Talk:Republic of Kosovo/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New Proposal

How about we go for "The Republic of Kosovo is the Government and Civil Authority which administrates most of the territory of Kosovo". Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is somehow impressive how far can some users drive discussions. I must be very ignorant but the issue is very clear. Perhaps its semplicity is not to everyone's taste. The Republic of Kosovo (RK) is at least a state with partial recognition. Very simplistically because over 100 states in the world recognised it (including three of the five countries of the UNSC. Technically the RK is even more recognised than the Republic of Taiwan, which is formally recognised only by a handful of countries. Indeed it would be more correct that the RK is a state and immediately after describe the level of international recognition. Someone might claim there is the issue of OR in my approach. Well not less, that in the other proposed formulations.--Silvio1973 (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this formulation is a step in the wrong direction, by divorcing the government from the place. Which was the motive behind the earlier POV-fork, but it's not how we cover any other country on wikipedia, and it's not how reliable sources do it either. bobrayner (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@IJA: Something along these lines would work for me.

@Silvio1973: That's a very simplistic view. See for example: "Before the number of recognitions was granted, it was clear that Kosovo was not a state. This is now unclear and remains unclear even after the Kosovo Opinion". Recognitions do not make a state. If 100 states recognized Mars as a state, that wouldn't make it so because their decision is a political one. That's why we need to follow what RS say on the subject.

@bobrayner: I agree that the current setup, where we try to deal with the territory and the governments separately, is quite awkward and makes things overly complicated. However, that's the situation we find ourselves in, and unless someone wants to start an RFC on merging all the articles into one, we're stuck with it. This article is about the government, not the place, so we need to describe it as such. TDL (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Silvio1973 is here only through following my edits, as a sort of petty "revenge" for my opposing his edits elsewhere. He is not here to provide a constructive position, but only to oppose my own, and you may expect that's pretty much all he's going to do (in poor English). I personally doubt he has any background understanding of the RoK issue. Should this manifest as full-blown WP:HARASSMENT I will request sanctions (as per WP:WIKIHOUNDING). This article is on probation after all. -- Director (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to that either. Neljack (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a neutral proposition. -- Director (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Direktor, I have a simple approach to the issue because I do not see how a political subject recognised as a state by over 100 countries, with diplomatic missions, issuing passports and whose independence has been qualified by the ICJ in accordance with international law, cannot be called state. At least with partial recognition. Concerning your aggressivity towards me I do not answer as I never did. Perhaps you do not realise it is detrimental to your reputation. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Because its status as a state is the subject of an international dispute. As for your disposition towards me, this is no place to discuss it. It would be detrimental to your reputation. -- Director (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the status of RoK as sovereign state is certainly in dispute, indeed for this reason it is a state with partial recognition. Over 100 countries, the IMF, the ICJ, the OECD recognised RoK's transition in 2008 from UN protectorate to state. The ICJ's decision in 2010 has reinforced its status. Of course a lot of politics helped the RoK to be what otherwise would have never been. But this is another problem, we are not here to make politics. At the end of the day it comes to sources. If any of the - I beg your pardon - extravagant formulation proposed in this Talk page for the status of the RoK are supported by reputable sources, then there is no issue. Silvio1973 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, its not just the sovereignty of the RoK that is in dispute, its whether or not it is a state at all. -- Director (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is for over UN members and for the ICJ. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And for others it isn't. That's precisely the point - its disputed. ("for over UN members" is gibberish) It would be great if you could take off so that the actual participants on this talkpage could arrive at a consensus without your WP:HARASSMENT getting in the way. -- Director (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the NumLock key was on. I meant over 100 members. I do not see why do you feel harassed. I have joint (only recently, this is true) this discussion but I am participating with civism and providing sources. If the other editors believe my conduct is inappropriate, I won't have an issue in stepping back from the discussion. In the meantime a more polite attitude from your side would be appreciated.

Concerning the status of Kosovo. A part of the World (over 100 UN members, the ICJ, the OCDE, the IMF...) considers the RoK a sovereign state. This means there are respective diplomatic missions, passports are reciprocally accepted and so on. Another part of the World consider the RoK is not (positions are different amongst those countries). In this respect the formulation to use in the lead should be The RoK is a state, whose sovereignty is recognized only by a part of UN members.

If an expert had to answer to the question: Is the status of state dependent on the condition of sovereignty? Very likely the answer would be no. A state can be not sovereign and sovereignty it's not a sufficient condition to have a state. However this interesting question (is the RoK a state before even being sovereign?) does not apply here. The RoK is a sovereign state, although its sovereignty is recognized only by a part of the UN members.--Silvio1973 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Only a handful of countries are recognized by all other states in the world. For example Montengro is recognized by less than 170 countries out of 193 and by the time Kosovo declared independence by less than those that recognize Kosovo today. Hence stating that 'The RoK is a state, whose sovereignty is recognized only by a part of UN members. supports a double standard. Montenegro is just one of many cases.

Especially since Kosovo has more recognitions than Serbia because those 106 states (0,54% of the world) recognize a Serbia without Kosovo as part of its territory which is contrary to its claims(sovereignty over Kosovo. In short there are more UN and UNSC states that support the claims of Kosovo than those of Serbia. Ermir Ismaili (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Montenegro hasn't established relations with some countries, which is pretty typical for small countries of that sort, but it has no problems with recognition; also its a new country, give the Montenegrins some time (there's an old Yugoslav joke that the Montenegrin radio started its broadcast each day with the announcement "Good morning, working people of Montenegro, it is now 12 o'clock noon!" :).

There are a total of 16 entities on this planet that are partially recognized, and only 6 other non-UN members like the RoK. Furthermore, it is entirely meaningless to discuss numbers of UN members: the United Nations Organization has not granted recognition to Kosovo. These sort of "tallies" have no impact on the status of the RoK, and are little more than trivia until they do. We might as well say that the majority of the world's surface belongs to countries that do not recognize the RoK, or that the majority of people live in countries that do not grant recognition...

But this is besides the point. It has been sourced that the status of the RoK as "state" is a subject of international dispute. I am fine with IJA's very ingenious proposal, and I'd like to remind everyone that that is the subject of this thread. -- Director (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, the UN contradicts you:

The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government.

How long must we tolerate this deception? bobrayner (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Yes, how long shall we suffer the evil of deceit!" Can you tone the drama down a bit? I was obviously referring to the UN not granting the RoK membership. -- Director (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you mention the constitution, but perplexed that you fail to mention that, constitutionally, Kosovo never became part of Serbia. Which is quite big omission, no? bobrayner (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Republic of Kosovo would first have to apply for UN membership before the UN can grant membership or not. However it is believed that the Republic of Kosovo will first apply for Observer Status in the UN General Assembly, so it can avoid the Russian veto in the UN Security Council and still have it's borders recognised by the UN if a 2/3 majority is acquired in RoK's favour; a bit like Palestine over a year ago where the US was unable to block Palestine's Observer membership (with 1967 borders). IJA (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I said: UN membership recognition is nothing more than a tally until it actually changes the status of Kosovo within the organization.

@bobrayner. I must admit, that's a bit of a surprise to me. You're saying the APKiM wasn't a part of Serbia constitutionally? As far as I know, from its foundation in 1945 up until 1963 Kosovo enjoyed the status of a mere "autonomous district", and had very little autonomy. -- Director (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that powerful people in Belgrade in that era had a certain amount of leeway in retrospectively rewriting constitutional and national history, as in other undemocratic countries. For instance, the Gaddafi-era Libyan constitution declared that Libya is democratic, that Libyans are free and are devoted to throwing off the colonial yoke &c. Nobody this side of globalresearch.ca takes such things seriously as a description of geopolitical reality, but it can provide useful insights into what contemporary leaders wanted to declare or to make real. Anyway, back on track. Serbia's 1903 constitution required a Grand National Assembly before Serbia's borders could be expanded to include new conquests (ie. Kosovo in 1912-1913). That Grand National Assembly was never held. Strangely, though, in the past we've had lots of editors who try to frame the Kosovo issue in constitutional terms - using more recent constitutions and neglecting to mention the 1903 constitution. Probably not a popular talking-point among nationalists. bobrayner (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

When Serbia conquered Kosovo in 1912, it was never incorporated or integrated into the Kingdom of Serbia, it just remained occupied territory. Don't forget that Western Kosovo aka Metohija was occupied territory of the Kingdom of Montenegro. It was only incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes sometime after December 1918 in the aftermath of WW1. IJA (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you people talking about? After WWII the Autonomous District of Kosovo and Metohija was, to my knowledge, constitutionally instituted as a part of Serbia. I truly doubt that throughout the entire history of the SFRY no constitution defined Kosovo as being a province of Serbia. And even if the communists did not do so, then Slobodan Milosevic would surely not have omitted such a move - as he basically came to power over the Kosovo issue (in promising to do something about the Albanian atrocities being committed over there, which brought a resurgence of Serbian nationalism, which in turn caused the violent collapse of Yugoslavia). Are you really saying not a single Serbian or Yugoslav constitution defined the autonomous province as an autonomous province of Serbia? Or should I start bemoaning the "deception" around here?

And bobrayner, I don't appreciate your condescending tone with regard to my country. The SFRY was a reasonably well-organized and modern state, where people did not have the power to somehow retroactively rewrite previous constitutional legislation, or whatever it is you're suggesting (as if any country could actually get away with that without anyone noticing). It certainly wasn't "democratic" in the modern-day western sense of the word, if by that you mean that we had one party instead of two. Though I tell you one thing, there was a hell of a lot less human trafficking than in the RoK, and none of its prime ministers were ever accused of being a drug boss and a white slaver. The RoK is one for one thus far [1]. Oh, did I mention the leader of the RoK smuggles human organs? -- Director (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There has been the tendency by some editors to present Kosovo as "never been part of Serbia" based on some Malcolm Noel shortbook ... lol... and because Serbia didn´t got time to held the Grand Assembly before the start of WWI... But those people are forgeting that Serbia was recognised internationally by the Treaty of Bucharest with its new borders (which included Kosovo and Macedonia) and that all constitutions of both K. of Yugoslavia and SFR Yugoslavia included Kosovo within Serbia. So, trouth be said, just ridiculous arguments based on some Malcolm Noel phantasies. FkpCascais (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't even see the point in talking about pre-WWII events when bobrayner claims (non-deceptively) that "constitutionally, Kosovo never became part of Serbia", and also accuses me of deliberately omitting said probable non-fact. I am 99.9% certain that the autonomous provinces of Serbia in the SFRY were indeed defined as autonomous provinces of Serbia in either the Serbian and/or the federal (Yugoslav) constitution. As as side remark, I should point out that the internal borders of the SFRY were recognized by the UN in the aftermath of WWII, though admittedly, I'm not sure whether this extended to the provinces (probably not). Either way, Serbian post-WWII borders as extending to incorporate Kosovo and Metohija, were certainly recognized by the United Nations (or rather its member states, to be exact; not wishing to be accused of deception again). -- Director (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is going off the rails. Please see WP:NOTFORUM and try to focus on the issue we're discussing: what is the best way to describe the Republic of Kosovo? Whether Kosovo was legally incorporated into Serbia 100 years ago is really not relevant to that question. TDL (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you have a look above, you'll see I tried to redirect the discussion back to the actual proposal. Then I was basically called a liar, so I had to say something.. -- Director (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you had to say something, and I imagine it's frustrating to find that your comments are contradicted by reliable sources, but ranting about Hashim Thaçi being a drug boss and white slaver was perhaps not the most helpful or relevant response. Can't we just move on? bobrayner (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes well, the leader of the Republic of Kosovo certainly does stand accused of those things, and organ theft, in a report to the Council of Europe (among other sources). Discussing such a topic, I'd venture, is about as useful as making vague insinuations about Yugoslavs doctoring records of their past laws. Further, I have not seen any source that contradicts me, or supports the strange assertion on your part that (quote) "constitutionally, Kosovo never became part of Serbia". -- Director (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The current leader of the RoK is certainly involved in a number of obscure and disgusting facts. And no doubt that the (surprisingly fast) recognition of the RoK was almost exclusively driven by considerations of political nature (to say it nicely). And surely it is unfair that many other communities fighting against the oppression elsewhere in the World will probably never get the same consideration. And so what? What is the link between these facts and the current international political status of the RoK? However, please mind a DR was created to find with the specific purpose to find a compromise. You might want to contribute there.Silvio1973 (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

How do participants stand on IJA's proposal? -- Director (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the proposal, right?

The Republic of Kosovo is the Government and Civil Authority which administrates most of the territory of Kosovo.

Everything in that sentence seems correct and NPOV. I say support. FkpCascais (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me that you meant "administers", "administrate" seems like the same sort of error as "commentate". --Khajidha (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think IJA used the correct form of the verb, as seen here, administrate, and corresponds to the deinition explained in the point #3 at the verb section of admiinister. But everyone is free allways to sugest a better word. FkpCascais (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, there is a parallel discussion on the DR Board. The discussion should - in principle - have place there because if a DR was open it means the talk had proven insufficient. I am afraid but we risk to end with two different conclusions. This will not make the issue solved at all. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, its been a while and it seems its alright. I'll introduce the changes this afternoon. -- Director (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have modified the edit claiming the RoK is recognized by a clear majority of UN members, as this clearly push a POV. On the other end the other formulation (civil governing authority) is not sourced at all and borders the OR. However, from whatever side the issue is viewed, itt looks that after endless discussions on the Talk page and on the DRN the situation has not improved at all. Perhaps we should go for a RfC to give some stability to the article. It looks that any other decision about the description of the RoK is going to be not really enforceable and is not going going to fly.--Silvio1973 (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

How is it POV to say that most UN members recognise Kosovo? That would be a factual (and relevant) statement.

Way back when recognition numbers were smaller, editors on one side of the debate put quite a lot of emphasis on it and our content drew conclusions from it; along the lines that Kosovo isn't a state because it's not recognised by most countries &c. Strangely, the couple of editors who pushed that point most strongly have gone quiet on the subject now that most UN member states recognise Kosovo ;-) so now our coverage of Kosovo carries other caveats instead. bobrayner (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I only participated on the margins of the discussion, so I'll be brief:

1. On mediation, I advocated the earlier "partially recognized state" formulation, as weaker than unqualified "country". It wasn't accepted, in favor of "governing authority", but the consensus is not 100% clear.
2. "Country" which was introduced by banned POV-vandal Cognoscerapo (talk · contribs), is unacceptable on several accounts, which I won't elaborate.
3. "Majority of UN members" is POV because it is pretty much irrelevant, and I take it as stick-poking of its opponents. RoK is not a member of the UN, so it's not a full-blown country, period. How do we access the weight of recognition? Countries (China, Russia, India, Indonesia, Brazil) making up 2/3 of world population do not recognize it: fact. Should we put that in the lead instead? It's obvious POV, also. At most, we can state that it's recognized by 106 out of 193 UN members and leave the conclusions to the reader. No such user (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do not understand why some users insist in defining the RoK like a "governing authority" rather than a "partially recognized state" or a "state with limited recognition". The fact that the RoK is a governing authority rather than a state is not sourced at all and indeed sounds more OR than anything else. But the most important is that over 100 UN members consider it a state, so I do not see why write the opposite in the lead. However I agree with the last comment from No such user. We should stick to the fact that 106 out of 193 UN members recognized it and avoid to use words like "majority" or "most of UN members".

@bobrayner. On the DRN the discussion reached consensus for RoK as state with limited recognition but 2 or 3 users clearly did not pay a damn to those conclusions and modified the article as they wanted. This is the reason I believe that time to file a RfC has come. I can file it, if it is of interest for other editors. Please let me know.--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"the DRN the discussion reached consensus for RoK as state with limited recognition" - Um, it seems that it's you who isn't following the conclusions of the DR. The consensus of the DR was for the wording "The Republic of Kosovo is the governing authority over most of the region of Kosovo in the Balkan Peninsula of Southeastern Europe and is recognised as a sovereign state by the majority of states in the world, though its status is disputed." In fact, you explicitly supported this proposal at the DR.

If you've changed your mind, or would like to revisit the issue, then fine. But it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the DR reached one conclusion, when in fact it found the exact opposite. TDL (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I have not changed my mind, for me the RoK is a state. But you are right; the DR agreed to use the word authority instead of state (sorry for the mistake). Indeed the current version is fine for me as it corresponds to the consensus reached in the DR, but before my correction (ie yesterday 29/12/2013) the lead contained that unsourced and wordy "civil and governing authority". Something tells me it might proposed again, let's hope not. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Keeping up to date

This is regarding a sentence in the introduction paragraph: "Kosovo institutions have control over most of the territory of Kosovo, while North Kosovo, the largest Serb-majority enclave, is largely outside their control and is run by local Serbian institutions with funds and support from Belgrade." As we all know, Northern Kosovo is changing due to the Brussels Agreement (2013) and this article should reflect that. Northern Kosovo will become more integrated with the rest of Kosovo (regardless of what one recognises Kosovo as) and Northern Kosovo will become more autonomous and self governed. I think this sentence should be reworded to reflect Northern Kosovo in 2013 (and soon 2014). Your thoughts? IJA (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a good point. bobrayner (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Border with Serbia

This article is about the republic, the independent country, so it borders Serbia and there should not be a listing of autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija, the word Metohija is an insult to Kosovo's majority population. --Cognoscerapo (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Striking out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

He/she still has a point. If we are talking about the Republic of Kosovo, it has a border with Serbia. That is not disputed. What is disputed is the very existence of the ROK. Given that, and that the lead had already stated that the independence of the ROK is disputed, we really don't need to mention APKIM. We could actually rephrase the intro as follows: "The Republic of Kosovo /ˈkɒsəvoʊ, -ˈkoʊ-/[5] (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово / Republika Kosovo) is a disputed state in the Balkan Peninsula of Southeastern Europe. It is recognised as a sovereign state by 106 UN member states. Its largest city and capital is Pristina. Kosovo is landlocked and is bordered by the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west, Montenegro to the northwest and Serbia to the east and northeast." --Khajidha (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree; that looks like an improvement to me. bobrayner (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of Islam?

Bizarrely, Islam is never once mentioned in the article, despite about 90% of all current Kosivars being Muslim -- a topic dealt with at length in the wiki Islam in Kosovo (to which this article does not link). So, fair warning: I'm going to write a section that synopsizes the other wiki and include it in this article. If anyone wants to weigh in, now's the time.Bricology (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the forest for the trees (not in a bad way). There is, in fact, no ==Society== section, which would include culture, societal institutions, religion, etc.—that is, ===Religious practices=== is among a number of sections needing to be added. Please invite other editors to contribute to your (proposed) section as well as others, and also organize your section under "Society" above, should yours be the first. While the article originally arose to document the formation and, ultimately, mostly recognized status of ROK with notable exceptions regarding which we are all acutely aware who follow matters here, it's definitely time to move on to document other aspects of ROK life. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

VєсrumЬа is absolutelly right. Society, culture, and other sections are missing. Islam should be included in a section under religion. FkpCascais (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention of Religion in this article because it was agreed that society, culture, demographics, religion, history (overview), geography ect would all be included in the article 'Kosovo' (an article about the region) whilst subjects relating to the Soverign State such as economy, politics, military, police, education, government, recent history ect would be included in this article. IJA (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good approach on this. 2QW4 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Post Brussels Serbia recognition of Kosovo autonomy

Had to make edits because Serbia has agreed and Kosovo Serbs agreed to abolish all links and autonomy and now pristina has complete dictatorial powers even amazingly appointing police commanders of Serb areas. Serbia has officially designated dejan pavicevic it's ambassadorial laison officer to Kosovo.Qwerty786 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Dictatorial" may not be the best word. bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

what is a good word? Anyway I'm just glad the article reflects the post Brussels reality that causing a surge of recognitions worldwide in many ways. Kosovo has Serbia to thank for FIFA Facebook so many new countries recognitions and its eu talks. Qwerty786 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Governmental" is the word I would use. --Khajidha (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, where has Serbia said that Pavicevic is an ambassador? I am not looking for another of your OR/SYN posts where you say "But Pavicevic has the following powers that are usually associated with ambassadors, thus he is an ambassador", those conclusions are your own and not the position of the Serbian government. Again, where has any Serbian source EXPLICITLY described Pavicevic as an ambassador? Pavicevic himself has stated that he is NOT an ambassador (http://inserbia.info/news/2013/10/i-am-not-ambassador-to-kosovo-as-it-is-not-a-state-dejan-pavicevic/), so where is your proof that he is? --Khajidha (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

yes pavicevic calls himself a liaison officer and brags how well his Albanian language courses are going and I use the term liaison officer but ambassadorial is how I preface it and its correct. You would say liaison officer is ambassadorial right? Qwerty786 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. An ambassador is someone who is specifically appointed to the position of the same name. A "liaison officer" is appointed to the post of that name. Why is it so hard for you to understand that your interpretation of the nature of the post of liaison officer is only your interpretation and is of no validity? The Serbian government determines who its own ambassadors are and the Serbian government says that Pavicevic isn't one. End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits to the introduction

I'm proposing some edits to the introduction to remove small things that, in my mind, violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Per the notifications attached to the article, I am discussing my rationale here. For example, it seems unnecessary to stress the government controls all of the Kosovo region (because this is the rule for most countries). That Kosovo's status is disputed should be mentioned before the amount of UN states that support it is cited, because diplomatic recognition is not important for countries commonly recognized as sovereign. (We do not put in the introduction for e.g. the United Kingdom.) Placing this figure first stresses Kosovo's recognition. Use of the term "claimed Serbian Autonomous Province" is redundant in context, because the sentence discusses the disputed status, and "claimed" implies a degree of doubt about the claim. Additionally, a line about the Brussels Agreement is best moved to the second paragraph, which also discusses it. Lastly, a second mention of the amount of states that have recongized Kosovo seems unnecessary for the lead. In short, the intro is now tilted slightly towards Kosovar sovereignty, and this can be changed without conveying any less information to readers. My proposed version:

The Republic of Kosovo /ˈkɒsəvoʊ, -ˈkoʊ-/ (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово / Republika Kosovo) is the government and civil authority administering the region of Kosovo in the Balkan Peninsula of Southeastern Europe. Its status is disputed; it is recognised as a sovereign state by 114 UN member states. Its largest city and capital is Pristina. Kosovo is landlocked and is bordered by the Republic of Macedonia to the south, Albania to the west and Montenegro to the northwest. The nature of 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 the Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

After a failure to produce results from non-violent resistance to Serbian rule from 1990, and an armed insurgency by Albanians from 1997 to 1999, NATO launched a 78-day assault on FR Yugoslavia to halt the war in Kosovo. In 1999 the United Nations through UNMIK began overseeing the administration of the province after a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution. On 17 February 2008 Kosovo's Parliament declared independence, as the "Republic of Kosovo", which has received recognition from some sovereign states. With the Brussels agreement Serbia recognised the secession of Kosovo and its autonomy from Serbia but does not formally recognise it as an independent country. Under the Brussels Agreement, public institutions in Kosovo are operated by the Pristina government, rather than Belgrade.

The Republic of Kosovo is a member of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, International Road and Transport Union (IRU), Regional Cooperation Council, Council of Europe Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Within the European Union, 23 of 28 members have recognised the Republic.

Knight of Truth (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Saying "the boundary between Central Serbia and the Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" implies that ASPofKiM exists, when it only exists in name. We don't want to be misleading our readers/ audience into thinking that something de facto exists, when it doesn't. IJA (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether APKIM is currently viable is not relevant to the statement at hand, the distinction being made is between the two different definitions in law (ROK's and Serbia's). If Kosovo were to return to Serbian control, that border would be that of APKIM. --Khajidha (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that use of the term "claimed" can provide clarity, but I think it is simply unnecessary in this case. As Khajidha notes, the sentence discusses a matter of law and not a matter of de facto control, so the distinction is redundant. We could add "claimed" in front of either the province or republic, but it adds information to neither. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I like your revision. The only problem I have is that you need rephrase the last sentence so that it doesn't start with a numeral. --Khajidha (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

FAQ

The FAQ is outdated and should be amended or removed from articles. --Khajidha (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs updating and looking at. What do you propose? IJA (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing it until we see what questions come up. --Khajidha (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. It seems to have been written post-hoc to defend a rather dubious position - and implemented by somebody instrumental in vote-rigging and canvassing. Our articles should not be tainted with that. bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kosovo which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Now at Talk:Kosovo (region)#Requested move. – Fayenatic London 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)