Talk:Kosovo

Template talk:Kosovo-note

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

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

“Self-declared” independence

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

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

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

Independence can be agreed by both parties beforehand. But not in this case, so the "unilateral" label is appropriate. Bazonka (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But the USA declaration of independence, for example, was never “agreed by both parties” — to the contrary, Great Britain did not recognize American independence and even went on war to revert it. And nobody talks about “unilateral” or “self-declared independence of the United Sates”, but simply “Independence of the United States”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.194.43 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take this discussion to the United States article because that's where the problem seems to be. It is entirely appropriate to refer to a unilateral declaration here, because it's important to show that it was made without Serbia's consent. Bazonka (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The US declaration of independence was indeed unilateral and self-declared, and if we were writing Wikipedia in 1770's, we would have every reason to label it as such as we do with Kosovo. The reason we don't do it now is that it is no longer controversial, the UK has relinquished any claims to US a long time ago. In contrast, there is an ongoing controversy about independence of Kosovo. There are plenty of examples of bilaterally (or multilaterally) agreed independence in recent European history, such as Montenegro and Serbia, or the successor states of former Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia.—Emil J. 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But even the dissolution of the USSR was not made with the consent of the Soviet Central Asian republics, for example.

And whet about the independence process of Slovenia? It was made without the consent of Belgrade, which even went on war to revert it. And nobody talks about “"unilateral, self-declared independence of Slovenia", but simply "independence of Slovenia".

The article tends to the POV that the Kosovar independence was "an ilegal, temporary rebellious act of a little group of Albanians against Sacred Serbia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.193.153 (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with saying that Kosovo's declaration of independence was unilateral - it was. If you want to say that other declarations were also unilateral then fine, but that is not a matter for this talk page; take it to the relevant articles. Bazonka (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The secession of the republics of Croatia and Slovenia from SFR Yugoslavia was a constitutional right of those two republics, i.e the Yugoslav constitution guaranteed each republic the legal right to secede. Kosovo, as an autonomous province and not a country, never enjoyed such a right, either in the Yugoslav or Serbian constitutions. Hence there was never an issue of a "bilateral" declaration of independence or the consent of Belgrade, both were never required by international or Yugoslav law. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But we are not talking about the right-or-no-right of the former Yugoslav Kosovo to declare independence from Belgrade; what we are discussing here is the necessity of the constant use of the adjectives "unilateral" and "self-declared" together with "independence" in the case of Kosovo — compared with other cases of independence declarations from other countries around the world — and its consequences over the genereal POV of the text of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.198.207 (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But the declaration was unilateral and self-declared, and since it's still disputed then surely this is of relevance. It's in no way POV to state this. Your gripe seems to be the inconsistency with articles about other declarations which don't say that they were unilateral. As I've said at least twice before, that is a matter for those articles' talk pages, not here. We're going round in circles with this discussion. Bazonka (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jews in Kosovo? Jews from Kosovo?

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

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

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

Add Kosmet to introduction

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

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

ICJ verdict

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

OK, so the UN says Kosovo independece is "not illegal".[3] This does indeed change things. I have always said that a change in the current structure of the article will have to depend on a change in the real-world situation. This may be such a change, and we will have to review the infobox situation. I would suggest it is now fair to collapse the two infoboxes into a single one. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Which two of the three infoboxes have you got in mind? Anyway, I'm all for independent Kosovo, but I don't see how today's verdict changes the real-world situation. The ICJ has no authority over the status of Kosovo, it only issued a non-binding advisory opinion.—Emil J. 14:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental objection to Kosovo being presented as an independent country has been the ambiguity of its status and the questions surrounding its legitimacy as a state. The ICJ ruling has secured its legitimacy, if not its legal status, as a lawfully-formed polity. Kosovo has 69 recognitions. UN membership is not a prerequisite to being presented on Wikipedia as an independent state, as the articles for Vatican City and the Republic of China attest to, nor do the number of recognitions matter, as the latter also attests. These questions, I think, have for the most part been put to rest. We can continue to note Serbia's sovereignty claim, just as the PRC's sovereignty claim to Taiwan is noted in the ROC article. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully Agree . Cheers. — Kedadi 15:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully Agree . — --NOAH (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

well yes, it's a gradual process. Unless and until Kosovo joins the UN, there will always be room for debate. We just need to compare the situation here to that of the other partially recognized states. Kosovo is now probably the "best recognized partially recognized state not in the UN", excepting perhaps the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

I note that in the latter case, we keep one article on the state and another on the territory, SADR vs. Western Sahara. Perhaps based on this, it might now also be an option to separate Republic of Kosovo from Kosovo (region).

The verdict by no means changes everything overnight, but I think it is still an important step, forcing us to reconsider our stable consensus.

If we are going to treat the Republic of Kosovo like the Republic of China, as Canadian Bobby suggests, we will also have to opt for the two-article solution:

(Republic of China:Taiwan)=(Republic of Kosovo:Kosovo (region).

--dab (𒁳) 15:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Can we please have the consensus reaching process on the infobox separate from the consensus on the article split? It's kind of difficult to obtain consensus in one thing, let alone two. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

After the split, where should Kosovo point to, Republic of Kosovo or Kosovo (region)? Cheers. — Kedadi 15:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

probably Kosovo (region), or else Kosovo (disambiguation). --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be the least confusing to have it go to the disambiguation page. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

NO! There are 2 Chinas (different geography) but only one Kosovo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.84.236.47 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with one Infoboxs and I  Disagree with Split

• People who have previously supported three or more Infobox now say that at least since we can not always keep at least 3 Infoboxes lets split it.-- LONTECH  Talk  15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I Agree with the one Infobox proposal of dab and I  Disagree with Split

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

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

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

I Agree with one Infobox and I  Disagree with Split bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, the so called "split" was rejected by the Wikipedia community at least 10-15 times during the years. There is no reason to bring it up again especially after the Court's decision. This is a very significant step in the process of full recognition, so Agree with one Infobox. Hobartimus (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I also believe that splitting the article is not the best possible idea and I fully Agree with having only one infobox. It generally seems that all editors engaged in this discussion agree on having one infobox, should we go on with the change? Cheers. — Kedadi 03:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You could do the change if you feel bold enough, but the article is under all sorts of parole and such so watch out for 1RR. Hobartimus (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone should do it now. I also Agree with one infobox and I  Disagree with split. --109.84.199.76 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully Agree with one Infobx (the country-box) and I absolutely  Disagree with splitting, renaming, forking or whatsoever. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry, this is not a vote, and a pile of Albanian patriot IP addresses saying "do it" doesn't really do anything. We need to have a coherent discussions of the pros and cons. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dieter Bachmann, why do you care about my race? --92.74.20.221 (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I also Agree with one infobox for the article and  Disagree with splitting the article as I believe everything should be included on the one article. IJA (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We must have proper discussion about this, not just vote with 100000 albanian editors. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so all of this votes are pointless. --Tadija^speaks 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)