Talk:Kosovo

• • It seems the main entry has been defaced. It must be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"2 billion €"

Several times in this article the Euro symbol is used with an (in my view) odd positioning.

"2 billion €"

This makes no sense to me, I had to stop to make sense of the sentence particularly as it was followed immediately by another numeric figure. Surely it should be formatted "€2 billion" or at very least "2€ billion". In my view it is confusing and should be changed. --86.111.162.127 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

From a British perspective that might be strange, but for a lot of other people it's very normal. See Linguistic issues concerning the euro. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks strange for me as well... I feel it should be €2,000,000,000 or 2 billion euro (or if billion and euro should be Billion and Euro) — chandler — 08:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I just looked at the Linguistic issues concerning the euro link and it clearly sates €3.14 is used for English, and as this is the English WP, the € sign shall be first. — chandler — 08:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is wikipedia written in english language, not for England. It is not England here, its wikipedia in english language. It should stay the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feta (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's great, but I'm not from England. I would be happy to view any examples you may have which show the pound (£) and dollar ($) signs used in this way within an English language document. I personally have never seen it written like this. --Delta-NC (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the English language wikipedia is in English, it should follow English grammatical conventions and I am not aware of any English speaking countries that typically reverse the position of the 'currency sign' in relation to the numerical amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menrunningpast (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the whole sentence "Until now EU pledged 2 billion €, $350 mil by USA. Serbia also pledged 120 million € to Serb's enclaves in Kosovo." it seems very poorly written. And it seems, without reference. — chandler — 08:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is very poorly written (still). The section currently reads: "According to ECIKS[101] from 2001 to 2004 Kosovo received $3,2 billion of foreign aid. International donor conference is to be held in Switzerland in June or July 2008. Until now EU pledged €2 billion, $350 mil by USA. Serbia also pledged €120 million to Serb's enclaves in Kosovo." I would copyedit it thus (if only I could): "According to ECIKS,[101] from 2001 to 2004 Kosovo received $3.2 billion in foreign aid. An international donor conference was held in Switzerland in 2008. To date, EU has pledged €2 billion ($350 million US), and Serbia has also pledged €120 million to Serbian enclaves in Kosovo."

It's dejure

Kosovo was independent defacto until 2/16

As of 2/17 kosovo is de Jure independent.

This is pure Serbia fabrication blackmailing this. Shameful. Once Shka always a shka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Kosovo (or Kosova as it is now) ought to be accepted as independent. I understand that it was a county in the former Yugoslavia which serbia wanted to annex with Croatia and Slovenia to make a so-called "Greater Serbia". Serbia maintained its invasion over Kosovo until 1999 when it was forced to withdraw. It held a referendum and declared legal independence and the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Holland, Canada, Australia and all of NATO recognize it, the UN recognizes it although it hasn't joint yet, but only Serbia (from remnants of Milosevic) still don't accept that their invasion days have gone. They are backed by Russia, who as we know, are trying to regain their Soviet prestige in this mock invasion of tiny Georgia, but for the English language Wikipedia, it is better to say "independent". Sinbad Barron (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because the US recognized doesn't mean everyone else has. Less than 50 states have recognized Kosovo, and the major players, like the United Nations, doesn't recognize Kosovo as a state. Just hold off the "de jure" stuff for now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo was never an independent state. It was a part of Serbia even before Yugoslavia was created (actually, since the Middle Ages). In SFRY it was an autonomous province within Serbia. Serbia couldn't invade itself. There wasn't an attempt of annexion of Croatia and Slovenia. Greece, Spain, NATO and UN never recognized the independence of Kosovo.--Andrija (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Technically it's not de jure until the current authority holding territorial sovereignty recognizes transfer of sovereignty to the new authority claiming territorial sovereignty. So, for example, the U.S. was not de jure independent until its treaty with England of September 1783 wherein England recognized its former territory as independent and sovereign. Who recognizes whom does not constitute de jure. —PētersV (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In WP the United Nations member-status constitutes as "de-jure", look at every disputed state and you will see that if that state is not a member STATE of the UN it is not "officially". Ari 0384 (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We can follow whatever conventions we want in WP to say XYZ has some form of "legal" status with ABC, but until and when the prior sovereign entity transfers sovereignty to the next, it's not de jure, it's still de facto. Sovereignty cannot be arbitrarily (re-)assigned by a third party. —PētersV (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

the point is not UN membership (Switzerland has been independent de iure since the Vienna Congress, but joined the UN only in 2002). An UN resolution would be sufficient. For this, Russia and the PRC need to forgo their veto right. It really boils down to this, Kosovo will be de iure independent as soon as Russia and China say it is, but not before. --dab (𒁳) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations does not grant sovereignty, nor does any other international body. Rather, sovereignty is a existential question whether a state's government can exert control over the territory and people of that state. Generally, other states "recognise" a state's sovereignty, but this is not a requirement. Switzerland was not recognised or even a member of the UN until 2002, however Switzerland has been recognised by most of the world from times immemorable. As Kosovo effectively IS a state, it should be treated here as such; however, a section MUST be devoted to nations which do not recognise Kosovo to keep the article free of bias and reflect the current situation. Especially , the opposition of Serbia, Russia and China should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.77.246 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The breakaway country of Biafra in Africa in the 1960s and the 1970s was recognized by multiple African countries and received military support and aid from major countries like France, Israel, Portugal, and South Africa. Biafra was not recognized by international law as an independent country then and remains defined as an internationally "unrecognized country". Kosovo is a de facto independent country, meaning that aside from not being recognized by international institutions as an independent country, Kosovo has all the other qualifications that makes it a country. Kosovo is not de jure independent, because this involves international recognition of independence which allows a country to be applicable to international legal, political, and economic institutions. As ironic as it is, it is a fact that there are a number of countries that have fallen apart which still remain internationally recognized, such as Somalia while the more peaceful and stable breakaway state of Somaliland is not recognized. Switzerland may be an exception because its independence was recognized by all or almost every country for many years prior to the creation of modern international law, in addition, the territory had no major outstanding territory disputes which meant that there were few complications in recognizing Switzerland, and I think Switzerland stayed out for economic reasons. It wasn't until the 1970s until the People's Republic of China was recognized as a legally independent country by the United Nations while the Republic of China was downgraded to observer status. The situation in Kosovo is is much similar to the People's Republic of China along with Abkhazia, Biafra, and South Ossetia in which it has political support and the institutions to be a country, but its independence is challenged (usually by major world powers). This doesn't mean that Kosovo isn't effectively a country, it just means that it's independence is disputed and thus it is not an internationally legal independent country, meaning that it is not recognized in international institutions as mentioned earlier. Thus it is a de facto country.--R-41 (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Switzerland was not recognised or even a member of the UN until 2002"... Yea right... ever heard of being a observer state since 1948 and thus being completely "recognized by the UN", gah. — chandler — 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The UN has nothing to do with de-jure independence I don't know if you realize this but quite a few countries are a bit older than the UN like few hundred to a thousand years older. At this point Serbia has only one option of undoing the statehood of Kosovo and that is war. If Serbia does not declare war that is equal to recognition at this point. Imagine if there were no war around 1776 and England would simply say "no you are not independent" "yes we are" "no ..." etc. It's laughable. Without war it's equal to peaceful separation. Hobartimus (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please stop the incivility. "De jure" or "de facto" doesn't mean that Kosovo "is" or "is not" an actual country. The reason why we used terms like "de jure" and "de facto" to describe a legal status of a country is because there is an international legal system since 1945 that declares whether they are legal or not, otherwise there would be no use of the words "de jure" and "de facto". This legal system was designed to ensure that the sovereignty of any country could not be violated by another and that any territorial changes whether demanded by external or internal pressures would have to take place through diplomacy to allow such changes, in order to prevent wars. The system obviously has serious flaws, there are many countries that exist that don't have international legal recognition, and many wars have still gone on. There are differences from a de facto and a de jure state, a de jure state officially has access to all international economic, political, and legal institutions, provided it is not violating any international laws, while a de facto state cannot access these institutions. It's apparent that Kosovo is a country, but it is not a legally recognized country, due to the dispute held by Serbia and backed by other countries that Kosovo did not receive the legal permission to secede from Serbia due to Serbia's constitution not declaring the right of its autonomous provinces to separate. Of course the likelihood of Serbia ever allowing Kosovo to secede was slim due to the Serb cultural and historic links there, so Kosovo seceded without Serbia's permission, which Serbia and other countries claimed was violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia. These are not my words, these are roughly the words being used by those in the international legal system who have been debating the legality of Kosovo's separation since its government announced secession.--R-41 (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, not your words, but a fairly good description of the Serbian POV. Serbian POV states that so much is the greatness of Serbia that a mere declaration by them makes the difference in legality when in fact it is irrelevant. Empty rhetoric by the Serbs cannot change the de jure status of Kosovo at this point they need to declare war to mount a serious dispute as to the legal independence of Kosovo. Your logic implies that 1. The rules which Wikipedia regards states de-jure independent should change aroun 1945 or 2. No country should be viewed as independent before 1945. The facts are,1. the legal governing body of Kosovo as elected by the people in free and democratic elections convened and declared Kosovo's independence in 2008 february 2. Serbia did not dispute this declaration by declaring or waging war 3. This amounts to peaceful separation and Wikipedia is correct if it regards Kosovo as independent and incorrect if it regards it as anything else. end of story. Your POV that Kosovo can never be independent because empty rhetoric by Serbia is exactly matches the Serbian POV 100%. You seem to take the position that the US would not be de jure independent in case the same empty rhetoric came out of England? Hobartimus (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked that you not be uncivil. The United States was eventually recognized by the United Kingdom as an independent country. That's why they have an ambassador to the United States. You seem to think that I am somehow insulting Kosovo by noting that international institutions like the United Nations have not recognized its independence. You have mistaken what I've said and are putting words in my mouth, my logic says that prior to 1945 there was no firm international legal system and there were no firm legal views of countries' legal status, but after 1945, an international legal system was created to regulate international affairs such as with the United Nations' stance on sovereignty. Kosovo is a country, I know that a huge majority of Kosovo's population voted for independence, and that is why it is indeed a country. However according to the United Nations, it is not legally recognized as a country by the international legal system. It may indeed be recognized as a legally recognized country in the future, but as of now it is not. In addition, this is not "Serbian POV", as Serbians aren't the only ones who disagree with Kosovo's declaration of independence, so does Russia, the People's Republic of China, Spain while other countries such as India have serious concerns about the international legal implications of Kosovo's declaration of independence, claiming that Kosovo's declaration without consultation with Serbia was flawed as it may have violated Serbia's sovereignty.[1] These countries have their own reasons not to endorse Kosovo's independence, especially with the potential precedent in regard to pro-secessionists in territories within their countries such as Chechnya, Tibet, the Basque provinces, and Kashmir, as recognizing Kosovo's independence could legitimize these regions in demanding independence.--R-41 (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. What the "implications" of Kosovo are are whatever the implier wants them to be. Russia doesn't like it, for example, but don't think for two microseconds that their actions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't taking advantage of the recognition Kosovo has received. But that is all a red herring. It's very simple:

• Kosovo has declared itself a country sovereign and independent of Serbia.
• ABC have stated officially they recognize it as such.
• DEF have stated officially they do NOT recognize it as such.
• Serbia has stated officially it does NOT recognize it as such.

Until such time that Serbia changes its position and DOES state that it DOES recognize it as such (by treaty), Kosovo remains a de facto state, not de jure. Just as the U.S., which considers itself a country from its declaration of independence, was not a de jure state until its treaty of 1783 with England. You can't say Kosovo is, or isn't, a "country" without supplying the full context.

• Arguing over whether Kosovo is or is not "a country" (no additional context provided) is nothing more than both sides advocating lying by omission.

WP does not grant diplomatic recognition. WP does not determine what non-de jure self-declared state is, or is not, a "country." Let's stop trying to make it into that. —PētersV (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is true, views of Kosovo's independence are various in position. And yes Wikipedia cannot determine whether a country is a de jure or de facto country, but the United Nations, the largest international political institution is debating whether to recognize Kosovo as a legal entity. Perhaps the intro should just say that Kosovo is a "partially recognized country", as this is not in dispute.--R-41 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

R-41 should stop making incivil accusations. the 1783 analogue demands that Serbia and Kosovo make a peace treaty to end the war that Serbia declared on Kosovo to stop it's independence. However Serbia chose not to declare any war to stop it's independence therby recognizing the fact that Kosovo is now independent. How would you make a peace treaty if you never declared or waged war? Also the UN continues to have no relevance here. Hobartimus (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you in anyway, Hobartimus. As for the point of this 1783 analogue which you speak of that the solution of independence must be solved by ending a war that is assumed to start against a region declaring independence from a country. The reason why Serbia did not declare war on Kosovo was because other powerful countries like the United States, western European countries and others supported Kosovo's independence movement, which could have resulted in large military action against Serbia if it fought against Kosovo's democratically-determined decision to separate from Serbia. The UN does have relevence because it makes a country an effective "international citizen" through recognition and thus it is a legal entity, as this "international citizenship" grants recognized countries the right to access international financial, political, judicial, and legal institutions. Therefore, "by law" or de jure, a country that its recognized as an international citizen by international institutions and law and is permitted to receive legal assistance is a de jure country. When a country has come to exist without international legal endorsement of its independence, it is "in fact" or de facto, a country which is internally independently structured but does not have the privilige of de jure countries of access or as equal of access to international political, judicial, and legal institutions. Some countries are effectivley "de jure" and "de facto" at the same time, a country that exists in law and in reality, while other countries are only "de jure" but do not exist in reality, such as Western Sahara. We on Wikipedia cannot decide on our own what legally qualifies an independent country because we don't decide what is a country "in law", the entity that determines what are "in law" or "in fact" countries is the United Nations. If the UN's legal views of various countries is not deemed useful for this issue, I believe that a widespread address of Wikipedia's stance on the use of indicating in articles on countries of the UN's political and legal decisions in defining the status of a country be debated by Wikipedians. People must be also be careful in using "de jure" to describe a country, because the term de jure to describe a country is usually used when the country does not exist in reality, indicating that a territory exists as a state only in law. Leaving out de jure and de facto indicates that there is no conflict between the country's legal and existance status, while mentioning de facto status indicates that the country exists in fact but not by law (international law, that is). --R-41 (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree to change into "de jure": Kosovo has been defacto independent since 1991 when Rugova proclaimed its first independence. Kosovo was having parallel institutions from Belgrade since then (hospitals, schools, radio and newspapers). Furthermore the currency used was not Belgrade's, but German DM. Kosovo had a government and social institutions. This was 17 years ago and the ties with Belgrade have not improved since then. If this was not independence defacto I don't know what it is.

In February 17 2008, Kosovo proclaimed independence, recognized by 46 countries so far, and many are to follow. This is dejure independence, meaning independence by legal means. Every student in political sciences that studies "History of Political Doctrines 101" knows that international law is based on a de facto situation and a country is already created when it is de facto. When there is recognition, that de facto situation becomes de jure. So Kosovo was created de facto in 1991 and de jure in 2007. The wording in the article needs to be changed into "de jure".--Sulmues 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

re: "When there is recognition, that de facto situation becomes de jure." No it does not. Only when there is recognition by the authority ceding sovereignty by treaty does the "situation" become de jure. Third parties are free to establish legal recognition and diplomatic relations with de facto states. That does not make those states de jure. A third party can declare that it recognizes an authority over a territory as legitimate, but a third party cannot grant another authority de jure status. "Recognize" does not equal "de jure". —PētersV (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. There was no authority with sovereignty in Kosovo since 1991 (exception made for the Albanian institutions). In that year Serbia did not exist. Jugoslavia existed in that year, but that country doesn't exist anymore. Kosovo was part of Jugoslavia and chose to be independent. Same thing was done by Croatia and Slovenia: They had a war with Jugoslavia and WON it. Jugoslavia doesn't exist now, so it is not up to Serbia to give sovereignty to Kosovo. The de jure concept cannot be extended to a dead state such as Jugoslavia (it's as if I were giving the responsibility of me going to school to my dead grandfather.--198.24.31.70 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)--Sulmues 20:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that changing the wording should stay for now. Removing the de facto would gather a lot of controversy and has a potential to create a major edit war. I am myself pro-Kosovo, but i still think that until Serbia, UN or majority of countries recognize it, or the situation stays stable for a few years, it is not properly recognized as an independent state. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 17:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that we should not describe it is as de jure or fully independent until that occurs, but the introduction still ignores some crucial points about the status of Kosovo. At present the intro reads (apart from 'de facto') as if Kosovo is as independent as any other UN member. On the other hand the section on the Constitutional Status of Kosovo is quite clear that UN civil administration remains in place and that the political structures are those authorised by the UN administration. Further, putting UN administration aside, we should still be describing Kosovo as 'conditionally independent' or some such, being the description applied by the various parties when the independence plan was laid out by Ahtisaari and others. Kosovo is only independent to the degree that the US, UK, EU and so on have agreed, subject to UN and eventually EU administration and hedged about by restrictions.

We need a better description for the introduction and more clarity (and expansion) in the section on status (and the separate page on status needs a complete overhaul). The intro should note de-facto and partially-recognised independence, civil administration by the UN still in place, the plan for EU oversight within a framework of 'conditional independence'. Missing those elements out does no justice to us or the readers. PolScribe (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To be clear 'The Assembly of Kosovo unanimously adopted the declaration of independence on 17 February 2008, however UN Resolution 1244 is still in force, which means that ultimate responsibility for the administration of Kosovo still falls on the Special Representative.' (UNMIK). PolScribe (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And so, thinking about it, we should really be describing Kosovo as a partially recognised, conditionally independent state under UN administration (with some administration devolved to Provisional Institutions of Self-Government), for which eventually EU oversight is planned, all disputed by Serbia. PolScribe (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should also be aware that the references to Illyria are generally used to make historical claims to an earlier and independent Kosovo which have not been widely accepted as correct (in the absence of much anthropological or archaelogical evidence). Given the history of the Balkans, the territory of Kosovo has been part of many distinct entities. We should probably limit the list in the intro to just the Ottoman and recent modern period (those being of most relevance to present identity and status). PolScribe (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed, in a new section below, a new introduction to the article which takes some of this into account. Further discussions on de jure/de facto might continue here, but grateful for (esp. administrator) views. PolScribe (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Editprotect

This artile should be semi-protected to prevent smears from some of our international users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sick injustice

This page has the same opeing as Abkhazia "de facto independent". What rubbish. Nobofy recognized Abkhazia whislt all democracies recognize Kosovo. Why do we still play into the hands of Serb nationalists and Russian communist bully boys. Kosovo is independent, Abkhazia is a rebel held territory belonging to Gerogia. Someone change it please. Sinbad Barron (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you define "belonging to Georgia"? Abkhazia has it's own language, was a separate SSR with the power to secede from the USSR until Stalin (himself ethnically georgian) incorporated it into Georgia in 1931, against the will of the people. If by belonging to Georgia, do you mean lying within it's borders as recognized by the UN, then the same goes for Kosovo, which lies within the borders of Serbia and not recognized by the UN. When I say recognised by the UN, I mean it could join the UN. If Kosovo wanted to join the UN, it would have to go before the security council, where it would get vetoed by Russia. If it wasn't vetoed by Russia, then they would need a two thirds majority of the general assembly's 192 members. Kosovo doesn't have this much recognition. Also, calling Abkhazia a "rebel held territory2, but saying Kosovo isn't, is missing the point. The same could be said of Kosovo prior to security council resolution 1244 being passed. This resolution still stands, until another one is passed, even if France, UK and US choose to act illegally against it. (It is up to the security council to take action against a country who acts against a resolution, if a permanent member chooses to do so, and act "above the law", there is nothing that can be done about it, but it is still illegal) How can you be so biased in favour of Kosovo, but so against Abkhazia? Abkhazia had a legal right to independence up until 1931, and Kosovo never had a legal right of independence. Serb nationalists and Russian communist bully boys are as bad as pro Americans on false moral high ground. ALL DEMOCRACIES RECOGNISE KOSOVO? How did you come about this conclusion? As far as I know, Spain and Cyprus are democracies that don't recognise Kosovo. 46 countries recognise Kosovo(according to wikipedia, dated 9/september 2008). Does this mean there are only 46 democracies in the world? How can you get your facts so wrong?Guitar3000 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the place for general discussions. I've included a (hopefully) balanced if brief account of recognition in the proposal for a new introduction above (in the 'It's dejure' section). Most seem to feel that de facto is correct until all parties to the dispute agree. PolScribe (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See new section below with proposal. PolScribe (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

kosovo's declaration of independence

when mentioning that kosovo declared it's independence, it should say "kosovo unilaterally declared it's independence" as opposed to "kosovo declared it's independence". It is important to mention this, it doesn't suggest a point of view, just states a clear fact. The statement "kosovo declared it's independence" doesn't state that it is not a bilateral declaration of independence, and this is quite importantGuitar3000 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this point in my proposal for a new introduction above (under the 'It's dejure' section...) but noted that the UDI was coordinated with other parties. PolScribe (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See new section below with proposal. PolScribe (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new introduction

Following the discussions above (mostly under 'It's de jure'), I would like to propose the following or something like it as a more appropriate introduction to the article:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Kosovë; Serbian: Kosovo, Косово) is a de facto independent, partially-recognised state in the Balkans, claimed by Serbia as the Autonomous Province of Serbia and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija). Kosovo is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian (and previously, the Yugoslav) government and Kosovo's largely ethnic-Albanian population, stemming from the breakup of Yugoslavia at the end of the 20th century. In 1999, administration of the province was handed to the United Nations under the terms of Security Council resolution 1244 which ended the Kosovo conflict of that year. International talks on the status of Kosovo in 2006 and 2007 failed to reach a negotiated outcome, resulting in a 'coordinated' but unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008 as the Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës).

As of August 2008, Kosovo is recognised as independent by 46 member states of the United Nations (out of a total of 195), including by a majority of European Union, NATO and OSCE member states. Recognition has been witheld or opposed by a large number of other states, including by most other Balkan states, and significantly by both Russia and China (both of which hold veto powers in the UN Security Council). Some of these states have cited the possible precedent of Kosovo independence for other secessionist movements as grounds for opposition; Russia, China and India have called for new negotiations between the parties. Without consensus in the UN Security Council, UNSCR 1244 remains in force and the UN retains formal responsibility for the administration of Kosovo. Under the plan for 'conditional independence' laid out by Kosovo and it's international sponsors, a European Union mission (EULEX, to be headed by an International Civilian Representative) is intended as a continuation of the international civil presence in Kosovo.

Kosovo is landlocked and borders Albania to the west, Central Serbia to the north and east, the Republic of Macedonia to the south, and Montenegro to the northwest. The largest city and capital of Kosovo is Pristina (also Prishtina, Priština), whilst other cities include Peć (Peja), Prizren, and Mitrovica.

I haven't included here the various sources, but this text draws largely from the existing sub-articles, which are generally well-sourced. PolScribe (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly. Why all these "Kosovo"-names in the text? Why dont we use Kosovo only and then put all these other names in the box?--Ezzex (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, all of those variations of the name are already in the introduction. Unfortunately Kosovo is a disputed territory and various names are used; having them in the text allows us to give those names context, whereas having them all in the infobox would look bad and lack clarity as to who calls it Kosovo, who calls in Republic of Kosovo and who calls it Kosovo and Metohija. By all means suggest amendments: just trying to get things moving. 149.254.192.210 (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the intro is the way it is is that we didn't want to put too much stress on the current political situation in the intro, since it already is discusses in details later on. So therefore I object the proposed change, intro should not go in the details. --Tone 09:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't want to put too much stress on the current political situation? Possibly the only reason that the average reader will come to this page is to find out about the current political situation. This being an encyclopedia, it's pretty important that we do cover the status of Kosovo, this being the single most important subject (apologies to the nascent Kosovo tourist industry...). The level of detail in the intro here is minimal, gives context and balances key points from both 'sides' in the dispute. It is also consistent with our introductions to other contested or partially-recognised states such as Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus and Taiwan. A much fuller overview of historical and present status is needed in the main body of the article, for sure. But to deliberately exclude key information from the introduction could suggest an intention to present a particular point of view on the subject. You need a good reason to keep this information out. PolScribe (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that Kosovo has been inhabited since stone age and dedicating most of the intro to the events of past few months seems undue. Indeed, the political situation is complicated but that's why we provide a link in the intro and more info further on. I agree the lead can be improved. For example, some words about demography or geography would look nice. But not things like explicitly counting countries that support/object. By the way, don't you think that the intro is balanced at the moment? --Tone 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I say, the political situation is probably the most relevant information about Kosovo that this encyclopedia can provide. Take a look at my comment at the bottom (beginning 'The contributors above have mentioned'). I looked at a range of states comparable to Kosovo (i.e. which had a recent history of dispute) and compared the size of the intro and the number of lines given to coverage of the present political situation. Each of them had significant coverage of the situation, including references to processes, recognition by states and continued areas of dispute. A number of those country articles are top-rated. If we do the same for Kosovo, we improve the encyclopedia and meet established standards. If we exclude that information from the intro, we deliberately underrate information which is of central importance. So I think we need to give those questions appropriate coverage - at present the intro is not brilliantly drafted and is incomplete. I do agree we could add more on demographics or geography, though, at least a sentence each, and that would not make this any larger than other introductions for comparable states. PolScribe (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with adding a little more details about political situation but what is proposed above, is too much, too into details. What really is important is that there are some countries that recognize Kosovo and some that take whatever the position there is against it. UN resolution and declaration of independence and Serbia's view are already in the present intro, as well. EULEX is not active yet. The precedent is too tricky thing to have in the intro since it would need huge explanation. What else do you think would be appropriate to include? Indeed, we can make the intro and the whole article better, there was an iniciative to get it to a FA but I don't know how many people are still willing to work on it. --Tone 19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the amount of detail in the proposal is comparable with that in the Northern Cyprus and Western Sahara articles (12 and 10 lines respectively on the present political situation, against 11 lines in this proposal). And (with what has been happening recently in Georgia) the precedent question is of great interest to many. On the other hand, it could easily be covered in more depth in the main body of the article: I'd be happy we remove that middle sentence ('Some of these states...' etc.). I think the rest should stay, though, in some form: the form of international presence is very important to both UN and EU policy in the region, and to the future of Kosovo. The fact that EULEX (a key part of the 'settlement') is not yet active is important and allows us to then discuss Russian/Serbian obstructionism later. Perhaps we remove the reference to the International Civilian Representative if we want to cut it down a little further? PolScribe (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to suggest some more demographic/geographic content? PolScribe (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found an essay, WP:RECENT, that recommends not to focus on recent events only. Though this may not be fully applicable here... Honestly, I think that the intros in Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus could be trimmed down a bit because of the same reason. To include mentioning of precedent because of Georgia is quite off topic (many say that there is no such thing as this precedent anyway). I would like to have some feedback from the others in this discussion, it seems only two of us are discussing the details here... --Tone 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether or not Kosovo has provided a precedent for other secessionist groups is a central one for Kosovo and it's place in the world, whatever our personal opinions. It is bang on-topic, and probably the only reason anyone will visit this page in the near future. That said, it's not vital that it's covered in the intro. Assume we remove that sentence and cover the viewpoints more fully in the main text. That leaves six sentences covering the political situation, of which two cover past events, three cover the declaration of independence and recognition of it, and one covers the intended future international civilian presence. That seems very balanced to me, and is clearly not an excessive focus on 'recent' events. I understand your general point: that introductions (for whatever state) could avoid references to present political situations. However, with states where recent events are of such central importance, the standard seems to be to include significant coverage of those events in the introduction. Even articles on less contested states such as Croatia, Greece, or South Africa have whole paragraphs covering recent events or political controversies. No bias or insult can be given to Kosovo by covering recent events fairly and in line with Wikipedia standards. PolScribe (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the intro of Croatia to focus too much on NATO while missing history and demography (I will improve this when I find time). Greece is almost perfect, South Africa as well. We are now talking only about the eventual expansion of the second paragraph of the present intro. Could you write it now, taking the above discussion into account? Probably it will be fine. --Tone 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, so we're able to agree that we need a level of coverage of 'political' matters comparable with other Wikipedia articles (around 10-12 lines, balanced between past, 'present' and future, including coverage of diplomatic recognition). The proposed new intro meets that standard - though I'm content for us to remove the sentence on the 'precedent' controversy. The present intro is poorly-drafted and the proposal represents a much better standard, and much clearer flow. Perhaps we can move onto the main body of the article...! PolScribe (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that we can improve the article and notthat I am happy with the one proposed at the beginning. Before changing anything, I would prefer if you could write the new one, taking the above discussion into account. --Tone 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - per User:Tone, -- CD 11:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Having shown (see below) that Wikipedia standard for comparable states is to include significant coverage of the present political situation (Tone's objection), I assume you have no further objection? PolScribe (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask: Why are we using Cyrillic script in an English Language 'encyclopaedia'? Most people, (alright many people, since it seems that a fair number of the contributors here are from the Balkans,) who read this page have no knowledge whatsoever of Cyrillic. Isn't it just confusing and ultimately pointless? I'm not suggesting we should remove Serbian names altogether, but surely it would be simpler to print just the latin script? Davu.leon (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbian is an official language of Kosovo. Check out Georgia and China for use of scripts other than Latin. PolScribe (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I am aware that Serbian is an official language in Kosovo. That's why I suggested we keep it, albeit in Latin script. However it would seem to me that Cyrillic serves no purpose, and has no place, in an English Language encyclopaedia, whether other entries have compounded the error by its inclusion or not. Indeed, in the interest of consistency of style, I would applaud your efforts to remove the Cyrillic from those entries too. Davu.leon (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, those articles don't have Cyrillic, they have whatever are the non-Latin Georgian script and Chinese characters. Did you have chance to look at them? I should think that the contributors to those articles might not like us removing them. It seems standard to use non-Latin where that is relevant for the language. Use of Cyrillic is standard in these articles and has been for many years. PolScribe (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it now - Actually I looked at the Georgian article and my browser doesn't recognise the script. Just get blocks. Anyway if consensus is to include the non-latin script of a local language that's fine - I was just questioning its usefulness - particularly in this article where it will unavoidably be viewed by some as a provocation. For what it's worth I wouldn't use non-latin script in any articles, except those about non-latin script. Though I suppose I can see an advantage to having a sample right there on the country's main page... but perhaps under a subsection 'languages of region X'. Whatever. Davu.leon (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The contributors above have mentioned two points which were felt worth discussing: whether or not we should include information on the present political situation in Kosovo, and whether or not we should make use of Cyrillic as a script. To aid discussion I've carried out a quick review of how other similar articles treat these two questions. I've chosen states which have a salient political dispute, including a number of which are top-rated articles. I list here the total size of the intro in lines, the number of lines relating to the historical and present political situation and whether or not non-Latin scripts are used.

Afghanistan - intro 18 lines, political situation 10 lines, Pashto and Persian scripts used; Comoros - intro 19 lines, political situation 6 lines, Arabic script used; Lebanon - intro 18 lines, political situation 12 lines, Arabic script used; Northern Cyprus - intro 13 lines, political situation 12 lines, Latin script only; Taiwan - intro 14 lines, political situation 5 lines, Chinese characters used; Western Sahara - intro 14 lines, political situation 10 lines, Arabic script used.

And, in comparison, the above proposal for this article gives the following results, very much comparable with these other articles:

Kosovo - intro 14 lines, political situation 11 lines, Cyrillic script used.

This would seem to give us an introduction which is factual, useful and standard for Wikipedia, and possibly meeting the standards of highly-rated country articles. PolScribe (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Miss Universe

In this year's Miss Universe pagent, Kosovo had its own contestant. I suppose this solidifies its position as an independent country in the international community Hxseek (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Miss Universe is just a damn contest, like Eurovision. Now, when Kosovo actually sends people to the Olympic Games, that could be a cornerstone in the community of nation-states. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt the RoK will be internationally recognized eventually (and I don't have a problem with that). It just hasn't happened yet, give it a couple of years (WP:CRYSTAL). --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is recognised by 47 - Samoa

[2] needs updating Ijanderson (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I confirm. --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see

Here And discuss it there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One more

The International Recognition page, also blocked to the general public, states that there are now 47 countries which recognise Kosovo. On September 15th, 2008, Samoa recognised it. There are two sources, one in Albanian and that is all I saw. Someone might like to address this issue since the pages are closed to all. Evlekis (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please update, there are now 47 countries!

And with Taiwan even 48. That's fine with me. --Tubesship (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is recognized by nobody, not even by the Repiblic of China which it is a part of...and that is not recognized by many itself. Balkantropolis (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)