbian claims. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
ZjarriRrethues, both things can not coexist. It is either:
  1. Kosovo topic is RoK (not the status quo)
  2. Republic of Kosovo topic is RoK, Kosovo is a redirect to here, here or here (not the status quo)
  3. no change to status quo. Kosovo topic is RoK+APKiM. Second (APKiM)/third (UNMIK) infobox(es) will be added.
I propose option 2 with regardless what redirect - because this will help for the quality of all these articles.
In any case pointing out that "Kosovo is common name for RoK" without proposing what to do with this information doesn't help. I assume that you propose option 1, but this is my assumption. If there is such proposal - it should be announced clearly - so that everybody can state their opinion.
If "Kosovo is common name for RoK", then let's initially redirect Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo, then people with differing opinion could propose a change here - and whatever the result it will affect neither RoK nor APKiM articles themselves. Alinor (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Anna Comnena, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only delicate issue/root cause of the problem that I see is "who gets the Kosovo article". And it seems that some editors are keen on keeping the status quo (unclear who gets it, but it seems each camp thinks they won) and don't agree even with redirecting Kosovo to their preferred target article. But if they want to keep the status qup, then second/third infoboxes should be added - and this will harm the "balance" between the two camps, so they are again opposed. But I really don't see a 4th option. Alinor (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
My preferred choice is #1, but I would accept #2 if that would lead to greater stability and fewer arguments. Choice #3 is unacceptable. --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Best choices C (Just Kosovo (world view)), choice 1 not good. --Sokac121 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
As you all already know, i am for 2. option. Also, note to all, don't obstruct discussion with same lame arguments. As Alinor proposed, WE MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN THOSE 3 OPTIONS. Now, we are somewhere in between, as none of those 3 are fully implemented. Also, i would love to point that people from way above mostly agreed to 2. option, and i am inviting them to comment this also. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
WhiteWriter please don't make or deductions about consensus and don't use bold and uppercase. Btw because Sokac disagrees with you, his arguments aren't lame.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The best choice is #2, for obvious reasons. It is by far the most informative to our readers, and shows Kosovo's location within Europe thanks to the inset. It thus makes the other two choices redundant and useless. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit of topic, but do you Zjarri even know what is or deduction? Also, i didnt comment Sokac post, but other ones from above. Also dont make this even more TLDR if your comments are not useful in this discussion. IF you have some personal advices for me, use my talk page. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you people talking about the map options or the topic options? Alinor was talking about the redirect options, to which I responded. Your comments seem to be about the earlier choices between the maps. --Khajidha (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No, no, only topic options... --WhiteWriter speaks 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic of the article

Copy from above subsection to make it clear. Tried to copu replies related to topic (not map) - excuse me if I missed someone. WhiteWriter, please post again if you will, because I'm unsure if I should copy only yours or both yours and ZjarriRrethues comments. ZjarriRrethues, what is your opinion?

  1. Kosovo topic is RoK (not the status quo)
  2. Republic of Kosovo topic is RoK, Kosovo is a redirect to here, here or here (not the status quo)
  3. no change to status quo. Kosovo topic is RoK+APKiM. Second (APKiM)/third (UNMIK) infobox(es) will be added.
  4. other ideas?
I propose option 2 with regardless what redirect - because this will help for the quality of all these articles.
In any case pointing out that "Kosovo is common name for RoK" without proposing what to do with this information doesn't help. I assume that you propose option 1, but this is my assumption. If there is such proposal - it should be announced clearly - so that everybody can state their opinion.
If "Kosovo is common name for RoK", then let's initially redirect Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo, then people with differing opinion could propose a change here - and whatever the result it will affect neither RoK nor APKiM articles themselves. Alinor (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Anna Comnena, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only delicate issue/root cause of the problem that I see is "who gets the Kosovo article". And it seems that some editors are keen on keeping the status quo (unclear who gets it, but it seems each camp thinks they won) and don't agree even with redirecting Kosovo to their preferred target article. But if they want to keep the status qup, then second/third infoboxes should be added - and this will harm the "balance" between the two camps, so they are again opposed. But I really don't see a 4th option. Alinor (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
My preferred choice is #1, but I would accept #2 if that would lead to greater stability and fewer arguments. Choice #3 is unacceptable. --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
WhiteWriter supports #2 (see his comment in the above subsection). Alinor (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I am for proposal number 1. But this is not a vote, isn't it? —Anna Comnena (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Alinor why are you starting again the same discussion?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this is just collecting opinions, but if someone thinks that the appropriate procedure will be a vote, OK. Anyway, one of these should be selected in the end somehow, right?
I'm not starting it again - it seems that in the previous times some issues where not communicated clearly, that's why I try to make the issue as clear as possible. We can't have an article, whose TOPIC is in disagreement between the editors (because in the current situation it seems that there is no consensus over the question "what is the topic of Kosovo status quo article?" (not what the editor thinks it should be, but what it is currently). It is meaningless to discuss any changes unless we know the topic of the article.
ZjarriRrethues, what is your opinion? Alinor (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
We need to clarify this issue, as otherwise there is great temptation for one of the POV camps to try to 'swing the balance' in their direction and to change the topic 'stepwise' by making one change (redirects), then another (map) and finally changing it with some reason like "this is not needed anymore" (because of the previous changes). And then, of course, when someone of the opposing POV camp notices this he will most probably revert to who-knows-what older version (in the process reverting unrelated "content edits") with the reason "no consensus to change topic".
So, let's clarify the topic first and avoid all this. Alinor (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
If user dont want to comment any more, we will think that they agreed to the split. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be an absurd thought.
Personally, I was silent because I was tired of the incessant attempts to game the system and engineer a split; the recurrent polls became quite frustrating, and many words were wasted. We have plenty of nearly-identical TL:DR threads in the archives. I broke this silence because I felt that your comment (and some of your previous comments) are a cause for concern.
It is likely that some other folk have stopped commenting here for a similar reason. They don't necessarily agree with you either.
Please don't misrepresent people. If people don't agree with you, putting words in their mouth is not the best way to reach a consensus. If the community does not support the change that you want to make, consider trying some other change on some other article instead.
bobrayner (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Please don't make again or deductions about a consensus regarding a split. There have been 3-4 discussions already and every time you don't get the consensus a new section is started .--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, bobrayner, what do you think that the topic of Kosovo article is currently and what should it be (options 1-3/4 above)?
If we don't move forward on the issue of clarifying the topic the article should be returned to a state similar to the status quo before 11 October 2010, when this discussion started - something like this and all redirects listed above should be returned to their state on 11 October 2010.
Additionally (but this depends on consensus of course, unlike the above that is per WP:BRD/status quo restoring) I think that such actions would put us in option3 above (mixed RoK+APKiM topic), so two/three proper separate infoboxes (RoK infobox with RoK map, APKiM infobox mentioning 'under UNMIK administration' and maybe UNMIK infobox) should be put.
I don't understand your position - you don't state it clearly (e.g. answer the question of the start of this comment). At the same time it looks that you are for option1 above and it looks that you aim to reach it 'trough the back door' - you oppose any change that doesn't go in this direction and don't oppose other changes (e.g. you silently accept redirects removal, I assume that you won't oppose putting a RoK map in the infobox instead of the current Kosovo-in-Serbia map).
I have nothing against option1 (prefer option2, but if others reach consensus for option1, OK), but I am opposed to option3 (status quo) that is misleading, controversial and so on - so, please, break the silence/waiting-for-option1-trough-the-back-door, and state your opinion. Alinor (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this WP:SILENCE or what? Alinor (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Do all users, who disagree with your proposal have to state their disagreement over and over again, because the same discussion is restarted every time that proposal fails to get consensus?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I am preparing my response, Alinor. Just wait until tomorrow. There will be no WP:SILENCE over this subject. I promise. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
ZjarriRrethues, what is "my proposal"? Lastly I ask a simple question - what do you think that the topic of the status quo article is? Because I see that maybe there is a fundamental misunderstanding between all of us here - thus making any "proposals" (my or someone's else) to be misunderstood too. It's unacceptable that there is an article without a clear topic.
What I propose as solution to this problem is of secondary importance - the primary focus should be on clearing up the topic issue. And it seems we can't make a meaningful discussion for its change before we all understand what the status quo is (I have my opinion on that, I stated it multiple times clearly. But I ask you, because I don't see your opinion - I only assume what it is from your comments about some proposals for change, etc.)
So, currently I don't propose anything, I just ask: what do you think that the topic of the status quo article is currently (not what it should be)? Alinor (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Alinor, i will reset this. It is pointless now... Also, i invited few people. We will see what they say. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo/Archive_26&oldid=1144151467"