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)

Added. --Mareklug ^talk 15:30, 23 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)

 Disagree with splitting of article. We don't have any Spain (region) or France (region), we place everything in the same article. No opinion on infobox. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 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)

If you would like a more detailed discussion, nobody is stopping you.

However, complaints about "100000 albanian editors" are irrelevant hyperbole. Discarding the opinions of those who disagree with you, just because they have a different background, is not proper discussion. If you would like to raise more detailed points, I'm sure other editors would happily discuss them.

I would agree that wikipedia is not a democracy but it's interesting to see when people raise this point - usually when they realise that many others disagree with them. I would point out that you have participated in votes here before (and crossed out the votes of others you felt unqualified). It might be uncivil of me to suggest that your commitment to democracy depends on whether or not most people agree with you; perhaps you have simply changed your mind about democracy over time.

bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Νot all these users or even the majority are Albanians. There seems to be an agreement regarding at least the infobox by most users so like kedadi said should we go on with that change?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Tadija, hang on a second, a proposal has been made to just have one infobox, now everyone has that they agree, this shouldn't be taken into account because everyone who agreed didn't write a dissertation to why they agree? If you agree with something you usually don't have to explain why you agree, you just simply say "yes, I agree with that". However if you were to say that you disagree with something, then you go on and say why. What we have here is editors saying that they agree with the proposal to have one infobox. Anyway I see no opposition to it, so what is the problem? IJA (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also most editors have explained with a sentence as to why the agree, making them not simple votes as Tadija has wrongly stated. Also we're not all Albanian. Hardly any of the people who have agreed are Albanian. IJA (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've merged the Infoboxes into one as agreed here. There was no opposition to doing so. Ive kept the map of Kosovo which shows that there is a dispute to maintain NPOV. There is also notes in the info box to show that independence has only been partially recognised. IJA (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a proponent of making small step-edits instead of wholesale revolutions. Accordingly, getting rid of multiple infoboxes in favor of one is the upper limit of that. Furthermore, Kosovo has one present tense -- it is the Republic of Kosovo. Other competing claims and descriptions are either in counterfactual space or in the past. We should make note of them, but they are not of the same weight (anymore). Furthermore, our model should be other countries in Europe, not Republic of China (Taiwan). We don't have Russia (region) or Spain (region), even though these could be said to be well-defined regions with shifting borders and polities over time. Let's collapse the infoboxes and keep the article (and redirects) largely the way it has been, while observing international developments. --Mareklug ^talk 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I support step by step changes. Essential changes like ( Introductory text ) should be modified because now the independent Kosovo is not only de facto State but also de jure.-- LONTECH  Talk  16:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And just to remember: this is not a vote, but a discussion where the arguments in favour of non-splitting and one infobox are winning. Anyway, it always seemed strange, even befor the ICJ ruling, that the articles about Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, governments that are far less-recognized worldwide, had only one infobox while Kosovo had... three! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.195.132 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that the ICJ was ruled that the declaring independence was legal, not neccessarily the independence itself. Technically it's a legal loophole and really hasn't changed the situation. Just some food for thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.72.16 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo is not member of UN. So technicly nothing is changed. --Alexmilt (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@Alexmilt, this is wikipedia not UNipedia. IJA (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

UN membership is irrelevant from the point of being a legitimate country, just think of the case of Switzerland and when that country became a full UN member. Hobartimus (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

IJA, wth is that supposed to mean? UN membership would hardly be irrelevant. If the RoK was in the UN, we would not be having this discussion. Sure, you can be recognized by everyone and still not be in the UN, as used to be the case for Switzerland, but this isn't the case for the RoK.

The ICJ vertict is an advisory opinion. It is important, but doesn't change anything in the de jure status of Kosovo. All it did was disappoint Serbia's hopes that it would get backup along legal lines. Now there is no probable scenario of how Serbia is ever going to regain control over Kosovo. They cannot act with military force as the international community would just dump a ton of bricks on them, and they cannot act legally, so their hands are really tied now. This will perhaps convince them that their best bet is to try and compromise and get at least control over those regions that are not loyal to the RoK, and in exchange forfeit the rest. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It has changed everything

Kosovo was not considered a state for reasons that its independence was illegal so in terms of de jure "concering international law" kosovo was not a state.Now in terms of de jure "concering international law" kosovo is a STATE. UN Court has given ksoovo legal right to extend its authority throughout Kosovo and has shown the world that Kosovo is same state as all other countries of the world Kosovo and Kosovo is an equal state with other states and should have all the international rights belong to any state ICJ has removed ambiguities regarding the statehood of Kosovo. To respect international law Kosovo should be recognized by those states that had some recognition dilemma and Belgrade's policy should come down from sky to earth to agree with its independence.If Serbia as a country respects international law should recognize Kosovo-- LONTECH  Talk  18:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ak71vie, 23 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} per bobrayner & BritishWatcher Jarkeld (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

change "Currency" from "Euro" to "no currency (with footnote)". The footnote should say that "The Euro is widely accepted" or similar; as Kosovo is NOT a member of the European monetary union. Ak71vie (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Membership of the "European Monetary Union" (hmmm) is not strictly necessary for a country or territory to use the euro as a currency; other places have adopted the Euro despite not being EU members.

The Euro is legal tender in Kosovo: [4] - if that's what the central bank says, and if that's what people and organisations routinely use in transactions, then that's the currency - regardless of whether or not the government of Kosovo has signed some special agreement with a third party.

bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Euro belongs there and the note in the infobox explains it is not a formal member of the eurozone. Dont see any need for a change on this BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this is not a case of Dollarization, where the country's currency circulates along the foreign currency. It's a case where the central bank of that country doesn't issue any local currency and where all bank accounts are legally required to work in euros. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a link could be made to Seigniorage, as the EU central bank is probably making a nice profit from the use of Euro banknotes in non-signatory countries. Incidentally, I heard on BBC Radio 4 that the ECB is firmly keen to stop any more non-EU countries from using the Euro as currency. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

An article on the subject from the Bank of Albania: http://www.bankofalbania.org/web/pub/M_SVETCHINE_1329_1.pdf Brutal Deluxe (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to add ccTLD in Infobox

We could add the ccTLD section in the Republic of Kosovo Infobox. We could put .ks and/or .ko and put a footnote stating that the ccTLD is still pending. --Gimelthedog (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Status of Kosovo

After the hearing by the International Court of Justice, should Kosovo be considered a country now?

Wai Hong (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please .. this is no place for us to speak of what "should" and should not be! We just report on what's going on. The new court ruling shall be reported here in all neutrality, along with the Serbian rejection and reaction. No need to make a point to anyone here in the Encyclopedia. Thanks, Maysara (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, don't speak, just do. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Trade and Commerce

This section states: "Kosovo has a reported foreign debt of 1,264 billion USD that is currently serviced by Serbia."

I believe it should read 1,264 million USD (or 1.3 billion) not 1,264 billion. Tiddy (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

“Kosovo is a disputed territory in the Balkans. The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo…”

Shouldn’t it be better in the first paragraph to replace the above with the simple sentence “Kosovo is a partially-recognized country in the Balkans”? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.197.116 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't... :) --Tadija^speaks 21:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, It should be. Kosovo is not just a "territory". Only it's Indipendence is disputed by Serbia and its supporting allies, but no one disputes it as a territory. Piasoft (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, Kosovo is not a disputed territory. I think what's disputed and partly-recognized about Kosovo is it being a "sovereign" state. The article should simply say something like: "The sovereignty of Kosovo is disputed and partially-recognized by world states." Please be bold and make the necessary changes. :) Thanks you, Maysara (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right... settle down there, calm and quiet. No. Kosovo is not synonymous with the Albanian Republic of Kosovo. See North Kosovo for more info. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But Kosovo is synonymous with the Republic of Kosovo, see info box. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For majority of the world Kosovo is still part of Serbia. "its supporting allies" is highly POV. --Tadija^speaks 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of those countries that make up your "majority", how many have expressed disagreement with Kosovo's independence/support of Serbia's position and how many have simply not said anything (and possibly couldn't care less)?--Khajidha (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Only 44 countries expressed disagreement with Kosovos independence. This is less then the 70 countries (including Taiwan) that recognized Kosovos independence. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:Tadija please stop your provoking statements, and please remember that the Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation because of statements just as these you make here. Please try to be helpful. It doesn't matter what is your personal opinion about things. We are just reporting matters here in order to create a good encyclopedic article. Maysara (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Meeso, you are knowingly fostering conflict. This sort of edit-warmongering should be reported instead of tolerated in this manner. You are fully aware that the long-standing Wikipedia consensus (WP:CONS) on the issue of the Republic of Kosovo is that it is not synonymous with Kosovo, any more than the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and yet you are trying to have an IP newcomer who does not know this to do your dirty work for you and push your POV. You are knowingly trying to entice others into acting against consensus, incorrectly citing WP:BOLD in a thoroughly deceptive manner. Had this turned into anything more I would surely have brought this to the attention of those same admins you are threatening people with. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:DIREKTOR, you are an impolite person, and you do not know what argument and civilized dialogue and deliberation are. Maysara (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the above threats and conflict provocation, you are not the one I am likely to learn that from... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Although it's tempting to comment on other contributors rather than on the article (and I have succumbed to the temptation sometimes), I think you two are taking it a bit too far. Could I suggest that you try to focus on improving the article? Please?

bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

have you really reached an agreement regarding the single country infobox instead of the previous 3?

nothing else to add, but, if you havent, Im pretty sure some serbian nationalists will revert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.88.227.175 (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem are not the serbian nationalists but rather admins that supported their doing. But luckily one of these admins ("dab" aka "Dieter Bachmann") seems to hold himself back. And as long as he does we need not to fear any serbian nationalists. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

can somebody block this returning troll please? We haven't reached "an agreement" on this because once again the discussion was disrupted by the patriot IPs. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping he would hold himself back. Maybe someone should hold him back? --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

no dab we have reached agreement even if it does not suits your opinion. Being admin does not give you the right to act as wikipedia is your personal property and just because you do not have someone to watch over your actions.-- LONTECH  Talk  19:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One infobox?

After removing all other infoboxes, i invite editors to respond this questions.

1. It is POV to have only one infobox, without information's about United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo
2. For majority of the world, Kosovo is still part of Serbia. Where is infobox about that?
3. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus claim only one part of some territory's. As you may see with Vojvodina article, Kosovo should have "Autonomous Province" infobox, under UNMIK regulation, as it is claimed as part of Serbia.
4. How intro can be neutral without all of this?

--Tadija^speaks 12:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

About point number 3, when did Kosovo claimed whole of serbia? It claimed only part of serbia. It is the other way round, serbia is claiming "Kosovo is serbia!" and not the Kosovars claiming "serbia is Kosovo!"--92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RoK is claiming entire Autonomous Province of Kosovo. --Tadija^speaks 12:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus do the same thing about their territory, so where is your point? They do not claim whole of Cyprus or Georgia or Moldova. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Another problem about point 3. Looking at Vojvodina#Legal_status, the region has not declared independence, it seems to consider itself an autonomous province, and seems to be regarded by all countries as an autonomous province. The situation is very different from Kosovo's situation. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We can keep the article as is, but then it would probably be a good idea to move it to Republic of Kosovo to avoid confusion, and to point Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation). There could also be a separate Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article for Serbia's administrative entity, as in ru:Республика Косово vs. ru:Косово и Метохия. Frankly, I do not think there was consensus for the bold edit by IJA (talk · contribs). We had an ongoing discussion, but then that discussion was trolled by the returning German-IP trolls, and things got out of hand. This is not a basis for a change in consensus. Block the trolls first and then see how consensus stands. --dab (𒁳) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No splitting, renaming, forking, moving or whatsoever. We disussed this over and over again, see history. So let me ask who the troll is that you mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=375544255&oldid=375540819 --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

wow, so you manage to say "we disussed this over and over again" and to pretend not to know what has gone on before? Nice one. We have indeed discussed this many times, and the outcome has always been "two infoboxes". The question now is exclusivel whether the ICJ verdict changes anything. For your information, there are also two articles for Abkhazia, one on the Republic of Abkhazia vs. one on the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. I think there will be no way around splitting this article one way or the other now, the question is just where to point Kosovo. The most neutral thing we can do is make it the disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you show us Abkhazia and want to convince us to a disambig page? Not so clever as there is no such a disambig page in the case you showed us. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a problem for the Abkhazia pages, there should at least be a disambiguation sentence at the top of those pages. The logical thing to do here is just what dab is suggesting. --Khajidha (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Republic of Abkhazia" is just a redirect to Abkhazia. "Abkhazia" has two governent spinouts due to size problems: Government of the Republic of Abkhazia and Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia. I don't see any disambiguation page, and I don't see the need to disambiguate "Abkhazia" to each of the governments. Government of Abkhazia is a disambiguation page (by the way, I am going to add hatnotes to the two government articles). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion of Dbachman to follow the Russian Wikipedia example is enigmatic: why should the English Wikipedia follow the Russian example? And why shouldn't it be the other way around? The so called Autonomous Provice of Kosovo and Metohija rightly has a redirect to Kosovo and I don't see any reason why it should be a separate article. In addition, last year after 5 months of discussion that I made and a 10-2 voting for the single infobox, the only result I got was a block for disruption and a ban from Kosovo topics. Thank you for your attention. --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User Sulmues. We are not the problem. --92.74.20.221 (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dab is right. This is POV fork like this, and it cannot remain like this. Those two must be separated, as RoK is not equal to Kosovo! IP user is equal to sock puppet for me, as it have 0 edits other then here. I agree on split, and ask Dab for further actions in this direction. --Tadija^speaks 13:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The one info box is just for Kosovo in general, just like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc. Also I am strongly opposed to splitting the article. All that splitting the article would do is encourage Forking and each of the articles would be POV and that goes against all what Wikipedia stands for.. IJA (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't responded any of my questions above. If you are opposed to the forking and povs, then infoboxes should be returned. If it is for Kosovo in general, then remove flags and coat of arms. RoK is not equal to Kosovo, and never will be --Tadija^speaks 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A precedent has been set on WP to show Partially recognised countries like Kosovo, Abkhazia etc with one information box. Kosovo is de facto governed by the RoK just like Abkhazia is de facto governed by the RoA. Kosovo should be presented like all other partially recognised countries. The former APKiM and UNMIK do not administrate Kosovo. Also I do not see the point in having three infoboxes. Have the relevant information in one box. IJA (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Every other region, country, entity, territory etc on Wikipedia all have one infobox. It is rather bizarre to have three for this article. IJA (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I too am strongly opposed to splitting the article because that would lead to fork articles. Tadija's arguments are personal deductions and not based on any policy.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As others already pointed out, there are no policy-based reasons to split anything, and similar articles are not splitted. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the infobox to make it more NPOV. Under Government you can see that I have added Lamberto Zannier as UNMIK Special representative. I have added to events in the infobox, UNSCR 1244 10 June 1999 and EULEX 16 February 2008. Also Under government I have added UN administration. Please see my edit here. IJA (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done, but I guess even this will not be enough to convince admin dab and his friends not to split the article, therefore we should be vigilant. Again, thank you IJA! --92.74.20.221 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also changed the conventional name of Kosovo at the top if infobox from "Republic of Kosovo" in English, Albanian and Serbian (c and l) to just plain Kosovo in all three languages. Please see my edit here [5] This also makes the infobox NPOV as it just refers to Kosovo as Kosovo, it doesn't suggest if it is a country or a province, it just uses the same name as the title. IJA (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so can we now remove the split template in the article, please? --92.74.20.221 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, no formal split proposal was made, so I propose to remove the template that is currently appearing. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the split template as the split suggestion was about the infobox. However I have since changed the infobox to be more status neutral and I have added relevant UNMIK information. So now we basically have what was in the three previous infoboxes all in one now. IJA (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the split tag was entered by Dab to reflect Tadija's words and also Dab's own proposal to split of the article itself between RoK and APKM, not of the infobox. However I believe that Tadija is not following any formal split proposals and neither is Dab, so his tagging at this point is inappropriate, unless Dab wants to make a less formal discussion on split. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dab you are acting like this is your private article. Consensus was very clear where most of ediors oppose absurd split Kosovo now is not only de facto state but also de jure. Do you know what it means de jure.-- LONTECH  Talk  16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the splitting of the article and agree with the proposal to remove the split. It was fine the way it was and no consensus on this move was sought. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I too oppose a split.

It is unfortunate that dab keeps on complaining about troll IPs. They appear to have been relatively civil; their main offence seems to have been disagreeing with dab.

However, even if you don't count the IPs (which would be absurd), a majority of contributors opposed a split.

dab also said: "We have indeed discussed this many times, and the outcome has always been "two infoboxes"."; this surprises me, as the most recent poll clearly supported a single infobox and opposed a split. Furthermore, it was not disrupted by "troll IPs"; if anything derailed the discussion it was the people complaining about troll IPs; complaining that thorough discussion hadn't been held (but not actually putting forward a thorough argument of their own); complaining that wikipedia isn't a democracy, coincidentally after it became clear that a majority of contibutors did not agree with them; and so on.

I think we should stick to the point and find ways to improve the article, rather than looking for excuses to ignore a clear consensus if it doesn't suit our individual political beliefs.

bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the split. Despite occupying the same physical space, the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo are two very different things occupying very different conceptual spaces. They no more belong on a page together than do Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990-1999) and Republic of Kosova. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a new article called APKM that starts from 2006 or from 1946? I would personally support a good article rather than many weak articles, but I really want to know your thoughts. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that every era in Kosovan history deserves its own good article. Eras with competing governmental claims deserve good articles for each claim. To me, having to try to satisfy the competing demands of the pro-Serb and pro-Albanian positions means that neither is covered very well. --Khajidha (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree every era in Kosovo's history does deserve an article however this article is about contemporary Kosovo therefore you have disassembled your own argument about splitting the article. IJA (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You missed the second part of my statement, "eras with competing governmental claims deserve good articles for each claim." --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good content on each part of Kosovo's history? I'm all for it. And of course linking to a detail article from here. But separate content to avoid the problem of competing claims? I would oppose that because I think it would worsen the problem rather than solving it - the same problem would reappear on several different articles. If we tried to create separate articles that showed one party's perspective, then each little component article (particle?) would still encounter difficulties in satisfying NPOV, reflecting the arguments of a variety of balanced sources, &c.

It is difficult to write any text that reconciles competing claims for pro-serb and pro-albanian positions; but if the alternative is to write separate texts or to ignore one of the claims in any given article for the sake of easier composition...

bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If separating competing claims is a bad thing, then why are Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990-1999) and Republic of Kosova separate from each other? When you can't even get a good infobox because half the items in it have two (or more) things that could be listed, each of which will upset large portions of the readership how can you get a good article? --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think both articles show the negative side of splitting. They should be merged with Kosovo, as it is part of the history. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

They are both historical articles.-- LONTECH  Talk  18:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems a trivial difference. If it can be admitted that people in the past experienced things differently depending on which government they considered themselves to be living under, then it follows that the same is true today. --Khajidha (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles should be included in Kosovo history and should be deleted-- LONTECH  Talk  19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it that the UN infobox was removed, I thought we were passed this sort of bias on this article. It seems constant persistent POV-pushing against consensus pays after all. There is really no question at all that an article dealing with both political entities (Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province) should have two infoboxes for both of them. I am still trying to understand under which excuse the United Nations infobox was wantonly deleted in the first place, and how such POV could've possibly escaped unopposed on a closely monitored article. The edit is virtual vandalism, destroying the objectivity and neutrality of the article, the sooner it is reverted the better.

If the article is to be split into Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, that would probably be the best solution. I would, however leave this article on as a summary article on the region of Kosovo itself. This would probably be the ideal situation, and we have ample precedent: there is Ireland with Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, not to mention China, etc. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ireland is not geographically the same as Northern Ireland which is only a part of that island and the same goes to China as there are 2 geographically different Chinas, the continental one and the island called Taiwan. So how can you compare Ireland/Northern Ireland and China/Taiwan to Kosovo? Therefore no splitting, please. --109.84.213.75 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR, it wasn't removed it was merged into one infobox. Please tell me what information was in the UN infobox which isn't in the current infobox? IJA (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, nice. :) Funny how the merged infobox looks almost exactly like an infobox for the Republic of Kosovo would look like. Must be coincidence?

Do not try to present this as an issue of "presenting all the information". The issue is neutrality (WP:NPOV), equal representation in the article. I do not recall that being the flag and coat of arms of any Serbian autonomous province. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR should be aware that the coat of arms was adopted after Kosovo declared independence - long after the musical chairs of provinces and sub-provinces within Yugoslavia. I do not understand why that point was raised. Of course, it would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV to simply reject any content which didn't imply that Kosovo belongs to Serbia.

I realise many people would like to pretend that the declaration of independence never happened; but it did, and the article must reflect that.

bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the whole text before you post coments there is a clear consensus about this. and revert will be considered vandalism-- LONTECH  Talk  19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you are perfectly free to "consider" any edits you disagree with as "vandalism". :) You should definitely report any such alleged "vandal-like" edits immediately instead of trying to use (very empty) threats on experienced wikipedians. I will however recommend that you read WP:VAN, and with care, so as to avoid embarrassing situations in the future. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Director, don't you think it is rather silly to state three times that the capital of Kosovo is Pristina, state three times that Kosovo's common name is "Kosovo" and to have three maps of Kosovo etc. There was very little information in the UNMIK infobox and very little information in the Rep of Kosovo infobox. All the information has been merged into one infobox. I think you should have read this discussion before commenting, I shouldn't have to explain the same thing to every individual user who joins in the discussion. Also back to the question I asked you, what information that was in the UN infobox isn't in the current infobox? IJA (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, try to read all the comments and the consensus reached before throwing heavy punches on editors: there was a consensus on the light of the recent decision of the ICJ, which is the judiciary of the United Nations. Also please see changes that were made to the infobox from IJA, which include all the info necessary on UN administration. The Kosovo triple infobox case was unique in Wikipedia and it was finally solved. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed to see an editor being so smug and arrogant. You are not the king of the article just yet, Director. We had a consensus and it was acted on. You can't metaphorically throw the table up and assault the rest of us with the broken pieces because you don't like the consensus. You can't demand neutrality with feigned outraged innocence while simultaneously, and not-so-surreptitiously, demanding changes over the objections of the majority of us to suit your own point of view. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The APKiM didn't have a flag, that is the only flag Kosovo claims to have and has ever claimed to have. Also I could use your same argument for TRNC, Abkhazia, Tawian etc IJA (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is not information redundancy, but neutrality (WP:NPOV). To use your own example, the fact that the Autonomous Province had no separate flag of its own does not mean we can now use the flag of the Republic of Kosovo to represent it.

Personalizing the issue as "my own POV" is quite an old ploy and not very effective. It is obvious to any non-involved observer that if two (hostile!) political entities are to be covered by this article, then the two cannot be represented by the same one infobox, sporting (among other things) the flag and insignia of just one "preferred" one. Furthermore, if one of those entities is not an independent country, how is it "neutral" to represent the one that is not as an independent country? "Elegance" should never override factuality, still less neutrality.

As for my perceived arrogance, it is instead rather mild outrage at the current state of the article. I do, however, invite all to ignore the tone of my post, as it can be deceptive, and concentrate on arguments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Then how come we use the Flag of Abkhazia to represent Abkhazia? Oh I forgot, that is ok because Abkhazia isn't Kosovo and we have separate rules and standards for Kosovo. Well that in itself is extremely POV. It is better than your idea of showing the "UN" flag in the UNMIK infobox. The UN flag is the flag of the UN not UNMIK. IJA (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems it is necessary, for the millionth time, to emphasize that Abkhazia is NOT an adequate comparison with Kosovo, for very many obvious reasons that were listed far too often for me to repeat them yet again to the same users.

In the end, I am sure it does not take a lot of argument or elaboration to show the inappropriateness of covering two countries with one infobox, even if that infobox did not look exactly as the infobox of just one of those countries, the one fervently supported by most of those who removed the second infobox. Now does the source of my outrage seem more obvious? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo has an official flag. Removing Kosovo's flag is blatant POV pushing because it conveniently omits a key symbol of Kosovo's sovereignty. It is not neutral to remove it - that would be an explicit endorsement of Serbia's position. Only four countries recognize Abkhazia, but there seems to be no issue of showing its flag. Same with South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, etc. Nobody has displaced their flags. This is not an argument you will win, Direktor, because it's ridiculous and dilatory. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not showing two countries with one infobox, we are showing RoK and UNMIK Kosovo with one infobox. It is the only flag Kosovo has therefore it seems appropriate to use it. I could understand and sympathise with your argument if there was more than one flag for Kosovo. However since there isn't I can't see any credit in your argument. And thank you Canadian Bobby, finally someone with some sense. IJA (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So Kosovo is not independent because you or Serbia say so

No my friend KOSOVO now is independent because UN ICJ say so. This decision has closed every issue regarding KOSOVO statehood.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Then your problem is that this article also covers the Autonomous Province, go change that and come back. You know that, though, so I frankly have no idea what is the point of such "declarations of independence!". Except perhaps that they vividly display your bias in this issue? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox clearly covers that it is also for APKiM. So I don't see what you're on about now. IJA (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No. It most certainly does not. In response to a repeated statement all I can do is repeat: covering two countries with one infobox is highly inappropriate and very much unheard-of on enWikipedia, it would be inappropriate even if that infobox did not look exactly as the infobox of just one of those countries, the one fervently supported by most of those who removed the second infobox - which is exactly the case. It is very obvious, I think, to any objective observer that the neutrality of this article (such as it was) has been undoubtedly diminished. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What two countries are you on about? Everything that was in the UN infobox has been added to the infobox and the UN apparently administrates APKiM. What information do you think is missing about the APKiM that should be added? State Secretary for Kosovo Oliver Ivanović? IJA (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Albanian name of Kosovo is just Kosova, not Kosovë

There seems to be a misunderstanding in the Albanian naming. Indeed Kosovo is also called "Republika e Kosovës" in Albanian but you will never read just "Kosovë". --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovë is the Albanian name for Kosovo, while Kosova is the definitive form. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Try to convince the Albanians: http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosova As you see it is only Kosova. --Popolopos Kikeriki (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and it's a mistake. The indefinite form should be used per standard Albanian as Kedadi pointed out. Unfortunately the Albanian wikipedia is so poor that I have given up contributing there: even Albania is given in the definite form. Shame. Shqipëria--Sulmues ^(talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Estaurofila, 26 July 2010

Please change the following sentence: Kosovo (...) "is a disputed territory in the Balkans." to read as follows: Kosovo (...) is a disputed territory in the Balkans."

Also make a needed clarification concerning the term "minority". I deem necessary to specify that, since the status of Kosovo has not been truly defined (is still controversial), we have to consider that on one hand, for the government of Serbia, Serbians are the constituent nation of Serbia and, therefore, cannot be a minority in Kosovo (a serbian province according to the Serbian constitution), where the minority are the kosovar albanians; and that, on the other hand, for the self proclaimed Republic of Kosovo, Serbians are a minority in Kosovo and albanians an ethnic majority.

Therefore I strongly suggest to include a sentence that reads, more or less, as follows: "the official point of view of Belgrade is that the albanians in Kosovo adn Metohija belong to a minority in said province, while the official point of view of the government of Pristina is that Serbians are a minority in the partially recognized Republic of Kosovo."

If the proposal is accepted it will be necessary (when necessary) to make other (cosmetic) changes, v. gr., to use other words instead of minority ("Serb population" instead of "Serb minority".)

Estaurofila (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You should read UN ICJ verdict if you still think that status of Kosovo is not defined.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)