Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Newest Country

I think there should be a fact somewhere on the page that Kosovo is the newest country in the world. I think that is a very interesting and relevant fact. I was going to just edit the article myself, but then I saw there is a large debate on the whole subject. Here is the reference: http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/newcountries.htm

Debate amongst yourself to decide if and where in the article it should go. Laytonsmith14 (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

why? kosovo belongs to Serbia Slavics (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem. To some it is the newest country; to others it isn't a country at all. Probably best to stay silent on the matter. Southern Sudan may soon be newer than Kosovo in any case. Bazonka (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo article split

OK, summary. This was created in good faith, in order to collect some broader view regarding the subject. If you find some mistake (although i double check all, and believe it or nor, reread all of this) don't think that it was in any kind of bad faith. It is just mistake! :) I wanted it to be short as possible, but informing as much as it can.

This happened:


We mostly find this things as problems:

I raised this question, in order to find some neutral opinion regarding all of this. I ask to do one of two things.

  • To finish article separation, or
  • To restore consensus version of the STATUS QUO, before 22 July 2010.

People didn't agree to this article, as it is now, and this APKiM move was clearly done without consensus! Also, i must write one more thing. It is clear that ethnically or nationally involved editor do not edit neutrally. They do not want to, or they just cannot. I understand that. We have here tons of votes that voted and commented on some propositions, while vast majority of them are just gathered Serbs or Albanians that defend their POV. There are no way to edit normally in circumstances, as great User:Alinor saw. Those editors should not edit related article! Talk page is, sure, open for everyone, but article space is something different. Ban nationalistically driven editors to edit this page. I first will gladly and voluntarily, never again edit this page, as per specific, national wide WP:COI. If other Serbs and Albanians follows this, uninvolved editors will create something that is better, nicer, and far more encyclopedic then this. Just look at contemporary Kosovo page infobox. And, at the end, something we all know, but only few listens:

"Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited."
WP:ARBMAC, Final decision, Purpose of Wikipedia

Once again, sorry for large post, but, i don't know any better way than this. With hope that we will, eventually, all agree. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

How many discussions will be started over and over again every time this proposal fails to get consensus per WP:COMMONNAME? Btw please don't try to create a false consensus effect because bobrayner, Enric Naval, Aigest, Anna Comnena etc. aren't one disagree.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome to reread that discussion in question. Only Anna Comnena participated, and disagreed in that moment, as i explained. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why you are not counting all the comments and arguments made after that particular discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
As you may see, i did. "In that moment, few users disagreed..." Others of You disagreed after Alinor's post. Before that, none of you told us what do you think about Alinor's proposal. Also, none of you clearly stated agree or disagree reasons, which is basic to reach consensus. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I gave plenty of reasons for my disagreement, from WP:COMMONNAME to the differences with Macedonia and Cyprus. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, this is my first comment on the topic. (I'm aware of the situation in the RW to the extent people generally interested in international politics are; I have not been following the details of the arguments at various forums on Wikipedia.) On the basic principles of avoiding conflict and ambiguity, I suggest that the answer to the question of who gets the article on "Kosovo" is, no one. the article titled "Kosovo" should discuss only the status of Kosovo as "a disputed territory in the Balkans," to quote the lede sentence, the geography of the region, the history up to 1990, and the necessary summary and links to the other articles of the different governments. Republic of Kosovo should be a separate article. I would further add that for the various governments, the dates be incorporated in the heading, although this is only sometime the practice here--it provides an immediate orientation. Please take this as an outside suggestion--I am not going to involve myself further. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been asked to comment here on my talk page, and my situation is the same as DGG's. I generally agree with DGG and recommend that editors follow the model of China / People's Republic of China / Republic of China, or Korea / North Korea / South Korea with respect to how to organize content: use Kosovo for general information about the territory and subarticles for the various historical and current governments of Kosovo, including the current partially recognized Republic. This strikes me as the most neutral, logical and easiest-to-maintain system, and does not require entirely rewriting whole articles should the status of Kosovo change yet again.  Sandstein  00:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not the same situation. In the cases of China and Korea, the two governments are only occupying part of the territory. In the case of Kosovo, the RoK occupies all the territory and has lots of recogniztion. In comparison, the APKM barely exists, can only claim limited control in part of the territory, and has very limited recognition. Cyprus is more similar to the case of Kosovo. Macedonia was also similar, but WP:COMMONNAME dictated a disambiguation page. This has all been explained before, but it has been lost in a sea of arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
But the Cyprus article has the Republic of Cyprus as its clear focus, with notes leading the reader to the TRNC article. To parallel that article here would make this the ROK article with notes leading the interested reader to the APKIM article. As an example of the difference, Cyprus' locator map does not show TRNC but Kosovo's map displays it AS PART OF SERBIA. If this is to be the ROK article as Cyprus is the ROC article, this needs to be changed. --Khajidha (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
When all of us point to you that your argument is not valid, you should propose something different. Your constant repetition of your arguments, despite we find it not good for will not make it useful. This is not about votes, it is about arguments. RoK occupies part of Serbia, so it is clear that it is the same situation. It is not my POV, it is like that. We already told you that your argument is not enough to make us believe that split is not needed. Also, we will wait for more neutral users, and we will do as they say, as they are not driven by nationalistic pretensions. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Both the Republic of Kosovo and the APKM claim the territory of the historic region of Kosovo. you are the one ignoring all arguments raised against the split, and asserting that nobody disagrees. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Again we are going into a discussion that is not relevant YET. WhiteWriter started this section with a very good briefing of the history of Kosovo editing - and NOW we have to make a choice between: 1. 'status quo as of 22 July 2010' (something like this) vs. 2. 'making Kosovo a redirect and establishing an article with topic RoK-only at Republic of Kosovo'
IF there is no consensus for 2. - then we go into 1. After the status quo as of 22 July 2010 is restored, a discussion should begin on how to change it.
THEN both sides will bring their arguments about what is the common name, who controls what, what is NPOV, etc.
IF we go for 2. now - then the easiest/fastest way is to move current content to Republic of Kosovo (or use the result of this sandbox) and make Kosovo a redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation).
THEN both sides will bring their arguments about what is the common name, who controls what, what is NPOV, etc. - at the talk page of the Kosovo - discussing where the redirect should point to - Kosovo (disambiguation), Republic of Kosovo, Kosovo (region) (if such article is made), Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) or something else. At the same time interested editors could improve the RoK article - by addressing these issues or the question "Do PISG function currently somehow (in a double-hatted manner with RoK institutions?) or there are no PISG anymore after Feb2008?"
After the RFC period ends (a week or a month?) - if there is no consensus for 2. (or another idea gets consensus) we will go into 1. (22 July 2010 status quo). In any case comments should be focused at "what to do with article" and not at the tightly related, but not the same question of "what is Kosovo". Alinor (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You and Whitewriter are proposing a false dichotomy, choosing between two arbitrarily chosen points. The current state of the article is in accordance with guideline and policy (see below).
Article names don't need to be neutral (per WP:NPOV#Naming), you just need to show that there is a common name as guided by WP:COMMONNAME. Splitting for "neutrality" reasons goes against our naming guidelines and against our neutrality policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No, the current article is not in accordance with policy. The changes made after 11 October 2010 (such as removing redirects, etc.) were made without consensus. Nobody reverted them (yet) only because there are anticipated another changes anyway following the conclusion of the current discussion. If it doesn't reach consensus - these changes will be reverted. Reading the summary of edit history above it looks like the changes relevant to this discussion between 22 July 2010 and 11 October 2010 were also made without consensus, so again - the status quo as of 22 July 2010 will be restored. Of course changes to it will be further discussed - and implemented following a consensus reached.
If WP:COMMONNAME should be applied in this case and if the current consensus is that Kosovo is common name for RoK then the topic of the article should be changed from the current RoK/APKiM to RoK-only. If there is a different consensus - the article should be changed accordingly.
The problem is that currently different editors interpret the topic of the article differently. It seems that some think that the current topic is RoK (it isn't, but they like it to be and fail to acknowledge that it isn't) and they don't want APKiM to be part of the article and they don't want to "give up" Kosovo and to have a Republic of Kosovo article. It seems that you think that it is RoK/APKiM mix (I agree with that) and you find this OK and you don't want that there is a separate RoK-only article (I don't agree with that).
WhiteWriter doesn't give two arbitrarily chosen points - he gives the option of restoring the previous consensus status quo vs. one variant of improvement. Of course other variants can be proposed, but it seems that some editors here still don't acknowledge that there is any need of improvement in the first place and for an unknown reason prefer the current version (that is not a consensus status quo and thus can not remain as it is) that is neither RoK-only nor a proper mixed-RoK/APKiM - it is mixed-RoK/APKiM-with-strong-RoK-leaning - thus flawed.
Anyway, after the appropriate RFC period passes - if there isn't a consensus over any proposed variant for changes - then we will have to go back to some 22 July 2010 version. And continue discussing. Alinor (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
How about you read the article again. Kosovo is already about the Republic of Kosovo, the same way as Serbia is about the Republic of Serbia, France about the Republic of France, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Currently it's not about the partially recognized RoK, but it is about the disputed territory between 'RoK' and 'APKiM under UNMIK per UNSCR1244'. That's why there are APKiM redirects pointing there (or they were until the recent non-consensus removal) and that's why the Kosovo-in-Serbia map is used. If you want to change the topic to RoK-only you should propose that and see what others think about it. Alinor (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, but this getting long and I'll let others comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I explained my position on this already in the above talk section. It seems that we should go back to the status quo as of 22 July 2010 - and then seek consensus on further changes (they are obviously needed, but of course we can't implement something without consensus).
ZjarriRrethues, you continue to point to a past WP:COMMONNAME discussion, but this doesn't answer the question how do you understand the current topic (the discussion you refers to only shows what you&others find as the desirable topic). Alinor (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


After reading things over briefly, first off, I'm glad to see the parties are discussing this properly and using DR properly. Keep it up, this is much preferable then a long-drawn out style arbitration case right? My opinion (please note, while I was asked to look at this in attempt to avoid issues rising to requiring an arbcase, I'm only speaking with my editor hat on here, not my arb hat) meshes with Sandstein. Use the main Kosovo article to have sections on both RoK/APKiM, and point the reader towards the main article for each section. Now, mixing my editor hat with my arb/hat I would also suggest perhaps that if this continues that the parties look at an "Ireland-names" solution.. have a binding RfC (possibly asking to put a notice on the watch list looking for everyone to comment), and the consensus of that RfC (as judged by a panel of 3-5 uninvolved administrators) becoming binding say, for 18-24 months, barring SIGNIFICANT change in the status of Kosovo. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: Reading this throug a bit faster than would be optimal, I tend to side with the editors making reference to WP:COMMONNAME. The problem with that that I foresee is that gathering evidence of what usage gets more representation in sources might require some effort, but in the end it should settle the matter, and of course disambiguation should be offered at the top to the usage with less coverage in sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree to splitting the article. All this is going to do is fork agenda and issues. IJA (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note - as we approach the middle of the RFC period - a quick recap of the replies above:
    • Some support finishing the process of making Kosovo a redirect and having separate articles for RoK and APKiM
    • Some support having a mixed article (implying "restore consensus version of the STATUS QUO, before 22 July 2010.")

That were the two choice options that WhiteWriter presented in the RFC opening comment of 20:42, 29 November 2010. In addition some don't give any opinion between the choices and propose to go ahead with a change that IMHO should no be done before implementing one of the above - it may be implemented after each of the above (by moving RoK to Kosovo in case of option1 or by removing APKiM content in case of option2) - but only after a proper discussion and consensus. The inappropriate-at-current-moment change they propose is this:

    • Some want Kosovo topic to be changed into RoK (at least that's what I assume that these citing a past WP:COMMONNAME discussion want to say)

I see as reconciliatory variant between options of RoK/APKiM separation and change-into-RoK the variant of Kosovo redirecting to Republic of Kosovo (this can be done either outright or after a period of redirecting to Kosovo (disambiguation) and having a brief discussion on the then-redirect talk page). Additionally, there are comments that can't be assigned to any of the above categories such as:

    • Some say that they "disagree with article split", but this does not answer the question if they support Kosovo to remain with mixed topic RoK/APKiM per status quo of 22 July 2010 or its topic to be changed to RoK.

A plea to users that will state their opinion after this post - please, state your choice clearly - if you want to change the topic to RoK - just say so clearly; don't use unspecified "disagree with split" without stating what of the options present you want instead of the split, etc.

If we don't reach a consensus we have to restore the status quo (thus clarifying the article topic for everybody) and start a discussion with fresh minds. Alinor (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree to splitting the article as suggested, however I think we should keep in mixed eg RoK, Kosovo region, UNMIK etc. We don't want to fork any articles. They should be neutral and include all topics. IJA (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to "return" to any arbitrarily chosen "status quo". There was consensus to change the article. (as one comment said above, WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and we should look up which is the most common name in English language sources.) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course that we need to return to status quo if we don't agree now. Process started, but failed to finish, so it should be returned. If we dont agree now, Alinor should return to the status quo version. Also, i hope that we will find agreement now, so we dont need to start all over. And also, we already told you, Enric Naval, that Kosovo is not WP:COMMONNAME only for Republic of Kosovo, as we can point in sources. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Each article on Wikipedia should have one topic, this article currently has multiple topics (region, APKIM, ROK). Each of these should have a dedicated article presenting its topic and directing readers to the articles covering the others. That would mean a GENERAL overview here (there is currently FAR too much detail) with links to articles about each period in the history of this region. For the current period links would exist to ROK and APKIM articles. Each of these articles should start with a note stating that the governing body perceives itself as the only legitimate authority but that the other disputes this with a link to the other article. --Khajidha (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
WhiteWritter - Well done with your detailed contribution above. I am not too involved in this and did not take the time to read it all. I think your view is that things are not being handled impartially or appropriately here (nothing new there) and that you would like the article split up into separate articles for the separatist entity and the provincial entity. Well done on taking the time to make such a detailed contribution - but for me, its better to keep them both as one article. I agree that the article is clearly political at the moment (e.g. the prominence of the separatist flag etc) but on the whole, Kosovo is Kosovo and splitting the article only means reptition with one article usually contradicting the other and usually quality of content deteriorates (further!). Thanks. 109.77.55.74 (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
As an outside editor i fell User:dab proposal is better to split it off to the avarious articles and avoid such a controvesy. put the official name as "republic of ..." and then refer kosovo itself to either a disamb. page OR a summation of all the various entities and the histories (with "main" article tags to the history page) thereof. See the simiarl y named Estado Novo which has 2 different versions of the same name. It can be somewhat like that (although more than a few lines of brief summation at the very least would be better).
It would also be a pov violation to give undue weight to only one issue and not the other.
Hope this helps.(Lihaas (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).
Bad example. Estado Novo disambuguates to two completely different entities (albeit with the same name). Here, we are discussing how to show two flavours of the same geographical entity. Bazonka (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is this article about? The current infobox (to pick only one example) shows a Republic of Kosovo with its own President that is still part of Serbia. That does not represent either viewpoint. It doesn't even represent both viewpoints. That set of data applies to neither ROK nor APKIM. --Khajidha (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I asked the same question over and over again and very few people cared to answer. IMHO this is the result of the fight among wikipedia editors about "who gets Kosovo" with the RoK POV currently gaining the upper hand trough multiple sequential small edits (but still not completing the "takeover"). And that's why we need to restore the status quo WhiteWriter gave above. In this status quo it's clear "what the article is about" (both RoK and APKiM) - I think that the mix arrangement it has is flawed (and I propose that after restoration we continue discussing how to improve it), but at least the most basic issue of article topic is clear. Alinor (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's time to restore status quo. It is unquestionable. Alinor, please, do that, as editor who is not involved in national sence. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
WhiteWriter what is unquestionable is that you don't have a consensus about any changes. Many users have disagreed with you too many times and every time you wait a couple of weeks and restart the same discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do not have consensus about changes. Therefor, we will revert to the status quo. --WhiteWriter speaks 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There was an overwhelming consensus about those changes since the ICJ decision so please don't make such deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, I have asked multiple times above what do you think that the current topic of the article is (not what it should be), but you didn't answer. It's obvious anyway by reading the lead section (where topics are described) and by looking at the map - the current topic is both RoK and APKiM. That's described in the lead and the infobox is this "compromise frankenstein" of RoK heading with APKiM map.

Anyway, as the above RFC started by WhiteWriter didn't reach consensus - I will try to restore the status quo with minimum changes - so that it's clear to each POV supporters that the topic is currently both their POV and the opposite POV. Then, we can discuss what changes are needed (to swing in either POV direction, to make it a redirect, to make it a disambiguation, to make it Kosovo (region), or something else).
Some of the changes that I have to revert I actually support (thus I'm reverting them unwillingly), but this has to be done in order to clear the issue. Hopefully we will reach better arrangement after the discussion. Alinor (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted you back because of the current consensus [1], so please don't make any other controversial edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This old discussion you cite may have reached consensus or it maybe hasn't been reached. In any cases consensus changes. Currently there is no consensus for the changes that you want imposed on the 22 July status quo. We have just been over a 30 day RFC and above it's obvious that there is no such consensus. Please join the discussion below for further actions. Alinor (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Extract from my talk page - "First I'm not sure that the ICJ-consensus discussion that you cite was implemented by gathering wide enough input, wait period, etc. - unlike the RFC. Even if was - WP:CONSENSUS changes. Currently there is no consensus for the changes you support." Alinor (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
ZjarriRrethues, I don't understand why you insist on that version - you didn't even explain what its topic is. In that archived discussion what conclusion was it reached? To have a Kosovo article with slightly less APKiM elements than before, but still to be a mixed RoK+APKiM topic? Is this really the best solution? And the cited reason for this change (if we can call it a change - it's just reducing the APKiM elements - not even changing the topic) is the ICJ decision that "declarations of independence are not illegal" and the argumentation for the Kosovo 2008 declaration is that it's not issued by the Assembly of Kosovo/PISG/UNMIK (contrary to what is written in wikipedia page about the declaration), so it's not bound by UNSCR1244 and that's why it isn't illegal. This has nothing to do with our topic of discussion here - what is/should be the topic of an article in Wikipedia. Alinor (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I support the change by Alinor. Having a single "Republic of Kosovo" infobox was highly POV, as it was an automatic endorsement of the pro-Albanian POV. Imagine we had a single infobox saying "Avtonoma Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija" on top. Athenean (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)@Alinor consensus doesn't change after you revert to your version, it has to be reached by the community.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the archived discussion you talk about reached a consensus in a proper way. Anyway, WhiteWriter explained in the RFC lead why the status quo is from 22 July. Currently there is no consensus for the changes you want implemented to the 22 July version. Please state your opinion in the discussion on the bottom about what we should change. Alinor (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This is clear as a day. Now we have status quo again. As some discussions were announced between Serbia and RoK governments, we should wait for that, and in few months, or maybe more, we may have some great solution for this. But not yet. Vandalism, and political propaganda, and national appropriations will NOT be allowed. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited. With this status quo restore, we started to follow that wiki policy. --WhiteWriter speaks 15:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This is clear as mud. One article, three subjects. If we are going to have multiple infoboxes could someone at least make sure that the ROK one doesn't show Kosovo as part of Serbia. Whether you are pro-Serb or pro-Albanian it is obvious that that is not true, it is either a completely separate country or a fictitious country; neither of which exist within the confines of Serbia. --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Khajidha, you are right! And you are welcome to edit that infobox, to represent ONLY RoK. Now, we have all three infoboxes again, and this one doesn't need to show all 3 in 1... :) By the way, Happy new year, people!! :) :) --WhiteWriter speaks 16:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Partition - "increasingly mooted?"

The article says: "Although the Kosovo status process had repeatedly ruled out formalizing this partition as a permanent solution, it has been increasingly mooted amidst continued deadlock [141][142]." Two decent sources are given but both predate the UDI and are quite out of date. I suggest that some one (who can edit the page) amend this senteice to read as follows (or along these lines):

"Before the unilateral declaration of independence on xxx 2008, there had been speculation that Kosovo might be partitioned between a new Kosovo state and the Republic of Serbia with North Kosovo remaining part of Serbia proper."

Thanks - 109.76.166.158 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Partially recognized

Does PT takes precedence over disputed territory? Partially rec means partial non-rec, so it implies its disputed status.Majuru (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume by "PT" you mean "PR" - partial recognition? In theory it is possible for a country to have an undisputed territory, but for some nations not to have yet recognised it - this probably only happens nowadays with very new countries, but because of this you cannot necessarily imply that partially recognised always equals disputed. Also note that a territory may be disputed between two fully recognised states, e.g. Kashmir is disputed between India and Pakistan, both of which have full international recognition (but the international community generally stays silent on the question of which country Kashmir belongs to). Recognition is only really relevant when the disputed territory is claiming to be a nation state in its own right, not part of another. So in the case of Kosovo, I think it is necessary to mention both its disputed nature and partial recognition. Bazonka (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is once again an artefact of the conflation of the map and the territory. Kosovo is a disputed territory. The Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized state which is a party to this dispute. It is just as wrong to say that "Kosovo is a partially recognized state" as it is to say that "the Republic of Kosovo is a disputed territory". Please pay attention to such detail in articles about international disputes. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You always gotta be the opposing opinion dab. The Republic of Kosovo is known as Kosovo so it makes perfect sense that someone would say/read "Kosovo is a partially recognized state". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.210.13 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that dab wants to stress a different point - when somebody says "Kosovo is disputed territory" this does not equal "Republic of Kosovo is disputed territory", because it isn't - it's a state (whose territory is disputed with another state, but this is different issue - the Republic is a state and not a territory).
What is the "most common" word used to refer to RoK is one thing, but because the same word is used to refer to other concepts as well you can't use this "commonly used" word EVERYWHERE without specifying what you refer to - because then you got confusion as in the above comments. In cases where a confusion may arise we should use full names - such as "The Kosovo region/territory", "The Republic of Kosovo" (independent state), "The Kosovo province" (of Serbia), etc. Alinor (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Boxes

I thought it was decided to stop moving the boxes, leaving Republic of Kosovo on top? -- Al™ 03:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

When? As you can see here and in the RFC there is no such consensus.
RoK infobox would be on top (and the only one) if we select for the #Topic change such option that makes RoK the topic. Until we have the status quo of mixed RoK+APKiM topic there would be more #Infoboxes. Alinor (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mafia boss Thaci, organ trafficking, illegal jobs

Add those new facts on how illegal state of Kosovo is made. Thanks to Dick Marty report! Now it's obvious how many set ups by Albanians and western states were made to Serbs and truth is going out more and more, so please, now add more informations on big mafia network of Albanian and organ trafficking taken from kidnapped Serbs. So cruel! http://www.euronews.net/2010/12/15/kosovo-pm-linked-to-human-organ-trafficking-council-of-europe-says/ http://de-construct.net/?p=3644 http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/919765--police-detain-doctor-who-allegedly-played-role-in-kosovo-organ-trafficking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ccu46VkmjI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.15.11 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

COUNT

It's 74 not 73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.252.147 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Topic change

Proposal to change the topic of Kosovo article. 7 different options presented. Currently the topic covers both RoK and APKiM and also there is no Republic of Kosovo article on Wikipedia. Feel free to add 8th if you have another idea. Description follows. Please respond below. Alinor (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments before RFC template posted

Following the unsuccessful RFC above I tried to restore the status quo with minimum changes (so that improvements of unrelated texts are not affected) [2].

As the status quo has many flaws (see above discussions) I assume that nobody is content with it. Below I will try to present all available options going forward:

  1. no change to status quo. Kosovo topic is RoK+APKiM.
  2. Kosovo to become a redirect to Republic of Kosovo; Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
  3. Kosovo to become a redirect to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–); Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
  4. Kosovo to become a redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation); Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
  5. Kosovo to become a redirect to Kosovo (region) (different variants for what content to get into this region article - see above discussions); Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
  6. Kosovo topic to be changed to RoK
  7. Kosovo topic to be changed to some of the variants for Kosovo (region) discussed above; Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
  8. Kosovo (disambiguation) to be moved to Kosovo; Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) to be established. (variant of option4 inspired by 08:16, 27 February 2011 comment of another user after the RFC ended)
  9. Kosovo topic to be changed to APKiM (Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) to be moved to Kosovo); Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) to be established. (variant of option3 inspired by my 09:58, 27 February 2011 comment after the RFC ended)
  10. other ideas?

I am for option4 (this is good also for a temporary arrangement during a WP:COMMONNAME or other discussion), but also I will not oppose the other redirect/region options. IMHO any WP:COMMONNAME arguments may apply only to the redirect destination, but the Kosovo itself should be a disambiguation or a redirect (or in the worst case a "general overview") - so that future POV-wars do not affect content of either RoK or APKiM articles. Alinor (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Alinor if nobody was content with this version of the article this consensus wouldn't exist and your revert isn't the status quo but an outdated pre-ICJ decision version.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
See above. WP:CONSENSUS changes. Alinor (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The RFC shown that there is no consensus for the changes you want implemented (regardless of previous discussions). Please use the above section for this consensus-no consensus procedural issues, so that we can discuss here the content changes. Alinor (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Zjarri, drop the stick! Thanks. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Whats the horse carcass in this case, the suggestion to split? Hobartimus (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hahahaha, you are good! That also, with few other things. Although Alinor asks question about that above. The main horse is pov pushing without REAL community consensus. --WhiteWriter speaks
I support option 5, with the region article having a general overview of the entire history with links to the relevant specific articles for each era. For recent history a simple paragraph stating that Kosovo is the subject of a dispute between Serbia and the partially recognized ROK (see individual articles for details) would seem to be sufficient. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that I'm going to ask for admin assistance, because you simply cannot change consensus by revert-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we've ever really had a consensus that could be changed. --Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend Zjarri to reread the discussion from above, and he/she will understand that Khajidha is right. All edits after this status quo was done WITHOUT consensus, as it was (very clearly) explained above. Also, it would be also wise to call it for a day, as people, (and i also) will soon go to new years eve celebrations. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
the consensus and its implementation. The one infobox version has been the consensus since July and if you want the 3 infobox versions to become the consensus version again you should follow the same course as when you wanted to split the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
TWO infoboxes into a single one out of 3. IJA removed 2, leaved only 1 without consensus, which was mislead per that edit. As i told you, first reread discussion above, and then dictate new rules. As all of us finds this status quo situation logical and normal, it is hardly problem in all of us, don't be offended, i am just telling you the facts. If you don't think that status quo was right, you suppose to tell us that earlier, and not now, after more then month after proposition was presented on talk page. You are welcome to ask for some solution, but this time, we will ALL participate, and not just pov fighters. Also, use indentation, it is useful, and good wiki practice. I am gone now! All best! Happy New Year!!!! --WhiteWriter speaks 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer no change - but I would like if the content was more balanced (e.g. the way the separatist flag appears in the info box but the Serbian flag does not etc). Still, even if it looks like a joke (as it does now), it's better that the whole story is told in one place. All the best. 109.76.250.133 (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally prefer no change. This article tells more or less of everything; and to be honest, its opening paragraphs lean more towards the republic than anything else. Even if we did activate a "Republic of" page, we'd still have to begin by calling it a "disputed territory" or "de facto country" or something along those lines, otherwise other Kosovo-related pages would contradict the state article; they rather would contradict each other, "ROK is a country" on one article, "APKaM is a province" on another. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with what you say Evlekis. Its true indeed that the article "leans" one way rather than being impartial. But, I agree, its much better for the whole story to be told in the one place. All the best. 109.77.84.45 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
If we did activate a "Republic of" page - we will start with "Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized country located ..." - not with "Kosovo is a disputed territory between RoK/APKiM/UNMIK located ..." (as the current lead).
"ROK is a country" on one article, "APKaM is a province" on another. This is not a contradiction. These are just facts - as per the founding/legal documents of both RoK and APKiM. A contradiction will be if both articles claim that the respective entity has control over the same territory (this is obviously impossible). Both RoK and APKiM can claim the same territory (as they do) and they can control different parts of it (here it gets more murkier if they do - as we don't have answers to these questions) - there is no contradiction in this. This is the common situation in all disputed territory cases.
"the whole story to be told in the one place." - there is no "whole story" - RoK and APKiM are unrelated. They are "competing" and have conflicting claims over the same territory, but there is no story between them. An article that deals with both RoK and APKiM inevitably becomes a Kosovo (region) or History of Kosovo (these are the "whole story" topics). Such mixed topic article can't be the article describing RoK itself or APKiM itself. These two entities have their own governance structures, etc. - that are unrelated to each other.
Currently in Wikipedia there is no article about RoK - and I find it very strange that RoK supporters are content with such situation. The only explanation is that they hope to somehow "get rid" of APKiM references from the current Kosovo (region) (by content) article located at Kosovo (by Wikipedia article name) and transform it into Republic of Kosovo (by content). Alinor (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. This is exactly what I've been trying to say. --Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Bullseye, Alinor. Right in the center of question. Now, what can we do about that? Any propositions? --WhiteWriter speaks
I think we should select one of the options for topic mentioned in this section. As for procedure - if the fight over restoring the status quo is over - maybe a RFC should be opened about the topic change (but if the fight is not over there is no point in opening such RFC because nobody knows at what "status quo" uninvolved editors will arrive - and this obviously will influence their opinion about "changing the status quo" - in the WP:1RR there was something about 1 week - maybe the RFC should be opened if after 1 week the three infoboxes are still present). After the RFC - its consensus will be implemented - or if there is no consensus - maybe another venue should be utilized - such as mediation or arbitration. Alinor (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
They wholly contradict each other. It can be a country or province of another; whatever one says it is, the opponent disputes. This is more complicated by the de facto status which is shambolic: the proposed government controls most of the land/population, has limited control of another section - whose population do not recognise it - but this section in any case isolated from what it believes to be its remaining sovereignty. Kosovo is a mess! Not a country and not a province. But this is my POV. Evlekis (Евлекис) 15:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
it is possible to be a country or province and a giant mess at the same time, Evlekis. I don't think it is disputed that Kosovo is a giant mess, but that's not the question, as we are hardly going to start the article with "Kosovo has been a hopeless mess in the Balkans for the best part of 20 years". --dab (𒁳) 15:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
your comment is very inappropriate and you have for at least 3 years been posting offensive, etno-centric comments about Kosovo.
this has literally been discussed for years. The discussion goes in circles not because it cannot be resolved, but because most people involved in it are simply stalling, not trying to resolve it. I am not surprised the RoK supporters are against dedicating an article to the RoK. In their view, it would be like splitting Federal Republic of Germany off Germany. What surprises me is that they are getting away with this. It is true that Abkhazia vs. Republic of Abkhazia suffers from exactly the same problem, but imo this is just a reason to try and fix both rather than using one as the excuse for the other. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Evlekis, Kosovo may be a mess, but this doesn't mean that the Kosovo article should have a messy topic. Many of the 7 options above solve the issue (in fact, only option1, the status quo is a mess) - and you are free to provide additional options.
Also, the mess (or rather - our lack of information) in Kosovo is the RoK-UNMIK-APKiM/Serbia relations/institutional triangle. The issue with competing territorial claims and lack of full control over all claimed territory is common enough around the world and can't be described as "mess" (but the other cases are much more clear-cut, even Palestine situation is much more clear) and is pretty easy to describe - and this is done in Wikipedia for the other similar cases. Alinor (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The Germany analogy would be correct if the Germany article topic was not "FRG" as it is, but some mixed topic as FRG+WhateverTheCompetingAuthorityIs. Anyway, I agree that their reasoning seems to be along these lines. Alinor (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I know what you're saying. Kosovo has several articles as it is, they all deal with the region according to period in history. If we can have an article saying "it's a province" and another saying "it's a country", see how we'll fare by trying this out on the existing article: opener - Kosovo (Albanain: Kosova) is a country in Europe which is also a province of Serbia. Since logic has it that if one status is disputed then so too is the other, we would be compelled to continue using the term "disputed". Yes we can do this on two separate articles but this is where we need to ask - do we need the space? Autonomous province post 1999 has nothing to say for itself. Republic of has a few things to say about its post 2008 progress, but the rest of the articles will be mirror images: settlements, demographics, education, history, culture, trivia, legend, etc.. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, bot entities, RoK and APKiM have a lot "to say" in their articles! Tons of things happened, and more is still to come. And only images may be the same, everything else is different. History of RoK started just now, while ARKiM is older, but history of Kosovo is very different. Therefore, proposition 7 is the best one! That Kosovo article will always have the same history and all other, and will be the most important article, same as now, while both other APKiM and RoK will have their own articles for their history (and future), their education systems, laws, municipalities, culture... All of those are completely different, and never can be mirror to each other! --WhiteWriter speaks 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well then WhiteWriter, all I can say is that Kosovo will for ever lead a double-existence! It stands alone but means one thing to one population and another thing to another. Europe has its own Ivory Coast!:) Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually Alinor, I suggested this almost three years ago after independence was declared. These were the arguments against me at the time. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"Kosovo is a country in Europe which is also a province of Serbia." - no. As pointed out by dab in the below section - we should be careful with the term "Kosovo" and it's better to use a full name - because: Republic of Kosovo is a country. APKiM is a province of Serbia. They are entirely separate. Both RoK and Serbia/APKiM claim that the territory referred to as "Kosovo" is theirs. The problem is that we don't have information about the different degrees of control over different parts of the territory that these two (and the third - UNMIK/KFOR) have. Anyway, this doesn't mean that we should mix RoK and APKiM topics in a single article. Alinor (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I would find fair that "Kosovo" links to Kosovo (region), thus not giving any side the priviledge of linking it to their "favourite" one. Obviously, the Kosovo (Region) article should have easily avaliable links to RoK and APKaM with a short explanation with it, just at top of the article. Perhaps there are better solutions, but this at least sounds somehow fair. FkpCascais (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
So, you support option5, right?
Others, if your opinion includes something else than those 8 options - please formulate it accordingly and add it as option9, 10, etc. - so that we can easily refer to each variant with a number.
I will also add a RFC template. Alinor (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposals 4 and 5 sound both fair (neutral). If there is going to be an article about Kosovo (region) than 5, if not, well it should be a disambiguation page, as proposed in 4, right? FkpCascais (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Alinor (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Resolving this issue in WP is practically impossible as it is a mess in reality as well. The current article should be changed in quality, but POV should remain. We should remove 3 boxes leave only one. But state that Kosovo has this and that problem as a country. It is no recognized by Serbia yet. And all that. This discussion goes forever. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what option do you prefer. It seems to be either 1 or 6. Would you specify?
About removal of infoboxes - this problem arises only if you select option1. In case the consensus is to use option1 - then we can continue the below infobox discussion. Alinor (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
My option is 8: no change is needed. This article is already about RoK, and it isn't much different in substance or structure from other country articles like Spain, France or Germany (all of them have sections in geography and history). Other disputed countries use the same solution, as I explained in my comments. The claim that this is still the APKiM is a minoritary Serbian view that should be mentioned in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is not only about RoK, and Serbian view is majority, as only 74 countries recognize Kosovo as independent, while the rest of the world still finds it officially as part of Serbia. -- User:WhiteWriter
Enric Naval, this article is not "already about RoK". It can become such - if there is consensus for that. Or it can become something else. Or it can remain as it is currently - about both RoK+APKiM (with three or more infoboxes, etc.)
It was explained multiple times - an article about RoK would not start with "Kosovo is disputed territory", but with "Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized country", an article about RoK would not have three infoboxes, but only one RoK infobox, etc.
From your comment I understand that you are for option6 or option1. Would you specify? Alinor (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
No, don't put words in my mouth. You can see easily in my comment that I don't agree with any of the options you put forward. That wording was put there as a compromise because there wasn't enough sources to sustain the, ah, "correct" wording against all the nationalistic backslash. I expect that the article will change as the real world changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you readed option6 and option1? Because they seem very much like your words. Option1 is like the first sentence of your 09:43, 29 January 2011 comment. Option6 is like the second sentence. The problem is that these are two different options. We can't implement both at the same time. There is no way to take your opinion into account unless you specify what you prefer or define an new 8th option.
"I expect that the article will change as the real world changes." - I don't know what will change when, but what is sure is that the current setup of the article is unacceptable and we can't wait for the world to resolve the Kosovo dispute in order to make a sensible article with sensible topic. Alinor (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Option 1 implies that this article covers two different topics when it covers only "Kosovo", option 6 implies that changes are needed. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
"it covers only "Kosovo" - yes, it covers Kosovo, the disputed territory - including the separate administrations - Kosovo (the independent Republic) and Kosovo (the Serbian province under UN administration). That's the problem - we don't have any article whose topic is only the Republic of Kosovo. This was explained multiple times already. Alinor (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments after RFC template posted

Well, i am firstly for opinion 7 (like in other numerous disputed countries examples that was presented, like China example, etc... Kosovo is not specific in any way, it is disputed between two parties), and i think that we will also have very neutral and encyclopedic ground with 5th proposition. If 7 is not possible to agree with, then 5 really should be! --WhiteWriter speaks 11:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, yes, I agree about option5. And now I support it. Also, I think that if an option other than 1/5/7 is selected a Kosovo (region) article should be established in addition. Alinor (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC Summary

The RFC period ends soon. As we have numbered options it would be pretty easy to compare/count how much support each of the options will get. Please, feel free to do this below. Alinor (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So, let's see who supports which options (correct me if I'm wrong); last update - 27Feb2011

So, it seems that we should implement option5. Alinor (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the status quo is better (sorry; I have terrible taste in music). ZjarriRrethues appeared to prefer the status quo, too. You may wish to interpret those as option 1 though my stance is similar to Enric Naval: No change is needed (I'm not sure why you would choose to call that stance unclear). bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Alinor Polling is not a substitute for discussion and I think that the status quo is better at the moment.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not polling, this is the result of the great discussion that was on this page. Status quo is not the improvement of the article, and as you didn't comment any of those 7 options, your attitude is just sabotage of the good process. As we, who participated know that you didn't want even this status quo also, you now wholeheartedly defend. There for, it looks like you just search for the best way to defend your pov, and keeping in as much as possible to your side. Either participate in finding solution, or don't. And dont attack Alinor with false accusations, user is great in dealing the horrors and POVs from this page, without even slightly tending to take any side. As (now) we have equal number of users that vastly support only 2 propositions, (1 and 5), now we should agree which of those 2 only should be implemented for some period of time. For example. :) Or someone have better solution? But as none supported few propositions, those should be discarded. And just to remind that we alredy mentioned earlier:
"Subject of Kosovo article can't and shouldn't be both Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija."--WhiteWriter speaks 13:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You might put it that way; but others would take a different stance, as you should surely have realised after so many epic debates and proposals and votes on this page. bobrayner (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
ZjarriRrethues, waiting instead of participating is not a substitute for discussion. Who speaks about polling/voting? I just summarized the results of the RFC showing what option is supported by whom, without any counts, etc. and stated what seems as the conclusion of the RFC. Having in mind all of your comments I would think that you support option6, but sometimes you make statements that seem like support for option1. I ask for the n-th time - what of the options do you support?
bobrayner, Enric Naval has clearly stated that he supports neither option1 nor option6, that's why I'm confused what his position is. You say that you support option1, but are you sure that you don't prefer option6? Because option1 (status-quo topic) means that the article will get many more APKiM mentions and content than currently.
bobrayner, ZjarriRrethues, we have the above discussion (later transformed into a 30 day RFC) since more than a month. You didn't state your opinion during that time, but waited for it to end and now want to sabotage any progress (as small as it is) in reaching consensus for improvement.
bobrayner, you mention "epic debates and proposals and votes", but were there a single debate including all possible options before this latest RFC? What I have seen are only partial debates about "Kosovo article split" and other proposals were people said yes or no, because of different reasons. The existence of all these debates shows that the RoK+APKiM topic is misleading for the readers and unsustainable. What the mixed topic achieves is to invite POV supporters to try to "evict" the opposite POV from the Kosovo article name that they want to "usurp" for their POV. Until recently the RoK POV has almost achieved this.
I haven't seen any explanation why we should continue with option1. It's an awkward combination topic of mutually exclusive concepts. In addition I think that the Republic of Kosovo is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia about it (currently there is no article, whose topic is only about RoK). Alinor (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Please try to assume good faith: People who disagree with you are not saboteurs. I had merely kept quiet before because the frequent high-volume debates are a massive time-sink (you responded the last time I mentioned this). I, and others, prefer the status quo; "no change" is a fairly simple concept, but I'm not wholly happy with the way the options have been presented. Since you asked for votes and got lengthy responses, I'm surprised that you now want to reject option 1 for lack of explanation.
A quick look through the talkpage history will show several attempts to forge a consensus by the simple expedient of inventing some new rule to disqualify, rearrange, or ignore comments by people who disagree. I'm sure we'll have more in future. And that is one of the main reasons I find this talkpage frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, if you didn't like something in the way of presenting the options for topic change, you should have told so at the beginning. Anyway, what don't you like?
"no change" is not simple concept here, as you can see by the discussion I had with Enric Naval. ZjarriRrethues also doesn't answer whether he selects 1 or 6. Also, what we discuss here is "no change in topic", but regardless what option is selected there will be changes in content. Because the current content does not match the current topic entirely (e.g. APKiM is represented only in the lead and partially in the infoboxes).
I don't ignore anything, I just ask - what is the benefit in option1? Why do you select it over all the other options? Alinor (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I support option 1 as well. "but regardless what option is selected there will be changes in content. Because the current content does not match the current topic entirely" That's actually fine concept. I even agree that APAIK could be represented a bit more than it currently is. There should be 2 infoboxes one given to RoK and one to APAIK. Hobartimus (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
And can anybody give some reason WHY should we keep the RoK+APKiM topic? We have given plenty reasons why we shouldn't. Alinor (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I can give you one. To the the uninvolved general reader from outside the Balkans, the two topics are inextricably linked. Isn't the Republic of Kosovo covering most of the territory which the Serbs call APKiM? How would you split up the article? Most people are not going to be looking for different articles on both. Most people are not aware of the difference or that they are different entities. I don't really see the point in splitting it and would just create a lot of duplication - although there could be a few more references to APKIM. Seems to me status quo is basically ok and this discusion is mostly about local rivalries. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations, DeCausa. You give us the reason FOR the split. People outside the Balkans dont know that they are different entities, but those ARE two different, and even opposing sides, and those should be separated, and then people may start to understand this complicated political situation. Therefor, wiki article, as up to date encyclopedia, should follow real life situation, and not to feed POV's or follow questionable crude wiki guidelines. There cannot be duplication in spliting, as CONTENT WILL NOT BE THE SAME. Those will be two different articles! APKIM almost does not exist in this article. How then this can be good? This article cannot stay like this, as it is not what is should be per this agreement. --WhiteWriter speaks 00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no axe to grind in this - I don't care that much; I'm just giving you a "non-Balkan" perspective. If you want the wider world to know about APKIM you are better off putting more in this article because most passers-by aren't going to be bothered to look up a separate article on something called "APKIM". They just want to know about "Kosovo" in the broadest sense. Anyway, it's your problem...if you think you will be raising the profile of APKIM, you'll be making a mistake and the APKIM article will just be a backwater. DeCausa (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
(I think that it would be fine to expand Kosovo#Disintegration_of_Yugoslavia with more info on APKM). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
DeCausa, Kosovo should remain as broadest sense article, but TWO articles, one with Republic of Kosovo, and other for APKIM should be created. In that way, we will have all that you mention, and still have neutral, non partisan view. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Enric Naval, no, if status quo topic remains (RoK+APKiM) more APKiM info is not needed in the history section, but will be added to "Government and Politics", "Administrative regions" and other sections that look like sections of a RoK-only article.
DeCausa, I agree with WhiteWriter. Kosovo (region) should be one article, but RoK, APKiM and UNMIK should have their own articles. These are totally separate-from-each-other entities and there is no reason to mix them together. Alinor (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with the two article solution on this one. The article as it is now is far too cluttered trying to cover the historical geographic region of Kosovo and it's history, the Serbian province, and the disputed republic in one article. The latter has given birth to an entire family of subarticles covering the issue. Kosovo (region) should be removed from the chaos. I think the article on the disputed political entity should simply be Kosovo, per Wikipedia practice of leaving off "Republic of" or similar designations from country articles. Not that there aren't exceptions, Macedonia for example. The two article solution for a disputed territory has a precedent on Wikipedia, btw. Western Sahara and Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic are two seperate articles (as are of course Palestine and its constituent parts, but that's a whole different can of worms). I find it amusing that the status of the Wikipedia article on Kosovo is just as disputed as its subject. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 02:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, but I don't think it's a good solution to use RoK topic for Kosovo (and nobody supported that option). This will cause POV troubles and edit-wars. I think it's better to redirect Kosovo to disambiguation or region page or even to Republic of Kosovo. In that way discussions and edit-wars about "who gets the Kosovo article" will remain on Talk:Kosovo and Kosovo and editors focusing on improving the actual content of the RoK article (and all other Kosovo-related articles) can work on the respective talk pages and articles without being pestered with the "who gets the Kosovo article" POVish edit-wars. Alinor (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Having re-read the article, I've changed my mind on this. The article is a bit of a mess at the moment. So long as 'Kosovo' takes you in the first instance to an overview article of the history and general situation, it probably then does make sense to fork to RoK and APKM articles. I think the approach for Korea is a precedent. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Korea can`t be compared since on that peninsula lives one ethnic group that has intentions to unite one day(both republics intention), it is just a matter of political orientation (democratic republic or communism - which will prevail). As such , the solution for Korea is all right, but that has nothing to do with this subject here. Adrian (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You've misundestood. I'm not interested whether Korea is or isn't politically similar to Kosovo. The politics is irrelevant. I'm solely talking about how it is treated as a set of Wikipedia articles. Kosovo can follow the pattern set by the Korea articles. DeCausa (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There's something about the objection Adrian raises that has always bothered me, but I've only just realized what it is. Every time someone points out that such and such disputed territory has split articles, someone objects that such and such differs from Kosovo so that that solution does not apply. They then say that we should leave the article unsplit. The problem is that the unsplit article format was developed to deal with undisputed territories which are even less like the situation in Kosovo. --Khajidha (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If it`t not to late, I would support option 4 if that helps because we have the period while a part of Yugoslavia, autonomy and now as unrecognized republic. Best to separate these articles and to choose as per POI since it is a controversial issue. Greetings Adrian (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I updated the list of editors supporting each option. IMHO it's clear that supporters of the status quo RoK+APKiM mixed topic are a minority. I would suggest that Republic of Kosovo article is re-established and the Kosovo article redirected to Kosovo (region) or Kosovo (disambiguation). But I assume the status quo supporters will oppose this. Such obstruction of any improvement and progress is unfortunate, but I don't expect that these will change their mind. I don't know what does policy say for such situation (after RFC) - maybe a MEDCOM/MEDCAB is in order (and if that fails - ARBCOM). I have no intention to implement the required changes and go into edit-war here or to participate in MEDCAB/MEDCOM/ARBCOM - I would suggest to involved editors to solve this issue. Alinor (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the "maybe" against my name on option 5. DeCausa (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Those who are trying to split the article belong to the pro-Serb team here at Wikipedia that for many years now have tried to push anti-Kosovo propaganda. After failing at ICJ, now it's time for revisionism through Wikipedia. The split would be very unnatural and would just contribute with confusion. Many people have problems with Kosovo independence and that's OK but pleas do not try to change the article at Wikipedia based on your subjective, religious, personal thoughts. About 99 % of all those who know some about Kosovo associate it with Republic of Kosovo. The fact is that Serbia has no control over the territory of Kosovo and therefore their opinion on Kosovo should be treated the same way we treat Arab opinion on Israel. Many Arab countries do not recognize Israel but that does not mean that Wikipedia has 5 articles about Israel. NOAH (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Ahahaha. Pro-Serb team, time for revisionism, those who know some about Kosovo... This nationalistic, off topic post should be deleted. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew I was pro-Serb! I could have sworn I was pro-independence. --Khajidha (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
NOAH, the only anti-RoK option is the status quo, where RoK doesn't have an article in Wikipedia at all and APKiM has 2 articles. Have you looked at the list of options or you just seen some "Kosovo split" somewhere and got offended? And split here doesn't mean "split slices of territory that is controlled by RoK and give these to Serbia", but means "change the topic of an article in online encyclopedia from RoK+APKiM into something meaningful".
NOAH, if the topic isn't changed and the status quo RoK+APKiM topic remains, then to the sections about Politics, Government, Administrative divisions, etc. will be added information about APKiM. The article will lose the remaining elements of its "RoK-only-like" view so that it matches its topic of RoK+APKiM. This obviously isn't pro-RoK, so people supporting the status quo are anti-RoK.
What of the 7-8 options given above do you support? Alinor (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Alinor. I am having difficulties to understand how a split would help. Splitting Kosovo in several articles will just create confusion, as if there weren't enough confusion already. I think information about APKiM is already included in the article and any major expansion is not in compliance with "due weight" I believe. NOAH (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is speaking about "split" - in practice most of the options would be implemented as "rename".
Information about APKiM is currently only included in the lead - defining the topic. Then we have the enormous "history" section, where APKiM is mentioned of course. But then, the rest of the sections deal only with RoK - thus the content doesn't match the topic. And the APKiM-UNMIK-RoK triangle isn't explained at all (see here for UNMIK-RoK. APKiM-UNMIK questions are about the practical issues of Serbia relations with UNMIK, about whether Serbia government works with the Serb Kosovo assembly/council/etc. or only supports these "unofficially", etc.)
The current topic of RoK+APKiM makes an insensible mix - both don't recognize each other and they simply don't belong together. Of course an APKiM page should include small note about the dispute and referencing to a RoK article - just as a RoK article should include such note and reference to an APKiM article.
Anyway, the article dealing with these APKiM-UNMIK-RoK issues should not be the Republic of Kosovo article, because the other two of that group have their own articles, but RoK doesn't. I think Kosovo (region) should took over "history" and "triangle" issues and Republic of Kosovo should focus on the RoK topic itself. Alinor (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

user:NOAH - Better to refrain our-selfs from nonconstructive accusations like pro-Serb or something else. If you think of accusing anybody here for not respecting the WP:NPOV please be ready to support it with evidence, don`t accuse people for nothing just like that, just because they don`t agree with you WP:ABF. I am also kind-a confused about your user page, you have 2 barn-stars for NPOV awarded to you by yourself? We are talking about a controversial issue and we should be careful with this kind of statements. Kosovo can`t be compared with Israel for the obvious reasons therefore it can`t have same status on Wikipedia. I am rather interested if there is a possibility of a consensus here? Maybe we should have a simple vote again to see what`s the situation? Adrian (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How many times do I have to explain that I have NOT given myself barn-stars. I just store them there so I know where I can find the code when I want to award someone. If your read in my user page, you will see that I have mentioned it. Maybe you soon receive a barn-star from me...NOAH (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry, did`t mean to offend you in any way, I was curious about it(just asking) and you must admit it looks a little bit strange. I just took a short look at your page, I did`t analyze it. I understand it now. Adrian (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


I agree with NOAH.
The fact is that the pro-Serbo-nationalist and/or pro-Serb Orthodox Church editors here want to dominate this article and bend the text to suit its propagandist views. We know they HATE to see the flag of the Republic of Kosovo in the article about the Holy Land of Kosovo (“Serb Jerusalem”, Milos Obilic, Orthodox identity, Serb Epic Poetry and and blah, blah, blah…), so they are in a long effort (I’ve been watching this article for years, believe me) to split the Kosovo article into Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo i Metohija (“Lands of the Church”? ha, ha, ha…) in the same way that pro-Japanese-nationalist editors always wanted to move Hirohito to “Showa Emperor”. But wait! Hirohito’s Japan and Milosevic’s Serbia have something in common: both lost wars to the United States armed forces.--186.220.202.126 (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Putting nationalist labels on editors is going to entrench positions, making it harder to solve problems on this article. Please treat editors as individuals, rather than as members of a bloc. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot of counterproductive commentary going on here. The simple fact is that this is such a complex and layered topic that one article simply cannot suffice. The disputed political entity must have its own page, regardless of what you call it. Republic of Kosovo is fine. To those concerned, the existence of an article by this name DOES NOT mean Wikipedia endorses it as an independent state (it doesn't mean Wikipedia endorses anything). See Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic for precedent. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 19:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
So, should we implement option5? Alinor (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No way. This is like moving Spain to Spain (region). Someone suggested that you add more APKM detail to the article, why aren't you doing that instead? It would advance the state of the article, and we would see things clearer then. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said before comparing a disputed territory to an undisputed one makes no sense. There is no disconnect between Spain the region and Spain the country because there is no Spain the province of another country to confuse things with. There is a disconnect between Kosovo the region and Kosovo the country. --Khajidha (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Then see my comments about Cyprus and Macedonia back in November [3][4]. When Alinor was proposing the same split that he is proposing now. And this was already proposed in August by Tadija, and someone already compared to the cases of Cabinda, Sahara and Palestine[5] and I already explained why it didn't apply [6].
And so, proposing the same split again and again, drowning the counter-arguments in exceedlingly long discussions. No way. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
You realize that that you just reinforced my point. If all these disputed territories cannot serve as proper guidelines for how to handle another disputed territory because the situations are different, how much less appropriate is it to model the treatment of this disputed territory after that of undisputed territories? --Khajidha (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that you should read my comments, and make your own arguments about why this specific article needs to be split (like, are people reaching the information they are looking for when searching for "kosovo"? My answer: yes, because the most common use of "Kosovo" is to refer to the new country, it's a more common usage than using it for the historic region, for the APKM, or for any Serbian or musulman territory in the same zone). See? A Kosovo-specific argument that is also relevant to WP:COMMONNAME. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if they reach the right information, it is harder to find because it is mixed in with contradictory information relevant only to APKIM. --Khajidha (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not contradictory, it's is a notable claim from Serbia that is relevant to understanding Kosovo's situation. We are supposed to report it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Khajidha. And Nobody is proposing "split". What I'm proposing is to use a sensible topic. RoK+APKiM is not a sensible topic and if the discussion above shows anything - that's it. Even you haven't said "I support option1". The other people that support option1 do it not because they like the topic, but because they want RoK to be as close as possible to the Kosovo article name - and they are even willing to accept some non-sensible topic such as RoK+APKiM and deprive RoK of its own article. But Wikipedia articles should have sensible topics. Alinor (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I no longer know if we are in disagreement, or if we are simply using different words to name the same things. Anyways, write me down for option 1. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see it as a common name question. Each article in an encyclopedia should cover one "thing". ROK and APKIM are different things. Each is commonly known as Kosovo and which is more commonly called Kosovo is a matter of dispute. I support a separate article for each of them under full names with a Kosovo (region) article to cover all the shared history, probably up to the founding of Yugoslavia. From that point the region was incorporated into a formal subdivision (unless it was formalized later, then use that as the end point). Each governing body from that point would have its own article. I fluctuate between whether the undisambiguated Kosovo should direct to the region page or the disambig page and wouldn't dispute either. --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going for Option 1. I do not view ROK and APKIM as different things, rather as different flavours of the same thing. Bazonka (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
What is this "same" thing? And RoK/APKiM are not "flavours", these are political/administrative entities. These are not names of a territory. And RoK is entirely separate from APKiM. They have nothing in common. Each of them doesn't recognize the other. They claim the same territory, so they are naturally mutually exclusive. Alinor (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In any case RoK is notable enough on its own and it should have its own article. Alinor (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Its article should, per WP:COMMON, be at Kosovo. A quick google news search reveals 5510 uses of the word kosovo - the vast majority being for what you call "RoK". Adjusting the search to look for "Republic of Kosovo", only twelve unique news articles, of which eleven give the simple term "Kosovo" equal or greater prominence. I would like the article to reflect what sources say; the sources put the label "Kosovo" on what you label "RoK". bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I was discounting WP:COMMON in hopes that it would make it easier to get an actual (Republic of) Kosovo article at all. Surely what the article is called is less important than whether it exists. As things stand there is no article for (the Republic of) Kosovo itself, only this strange hodgepodge. --Khajidha (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Khajidha. In addition - so, bobrayner, it seems you don't support option1, because it doesn't give Kosovo to RoK, but to APKiM+RoK. Have you looked at option2 and 6? Yes, I know it is easier to push for the status quo, but actually in this case the status quo CAN NOT remain, because it doesn't have a well defined topic/its topic is so badly chosen that makes no sense.
Also, WP:COMMONNAME result in this case is debatable itself, but anyway - I don't think you will get ANY google hits for an awful non-sensible topic mix of APKiM+RoK.
"what you call RoK" - this sounds as if you disagree with me. The official name of the political entity, according to the declaration and constitution adopted by the people that established it is "Republic of Kosovo". You can call it "Kosovo" - in a context that makes a clear distinction between RoK and all other Kosovo (disambiguation) things. In our discussion here the context is not such, because other "Kosovo"-named things are involved - mostly APKiM and Kosovo (region). So, in order for us to communicate and discuss we should make clear what of these we refer to. That's why we have to be specific in our comments and don't use the bare "Kosovo" word without further clarification. The same is in the article - in an article with topic RoK (described in the lead) you can use "Kosovo" afterwards, because it's clear that it refers to the article topic. In the status quo article (if its topic isn't changed) - we should aways use a long form name, because the topic is about both APKiM and RoK.
A good solution to the topic-non-sensible problem is to make Kosovo a redirect to Republic of Kosovo. In that way we decouple "who gets the Kosovo article name" issue from real content issues (such as this and others). People wishing to discuss and edit-war over the first issue will not get into the way of people wishing to improve RoK article content and vice-versa. And what is more important - the article will have a sensible topic (RoK) instead of the current non-topic (APKiM+RoK). In addition - Wikipedia will get an article about RoK (currently RoK is the only state without an article on Wikipedia). Alinor (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
@Alinor, Kosovo is first and foremost a place - that is the "thing" to which I referred. This place has two competing governances - I called them "flavours", you can call them something else if you wish. They may be mutually exclusive, but as you say yourself, they claim the same territory, i.e. the place called Kosovo. They are both intrinsically related to the subject matter of this article. This is why I favour Option 1. Bazonka (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The place/thing is Kosovo (region). The governances/flavours/political entities are Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) (under UNMIK administration). Option1/Status quo of non-sensible topic APKiM+RoK isn't a well defined topic - or if you want the topic to be Kosovo (region) then APKiM and RoK content there should be much less than in the status quo. APKiM and RoK are related to Kosovo (region), yes, but they aren't related to each other. In any case each of these topics is notable enough to have its own article (especially RoK that doesn't have any article - unlike the other topics). Alinor (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the following proposal for Republic of Kosovo. Content could be further re-shuffled with Kosovo (region), but I tried to make these with minimal changes. Alinor (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I support option 5. This option is corresponding with the political and historical situation in this moment. For recent history a simple paragraph should explain a dispute between Serbia and the partially recognized ROK. Alexmilt (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, this is one chaotic discussion. I'll try nevertheless to give my opinion too: (a) Ideally everything should remain in a single article. The current article is in fact a decently written, well-balanced treatment. Concerns appear to be mostly about symbolic superficialities such as flag icons and infoboxes. (b) If subarticles are factored out, it must be done strictly within a summary-article-with-subarticles framework, without unnecessary duplication of content. This means that a Republic of Kosovo article must treat only the current political situation and post-1990s history but cannot have a duplicated history section, which should remain in the overview article only. (c) The infoboxes should finally be collapsed into a single, specially taylored one, with only the neutral geographical facts on top and any political symbols further down in dedicated sections. (d) Any editor whose motivation in editing these articles is primarily that of gaining symbolic political recognition of this or that political perspective through the placement of infoboxes, flags etcetera, rather than making the presentation of factual information more efficient for an outside disinterested reader, is a disruptive element and simply needs to be banned. This goes for a large number of the long-term participants in this debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., the articles are not "main article" and "subarticles", these are separate topics. The situations is the following:
  • Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) - topic APKiM (province of Serbia), one of the political entities claiming the Kosovo region
  • Republic of Kosovo - topic RoK (independent state), one of the political entities claiming the Kosovo region
  • Kosovo (region) - topic the Kosovo region itself, a piece of land that is subject to two opposing claims by different political entities
  • Kosovo (disambiguation) - includes links to the above, plus links to historical predecessors of the above, plus many other not so notable uses of the word "Kosovo"
  • Kosovo - topic APKiM+RoK mix, the article is subject to and result of edit-warring and POV pushing
a) We can't combine APKiM, RoK and Kosovo region in a single article - if there were no competing claims APKiM+Kosovo region and RoK+Kosovo region would be possible, but since we have a "third party" it gets impossible to combine all three in one article. The only common thing between APKiM and RoK is that they both claim the Kosovo region. We can not combine unrelated (and opposing) political entities into a single article (and I don't see anywhere else in Wikipedia such combination) - this is like merging USSR and USA articles into the Cold War article.
I agree that text in these related articles can/should be amended similarly to your comment (see here).
b) Republic of Kosovo should have a brief summary of pre-1990 history (and link to Kosovo (region) including the bulk of it) and should concentrate on post-1990 events and even more on post-1999 events and especially on post-2008 events
c) each article gets its infobox (only one per article) - no need to do merging/collapsing
IMHO the most sensible arrangement is to redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (region) or Kosovo (disambiguation) or to move Kosovo (disambiguation) to Kosovo. Also, content re-shuffling as described above is a good idea, yes. Alinor (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why this can't fit into a summary article + subarticles structure, as in fact the current article was always meant to do. The main article is essentially what you want the Kosovo (region) article to be (summary of geography, demographics, history and brief overview of both competing political entities). Subarticles for each political entities, each containing only the political system and most recent history relevant to that entity. Of course the summary sections for each of them can stand together in the same main article – or do you fear the paragraphs are going to jump at each other's throats and bite? As for infoboxes, they must burn in hell anyway. What we definitely don't need is three of them replicating the same info, as we have now – that's just stupidity and an insult to our readers' intelligence. Either three boxes but each reduced to the most specific, non-redundant information, or a single box like the one I've started to draft here, or no freaking box at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that arrangement - this is option7 and as you can see my name is listed there. About infoboxes - if we implement option7, then there will be only 1 infobox at each article - the relevant to that particular article (you can see these at Republic of Kosovo, Kosovo (region), Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) and United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo - each has only one infobox, that relevant to its topic. Of course some changes to these infoboxes can be made, if needed, nothing is "set in stone"). About content repetition - yes, by implementing option7 it will be avoided. Alinor (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The potential insult to the potential intelligences of potential readers is a good enough reason for not allowing the status quo option, I reckon. --Biblbroks (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Split started

Alinor has started creating splits in Kosovo (region) and Republic of Kosovo via copy/paste moves. I have undone them, since he is still trying to get consensus for them. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alinor and WhiteWriter when was there reached a consensus for you to start redirecting the articles to your preferred versions?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you follow this page? :) Up, at "rfc summary" you have 7 (or possibly 8 :) people agreeing, so therefore, we have consensus for the majority of users. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
WhiteWriter read WP:CONSENSUS and btw decisions on wikipedia aren't based on polls.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It will be better for you to read it. This is not pooling, all of those have arguments for that opinions. As we now have 8 others that support split, and as per WP:CONSENSUS that is consensus, you are welcome to revert your edits on Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) pages, or i will ask for administrators help, as i dont want anymore to have "discussions" where you revert without any agreement and reason, and just quit discussion after we point you that your edits are not ok. That is not a way to consensus, but to trolling. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONSENSUS(which doesn't mean polling). Btw why half of the users, who support the split are Serbs and have the same WP:COI?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Always with the bad faith assumptions and ethnic profiling, and way off the mark as usual. Athenean (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Half of the users that support the split are Serbs, so the verdict is on that and anyone can draw his own conclusions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Persistently bringing up the ethnic background of users as a way of discrediting them is bad faith. Knock it off. Athenean (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
We didn't use pooling here... And i really cannot be responsible for peoples nationality, while it is also quite far from truth that half are Serbs anyway... Not even near. Therefor, please, respond in a proper way to my questions, or just revert your self. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
WhiteWriter this process is polling and btw as Enric said you can't override common name.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
ZjarriRrethues, nobody has changed the topic or text of Kosovo. They remain APKiM+RoK. If consensus here is that this is OK, then so be it. About common name - I don't think that the APKiM+RoK topic has any common name, but anyway, this "who gets Kosovo article name" discussion can continue forever. Also, please do not confuse WP:COMMONNAME with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. IMHO, status quo topic APKiM+RoK is a non-sensible mix, has no common name and is not a primary topic associated with "Kosovo". If we look the other way around - "Kosovo" is common name for APKiM, RoK and the physical region that they both claim. The question is what of these three topics is the primary topic associated with "Kosovo" (e.g. what of these three topics will "get Kosovo article name"). I think it's the general notion about the physical region and its past wars/current status dispute/etc. But since there can be multiple topics associated with the same term (as in this case) there is no straightforward way to determine who is the primary. That's what disambiguation pages are for. So, we can redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (region) or Kosovo (disambiguation) or to Republic of Kosovo if there is consensus that this is the primary topic associated with "Kosovo". Or, we can leave Kosovo with the topic of APKiM+RoK - per status quo - if we don't reach consensus for any of the other options.
In any case all three topics - APKiM, RoK, Kosovo region - are notable themselves and should have their own articles. Alinor (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Deciding whether or not to split or merge has nothing to do with notability. That's a red herring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
So, the status quo article dealing with the APKiM+RoK mixed issues topic will remain until there is no agreement to change it. That is unrelated to the APKiM topic, RoK topic, Kosovo region topic - these should be covered at their own articles. Alinor (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, you changed the topic in the hatnote with this edit[7]. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
No. Topic of any article is not defined in navigation templates, but in its lead and article name. The edit that you cite above doesn't change any text or other content in the article besides the navigation templates. And these were changed only in order to link to the related articles mentioned in these navigation templates. The topic of Kosovo still remains the non-sensible APKiM+RoK mix that a few editors object changing (those that support option1 of the RFC about topic change). Alinor (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No split and no moves

No split is started and no moves of content are made. I created two articles with topics that are notable - Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) (by copying, not moving). The current article here could remain or be changed or redirected or whatever (see above discussion - all options are viable, only option1 is not, because status quo doesn't have a well defined sensible topic), but the independent state Republic of Kosovo deserves its own article and I don't think anyone questions its notability. The dispute over Kosovo makes a Kosovo region article notable too. Alinor (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I will restore the two articles one more time (and open discussions at their talk pages), but if Enric Naval reverts these again you can see the articles at Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region). Alinor (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are starting a split (which will end up in a rename when you finally make a disambiguation page in Kosovo, like you clearly want to do) after failing to obtain consensus in Talk:Kosovo. If you persist I will simply report you to WP:AE. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Republic of Kosovo#Notability of the Republic of Kosovo and Talk:Kosovo_(region)#Notability of Kosovo as a region. And please don't make interpretations about what I "clearly want to do".
I'm not starting any split. If discussion here reaches conclusion that the status quo non-sensible mixed topic of APKiM+RoK is notable - then the article will remain as it is. If the discussion reaches conclusion to redirect Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo - then fine. But I don't intend to participate heavily in a discussion about "who gets Kosovo article name" and where it redirects (if it redirects at all) and I certainly don't intend on redirecting it to Kosovo (disambiguation) or elsewhere myself. Alinor (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No interpretations done: you said yourself that you were for option 4[8]. A month ago you were arguing about how RoK had to be split from Kosovo (you say yourself that all of your options would eventually have to lead to a split), and discussing several ways to carry it on [9]. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking, all of us changed their opinions, that is the way to gain consensus and community agreement. With some compromise, some understanding, we will find solution. Why are you attacking him now. You should better write your opinion on this and this page. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Enric Naval, in all my statements (including these that you cite) I don't speak about "split", but about correcting the non-sensible topic of the status quo version. And by interpretations I refer to your interpretation that I will redirect Kosovo somewhere before consensus is reached. Regardless if it's to Kosovo (disambiguation), Kosovo (region), Republic of Kosovo or somewhere else. I haven't done such thing so far, so please don't make such interpretations.
I am for any option that makes article topic sensible (of course I prefer option4 and 5, but that's besides the point). The only option that doesn't do this is option1/status quo. Alinor (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Alinor didn't do absolutely anything disruptive. This is just normal line of discussion and conclusions. We will see what will be the final best solution, as for now, everything is just in order. Now, just peaceful discussion should follow, as we accomplished a long useful discussion on the improving Kosovo subject articles. And mostly thanks to the User:Alinor fantastic arguments. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Good job Alinor, finally we have hope that there will be peace in regards to this article! You have my full support. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Is that mean that you also support option 5? Can i write your name at the RfC summary list? --WhiteWriter speaks 20:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Put me down for option 5. I think it's the only way we will achieve some sort of peace and quiet around here. Otherwise this will remain a perpetual battleground. The infobox dispute is a case in point. Athenean (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, put me down for option 5 as well. Thanks! --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
#5 (and all other versions involving "Kosovo" becoming a redirect to "Kosovo (XYZ)") make little sense in terms of naming policy. A simple, common name should never be a redirect to a disambiguated version of itself. Either there is a "primary topic", then that primary meaning should be at "Kosovo" itself, or there is none, then "Kosovo" should be a disambiguation page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I think all these pages of discussion show that we can't agree on a primary topic. And you are correct about disambiguation. I will add your proposal as option8: Kosovo (disambiguation) to be moved to Kosovo; Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) to be established. Alinor (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course there is a primary topic. The primary topic of "Kosovo" is Kosovo. It's a single place, with a single history, a single location on the map. There are competing opinions about what its political status is, but there is most definitely no disagreement over which geographical entity the name "Kosovo" refers to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"primary topic of "Kosovo" is Kosovo." - unhelpful - what do you mean by "Kosovo"? The Kosovo (region) or one of the two political entities that stake claims over it? If you mean Kosovo (region) then you are for option7. If you mean one of the political entities - the Republic of Kosovo then you are for option6. If you mean the other political entity - the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) then you are for a modified option3 (I will add it as option9). None of these is the status quo topic APKiM+RoK (option1).
Then your comment continues about the "geographical entity", so I assume that you refer to Kosovo (region) and thus option7 (change the topic of Kosovo to Kosovo region; APKiM and RoK to be described at their own separate articles). Alinor (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo (region) (without region in brackets) should exist without two info boxes at the beginig. Articles on AP Kosovo and Metohija and Republic of Kosovo should also exist. Why re-inventing the wheel if everybody can be equally (un)satisfied. -- Bojan  Talk  04:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Call for involved editors

Please join the discussion at Talk:Republic of Kosovo (and Talk:Kosovo (region)) - proposals/requests for content re-arrangement are made there, but I think somebody with more experience in these issues should participate/execute. Alinor (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There an admin requested (and gave one week a few days ago) that Republic of Kosovo article is trimmed in such a way, so that it doesn't duplicate (too much) content with Kosovo (region). This concerns the history sections (and maybe the leads). I'm not involved with the Kosovo articles content (I make attempts only to clarify topics/scope) - so I invite anyone interested to do the required edits. Alinor (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Option 10: no changes to status quo

10. No change to status quo: No splits. No moves. No copy/paste moves. Kosovo is the article of Republic of Kosovo per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV#Naming and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kosovo (region) should only exist if someone makes a draft that is substantially different from Kosovo. Republic of Kosovo is a redirect to Kosovo. This article never had "mixed topics" as Alinor claims, it was only an article about the Republic of Kosovo, full period. APKiM is a minority Serbian POV and it already has its own separate article at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–).

I quote: The article of Republic of Kosovo should, per WP:COMMONNAME, be at Kosovo. A quick google news search reveals 5510 uses of the word kosovo - the vast majority being for what you call "RoK". Adjusting the search to look for "Republic of Kosovo", only twelve unique news articles, of which eleven give the simple term "Kosovo" equal or greater prominence. I would like the article to reflect what sources say; the sources put the label "Kosovo" on what you label "RoK". [10]

Thoughts? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If this article is the Republic of Kosovo article, then the only infobox that belongs on it is the ROK one. If this is the ROK article, APKIM should basically be just a see also link on this page. --Khajidha (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there should be only one infobox. APKiM is already covered adequately in the article, no need to change anything. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Enric Naval, if I understand you correctly you suggest applying only the so called ROK infobox and leaving out all others. I see a problem with this solution. Because, if we remove all other infoboxes, then information on disputed governing authority would be excluded. This information, I think, is relevant for the article to that extent that it should be put in its infobox. For now it is concisely provided only in the first infobox (region of Kosovo infobox, Kosovo region infobox - I don't know how to name it), and if you have an idea how to concisely implement this info in the RoK infobox - because it needs to be implemented there (at least IMNSHO) if only this infobox remains - please share it. --Biblbroks (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
All that would be needed would be to add a disputed link after the note that it is under international supervision. If this is to be the ROK article then the details of the other claimants aren't relevant, only their existence. --Khajidha (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If the topic of the article is changed to RoK the required changes to the content are pretty straightforward - slight modification to the lead ("Kosovo, officialy the Republic of Kosovo, is a partially recognized state") and removal of non-RoK infoboxes - you can see all this done already at the article, whose topic is RoK - Republic of Kosovo. But I don't think there is any agreement to change the topic of Kosovo to RoK (option6). Alinor (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an INVALID option. Why? Because the status quo topic is not RoK (see lead, infoboxes) and because the option for changing topic to RoK is already existing as option6. Enric Naval, your pseudo-option is labeld "no changes to status quo" and at the same time you say that a major change to the status quo is required - to remove 2/3 of the infoboxes and to retain only the RoK infobox. This discrepancy exists, because this option contains a self-contradiction. Alinor (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Any article where readers are confused about its topic obviously can't remain at its status quo. Wikipedia can't have articles with unclear, confusing or non-defined topics. So, obviously option1 (no changes to status quo topic APKiM+RoK mix) can not be used, so we will have to use one of the other options. Alinor (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Enric Naval, you say that "Kosovo" is a common name used to refer to Republic of Kosovo. That's fine. But "Kosovo" is also a common name used to refer to Kosovo region and APKiM. And the question is what of these topics is the primary topic that "Kosovo" is associated with - see my 08:27, 27 February 2011 comment above. If others agree with me that the primary topic associated with "Kosovo" is the general notion about the physical region and its past wars/current status dispute/etc., then we can implement option7 (or 5). If you want to change the topic of Kosovo to RoK (as it seems, contrary to your pseudo-option wording and contrary to your lack of support for option6) - then this question should be answered. You haven't provided any explanations over WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (don't confuse that with WP:COMMONNAME). And I already said that I don't think RoK is the primary topic. Also, we see in the RFC that nobody supported this - option6. Anyway, in such cases, where primary topic is disputed, both WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and NPOV envision the use of a disambiguation page - option9 (added after RFC period; variant of option4). Alinor (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the paragraph below the option: When sources say "Kosovo", they overwhelmingly refer to the Republic. When they refer to the Republic, they overwhelmingly use "Kosovo". You have given zero proof that this is not correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I am very sorry, but that is brutal lie. We gave you numerous examples that "Kosovo" reference is mostly to the territory, and not to the RoK. Also, that is not important now. You dont have any argument left except COMMONNAME, while we explained you, also numerous times that we followed here guidelines that are much more important and useful than COMMONNAME. If you dont want to cooperate with us, stop tooling. Also, this is will of the majority, as you may see above, at RfC summary. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hum, I don't remember seeing any such example? Please point me to those examples. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
WhiteWriter, WP:COMMONNAME is part of Wikipedia:Article titles which is a policy, while WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is part of Wikipedia:Disambiguation which is a guideline, so I am not ceratin that WP:COMMONNAME is less important then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Enric Naval, while I agree with Alinor that your arguments about "the term Kosovo being a common name to refer to Republic of Kosovo" stand, I also agree with the point that the term Kosovo is a common name to refer to region of Kosovo. Maybe there is no other alternative but to resort to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then, because I see no way to simply resolve issues like multiple infoboxes which give the impression of contradictoriness to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblbroks (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 March 2011
Looking at sources (in the paragraph below option 10), it seems that "Kosovo" is lots more common for the republic than for the region. Again, please provide proof (usage in reliable sources). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Enric Naval, if you want to change the topic of Kosovo to RoK, why don't you announce that clearly? Why didn't you support option6 (that clearly says "Kosovo topic to be changed to RoK")? The fact that we discuss this in a section called "no changes to status quo" (whose topic is different - APKiM+RoK mix) is confusing (if not sneaky).
The sources that you give show that "Kosovo" is the name commonly used to refer to RoK. I think that nobody questions that. But it's also commonly used to refer to the Kosovo region and also to APKiM. For such cases WP:PRECISION (COMMONNAME) clearly refers to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (so, let's not argue about policy vs. guideline) and envisions the creation of disambiguation page if none of the topics is a primary topic.
Also, google searches are location-dependent. For Kosovar and some other users it gives results mostly about RoK. But for Serbian and some others users it gives results about Kosovo as Serbian province, Kosovo as a region, Kosovo dispute, etc. So this is not so straightforward to determine. And please, keep in mind that determining the primary topic is not automatically made by google searches and is subject to the same verifiability and consensus criteria as all Wikipedia content.
What I'm 100% sure (and don't think that anyone objects, including you) is that status quo APKiM+RoK mix is neither primary topic associated with "Kosovo", nor refered to with a common name "Kosovo" and is not a notable topic and is actually non-sensible and confusing pseudo-topic. So it obviously needs to be changed.
Of the 8 options for change in the RFC there are four that make the most sense IMHO:
  • a) Kosovo topic to become Kosovo region (many/majority of us think this is the primary topic) - option7
  • b) to move the disambiguation page at Kosovo (in case there is no consensus on what is the primary topic) - option8
  • c) Kosovo topic to become RoK (but I don't see this option as gathering enough support and at the topic change RFC nobody supported it, but maybe some of the few option1 opinions would support it) - option6
  • d) Kosovo to become a redirect to Kosovo (region) (option5)/Kosovo (disambiguation) (option4)/Republic of Kosovo (option2) - e.g. to decouple the issue of primary topic associated with "Kosovo" from the issue of actual article content - discussion over "who gets Kosovo article name" to continue without pestering article content changes) - but this requires a further step of agreeing where to redirect it - that will be rightfully perceived by some (most) editors as choosing between a)b)c), thus d) doesn't seem any more agreeable than a), b) or c) themselves. Alinor (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually would prefer Kosovo = ROK, but (based on past arguments) did not think that that stood any chance. My vote for option 5 was for what I perceived as the option least likely to be opposed. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The most common name is chosen by looking at reliable sources in English language. I gave examples in English language. You haven't given any examples. You need to show the most common usage(s) of "Kosovo" in English language sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
So, word Kosovo came in English in 2008? -- Bojan  Talk  09:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
We are in 2011, we are using the current usage in English, not the usage at some arbitrary point of the past. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think wiktionary could be regarded as a reliable source and quite current. If looking at wikt:Kosovo one could think that Kosovo could be interpreted as a common name for region of Kosovo. Now, I have provided support for my arguments, you haven't provided even arguments (for your statement to have only one infobox in the article - the infobox which would exclude the information on disputed governing authority). You want arguments, I provide them. You don't provide arguments for your statements regarding my question. You want proof, I provide support for my arguments. I guess it is your turn now, otherwise I'd say this is quite an unbalanced exchange. Alinor, I didn't want to start arguing about policy vs. guideline, I was merely addressing an issue which could be regarded as relevant. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If the article is the ROK article (which if it had only one infobox it would have to be), the details of the competing claims do not belong in said box only a note linking to the relevant articles (APKIM, UNMIK, etc). --Khajidha (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for interrupting, Enric Naval - I felt I have to address this comment here. Khajidha, I agree completely with you saying that competing claims wouldn't not belong in such a ROK article. But do you know of a way how to accomplish putting a note linking to those articles? --Biblbroks (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikitionary is a wiki edited by volunteers without editorial supervision, it's not a reliable source (see Wiktionary as a source?).
If you look at the paragraph below option 10: when reliable sources use "kosovo", they use overwhelmingly to refer to the Republic, not to the region. And that is by an enormous margin. From this, I assume that people looking for Kosovo will probably be looking for the republic. Biblbroks, Wikipedia is not based on personal preferences of editors, it's based in reliable sources. I have supported my arguments by showing the most common usage in reliable sources, you have not done such a thing.
About infoboxes, I replied at Talk:Kosovo#Infoboxes. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If you read my other comments posted recently, you can come to realize that I find a discrepancy with your beliefs (I assume) and your statements (when reliable sources use "kosovo", they use overwhelmingly to refer to the Republic, not to the region). Also if you deduce your deduction (From this), you can deduce that I deduce that your current deduction is rather unreliable. Therefore I must say I reprove, what I regard as, somewhat condescending tone. --Biblbroks (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The status quo topic of Kosovo is not RoK. And that's why there are multiple infoboxes. One of them is a pure RoK infobox and doesn't need any changes IMHO to be utilized in a RoK-only article. But anyway, any attempt to remove/merge/change infoboxes done as result of changing the article topic to RoK have to be discussed. Alinor (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the worst option of all. Minority NPOV?! -- Bojan  Talk  08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

IJA recently made this edit with the explanation "removed the useless extra infobox, all that information is included in other info boxes. No point repeating it". These edits of a template infobox are also related. I was already blocked because of this page, so I will not revert it, but I want to point this out here.

The version with three infoboxes (as of July 2010 and before the recent IJA change) is arranged in the following way:

  1. common Kosovo infobox - Kosovo (region)
  2. Template:Republic of Kosovo infobox
  3. UNMIK infobox

IJA removed the first infobox (yes most of its content was already duplicated in the other), but in this way it places RoK infobox on top (and as the UNMIK infobox is with smaller width and doesn't mention Serbia/APKiM, has not such flag, etc. - all this consolidates the wrong impression that the article is about RoK only).

The problem with the infoboxes content is related to our lack of answers to these questions, especially A] the relation between institutions of RoK and UNMIK/PISG and B] the position of Serbia government over KiM serb-led Council and Assembly - and how this position correlates with the official Serbia position of adherence to UNSCR1244 (and thus to support UNMIK). Anyway, I have the following general suggestions about the infobox arrangement in the article until there is no separate RoK article and until it has a mixed RoK+APKiM:

  1. The first infobox to include some section about "competing claims/authorities/etc." listing APKiM, UNMIK and RoK (ordered by dates of establishment)
  2. The second/third infobox to be a pure RoK infobox - representing one part of the mixed topic of the article
  3. The third/second infobox to be a UNMIK infobox - but with some more references to UNSCR1244 Serbia sovereignty acknowledgement and "UNMIK is interim administration of APKiM" - representing the other part of the mixed topic of the article
  • APKiM supporters may want a pure APKiM infobox, but I don't think we should add such until we have some clear answer over the question of the degree of official support the KiM Council/Assembly have (e.g. does Serbia recognize UNMIK or these new structures as the APKiM authorities?)

In any case the IJA arrangment is leaning to the RoK POV and is not representing the current article topic. Alinor (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I will revert his removal. He will need to gain such a consensus for that, that wikipedia never saw consensus like that before! No more pov edits!! Only discussion, and nothing more will prevail here! --WhiteWriter speaks 13:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why did i hade to edit this article? People be calm and reasonable. What is problem with status quo? It is just a beginning! Now we should discus it, and find the best way for article's future.

This is not the final version of this article. It will be improved.

We will find the best solution. Stop blind reverts. With them, it is clear that those are just a way to salvage questionable POV edits. It is no question that this subject is disputed. All of us must act in accordance with that. In section "Topic change" we must find some solution. Zjarri, IJA, all other, start talking with us!! Propose! Say something! That is only way to have something. Without your (flexible) comments, we will never agree! And, please, just keep it calm, and peaceful. All of us are here for the same purpose, people. --WhiteWriter speaks 13:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I must agree. The presence of multiple infoboxes is a direct consequence of the irregular conflation of separate topics in one article. The infoboxes can be distributed among the pertinent articles the moment this conflation is solved by an article split. As long as the article isn't split, it will just need to put up with its multiple infoboxes. --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The infobox at the top is ridiculous, it is just repeating information which already exists in other infoboxes; there is no new information in them. In fact the UNMIK infobox doesn't add any new information it just has a UN flag on it for some reason. What is the point in that? Do you lot even know what infoboxes are for? They're boxes which contain information, why do you insist on repeating it twice? Not to mention it increases the size in kbs for the article, making it harder and longer for people with dial up internet. Also Alinor I'm not being POV, I'm just being practical and sensible unlike you who wants to repeat things for the sake of it; and with doing so increasing the size of the article. Full on ridiculous to be fair! IJA (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Having a History section this big that duplicates History of Kosovo article doesn't bother you, but a couple of infoboxes "increase KB size" does. The article (and most websites) is too big for dial-up Internet regardless of the number of infoboxes.
It's not clear whether the first infobox duplicates information from the second or vice versa, but this is a moot point anyway.
OK, maybe you removed one of the infoboxes no with POV-pushing intentions, but the result was POVish. The whole article is too RoK-focused (but still failing to explain RoK-UNMIK relations) and putting RoK infobox on top by removing the Kosovo (region) infobox is skewing the article further in the RoK direction.
Regarding flags, information, etc. - what do you think of the proposals for some changes that I made in the opening comment of this section? Alinor (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Also I would like to point out there was NO CONSENSUS to have three infoboxes. IJA (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about that, but the article has the three infoboxes at least since May 2008 [11] - I assume that following the Feb2008 declaration of independence there were some edit-warrings/discussions that settled into 3 infobox version, that continued until the 23 July 2010 flawed removal that was recently restored.
And actually the maps in the May2008 version seem better than the current maps - Kosovo (region) is represented by a geographical map of Kosovo only (map1), UNMIK/UNSCR1244 is represented by map of Kosovo-inside-Serbia without Europe/neighboring states (map3). If we use these two and change the RoK infobox map into a map of RoK-inside-Europe (and bordering Serbia, not part of it) such as map2. Alinor (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
map1 - for Kosovo (region) infobox - geography map of Kosovo only
map2.1 - for Republic of Kosovo infobox - Kosovo-highlighted-inside-Europe-and-outside-Serbia
map2.2 - for Republic of Kosovo infobox - Kosovo-highlighted-inside-Europe-and-outside-Serbia
map3 - for UNMIK/UNSCR1244 infobox - Kosovo-highlighted-inside-Serbia without Europe/neighboring states


And there was a consensus to have one infobox which you lot have ignored. You need to get a consensus before making such edits. Here is the consensus to have one infobox [12]. No new consensus has been made to have three infoboxes. A consensus is vital for the sake of the article. IJA (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
One more time, did you even read my explanation of that process and false "consensus" in the section above "Kosovo article split"? --WhiteWriter speaks 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Everyone agreed to one infobox, there was no opposition. That is a consensus. You're really struggling to argue that it isn't a consensus because you now later on don't agree with what has already been agreed. IJA (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
IJA, if you refer to this discussion WhiteWriter is right that it was already explained multiple times why it isn't a real consensus. Also, there are disagreement statements even at this discussion (but after the 26 hours when the other infoboxes were deleted). Anyway, the most recent discussion (a 30 day RFC) above shows that there is no consensus for these deletions (that's why the infoboxes got restored).
If you want only one infobox I suggest that you support some of the options for article with only one topic in the section above about topic change. Until the article has mixed topic RoK+APKiM it should have multiple infoboxes. Alinor (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, thanks Alinor. --WhiteWriter speaks 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I added information to the infoboxes (per the initial comment of this section) without re-arranging [13]. Alinor (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A consensus to have a single infobox was reached last summer [[14]]. Stop adding multiple infoboxes to the article. Alinor, this edit of yours is against consensus reached--Mr Eckerslay (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Read the section "Kosovo article split" first. Alinor's edit is totally valid. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

All country articles have only one {{Infobox Country}} at the top. This article has two of them, with lots of redundant information. Alinor changed them to make them more different [15] but I look at the changes and it looks like he wrote the same information written from two slightly different angles for no apparent reason. Why did he list "Kosovo" as having 3 governments and "Republic of Kosovo" as having only 1, when they cover the exact same territory and governamental structures?

Also, can anyone cite any source that makes this sort of separation of information? Because if there is no reliable source that makes this of separation, then it's just original research from wikipedia editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, all country articles have one infobox. Prior to this all attempts to remove infoboxes have run into "but this isn't the ROK article" objections. That's a big part of what we've all been complaining about. As it stands the first infobox on this page points out that there are conflicting governances (UNMIK, APKIM and ROK) and gives the head of each. The second box lists only data that pertain to the ROK. The third lists only data that pertain to UNMIK. If this is (as you claim) the ROK article, then it should have an ROK infobox and the others should be removed. If this is not the ROK article (as we have been told it isn't numerous times) then the ROK infobox doesn't belong here and should be moved to an actual ROK article while the UNMIK infobox should be moved to an actual UNMIK infobox. The question remains: is this the ROK article, the APKIM article, the UNMIK article, or some other option? The answer to that question will tell us what infobox should remain (or be created), what infoboxes should be moved (and to where), and if any new articles need to be created to accomplish that. --Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
APKiM, and UNKIM already have their own separate articles. Both have 1 Infobox Country. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
And that is as it should be. The problem is that there is no article that represents the ROK, not this article nor a separate article. Numerous problems have sprung up when people have tried to make this specifically the ROK article because we are told then that "ROK is not Kosovo" and when a separate article is proposed we are told that there is no need for a separate article because "ROK is Kosovo". Somewhere on wikipedia there needs to be an article that deals solely with ROK and has only the ROK infobox. I don't particularly care if it is here or at Republic of Kosovo, I just want to know where it is. --Khajidha (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Enric Naval, I can try give you rationale for one of the numerous changes given in that edit. I see one piece of information as non-redundant and that is why I think it is important to include it. It is under the infobox's entry which reads as follows :
|currency = Euro (€); Serbian Dinar

What say you? Relevant? --Biblbroks (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Enric Naval, this is not a country article and its topic is not RoK. That's the problem and I agree with Khajidha.
The infoboxes issue is pretty easy and I don't see any point in discussing it - depending on the topic - the Kosovo region, APKiM, UNMIK, RoK and any country article should use its own infobox (we already have infoboxes suitable for all of these). The status quo Kosovo topic is a non-sensible APKiM+RoK mix, that's why during its creation it got 3 infoboxes - for Kosovo region, RoK and UNMIK.
If we want to trim that to one infobox we need to change the topic to something sensible (RoK is one of the options). That's what the Topic change discussion section is about. And IMHO we should do either (see also 08:03, 3 March 2011 above):
a)Options5/7 gathered the most support at the RFC and these are NPOV. But if nevertheless we don't agree on a) and on c), then we have to implement b) - disambiguation, because of no consensus on what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is. Alinor (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Liar source :)

This is part from the lede:

Serbian Empire, 1355 A.D.

despite the fact that medieval Serbia did not evolve from Kosovo itself.[1]

Reference

  1. ^ Michael Mandelbaum (2000), illustrated (ed.), The new European diasporas: national minorities and conflict in Eastern Europe, Council on Foreign Relations, p. 220, ISBN 0876092571, 9780876092576 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help) citing Noel Malcolm (Winter 1998–99), "Kosovo: Only Independence Will Work", National interest (54): 25{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date format (link) and also Noel Malcolm (1998), Kosovo: a short history, New York University Press, pp. 58–80

Although we have one source, it is quite clear that it is wrong. Kosovo was not part of the earliest Principality of Serbia, but later (as you may see from Serbia in the Middle Ages and Serbian Empire articles), Kosovo is in the "heart" of the Serbian state. This sentence should be removed, as it is clearly false. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up your side of the argument? Without evidence, there is nothing "clear" about your assertion. Bazonka (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
For example, see image on the right? You see where is Kosovo? --WhiteWriter speaks 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That is not an especially detailed map - it proves nothing. Note that I'm not taking sides here, because my knowledge is not strong in this area, I just have concerns with you saying that something is "clear" when you have no (or unclear) evidence to back it up. Bazonka (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, but did you see articles about Serbian empire?? From Belgrade to Greece! Kosovo is in the middle! There are no way to escape it. Saying that kosovo was never part of that empire is geographical nonsense!
Few images
Serbian Empire
Based on German map from Tzar Dušan time
Serbian Empire 1355
Emperor Dusan's Serbia
Do i really need to post all the written sources here? You have it in those two articles i mentioned above. I am sorry, but it is completely clear that Kosovo became part of Serbia then. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, so Kosovo was part of the Serbian empire in medieval times. But that is not what the sentence to which you object says. It says that Serbian culture etc did not emanate from Kosovo. Showing maps with Kosovo as part of Serbia is irrelevant. It's like me showing you a map of the British Empire to prove that England's culture came from India. Not proof. Bazonka (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
OMG, man, why dont you tell me!? I didn't saw the sentence well! "...medieval Serbia did not evolve from Kosovo..." I was convinced that it was "didn't include Kosovo"... I am sorry, but that was obvious, nothing else! :) :) :) One big apology! I should wear spectacles! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Organ theft allegations

I added a short summary on the recent Marty report. I think the case is sufficiently notable that a brief mention here is in order. In fact, I'm surprised this wasn't done already. Athenean (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "Organ theft Allegations" section and added a see also link it through to it in the Kosovo War section. We don't have a section on the article Serbia about "Alleged War Crimes" why have a section on Kosovo about them? It seems rather POV to have a full section for them, explicitly drawing attention to it. Remember this article is about "Kosovo" the place, alleged organ theft isn't and shouldn't be a major topic for this article. One sentence maximum should be more than enough. If we were to have a section on the Serbia article called "Alleged War Crimes" many people here would complain. The same applies here. IJA (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sheer nonsense. The organ theft allegations are big news I'll have you know, and recent. Every major media outlet has covered them. The Council of Europe just endorsed Marty's report and the investigation is ongoing. Don't you think that's pretty significant? What seems POV is to remove the section completely, especially when every sentence is sourced. We have a section on the recent economic crisis in Greece, I don't see why we shouldn't have a brief mention of the organ theft allegations here, unless it is to "defend" Kosovo's "honor". Athenean (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You're the one talking nonsense. You're right this is news, recent news and this isn't wikinews; it is wikipedia aka an encyclopaedia. This encyclopaedic article is about Kosovo, it gives general information about Kosovo in an article; it is an overview on Kosovo. What is so important about Kosovo as a whole that the "organ theft allegations" are so important? Please tell me. This additional information is about news as you have stated, I agree it is news however this isn't Wikinews it is Wikipedia. Also you say brief mention, you have made a complete new section on it, a full paragraph. If you were to meet someone who knew nothing about Kosovo and they wanted a quick overview on Kosovo, you wouldn't give a lecture on the organ theft allegations. The Organ theft allegations are not important when it comes to an entire article on Kosovo. If the article was on the Kosovo War, war crimes in Kosovo, of the KLA etc I could see your point; but when it comes to a brief overview on Kosovo which this article is about, what makes the organ theft allegations so important? Specifically having a full paragraph on Kosovo and explicitly telling the audience about these allegation is POV. We don't have a full section about Serbian war crimes on ethnic-Albanians in this article. Why? Because alleged War Crimes are not important or essential when it comes to giving an overview on a place. Tell me, would you oppose or revert if I were to add alleged Serbian Serbian War crimes section to this article or to the article "Serbia"? I ask you to remove these controversial edits until you can get a consensus for their necessity to the article and explain why the average person who wants a brief overview on Kosovo should read a full paragraph on the alleged organ trade. Remember it is POV to explicitly mention certain things. General overviews shouldn't include controversial topics, ok have a link and/or a brief sentence but don't give it a full section/ paragraph. You're explicitly drawing the audiences attentional to such an controversial and alleged subject when there is no reason to. Ok on other articles more related to the subject I agree there should be something about it, however not on an article such as this when it doesn't have much to do with it, you just seem to want it there to give s bad impression of Albanians, Thaci and Kosovo. Please remove this for the reasons I have stated or I will take to a higher level for the reasons I have stated. Please gain a consensus before making such very controversial edits. IJA (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, first of all, calm down and stop accusing me of trying to guess my motives. My additions are only 5 sentences long, which is tiny compared to the overall length of the article. According to your line of reasoning, we shouldn't have a "Law and Order" section either, yet we do. Tell me, according to you, shouldn't we also remove the Law and Order section for the reasons you give above? Doesn't it also "give a bad impression of Albanians and Kosovo"? Isn't it true that other countries don't have sections like that? As for the "this isn't wikinews" argument, articles about the organ allegations have been continuously appearing in the news since December, when Marty's report came out. And they will continue to do so in the future (there will be investigations, court cases, etc..). This is isn't some trivial one-off incident that will go away. The organ theft allegations are also extremely important in that they affect perceptions of Kosovo's legitimacy: If they had surfaced before the declaration of independence, perhaps a lot of countries would have refrained from recognizing kosovo (and maybe some will retract their recognitions now). Furthermore, the organ theft was well-known to Western intelligence agencies, who chose to keep quiet for the sake of foreign-policy objective in the Balkan region. Don't you think that is extremely important and should be mentioned? Thus, my point is that this isn't some trivial non-event, but goes to the heart of the independence debate. Lastly, you claim that on other articles more related to the subject I agree there should be something about it, but if this article isn't related to the subject, then what is? While I agree with you that there should be a consensus for my additions, but how can this consensus be achieved if you remove them? Feel free to take it to whatever "higher level" you want (you could start with an RfC for one), however, I have a feeling that you will be disappointed. Athenean (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please stick to the sanctions of this article and discuss any content reversions on the talk page. and BRD. Btw I tried to make a compromise edit between the two versions. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is any doubt it needs to be mentioned. IJA: these are major allegations endorsed by the Council of Europe involving the Prime Minister. It can't be a serious proposition to have no mention. However, Athenian's edit is way over the top in length and language used - the level of detail, particularly as they are allegations, is not yet warranted. On the other hand, ZjarriRrethues's compromise proposal is too oblique and assumes the reader knows what it is all about. I suggest add ing to Rule of Law this sentence: "The Council of Europe has endorsed a report by Swiss MP Dick Marty and called for a full investigation into its allegations that a criminal network tied to the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Prime Minister, Hashim Thaci, executed prisoners and harvested their kidneys for organ transplantation." with this source added. I'm going to introduce it unless there is striong objection. DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
No objection from me, though I would break it up into two sentences: I would the first sentence from my additions, and add your after it. Athenean (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry just done it (with tweak) before seeing your post. See what you think. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
My main concern is that it is still a little oblique, requiring the reader to know the back story. I would propose something along the lines of: "In 2010 a report by Swiss MP Dick Marty claimed to have found evidence that a criminal network tied to the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Prime Minister, Hashim Thaci, executed prisoners and harvested their kidneys for organ trafficking. On Jaunary 25 2010, the Council of Europe endorsed the report and called for a full and seriouss investigation into its content". Athenean (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
ok, done. DeCausa (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it should read "uncovered evidence" or "found evidence", and "trafficking" instead of "transplantation. The organs were sold and flown for transplantation in Istanbul according to the source, otherwise it's good. Athenean (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make the changes, go ahead I don't object - but I don't think they're necessary. It says they 'harvested them for...' not that they carried out the transplant. Your other change is purely stylistic - I don't care. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this edit [16] by User:Napoletanamente per our agreement here to keep the mention of the Marty report brief and not go into details. This is isn't the article to discuss the merits of Marty's report. Athenean (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please hold off on creating redirects

Hi folks,

I was making some minor edits to this article earlier when I found myself tripped up by articles that have been redirected here, such as Republic of Kosovo. I can see that there is a lot of heat generated on this page on the matter of these articles, and I would like to encourage everyone to continue these discussions in a civil manner. The redirecting may seem like a reasonable response to an editor creating said articles, however, these redirects only add to the confusion. Please leave the articles alone for the mean time, and if necessary please take the dispute through the proper channels. If it would be helpful, I can also protect the affected articles for the short term upon request. To that end, I am stepping back from editing this, or the other "Kosovo" articles while you sort things out. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that article is just a fork to push for Serbian POV and is creating a mess in Kosovo articles. --Napoletanamente (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
If something is a mess this is the article with three infoboxes and non-sensible topic that mixes different things. IMHO this mess is result of the clash between Serbian and Kosovar POVs. And such mess should not spread to other articles. Alinor (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I hate to be not thankful Alinor, but I think everyone can now see clearly that your initiative only caused more confusion. The current Kosovo article is even more a mess than it was. Plus on top of it, the current article is against WP policies. It refers to Kosovo only as a territory when clearly Kosovo is in most cases a signifier of the new Republic, or at least the new disputed Republic. In no way it refers to the territory. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This region article should not be politically driven. You have separate articles for political situation. This is only about region and history of Kosovo that existed long before (and probably will exist even after) Republic of Kosovo... It should be fixed. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

= Question

I've always wondered why Autonomous ETC ETC is in blue and bold while say Republic of Kosovo is just bold text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is blue in Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–)? Glancing at it, I really don't see what you mean. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The mention of Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) in the intro is a link and therefore blue, while the Republic of Kosovo mention is not a link and is not blue. Both are bolded because Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija and Republic of Kosovo redirect to this page, so that both are considered the same as the title of the page (Kosovo). --Khajidha (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. This is explained at MOS:BOLDTITLE. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
For God's sake, that is just a link. I added it. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Khajidha, about the redirects - they are not redirects anymore. WhiteWriter, what are you referring to when stating that it is just a link? And what thread? I am lost a bit - as if all three of you (Khajidha, Enric Naval and WhiteWriter) don't understand each other. Hope it is not just me that is lost. :-/ ;-) --Biblbroks (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Biblbroks, I think you've hit the major problem of this page on the head. In many cases (not excluding myself here) we use the same words to mean different things. All of this discussion seems to be leading to a better understanding of the terminology which should lead to improvements of the page. --Khajidha (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. Hope I helped. Now I can't help it, but share my thoughts, too. Quite revolutionary, so hold on to your hats: "Reality is changing Wikipedia, but the process is reversible. A two-way process. There might be a problem there." :-) --Biblbroks (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
About redirects - please keep in mind, that not all redirects are in their stable position right now (e.g. depending on what we do with the topic issue some redirects may be returned or others may be removed). Alinor (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


Let me clarify my question. As a reader I've followed this article since 2006 and I've always seen a bias. Here is an example:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë, Kosova; Serbian: Косово, Kosovo, pronounced [ˈkɔsɔvɔ]), officially the Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo)

(^^^ An example of bloating the name ^^^)


The Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija

(^^^ An example of a clean article ^^^)

The Kosovo article has Albanian, Serbian, and Cryllic, but in the APKM article it's just straight up English, no cryllic. I understand the noun Kosovo is in 3 languages (WP recognizes Kosovan Constitution?) but Republic of Kosovo as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. The quote you gives "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo" is from the Republic of Kosovo article, not from this article here. If you think that it should be reduced to less languages and alphabets - you should raise this issue at Talk:Republic of Kosovo. If, on the other hand you think that APKiM should be mentioned in more languages/alphabets at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) you should raise the issue at its talk page. If you have a proposal for change in the Kosovo article lead - please propose the exact text here. Alinor (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not bias, the entries in Russia and Spain are almost as bloated:
  • Russia (i /ˈrʌʃə/; Russian: Россия, tr. Rossiya, IPA: [rɐˈsʲijə] ( listen)), officially known as both Russia and the Russian Federation[8] (Russian: Российская Федерация, tr. Rossiyskaya Federatsiya, IPA: [rɐˈsʲijskəjə fʲɪdʲɪˈratsəjə] ( listen))
  • Spain (i /ˈspeɪn/ spayn; Spanish: España, pronounced [esˈpaɲa] ( listen)), officially the Kingdom of Spain (Spanish: Reino de España[note 6]),[5]
I think that it depends on the level of controversy about the name. The more controversial the name is, the more people fight about it. Then people try to prove that the name is correct by using sources, by giving the original name in the original alphabet, by listing both the common name and the official name, etc. And then there are editors who like giving all the little details, like adding a phonetic translation with a link to an audio file.
I think the difference in the leads only happened because the APKiM article has received less attention. If more editors had edited the APKiM article, then its lead would also be full of stuff like this. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Enric Naval. Alinor (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about region of Kosovo

Following the creation of new (old) article on Republic of Kosovo, and little improvement on Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) article, this article should be deliberated of any deeper political data that is already presented on other 2 articles. As per this admin action, per agreement of the majority above, per discussion on Republic of Kosovo talk page, and per logical line of action, i removed sections about politics per table below, on which we agreed on Kosovo (region) article.

Kosovo
article
Section Content
Lede Explaining Kosovo situation, and location in the world.
History History section from Kosovo article, up to 20th century.
Geography The most important section, with mountains, lakes, entire geography of Kosovo with related links
Demographics With Languages section
Society With minorities, and all other related
Culture and media With monuments and etc
Sports With teams, and etc

Sections are Government and politics, Economy and Administrative regions. Those section where almost exclusively about RoK, and that almost the same material is presented on RoK article. If anyone finds this questionable, although it really looks completely logical to me, please, should write here. I didnt want to push any pov, i just fixed the logical instability. As we have separate articles, and as this page is only about the region of Kosovo, we don't need politics. That same politics brought us problems in the first place. For more, i am here, and i am open for discussion, as always... --WhiteWriter speaks 19:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why are the names of towns throughout the article and ON THE MAP IN SERBIAN?? This map needs to be removed..Kosovan Government in official documents uses Albanian, English, Serbian ... that would be the best neutral way of presenting the names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.219.69 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Which of the maps? And do you suggest using a map with 3 languages? If you have such map you can upload it so that all can see it. Also I assume that by "Kosovan Government" you refer to Republic of Kosovo government. Alinor (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I could see a short paragraph directing readers to the proper section of the dedicated articles for ROK, APKIM, etc; an overview of any interrelationships between the various governing bodies and discussion of any distinct problems this causes. --Khajidha (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Belgrade-Pristina negotiations

Is there an article for them? If not I propose the creation of such an article. IJA (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. See one suggestion here. Alinor (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

GDP PPP

According to this article, the Per Capita is $2,965 ($5.352 bn / 1,804,838) ... that's GDP nominal divided by population size. This is a little outdate, here is a new link to Kosovo's GDP nominal total [17]

The GDP Per Capita would then be $6.113 bn / 1,804,838 = $ 3,387


Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.253.231 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:KOS

Template:KOS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bazonka (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Kosovo should be described as a "disputed region"

Sure there are a lot countries recognized its independence but most of the countries in the world do not recognize it. these countries includes EU countries such as Spain and other big countries like Russia, China and India and so as the United Nation. therefore this region should be tagged with disputed rather than a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.116.107.198 (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the article? I don't see what you are complaining about. It is listed as a disputed territory here. The Republic of Kosovo article lists that political entity as a partially recognized state. --Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"recognised the declaration of independence" wording in Kosovo#Declaration of independence section

Do states recognise declaration of independence or independence itself? Or something else like statehood perhaps? I mean there is International recognition of Kosovo, so here they recognize simply Kosovo, but it is not clear what about Kosovo. Of course article's title should be concise and satisfy WP:commonname and all sorts of other criteria. But is there an article or any other page about this recognising thing? --Biblbroks (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference there would be between recognizing the DOI, independence or statehood. The three expressions are equivalent. Some states may have phrased it one way, others another but the outcome is the same. --Khajidha (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be made clear that they are recognising the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state. Other countries, e.g. Russia, recognise Kosovo as a part of Serbia. Bazonka (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
True, but all three forms Biblbroks brings up are specific to recognition of the ROK. I'm trying to determine what distinction he is making between them. If you "recognize the declaration" that means that you have recognized the independence of the state Republic of Kosovo. If you recognize "independence itself", that occurred through the DOI and resulted in the ROK. If you recognize the "statehood", that occurred through independence that was asserted in the declaration. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure exactly. I am trying to point out whether such journalistic/literary style should be used here. Journalistic/literary as opposed to diplomatic style. I mean, in diplomacy, when you use wording like "recognize the declaration", it could have serious implications. Haven't we all experienced some heavy duty discussions on this very page? Not to mention how this very topic has had enormous echo in the world. At least in the past. On the other hand we have our readers to think of. For them such a "casual" literary style might be better - for the sake of readability itself. Also, they might not notice such nuances. But what percentage of readers wouldn't notice this? We are walking on quite a thin edge here, and since it's unquestionable that Wikipedia has day by day greater impact, it could be important to decide whether to be more explicit in order to achieve accuracy, or more implicit in order to achieve readability. I mean this isn't just any article on Wikipedia, right? Although I have no suggestion for how to solve this, I felt obliged to share this. :-/ --Biblbroks (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I still don't think there's anything to distinguish here. Unless you can find diplomatic sources that make a distinction between the three options you gave. Not just different diplomats using the different forms, but one person comparing and contrasting the different forms. --Khajidha (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Why only diplomatic? And why the necessity for comparison and contrasting of different forms? Anyway, it might not be that important. Thanks, for your thoughts and patience. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I specified diplomats because you were saying that our usage here was journalistic/literary and not diplomatic, which I took to mean that you felt that diplomatic sources would use the words differently. I focused on comparison and contrast because without it you can't prove that the different terms are actually being used in different ways. Going by the rules of English grammar and basic logic the three are simply stylistic variants with no difference in meaning. You implied that there were nuances of difference between them, you can't prove that without comparing and contrasting them. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I can't prove it. Although, Bazonka kind of grasped what I was referring to right away. That doesn't necessarily mean I managed to make a point, but still... As I said it, it probably isn't important. --Biblbroks (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Light is finally on our path :)

Okay, why are there still 3 infoboxes on this page? The disambig note states "This article is about the geographical region of Kosovo. For individual articles about the entities disputing its sovereignty, see Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–). For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation)", since two of these boxes refer to entities claiming control of the region don't they belong on the dedicated articles and not here? --Khajidha (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed infoboxes. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
OOoh, sorry, my mistake, i forgot to remove them! ;( But now, with them, split is finally over. Now some real encyclopedic articles can be created, without politics and national tensions. :) YEEEE!! :) :) --WhiteWriter speaks 18:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I fixed few more things, and i think that now article is really separated. Sure, there are still some highly POV sentences and section constructions, but now this is area where we CAN work to make it better. It anyone have some advice or question, just write here. Also, i must notice that for a quite a long time we didnt have ANY vandalism on this or any other related page (Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija). Also, i would love to dare to dream about day what all ARBMAC restrictions will be removed from this article, as unneeded. In a day when we can agree about anything, like we did here! Ooo, what a dream! Therefor, one image to wish better start to all and much better understanding then it once was! --WhiteWriter speaks 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
When was it agreed to remove the other two infoboxes? IJA (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't even stated anywhere that agreement was reached. I thought it was only natural to remove them, since according to the discussion it was somehow presumed that the article should solely deal with the topic of Kosovo as a region. --Biblbroks (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
But why did you reverted those infoboxes? This article is about region, we have articles about political entities. Based on what arguments did you reverted those? --WhiteWriter speaks 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
WhiteWriter, you haven't read the edit summaries of the recent edits in the article namespace made by IJA, have you? The way I see it, IJA is concerned with the lack of consensus for removing the infoboxes. I presume that IJA wasn't following all the previous discussions on this article and the discussion on the Republic of Kosovo article, because assuming all those discussion were read, then it might be quite straightforward from those discussions to presume that other two infoboxes are unnecessary if not even undesired. IMO, this unnecessariness if not even "undesiredness" is quite clearly presented by Khajidha's comment above. But formally IJA does have a point - no consensus was reached for having one infobox. On the other hand, someone might argue that no consensus was reached for not having more than three infoboxes either, and formally this someone might have a point too, since:
  • it isn't obvious by IJA's editsummary what the previous consensus is
  • if there are three infoboxes, why not four, five or more
  • that someone might ask all the others what actually a consensus is...
What I am trying to say is, if somebody for example inserted one more infobox, the infobox from the APKIM article, that wouldn't totally counteract IJA's edit but it would somehow counterbalance it. Also it might not be quite contrary to the previous consensus, since I believe that previous consensus wasn't really a consensus, if I may express my opinion - it was somehow contested exactly by the creation of Republic of Kosovo article and, if I remember correctly, it was regarded as contrary to some consensus before this one that IJA mentions. That is for the devilish in the devilish four phrase, WhiteWriter. :-) Regards, --79.175.70.160 (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC) previous comment made by Biblbroks (talk)
As you all know infoboxes and this article are a very very sensitive issue. I am fully aware that this article is about the region of Kosovo, not a political article as such. However there is a consensus to have three infoboxes on this article and that must be respected until a new consensus comes into being. If a consensus is reached to have just one infobox then I will respect that however I am currently respecting the consensus which states we should three infoboxes. This is what has been agreed for the article. The consensus can be found in the archives. The agreement to created a separate "Republic of Kosovo" article and the agreement to make this article about the region of Kosovo does NOT override the consensus to have three infoboxes. Before making controversial edits to this article we must reach a consensus and I think that is fair play. Also I think the APKiM infobox should be merged with the UNMIK infox for two reasons, Serbia considers the APKiM to be under UN administration also we didn't have a consensus to have 4 infoboxes. Also the RoK infobox could be shorted for this article only (don't want to affect the "Republic of Kosovo" article) as there is no point in repeating population and geography statistics ect. IJA (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
But hasn't the consensus, you mention, changed in the meanwhile? As could be understood from some posts above. Anyway, how exactly do you propose to shorten the "RoK" infobox - if you still insist on having three infoboxes. I emphasize: if you insist. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I mean change it as in remove the population, the size ect, all of which is stated in the top infobox. No point repeating it twice. Make sense? Also how do you feel about merging the UNMIK and APKiM infoboxes? Serbia states that UNMIK administrates APKiM, so UNMIK is the governor of the APKiM according to Serbia. IJA (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If three infoboxes are really needed, I am not totally against it. But are you sure there was a consensus on the sorting of the infoboxes - in which order should they be given? Wouldn't their sequence pose another issue - issue of hierarchy of infoboxes? --Biblbroks (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need a separate consensus for removing the extra infoboxes? I thought that the removal of infoboxes for APKIM and ROK was the logical result of making/expanding the articles for those entities. Since those articles use the dedicated infoboxes, they don't need to be here. --Khajidha (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need any more infoboxes than the first one (with the physical map). In its governing authority section there are links to articles containing the other three infoboxes - RoK, APKiM, UNMIK. If, by some strange reason we remain with multiple infoboxes - I oppose deleting population data from the RoK infobox or merging/deleting the others, etc. - these infoboxes are also used in other articles, where there is not "physical map" infobox. Alinor (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
And if we remain with multiple infoboxes, Alinor, what do you think about the sorting criteria - which one first, which one second, ...? What about - if we instead try and conflate all the infoboxes into one big infobox separated by ... something ... and make the multiple infoboxes into sections of this sole comprehensive infobox. All the different maps, all the different government info, and all the other counteracting/counterweighting info would go into their respective sections of this big infobox. I understand it might sound cumbersome (sound? :-) ) and maybe even impossible to realize, but it could serve the purpose - having three separate infoboxes/sections in one integral infobox. Although the sorting criteria of the newly created sections might still be an issue. Even then. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This is why we should go back to how we had it before IJA reverted. That infobox contained only information that was relevant to Kosovo the region and links to the various political entities. The President of the ROK is not a relevant datum for the region of Kosovo, but is for the ROK. --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Technically it wasn't a revert - it was more of a reinstatement. Just felt the wording ought to be as precise as possible in order not to make IJA angry/sad/isolated? ;-) --Biblbroks (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"I thought that the removal of infoboxes for APKIM and ROK was the logical result of making/expanding the articles for those entities. Since those articles use the dedicated infoboxes, they don't need to be here" No that is just your interpretation. Until we have a consensus we shouldn't change the status quo. To all, if you want to change the infobox system start a new discussion and try and build a new consensus. I will continue to go by the last consensus until a new one has been reached. IJA (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Biblbroks, WhiteWriter and Alinor had the same interpretation. --Khajidha (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
And??? It doesn't mean it was agreed to just have one infobox. Anyway I've merged the UNMIK and APKiM infobox as well as removing duplicate information about population and geographical size ect which is already covered in the top infobox. IJA (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Given that we four and you are the only ones engaged in this conversation, the fact that four of us have the same interpretation could be seen as a possible new consensus. Not saying it is, but it is not clear that your old consensus is still in effect. --Khajidha (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Since you've already tried to implement some changes according to this old consensus you mention and according to some new consensus possibly being formed, I imagine you have an idea for how to address a problem of sequence of the sections/infoboxes? Don't you think that this poses another issue of hierarchy of infoboxes/sections? I sincerely hope that you have some idea about this issue being formed. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Start a new discussion with a proposal for the infoboxes if you believe they should be changed, until then the old consensus is still in place. IJA (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Haven't you already changed them without consensus? What is now the old consensus - I mean you state that it is still in place. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The consensus was to have three infoboxes, a general one about the region of Kosovo, a RoK infobox and a APKiM/ UNMIK infobox. IJA (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The consensus for that was to have three of them but in the meantime it changed. Discussion regarding this is further down at Talk:kosovo#Infobox proposal. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Interwikis

Without explanation, User:Biblbroks removed Interwiki links to bs:Kosovo, de:Kosovo, hr:Kosovo and la:Ager Merulensis from this article. I reverted this. Biblbroks then reverted again (in violation of this article's WP:1RR restriction) giving the explanation "the way I see it, those deal with Republic of Kosovo and not Kosovo (my edits at [18] try to serve this cause)". I understand where he's coming from, but I disagree with his actions. These foreign-language Wikipedias do not (as far as I am aware) have articles that deal with Kosovo the region, as opposed to the disputed state Republic of Kosovo. However, whilst not quite the same thing, these pages are "nearly equivalent" - a requirement of interlanguage links as per H:IL. If anything this is an issue that should be raised at de:Diskussion:Kosovo, etc., not here, in order to remove any POV in those articles. Bazonka (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not here to talk about disputed inter-wiki links (if there are any). I just want to make sure that the bot was getting those links from other Wikipedias and added those. Also it'll keep doing this, if there are those links, if you don't want to link them here, then with consensus you may choose to use {{nobots}} anywhere in this article. That'll solve the problem. Personally I think the bot made the right changes. Regards, — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 14:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Although I understand that my actions in removing interwiki/interlanguage links may be regarded as not quite procedurally correct, I also think that it is reasonable to conclude that the explanation for removal wasn't necessary in the first place since I added those interlanguage links at the Republic of Kosovo article. As far as this article's WP:1RR restriction is concerned, my opinion (on the premise that I counted my reverts correctly) is that I haven't quite violated the rule - if you consider the facts that the first revert I made was to revert a bot, and the bot is not a person i.e. a real editor. Of course, this is prone to interpretation (as mine is), therefore I might be wrong. Anyway, I am trying to address the perceived implication of me irregularly making changes to the article. Also, I would like to ask you, Bazonka, with what do you think those foreign-language wikipedias' articles in question deal with. I am not certain what do you mean by "These foreign-language Wikipedias do not (as far as I am aware) have articles that deal with Kosovo the region, as opposed to the disputed state Republic of Kosovo." Regardless of the neutrality issue (which I haven't raised nor do I have firm opinion of), I think it is obvious although I think I must clear about this: I am under the impression that those articles deal with Republic of Kosovo. Now, while I agree that those pages/articles might be perceived "nearly equivalent" to Kosovo article, they also might be perceived "more nearly equivalent" to Republic of Kosovo article - and this is how I perceive them. However vague this phrase might sound, I think no better expression could be used at the moment, to convey my opinion more clearly. Tanvir, I concur - given the algorithm by which the bot operated (getting links from other wikipedias), bot made the right changes, but I am not sure it made the right changes altogether. So its algorithm should be reviewed, I think. Also do you think that choosing to use the {{nobots}} in this article without consensus would be appropriate, given the fact that I've just backbit your bot and, by that, inadvertently you too. :-/ Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think de:Kosovo, and the others, should be changed so that their English Interwiki links go to the article Republic of Kosovo (as this is more appropriate), but that both English Wikipedia articles Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo Interwiki link to de:Kosovo etc. When the German and other Wikipedias have separate articles for Kosovo (the place) and Republic of Kosovo (the political entity), the Interwiki links can be amended. Bazonka (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you are more inclined to the position that those pages (bs:Kosovo, de:Kosovo, hr:Kosovo, la:Ager Merulensis) deal with Republic of Kosovo (the political entity) than with the position that they deal with Kosovo (the place). Why would en:Kosovo then link to those pages if this article deals with Kosovo (the place)? When interpreting your words ("If anything this is an issue that should be raised at de:Diskussion:Kosovo, etc., not here, in order to remove any POV in those articles.") I tend to believe that you you suggest the separation of concerns as a viable approach here - so why not then raise this issue at "German and other Wikipedias" and initiate those separate articles for Kosovo (the place)? I don't think this wikipedia's article quality should suffer because of potential POV issues with pages dealing with similar topic at other wikipedias. Also if the solution to this problem, as you propose, is to wait for other wikipedias to have separate articles for Kosovo (the place), then this solution should be amended so to pose a time limit for how long to wait - I reckon. How much do you suggest? Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Linking to these foreign Wikipedia articles from here is perfectly acceptable as they are "nearly equivalent" (as specified under H:IL). The quality of this article is not suffering as a consequence - if anything we are highlighting the inadequacies of the other Wikipedia versions. These foreign Wikis may change over time (which we can do ourselves or try to influence others to do, if we want), but no time limits should be set here.
Also Biblbroks, I note that you added the nobots tag without consensus despite the request above from Tanvir, and the warning in the template documentation that it is not to be used as a blunt instrument. The inclusion of this template could have unforeseen consequences (e.g. cn tags will not be dated) and so its use without configuration is ill-advised. Bazonka (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to apply quite loaded phrases when discussing this matter with me. As in the example given above when referring to my violation of WP:1RR rule, which I addressed and you haven't responded afterwards. Now you opine that the addition of nobots tag was the usage as a blunt instrument (while I summarized my edit with "tagging with nobots template while the issue is discussed - bots could just go in the way"). Actually if you can believe me, try: I haven't thought of all the consequences of adding it to the article, and the first thing I thought of doing is to revert myself, when I realized it was done before me. And also, I can't help it but mention that not-so-clear-to-me wording "I understand where he's coming from". I honestly don't get it, and I honestly believe, it could be regarded (not just by me) as an instrument of bad faith. Neither am I coming anywhere nor was I - all the time I am sitting in my chair looking at the screen and typing at the keyboard. And I don't understand what do you mean by "I understand" - what is there to understand in the first place; are you implying that some people don't understand this and by that they are perhaps disadvantaged. I do admit that "suffering of the quality of this article" is not the best choice of words, but I still believe that you understood my point, simply because you denied me the answers to my posted questions. After all, how do you propose to highlight the inadequacies of other wikipedia articles, while remaining at this very ground - this wikipedia? All the best. --Biblbroks (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I will answer your points one at a time.
- In my opinion your second revert violated 1RR. I'm not 100% sure about this though.
- The nobots template can be modified to apply to certain bots only. You didn't do this, so it applied to all bots including those that perform valuable tasks. In any case, I disagree with the use of the nobot template here. The wording "blunt instrument" is not my loaded phrase - it is taken directly from Template:Bots.
- The phrase "I understand where he's coming from" meant that I knew why you made the edits that you did - I understood your motivation. See [19]. Absolutely no bad faith, and I'm quite disappointed that you think there is.
- The reason that I did not initially respond to all of your questions is that, in my experience, you have a habit of over-analysing every single word I make, obfuscating the discussion. Therefore I tried to keep my responses brief and to-the-point. Obviously this approach did not work.
- Each version of Wikipedia is independent of the other versions - the only real connections between them are the Interwiki links. If a foreign Wikipedia article is not ideal, then people clicking on the Interwiki link from the English Wikipedia will see that it's not the same, and may conclude that it is inferior. People going directly to the foreign Wikipedia article without going via English Wikipedia will not have had the benefit of seeing this comparison. Therefore the Interwiki links in this article may indirectly help to highlight inadequacies in other Wikipedia versions.
It is my opinion that both this article and Republic of Kosovo should contain Interwikis to the foreign-language Kosovo articles, but that these foreign articles (where their content is actually about RoK) should link back to the English RoK article. What do other people think? Bazonka (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I cannot agree with you that versions of wikipedia are independent of each other - exactly because of those connections (interwikis) they tend to change, I would say much as part of a global process of creating a global Encyclopaedia/Wikipedia - sum of all knowledge (to paraphrase Jimmy Wales). Many articles are created as translations of other language versions (and I'd say a big chunk of these are translations of English wikipedia articles). So it is intertwined to the point that it is difficult to deal with this independency/independence thing simply like that. So to stick with the issue at hand, I think it is better to insist on the actual situation, and by that deny the foreign wikipedia articles, that don't deal with the same topic, deny them the interwiki links in this article. With this you would have no people wondering why there are two interwiki links, and perhaps some people who would wonder why there is no article in language of their choice. Those people would be targeted as potential new article creators/translators/orBoth. And this way we could outrun the complaints about us not abiding the unwritten rule of having just one interwiki link. At least I haven't seen these multiple interwikis before. I am not against it, it's just that someone might be. Anyway by study the amount of input from other editors regarding this section and issue while the number of people watching this page is 745, I would say there are just two of us alone. Are we overly meticulous or overly forward-looking? Not that it is much important, but since we are still discussing bad faith, I wanted to inform the "accidental" readers that due to the disappointment expressed above, I decided to downgrade my Babel level for English. --Biblbroks (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki front

I have edited the English Interwiki links in Croatian (hr) and Latin (la) Wikipedias to reference both Republic of Kosovo and here. German (de) Wikipedia was already like that. I couldn't amend Bosnian (bs) Wikipedia as it is a protected article. Bazonka (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I wanted the interwiki links case to stay here and not bring it up to other language wikipedias - so as to let them (other wikipedias) deal with the issue on their own. Also I am blocked at de (there, it is finally out in the open), and I cannot remember my passwords at bs and hr, and was kind of lazy to deal with it all together. By the way, I'd like to note that I think my action/inaction with this issue is more close to "Think globally, act locally" phrase/principle. Nevertheless, if I may use this page to report the current sitation, I'd say that after some developments, the situation goes for the better. Currently bs:Kosovo links only to de, en, hr, kbd, la, and ru articles, which in return deal with Republic of Kosovo - and that is surely (pardon for using your words, Bazonka) less inferior than before. Perhaps thus it is even most appropriate, so no worries for bs from my perspective. Situation at de and la ought to change - at least with the interwikis - as is in now at bs: exclusively linking to Republic of Kosovo. This is my personal opinion, of course. But the problem is kind of more acute with hr: two attempts at changing the iwis were reverted (the most recent of them I believe were yours, Bazonka). So, to prevent any conflicts (as in edit warring or similar) I thought of an idea which might be appropriate in this situation. Appropriate as in procedurally appropriate, I think. Does anyone know whether Wikipedia:Embassy is functional. I have no experience with this interwiki diplomacy, so I do not know how does it work, and I am not sure I would like to know. Care someone to give a hand? Bazonka, I thought this would better fit into a new subsection - I apologize for the lack of care when naming it. Regards - especially to you, Bazonka, because of your honest although harsh words. :-) --Biblbroks (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobots

Bazonka, as you haven't specifically requested the consensus to be necessary for adding the nobots template, and since I interpret the words "if you don't want to link them here, then with consensus you may choose to use {{nobots}}" as "it is not declared what you may not do", I might say that consensus isn't needed for this after all (just kidding). Also, I searched through the {{bots}} documentation, and couldn't find a stable solution on how to allow bots that don't deal with iwiki bots. The list of bots that are compliant with these options (Category:Exclusion compliant bots) is quite short, so it might not work after all. Simplest would be to allow only the bots that are really needed - you mention cn bots - but this is all an experiment, I'd say. On the other hand if we put the nobots template so bluntly that no options are given, it could serve as a warning to bot operators to make their bots support the exclusion (and then of course do all the tedious repetitive work "manually") At least here, at this quite hot spot, we might expect of everyone not just to be careful but also attentive. An idea - to promote my no-consensus-needed-criteria POV (kidding again). I can't help it - again - I simply must share this sensation of mine - I feel like I own this page, someone, please, stop me! Heh: "Every joke has a pinch of joke." (Serbo-Croatian: "U svakoj šali ima malo šale.") --Biblbroks (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean, after the last "tedious repetitive work" I've done - really? Nobody noticed that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a neighbor of Kosovo for more than 24 hours? Where have all the people gone? Or are they just staring at "the stage"? --Biblbroks (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need to use the nobots template, in my opinion. What do other people think? Bazonka (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree - for now it seems the situation is calm. Perhaps bot operators updated their bot's algorithms - is it possible that bots are down this long? That is, for this high profile article. Or it ain't that high anymore. Anyway, we do have a consensus on this, Bazonka. --Biblbroks (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Well we don't really have agreement, because if and when the bots put the links to de.wikipedia etc. back, you'll probably want to remove them, whereas I wouldn't. I am keen to hear the opinions of other people. Bazonka (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, i dont know. This is quite a question. German article, for example, is with the same name as this one, but subject is clearly only RoK. Also, German wiki does not have article about Kosovo region. As this is article only about Kosovo region, German equivalent in de wiki is non existent, and therefor, i think that those 4 interwikis should be deleted from this article, and leaved only in Republic of Kosovo. And that info should be transferred to bot user, if we agree. There are no need to keep those in here, as those 4 should be also moved to RoK article, per our split agreement. That is what i think... :) --WhiteWriter speaks 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. But what do you think about the point under H:IL which states that we should link to articles that are "nearly equivalent" in foreign Wikipedias. So the German Kosovo article doesn't have the same focus that this one does, but wouldn't it quality as "nearly equivalent" - at least until a better German article exists? Bazonka (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well, i think that nearly equivalent article to that one in DE.Wiki is only Republic of Kosovo, and not this one. Neutral article about Kosovo region does not exist in German wiki... --WhiteWriter speaks 16:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
What about going the other way - linking from English Wikipedia to German? Bazonka (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, the problem is with wording. What I mean is that "nearly equivalent" is I think as vague as it gets when phrases are considered. For goodness sake - how is a human supposed to measure the level of equivalency? What is its scale, and even more, how to calibrate it? As for the matter, I think WhiteWriter was saying that opposes the iwikis of en:Kosovo in de:Kosovo article, as well as de:Kosovo in en:Kosovo article. From this I conclude that if we follow such opinions (mine and WhiteWriter's), it's only viable for de:Kosovo to link to en:Republic of Kosovo, and en:Republic of Kosovo to link to de:Kosovo. As for your proposal/question, Bazonka: wouldn't it qualify as "nearly equivalent" - at least until a better German articles exists - sorry, Bazonka, but you have made the most vague proposal I have ever met. :-) And you haven't received an answer for that either. :-) Also, I apologize for assuming bad faith previously - downgrading Babel level was just a detour. And the detour wasn't intentional. All the best to all, --Biblbroks (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Vague?? Until very recently, this article dealt with both Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo. Clearly these are not exactly the same, and so they were split into separate articles. But the very fact that these two things shared an article for so long shows that there is a near equivalency. To me, it makes perfect sense for this Kosovo article to link to the German Kosovo article, despite its slightly different focus - it's as close to the same thing as we can get without the existence of a specific German Republic of Kosovo article. Which of these German articles is closest to the current English Kosovo article: de:Kosovo, de:Serbien, de:Großalbanien, de:Hörnchen? Obviously the first, and if you can find a better one, then use it. The alternative, having no link to German Wikipedia (which is more comprehensive than any other Wikipedia version except English), is just absurd. Bazonka (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Technical note: {{nobots}} is NOT the technically correct way of stopping unwanted interwiki bots. The technically correct way is to place the unwanted iw link code in html comments (<!-- [[xy:bad article]]-->); the bots will then leave it alone. But I agree with Bazonka on the merits of the issue. We have two article on en-wiki, both of which have their equivalent coverage in the same de-wiki article; therefore both en-wiki articles should link to the same de-wiki one. Simple. Such arrangements happen in multiple cases and there is absolutely no problem about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fut.Perf. for useful information about nobots! Well, i dont find this subject so important, we are discussing only minor edits, so i will agree on both sides. Anyway, in the future, when Kosovo status is clear, all of this will be diminished, and specially interwiki links... :) On the other hand, it IS better to have link, even if it is a bit wrong, then not to have it at all... At the end, wiki should be informative and linked above all. I changed my mind. Yes for devilish four! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 09:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Bazonka, yes they shared an article for some time, but now the topic of en:Kosovo is more clear than it was before. This is what has changed, and now this difference affects the perception of the degree of focus difference between de:Kosovo and en:Kosovo. Also, if you asked: which of the articles on English wikipedia is closest to the article Kosovo on Deutch wikipedia, I'd say it is the Republic of Kosovo article. Well, the rationale, that because the German wikipedia is most comprehensive than any other wikipedia besides English wikipedia, and that because of this simple observation we should include its interlanguage links disregarding the difference of focus on en and de, well I'd say that such view - to use only this rationale - is a bit simplistic. But, ok, if we must include a link to one de.wikipedia article, I would agree that de:Kosovo might be the most appropriate choice. Thank you for your opinion, and even more for the information, Fut. Perf. I must ask you though, how are you so certain that both of en-wiki articles have the equivalent coverage in the de-wiki one? I mean WhiteWriter, stated above that Neutral article about Kosovo region does not exist in German wiki. Yes, he changed his mind afterwards about the interwiki links, but the statement nevertheless is there. Also, Bazonka gave an opinion that ... de:Kosovo, and the others, should be changed so that their English Interwiki links go to the article Republic of Kosovo (as this is more appropriate)... and he quite speedily changed the interwiki links on hr: and la: and tried to change the bs:, while he checked that de: was already changed. So I think there is an issue here... which I can't point directly to, though, I admit. WhiteWriter: "...wiki should be informative and linked above all!" - you devil you! :) Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
:)) --WhiteWriter speaks 17:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So Biblbroks, after agreeing that that de:Kosovo is the most appropiate Interwiki link to German Wikipedia, despite it not being quite the same subject matter, you have now removed the Interwiki link to bs:Kosovo, although this is exactly the same situation. Please be consistent. Bazonka (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for eventual misunderstanding - if I stated that I agree, please point me to where this is. As far as I've found my wording regarding this issue was: "...ok, if we must include a link to one de.wikipedia article, I would agree that de:Kosovo might be the most appropriate choice." But if I stated elsewhere that I agree, I will agree with your revert, Bazonka. I don't want to be sarcastic, but I would really like to know how so that you are certain that bs and de are exactly the same situation. I haven't seen that your Babel mentions bs, while mine does mention sh - an "umbrella term" for sr, hr, bs, me, etc - umbrella term at least from my POV. Also, I admit that I recently updated my Babel with de-2, nevertheless I hold this to be true, and if someone has any objections against me removing de Interwiki based on this premise (Babel de-2), I will reinstate Interwikis to de. Or to la for that matter (which I hold to be la-1 or la-2). Also, if somebody still thinks of me being inconsistent, please state your opinion. Or you can instead {{trout}} me - you can find a small image of trout in the top right corner of my userpage. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, in order to settle this and not be so uncompromosing I suggest this, Bazonka: if you still have even a slightest impression that I agreed, I will leave it be as it is. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop it, at last. I'm getting very impatient with the brickwall mentality displayed by some contributors here, especially Biblbroks' incredible bout of wikilawyering above, and I can promise you I will request a new round of topic bans if this ridiculous fighting over interwikis continues. The matter is completely trivial: if a topic has one single article on Wikipedia "x:X", but the same topic is divided up into two related articles "y:Y1" and "y:Y2" on another Wikipedia, then both articles on Y will iw-link to x:X, while in reverse, it is up to editors at wiki X to decide which of the two candidates on Y they consider the closer equivalent. This is common practice, it's uncontroversial everywhere across the project, and there are absolutely no problems about it. The question we have to ask ourselves here is not: 'does wiki X have an article that has exactly the same topic definition as we have chosen it four our "y:Y1" here?', but: 'which article on X covers (or would cover) the factual material that we are covering in our article?' In any case where another Wikipedia has a single article for the Republic that also covers the prior history of the region and the dispute, it is automatically the equivalent of both of the articles into which we have divided these topics. Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. , while I understand your impatience, I simply don't find any justifiable cause for it. The discussion held was very polite, I think there hasn't been any breach to WP:Wikiquette not to mention WP:NPA, apart from your last comment maybe. Also if you're already calling names, please take a look at where have I wikilawyered, and point to this place. IIRC, when I referred to policies and guidelines, it was merely as a response to comments in which they were called upon or referred to - except for one case where I failed to assume good faith mainly because of lack of English language (which is no wikilawyering, I believe), and this post. So please, retract your sword of topic-ban requests, it really is inappropriate and unnecessary to show it off. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

hr iw

My reasoning, which lead me to excluding hr:Kosovo interlanguage link from this article, is this: article at hr.wikipedia.org somehow treats Kosovo more as "država" - a state (my humble attempt of translating). This impression one gets when reading the first sentence of the lede. The article at hr also has an infobox which has the flag, CoA, anthem, official language, government, GDP, PPP, currency and TLD entries and this all shows Kosovo (to my belief) more as a state. This article on the other hand somehow firstly defines Kosovo (if one reads the first sentence of the lede) as a disputed territory and deals more with the topic of Kosovo as a region - as far as I am able to grasp. So topics of these two articles cannot be quite "exactly equivalent" (the term mentioned at H:IL). As for the "...or nearly equivalent" argument, well, I would like to know what other people think about this: is this the case to be solved through WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and H:IL for the term Kosovo in Croatian language and English language (or some other language too), or does the perceived bias of the article at hr overweight any other language arguments? The bias which other users also noticed I believe. Tough question, nay? Deals somehow with all the WP:5P. With all, but with the first pillar to the least. IMO. :-) Tough, yay... but hey, here it is. Also, I admit that maybe I haven't thought this issue through thoroughly enough and maybe there aren't just two options for the question. If anybody has an idea how to ask about this issue differently, I am eager to know it. Or any other thoughts regarding this subject. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... Is there a more appropriate article in Croatian Wikipedia? No. In which case we must link to this one, despite it not being exactly equivalent. Bazonka (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Why must we? The article is "...zaštićen: Učestalo vandaliziranje ([edit=autoconfirmed] (istječe 20:53, 5. listopada 2011. (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (istječe 20:53, 5. listopada 2011. (UTC))))" - protected ... expires 5. october 2011. I've taken the liberty to shortly translate the (IMO) underpinning information. IPs cannot edit it. There might be no rush, but there might be some... nay? Are they just interwiki links? Or something else... also? Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Would there be any objections if I would revert Fut.Perf.'s reinsertion of hr iw to this article? What I mean is I would exclude this iw sooner than 14:41, 26 April 2011 - the time and date which I understand the full details of 1RR parole suggest me to wait. If nobody comments, I think I will risk my article ban for this. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course there would be objections. But do please risk an article ban; I sincerely wish one be imposed on you sooner rather than later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Despite that besides me I think others would also be curious how would one phrase an article-ban-request to impose it on me in this case, I will rather express my opinion on one detail which I had the opportunity to notice. Wikipedia talk pages are graveyards for sentiments, but only for the negative ones. Positive sentiments live out because reason exists to tell the difference between those two. The very first instance you expressed your feelings/sentiments you lost this battle of argumentation. But hey, you learned something instead, haven't you? My question still stands but I will phrase it differently: if anybody would have any objections to me excluding hr:Kosovo interlanguage link from this article, what are they? Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I would object to the removal because the Croatian article is "nearly equivalent" as per H:IL, therefore it meets the requirements for inclusion. Bazonka (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but is it "nearly equivalent" enough to include it despite its perceived bias? That is if you would agree with me that since attribute "nearly equivalent" exists and we use it for some purpose, then we can also perceive different levels of this attribute (attribute as in wikt:attribute - A characteristic or quality of a thing.). What I try to say is - if that article was not enough "nearly equivalent", I think its interlanguage link wouldn't meet the requirements for inclusion in this article per WP:NPOV. I mean my options to go to hr and discuss this issue there are currently limited, so I am trying to resolve this here. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
You are thinking too deeply. The Croatian article may not be ideally matched but it's near enough. Go to hr Wikipedia and address the problem there if you can, but don't raise the inadequacies of other Wikipedias here in the English version. Interwiki links should be as complete as possible - a slightly inappropriate link is better than no link at all. Leave it, and let's draw a line under this discussion. Bazonka (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
If you think of deeply as in 2nd or 3rd sense and not 1st sense of wiktionary's entry of the term deeply then I'd address "your" use of the too attribute with a question: is it near enough despite the fact that amendments to that article which were (I believe) mentioned at one of previous subsections of this discussion's section were reverted? Don't you think that addressing the problems here might resolve the inadequacy of this other wikipedia's article there better than the other way round which you were proposing. Why because I think it's not the other wikipedia that it is inadequate but only its article perhaps, and since the options for doing it your way are limited due to the current (partially already described) factual situation: global (hr article is semiprotected and the discussion regarding this issue at the talk page is somehow stalemated with nobody responding to WhiteWriter's almost one month old comment) and local (I cannot remember my password - I can't believe how paranoidly was I selecting it different than here :-/ ) maybe as well. I don't think that "slightliness" of inappropriateness of the link in question is appropriate enough for me to leave this, because if a line would be drawn under this discussion I would place it a little further than suggested by stating that there might be many wikipedias but one Wikipedia. At/on/in/by/of www.wikipedia.org. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not possible to address inadequacies in Croatian, or other foreign, Wikipedia articles here in English Wikipedia - you'll need to do that actually in those Wikis. What you are trying to do is simply remove Interwiki links. This will not address the problem; it's just sweeping it under the carpet. It isn't helping. Please stop. Bazonka (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have already addressed the inadequacy. So it is possible. Also a user with the same username as the one you used in your previous post stated what, I believe even you would interpret as an action upon these "addressings" of mine - the diff to this statement is here. Why, because I honestly believe that user was you. The problem, which you describe as sweeping under the carpet, was already addressed and that, may I say, very mildly - in hr:User:WhiteWriter's comment on wikipedia in Croatian language. And this fact I have also already mentioned. And the best what I've got from Bazonka was "Sigh..." - I still don't know was it sarcastic or what. What you need is to actually face with the existence of this problem and at least propose a solution or else give up. Why because I have mentioned even Wikipedia:Embassy as a viable way. And nobody answered to that. While what you are trying to do is simply shun me away. Your comments is what is not helping. Problem is addressed. If you think otherwise, I don't think you think enough - sorry. So if you figure out an idea about where also to address this problem, don't stalk please, give at least this idea. I don't understand why are you holding on to this iw so much. Is it more than just a plain interlanguage link to you? I believe it isn't. If it concerns you that much, would it help if I say that I wasn't planning in excluding it totally but just commenting it out. This way even the bots issue would be satisfied and the iw wouldn't be actually removed just dysfunctional. But hey, what pleases others more... I am very keen to abide to consensus if there would be any regarding this issue. Don't you get it - that's why I am not backing off so long because I want to build a consensus on this. I like this consensus thingy. :-) All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
If the problem has been addressed then why the continuing fuss? You will never gain consensus for degrading this article by removing (or commenting out) Interwiki links. If issues still exist, then by all means take it to the Embassy. Bazonka (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Listen! Read! Whatever you want... but please do think. It is you and your negative sentiments what is causing your exasperation. Not me causing the fuss - but you and your negative sentiments. Address to the embassy yourself, if you think that problem hasn't been addressed. Don't address with this exasperation of yours to me. By all means instead of exasperating, take it easier a bit. Just a bit. If your up-to-this-point thinking process regarding this issue were "nearly equivalent" to Homo sapiens' thinking process enough, you would answer to at least one of my questions above. Not duck as if I am hitting you. This page wasn't intended as an arena of rhetoric punches and kicks (IMO yours would deserve to be labeled as scratches and bites) - but a page for discussing improvements of the article. Let me ask you one more question. And I am kindestly suggesting you one thing to bear in mind - if you don't answer it (again) but instead put such white-livered wordcrafts to this page, I will do what I must do... and then, if you want, you do what you must do. So here it goes - a simple yes or no question:
  • Is exclusion of hr:Kosovo interlanguage link from this article really a degrade of the article? I think everybody would appreciate an explanation to a yes question, but... whatever your heart tells you to do.
And why so simply at last - because I think (in my not so humble opinion) that I'm not trying to gain a consensus but trying to build one. Please try differentiating those two because we can all gain from that. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Your statement "article at hr.wikipedia.org <blank>" is particularized in a time context: right now. Unfortunately, I believe, is that the article is actually particularized in another time context: now and in the future. IOW, the article may change. Link to the best article in that language, until such a time that another article is a better fit. Int21h (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
So excluding the link here might help unparticularize that article, right? The change you mention may happen is exclusion of hr:Kosovo interlanguage link, right? Right - as in OK, not antonym of left. ;-) Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Int21h is correct - we link to the best article in each particular Wikipedia version. If and when a more appropriate atricle becomes available, we change the link. Simple as that. And to answer your question Biblbroks: Yes, of course the removal of Interwiki links from this article degrades its quality, unless those links are wholly inappropriate (and in this case, although not perfect, they're not wholly inappropriate). I cannot fathom why you insist on their removal - these foreign articles are nearly equivalent, and that's good enough as per H:IL (I feel like I'm repeating myself here). Also, if I understand correctly, you were insinuating that my intellect is less than that of a Homo Sapiens. WP:NPA please. Bazonka (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
There you go again. "Wholly inappropriate" - what does that mean? You suggest there is "partly inappropriate", "wholly inappropriate" and ...what is the third? "Zero inappropriate"? It is either appropriate or inappropriate. Also, no, I wasn't insinuating anything about your intelect (which I think quite high of) but referring to a fact about your cowardly thinking process so far. Who will lose (as opposed to gain) if we exclude the iw? Informativity of the article, or your vanity? Of course Int21 is correct, but what is the best article in that language? Bazonka, you still state that it is the hr:Kosovo article which is the best despite the fact (which I mention for the third time) that changes to that article were reverted? Why don't you instead try and answer that question instead of this demagogy? I really am trying to build a consensus here, and if it requires an article ban for this, then let it be. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course there are different degrees of appropriateness: a foreign article on Kosovo the place (like this English one) would be a totally appropriate match ("exactly equivalent" in the parlance of H:IL); an article on the Republic of Kosovo isn't quite the same as this but it's still generally about the same subject matter - less appropriate but "nearly equivalent"; and an article on sausages or Peru is totally diffferent and therefore wholly inappropriate for an Interwiki link. Linking to non-existent articles (which is what you did) is also not a suitable course of action when nearly equivalent links already exist.
If you have tried and failed to address the inadequacies in hr Wikipedia, then I suggest you try again in hr Wikipedia. These inadequacies are not a matter for English Wikipedia - here we simply do the best we can, linking to nearly equivalent articles if those are the best that exist.
As for what gets damaged if Interwiki links are removed, it is the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole - links should be as comprehensive as possible. Bazonka (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, hello back from after almost two days. I must note a couple of things. First, you do appear to agree that there are inadequacies at hr wikipedia. And second, you do appear to agree that there are only appropriate and inappropriate qualifications - not gradation of inappropriateness. In the parlance of less and more appropriate - would this page's main article's corresponding article at the Wikipedia in Croatian language (hr) be appropriate enough to have a link in this page's main article given the fact (which I mention for the fourth time) that changes to that article were reverted? If it weren't which of the two (hr and this one - the Wikipedia in English language) articles would correspond to your example of sausages and which to the example of Peru? But I am again confused: you use this "wholly inappropriate" qualification _again_, and this use I believe confuses others also because: if there were "wholly inappropriate'" things, wouldn't there also be "'partly inappropriate'" and... you choose the term yourself - perhaps "'zero inappropriate'" things? I agree with your presumption that linking to non-existent article is perhaps not most suitable course of action, but in my opinion it is currently an optimal alternative to it. You have suggested _again_ to try at hr wikipedia - yes - and I understood you the first time, but currently this option is limited for me in my opinion - due to the above-mentioned reasons I believe I don't have to mention them again. Do you have an alternative to this proposal of yours then? Also when you mention inadequacies - you do perceive them as inadequacies, do you? So what is their degree then: appropriate enough for hr to be link to en, or not enough? Because I honestly believe that I am doing the best I can, but I am not sure if you think that you do. So if there are inadequacies, I most honestly think that they should also be a matter for the Wikipedia in English language - because there is no central place where to raise an issue such as this which we are dealing with currently. I mean I can't find any - can you? Yes we are dealing with the Wikipedia as a whole and not just this wikipedia, and therefore besides links being as informative as possible we must also consider the bias - the bias as in five pillars of the Wikipedia with a capital letter W. Or you think I am wrong? Also, one last simple question, Bazonka: don't you find it peculiar that hr:Kosovo contains a flag (or to be more precise - its representation) of Republic of Kosovo, while this article, at this wikipedia doesn't? And just one more tiniest and simplest question: was that Sigh... in Sigh... Is there a more appropriate article in Croatian Wikipedia? No. " - was it sarcastic - or something else? All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how you managed to get from me saying "Of course there are different degrees of appropriateness" to your conclusion that I agreed that there is not a "gradation of inappropriateness". Of course there are different types of (in)appropriateness! The article hr:Kosovo is POV (and so not totally appropriate) but it is still generally about the same subject area as en:Kosovo (and so not totally inappropriate). Not perfect, but it's certainly good enough for an Interwiki link - "nearly equivalent".
And I don't understand how inadequacies in Croatian Wikipedia are a matter for English Wikipedia. Whether changes there have been reverted is not a matter for us. We are English Wikipedians, not Croatian Wikipedians. There's nothing we can do about it here. Removing the Interwiki link does not in any way help to address the problem - it just hides it. We should not hide problems - we should keep them visible and hope that someone is able to fix them.
Do I find it peculiar that the Croatian article contains a flag? No. It's a differently focused article to the English one, and seems to be biased, but it's not peculiar. I ask you this - why have you not raised concerns with the Serbian Kosovo article, which is also biased, but with the opposing view (a view that perhaps matches your own view)?
Was my sigh sarcastic? No, just frustrated with your intransigence.
You and I are not going to agree on this, so I am going to raise the issue at WP:THIRD. Bazonka (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I managed to come to a conclusion in which it appears that you have agreed with me that there is no gradation of inappropriate attribute through some effort, but i managed it still and i will try to explain how. Let me put it this way: if hr:Kosovo article's subject were Kosovo the region, then it would be somehow more neutral than it appears is right now. But since it appears that aforementioned article's subject area is Republic of Kosovo, then it is kind of less neutral and therefore more biased in my opinion. So, with this i agree with you that the aforementioned article could be regarded as POV. And you even come to state that it is POV. Anyway if it is POV, as you state it is, then it cannot be totally appropriate to have its interlanguage link in this article. Even more - it might not be appropriate at all and therefore inappropriate. And by this i don't mean partly inappropriate but instead it being inappropriate - fullstop. I don't agree with you that article at Croatian Wikipedia, as you call it, is good enough to have an interlanguage link in this article for several reasons. Firstly because inadequacies in any language wikipedia should be a matter of every language wikipedia and so for this wikipedia also. Secondly because reverts as particular type of changes to articles should also be a matter for us and that because they can be regarded as indicators of readiness to change the article. And that especially when an article is disabled to be changed. In this case it is "zaštićen" Serbo-Croatian: zaštićen en:wikt:zaštićen. My humble attempt to translate this term would be "defended" or "protected". And it is "zaštićen" so that anonymous IP editors and editresses cannot edit it. For that reason i myself cannot edit it "IP-anonymously", as also many others can't. Also i cannot edit under my user name hr:Suradnik:Biblbroks because i cannot remember my password. As this last fact was an disadvantage for me before, i came to think that it is now an advantage. ;-) Also, if we ourselves must declare as something, i'd say that we must all firstly and above all declare ourselves as members of the Homo sapiens species. And by that i mean people or humans. Call it what you want. And i believe many others would agree with me on that matter. Also, if we must declare ourselves as Wikipedians, as i feel i have to and i do, we should firstly and above all declare ourselves as Wikipedians - Wikipedians without any attribute or classificition. I believe there are others that would agree with me on this. But since there are many of us who declare themselves as Wikipedians, and everyday i believe there might be even more, problems can arise when putting adjectives and attributes in front of the Wikipedians term. Or should i say left of this term. Sometimes left and sometimes right for languages in different reading/writing direction. Sometimes even not in the sam line - i mean when it appears in a sentence where an margin comes to end and the previous word would be in different line than the next one. Not to mention if we are writing vertically, or in any other direction. Anyway, what i am trying to point out is that i believe that there are differences in what word you use to closely define a Wikipedian and also where it is used. For example: there is a difference between Croatian Wikipedian and Wikipedian of Wikipedia in Croatian language. And there is also a difference between English Wikipedian and Wikipedian of Wikipedia in English language. And finally there might be difference between Serbian Wikipedian and Wikipedian of Wikipedia in Serbian language if anyone used these syntagms. For that matter, i believe that i am a Wikipedian of Wikipedia - period. That is a Wikipedian of Wikipedia in any language. Not just Wikipedian of Wikipedia in this or that language. And certainly not "this language's" or "that nationality's" Wikipedian. And even not "these ethnicities'" or "those ethnicities'" Wikipedian. And finally most certainly not just a simple Croatian Wikipedian or English Wikipedian or even Serbian Wikipedian for that matter. Put it simply i consider myself a Wikipedian of Wikipedia. Also when you say that there is nothing we can do about it here, i simply cannot agree with you. And i believe other cannot either. Why, because i believe there is quite a lot we can about anything around here. Or anywhere. Call me overly optimistic but i won't change my mind for that. And i believe others wouldn't either for that matter. Because, i believe that we can do a lot here. Not just about this single issue but many other things as well. So, to put it simple i don't think that it is good for you, or for anyone, if you think we cannot do a lot around here. Think positively and optimistically and i believe you will come to agree with me about that matter. When you state that removing the Interwiki link does not in any way help to address the problem, i must state that i don't agree with you. Firstly because i already succeeded in helping address the problem exactly by removing the link. So if you think that removing an interlanguage link cannot solve the problem, you might be right but again the optimistic as i am, i cannot totally agree with you on that. Because by addressing the problem as i did, i believe i helped in solving it. By that i don't think that i know what will help solving it in the future. And also i don't know what does now or will help in solving it. But maybe somebody does. And so when this someone comes and sees or hears this discussion, he or she might share his or her ideas on that. Therefore i am welcoming this somebody, or anybody, who wants to come and get involved with this matter to share their opinions about this. Any opinion is welcome. Also, i must share my thoughts on this: because of the very fact that we are discussing the problem, i believe it helps solving it and it certainly doesn't hide it. I am not sure what shows it, but disscussing the problem most certainly doesn't hide it. Even more - it helps addressing the problem - if not even helps resolving it. Finally, if something helps addressing the problem i believe that this, what i have done, helps. This what i have done, and what i have been doing recently. And i believe others would agree with me. For that matter i will type one more thing: some other editor/editress with the username Vjikiun has done a similar thing as i did before and excluded the no and nn interlanguage links recently. The link to this change is here [20], where interlanguage links are here and here. So this somehow shows that i am actually helping in solving this issue because for one thing: no and nn articles also had flags when i checked them as hr, bs, de and la had. And for the other thing i am pointing to this fact right now.
As for your answer to question whether you find it peculiar that the Croatian article as you call it contains a flag or not? Ok, so you don't find it peculiar that article at Wikipedia in Croatian language contains a flag. And you don't have to. But i do. I find it peculiar that hr:Kosovo article contains a flag and this one doesn't. Why do find it peculiar - because this is somehow an indicator that these two articles, this article of Wikipedia in English language and that article at Croatian wikipedia, that is Wikipedia in Croatian language, are somehow substantially different. First of all, not just that they are simply differently focused as you put it, but perhaps even that they differ in one important thing... the topic. The topic which is an important segment of the article. The topic of this discussion's page's article would be region of Kosovo. I mean as for this Wikipedia in English language is concerned. And the topic of that article at Wikipedia in Croatian language would be Republic of Kosovo. The topic of article at Croatian wikipedia - as i already qualified it. By that i don't mean any disrespect to that wikipedia, but i am just trying to show that there might be even a difference when capitalising the term wikipedia or not. As i somehow opinionated it before, i believe that there are many wikipedias but only one Wikipedia. Wikipedia the project - as it is given in article at Wikipedia - and Wikipedia the conglomerate - as it is given at the third sense of the entry for the English language at wiktionary, the free dictionary at en.wiktionary.org. Also we shouldn't forget the usual first sense given at en.wiktionary.org's - the sense of "simple" open-content online encyclopedia, collaboratively developed over the World Wide Web - which is a (trademark)?! Anyway this is somehow to show that this issue is perhaps greater than we think. Because it deals with the languages, the words, the senses of those words and uses of those words. As well as actions taken regarding all of the above. Moreover, when you ask me why haven't i raised a concern with the Serbian Kosovo article as you call it, i am curious to consider why do you think i haven't. Actually i have and i think i can reassure you in my words by providing a link to these raisings of mine - the link is [21]. Anyway, i must give an opinion that i don't know what bias do you think there is in article titled Косово и Метохија at Wikipedia in Serbian language. You stated that it is biased, and to that i must think of a fact that i don't know of any case prior to this one previously that it was labelled as such. I mean labelled as such here at this talk page. Not that i know of any case that it was labeled as such somewhere else. But hey, if you know even of such a case, i would like you to inform me and all of us about this case. Also when you mention that syntagm "a view that perhaps matches your own", i would really like to know to which view of mine are you referring to. I had many of views and i am not certain that you can think of what you were you thinking of. I mean when stating that what you've stated if you stated anything.
About your Sigh... i feel i must share this: if you weren't typing that Sigh and the periods of yours while actually sighing then i don't understand what was their purpose then. If any. Sarcastically typing or not while you were "just frustrated" - or just your Sigh, and not the periods, were frustrated - with my intrasigence as you call it, you i believe will frown here and to prevent you doing it in the future i feel obliged to suggest you one thing. Why not relax a bit. I mean as opposed to frustrate yourself, if you were the one who frustrated you - or your Sigh - try defrustrate instead. ;-) This isn't the most important thing on Earth i believe. And i believe you believe it also. I mean when mentioning the intransigence, you must've been thinking of something else, or someone else. I don't know why you are referring to any intransigence at all. I'm not sure others would like to know why. Because it is simply your perception of things. Isn't it? I mean the perception which is already changed, right? Because i think i am able to change my point of view as you are too. And by that we can then both agree with this whatever it was. If there was anything to agree with in the first place. We both perceived this as an issue and potentially as a problem, but not anymore. Or am i wrong? I mean i honestly was trying to address any problem and with that hopefully resolve it. If there was any problem. While i wanted to state that i didn't know what you were trying to do, i believe now nobody thinks was there anything at all.
If you still think that you and i cannot agree with this, whatever that might be, i am most certainly open to a third opinion. A third opinion even on a question whether you and i are able to agree on that this. I am welcoming any editor/editress, contributor/contributress, Wikipedian/Wikipedianess to come here an discuss this matter. Anyway i would like to note anyone reading this post that there was submitted a request at WP:AE for topic ban concerning me and this article. The link to this request could be found here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Biblbroks. So even more people might come to express their opinions if necessary. I welcome them all. I wish all the best to you and all of them, --biblbroks (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm working on a third opinion, will have it up as soon as possible but something has come up so it might be tommorow, sorry guys Bob House 884 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the lateness, I got caught up in some on-wiki drama. I hope I can be of some help anyway Bob House 884 (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Response to third opinion request:
Hi there, before we start I'd like to point out that I know little or nothing about the Kosovo debate, can't speak any language apart from English and have never given a Third Opinion before, whilst that might not fill you with confidence, I hope that it will make me more neutral.

I'm also not going to touch on the 'nobots' tag discussion or the alledged violation of the ArbCom 1RR on this topic, neither of which I feel is relevant to the bigger issue of whether or not to include certain interwiki links.

At the heart of this discussion is the issue of whether it is appropriate to include links to other wikis where the foreign language article is biased or POV, or where the foreign language article is not itself biased, but linking to it could create an impression of bias. (i.e. linking to a totally accurate and NPOV article about the Republic of Kosovo when no article on Kosovo as a geographical entity is available could be seen as an attempt to equate the two things). Bazonka is arguing that we should, as a general rule, include links to foreign language articles which are as close as possible to the subject of the main article, primarily quoting H:IL. Biblbroks is arguing that we should remove links which give the impression of POV, mainly because of the WP:NPOV policy which (s)he takes quite a wide interpretation of which would require us to consider the choices of ILs to post as part of the article's neutrality. (S)he also took the stance (although this appears to have been abandoned somewhat) that WP:NODEADLINE either allowed, or required us to wait for a fully appropriate article to be created before providing any IL. There also appears to have been something of a meta-discussion regarding whether including the ILs would be helpful or not in terms of encouraging improvements to non-English wikis, I don't think this is too important to the overall discussion since arguments about what will or won't help wikipedia tend to be secondary to content concerns and what we ourselves can do to improve the encyclopedia. Sorry if I have straw-manned or misrepresented anybodies points here in trying to provide a concise summary.

I have some sympathy for Bibilbrok's concern that linking to a biased article in the ILs acts as a sort of tacit endorsement/part of the en.wiki article and should be considered when we discuss NPOV but I'm not convinced. I don't think that we need to take NPOV so far as to excise ILs to contentious or POV articles on other wikis, because, whilst I feel Biblbroks is expressing some rather noble sentiments when (s)he speaks of a sort of global wikipedia, we do at some point have to step back and look at the article in front of us.

In relation to H:IL, I agree that there is basically a sliding scale of how appropriate a link can be, obviously at the top of the scale we have the exactly equivalent, perfect links, which we would all like to use (I think this includes biased or POV articles which at least have the capacity to be fixed, it is not for en.wiki to moderate the content of other wikis) and at the bottom we have totally irrelevant links like Kosovo -> Sausages. In the middle I think we have the relevant but unacceptable (for instance Scientology -> L. Ron Hubbard) and the borderline acceptable (which might include things like Sunday Times -> The Times, Commonwealth of Nations -> British Empire, Iberian Peninsular -> Spain). All of these include a material change in meaning, which varies from the slightly inconvieniant (The Times) to the politically inaccurate and potentially misleading (commonwealth - empire, iberia - Spain). I think that Kosovo -> Republic of Kosovo might just about sneak past these in terms of whats acceptable.

In summary, I'm inclined to agree with Bazonka about the inclusion of these ILs, although hopefully more appropriate articles on the relevant wikis will show up ASAP.

Anyways thanks for listening and I hope this is helpful to you both. If you think this is a load of tripe and I should reconsider - feel free to ask questions or relist this if I've been totally useless.

All the best.—Bob House 884 (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

.

Thanks very much Bob for your thorough and well-considered opinion. Worth the wait. Bazonka (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo/Archive_27&oldid=1256518469"