Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 34

Fast article changes, without consensus

I believe that making such a grand change in an article in such a short time, without consensus, is without doubt an act against WP policies. It is also an act in conflict with ARBMAC. This debate should be continued and the page brought back to the article that shows Kosovo as a Republic, what de facto it is (until any change comes from the negotiations) but also with information of the disputes. Otherwise, the way the page currently is, we will be in risk of keeping a page that will set a precedent in WP: What if after the negotiations the Serbian part recognizes Kosovo as independent, why should the page still be refer to the "territory"? —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The previous version didn't show Kosovo as a republic. It presented a confusing mishmash of Republic and Province. That said, if Serbia does recognize Kosovo then the ROK article would be merged back to here. --Khajidha (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, clear as a day. Wikipedia should follow real life situation. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I was not saying the previous page was only about Kosovo as a Republic (although I can see why would one think I did). But the previous version was more accurate in describing the situation in Kosovo. We have a factual independence that is de jure disputed by some countries (wile some other countries stay neutral). The current page is just a complicated version of the previous one, without anything gaining in return. Don't you think? —82.114.94.16 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
But isn't that factual independence you mention also de facto disputed by the current version of the article: three infoboxes instead of one, current ongoing discussion regarding the current version, all the previous discussions regarding the previous version, not to mention the "factual" existence of two currencies in Kosovo? I am not sure that factually independent "entity" would allow two currencies in the infobox of an article about that entity if the case was otherwise. Don't you think? Also, I am not sure about the fact that an independence of an entity is determined by the fact that it uses one currency. Nevertheless, I just thought I could share my POV on the matters of independency and independence. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
"Wikipedia Policy"? "Wikipedia Policy" would be set by Wikimedia, the company that runs it. You may be referring to what is termed the Wikipedia consensus. The consenus on Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy of policies, it is more akin to a meritocracy. This has been discussed on so many levels, sociological and philosophical contexts coming to mind as the most prominent. In my humble opinion, each change or changeset (a set of changes by a user, and its socketpuppets, in a particularized period of time) stands very (but not entirely) independently, and should be judged on their merits. The size of the changeset may effect its merits, but I do not think they necessarily effect its merits. So does a "grand change" necessarily negatively effect a merit based analysis of these changesets? If no, well then this conversation is over. If yes, then more edits must be made, and therefore negatively effect the article, and hence must not be made, and thus all edits stop. This type of reasoning is hard to explain, but in my mind it proves ad absurdity that the answer is no, that a "grand change" does not necessarily negatively effect a merit based analysis.
As for particular edits, yes, some edits negatively effect the article. When I see that, I either change it if it is obviously wrong or needs expansion, flag it if its fishy or needs looking into, flag it for my own research, or go about my way. This is pretty common behavior, and I WP:ASSUME it is, which is why this works so smoothly. Certain articles need this, certain ones don't; this article does, IMO, and given these "grand changes", I believe others agree with me. 07:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe that others agree with you also, since I agree with you. I'd just like to add that IMO every article's change and changeset needs this merit based analysis, it's just that on this article it is perhaps most obvious. As far the "too thorough versus not too thorough" thinking is concerned. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

Given that this article has changed to a general Kosovo region article and Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija devoted articles exist where the specific infoboxes for those polities are used, I propose that this article be changed to only feature a single infobox that would cover only information pertaining to the region as a whole and not to the political bodies in question. Said infobox should feature a note in the governmental section that sovereignty is disputed between the two previously mentioned entities with links to articles for same. --Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Conditional Support I will support this if we use a similar infobox to that on the articles 'Ireland' and 'Taiwan' as they're infoboxes about regions not countries. I will now create a draft infobox in a sandbox and I'll bring it back to you all soonish. IJA (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Well, can we ask for any conditions regarding other unrelated articles? I think that same quiestion should be asked on related talk pages. Also, do we need any other one than the region infobox that we already have? I think that this box is ok.... :) But, i will gladly see any proposition for improving. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, if the UNMIK is also linked. I don't think that any changes to the current Kosovo region infobox are needed. Alinor (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Kosovo region infobox - unchanged from the status quo (only formatting appears differently because of wikicode?)
Kosovo
Kosovo physical map
Kosovo physical map
Capital
and largest city
Pristina (Prishtina or Priština)
42°40′N 21°10′E / 42.667°N 21.167°E / 42.667; 21.167
Ethnic groups
(2009)
88% Albanians
  7% Serbs
  5% others[1]
Governmentdisputed
Lamberto Zannier (UN)
Radovan Ničić
Jakup Krasniqi
Governing authority 
disputed
10 June 1999
February 2003
17 February 2008
Area
• Total
10,908 km2 (4,212 sq mi)
• Water (%)
n/a
Population
• 2007 estimate
1,804,838[2]
• 1991 census
1,956,1961
• Density
220/km2 (569.8/sq mi)
GDP (nominal)2009 estimate
• Total
$5.352 billion[3]
• Per capita
$2,965
CurrencyEuro (€); Serbian Dinar (EUR; RSD)
Time zoneUTC+1 (CET)
• Summer (DST)
UTC+2 (CEST)
Drives onright
Calling code+3812
  1. The census is a reconstruction; most of the ethnic Albanian majority boycotted.
  2. Officially +381; some mobile phone providers use +377 (Monaco) or +386 (Slovenia) instead.
Is there any specific problem with that infobox that needs to be changed? It is already about the region and not the country.Alinor (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is my proposal for an infobox. It is 100% unpolitical and gives basic information. IJA (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Kosovo region infobox

User:IJA/Kosovo infobox sandbox

I don't think Government needs to be mentioned whatsoever as that will just cause problems. IJA (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC) My version is similar to Alinor's however I've removed all the established dates, sovereignty and leaders ect as I think this infobox should be 100% free from politics. IJA (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox by IJA is perfectly fine by me. Agree also, as Future Perfect told us "Infoboxes must burn in Hell" (Note that it is Kosovo infobox burning! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer a government section with the term "Disputed" and links to the actual governments be included (no names, no dates, no specifics - just a bare link), but can definitely live with IJA's version.


I just think the government section will cause problems ect and the relevant government information can be found of the RoK and APKiM articles. But when talking about the geographical region of Kosovo, Government is not important. We don't even have a section on Government. This article is about history, culture, geography, society ect of Kosovo... aka an article free of politics. The politics of Kosovo is for separate articles thus why Government shouldn't be included in the infobox. Anyway that is what I believe and I also think it is the best way to maintain a NPOV on such a sensitive topic. IJA (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, except for the reasons IJA had mentioned, there is also an issue of hierarchy if UNMIK is included in the infobox - because then RoK and APKIM should be included - and then a question would arise which of them to mention first. --Biblbroks (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Also according to Serbia and other non-recognising countries UNMIK is the administrator of the APKiM, therefore it is kind of POV to include UNMIK and not include representatives of RoK, that is why the infobox should be 100% free of government of Kosovo. Put it this way, if we have an article 100% free of politics/ government it will stop stupid edit wars and we can have a peaceful neutral article about the geographical region of Kosovo. Also we will be able to improve the quality of the article and work towards it being a featured article, surely everyone would like that? Also the very first sentence makes it very very clear that Kosovo is a disputed territory. IJA (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
IJA, this POV issue you mention is what I thought of when writing: "...if UNMIK is included in the infobox - because then RoK and APKIM should be included...", but I didn't want to go so far to labeling it so. You haven't labeled it POV either for that matter. :-) Anyway, I just wanted to express my agreement with you. As for the hopes for a featured article, I thought I had to say: "Let's keep those hopes low for now!" Not, that I wouldn't like this wish/dream come true. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Do I have permission to add my version of the infobox then? IJA (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I would have no problem with you replacing the current mile high stack of infoboxen with your version. --Khajidha (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Biblbroks, about hierarchy/how to mention first - that's why the current infobox government section is ordered chronologically. The governing authorities mentioned are UNMIK, Serb-assembly (it's not clear whether this is Republic of Serbia government unit, or a "local initiative" unofficially supported by Belgrade - so the "Serbia recognizes UNMIK as APKiM ruler" vs. "Serb Kosovo assembly" controversy is theoretical - we don't have a source answering the previous question), RoK. I don't see a controversy here - we have UNMIK, a Serbian and a Kosovar entities - what prevents us from keeping the current infobox arrangement.
And what is this "it is kind of POV to include UNMIK and not include representatives of RoK"? The current infobox already has both, who is proposing "not include representatives of RoK"?
Also, if I understand IJA correctly - he proposes to remove all other infoboxes and keep only this one. So, why not do this (that we all seem to agree with) - and later discuss whether to remove its "disputed government" section (mentioning UNMIK/1999, Serb-assembly/2003, RoK/2008) or not? Alinor (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
So, IMHO the Government entries in the infobox should be restored. Alinor (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It is only now that I fully grasped why I am against restoration of Government entries - not just because it removes potential POV issues that IJA mentions might arise if those entries are included, and thus prevents edit warring. It is because this is now a Kosovo region article and therefore it is logical that infobox would be for the region - and region doesn't necessarily have a government/governing authority/name_it_what_you_want, does it? How about if we reword it somehow - and then include it. Article Antarctica kind of comes to light: there it stands "...Territorial claims...", so perhaps something like "governing authority claims"? I don't know, it is probably just a plain shot in the dark, but I think I am trying to address your concerns. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that the three governances should be mentioned in the infobox and I don't object tweaking the wording of the category. If others agree with "governing authority claims" I'm OK with that. Alinor (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
That's basically what I was asking for when I made the proposal. Oddly, I've since come to think that leaving it out is better. But I'm not opposed to putting it in in this manner (making it clear that we are not favoring one claim over another). --Khajidha (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Khajidha, i am also not opposed to putting the entries about governance as this would be more informative and this way also we would be ensuring that we aren't favoring any claim over the other. But, i am not sure whether we should include it at all because the order of these entries might pose an issue as i stated earlier. Alinor, you are suggesting we put them in chronological order but someone might object to this because it might point that we are favoring one governance claim over other. Also we might put in reverse chronological order, but again this might not be suitable because someone might object why aren't we putting in a order of importance. And then a problem might arise whether we should put in order of greater importance or lesser importance. And which claim might be more important over other. And even whether importance of governance claims exists at all. Right? Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It might be best just to leave them out of the infobox after all. I would suggest that a link to UNMIK be inserted in the lead as follows "Serbia does not recognise the unilateral secession of Kosovo[4] and considers it a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija), according to the 2006 Constitution of Serbia." Thoughts? --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
What you suggest is already in the lede of the article. I am not sure where else do you suggest this to be put. Anyway, i agree with you that the current state of the infobox might be the optimal - we probably should await a response from Alinor. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't in the lead. The current lead says "United Nations-governed entity", I am proposing that it be changed to "United Nations-governed entity". Adding a link to UNMIK. --Khajidha (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. Anyway, i agree - it is more accurate. --biblbroks (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Republic, PISG, and UNMIK

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

Was it this PISG Assembly that adopted this Constitution of Kosovo of 9 April 2008? If regulation 2001/9 was still in effect, wouldn't the SRSG have promulgated this act? Does anyone have verification the 2008 Constitution was promulgated by the SRSG? Int21h (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

From the Republic of Kosovo article: "In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo." Also, no one (SRSG or anyone else) would need to promulgate it. The passage of a Declaration of Independence immediately nullifies all of those requirements of outside people or bodies controlling the government of the people declaring independence. --Khajidha (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure whether the declaration nullifies anything, but it seems that after the declaration the PISG institutions (including the assembly) don't function anymore (but whether they continue to exist legally is a separate issue). Instead we have RoK institutions functioning. Obviously RoK institutions don't follow UNMIK regulations and don't need SRSG promulgations. The question is whether there was some process/document about PISG-to-RoK transfer or it was done ad-hoc by the people (such as Assembly members) simply not anymore utilizing PISG "credentials" and utilizing RoK credentials instead. Alinor (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
See also here. Alinor (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
From the point of view of those making the declaration it did nullify those requirements. Whether others accept that is another matter. --Khajidha (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course, but the question is how the PISG-to-RoK transfer was arranged and whether PISG remain existing "on paper" according to UNMIK or there is some 2008 UNMIK regulation that disbands PISG or transfers PISG to RoK. Alinor (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the PISG can officially transfer things to RoK given that not all UN members recognize the RoK. It has probably been done ad-hoc as you suggested earlier. --Khajidha (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence != Constitution of Kosovo. This is important, as the Declaration was passed by "individual members" per the ICJ opinion, but the Constitution was passed by "Kosovo's parliament" per the BBC article. As was mentioned in the ICJ opinion, the Declaration had no legal force, so a group of individual members acting outside Ksovo's parliament couldn't legally disband the PISG parliament and replace it with another one that adopted a Constitution replacing it with the RoK parliament. (Phew!) According to UNMIK regulations, UNMIK only recognizes the PISG acts of parliament as law once they have been promulgated by UNMIK, since unless otherwise regulated, UNMIK has "all legislative and executive authority with respect to Kosovo", which is still in force AFAIK. So the question is has the UNMIK been recognizing the RoK assembly acts? Int21h (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The PISG was operating after passage of the Constitution on 9 April, since the PISG parliament passed a law (2008/03-L017) on 29 April which was promulgated by UNMIK Regulation (UNMIK Regulation 2008/34 of 14 June 2008), which shows that the PISG parliament was still operating as of 29 April. Int21h (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo is adopted by "Kosovo parliament", but does this mean "PISG Assembly" or like the Declaration of Independence it's again "individuals in personal capacity and not representing the PISG Assembly"? That's the question.
The second link you gave above is about 14 June 2008 UNMIK promulgation of a law adopted in May 2008. The RoK Constitution entered into force on 15 June 2008. Are there any UNMIK promulgations/PISG acts after that date? So, it seems the PISG Assembly continued to function at least until the entry into force of the RoK Constitution. But the question remains - who has adopted the RoK Constitution ("individuals" as in the case of the Declaration of Independence - or PISG Assembly or RoK Assembly if such was established before 9 April 2008)? Do we have a link to some official version of the constitution and the accompanying ratification acts or other document for "entry into force" and similar (such as promulgation, president signature or something else)? Alinor (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is an important question. Because it might help differentiate importance on governance claims and government of Kosovo in general. All the best, --biblbroks (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No UNMIK regulations (including promulgations) after 14 June 2008 and no ratification acts of the April 2008 Constitution that I can find. Most of the Republic institutions appear to have the same name as the PISG institutions, so discerning is difficult. Int21h (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Confusing introduction

"The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory, with North Kosovo being the largest Kosovo Serb enclave."

I think that this sentence is a bit confusing. While it is clear from the sentence that Republic of Kosovo has de facto control over most of the territory, it is unclear who has de facto control over North Kosovo. Description that it is "largest Kosovo Serb enclave" does not describe who controls it. Anyway, as far as I know, all four involved parties, Kosovar government, Serbian government, International missions and local Serbs are sharing some forms of control over North Kosovo. Someone who knows better who controls what there should rewrite intro section to include that info. PANONIAN 20:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And what do you think abut this:
"The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory, with exception of North Kosovo that functions largely autonomously from the remainder of Kosovo"
Used from North Kosovo article, + modifications, as agreed and sourced there... Dont know, its a bit harsh like this.--WhiteWriter speaks 20:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It should be "...which functions..." not "...that functions...", but otherwise that seems OK. Bazonka (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why it can be considered confusing. "most of the territory" means the majority of Kosovo but not all of Kosovo. Proper simple to understand. I think you're underestimating the intelligence of the reader. IJA (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
No, IJA, that part of the sentence is quite ok, no problems there! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 14:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the confusing part is the one dealing with part of Kosovo that does not belong into "most of the territory". No matter of the intelligence of the readers, they cannot simply guess who controls the rest of the territory. Anyway I would suggest this version of the sentence: "The partially recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory, with exception of North Kosovo that is controlled by local Serbs and that functions largely autonomously from the remainder of Kosovo" PANONIAN 05:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The forking of the Kosovo article in English language Wikipedia — and what (and who) is behind it

Well, it seems like the Kosovo article has been split, according to the desire of some very prolific editors… but when we navigate trough the other editions of Wikipedia, including the ones with large number of articles and reasonable and credibility (like the German, the French, and the Spanish editions), we see the following pages in the gallery below (all screenshots are from the same june 7, 2011):


As we can see, most editions of Wikipedia treat Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo as the same thing. But when we compare the current English language Wikipedia article page about Kosovo…

…we see it very, very similar to the Russian and Serbian edition versions of the Kosovo article, which pushes everything to describe Kosovo as a non-defined, almost abstract territory, erasing most of the citations to the Kosovo Republic. Serbia and Russia are the most staunch enemies of the independent Kosovo, so I think this is not a coincidence.

One could even say that this could be a good way to describe Kosovo, which is currently a partially-recognized country. But when we see in the English language edition of Wikipedia articles about other two partially-recognized countries and one completely non-recognized country, all of them occupied by Russian troops and supported directly and indirectly by Serbia’s friend Russia:

We see that these countries, though less recognized internationally than Kosovo, receive a better treatment in this Wikipedia, being treated as more legitimate than Kosovo itself, with the right to their governments’ flags and coat of armas at the top of their pages. And the articles haven’t been forked into thing ilke "Abkhazia (region)" or "Transnistria (region)".

Yes, what I want to say is that based on these evidences the article about Kosovo in the English edition of Wikipedia has been hijacked by a minority of Serb and Russian editors that want to use the most -accessed edition of Wikipedia as a way to make pro-Serb-nationalist and pro-Russian-nationalist propaganda. And this is not NPOV. And this is not right.--BalkanWalker (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am forced to agree with this assessment. Template:Politics_of_Kosovo and Template:History_of_Kosovo are the only templates in their categories without a coat of arms. This is not a neutral treatment of Kosovo. (P.D. I don't think that it was caused only by Russian and Serbian editors, there are editors with other nationalities who insist in giving worse to Kosovo than to other countries with less recognition) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, i must disagree. Tens of editors participated in this discussion, and this separation was agreed as most logical and most neutral way. This wikipedia wave the greatest number of active editors then any other wiki you mentioned, and therefor, it is logical to expect most neutral solution. As someone who is extremely familiar with wiki way of things, i can tell you that on most local wiki's admins can decide almost all, even if those are not related to wiki guidelines, or anything else. On German wiki, that you call "with reasonable and credibility" Serbian UNESCO world heritage is presented as Kosovo's heritage, even if Kosovo is not even UNESCO member, and despite official UNESCO page. Here, we have that those sites are designated to Serbia, and that are located in Kosovo. That is NPOV! Also, if some country recognize Republic of Kosovo, then editors in that country's wiki tag it as republic, as part of their national attitude. That is quite clear, but that doesn't meant that those are right. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria are not quite comparable to Kosovo, and per your post i can see that you didnt even read the archive where we all of us agreed to separate pages. Vandalism SEIZED TO EXIST now, as we have clear focus to all those subjects. That is the most important thing now. Also, important problem, "Who gets the Kosovo article" is also fixed. No one. We agreed that Kosovo is not equal to Republic of Kosovo. At the end, mentioning users nationality as argument in your discussion is the worst way of gaining any kind of agreement on wikipedia. Majority of users agree that this is NPOV, and that this is right. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am forced to agree with the original poster based on the overwhelming evidence provided. In addition I can remember personally at least 10 attempts to 'split' the article which were all met with overwhelming disagreement of neutral editors, the result was that none of these about 10 attempt succeeded in splitting the article there was always a consensus of neutral editors against the split. It seems that the X+1th try succeeded, because it seems the article is split now. It seems that this betrays a fundamental flaw in the wikipedia way because without proper admin supervision this was allowed to go on (try try try try until succeess). And neutral editors were tired out by this it seems (their definition of being neutral means they can't watch the page for years on end to vote against the 25th proposition to split...)So all in all I am forced to agree with BalkanWalker in this, however unlikely his claim is, the evidence seems to support it. Hobartimus (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I was mildly opposed to the splitting of this article into Kosovo and RoK articles, but in hindsight it seems to have worked quite well. I don't think there is any reason to go back to the way that it was previously. I have no connection to the Balkans, and so I believe that my opinions on Kosovo are not biased.
How foreign-language Wikipedias format their articles is not a matter for us here at en.wikipedia - the different wiki versions are for practical purposes independent of one another. What should concern us is simply the quality and neutrality of English Wikipedia.
I agree that there is inconsistency between the way that Kosovo and Abkhazia/S.Ossetia are portrayed. If necessary, this should be raised at Talk:Abkhazia and Talk:South Ossetia, giving the Kosovo article as an exemplar. This talk page is not the place to discuss other articles. Bazonka (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
And you may see that editors on those pages (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) already pointed to great Kosovo article solution for their articles. Only thing that matters is that after this split we don't even need probation on this article, as article is now neutral and encyclopedic. Hobartimus, other wikipedias are not the role-model for en wiki, it is other way around. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) The main issue was/is that the same territory is simultaneously and depending on who´s POV an independent republic or a Serbian province. As a way to not favour one over the other that this split was made. I did not participated but I find the split as a exemplar way to deal with such difficult disputes. FkpCascais (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
First, this Kosovo article was forked without verdict of a discussion in this talk page — the pro-Serb editors made it and then imposed it as a "fait accompli". And second, why the English Wikipedia has to be aligned with the Russian and Serbian versions and not the Arabic, German, French, Italian, Greek or Spanish ones? Do you really believe that all other pages in other major versions of Wikipedia are POV, and only the current Serbian, Russian and English versions are the NPOV, correct ones?--189.33.174.222 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Please disregard the other versions of Wikipedia - they are not relevant. Each version of Wikipedia is a standalone entity, independent of other Wikipedia versions. Here at English Wikipedia we should only be concerned with the quality and neutrality of English Wikipedia articles. If you have a problem with German or Serbian Wikipedias, then discuss your concerns there, not here. Bazonka (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes IP, it seems it is true that highly POV changes were imposed without consensus or discussion. Of course even if the IP 189.33 is wrong and someone could link a discussion in which there was consensus for the split someone else could easily link at least 10 in which consensus was against the split. This was discussed and rejected as early as 2008, multiple times... It seems there really was some foul play here, but nobody is willing to do anything about it, and restore the original consensus version or delete the POV fork... Hobartimus (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hobartimus, that is very, very much not true... You may see here that majority of users do agreed on topic change of this article, and that several editors participated in split. If anything in wikipedia was ever done by wiki rules and with consensus, that was this split. Everything before that was just HELL, as you may see here. I dont understand your sentence. POV changes without discussion? Just see those two links, and you may see discussion to its highest extent. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Just to underline a point I randomly chose a version of the article from 2008, it looked like this. The main difference was that in 2008 a lot of neutral editors were watching the article at the same time and it was constantly updated as time went by. As Kosovo is not in the news any more there are not a lot of neutral, editors coming into the discussion, and thus the discussion and the article lacks this sort of oversight that it once had. Plus these restrictions that were put on the article like probation, also lessen the number of outside voices coming in. As the original poster states, the article looks exactly like the article in the Serbian wikipedia, whereas before it looked like the link from 2008[1] and as the rest of the world wikipedias look today. I will review your links WhiteWriter as I have not seen them before. Hobartimus (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hobartimus, you participated in that same discussion you "have not seen before"! On the side opposing the split. You know it quite well, please speak the truth. And that version you "randomly chose" was reverted by admin as highly pro-Albanian vandalism, and was "on the air" for very short period of time. The number of (neutral) people watching this page is by far bigger then in 2008. The "look" of other wikipedias is not important nor relevant to us. Also, as you may see inside those other articles, majority of them present kosovo as disputed region, and not as country, as you asked here. And as user Future perfect of Sunrise told us, infoboxes must burn in hell. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(comment on the link issue)Note that you also posted the link with an edit conflict, and thus I said "I will review your links WhiteWriter as I have not seen them before." LINKS. Not discussions. Before I clicked on a link I of course couldn't see where the links lead. So I think you should be more careful next time and not falsify the words of others (you changed my words from link--->discussion) saying I have participated in the discussion which is true, but since I didn't see the link YET, AT THAT TIME, I had no idea what you have linked. Thus I am "speaking the truth" all along, however you should be more careful next time not to misunderstand the sentences.Hobartimus (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but i thought that when you say links, you do think about links content. Also, who would expect that you reply to my post, while you didnt even read the links i posted... :) Anyway, sorry, no disrespect, just misunderstanding. One big smile for you, as a apology! :))) --WhiteWriter speaks 19:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict!!)WhiteWriter, I have partly reviewed that link and many more could be cited where consensus was completely against the split, but let's speak about this instance, Do I see that correctly that the RFC there, had about 8 options. What was actually done as the already mentioned "fait accompli" and was 'Option 7' which was only supported by a 4 users, including yourself? [option7: WhiteWriter, Alinor, BokicaK, Biblbroks], And now the whole justification for the current situation is the "vote" of these 4 users? This was option 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" , everyone saying Option5 was clearly against the current situation as option 5 states "Kosovo to become a redirect to Kosovo (region)",So according to this Kosovo should be a redirect. So in fact all claims of consensus are based on the "vote2 of 4 people, is that correct? Also please don't edit your posts so many times it leads to constant edit conflicts on my part And I can't see what I'm replying to... Hobartimus (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Page was moved in the first place to Kosovo (region), but it was decided by admins that we dont need two pages, and content from that page was moved to Kosovo page. As you may see. I can assure you that i carefully saw all possibility's and ways for this article, and that i personally insisted, with User:Alinor, that all participants follow wikipedia guidelines extremely carefully, so no problems can happened even again regarding this process. And, the most important thing, idea is that when something happen with real life Kosovo situation, we will again ask question regarding this subject, but for now, this situation is the most neutral way of dealing with this subject. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to disagree. Treating them as separate concepts is inherently not-NPOV, because they overlap so inextricably: things like the geography, the economy, demographics, issues of sovereignty etc. can equally be assigned to the State or to the abstract geographical entity. Why is one favoured over the other at the moment? They pertain equally to both. However if we include it in both, we end up with something like the Simplified/Traditional-Chinese disaster which existed for a period on the Chinese Wikipedia: asynchronous information split into two articles. The two concepts cannot be properly split because they are too similiar. What you're proposing (keeping the split) is not NPOV, it is APOV: All Points of View. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Other than a few words in the lede, this article covers the things that are pertinent to all flavours of Kosovo, such as geography, demographics, and history. The Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija articles concentrate on those political institutions, and not on the aspects covered here. There's no overlap. It is neutral. Bazonka (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? Um, where to start... WP:GOODFAITH seems relevant. Also, because I know this may be a shock, but "Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo as the same thing" is part of an ongoing political debate. A similar statement would be "Kosovo is a UN-occupied province of Serbia". See what I did there? The current organization of the articles with respect to Kosovo seems to be an acceptable compromise given the current ... issues ... surrounding the political situation, with countries being declared and field armies on the move and what not. (Almost seems like déjà vu no?) Int21h (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd that this split solution is being touted as "pro-Serb". I have always felt the split was more natural and am pro-Kosovar. That being said, the split is the most neutral way of presenting the information. Data pertaining to Kosovo in general in this article, data pertaining solely to the Autonomous Province in that article and data pertaining solely to the Republic of Kosovo in that article. Before you could not make a simple statement about Kosovo without having to immediately qualify or contradict it. We couldn't even get a simple infobox for a unified Kosovo article. --Khajidha (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, with no prejudice against a new RM on moving this article to Kosovo (region) (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Kosovo → Kosovo (Geography) – Kosovo does not refers only to geography part, but also to the republic of Kosovo. I suggest to make of Kosovo an disambig page, and than latter see if it is needed to move republic of kosovo to kosovo. But it's current version is not acceptable. By taking into the article only the opinion of extreme right Serbians into considoration, it denies Wikipedia neutrality Vinie007 15:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This renaming does not solve the question — even if it was made, the article would be closer to the Russian and Serbian versions of the Kosovo article than the other versions in other Wikipedias.--189.33.174.222 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree None of the terms extreme, right-wing or Serbian apply to me, and I think that the current article name is absolutely fine and neutral. The hatnote covers its scope and adequately links to other articles. In any case, a Geography subtitle wouldn't be entirely appropriate as the article also includes information on history, demographics and society. Whether the article is close to Russian or Serbian versions is a total irrelevance because English Wikipedia is not directly linked to other Wikipedias - they are all independent of one another. Bazonka (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree Per Bazonka, and most Wikipedia guidelines and Kosovo page agreements. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree Per Bazonka and WhiteWriter. Both WP:NDESC and WP:TITLECHANGES explicitly discourage article moves/ mergers like the one proposed. FeelSunny (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree as per Bazonka and WhiteWriter, and by the fact that beside Kosovo refering to the Republic of Kosovo, it also refers to the Serbian province of Kosovo, which is still recognised as such by more than 150 countries at the UN (all-76 to be more precise). FkpCascais (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Or to Kosovo (geography)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Kosovo (geography) now redirects to Geography of Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Agree/ Neutral Part of me agrees with the suggestion because it will help the reader find the correct Kosovo page they're looking for. Also the proposed title will inform the reader that the article is about the region of Kosovo and that it isn't a political related article. However this article goes beyond the geography of Kosovo and there is already a disambig page for Kosovo articles. So I'm not really sure what I think on the proposal, I'm slightly leaning towards supporting it; however I'm not a strong supporter of such a proposal. I think "Kosovo (region)" would be a better title if we were to rename the article. However there is the old saying "if it aint broke, don't fix it". Also the terms extreme, right-wing or Serbian don't apply to me either, you can ask WhiteWriter; me and WhiteWriter have different political views however we've worked hard to make this a neutral article and I don't see how titling this article "Kosovo" (which it is about) can be considered what you suggest. This article is politics free apart from a brief summary in the introduction. It is a very neutral article. IJA (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I beleave the main question then is what will this page be turned in to? A disambiguation page to all 3 Kosovo options: Rep.of K.,Serb.Prov., Kosovo (geo) including brief explanations for each? FkpCascais (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think it's fine how it is now. Similar to the China article, it doesn't take sides. Although you have to wonder what the primary topic for Kosovo is... I think most readers will expect to find the republic of Kosovo, but that might be just my perspective...? Rennell435 (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If someone comes here looking for info on the RoK, then the link in the hatnote will take them where they want to go. It should be fairly easy to find. Bazonka (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It is easy, but that wasn't my point. I was wondering about what the primary topic for the name "Kosovo" would be. Rennell435 (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
About region of Kosovo, as agreed. --WhiteWriter speaks 10:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per RoC / PRoC articles. --Asteriontalk 15:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think the current state is optimal, but the solution is to merge more, not to split things yet further apart. Also, for the record, I do not think that the RoC/PRoC case is a useful or even policy-compliant precedent to emulate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. If nothing else, Geography is the wrong tag (because geography includes political geography); Kosovo (region) would be better. —Tamfang (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am opposed to this specific proposal because it is making Kosovo = Republic of Kosovo. My personal preference would be to make "Kosovo" a disambiguation page and make this page "Kosovo (region)". --Khajidha (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly as I support. The simple page Kosovo becomes a disambiguation page, and the content found now in the article moves to a new article named Kosovo (region). FkpCascais (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I could accept that. Bazonka (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
But we should create new move request for that, after this pointless one. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. But first we should give this one the full 7 days to run (2 more days). Almost certainly pointless, but we should adhere to the correct protocol (I've been burnt before by ending things early). Bazonka (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality and Merge templates

Someone has added POV and Merge templates to the top of this article. I'm a disinterested editor, and I think that these are utterly unnecessary - I really can't see why they're there. Can someone please explain succinctly why the article is POV - give me an example of one biased sentence please. As for the merge, this is a misguided initiative that will lead to nothing but edit-warring and woe. I propose removing these templates as soon as possible. Bazonka (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The template is well justified as you can see from the above sections on this talk page and the archives. For example there is a great amount of evidence that was provided by user:BalkanWalker above pointing to severe problems with this page as it stands now. Hobartimus (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is no great amount of evidence, he just posted other wiki's of the same page, that anyway should not be of any special interest to us. I Agree to remove those somehow misplaced templates. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
@Hobartimus, there is a lot of bluff and bluster on this talk page about problems with neutrality, but no firm evidence. Again I will ask - please can someone give me an example of one biased sentence in the article? Bazonka (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No response in nearly a week, so I take this to be evidence that there is no POV in the article. If someone hadn't already done it, I would now remove the templates. Bazonka (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edits to lede

Current: Kosovo is a disputed territory following the collapse of Yugoslavia.
Proposal: Kosovo is a region in southeastern Europe. It became a disputed territory following the collapse of Yugoslavia.
Comment: placing it in Europe would be nice

Current: Serbia does not recognise the unilateral secession of Kosovo and considers it a UN-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija), according to the 2006 Constitution of Serbia.
Proposal: Serbia does not recognise the unilateral secession of Kosovo, and considers Kosovo to be a UN-governed entity within Serbia's sovereign territory. The territory is the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija), according to the 2006 Constitution of Serbia.
Comment: The original sentence is tough on the reader. The first two instances of "it" and "its" are unnecessarily confusing. Jd2718 (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Both proposed changes appear to improve readability. Per WP:LEAD the introduction section should summarize the body. So I would expect to see a sentence or two on each section in the body. 3-4 paragraphs usually do the trick. How about:
  • Para 1 about location/geography/climate,
  • Para 2 about history/culture/sport/demography
  • Para 3 about recent history and current status
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with the first proposal, but I think the second is unnecessarily clumsy. I dont think the "it" and "its" are at all confusing. Bazonka (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Replace the content of this article with disambiguation page, and move this to Kosovo (region) article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move - Having this article located at Kosovo (region) and the disambiguation page located at Kosovo is not self-evidently more neutral than having the pages at their current locations. The case for the move has not been made sufficiently strong to controvert the precedent of Ireland or the internal link confusion that would result from the move. Neelix (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


– Better disambiguation of a subject that has no primary topic. Bazonka (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose moving the current content of Kosovo (disambiguation) to this Kosovo article. This disambiguation page links to Republic of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija and a few other things - in no way does it say which is the "correct" Kosovo. The content of Kosovo should be moved to Kosovo (region) (which is currently a redirect to this article). Kosovo (region) will be listed in the disambiguation page. There is no primary Kosovo topic, so Kosovo will just be a disambiguation page.
I propose no change of content because what we have at the moment is, in my view, NPOV. There are three main Kosovo articles: an apolitical one concentrating on the geography, demographics, society and history, and one for each of the opposing political entities. This won't change.
Note that this proposal differs from the recently-closed (and strongly opposed) request to move to Kosovo (geography), which seemed to be a misplaced drive make Republic of Kosovo the primary Kosovo article. Also, the region subtitle is more appropriate than geography because the content covers more than the geography of the region (but not, other than a few words in the introduction, the politics). Bazonka (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Still oppose. And I don't see how this differs from the last proposal; that one, too, was to move the dab page to the main title. Ceterum censeo articulos esse mergendos. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The previous proposal had the ultimate aim of moving Republic of Kosovo to Kosovo. And this one would have been given an inappropriate subtitle - geography. Bazonka (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as per my comment in previous discussion. --Khajidha (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, I dare to say Strong support, as per Khajidha´s and my comments from previous discussion. The solution presented is definitely the most objective and neutral way to deal with this subject. This page would be turned into disambiguation page where all direct links will be presented (Republic of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija and Kosovo (region)) with possibly a short explanation to each, this way presenting the subject fairly without favouring any of the sides in dispute here. The current content of this article should logically be moved to the (region) article where naturally belongs. FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Once "Kosovo" is a DAB, there be will objective stats as to what readers are actually looking for. Somehow, I don't think it is an article of this type. Kauffner (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Interesting thought. But keep in mind that article traffic gets largely assigned through internal wikilinks. Right now, there are several thousands of wikilinks to Kosovo. If that location is turned into a dab page, every single one of these links will have to be manually checked and changed to point to one of the target articles. Who is going to go through all of them and make those decisions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't see that as a reason to object to the move. I'll help. Most of them will be made more gradually, in the field, on a case-by-case basis. The wiki evolves... -GTBacchus(talk) 18:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support As this actually was the agreement we had during the split proposal few months ago. This will be by far the most neutral way of dealing with this subject, for both sides. --WhiteWriter speaks 10:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per discussion of Zjarri, Fut.Perf. and me below. Dab problem will be vast, and we don't need that. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we reach a consensus that will possibly exist in the form of an official policy regarding wikilinks to Kosovo. I'm not opposed to Bazonka's proposal per se, but the redirects will increase the disputes as there is no policy about the wikilinks.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
But wikilinks will remain as it is. Kosovo for for all the broadest general terms, Republic of Kosovo for related data and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija for related data as well. Nothing will be different. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Kosovo will be a dab page, so all the articles that lead to Kosovo will have to be redirected to one of the pages, so unless there's a policy or at least broad enough consensus regarding the wikilinks there'll be many disputes.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Were the existing wikilinks ever systematically screened? I guess most of them were created before the time the article was split, so among those that currently point towards Kosovo, there will be an unknown number that really ought to be pointing to Republic of Kosovo. Right now, as they are pointing at least to one, more-or-less relevant, article, that isn't such a big problem, but it will become a problem if they all suddenly point to the dab page, which no link ever should, or if somebody were to change them all mechanically to the more specific-sounding Kosovo (region). These will all have to be screened and decided individually. Who's going to do that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you two are right, i forgot that. Links should not stay as dab, and linking to Kosovo (region) may be inappropriate. I change my vote to oppose per that. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles don't have to necessarily be decided individually as most of them belong to specific groups of articles(ancient/medieval/ottoman/modern history, politics, religion). I'll volunteer, but there should many users because otherwise it'll probably become another permament dispute.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why having links go to the dab page is such a bad thing. Especially since there is a note reminding people that they can change it themselves. In any case, this is something that can be screened and fixed as an ongoing thing rather than being required before action can begin.--Khajidha (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No, we have very clear guidelines for this. Normal wikilinks from within article text should always go to the actual target article – after all, the person who puts the wikilink in the source article is supposed to know which target article is most relevant to the context and should not leave that to the reader to work out; the reader should be directed to the right target immediately. Any wikilink that ends up pointing to a dab page would be a technical error that would need to be fixed immediately. The proposed move cannot possibly be carried out unless somebody is willing to do this work, in one go. We are talking about thousands of links here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I really don't think that having links to a disambiguation page is a good reason to oppose this change - it seems like just an excuse to hide from the problem. Links going to a dab page in the short term is not that bad, as long as they get sorted out eventually. I will be quite happy to work through the links - I sometimes clear up dab links to other articles. In any case, I don't think it'll be too bad because a lot of the articles that link to Kosovo will be transclusions through templates (mostly those listing countries) - one or two changes will make a big difference to the number that link here. And it should flush out a lot of links that are wrong at the moment as well. Bazonka (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
But the common name "Kosovo" refers to several different things, depending on who you talk to. It can't easily be used as an article title without it either referring to something wishy-washy, or something inappropriate. This may be a case for WP:IAR, although I'm not sure that the rule applies properly here in any case. Bazonka (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I still object to the claim that the name refers to different "things". It doesn't. It's still a single "thing": namely, the piece of land that lies somewhere between Peć, Kosovska Mitrovica and Prizren. The differences in question are differences of opinion (about what the polical status of that land should be); they are not differences between references to different entities. A disambiguation page that basically consists of the statement "X can refer to: (1) X as seen according to the opinion of A, (2) X as seen according to the opinion of B, (3) X as seen according to the opinion of C" makes no sense. It's still "X can refer to X, X, or X". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well OK, they're not different things, but they're different "flavours" of the same thing. And each of those "flavours" is commonly known as Kosovo, and has its own Wikipedia article. So of course they need a disambiguation page... and they've already got one: Kosovo (disambiguation). The question here is whether any of the "flavours" is prominent enough to be located at Kosovo, or whether none of them are, in which case the dab page should move here. Bazonka (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
They are at least as different as Vichy France, Occupied France and Free France or United States and the Confederate States of America. Why can competing polities on the same land in the past have separate articles but not competing polities on the same land right now? --Khajidha (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - for the time being. The whole subject is too complex and for this information to be reduced to region will ignore the Serbian angle on the matters. There is very little true or even relevant information on Kosovo the region because the name of Kosovo has: chopped/changed its borders, stood for different things at different times, been the subject of political and not geographical importance throughout the last millennium; and worst of all - not always existed by name! Now if this article be demoted to region, this article (APKM) will have to be revised and presented not as a one-time province in FR Yugoslavia but as a continued entity albeit "disupted". You could say it is the opposite to Republic of Kosovo in that those who dispute the republic recognise APKM within Serbia and with the UN at the helm; those in turn who dispute the APKM are those who recognise the republic. We go full circle. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The APKIM article already presents that polity as a continued entity. Except for the first sentence where "comprised" was used instead of "comprises", an error I have corrected. That article is (supposed to be) exactly what you suggest in your next to last sentence. It does need some expansion and a little copy editing but that has nothing to do with this article. --Khajidha (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's like Ireland. There's really only one. —Srnec (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It will create more problems than it solves, as highlighted in the above discussion. -- Marek.69 talk 18:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know if I am stumbling into to some sort of hornet's nest here, but it's pretty clear to me that the subject of this article isn't the primary topic of the term "Kosovo", as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It remains unclear at the moment what any primary topic for the word "Kosovo" is. The current article we have is about the region itself, so that particular disambiguation change is fairly standard. A disambiguation would allow readers to pick which topic they want to read about, and allow wikipedia editors to better direct the article. As for the need to change wikilinks, I'm sure that need existed when the link Kosovo lead to the article on the declared country, and that wasn't addressed at all. I'm quite sure that a number of links lead now to Kosovo when they should lead to Republic of Kosovo. Such as issue should at any rate be short term and easily fixed by tools such as dabsolver by individual article editors. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Compare Macedonia, which is a disambiguation page to Republic of Macedonia, Macedonia (Greece), Macedonia (region), etc. Seems to work OK. Bazonka (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a fundamentally different case. The "Macedonia"s are geographically distinct entities. Kosovo is geographically a single entity. All these articles are about the exact same spot on the map, the same soil, the same cities, the same people, the same history. There is only one primary meaning of the term Kosovo. It should never have been split up; it should be one single (main, summary) article, with sub-articles clearly subordinated to it where appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
No, they're not geographically distinct - Macedonia (region) encompasses both Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece) (plus a few other bits). Bazonka (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe that current article is not "highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box" like described by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I support comparation with Macedonia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
But it might be the Republic of Kosovo, the article about the partially reconized state. Also, some hold that it's the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, which is an article about Serbian claim for the same land. And when you then include this article about the geographical region, I think the safest choice here is to say that none of them is the primary topic then.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The primary topic for Kosovo is the partially recognized republic. Frankly, Kosovo should point there. I don't believe a consensus in this case, given the contested nature of the Kosovo recognition. --Labattblueboy (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
That's not the primary topic at present, and you will find it very hard (probably impossible) to get that past the pro-Serb editors. Bazonka (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. There are too many Kosovos past and present; the importance has been inflated and has dwindled, the borders have chopped and changed, the entity has come and gone, and the history is diverse. Regarding Labattblueboy's point, the "partially recognised republic" has its own article and that too was created against some of the opinions. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aubrey Herbert, alias Audrey Hebert

Two years ago, an editor inserted a hagiographic description of ethnic Albanian troops who fought the Ottomans in World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&oldid=292540724). This editor claimed to be quoting Malcolm 1998 in stating that a British Member of Parliament had said that the Albanians alone, and not other forces on their side, defeated the Ottomans. While in principle this is possible, on its face it's big POV. To add insult to injury, the dumbass editor recklessly misspelled the British MP's name, Aubrey Herbert, as "Audrey Hebert". To add injury to injury, right in the opening sentence of Herbert's Wikipedia entry it says he was twice offered the throne of Albania. Therefore, I deleted the bad passage. Hurmata (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. And of course, the valiance of any one ethnic group in the region has no bearing on the merits of the sovereignty claims. That quote about the valiance of the Albanian speakers was sheer propaganda. Hurmata (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Please show some common courtesy and basic politeness to other users and not call another editor a "dumbass", it is Wikipedia policy to maintain a calm, rational debate, personal attacks are banned on Wikipedia and if regularly done, result in the user making those attacks being banned from Wikipedia. If there is a problem, rationally address it. I will report you for personal attacks if you persist in such attacks.--R-41 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
R-41 duplicated this same complaint on my user talk page. See my reply there. Hurmata (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes needed to this article

Upon looking at this article, I have noticed a number of problems with some references used. There are some references that are very agenda-driven, such as http://www.rastko.rs/kosovo/crucified/default.htm, a webpage dedicated solely to the Serbs of Kosovo and condemning NATO actions; also the website http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Rifati_Kosovo.htm, "Dissident Voice" is a politically-driven website. Also this article contains too many references from sensational newspaper or newschannel stories, that are generally vague, unreliable in content, and are reacting to specific information at the moment. If the section on American history in the United States section were to be derived from newspaper clippings, the section would be claiming that the USS Maine was blown up during the Spanish–American War by Spanish agents thus justifying American war actions, which is now known to be false and that the newspaper claims of that were false and typically sensationalized. The solution for this article: Remove third party websites as sources, especially for claims of atrocities in the Kosovo War, use website sources of international institutions such as United Nations pages; remove newspaper or newschannel sources that are displaying sensational stories and replace these with the most up-to-date sources on the issue from scholarly works by authors who generally show a neutral attitude, and as mentioned before from website sources from international sources such as United Nations pages. I stressed in bold "most up-to-date", because especially involving issues regarding modern conflict in Kosovo, the information regarding these is changing rapidly with new discoveries and ongoing International Criminal Court tribunals. I also insist that for future editing and disputes that may occur on this article, the following precedent should hold: sensationalized news stories and non-scholarly third party websites are not acceptable for a neutral Wikipedia article involving controversial topics such as wars.--R-41 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Any, and all, statements that reference rastko.rs or dissidentvoice.org can probably be challenged for POV, and removed on the spot if the sources to not qualify as reliable sources (and, at first glance, they likely are not reliable.) If sources are indeed POV, the material facts may still be used, quite contrary to your statement about "if American history in the United States section were to be derived from newspaper clippings", which in actuality is quite true, it is derived from such sources in the end. That is to say, even much of the contemporary sources are drawn from them. But I digress, sensational pieces of information, that do not contribute factually to the article, may be challenged and removed on the spot.

Go ahead and do it, but be sure to do it incrementally, as many will revert your entire changeset to revert your questionable edits while also reverting your good edits, and I do feel like reverting them in turn for reverting good edits. Happy editing. Int21h (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rastko.rs of Project Rastko

Strongly oppose. Rastko.rs is non-profit net of electronic libraries. Rastko.rs can not be challenged for POV because rastko is not author. The above mentioned link to rastko refers to the book "Crucified Kosovo : destroyed and desecrated Serbian Orthodox churches in Kosovo and Metohia (June - August 1999)" which is written by Sava Janjić and published by Belgrade Raška and Prizren Orthodox Diocese of Serbian Orthodox Church (OCLC 163465209). Rastko is website which contain online version of that book. Removal of the references because some work can be seen online on rastko.rs website is not supported by wikipedia policy and can not be rationally explained. One can not dispute reliability of some work because it can be seen online at certain website he does not like. There are lot of websites which contain online versions of some books. But reliability of those books can not be disputed because of that.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I was not aware of this being from a book, thank you for informing me. But please do not assume that it is a "website that he [as in me] does not like", please assume good faith. I retract the proposal to remove Rastko, but what of the newspaper and newschannel clippings throughout the article, should they be replaced with similar material from scholarly sources?--R-41 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear about this. I was talking generally, without referring to you. Regarding "newspaper and newschannel clippings throughout the article" I am not sure what to think about your question, because there are many recent events which were not yet been subject of scholarly sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If the source only lists random websites, then it should be no surprise when the source gets removed. I do not think this contravenes any policy, especially given this article's special status. The sources must be verifiable in addition to what I have said above. Do the citations list these books as the source? Int21h (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
My comment does not mention removal of sources which "only list random websites". The purpose of my comment was to oppose this statement: "Any, and all, statements that reference rastko.rs ... can probably be challenged for POV, and removed on the spot if the sources to not qualify as reliable sources (and, at first glance, they likely are not reliable.)". Regardless of the situation in this article, Project Rastko and its website rastko.rs is very useful and contain online versions of many works. The works which are available on website rastko.rs are extensively used on wikipedia and it would be terribly wrong to "remove on spot" informations from wikipedia articles just because they are referenced with works which are available on rastko.rs website. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen the citation in question, but IMHO in articles on probation, if the ultimate source of the material appears to be a random website, as Project Rastko would appear to be, then they get extra scrutiny. Even random printed materials should get extra scrutiny. Its status as "extensively used" certainly affords little protection. Is Project Rastko a reliable source? I do not think so off the top of my head. Websites, and non-profits, are simply too easy to create to give them instant reliability status. (I can create both for a couple hundred dollars.) If they are indeed not the original publisher and are simply re-publishing, then actually listing rastko.rs/Project Rastko as the source should be enough to remove it as the citation is clearly wrong. I believe this is what is meant by verifiable. Int21h (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). Project Rastko and its website Rastko.rs are not sources. They are not works, nor authors or publishers. They are similar to Project Gutenberg and its website gutemberg.org. Therefore you can not dispute reliability of the sources just because online version of some of them could be found on Rastko.rs website or any other similar website, like gutemberg.org for example. On the other hand, I fully understand your concern about articles on probations. If some editor added information to the article on probation and only stipulated rastko.rs as referenced source without other details like author or publisher, then such issue should be carefully resolved by adding missing informations to the references. In that case, you are right that such reference would not be fully verifiable. But that does not mean that "actually listing rastko.rs/Project Rastko as the source should be enough to remove it". Anyone can make mistake and write the name of the website instead of the real publisher. But in that case we should AGF and resolve such issues by correcting that mistakes or adding appropriate citation template. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, I just assuming the worst here, but if an editor did not like a statement that gives an incorrect and/or unverifiable source, then it can be challenged and removed. This does indeed happen, for if every single piece of questionable information with incorrect and/or unverifiable sources needed to be taken to the talk page, Wikipedia would surely grind to a halt. The editors have already been warned, information that is POV or without reliable and verifiable sources may be challenged and removed. I take this to mean that both options are available to the editor. And while gutemberg.org and rastko.rs may be similar in that context you gave, they are not similar in reliability, not by a long shot. It cannot be challenged "just" because its on rastko.rs, it can be challenged because its "only" on rastko.rs, unless another source is given. Indeed, anyone can make mistake and write the name of the website instead of the real publisher, and, indeed, anyone can get reverted for doing so. Good faith does not trump bad facts and bad sources and POV material, and a whole slew of other situations, good faith will not protect a bad edit, just its editor. Int21h (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Library is not a source. "if an editor did not like a statement that gives an incorrect and/or unverifiable source, then it can be challenged and removed." ... Again, Rastko is not the source, it is the library that contain sources. Please read the name of the Project Rastko. It says "Internet Library of Serb Culture". Library can not be reliable or not. It is library. There are libraries which are specialized in some field and Project Rastko is library that contain sources about Serbian culture. I don't understand your claim that rastko library is less reliable than gutenberg library. There are no more reliable libraries and less reliable libraries. Only the sources can be reliable or not. Not libraries.
  • Mistake does not make source unverifiable. When we talk about referencing Rastko.rs on wikipedia we can not claim source unverifiable. We can eventually only identify mistake some editor made because he/she confused library for source (like you obviously did). If anybody made such mistake and wrote that internet library (Rastko or gutemberg or any other) is the source instead of the actual source then it is not the case of the unverifiable source, but of the small simple mistake which should be corrected. Nobody can claim that source is unverifiable because of that.
  • Removal of the referenced text because of the small mistake. I believe that it would be terribly wrong to misuse such small mistake that any editor can make (if he/she confuses internet library, i.e. gutemberg or rastko, for source) and delete the text from the article. There are many templates like Failed verification, Verify source... which probably could be used in such cases.
  • Discriminating Rastko.rs Declaring only one internet library on the world (Rastko.rs) as less reliable and removing the text from wikipedia in case that some editor made such mistake only in case of rastko would be much bigger mistake. Taking in consideration that rastko is dealing with works about Serbian culture someone, not me, could be tempted not to AGF in case of your proposal connected only with Rastko.rs.
  • Proposal to Int21h: I propose you to stop your discussion which is aimed to discriminate internet library which contain works which deals with culture of Serbs. Also I propose you to stop disputing the reliability of apparently good sources just because of the mistake any editor could make. Finally, I propose you not to repeat the same argument without convincing people because all of that could be seen by someone as Tendentious editing. If you still have intention to continue please use more appropriate talk page. This talk page is about Kosovo, not about reliability of internet libraries.
I believe I clarified my position which is supported with common sense and wikipedia guidelines I provided link to in my previous reply. I do not plan to continue this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Which is the part that uses a rastko.rs source?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Geography vs. Administrative name

In this article Kosovo is described only as administrative region. But geographically Kosovo is just part of administrative region wrongly called Kosovo. Eg. it is like using name Holland for Netherlands, Holland is just one part of Netherlands.

That is why Serbians call it Kosovo and Metohija, Metohija is larger part of so called Kosovo, geographic Kosovo is smaller. And there are some other geographic regions that belongs to administrative Kosovo: Ibarski Kolašin (north part of region), Gora i Dragaš (southern part, mountain Šara region), Pomoravlje (eastern part of region)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.100.101 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: even on the map attached to this article there is Kosovo and there is Methohija labeled. Eg. Pristina is in Kosovo but Orahovac is in Metohija — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.100.101 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo is the common name given to the region. The Serbian government in its Kosovo is Serbia campaign refers to "Kosovo" as the entire region. Prior to the Serbian government renaming the autonomous province the "Autonomous Kosovo and Metohija" in 1990, the region was called the "Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo".--R-41 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Replace the content of this article with disambiguation page, and move this to Kosovo (region) article (Round 2)

– Better disambiguation of a subject that has no primary topic.

It should really follow the precedent set by Macedonia as well. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 03:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support There is no primary topic - all "flavours" of Kosovo have equal precedence in Wikipedia. The problem of misdirected wikilinks after this move is transitory and should not be a barrier to improving Wikipedia - they will get fixed, there are plenty of Wikipedians who work tirelessly to disambiguate articles. And it's quite possible that a number of current wikilinks are inappropriate at the moment - this move should flush these out. Bazonka (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I support the proposal but not in whole. First what i wish to note is that i reopened the debate because of several reasons, primarily because of several opinions given in some previous discussions. Opinions which could be interpreted as though the commentators giving those opinions found the term Kosovo ambiguous. And i reopened it for one more reason. Let me state my arguments for supporting the proposal first. Before any other thing, i must say that precedents occur and i believe will occur all the time. This is connected with what is new in the debate. It's probably difficult for some to deal with this fact, but Wikipedians shouldn't be bothered with that. So let's not. Anyway, perhaps a precedent should be made with this article also. Why, when speaking of precedents i think it is important to focus first on the precedent of Ireland which was mentioned a couple of times in the discussion. This precedent, i believe, was mentioned in the context of comparing article Ireland with this one. Therefore, i will try and do this more thoroughly:
When one compares the article Ireland to this article one might first notice some differences. First is that in the introductory sentence Ireland is represented as an island - that is with a wikilink. Also there is a picture illustrating this very clearly and one separate image of a map with Ireland's location in Europe with its contours. On the other hand in the introductory sentence of this article Kosovo is represented as a region. A region and that without any wikilink. But besides this fact of island/region difference there is more. In the article Kosovo there is no such thing as a separate image of a map that would clearly define Kosovo's location with all its contours and a distinct relation to other regions in the world. Instead there is a simple rectangle. I agree, this might not be that important but there is more. Actually it is the little things that are in the infobox - little as in small size not the value. Stuff like information on percentage of ethnic groups (Albanians, Serbs, and others), population with a mention of the date of the census (census for a region?), GDP (again, for a region?), currency (that is two of them), calling code with a note of its officialness but others. They might seem unimportant but actually i think they are not. They not only show a difference between the two articles mentioned, but also illustrate a view that this article is somewhat peculiar. It illustrates that the article still does not have a clear topic. While this all might be fixed, the fact that it hasn't been for all this time illustrates one more thing. Either that editors don't have a motive to do this, or that we are all missing something. I think i know what it is but i would like others to present their opinions on this.
Anyway, when already speaking about illustrations, i believe that this analysis and an opinion following it's end also give an illustration. The illustration of the second argument i am trying to convey. Finally, the last arguments i offer for supporting one such action as given in a proposal is that it might help resolve the problem of interwikilinks. The problem mentioned in some of the previous discussions here. Well, while some might argue that it is natural that i would offer an argument such as this also, and i could understand those "argumentors", but i certainly wouldn't condone theirs/his/ hers eventual rash comments on this subject. We surely need no rashness, but instead thoughtful and respectful. I hope arguments presented above might be enough to support the action of this article following the Macedonia precedent. Best regards, --biblbroks (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've speedy-closed this. We had this exact same proposal just a month ago, and another structurally identical one just a month before that. Both were rejected. No reason was given why this debate needs to be re-opened at this point and why consensus should be expected to be different now from what it was last month. How often are you guys going to repeat these nominations? Until you get your way simply by exhausting everybody else? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not correct. June's nomination was similar, but different (moving this article to Kosovo (geography)), seemingly motivated by a POV effort to get the Republic of Kosovo article as the primary topic - it was rightly rejected. Last month's nomination was closed as No Consensus; it was not rejected. Whilst I tend to agree that it was too soon to raise the subject again, a No Consensus decision does not rule out a renewal of the debate. Bazonka (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Does not rule out the debate - ok. But the word renewal surmises something new in it. --biblbroks (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I changed my opinion. Maybe there is something new here. Will reinstate the debate. --biblbroks (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That last one was not rejected, there was no consensus. Sorry, but did anyone actually read the last discussion we had about this? I count 5 Opposes with blatantly wrong reasons. Some of the arguments against the proposal were that it would be too difficult to go through all links to Kosovo and change them to Kosovo (region); they can't argue that because it might be hard it shouldn't be done. One guy thought that Kosovo only referred only to the region, something blatantly wrong. The admin who refused the proposal ONLY gave Ireland's precedent as a reason, yet totally ignored Macedonia's. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 15:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk: List of sovereign states

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:List of sovereign states under the Bundling of "UN observer states" and "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" subhead about things like:

  • Should Kosovo and Holy See really be bundled together?
  • Should permanent observers (i.e. Holy See) have its own category?
  • Should the list be amended so it does not incorrectly say that the Vatican City is a UN observer....its not, the Holy See is.
  • if Kosovo is listed with the Holy See, must Niue and Cook Islands also be so listed.

Not many editors are involved and there is a desire to broaden the participation. Hope some of you wish to contribute. Just click there and give your views. Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

This is borderline helpdesk request, but I was wondering if someone could recommend a book on Kosovo and perhaps place the book in a Further reading section on the article if a consensus for the book can be reached. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm's book (which this article cites often) is very good, and I highly recommend it. However, I expect that a few readers of this article will strongly disagree with it. Don't expect any book recommendation to be unanimous! :-) bobrayner (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciation

This is ridiculous, nobody in Kosovo pronounces it like /ˈkɒsəvoʊ/ or /ˈkoʊsəvoʊ/. Not Albanians or Serbs or anyone else. --213.198.239.77 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is English-language Wikipedia, and these are the pronunciations used in English-speaking countries. There is no reason why Albanian and Serb pronunciations can't also be included though. Bazonka (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

article name

why is this article not called 'kosovo i metohija'? it covers territory of both areas. 76.247.85.73 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the physical place, the most common name of which in English is "Kosovo". The competing political places found on this piece of land each have their own article: Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. --Khajidha (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Are we sure about that? The political state is called Kosovo, but the region is probably called Kosovo and Metohija in english. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Remember WP:COMMONNAME. Hardly any English-speakers use Metohija. Bazonka (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet hardly any speak about "the physical place" as distinct from the state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, but who does ever speak about "the physical place as distinct from the state" (outside Wikipedia, where the topic has been artificially carved up in this way)? Anyway, if you want to test it, I'd suggest search for it in the context of a clearly geographical concept like e.g. "Šar mountains". The Šar mountains are in the "Metohija" half of the territory. Every source that deals with the physical geography of the area and describes these mountains as being located in "Kosovo" is using the term as we are using it here. In my experience, the usage that distinguishes between "Kosovo" and "Metohija" or uses the two names systematically as a compound is rather narrowly restricted to Serbian authors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The region is very often spoken about. The problem is that Kosovo has come to mean so many things and different times that there is no scientific or geographical outline to determine what is Old Kosovo so to speak (as you have Old Herzegovina which locals will tell you includes Dubrovnik and western Montenegro - not irredentism I might add). Kosovo has invariably been some form of political entity whilst at other times, it hasn't existed at all by name. During the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, a very tiny area had the name of Kosovo and it was nothing more than a ceremonial unit akin to others that dotted the entire country but I believe there was no local authority there. Prior to 1912, Skopje was Kosovan capital when the region was an Ottoman province. Kosovo as a region is extremely vague. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as any historical name is. I think the primary question for this page though is modern usage, which is usually the primary topic over any historical usages. As for the Šar mountains idea, I'd like to try it with sources around prior to the declaration of independence, or even prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia. That should eliminate any usage to refer to the state. I think it'd be interesting to see if they referred to the region as just Kosovo. I suppose they might, similar to how Bosnia and Herzegovina is sometimes referred to as just Bosnia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
That's correct about BiH, except when you to into Herzegovina. They don't like it when you say "Bosna" in places like Trebinje or Međugorje! I suppose Metohija does have a geographical basis, but then it also has a name in Albanian. That's another can of worms. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
In geographic terms, Kosovo is a vaguely defined area as some of its subregions were always considered part of its geographical entity, while others that once were parts of Kosovo, nowadays aren't and vice versa. For example Lesak(the northernmost area of Kosovo) became part of its territory in 1959. Modern Kosovo is a geopolitical entity and almost all modern sources refer to Kosovo in that context. In the 19th century, when used in a strictly geographical context Kosovo mostly referred to the plain of Kosovo. The use of the term Metohija is a term mostly used by Serbian scholars. In Albanian, western Kosovo is called Rrafshi i Dukagjinit (Plateau of Dukagjini), a placename stemming from the Principality of Dukagjini, the Kosovo areas of which became the Sanjak of Dukagjin.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Metohija is IN Serbian!! Cannot be Albanian editors that use the term! I was pointing out the the region - or Rrafshi i Dukagjinit - is a geographical entity, a basin. Kosovo is, as you rightly say, vaguely defined. To that end we cannot even determine what is a subregion ad what is an adjoining entity. There is no argument with the sources though which all mention Kosovo, and refer to the diamond-shaped land associated with today's region, created in 1946 and with later modifications as you mention. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

But then saying this, Metohija already has an article so anyone can add to it information from this page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

please wiki link it in the introductory sentence. thanks. 76.223.67.109 (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. It was also already linked in the Name section. Bazonka (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo as a republic (again)

I have been part of this discussion for a long time, and I know that the nature of this page has changed many times until now (it is on probation). But, there must be a natural tendency to find a final solution for the page. The current form is not acceptable. Kosovo is region? NO. It is a state. Kosovo is an autonomous territory of Serbia. NO. Serbia's constitution recognizes Kosovo and Metohija as an autonomous territory of Serbia.

The current form is a POV FORK of Republic of Kosovo. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry i don't understand some of your statements. Maybe i am the only one, but in case i am not i thought it might be useful to clear some of these statements i find unclear... to clear them out for me and maybe for the others as well. I understood that you stated that Kosovo is not an autonomous territory of Republic of Serbia. If this was what you stated then i think it would be useful to know what exactly you meant by the term Kosovo. Also, i understand that you mentioned forking of articles and it seems to me that you stated that this article was the result of forking for which the article Republic of Kosovo was the source. If you really think thus, that the result was this article and that the source was the article Republic of Kosovo, i think you could be quite wrong. I think you could be wrong, because it might be more appropriate to state that it was the other way round: the article Republic of Kosovo could be regarded as the result of forking... if any forking was done. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your questions. It could be that my short comment was unclear. Serbia does not recognize Kosovo as its territory, it recognizes Kosovo AND Metohija (In Serbian Constitution there is a certain Kosovo and Metohija). On the other hand, this article is a POV FORK of Republic of Kosovo. It used to be one single article, but it was divided after enormous pressure from mostly biased editors. To be honest I am also biased on this issue, I would prefer Kosovo to be the article just about Republic of Kosovo (without any remark on it as an autonomous province, and without the semi-independence mentioned, nor the UNMIK resolution). But as I understand what WP is all about I do not go on and write such proposals. IMHO there should be only two articles on the issue right now, one representing not fully recognized Republic of Kosovo (thus removing the artificial article of Kosovo as a region) and the other Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
But there would be a huge overlap between those two articles, e.g. geography, ancient history, population, etc. This article is intended to address the overlap, leaving the articles for RoK and K&M to concentrate on just their current political aspects. Bazonka (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
What i still don't understand is the posit that this article is a fork of the article Republic of Kosovo. How can this still be claimed if the history of the articles has been considered by the claimant? And that statement of biased editors and the enormous pressure - where does this come from? From a POV of an editor which admits own bias on this issue? A bias that this article is to be about Republic of Kosovo? Without any mention of semi-independence? And without a mention of UNMIK resolution? Wasn't this discussed over and over again? Anyway, even if such an article was to be made, wouldn't such article be misinforming the readership, beside the fact that it would be biased? Also, has the editor, that gives such contentious claims about the nature of the editors and the enormity of their pressure, has that editor read only a bit of an enormous discussion which accompanied the divide of the article? If it is such a case, that the editor has read just a bit of the discussion, how can such biased statements be given by this editor without any prior consideration? Or are they here just to repeat, in a rather Goebbelsian manner, the POV that POV forking was under way? I, and perhaps others as well, could understand that editor's position about this matters, but i don't believe that any of the editors can justify such a position. Can't we just assume good faith? Please, for the sake of discussion let's assume some more good faith in the future. I honestly believe i do assume it, otherwise i wouldn't be writing this. And for the sake of continuing the discussion in good faith i must note that it appears that the editor uses the term Kosovo in a peculiar manner again. The user seems to posit that Serbia does not recognize Kosovo as its territory. But what does the editor mean by the term Kosovo here? And that mention of Kosovo and Metohija in the so called "Serbian Constitution" - can the editor point to such referral? Please, provide some answers to the questions given, just in order to continue the discussion. In good faith, of course. Wishing you all the best, --biblbroks (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This source about Kosovo is written by serbian writers , they are to many mistakes in history , name and after war articles , please let us correct it

The Autonomous OBLAST -- NOT 'Province

Information about the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo-Metohija" in 1946 is fraudulent. The autonomous OBLAST -- an entity with a far lesser degree of autonomy than a province -- was formed in 1946, when the Autonomous PROVINCE of Vojvodina became a province and when Herzegovina had the same status of an oblast in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as did Lika and Istria in Croatia.

Kosovo-Metohija only became a province in mid-1960s, after the demise of Aleksandar Ranković due to a set-up by Kosovo Albanians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.112 (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

edit request

please add a link to Stolen Kosovo. regards. 76.197.230.25 (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Banac

There are problems with "Banac", and his citations. Majuru (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Add

I readded agreed info from Republic of Kosovo article. Somehow i forgot to add this before, just saw it... It was idea that both articles should have similar (the same) info about disputed content. Here remained as it was in disputed version, after status quo. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

natural resources

that section has outdated information. more precise number is about $1000 billions. [2] 77.105.19.33 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

My revert

I kinda reverted User:Biblbroks edits in the intro. I do not think the language tag should have been change to Serbo-Croatian, because I don't think it is. If does qualify as such, it still should not be changed. That is like calling the word "Britain" as American English because it is in the American English vocabulary. I also gave a reference for control of Northern Kosovo by Serbia. This is as per the 1RR probation rule. Int21h (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the example presented isn't that analogous to the situation with the Serbo-Croatian lang tag vs. Serbian lang tag. I'd say it is more similar to the situation of having the word "lorry" tagged as of British English language (as currently the phrases Kosovo and Kosovo i Metohija i.e. Косово and Косово и Метохија are tagged as of Serbian language) compared to the situation of tagging the word "lorry" as of English language (as Kosovo and Kosovo i Metohija i.e. Косово and Косово и Метохија could/should be tagged as of Serbo-Croatian language). The way it is now it may be more informative yet it might be less accurate. As AFAIK British English is not a language on its own thus Serbian might not be a language on its own. But since this is a controversial topic and I am not a professional linguist, I am trying not to give my opinion on this. --biblbroks (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a section on the genetics of Kosovo Albanians? This article is about Kosovo that includes Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks, and others.

The section on the genetics of Kosovo Albanians in the demographics section is absurd to be included. It does not represent the total population of Kosovo that include other ethnic groups as mentioned in the subject headline. The section on genetics of Kosovo Albanians should be moved to the article about Albanians of Kosovo.--R-41 (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. The supposed 'genetic make-up' of an ethnic group is not a topic relevant to an article on a contry or region. Eg, there is no "Genetics of French people" section in the article on France. The section has been removed. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Since the ethnic background of people in Kosovo is something that has been subject to persistent controversy in the past, and has fuelled serious conflict, I think coverage of this would be a very valuable - but it would be better to see something which covers other parts of the population, not just self-identified "albanians". (If the genetic background of people living in France were particularly interesting, I'd be happy to see it covered in the France article). bobrayner (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The Genetic background is irrelevant. Too many editors here and even so-called 'scholars' make unequivocal conclusions based on highly tenuous data. The "genetic data" cannot show anything other than they all (Serbs, Albanians, Bosniaks, etc) are (i) actually rather related (ii) come from eastern Europe. It cannot tell us who is 'truly from Kosovo' and even if it could, it is irrelevant to western commentators. What matters is current majority and their political will. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
And, there is a section on genetics of French [3], placed appropriately in the article on French people, not in the article on France. Likewise here, there are already genetics sections on Serbs and Albanians in relevant pages Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
So this section should be in Origin of the Albanians, or Albanians? 76.112.213.78 (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's already here [4] Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Unilateral secession

Isn't that a redundancy? ALL secessions are unilateral. As "secession" means "withdrawal", only the seceding entity can withdraw itself. The larger entity may support or oppose said secession, but it cannot actively take part in it (just as a school cannot withdraw a student, only the student can withdraw; the school must expel). Thus there is no "multilateral secession" to contrast with the above mentioned "unilateral secession". Just to cover an example that I'm sure someone will advance, the "Velvet Divorce" that ended Czechoslovakia was not a multilateral secession; each of the two portions (Slovakia and Czech Republic) individually withdrew from the Czechoslovak state and accepted the withdrawal of the other from said state. Thus, both were unilateral. To think otherwise is to say (for example) that the Czech Republic withdrew Slovakia from the single Czechoslovak state. --Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's common terminology to refer to a succession which takes place against the will of the larger state as unilateral, meaning that it was done without agreement. South Sudan for example was not described as a unilateral succession. CMD (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Chipmunkdavis. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Biased picture

I find the use of the photo "Death to Serbs" very biased and inappropriate. I would therefore ask for the picture to be deleted or replaced. --NOAH (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like the way that some Albanians in Kosovo feel, but Wikipedia is hardly endorsing this view - it is merely showing an image of something in Kosovo. As a neutral party, I feel that the photo simply highlights the fact that there are ethnic tensions in the region. This is clearly relevant to Kosovo. Bazonka (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
BAZONKA, YOUR EXPLANATION IS TOTALLY IDIOTIC, U R SUPPORTING BARBARISM. NORTH KOSOVO IS SERBIAN WITH 98% SERB&CHRISTIAN POPULATION, IT LL ALWAYS BE LIKE THAT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.219.137 (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I offended you, but I did not write that grafitti or place the image of it in the article. I fail to see how my comment supports barbarism - I certainly do not support the sentiment of the grafitti in the image. I said nothing about the population of North Kosovo. If you have genuine concerns, then please discuss them - but no more WP:SHOUTy rants please, you're not doing yourself any favours. Bazonka (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the motion to replace the image. -- Director (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What would you replace it with? Or perhaps it should be balanced by an additional image showing something anti-Albanian. Bazonka (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Bazonka. We aren't making the graffiti, we aren't supporting its sentiments, we are simply showing that such things exist. This is no different from the picture of signs for boycotting Jewish businesses in Nazi Germany on the Holocaust page. --Khajidha (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
There is not doubt about it, a lot of Serbs have been killed by Kosovo Albanians....Whether the Albanians hate the Serbs or wish them death isn't really something I can answer. I suppose one cannot generalise: I am sure some Kosovo Albanians think Serbs are ok and don't wish them death. But the Kosovo Albanian human rights record is atrocious....86.45.54.230 (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

History correction

About: "...then conquered by the Ottoman Empire, later the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija..." I think that between theese two periods, there was a period when Kosovo was an integral part of the Serbia. Kosovo become a internal provice of the Serbia as a result of the decentralisation proccess which were conducted to easier governance over Serbia. It happened after world war II. There is a wide period of time unexplained here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.26.25 (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This wording as it stands now is due to rather unfortunate state of events. It was me who was trying to fix some other wording added. And this previous wording was, I believe, introduced in order to give some more historic data to represent a perspective which was possibly considered not represented enough. Actually, the period in which Kosovo was part of Serbia is mentioned in the lead - in the same sentence but a bit later, parenthesized: "...(Serbia then being one of the constituent republics of Yugoslavia, but also part of Serbia after First Balkan War and before constitution of Yugoslavia)...". As I noted in the edit summary when I amended this, perhaps such historic precision might not be most suitable to be given in the lede cause it might detriment readability, but since it is there it doesn't hurt. Much. Though if necessary, this information can be further explained. --biblbroks (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is biased

I suggest the article be tagged for not adhering to the NPOV requirement. The reasons in a nutshell:

  • From the political standpoint, it focuses on Kosovo as a Serbian province before it refers to the Republic of Kosovo, which controls 90 percent of the territory and is recognized as an independent country by 88 UN members.
  • As to history, the focus again is on Serbia (or the Serbian presence in Kosovo), not Kosovo. The Dardani had their own kingdom as of 4th century BC; Christianity spread in the early centuries of the common era (Paul preached in Illyricum, which included Dardania); and, many important contemporary figures were from Dardania. These are facts supported by ancient writers and should not be neglected. For most countries where Christianity has played a major public role, history begins with the arrival of the religion; Kosovo's history according to the article begins much later, with the arrival of the Serbs.

--Getoar TX (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Your first point - 88 out of 193 UN members (45.6%:<54.4%), get the point!
  • Second, wtf your talking about, read article again:
Early history

"During antiquity, the area which now makes up Kosovo was inhabited by various tribal ethnes, who were liable to move, englarge, fuse and fissure with neighbouring groups. As such, it is difficult to locate any such group with precision. The Dardani, whose exact ethno-linguistic affilitation is difficult to determine, were a prominent group in the region during the late Hellenistic and early Roman eras."

There is of course space to improve this part of article, but only from neutral point, not some Albanian nationalistic propaganda that they were Dardanians and that Serbian part of Kosovo history is less important.--Obelixus (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that articles here should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Kosovo has been independent since 2008, regardless of recognition. Contributors can make their "point" in the article (if that is to note the lack of universal recognition), but not to the exclusion or the lessening of a fair description of the state of affairs--i.e., the existence of an independent state.
The introductory passage need make balanced, inclusive (yet concise) references to the history of Kosovo. In the history section, information on ancient Kosovo, supported with reliable sources, should be furnished. The single paragraph that Obelixus has cited is certainly biased such as to create an obscure image about Kosovo's past. While one cannot claim to have comprehensive knowledge of the past, authoritative literature is not as scarce as to render Kosovo's history as imprecise and incomplete as that of terrae incognitae.
Absent constructive and civil discussion, I will not return to comment on this page. I find myself at great unease to respond to a note containing deliberately offensive obscenities and false, unfounded assumptions of "some Albanian nationalistic propaganda that [the Albanians] were Dardanians and that Serbian part of Kosovo history is less important." Those instances are representative of the abysmal prejudice and mistrust that run counter to the goals of Wikipedia and are hence unmerited by the community of users and editors.
--Getoar TX (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if I've come late to this (coming in from the noticeboard post by Getoar). From the lead, it introduces the topic as a region, and then presents politics chronologically—i.e., first it was a province and then it became independent. I don't see anything particularly biased about that. As for the history section, again it should be chronological. If there is ancient history to be added about the Dardani, etcetera—add it, in order. Nightw 10:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before. Republic of Kosovo has its article, and recognition is very important, especially when the world is split half and half as at the moment. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have also responded to comments left on my noticeboard entry. I will add a reference to the kingdom and later Roman province of Dardania. However, I would hope to reach a consensus on restructuring the introductory passage to reflect an objectively descriptive overview of Kosovo. The current chronological order not only tweaks the facts to urge a certain point of view; it is also incompatible with similar region or country articles, which follow a different pattern (i.e., concisely: what X is, where it is, who lives there, what it was, what it did, and what it does). Thank you, --Getoar TX (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but i removed that. Article lede was created by consensus, it is not the place for wast histories. You have relevant section for that below. You may propose new lede, but only with community consensus. --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
It was my understanding that other editors welcomed such an edit on the condition that it be neutral and void of nationalist underpinnings. Therefore, I added the one-sentence reference to "the independent kingdom, and then Roman province, of Dardania." If for some reason that does not belong in the lead, then a balanced presentation is only possible by avoiding references to the medieval period and commencing instead with modern 20th century history. I am laying out my proposal in a new section on this talk page. Thank you, --Getoar TX (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Demographics

Is it possible that someone could add statistics like the natural increase? I need that for a project, and quickly. 49ersfanforlife (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "natural increase"? Demographics of Kosovo might be a more appropriate article for you. Bazonka (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the first paragraph in the Balkan wars section, there is a link to Abdul Hamid. However the Abdul Hamid linked there is in fact a pakistani soldier born 21 years after the events in this section. Perhaps this reference was meant to be made to the Abdul Hamid II referenced earlier in the paragraph, but the link is clearly in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemiant (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Morto i Serbi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Morto i Serbi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Morto i Serbi.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

History in the lead section

To achieve a fair and balanced presentation of Kosovo, I call for the blessing of the community on adding, to the lead section, the following sentence:

"In antiquity, it was known as the independent kingdom, and later Roman province, of Dardania."

As the introduction is currently laid out in a chronological order, such a reference is best suited to come right after the first sentence of the article, as long as the latter remains unchanged.

Thank you, --Getoar TX (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with you Getoar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.185.135 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC) SPA, only edit. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
*Support. That would be very helpful and balanced. --46.19.227.112 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)SPA, tried to gain auto-confirmed status with self reverting. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IP anonymous Single purpose account votes does not count as relevant on this page. This article is on probation. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pre-medieval history is irrelevant to the current state of the region. It is not important to add it in the lede. That history may be added in the history section, if more info is needed about it. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Your contention is severely weakened in light of the "historical right" argument that are made as part of territorial claims on Kosovo. Simply, because presenting Kosovo's history with Medieval Serbia as the starting point overemphasized a Serbian legacy, it is biased against other groups that have historically inhabited the land and creates a false impression of Kosovo's past. Furthermore, precedent in well-written, comprehensive, and not-on-probation country/region articles favors a balanced and inclusive overview of history. See, for example, the article on the United States (beginning history note with the arrival of Native Americans). Given the significance of history in both the United States and Kosovo, the U.S. model serves well the purposes of this article.--Guraleci (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Not voting in either direction here. Obviously KEEP IT OFF!!!! But that is not because I imply that we should overplay the region's importance in Serbian tradition. Intros by their nature need to be short and history generally needs to be kept out of it. They should not go into too much detail and the main content that should be found on the intro is what the subject is (or was if notability is entrenched in the past). All right, if editors feel that an immediate history lesson requires projecting from line one then can I suggest we mildly brush all revelant topics, one or two words if possible not stressing anything too heavily (it was, X, Y, Z before becoming C. B and then A). As soon as we hit paragraph two, the first headed section, spill the beans from A to Z in chronological order. Is that fair?

A fair reading of your comment would seem to indicate that we should focus on the most essential elements in the opening paragraph. An alternative could be to exclude medieval Serbia and the Ottoman Empire to begin instead with the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After all, that should explain why there is existing tension over Kosovo; medieval history doesn't tell us much.--Guraleci (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Sort of. It's a long intro and could do with a reduction or atleast a trim. I don't know why Geotar hasn't simply made the edit; as the article stands, I don't see a problem with a few words before Medieval Serbia. I must admit, I respect WhiteWriter and have been associated with this editor for a long time but it cannot be said that pre-Serbia is irrelevant for the present because history has no cycle; one minute leads to the next and no lines are drawn. Events overlap each other rather than neatly taking place chronologically so to that end, either everything is relevant or irrelevant. It's hard to pinpoint an exact period that matters to now; before mattered to then! If it makes sense. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 01:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Evlekis. I have made the addition. I do agree with you, if I understand correctly, that the introduction should not tailored in a chronological order. There are better and more logical ways to do it. Other country/region articles should serve as a useful model.--Getoar TX (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment, Region .v. legal entity. I am just pointing out a contradiction in the text. This article, by its own definition in the very first sentence, is an, "article is about the geographical region of Kosovo" - which to the best of my knowledge refers to various administrative units of different surfaces during the Ottoman Empire, during Yugoslavia and then Serbia. Then, in the first section titled 'Background', we read that, "Kosovo is landlocked and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the south". So first we read that this article is about a region, then that it is confined to the borders of the partially recognised Republic. It is not surprising that disagreements over definition arise. But since this article, while it exists, is about the region(s) named Kosovo, then it seems reasonable that it should deal with the region(s) until editors decide what to do with the debate over region/Republic. Politis (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

While I do not see any reasonable basis for this article to exist separate of the coterminous political entity, i.e. the Republic of Kosovo (claimed by Serbia as a province), I could reconcile your insistence on a non-political definition of a region by use of a broader, and substantially less prevalent meaning of the name "Kosovo."
In that regard, I can refer to the former Vilayet of Kosovo, which became the namesake for modern Kosovo. Likewise, Albanians in Kosovo and FYROM have consistently regarded the Albanian communities of north-central and northwestern FYROM as part of a historical and cultural region of Kosovo. The city of Scupi, as the former capital of Kosovo, to this day bears the significance of a metropolis, inseparable from the heritage of the country. (This remark, nevertheless, should not be construed as a politically charged argument in favor of a territorial claim. It is a note on the geographic, cultural, and historical region of Kosovo.) In addition, the Albanian communities in the Preshevo Valley are often referred to as "Eastern Kosovo" (one may prefer East Kosovo as it represents a distinct, separate entity, but that is not the point here; the discussion is on the political entities).
Kosovo may also mean--most notably in the Serbian tradition, and with a restricted geographical meaning in Albanian--just the eastern half of the Republic of Kosovo. Yet, that is usually referred to as the Kosovo Field (also, valley or basin), and would still be viewed as part of a greater Kosovo region.
These interpretations, however vague and secondary, present Kosovo as a region as opposed to a political entity. The issue here, nevertheless, is that none of those definitions of Kosovo bear any weight in the English language. Using the name Kosovo to refer to the actual country is the most practical approach.--Getoar TX (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"It was an independent kingdom"

I removed the last entry which claimed that "it was an independent kingdom", with a ref containing an image.--Zoupan 13:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Republic of Kosovo?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This [5] discussion makes a very good point. Having two articles about Kosovo one as a geographical region, one as a political region is a violation of WP:NPOV. I suggest to read it, as I said makes good points especially when it's compared to South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria. 76.112.213.78 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I fail to understand how this is a violation of NPOV - if anything, it's the opposite. Nobody disagrees that Kosovo is a place, but plenty of people disagree that it's an independent republic, and others disagree that it's a Serbian province. So, saying that the place is independent (or part of Serbia) is POV. So, this is intended to be a neutral article on the geography, population, ancient history, etc., and we have other articles covering the claimed political entities which complement this one whilst not giving the impression that the position of Wikipedia is that the Kosovo place is definitely independent or Serbian. The fact that other Wikipedia languages, or the Abkhazia etc. articles, handle this differently is irrelevant. Bazonka (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Also per Bazonka's comment: there aren't just two articles about Kosovo (one about Kosovo as a geographical region, and one about Kosovo as a political region). Actually there are at least three: Kosovo, Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (if we weren't to count United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo). So this argument about existence of several different articles being POV is rather void, I'd say. Especially when compared to situation of having articles Taiwan and Republic of China - which, I think, is also a situation of having at least two articles about, somewhat, similar thing. --biblbroks (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. We had lots of polls on whether to split Kosovo. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the wrong version got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2012
When the split was done, the voices against it eventually subsided - I suppose because the arguments were not on their side. I am sorry if this doesn't sound like my best faith on your behalf but I must say it anyway: I don't remember reading anything coming from you which would suggest you had something (substantial) against the split. Also if I understand the Wikipedia's consensus building process correctly, the polls aren't a stable way to build one consensus. Discussion would usually be a better way. I am more inclined to the opinion that the consensus is more in line with the current situation as neutrality surely is. --biblbroks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The voices subsided because we got tired of being ignored by the edit warriors that kept the split alive. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
So even if it were how you describe it - that there was an edit war about this - the conclusion from your words remains the same: it wasn't that important to you. So I believe that there was consensus for the split after all. --biblbroks (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a violation of NPOV. "Nobody disagrees that Kosovo is a place, but plenty of people disagree that it's an independent republic, and others disagree that it's a Serbian province", means you're taking a side here, that of the people who disagree. So there's one article for the people who disagree with Kosovo's independence, and one article for the people who disagree with that being a Serbian province. PersonPaOpinion (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC) (User have 5 edits in article space. Sock... --WhiteWriter speaks 15:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC))

If somebody disagrees with one position, that doesn't necessarily mean that it agrees with the position which is the opposite of the one with which he/she disagrees. This kind of reasoning is what I believe could be portrayed as black and white thinking. --biblbroks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm certainly not taking sides, and I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be disagreeing with. I was just pointing out the fact that if Wikipedia equates RoK or KiM with the geographical area of Kosovo, then that would be a POV position. The only neutral way to handle things is to treat both opinons as equal, and that can't easily be done in the main Kosovo artice - it's best to keep the different opinions separate. Saying that this approach is "a violation of NPOV" is bizarre and inexplicable. Bazonka (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate pages and overlaping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles#Rationale:
Kosovo
1)Kosovo is landlocked and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west and Montenegro to the northwest. The remaining frontier belt is with the Central Serbian region which is the source of international dispute
Republic of Kosovo
2)The largest city and the capital of Kosovo is Pristina (alternatively spelled Prishtina or Priština), while other cities include Peć (Albanian: Peja), Prizren, Đakovica (Gjakova), and Kosovska Mitrovica (Mitrovica).
3)After the Kosovo War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008.[23] In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo. Its independence is recognised by 86 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). On 8 October 2008, upon request of Serbia, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the issue of Kosovo's declaration of independence.[24] On 22 July 2010, the ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law, which its president said contains no "prohibitions on declarations of independence".
4)Names of Kosovo.
5)History of Kosovo starting from Disintegration of Yugoslavia to Declaration of independence. ALL 6 sections.
Republic of Kosovo
1)Kosovo is landlocked and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west and Montenegro to the northwest; all of which recognise Kosovo. The remainder of Kosovo's frontier to the north and east is the subject of controversy and is with[clarification needed] the Central Serbian region
2)The largest city and the capital of Kosovo is Pristina (alternatively spelled Prishtina or Priština), while other cities include Peć (Albanian: Peja), Prizren, Đakovica (Gjakova), and Kosovska Mitrovica (Mitrovica).
3)After the Kosovo War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), most of whose roles were assumed by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in December 2008.[23] In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo. Its independence is recognised by 86 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan). On 8 October 2008, upon request of Serbia, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the issue of Kosovo's declaration of independence.[24] On 22 July 2010, the ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law, which its president said contains no "prohibitions on declarations of independence".
4) Names of Kosovo
5)History of Kosovo starting from Disintegration of Yugoslavia to Declaration of independence. ALL 6 sections.
Repetitive information so MERGE.PersonPaOpinion (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is bound to be a certain degree of overlap in articles about similar topics - this is not necessarily a reason to merge, and of course there is scope for improvement. However, the main issue here is the principle, not the specifics. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
And those sentences are about it. Names are removed, as those should not be in RoK article. While EVERYTHING else is different, scope is different, article is not small, and not of minor subject, and therefor, WP:MERGE cannot be in use here. But i am sorry, but it is devastatingly obvious that we are dealing with sockpuppets here, and new users dont know how to cite the guideline and start merge idea on talk page. And i will ask for admin help in here. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support We should report Kosovo as it is, giving the situation as it lies on the ground. Yes, we can have an article about both governments (obviously with both establishing how effective their actual control is), but to create an article on a geographical area (which is defined by its political boundaries) is not NPOV but Political Correctness. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
So, you support merging the two articles but suggest having articles about both governments. I don't understand how should this be achieved. NPOV in your opinion would be to have article Republic of Kosovo linking to Kosovo - but wouldn't then issues with flags, government, whole infobox problems reemerge? --biblbroks (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It's quite simple to have a separate article on the Serbian administration. We have an Abkhazian version, Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. When Kosovo is discussed in English, it is for better or worse discussed as a (separatist) state. To create an article on an abstract geographical area doesn't fix NPOV. An article with decent text would. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The meaning and surely the usage of the term Kosovo was discussed earlier - during the discussion right after the split. And that, I would say, at large - with all that analysis and comparison of the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines i.e. policies. As well as the WP:GOOGLE how-to. I mean the subject of this article is geographical area, but an area that isn't so abstract after all. Especially if you regard only the history that comes with the term Kosovo. And with the Kosovo as such. For example, wasn't the term Kosovo used to describe this area before the 2008 declaration of independence also? Its meaning didn't abruptly change just because some people decided to declare some independence. Or whatever somebody did. Not just the meaning but also the usage of the term - even if it were just because the media currently uses this term to denote the state. If it were, but it isn't. Say, the term Kosovo in the syntagma North Kosovo doesn't simply equate with the term Kosovo for the state/republic. It corresponds moreover with the region/(abstract) geographical area/call it what you want. And that's just one example: I haven't even considered all the uses in all the media and/or publications. Not to mention if I were to focus some analysis on the usage of the term in the publications before the year 2008 only. Why, we should strive more for eventualism than for immediatism... if we should strive for anything, for that matter. Also, why do you think that the current text of this article is not neutral - I mean since you say that there is some POV which should be fixed. If you do say that. --biblbroks (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Things change as time passes, and as an electronic encyclopaedia we can keep up. There was a massive shift when the government decided to declare independence, and it led to the present situation. The history, geography, etc. of Kosovo we need to cover with all usages in mind is done through the main articles of those topics. I've never said the current text isn't neutral. What I feel is that the creation of this article was a solution to a nonexistent problem. 02:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
But what has changed? There were clashes at the border/administrative line in North Kosovo with several people wounded and dead and you suggest that situation changed? To what degree - that Kosovo has now somehow magically become the Republic of Kosovo? I mean all the "fuss" about the separation of these two articles was in part done to solve the problem of simultaneous existence of several infoboxes in the article. The infoboxes for which one editor, who is now voicing support for remerging and who states he/she has always been against the split, stated they must burn in hell anyway. I assure you that this was no abstract problem. --biblbroks (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
A lot changed, most especially in the perception of Kosovo. Southern Sudan magically became South Sudan last year, and we reflected that. As for infoboxes, I think that an infobox for Serbia, which controls a very small amount of Kosovo, would not be appropriate. I'd assume however it'd be extremely clear from the beginning Kosovo was disputed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Situation with South Sudan is different: for one thing it is a member of United Nations, magically or not, and, to the best of my knowledge, there was and there is no dispute about its sovereignity. Whereas there is about Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo/Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Also the smallness or greatness of the territory controlled by the Serbs of North Kosovo should not be used as a parameter since we aren't here to determine this smallness (greatness) and act upon it. Since you said it yourself - Kosovo was disputed - I must ask: why do you think it isn't anymore? --biblbroks (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it isn't disputed, I just disagree that a dispute means we need to create a new page to avoid politics. Kosovo is Kosovo. While it can be argued what it is, it definitely isn't two different things, which necessitate different pages. In reality, it functions as an independent state with a small area it doesn't control, rather similar to Serbia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Similar could be said for Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija: in reality it functions as part of Serbia with some area it doesn't control. Yet I wouldn't simply agree with either position. While ago there was an edit dispute (let me call it thus) about the "de facto control of Republic of Kosovo over the most of its territory" and "control of North Kosovo by the Republic of Serbia" in the first paragraph of this article. One editor agreed that it is poorly worded, since international institutions have more control over the territory than it is described in the article or acknowledged for that matter. Perhaps this stuff in the article still needs some work. Anyway I'd say that the matter isn't so simple as it is usually perceived. Also you posit that Kosovo isn't two different things, yet you say Kosovo is Kosovo - what do you mean by the term Kosovo itself when you say it like that? Republic of Kosovo? Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija? Or disputed region? Whatever you mean by the term, there might be different opinions, don't you agree? The usual point of meeting is that Kosovo is a disputed region and this article deals with this subject. I think that quite many editors in previous discussions agreed that this is most neutral. --biblbroks (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija hasn't had effective control since the beginning of the UN mission. That being said, I don't know the full details of how North Kosovo functions, although from what I know it seems to organise itself. When I talk about Kosovo I'm definitely not talking about the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", and I doubt anyone really does, if only because by its own definition it covers more than what it considers Kosovo. Am I talking about the Republic or the disputed region? I'd say I'm talking about both, since they're the same thing. The only reason it is disputed is because of the republic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It is true that Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija had none or almost none control over its claimed territory since 1999, but if you take having effective control as a parameter then it would at be least fair to consider whether Republic of Kosovo always had enough effective control over its claimed territory so as to talk about Republic of Kosovo and disputed region at the same time always when you use the term Kosovo. It sure can't be that Republic of Kosovo and the disputed region are that simply the same thing since Republic of Kosovo is a state, i.e. a republic (and that would be a state by its definition, if I am correct), while disputed region is well... disputed region. Right? Same as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is autonomous province. Only when you dive into the subject i.e. read the rest of the article (I am talking about a non-knowledgeable person who encounters this article and/or wants to learn more) you find that there is a dispute over the sovereignty of Republic of Kosovo, or Republic of Serbia for that matter. And all that goes with this. Also, you are wrong: "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" covers the same as what you consider region of Kosovo, but it also covers the same as what itself often considers Kosovo: since in Serbian the term Kosovo is often used as a short for Kosovo and Metohija, or region of Kosovo in English. --biblbroks (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think there's toying with semantics there. We don't have two different topics. If one just wants to focus on say, constitutional apparatus, then yes, you can write articles on clearly different topics; however, discussing it as a whole, as both pages do, doesn't allow for such specificity. I assume that any decent article on Kosovo, even in the current form, would note somehow that there was a dispute from the very beginning (like Northern Cyprus, which opens straight away with "self-declared state").
I know that "Kosovo and Metohija" refers to the same area as what I call Kosovo (being an English speaker), but within that definition Kosovo is only a smaller part. I highly doubt that Kosovo is often used as a shortform when discussing that state apparatus today, after over a decade of redundancy. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no toying - look at the articles and their history. You will find that they deal with different topics. There sure is still much room for improvement: for example in this article there should be some information excluded from the infobox as I was explaining in previous discussions regarding a proposal to make this a disambiguation page. And surely there is much more to improve in the Republic of Kosovo article, but to say that there is toying with semantics while on the other hand basing an argument on the claim that in Serbia's definition of "Kosovo", "Kosovo" is a smaller part of "Kosovo and Metohija" that is very unconvincing. I assure you "Kosovo" is a shortform for "Kosovo and Metohija" in Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin language, or may I say Serbo-Croatian. A very well established shortform. And that is regardless of some state apparatus's efforts. I mean we are talking about language here - no state apparatus can control it that easily as some naive person might expect.
These two articles, Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo, exist mostly to satisfy the distinction between the state and the region and by that to accomplish neutrality over treatment of Kosovo - as a state or as a disputed region. To say that there are no different topics regarding treatment of Kosovo and treatment Republic of Kosovo is also biased. It comes from the perspective that Kosovo is a state and that perspective is by itself not sufficiently founded in reality and/or sources as well as it isn't neutral. You said that we don't have two different topics, but I think you should allow yourself to think that we should have if we don't. You say we can write a decent article but rest assured that problems will arise very soon as how to treat Kosovo - as a state or as a disputed region - since it is very hard if not impossible to present both in one article. Especially when it comes to inclusion of infoboxes. Case of the Northern Cyprus article is much easier since there are no disputes over its sovereignty as far as I know. In the case of Kosovo situation is different: with all the "effective control" either of Republic of Kosovo or of Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Or should I say Northern Kosovo. And here it is one part of the problem, right away since I mentioned the existing terms: "North Kosovo" and "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". Now same goes for the Kosovo itself - whether it is a self-governed state or not, and how to present this. --biblbroks (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
At the moment, they are both incomplete articles. One would expect demographics, geography, etc. to be present on each, and they would be identical if both were perfect. As for the shortform in Serbocroat, I have no reason to doubt that, but whether it carries on to English, and whether that carrying on applies in the present day, is different. The simple solution to this is to treat Kosovo as what it is; a disputed state, something quite solidly founded in reality and sources. Northern Cyprus is entirely claimed by Cyprus, so there's a massive dispute over its sovereignty. I thought we'd established the autonomous province had no effective control? Names in English can be confusing, but that's why we have article text to explain them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Merge because its a duplicate content, leave as part of the information the fact that is a partially recognized and there are two governments acting on it: the goveremt of the Republic of Kosovo in the whole region beside the Northern tip not recognized by by countries that support Serbia, the Serbian government on the Northern tip, not recognized by countries that support Kosovo: 2 governments. What's here about not to understand?PersonPaOpinion (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
What's not to understand is why some people think that the current approach is POV. Sure, it might not be perfect, but there's no pro-Serb or pro-Albanian bias. Bazonka (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
France and Spain are utterly different; they're not in any way disputed. Please, think about what you're suggesting - equating Kosovo the place with the very-much disputed RoK is like disturbing a nest of POV hornets. Things have been so much more stable, with less arguments since the articles were split. Let's not go back there. Bazonka (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Republic of France is recognised by every entity in the world, undisputed ruler of territory of France, which is claimed by none other, while Republic of Kosovo rule only part of territory of Kosovo, it is widely unrecognized by majority of the world, and its entire territory is claimed by other, undisputed and politically older entity. Those two cannot be compared in any way, as they are 1000000 miles apart, both physically, politically and historically. Repetition of questionable and seriously faulty POVs, and empty ip s's and sockpuppets supports, not backed in arguments will not disturb cement consensus we gained on this page. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support largely per PersonPaOpinion. The articles represent two Ps oV for one place (unlike, for example, Cyprus and North Cyprus). Jd2718 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support re-merge. I've always been opposed to the split, and I'm not convinced there ever was a valid consensus for it, outside the persistent pushing by editors with obvious national agendas. Far too much content overlap between the two articles; conceptual split goes counter to common English usage, and nothing in the inherent POV problems is grave enough to make treatment in a single page impossible. NPOV is better served in fewer articles, not in more articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
But you will not gain NPOV with this merge, you will only gain ultra-nationalistic article about Republic of Kosovo. As this POV proposition dont mention merger of Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article, but only Republic of Kosovo. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why we need two or more info boxes and mention all parallel institutions in one article. Situation is now clear. If content overlap is problem, then delete sections on history, geography from articles on Republic of Kosovo and AP KiM. -- Bojan  Talk  12:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's better to have three neutral articles, one about the region and the two about political entities, than to have one article that will be the scene of constant edit wars. If we put all information into one article, each party will try to remove content which relates to the political entity of the other side. Finally, we will get a POV article, that will be only about one political entity. That's why I can't support this merge proposal.--В и к и T 12:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the case similar to Cyprus (disambiguation). So there are 2 separate entities, with separate institutions. --Alexmilt (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Many of users of serbian wiki have this article in whatch list. For example I sow now that, so I came here --Јованвб (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kosovo is disputed teritory. So, that can't be same as Republic of Kosovo. This is obvious that there we have POV pushing and troling proposition. --Јованвб (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, and block anyone that disagrees :) Wouldn't that make this a nicer place to edit. Obviously you cannot reasonably justify separating the articles about a region and its government, even if the governance is disputed. Prodego talk 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
But did you really read the justification? And this place already is nice place to edit, since article was split. 0% of vandalism and POV pushing. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not the only example for existence of separate articles about region and political entity. See, Taiwan and Republic of China.--В и к и T 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Taiwan and ROC articles cover different areas. Taiwan focuses only on the single island, the ROC article covers quite a few other islands as well, similar to Pulau Ujong and Singapore. The two Kosovo articles cover the same area. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Why would Repuvlic of Kosovo would have advantage over AP KiM? What if we want to merge AP KIM and Kosovo? Having three non- ambiguous articles is the best, NPOV solution. -- Bojan  Talk  01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
And what about Western Sahara? It is disputed territory between Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Southern Provinces. Same as here. Note that self proclaimed RoK doesn't control North Kosovo. RoK claims sovereignty over the entire territory of Kosovo, but don't have control over the some territories..--В и к и T 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You presume that those are acceptable. Other stuff is wrong too. Prodego talk 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh linking to Other stuff exists, favorite argument of those who don't have arguments. I used it many times :)В и к и T 09:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija or any other relevant info from other related articles, can be included here although they may stand as separate. I see some here cite Cyprus case. I don't think they are similar, unless you want to delete Kosovo article and have Serbia/Serbia(Kosovo) dab page which is extremely pov. Someone rightly feared that this merge might bring edit wars, however I think we have the tools of fighting it. We are speaking about scientific principles of encyclopedia articles here. We can not deform them because some hot headed persons might react. Aigest (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, wikipedia only reflects the common use of terms. There's no possible source that uses another term for Kosovo and another one for the Republic of Kosovo, just as no source uses the term France or Germany without referring to the state entity.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia also tries to maintain neutrality. Equating the territory of Kosovo with the disputed Republic of Kosovo is taking sides, especially if you bear in mind that the territory of RoK is smaller than that of Kosovo the place. In my opinion, WP:NPOV is more important than WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I think it's very wrong to say that there is no single source that uses a different term for region of Kosovo and a different term for Republic of Kosovo since this oversimplifies the matter. The term for Republic of Kosovo would be exactly the term "Republic of Kosovo". And that differs from the term Kosovo. This may seem banal but true nevertheless. And right to the point I think. --biblbroks (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
And Germany differs from Federal Republic of Germany, yet they are the same article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
But does the meaning of Germany and the meaning of Federal Republic of Germany differ that much as does the meaning of Kosovo and the meaning of Republic of Kosovo? The term Germany is almost always if not always used to denote one sovereign state, while the term Kosovo is surely very often regarded as a term to denote one disputed region and sometimes a term to denote one state... where the term "sometimes" is hard to decipher especially should the term "sovereign" be used in front of the term "state". At least for that this distinction should be taken into account very carefully, if not for maintaining neutrality, which of course should also be maintained, despite the fact that some think that this is of secondary importance in this case. --biblbroks (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose-It's not the same thing. Kosovo is autonomic region of Serbia, and Republic of Kosovo is partially recognized country. Wile E. Coyote (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am actually not strongly opposed to it, apart from some minor concerns - how will the history of the region of Kosovo be included in the new Republic ? Given that the former has existed since 40 kYA, and the latter only in recent years Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It would just be written in the history section, similar to articles on any place in wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Those are to conflicting entities, that is the reason for concern. Those two should not be represented together, as they are not. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this "similar to articles on any place in wikipedia" a referral to Kosovo the region and not the state/republic/entity? Or is this me toying with semantics? --biblbroks (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Not many places have multiple general articles about them. There's only one history of Kosovo. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
In one place Kosovo is called an abstract geographical area, here it's called a place. Above it is again said it to be a disputed state - which would allegedly be solidly founded in reality and sources. I think this is quite confusing: what is Kosovo in the end? I mean in English language? --biblbroks (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If you're looking for a short and simple definition or title, your search is pointless. If we were to go by the point of your statement, through reductio ad absurdum, we'd have an article on Kosovo the abstract geographical area, an article on Kosovo the place, an article on Kosovo the disputed state, etc. It's untenable and ridiculous. Obviously no-one is advocating this huge number of articles, but the point is the current set-up tries to cover the same thing in two different ways, trying to separate the state from the area it governs. It'd be like creating a Serbia article and a Republic of Serbia article (with Serbia covering the region), because the Serbian government doesn't control a part of this Serbia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
And what would be the difference between the articles on "Kosovo the place" and "Kosovo the abstract geographical area"? Also worth noting: if a sound proposal to create two different articles one called Serbia and one called Republic of Serbia would have been made, I would surely consider it, but I most seriously doubt that you could make one such proposal. But hey, you can try. If you want, I can give you a hint. --biblbroks (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no clue what the difference would be, which was the whole point. The current setup faces exactly the same issues as that. As for Serbia, I would oppose that split, just as I support undoing this split. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, user Chipmunkdavis was the one who referred to Kosovo when he/she used the phrase "abstract geographical area", not me. And therefore I don't see a point of reducing my point to reductio ad absurdum. Also I am aware that someone would oppose the hypothetical split which I described and that perhaps even ferociously - especially since that someone said he/she would oppose something he/she haven't even been informed of. I won't comment on his/her reasons for such a stance, but maybe he/she could. --biblbroks (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose How this can be same, Republic of Kosovo is not even UN member, not recognized by 2/3 of UN members, and Kosovo is still by every international law autonomous province in Serbia, so this would be just another political decision by some users, and far from neutral point.--Obelixus (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment for closing admin User:WhiteWriter has canvassed in the Serbian wikipedia[6]. Google translation:

==En wiki / Kosovo==

IP address of the proposed merger as Article Article Kosovo Republic of Kosovo, no article on the autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija. Participants and lutci already blocked some users.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Merge_with_Republic_of_Kosovo.3F Talk: Kosovo # Merge with Republic of Kosovo]

Give your suggestion, comment, or attitude. - A word BeliPisac 12:53,

9 January 2012. (CET)

Wile_E._Coyote had not edited the English wikipedia since August, so he probably saw that notice. All other users seem to be regular editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This translation is almost meaningless, btw... This is NOT CANVASSING, per WP:CANVAS. This post was limited, Neutral, Nonpartisan and open, all propositions used in Appropriate notification guideline. And i asked for more opinions, i dont see whats wrong in it. It is the same here and there, wiki is not voting, if arguments are not useful, then we cannot use it. Also, you are cross wiki hounding me? That is not permitted, as opposed to the first thing mentioned. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Why would someone seeking non-partisan views leave such a message on a board of Serbian wikipedia, when this is an issue of the English wikipedia? Checking(I was possibly the first to find out about your posts) and making known activities that possibly involve gaming the system isn't wikihounding in any way. Gaius earlier pointed out that most of the oppose come from certain users, so your messages on sr.wiki verify the demographic tendencies of the discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that we should be overly concerned that most of the opposers are pro-Serb. The proposal here is to move from a neutral format to a pro-Albanian format, so it is inevitable that the Serbs are going to be the most vocal in opposition to it. As long as they are not counter-proposing a pro-Serb format, then they have an entirely valid position. (Note that I am opposed, but am neither pro-Serb nor pro-Albanian.) Bazonka (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ethnic profiling of users wont help us here, Zjarri, and that is forbidden per WP:NPA. Arguments will. Exactly as Bazonka told you, this proposition is so POV, and i didnt say anything wrong regarding that. I just told "Give your proposition, comment or attitude". That can hardly be non neutral sentence... --WhiteWriter speaks 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to profile, but most of the Support votes come from non-Albanians and most of the Oppose votes come from Serbs. There is nothing wrong with that, but meatpuppetry and canvassing is an inappropriate way to block the merge. As per the categories set up on WP:Canvassing, the message sent out is biased, the audience is probably partisan (despite obvious objections), and the transparency is secret (since it was posted in another language wiki) and since it satisfies at least 2/4 categories (perhaps 3/4), it is inappropriate and Enric Naval's point is worth noting.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bump in but it would be an edit conflict and I wanted to comment a previous post. What exactly is the bias of the message? "Audience is probably partisan" - isn't this profiling an entire contributing population of sr.wikipedia.org? "Transparency is secret since it was posted in another language wiki" - and the filing party for this case of alleged canvassing used a Google translator? Does the previous comment support the view that this was canvassing or...? I really don't understand this comment especially when one user commented previously that "Gaius earlier pointed out that most of the oppose come from certain users". And yet in the previous comment it is claimed that it wasn't meant to profile. And that right before the claim where do the Support votes mostly come from and from what ethnicity do Oppose votes mostly come from. I find this comment utterly peculiar if not contradictory. --biblbroks (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I retract my comment, since after reconsidering the message I realized that it is biased: "Učestvuju i lutci nekih već blokiranih korisnika." is an opinion. --biblbroks (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it is somewhat apparent from the state of affirs that it might be premature to homogenize everything into an article titled Republic of Kosovo when it is not actually a recognized country yet. And there is merit in what certain editors who state that the two are not the same. This article is about a region in Southeastern Europe which has existed for hundreds- thousands years, the other is a newly created, and according to some view points, illegally created state. As messy as it might be, two separate articles might be warranted until international/ UN status moves to a more a recognizable/ unanimous position. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Canvassing: Let's be honest; there has been canvassing to attract editors from the Serb side. (Or maybe just a few emails reminding people to !vote, eh? I'm under no allusion; most canvassing is done in less public ways). It's happened with previous polls on this subject on this talkpage; when those polls did not deliver the desired result, somebody just went ahead and split the article anyway. Establishing, and acting on, a fair consensus takes second place to serb nationalism. It's a shame that such controversial matters can't be decided fairly. bobrayner (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Serb nationalism? What a pompous rhetoric. Resorting to appeal to morality by claiming something is shameful while disregarding previous replies about this? I'd say a weak attempt to avoid the issue. Casting suspicion on previous polls by profiling editors who participated? I think we established profiling is inappropriate and that polls are not a good way to build consensus, yet these arguments keep on repeating. --biblbroks (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The status of Kosovo is disputed. And if you didn't know, North Kosovo is a current event (referendum in February). --Zoupan (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for all the reasons so well stated by User:Bazonka. We HAD an article that combined the region and the Republic, at the same time we had a separate article for the Autonomous Province (which article the proposer seems to forget). This inequality of presentation and the fact that even the simplest things had to be qualified so many different ways meant that the article was always a wishy-washy, self-contradictory mess. Far from being POV, this current setup seems the most NPOV to me. --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See status of Kosovo and North Kosovo. Int21h (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ah Kosovo... All Serbian users will vote against this and all Albanian users will invariably vote for it, but objectively, If China isn't merged with People's Republic of China, the disputed RoK shouldn't be merged with Kosovo. This is a far more complex issue than is apparently understood in the move proposal. -- Director (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
China has been merged with the PRC, but I still think that we should keep Kosovo and ROK separate.--Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Ha, so it has. Either way the RoK is hardly the People's Republic of China, I agree. -- Director (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't agree with rationale provided for this merging (Having two articles about Kosovo one as a geographical region, one as a political region is a violation of WP:NPOV.) Having two separate articles about region of Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo doesn't have to do anything with NPOV. Both topics are notable (Wikipedia:Notability) and described in very large articles (Wikipedia:Article size). We would have problem with NPOV only after merging of those two articles, regardless of the recognition issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: For what it's worth, I came to here looking for info on Kosovo as a political, rather than a merely geographic entity. Wouldn't a disambiguation page be useful under the Kosovo name? LukeSurl t
  • Oppose - The so called Republic of Kosovo is not even recognised by the United Nations. The move would be inappropriate and could not command consensus support. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC) User has made 2 edits prior to this comment. Most probably a single purpose account. --biblbroks (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't believe it does. Bazonka (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Now isn't this a great question? I believe that some might say that the answer depends on the context - what exactly is meant by the term Kosovo in "of Kosovo". --biblbroks (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The same problem pops up with every single place that a country claims but doesn't control.. From Northern Ireland to Northern Cyprus.. Are they part of Ireland and Cyprus respectively? What if Kosovo is defined as a geographical region rather than a reference to a country? Is North Kosovo part of Kosovo? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well again, now it depends on how you define Kosovo as a geographical region. I'd say North Kosovo is part of Kosovo.. when using the term Kosovo as in the syntagma Kosovo War. But some might object to the very notion of Kosovo being considered as a geographical region. So there you have it. --biblbroks (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bazonka on top. This issue seems to were part of BIG discussions you can see in the archives of this and related pages. The result of these discussions is: Kosovo article is about the geographic region. Republic of Kosovo is about the independent state. Another article is for the Serbian region. In any case these three topics should be at different articles and that is the result of all discussions. Whether Kosovo is a disambiguation page, a redirect to Republic of Kosovo or article about the republic - in those cases the current content of this article should be moved to Kosovo (region) or something like that. But that's not what the previous discussions reached as conclusion. The examples with russia-supported separatist regions are one thing, but we have also Palestine (about the region) and State of Palestine. Japinderum (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Japinderum and Bazonka. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

*Support Merge. Honestly I see no reason why to let politics and racism rule in Wikipedia. The serbian editors should get over their racism and not let it cloud their judgment. Whether or not they, or anyone else for that matter, accepts the political will of the people of Kosovo to be free and independent should not impact our judgment when it comes to encyclopedias or history books. If we follow the logic of having two to three articles on Kosovo just because there is a political dispute going on, then I believe we should also have another article on Serbia based on the disputes that Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Kosovo have with this country and government. Nevertheless if we followed this logic I doubt there will be one single country that is not in one way or another disputed by another country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.175.0.76 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC) stricken out by --biblbroks (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC) per WP:NPA

  • Support. A descriptive article would tell us what Kosovo is--that is, the Republic of Kosovo--and not what others want Kosovo to be--a province of Serbia (the article could, of course, tell us of Serbia's position on Kosovo). With this said, I announce my renewed retirement from Wikipedia precisely because of political tensions that continue to hinder the content quality and fairness of the encyclopedia. Thank you,--Getoar TX (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
So we should consider this claim of Kosovo being the Republic of Kosovo based on what arguments? --biblbroks (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
@Getoar TX, you're saying we should have this article tell us what you want Kosovo to be? :) That's just it - Kosovo isn't the Republic of Kosovo, both legally to a great extent and de facto. An entire segment of it is outside the RoK, and Serbia has a legal claim on its old province. Kosovo is both the Republic of Kosovo and the AP Kosovo and Metohija, and this article represents that excellently. I had nothing to do with the introduction of this state of affairs, but as far as I know I actually suggested it a long time ago as an NPOV solution to a complex problem. And that it is imo. -- Director (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Since my earlier comment was stricken through due to the lack of a Wikipedia account, I hope that this re-post will not face the same unfair silencing of an honest expression of free and professional thought regarding the topic. I believe the articles should be merged. Honestly I see no reason why to let politics and racism rule in Wikipedia. The serbian editors should get over their racism and not let it cloud their judgment. Whether or not they, or anyone else for that matter, accepts the political will of the people of Kosovo to be free and independent should not impact our judgment when it comes to encyclopedias or history books. If we follow the logic of having two to three articles on Kosovo just because there is a political dispute going on, then I believe we should also have another article on Serbia based on the disputes that Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Kosovo have with this country and government. Nevertheless if we followed this logic I doubt there will be one single country that is not in one way or another disputed by another country. I also agree with Getoar TX, and to respond to Biblbroks's question on arguments I would like to ask her the same question regarding any other country in the globe. From my own experience and education (I studied Law with a focus on Int'l Law) I haven't found a single case where independence is measured by the rate of foreign recognition or by the opinion of individuals. Independence is a fact, you see it in the field. The formal declaration of independence just re-affirms the factual state in the field which cannot be denied by anyone. Please biblbroks, tell me, if Kosovo is part of Serbia, then why does Serbia have no say in any matters besides the topic of rights for the serbian minority in Kosovo? Just in case you intend to mention the illegal parallel structures in northern Kosovo please be aware that they are considered illegal by the whole international community including Serbia (re-affirmed by the recent arrest of Zvonko Veselinovic) and that sovereignty and independence is not related to the extent of control over your territory, as long as you have full control over a core area. Sentonkacaniku (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The aforementioned comment was stricken out because it contained personal attacks on a whole group of editors, and not because of some arbitrary fact that the user giving it was lacking some arbitrary Wikipedia account. This reason, the reason for striking out that previous controversial comment, was properly noted later on within the note of the signator - the editor, who was striking out the very comment. Also, in the edit summary of that striking out it was merely suggested to the editor giving the comment in question to register an account so as to not arouse any suspicion about things like Gaming the system. I repeat: it was merely suggested, and not conditionalized. Perhaps the reason for giving such a suggestion may not be self-evident since the very act of giving such a suggestion could be perceived as a case of having bad faith, but if one accounts the content of the comment which was stricken out I think that many would agree that the suggestion could have been received with much more good faith. And the comment surely wasn't silenced since it was stricken through and therefore it could still be read. Any such statements about censorship are not just ridiculous but very very disturbing and even very harmful. Therefore I note that any further reiterations of opinions of alleged unfair treatment of this commentator will be regarded as a grave breach of one of Wikipedia's core guidelines about behaviour assuming good faith. As for racism remarks, I strongly suggest the commentator to be escorted to the one of Wikipedia's core policies No personal attacks. Until the comments given here are eradicated of any personal attacks, they will be disregarded and stricken out even in the future so that any future commentators on this page learn some Wikipedian manners before posting within this highly controversial and, as such, highly inflammable topic. I surely had my own share of such treatment here and learned many lessons in this very article and discussion page, so as to my word have some weight regarding the issue of how Wikipedians are to conduct on this discussion page. As one such editor, and with explanations given, I honestly believe that this can only better any further dialogue. Although I am very sorry as I am the one who is making this probably controversial actions, and even more sorry that such actions are to be made in one such situation where previously this comment was already stricken out once, I most strongly think that this is utmost necessary. Therefore, I am striking out the whole previous comment... again. --biblbroks (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
In the interest of not breaking 1RR (it's not quite clear if it applies only to edits in the article or also here on its talkpage), I have refrained from reverting your striking out another time, and am instead giving you a chance to self-revert. This is a final warning: stop messing with other editors' postings, no matter how offensive you find them. If you don't self-revert, I'll take this to WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your ultimatum, FPS! This user created account just for participation in "Vote" where politically driven votes are not needed. User violate NPA! Biblbroks didn't removed it, he just stricken it. Per consensus, two users agree that comment should be strikened, per violations of several crucial wiki rules! This user must not participate in this, as kosovo page article is on probation! I cannot find a single reason why we should leave it like this! TLDR, NPA, SPA, most probably SOCK, GAME, how may reasons and violations should be list here? Instead of blind AE, tell us why we should leave this comment here? Agreement is gold, AE is poor... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
SPA, 0 other edits prior the voting, user was obviously invited here to vote, or came as sockpuppet. --WhiteWriterspeaks 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but not only that I don't understand but I don't believe: the threat warning was given on the grounds that comments containing personal attacks, and that to a whole group of editors, should remain as they are because? Isn't this a grave case of wikilawyering? I mean, if this "stop messing with other editors' postings, no matter how offensive you find them" isn't wikilawyering, I don't know what is. Should we condone personal attacks and that on the very discussion page of the article which is under General sanctions? Personal attacks are sometimes even *deleted* on much less controversial pages than this is. And we are to keep them here untouched? In the interest of preserving this discussion page a place for civilized discussions and not turning it into another battleground I will leave the previous comments stricken out. If somebody thinks that this is then for WP:AE, ok, see you there. My conscience is clear. --biblbroks (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't strike other people's comments, unless it's a proven sockpuppet. Leave it to the closing administrator to determine how much weight to give this opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Imo there is simply no consensus for the proposed merge, and its coming up on two months since this thread was started. Everyone's expressed their opinion once and now we're starting to see socks arrive - I take that as a sign its about time to close-up shop. -- Director (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, i tried that, but Fut. Perf. pushed this even longer then needed... I will ask from someone to close this charade... --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First of all the Republic of Kosovo is partially recognized. Second of all in combination with it being partially recognized, it is a disputed territory due to a history of strong animosity, hatred, and war between Albanians and Serbs; the North that does not recognize the Republic of Kosovo. Third of all, in combination with the first two points - how is merging this article about the history of Kosovo as a whole into the Republic of Kosovo article going to improve anything here? Everyone knows it will start a vicious edit war between Albanian and Serb editors. No one should expect a neutral discussion to occur between Albanian and Serb users here over the status of Kosovo - that's like asking Israeli and Palestinian users to agree on the status of East Jerusalem; these people have had long history of animosity and bloodshed - an administrator should be brought in to arbitrate this.--R-41 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Do to the extremely controversial nature of this topic and the strong ethnic divide between users on this topic, I have requested informal mediation from an outside user to act as mediator, I have made the request here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/12 March 2012/.--R-41 (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The point is that whenever anyone in the world of academia or even in everyday conversation speaks about 'Kosovo,' they are undoubtedly referring to the modern day Republic of Kosovo (whether or not its legitimacy is recognised is a separate issues). Having an article such as this is pointless and clearly reflects a political point of view which is not what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Ottomanist (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This thread has been closed! I have replaced the closure code and struck out all text added since the closure. Please read the text immediately above: Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. Bazonka (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? How comes it's archived when I made a comment? Please inform me under whose authority this thread is being archived? Ottomanist (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

User:WhiteWriter closed this discussion under WP:NAC. If you wish to continue the discussion, please do so in a new thread. Bazonka (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NAC, specifically the 'avoid pitfalls' part. Many thanks, this discussion is very useful and is leading to some constructive comments. Ottomanist (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ottomanist, kindly drop the mallet and back slowly away from the horse carcass. After four months the whole envisioned scene is starting to get rather unsettling. -- Director (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Judging by the comments above, the debate is being hijacked by a group of editors who are doing their best to present the debate as settled. This hardly seems to be the case, and I don't see why all the non nationalist editors should be held hostage to a group of saboteurs. Let the debate continue, the arguments clearly seem to be more logical in favour of a merger...maybe that's why some are trying to end the discussion. Ottomanist (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you uncovered the conspiracy. People are hijacking this thread and trying to close the WP:RM - because this discussion was over since early March. Ottomanist, this article is under a 1RR limit, and should you attempt to continue this farce you may find yourself reported. -- Director (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Ottomanist: I'm personally rather frustrated too about the way this process has gone, but it's better to let it go for now. Even if this were to be kept open longer, it is almost inconceivable at this point that anything could come of it that outside administrators would read as a consensus to merge. It's still true that the process was (predictably) highjacked by known national interest groups, and I would have preferred to see it formally closed by somebody from the outside, but there's little that can be done about that at this point. BTW, you said on my talkpage that you are a "returning" user. I would strongly recommend disclosing what your previous accounts were, or people will treat you as a likely sanction-evading sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and, by the way, Director, since you made a non-admin closure here as somebody who took part in the debate himself, I think it would be fair to clarify the closing summary as "no consensus". It was numerically somewhere near 18:14 against the merge, and that includes a substantial number of obviously canvassed votes, so it would certainly not be appropriate to let this stand as if it implied a legitimate "consensus against". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I amended the comment. I will add that canvassed votes can certainly be found on both sides. In fact, such is probably the case with every major discussion on this talkpage (I've fixed my comment above, its seems I've started forgetting words in my old age). -- Director (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do go ahead and 'report me' (?) Thanks for your input Fut.Perf, but I don't think that we should be held hostage to such tendentious editing. This is not the place to play out nationalist/political policies. It is a place to cooperate on the construction of useful information for general use. Ottomanist (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
So you wouldn't say your talkpage edit-war here in any way conforms to the definition of WP:TE? :) Ottomanist, are you aware that you just reverted an admin closure? [7] As for me reporting, let me assure you that this would already be on ANI had Future not arrived on the scene. -- Director (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks again for your response. I would like to resolve this issue, I don't see why we should be held hostage here to a group of nationalist editors. Ottomanist (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
If that analogy is at all appropriate, I would say its only applicable to your actions - in holding this thread "hostage". The issue is not only resolved, it was resolved months ago. The "nationalist editor" here appears to be you, reverting admin closure of a finished RM because it did not turn out in your favor. In my view you should be sanctioned for this talkpage edit-war. -- Director (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The evidence is above for all to see. Ottomanist (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia policy says that polls are not mandatory and should be used with caution, Wikipedia is about reliable sources and consensus relies on discussion and ability to support such views with reliable sources. The sad fact is that there will likely be no consensus between Albanian and Serb users here on the status of Kosovo - these two peoples have a long history of xenophobia and violent conflict between each other. This proposition was unacceptable because it is just like throwing open a poll on whether East Jerusalem should be recognized on Wikipedia as part of Israel or the Palestinian National Authority and watching Zionist Jews and nationalist Arabs fight it out on the talk page, and the only thing that would decide it is which side would be able to muster the most votes. Like the East Jerusalem issue, the status of Kosovo is extremely controversial. This vote was polarizing and in no way would have achieved consensus, it would have only been decided by whether the pro-Albanian or pro-Serb camp would be able to muster the most votes. When I saw it I thought an administrator should be brought in to arbitrate a solution, because it was too polarizing. It is all for the best that this poll is shut down.--R-41 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This really isn't just an Albanian vs. Serbian bunfight. There are neutral editors here too, and they don't always agree. (For example, I was opposed to the merge and User:Chipmunkdavis supported it.) Even if the "nationalists" are taken out of the equation, we'd probably still not reach consensus. This thread really should be re-closed and left alone. Bazonka (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I'm also neither Serbian nor Albanian. -- Director (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should get away from such orientalist stereotypes which seek to present people from southeast europe as plagued by 'old ethnic hatreds' . We need outside administrators to look at the arguments, I think this debate has exhausted some editors here. Ottomanist (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Um.. what? "Exhausted"?! Nobody's debated anything here for two months. And you're the one constantly referring to "nationalist editors", "groups of saboteurs", "nationalist/political policies", etc. It seems that only when your own terms are applied to yourself that you choose to accuse others of "stereotyping". You disagree with the result of this RM, and so you decided to keep it open as you believe it might somehow still turn out in your favor. Kindly rephrain from all this empty demagoguery.
An admin has closed this thread, you reverted him [8]. The consensus on this talkpage is for closing the thread (five users thus far, against you). Reinstating closure once again - for the final time. -- Director (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not a court room, nor is it (wikipedia) a democratic experiment. It's a talk page-- let's get some other admins on here. Ottomanist (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
"Not a court room"? Please cut it out with these empty phrases. This is a talkpage, yes, and threads like this get closed by admins on talkpages. Not by twenty-three admins coming here (and joining the five other users trying to close this thread), but by one admin. That will have to satisfy you, as I think you should realize people are not bound to acquiesce to your demands. You're done bullying people here. -- Director (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the evidence is above for all to see - I particularly like this comment

WSupport. We had lots of polls on whether to split Kosovo. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the wrong version got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2012

Ottomanist (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Evidence"? Evidence for what? That you support the merge? I'm sure you're "100% certain" that it should be moved, and there are a dozen others that agree with you, so you can stop copy-pasting these nonsense quotes. There are others that disagree however, and you will have to accept that. If you wish to continue pushing for a merge, do so in a new RM. -- Director (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serbian not Serbo-Croatian

You can't write for southern Serbian province in Serbo-Croatian, but official Serbian language! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.109.75 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the language is referred to as Serbo-Croatian (and Bosnian in some cases) with different dialects ekavian, ikavian etc., etc., Ottomanist (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Ekavian, Ikavian, and Ijekavian are the three accents of the Serbo-Croatian language, which predominantly uses only one dialect - Shtokavian (there are others, Kajkavian and Chakavian, but they are rather marginal). Serbo-Croatian is a pluricentric language with four official standards: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, all of them based on the same Shtokavian dialect. As its article states, sources consider "Serbian" one of the four standards of the Serbo-Croatian language. As you know, the area recently suffered war and ethnic strife. As a result, the governments in the Balkans do not recognize the fact that they use a single language for political reasons, and nationalists in all these countries tend to claim that they each speak a "separate" language. Linguists disagree, however, and that's that matters on this project. -- Director (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Some linguists. There is no scientific consensus on it. Wikipedia should not be (mis)used to push any particular POV. Until scientific consensus is reached wikipedia should not merge Serbian and Croatian and.... to "Serbo-Croatian". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my point. I also disagree with merger, as there is no real need nor consensus on wiki for that. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid there is a consensus. Both in the scientific community (i.e. linguists), and enWiki itself. This was discussed at enormous length at the appropriate talkpage. It has been conclusively established, many times, that the position of the vast majority of linguists is as outlined above. This is not up for discussion. I was merely explaining to User:Ottomanist what the current WP:CONSENSUS is on this issue. Consensus on this project can only be based on sources, as I'm sure you know, and the bare opposition by users does not affect it in the slightest. This is not a democracy.
If you wish to contest it, please go to Talk:Serbo-Croatian. When you change it in accordance with your beliefs, you are free to pursue that goal elsewhere (though you are far more likely to just get shot down immediately by users who are actually familiar with the subject matter). Otherwise It seems very much inappropriate for you to attempt to ignore both the scholarly sources and Wikipedia consensus on fringe articles like this one, simply because noone's here to enforce them actively. -- Director (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
You yourself confirmed there is a dispute between "a single language" or "separate languages" point of view. You obviously support "single language" point of view and you refer to other party as "nationalistic vast minority" supported by "politically motivated Balkans governments". You are, of course, entitled to have your own point of view but please dont (mis)use wikipedia to support it. Speaking of being shot down, if you really believe there is a consensus on wikipedia that all "separate" languages should be merged into a "single language" please prove the existence of such consensus by changing Croatian language to Serbo-Croatian in the first sentence of Croatia article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
You're confusing a political dispute in the Balkans, which is irrelevant for our considerations, and a scientific dispute. There is no scientific dispute. Look like I said, it has been established over and over and over again that practically all sources agree on this issue, and unambiguously support the above. That is the current WP:CONSENSUS. And if you don't believe me, go to the Croatian language, Serbian language, etc articles and see for yourself. If you would like to change said consensus, you're welcome to try and do so at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. When you do, come back here. This is not the place to discuss this issue - but it is a place where sources and consensuses should be applied, according to Wikipedia policy.
As for your "challenge", I don't think we will playing games like that :). The Croatia article does not really matter, since the Croatian language article abides by consensus. See for example the disclaimer here on Talk:Croatian language if you like. -- Director (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Croatia article does not really matter, but House of Flowers does matter? How come? Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you ask me, the Croatia and Serbia articles too should have sh up in the lede. I just don't have the time or the nerves to explain all the above 50 times a day to people who don't care anyway and are ruled by their life-long misconceptions. Like I told you, WW, I don't intend to go on a campaign to replace all the four languages with sh. A reader can see what e.g. "Serbian" really is when they click on the wikilink - it is only when the lede is cluttered by three or four seperate entries for the same language that I try to do something about it. Here too I don't particularly care if sr is replaced with sh (as it should), I was just explaining the current WP:CONSENSUS to User:Ottomanist.
@"Majority of users should decide what does and what does not matter, and not single user." Heh, no. Neither "single user", nor the majority. Sources. The majority of the sources. -- Director (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Direktor, Wikipedia policy itself says that Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia policy says that polls are not mandatory and should be used with caution, Wikipedia is about reliable sources and consensus relies on ability to support such views with reliable sources.--R-41 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
As promised if this issue came up again for the 1,435th time, I have, in fact, "jumped out the window." (thankfully it was on the first floor. :-P) I think NATO should drop leaflets all over former Yugoslav territories explaining Serbo-Croatian, footnoted with highly reputable academic sources. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Or like armored cars with megaphones patrolling the streets. That could work too.
"Attention uncivilized peasants! You do not each have your own language. You may think you do, but really - you don't. Nobody outside your tiny country gives a damn about what you want or what your government proclaims. Acknowledge or be destroyed. Yours with love, NATO"
-- Director (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Standard-issue NATO linguistic-enforcement megaphone. Used as last resort for the very hard-headed. ---------------------->

i am trying to sign. Pls do not undo till I finish need 10 minutes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Name

Change name to Kosovo and Metohija! It's real name, Kosovo only is name of north part of this province. — Лазар (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Its WP:COMMONNAME in the English language is just Kosovo. Also, the longer name has WP:POV connotations. Bazonka (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Similarly Bosnia and Herzegovina is commonly shortened to Bosnia. But you would not dare to call someone in Herzegovina as Bosnian, especially if he is Croatian or Serbian. They very insist of being Herzegovinas. Simialrly Kosovo and Metohija was shortedened to Kosovo. The reason why metohija was not popular among Albanian population was origin of the word metoch - in Greek means church land. So it related to orthodox tradition of the area in time between 8 and 15 century when Ottoman conquests happened. Albanians being Muslims have been "preached" to dislike it. Unfortuantelly if we led religion to guide a science then I am afraid Galileo will find no place on this WIKI-Idiocy. Btw words like Kosovo or Bosnia are words of Slavic origin. Herzegovina has Germanic origin with Slavic spice. Talking about this as "offensive" is political not scientific statement. Mr Bazonka point is that WIKI should be stripped of politics and loaded with science regardless you or all planet finds it "offensive". Greek word saying church land in no way should be "BANNED" by YOU not any other self proclaimed "AUTHORITY" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You are missing the point. In English, we don't often use the terms "Metohija" and "Herzegovina" and WOULD most often call a Metohijan a "Kosovan" (or possibly "Kosovar") and a Herzegovinian a "Bosnian". This page is written in English and follows that usage. --

Lead: Serbian name for Republic of Kosovo

The official Serbian-language name for Republic of Kosovo, as used in the Constitution, legislation, government letterheads, and signs outside all government offices, is "Republika Kosova" (using the genitive of "Kosovo"), not "Republika Kosovo" as in the Article. I know this is different from usual Slavic naming conventions, but Wikipedia Policy on Names says that where an official name exists other than in the title, it should be given early on in the article. The name Serbs in Serbia give the region is stated in the article; I see no reason to change the name Serb Ministers in the Government of Kosovo use. --Markd999 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, its not. Translation is "Republika Kosovo" and official name also. Do you have any reference for that? --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: the end of the war

The article currently reads: "Following the Kosovo War, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) relinquished governance of this territory, whose governance was taken over by the United Nations" This sounds like a generous unilateral act, which is not a NPOV, and is factually incorrect (hostilities did not end until the FRY had accepted, under the Ahtisaari/Chernomyrdin agreement, that it would give up the exercise of sovereignty - pending a final status settlement, of course). I propose to edit this to "The Kosovo War ended with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia accepting that it would give up the exercise of its sovereignty pending a final status settlement. Under UNSCR 1244, governance passed to the United Nations"

--Markd999 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is fine by me. Small change... --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: North Kosovo

Current article reads: ".. while North Kosovo, the largest Kosovo Serb enclave, is under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia".

Not entirely factual. The Kosovo Police Service are present in the North, while police in Serbian uniforms are not (even if Serb officers in the KPS may not in fact be carrying out orders from Pristina); the Kosovo Customs Service controls the border crossings in joint management with the Serbian Customs; KFOR is a factor in "control"; and while openly Serbian institutions are present (electricity, telephones, etc) unofficial parallel structures are also a potent factor (usually subsidised by Belgrade, loyal to the idea of being part of Serbia, but not necessarily subservient to the Serbian Government at any particular time).

I propose to edit this (a change accepted in the article "Republic of Kosovo" to:

"..although North Kosovo, the largest Serb enclave, is largely under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia or parallel structures subsidised by Serbia"

--Markd999 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: control

Current version has the Kosovo Governemnt having "de facto control over most of its territory". I propose to delete the words "de facto". In the subsequent mention of North Kosovo there is no mention about whether control is de facto or de jure, and there is no reason for the words here. --Markd999 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Kosovo government is still mostly in the de facto region, while Serbia is still de jure dominant. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be from a NPOV. Your argument here accepts that the phrase "de facto" implies that the Kosovo Government is not "de jure" in control of most of its territory, and is not therefore neutral terminology. I accept that Serbia, and quite a lot of other countries, believe this to be the case. But their point of view is already included in the article. I shall therefore go ahead with the edit on the basis that you agree with me that the words are not neutral, albeit that they are in accordance with your own point of view over the dispute over status. --Markd999 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, i have to ask for your revert. RoK control over territory is really only de facto by now, as they are not UN members, and the rest of the territory is not in their control, neither de jure nor de facto. This is very clear info that is not problematic. As article is under ARBMAC and under various restrictions, please, revert your self, as we didnt agreed yet on this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think I have to refuse your request. The main controversy in this article, as among the international community, is over whether Kosovo is de jure or merely de facto independent. Presumably all the states which have recognised it think it is de jure independent; as do many international lawyers. Regardless of my or your views on this controversy, under Wikipedia principles we need to use language which is neutral both explicitly, and, so far as possible, implicitly. You seem to agree with me that the use of the words "de facto" is in contrast with "de jure"; in other words that it is not neutral over the controversy. If they are interpreted purely neutrally, then they are redundant; and since most edits tend to lengthen the entry, one which cuts, even by two words, should be welcomed. Even if I entirely agreed with your view of whether Kosovo's independence was de jure or de facto, I would still propose this change.

You are, I am afraid, wrong about membership of the UN being a requirement of statehood. Even today, the Holy See, accepted by the UN as a state, is not a member. There are many examples in the past of countries generally accepted as states not being members of the UN, either of their own volition (Switzerland for most of the period since the foundation of the UN), or because they faced veto by a member of the Security Council (for example, Ireland until 1955, the People's Republic of China until Nixon's U-turn, or both Koreas until the 1990s). --Markd999 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, would you be happy if the article were to refer to control of the North being "de facto but not de jure"? I would not consider this particularly neutral. But I have never understood how Serbia constantly referred to alleged breaches of UNSCR 1244 while still claiming to exercise powers of sovereignty over the North which were specifically transferred to UNMIK under UNSCR 1244. --Markd999 (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Background: "Frontier belt"

There is no, or very little, dispute over where the line of demarcation runs. The dispute is over whether this is an international border or an administrative boundary within Serbia, or whether this should be changed.

I propose editing to the following, already accepted in the article "Republic of Koodvo":

"The remaining line of demarcation is the subject of controversy - seen by proponents of Kosovan independence as the Kosovo-Serbia border and seen by opponents of the independence as the boundary between Central Serbia and an autonomous Kosovo all within Serbia".

--Markd999 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it is not quite important to say... Dont know, why do you think that this line is necessary? It is obvious, mostly... --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is necessary for two reasons. First, the current version grammatically means that it is Western Serbia whose status is a matter of controversy, which is of course not the case. Secondly, the phrase "frontier belt" implies that there is dispute or uncertainty about where the line of demarcation runs, which is also not the case.

Thirdly, you have accepted this line (not, incidentally, proposed by me but as a response to a proposal by me) in the article "Republic of Kosovo" and you do not seem to disagree with it here. On this basis I shall make the edit.--Markd999 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead: Inter-ethnic tensions

Current article reads:

"Long-term severe ethnic tensions between Kosovo's Albanian and Serb populations have left Kosovo ethnically divided, resulting in inter-ethnic violence, including the Kosovo War of 1999."

I do not dispute that, as in most regions where two or more ethnic/linguistic/religious groups co-exist, there have been tensions which presumably go back a very long way. But this sentence suggests that it was Italic textonlyItalic text these tensions which resulted in conflict, rather than policies from Belgrade (particularly from 1989, but going back further) or for that matter Pristina between 1974 and 1989.

I find it difficult to generalise about inter-ethnic tensions in Kosovo. If one looks to Kamenica, one finds that it was virtually untouched by the conflict of 1999, the damage done by the riots of March 2004 was a couple of windows broken, the green market is (and was virtually without interruption) multi-ethnic, and the brick factory had both Serbs and Albanians in management and wotking positions again without (or almost without) interruption. If one looks to Prizren, the communities there seem to have rubbed along reasonably happily until 1999 and the destruction of Serb areas of the city seem to have been the work of people from the surrounding villages which were almost all destroyed in 1999, and did not share the pride of people from Prizren itself in the city's traditions. Other tensions arose, not surprisingly, in areas where Kosovo Albanian property was confiscated and given to Serbian colonists; and the converse may have happened at an earlier stage (for example, in the two villages of Babuš/Babush, one is called Srpski Babuš (Serbian Babush) and the other, officially, Babush i Muxharreve (Babush of the Refugees, the Refugees in question being Albanians from the Nis region of Serbia, expelled in 1878). One would have to be astonishingly well-informed about local history to make real sense of this mosaic.

I do not despair of finding a short description which is neutral, but ignoring the fact that the Milosevic regime suspended Kosovo's autonomy, introducing "extraordinary measures" which resulted in 70% of Kosovo's employees losing their jobs, etc etc, does not seem to me a NPOV. --Markd999 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "CIA World Factbook" (Document). CIA. {{cite document}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
  2. ^ See [9] (in Error: {{in lang}}: unrecognized language code: hbs) UN estimate, Kosovo’s population estimates range from 1.9 to 2.4 million. The last two population census conducted in 1981 and 1991 estimated Kosovo’s population at 1.6 and 1.9 million respectively, but the 1991 census probably under-counted Albanians. The latest estimate in 2001 by OSCE puts the number at 2.4 Million. The World Factbook gives an estimate of 2,126,708 for the year 2007 (see "Kosovo". The World Factbook (2024 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency.).
  3. ^ "Kosovo". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2010-04-21.
  4. ^ Staff (23 July 2010) "Serbia rejects UN legal ruling on Kosovo's secession" BBC News
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo/Archive_28&oldid=1094395498"