Talk:Kosovo

Template:FAOL

Topic change

Proposal to change the topic of Kosovo article. 7 different options presented. Currently the topic covers both RoK and APKiM and also there is no Republic of Kosovo article on Wikipedia. Feel free to add 8th if you have another idea. Description follows. Please respond below. Alinor (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Comments before RFC template posted

Following the unsuccessful RFC above I tried to restore the status quo with minimum changes (so that improvements of unrelated texts are not affected) [3].

As the status quo has many flaws (see above discussions) I assume that nobody is content with it. Below I will try to present all available options going forward:

1. no change to status quo. Kosovo topic is RoK+APKiM.
2. Kosovo to become a redirect to Republic of Kosovo; Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
3. Kosovo to become a redirect to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–); Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
4. Kosovo to become a redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation); Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
5. Kosovo to become a redirect to Kosovo (region) (different variants for what content to get into this region article - see above discussions); Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
6. Kosovo topic to be changed to RoK
7. Kosovo topic to be changed to some of the variants for Kosovo (region) discussed above; Republic of Kosovo to be established with topic RoK
8. other ideas?

I am for option4 (this is good also for a temporary arrangement during a WP:COMMONNAME or other discussion), but also I will not oppose the other redirect/region options. IMHO any WP:COMMONNAME arguments may apply only to the redirect destination, but the Kosovo itself should be a disambiguation or a redirect (or in the worst case a "general overview") - so that future POV-wars do not affect content of either RoK or APKiM articles. Alinor (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Alinor if nobody was content with this version of the article this consensus wouldn't exist and your revert isn't the status quo but an outdated pre-ICJ decision version.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See above. WP:CONSENSUS changes. Alinor (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The RFC shown that there is no consensus for the changes you want implemented (regardless of previous discussions). Please use the above section for this consensus-no consensus procedural issues, so that we can discuss here the content changes. Alinor (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri, drop the stick! Thanks. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Whats the horse carcass in this case, the suggestion to split? Hobartimus (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha, you are good! That also, with few other things. Although Alinor asks question about that above. The main horse is pov pushing without REAL community consensus. --WhiteWriter ^speaks

I support option 5, with the region article having a general overview of the entire history with links to the relevant specific articles for each era. For recent history a simple paragraph stating that Kosovo is the subject of a dispute between Serbia and the partially recognized ROK (see individual articles for details) would seem to be sufficient. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that I'm going to ask for admin assistance, because you simply cannot change consensus by revert-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever really had a consensus that could be changed. --Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend Zjarri to reread the discussion from above, and he/she will understand that Khajidha is right. All edits after this status quo was done WITHOUT consensus, as it was (very clearly) explained above. Also, it would be also wise to call it for a day, as people, (and i also) will soon go to new years eve celebrations. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

the consensus and its implementation. The one infobox version has been the consensus since July and if you want the 3 infobox versions to become the consensus version again you should follow the same course as when you wanted to split the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TWO infoboxes into a single one out of 3. IJA removed 2, leaved only 1 without consensus, which was mislead per that edit. As i told you, first reread discussion above, and then dictate new rules. As all of us finds this status quo situation logical and normal, it is hardly problem in all of us, don't be offended, i am just telling you the facts. If you don't think that status quo was right, you suppose to tell us that earlier, and not now, after more then month after proposition was presented on talk page. You are welcome to ask for some solution, but this time, we will ALL participate, and not just pov fighters. Also, use indentation, it is useful, and good wiki practice. I am gone now! All best! Happy New Year!!!! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer no change - but I would like if the content was more balanced (e.g. the way the separatist flag appears in the info box but the Serbian flag does not etc). Still, even if it looks like a joke (as it does now), it's better that the whole story is told in one place. All the best. 109.76.250.133 (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally prefer no change. This article tells more or less of everything; and to be honest, its opening paragraphs lean more towards the republic than anything else. Even if we did activate a "Republic of" page, we'd still have to begin by calling it a "disputed territory" or "de facto country" or something along those lines, otherwise other Kosovo-related pages would contradict the state article; they rather would contradict each other, "ROK is a country" on one article, "APKaM is a province" on another. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with what you say Evlekis. Its true indeed that the article "leans" one way rather than being impartial. But, I agree, its much better for the whole story to be told in the one place. All the best. 109.77.84.45 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If we did activate a "Republic of" page - we will start with "Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized country located ..." - not with "Kosovo is a disputed territory between RoK/APKiM/UNMIK located ..." (as the current lead).

"ROK is a country" on one article, "APKaM is a province" on another. This is not a contradiction. These are just facts - as per the founding/legal documents of both RoK and APKiM. A contradiction will be if both articles claim that the respective entity has control over the same territory (this is obviously impossible). Both RoK and APKiM can claim the same territory (as they do) and they can control different parts of it (here it gets more murkier if they do - as we don't have answers to these questions) - there is no contradiction in this. This is the common situation in all disputed territory cases.

"the whole story to be told in the one place." - there is no "whole story" - RoK and APKiM are unrelated. They are "competing" and have conflicting claims over the same territory, but there is no story between them. An article that deals with both RoK and APKiM inevitably becomes a Kosovo (region) or History of Kosovo (these are the "whole story" topics). Such mixed topic article can't be the article describing RoK itself or APKiM itself. These two entities have their own governance structures, etc. - that are unrelated to each other.

Currently in Wikipedia there is no article about RoK - and I find it very strange that RoK supporters are content with such situation. The only explanation is that they hope to somehow "get rid" of APKiM references from the current Kosovo (region) (by content) article located at Kosovo (by Wikipedia article name) and transform it into Republic of Kosovo (by content). Alinor (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This is exactly what I've been trying to say. --Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bullseye, Alinor. Right in the center of question. Now, what can we do about that? Any propositions? --WhiteWriter ^speaks

I think we should select one of the options for topic mentioned in this section. As for procedure - if the fight over restoring the status quo is over - maybe a RFC should be opened about the topic change (but if the fight is not over there is no point in opening such RFC because nobody knows at what "status quo" uninvolved editors will arrive - and this obviously will influence their opinion about "changing the status quo" - in the WP:1RR there was something about 1 week - maybe the RFC should be opened if after 1 week the three infoboxes are still present). After the RFC - its consensus will be implemented - or if there is no consensus - maybe another venue should be utilized - such as mediation or arbitration. Alinor (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They wholly contradict each other. It can be a country or province of another; whatever one says it is, the opponent disputes. This is more complicated by the de facto status which is shambolic: the proposed government controls most of the land/population, has limited control of another section - whose population do not recognise it - but this section in any case isolated from what it believes to be its remaining sovereignty. Kosovo is a mess! Not a country and not a province. But this is my POV. Evlekis (Евлекис) 15:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

it is possible to be a country or province and a giant mess at the same time, Evlekis. I don't think it is disputed that Kosovo is a giant mess, but that's not the question, as we are hardly going to start the article with "Kosovo has been a hopeless mess in the Balkans for the best part of 20 years". --dab (𒁳) 15:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

your comment is very inappropriate and you have for at least 3 years been posting offensive, etno-centric comments about Kosovo.

this has literally been discussed for years. The discussion goes in circles not because it cannot be resolved, but because most people involved in it are simply stalling, not trying to resolve it. I am not surprised the RoK supporters are against dedicating an article to the RoK. In their view, it would be like splitting Federal Republic of Germany off Germany. What surprises me is that they are getting away with this. It is true that Abkhazia vs. Republic of Abkhazia suffers from exactly the same problem, but imo this is just a reason to try and fix both rather than using one as the excuse for the other. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Evlekis, Kosovo may be a mess, but this doesn't mean that the Kosovo article should have a messy topic. Many of the 7 options above solve the issue (in fact, only option1, the status quo is a mess) - and you are free to provide additional options.

Also, the mess (or rather - our lack of information) in Kosovo is the RoK-UNMIK-APKiM/Serbia relations/institutional triangle. The issue with competing territorial claims and lack of full control over all claimed territory is common enough around the world and can't be described as "mess" (but the other cases are much more clear-cut, even Palestine situation is much more clear) and is pretty easy to describe - and this is done in Wikipedia for the other similar cases. Alinor (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Germany analogy would be correct if the Germany article topic was not "FRG" as it is, but some mixed topic as FRG+WhateverTheCompetingAuthorityIs. Anyway, I agree that their reasoning seems to be along these lines. Alinor (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what you're saying. Kosovo has several articles as it is, they all deal with the region according to period in history. If we can have an article saying "it's a province" and another saying "it's a country", see how we'll fare by trying this out on the existing article: opener - Kosovo (Albanain: Kosova) is a country in Europe which is also a province of Serbia. Since logic has it that if one status is disputed then so too is the other, we would be compelled to continue using the term "disputed". Yes we can do this on two separate articles but this is where we need to ask - do we need the space? Autonomous province post 1999 has nothing to say for itself. Republic of has a few things to say about its post 2008 progress, but the rest of the articles will be mirror images: settlements, demographics, education, history, culture, trivia, legend, etc.. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, bot entities, RoK and APKiM have a lot "to say" in their articles! Tons of things happened, and more is still to come. And only images may be the same, everything else is different. History of RoK started just now, while ARKiM is older, but history of Kosovo is very different. Therefore, proposition 7 is the best one! That Kosovo article will always have the same history and all other, and will be the most important article, same as now, while both other APKiM and RoK will have their own articles for their history (and future), their education systems, laws, municipalities, culture... All of those are completely different, and never can be mirror to each other! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then WhiteWriter, all I can say is that Kosovo will for ever lead a double-existence! It stands alone but means one thing to one population and another thing to another. Europe has its own Ivory Coast!:) Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually Alinor, I suggested this almost three years ago after independence was declared. These were the arguments against me at the time. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Kosovo is a country in Europe which is also a province of Serbia." - no. As pointed out by dab in the below section - we should be careful with the term "Kosovo" and it's better to use a full name - because: Republic of Kosovo is a country. APKiM is a province of Serbia. They are entirely separate. Both RoK and Serbia/APKiM claim that the territory referred to as "Kosovo" is theirs. The problem is that we don't have information about the different degrees of control over different parts of the territory that these two (and the third - UNMIK/KFOR) have. Anyway, this doesn't mean that we should mix RoK and APKiM topics in a single article. Alinor (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would find fair that "Kosovo" links to Kosovo (region), thus not giving any side the priviledge of linking it to their "favourite" one. Obviously, the Kosovo (Region) article should have easily avaliable links to RoK and APKaM with a short explanation with it, just at top of the article. Perhaps there are better solutions, but this at least sounds somehow fair. FkpCascais (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you support option5, right?

Others, if your opinion includes something else than those 8 options - please formulate it accordingly and add it as option9, 10, etc. - so that we can easily refer to each variant with a number.

I will also add a RFC template. Alinor (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposals 4 and 5 sound both fair (neutral). If there is going to be an article about Kosovo (region) than 5, if not, well it should be a disambiguation page, as proposed in 4, right? FkpCascais (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Alinor (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolving this issue in WP is practically impossible as it is a mess in reality as well. The current article should be changed in quality, but POV should remain. We should remove 3 boxes leave only one. But state that Kosovo has this and that problem as a country. It is no recognized by Serbia yet. And all that. This discussion goes forever. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what option do you prefer. It seems to be either 1 or 6. Would you specify?

About removal of infoboxes - this problem arises only if you select option1. In case the consensus is to use option1 - then we can continue the below infobox discussion. Alinor (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My option is 8: no change is needed. This article is already about RoK, and it isn't much different in substance or structure from other country articles like Spain, France or Germany (all of them have sections in geography and history). Other disputed countries use the same solution, as I explained in my comments. The claim that this is still the APKiM is a minoritary Serbian view that should be mentioned in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is not only about RoK, and Serbian view is majority, as only 74 countries recognize Kosovo as independent, while the rest of the world still finds it officially as part of Serbia. -- User:WhiteWriter

Enric Naval, this article is not "already about RoK". It can become such - if there is consensus for that. Or it can become something else. Or it can remain as it is currently - about both RoK+APKiM (with three or more infoboxes, etc.)

It was explained multiple times - an article about RoK would not start with "Kosovo is disputed territory", but with "Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized country", an article about RoK would not have three infoboxes, but only one RoK infobox, etc.

From your comment I understand that you are for option6 or option1. Would you specify? Alinor (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, don't put words in my mouth. You can see easily in my comment that I don't agree with any of the options you put forward. That wording was put there as a compromise because there wasn't enough sources to sustain the, ah, "correct" wording against all the nationalistic backslash. I expect that the article will change as the real world changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you readed option6 and option1? Because they seem very much like your words. Option1 is like the first sentence of your 09:43, 29 January 2011 comment. Option6 is like the second sentence. The problem is that these are two different options. We can't implement both at the same time. There is no way to take your opinion into account unless you specify what you prefer or define an new 8th option.

"I expect that the article will change as the real world changes." - I don't know what will change when, but what is sure is that the current setup of the article is unacceptable and we can't wait for the world to resolve the Kosovo dispute in order to make a sensible article with sensible topic. Alinor (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Option 1 implies that this article covers two different topics when it covers only "Kosovo", option 6 implies that changes are needed. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"it covers only "Kosovo" - yes, it covers Kosovo, the disputed territory - including the separate administrations - Kosovo (the independent Republic) and Kosovo (the Serbian province under UN administration). That's the problem - we don't have any article whose topic is only the Republic of Kosovo. This was explained multiple times already. Alinor (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments after RFC template posted

Well, i am firstly for opinion 7 (like in other numerous disputed countries examples that was presented, like China example, etc... Kosovo is not specific in any way, it is disputed between two parties), and i think that we will also have very neutral and encyclopedic ground with 5th proposition. If 7 is not possible to agree with, then 5 really should be! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, yes, I agree about option5. And now I support it. Also, I think that if an option other than 1/5/7 is selected a Kosovo (region) article should be established in addition. Alinor (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC Summary

The RFC period ends soon. As we have numbered options it would be pretty easy to compare/count how much support each of the options will get. Please, feel free to do this below. Alinor (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So, let's see who supports which options (correct me if I'm wrong); last update - 18Feb2011

• option1: IP, Bobrayner, Hobartimus, and maybe Evlekis; see also note below
• option2: nobody
• option3: nobody
• option4: FkpCascais, Alinor, Adrian
• option5: Khajidha, FkpCascais, Alinor, WhiteWriter, and DeCausa
• option6: Watch For Storm Surge; see also note below
• option7: WhiteWriter, Alinor
• note: Anna Comnena and Enric Naval made statements that look like support of either option1 or option6. Enric Naval explicitly stated that it's neither, but this makes his position unclear

So, it seems that we should implement option5. Alinor (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the status quo is better (sorry; I have terrible taste in music). ZjarriRrethues appeared to prefer the status quo, too. You may wish to interpret those as option 1 though my stance is similar to Enric Naval: No change is needed (I'm not sure why you would choose to call that stance unclear). bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Alinor Polling is not a substitute for discussion and I think that the status quo is better at the moment.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not polling, this is the result of the great discussion that was on this page. Status quo is not the improvement of the article, and as you didn't comment any of those 7 options, your attitude is just sabotage of the good process. As we, who participated know that you didn't want even this status quo also, you now wholeheartedly defend. There for, it looks like you just search for the best way to defend your pov, and keeping in as much as possible to your side. Either participate in finding solution, or don't. And dont attack Alinor with false accusations, user is great in dealing the horrors and POVs from this page, without even slightly tending to take any side. As (now) we have equal number of users that vastly support only 2 propositions, (1 and 5), now we should agree which of those 2 only should be implemented for some period of time. For example. :) Or someone have better solution? But as none supported few propositions, those should be discarded. And just to remind that we alredy mentioned earlier:

"Subject of Kosovo article can't and shouldn't be both Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija."--WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You might put it that way; but others would take a different stance, as you should surely have realised after so many epic debates and proposals and votes on this page. bobrayner (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues, waiting instead of participating is not a substitute for discussion. Who speaks about polling/voting? I just summarized the results of the RFC showing what option is supported by whom, without any counts, etc. and stated what seems as the conclusion of the RFC. Having in mind all of your comments I would think that you support option6, but sometimes you make statements that seem like support for option1. I ask for the n-th time - what of the options do you support?

bobrayner, Enric Naval has clearly stated that he supports neither option1 nor option6, that's why I'm confused what his position is. You say that you support option1, but are you sure that you don't prefer option6? Because option1 (status-quo topic) means that the article will get many more APKiM mentions and content than currently.

bobrayner, ZjarriRrethues, we have the above discussion (later transformed into a 30 day RFC) since more than a month. You didn't state your opinion during that time, but waited for it to end and now want to sabotage any progress (as small as it is) in reaching consensus for improvement.

bobrayner, you mention "epic debates and proposals and votes", but were there a single debate including all possible options before this latest RFC? What I have seen are only partial debates about "Kosovo article split" and other proposals were people said yes or no, because of different reasons. The existence of all these debates shows that the RoK+APKiM topic is misleading for the readers and unsustainable. What the mixed topic achieves is to invite POV supporters to try to "evict" the opposite POV from the Kosovo article name that they want to "usurp" for their POV. Until recently the RoK POV has almost achieved this.

I haven't seen any explanation why we should continue with option1. It's an awkward combination topic of mutually exclusive concepts. In addition I think that the Republic of Kosovo is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia about it (currently there is no article, whose topic is only about RoK). Alinor (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith: People who disagree with you are not saboteurs. I had merely kept quiet before because the frequent high-volume debates are a massive time-sink (you responded the last time I mentioned this). I, and others, prefer the status quo; "no change" is a fairly simple concept, but I'm not wholly happy with the way the options have been presented. Since you asked for votes and got lengthy responses, I'm surprised that you now want to reject option 1 for lack of explanation.

A quick look through the talkpage history will show several attempts to forge a consensus by the simple expedient of inventing some new rule to disqualify, rearrange, or ignore comments by people who disagree. I'm sure we'll have more in future. And that is one of the main reasons I find this talkpage frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you didn't like something in the way of presenting the options for topic change, you should have told so at the beginning. Anyway, what don't you like?

"no change" is not simple concept here, as you can see by the discussion I had with Enric Naval. ZjarriRrethues also doesn't answer whether he selects 1 or 6. Also, what we discuss here is "no change in topic", but regardless what option is selected there will be changes in content. Because the current content does not match the current topic entirely (e.g. APKiM is represented only in the lead and partially in the infoboxes).

I don't ignore anything, I just ask - what is the benefit in option1? Why do you select it over all the other options? Alinor (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I support option 1 as well. "but regardless what option is selected there will be changes in content. Because the current content does not match the current topic entirely" That's actually fine concept. I even agree that APAIK could be represented a bit more than it currently is. There should be 2 infoboxes one given to RoK and one to APAIK. Hobartimus (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And can anybody give some reason WHY should we keep the RoK+APKiM topic? We have given plenty reasons why we shouldn't. Alinor (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I can give you one. To the the uninvolved general reader from outside the Balkans, the two topics are inextricably linked. Isn't the Republic of Kosovo covering most of the territory which the Serbs call APKiM? How would you split up the article? Most people are not going to be looking for different articles on both. Most people are not aware of the difference or that they are different entities. I don't really see the point in splitting it and would just create a lot of duplication - although there could be a few more references to APKIM. Seems to me status quo is basically ok and this discusion is mostly about local rivalries. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, DeCausa. You give us the reason FOR the split. People outside the Balkans dont know that they are different entities, but those ARE two different, and even opposing sides, and those should be separated, and then people may start to understand this complicated political situation. Therefor, wiki article, as up to date encyclopedia, should follow real life situation, and not to feed POV's or follow questionable crude wiki guidelines. There cannot be duplication in spliting, as CONTENT WILL NOT BE THE SAME. Those will be two different articles! APKIM almost does not exist in this article. How then this can be good? This article cannot stay like this, as it is not what is should be per this agreement. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind in this - I don't care that much; I'm just giving you a "non-Balkan" perspective. If you want the wider world to know about APKIM you are better off putting more in this article because most passers-by aren't going to be bothered to look up a separate article on something called "APKIM". They just want to know about "Kosovo" in the broadest sense. Anyway, it's your problem...if you think you will be raising the profile of APKIM, you'll be making a mistake and the APKIM article will just be a backwater. DeCausa (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(I think that it would be fine to expand Kosovo#Disintegration_of_Yugoslavia with more info on APKM). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, Kosovo should remain as broadest sense article, but TWO articles, one with Republic of Kosovo, and other for APKIM should be created. In that way, we will have all that you mention, and still have neutral, non partisan view. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Enric Naval, no, if status quo topic remains (RoK+APKiM) more APKiM info is not needed in the history section, but will be added to "Government and Politics", "Administrative regions" and other sections that look like sections of a RoK-only article.

DeCausa, I agree with WhiteWriter. Kosovo (region) should be one article, but RoK, APKiM and UNMIK should have their own articles. These are totally separate-from-each-other entities and there is no reason to mix them together. Alinor (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with the two article solution on this one. The article as it is now is far too cluttered trying to cover the historical geographic region of Kosovo and it's history, the Serbian province, and the disputed republic in one article. The latter has given birth to an entire family of subarticles covering the issue. Kosovo (region) should be removed from the chaos. I think the article on the disputed political entity should simply be Kosovo, per Wikipedia practice of leaving off "Republic of" or similar designations from country articles. Not that there aren't exceptions, Macedonia for example. The two article solution for a disputed territory has a precedent on Wikipedia, btw. Western Sahara and Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic are two seperate articles (as are of course Palestine and its constituent parts, but that's a whole different can of worms). I find it amusing that the status of the Wikipedia article on Kosovo is just as disputed as its subject. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 02:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, but I don't think it's a good solution to use RoK topic for Kosovo (and nobody supported that option). This will cause POV troubles and edit-wars. I think it's better to redirect Kosovo to disambiguation or region page or even to Republic of Kosovo. In that way discussions and edit-wars about "who gets the Kosovo article" will remain on Talk:Kosovo and Kosovo and editors focusing on improving the actual content of the RoK article (and all other Kosovo-related articles) can work on the respective talk pages and articles without being pestered with the "who gets the Kosovo article" POVish edit-wars. Alinor (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Having re-read the article, I've changed my mind on this. The article is a bit of a mess at the moment. So long as 'Kosovo' takes you in the first instance to an overview article of the history and general situation, it probably then does make sense to fork to RoK and APKM articles. I think the approach for Korea is a precedent. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Korea can`t be compared since on that peninsula lives one ethnic group that has intentions to unite one day(both republics intention), it is just a matter of political orientation (democratic republic or communism - which will prevail). As such , the solution for Korea is all right, but that has nothing to do with this subject here. Adrian (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You've misundestood. I'm not interested whether Korea is or isn't politically similar to Kosovo. The politics is irrelevant. I'm solely talking about how it is treated as a set of Wikipedia articles. Kosovo can follow the pattern set by the Korea articles. DeCausa (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If it`t not to late, I would support option 4 if that helps because we have the period while a part of Yugoslavia, autonomy and now as unrecognized republic. Best to separate these articles and to choose as per POI since it is a controversial issue. Greetings Adrian (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I updated the list of editors supporting each option. IMHO it's clear that supporters of the status quo RoK+APKiM mixed topic are a minority. I would suggest that Republic of Kosovo article is re-established and the Kosovo article redirected to Kosovo (region) or Kosovo (disambiguation). But I assume the status quo supporters will oppose this. Such obstruction of any improvement and progress is unfortunate, but I don't expect that these will change their mind. I don't know what does policy say for such situation (after RFC) - maybe a MEDCOM/MEDCAB is in order (and if that fails - ARBCOM). I have no intention to implement the required changes and go into edit-war here or to participate in MEDCAB/MEDCOM/ARBCOM - I would suggest to involved editors to solve this issue. Alinor (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the "maybe" against my name on option 5. DeCausa (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Those who are trying to split the article belong to the pro-Serb team here at Wikipedia that for many years now have tried to push anti-Kosovo propaganda. After failing at ICJ, now it's time for revisionism through Wikipedia. The split would be very unnatural and would just contribute with confusion. Many people have problems with Kosovo independence and that's OK but pleas do not try to change the article at Wikipedia based on your subjective, religious, personal thoughts. About 99 % of all those who know some about Kosovo associate it with Republic of Kosovo. The fact is that Serbia has no control over the territory of Kosovo and therefore their opinion on Kosovo should be treated the same way we treat Arab opinion on Israel. Many Arab countries do not recognize Israel but that does not mean that Wikipedia has 5 articles about Israel. NOAH (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

IJA recently made this edit with the explanation "removed the useless extra infobox, all that information is included in other info boxes. No point repeating it". These edits of a template infobox are also related. I was already blocked because of this page, so I will not revert it, but I want to point this out here.

The version with three infoboxes (as of July 2010 and before the recent IJA change) is arranged in the following way:

1. common Kosovo infobox - Kosovo (region)
2. Template:Republic of Kosovo infobox
3. UNMIK infobox

IJA removed the first infobox (yes most of its content was already duplicated in the other), but in this way it places RoK infobox on top (and as the UNMIK infobox is with smaller width and doesn't mention Serbia/APKiM, has not such flag, etc. - all this consolidates the wrong impression that the article is about RoK only).

The problem with the infoboxes content is related to our lack of answers to these questions, especially A] the relation between institutions of RoK and UNMIK/PISG and B] the position of Serbia government over KiM serb-led Council and Assembly - and how this position correlates with the official Serbia position of adherence to UNSCR1244 (and thus to support UNMIK). Anyway, I have the following general suggestions about the infobox arrangement in the article until there is no separate RoK article and until it has a mixed RoK+APKiM:

1. The first infobox to include some section about "competing claims/authorities/etc." listing APKiM, UNMIK and RoK (ordered by dates of establishment)
2. The second/third infobox to be a pure RoK infobox - representing one part of the mixed topic of the article
3. The third/second infobox to be a UNMIK infobox - but with some more references to UNSCR1244 Serbia sovereignty acknowledgement and "UNMIK is interim administration of APKiM" - representing the other part of the mixed topic of the article

• APKiM supporters may want a pure APKiM infobox, but I don't think we should add such until we have some clear answer over the question of the degree of official support the KiM Council/Assembly have (e.g. does Serbia recognize UNMIK or these new structures as the APKiM authorities?)

In any case the IJA arrangment is leaning to the RoK POV and is not representing the current article topic. Alinor (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I will revert his removal. He will need to gain such a consensus for that, that wikipedia never saw consensus like that before! No more pov edits!! Only discussion, and nothing more will prevail here! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did i hade to edit this article? People be calm and reasonable. What is problem with status quo? It is just a beginning! Now we should discus it, and find the best way for article's future.

This is not the final version of this article. It will be improved.

We will find the best solution. Stop blind reverts. With them, it is clear that those are just a way to salvage questionable POV edits. It is no question that this subject is disputed. All of us must act in accordance with that. In section "Topic change" we must find some solution. Zjarri, IJA, all other, start talking with us!! Propose! Say something! That is only way to have something. Without your (flexible) comments, we will never agree! And, please, just keep it calm, and peaceful. All of us are here for the same purpose, people. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I must agree. The presence of multiple infoboxes is a direct consequence of the irregular conflation of separate topics in one article. The infoboxes can be distributed among the pertinent articles the moment this conflation is solved by an article split. As long as the article isn't split, it will just need to put up with its multiple infoboxes. --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The infobox at the top is ridiculous, it is just repeating information which already exists in other infoboxes; there is no new information in them. In fact the UNMIK infobox doesn't add any new information it just has a UN flag on it for some reason. What is the point in that? Do you lot even know what infoboxes are for? They're boxes which contain information, why do you insist on repeating it twice? Not to mention it increases the size in kbs for the article, making it harder and longer for people with dial up internet. Also Alinor I'm not being POV, I'm just being practical and sensible unlike you who wants to repeat things for the sake of it; and with doing so increasing the size of the article. Full on ridiculous to be fair! IJA (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Having a History section this big that duplicates History of Kosovo article doesn't bother you, but a couple of infoboxes "increase KB size" does. The article (and most websites) is too big for dial-up Internet regardless of the number of infoboxes.

It's not clear whether the first infobox duplicates information from the second or vice versa, but this is a moot point anyway.

OK, maybe you removed one of the infoboxes no with POV-pushing intentions, but the result was POVish. The whole article is too RoK-focused (but still failing to explain RoK-UNMIK relations) and putting RoK infobox on top by removing the Kosovo (region) infobox is skewing the article further in the RoK direction.

Regarding flags, information, etc. - what do you think of the proposals for some changes that I made in the opening comment of this section? Alinor (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out there was NO CONSENSUS to have three infoboxes. IJA (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but the article has the three infoboxes at least since May 2008 [4] - I assume that following the Feb2008 declaration of independence there were some edit-warrings/discussions that settled into 3 infobox version, that continued until the 23 July 2010 flawed removal that was recently restored.

And actually the maps in the May2008 version seem better than the current maps - Kosovo (region) is represented by a geographical map of Kosovo only (map1), UNMIK/UNSCR1244 is represented by map of Kosovo-inside-Serbia without Europe/neighboring states (map3). If we use these two and change the RoK infobox map into a map of RoK-inside-Europe (and bordering Serbia, not part of it) such as map2. Alinor (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

map1 - for Kosovo (region) infobox - geography map of Kosovo only

map2.1 - for Republic of Kosovo infobox - Kosovo-highlighted-inside-Europe-and-outside-Serbia

map2.2 - for Republic of Kosovo infobox - Kosovo-highlighted-inside-Europe-and-outside-Serbia

map3 - for UNMIK/UNSCR1244 infobox - Kosovo-highlighted-inside-Serbia without Europe/neighboring states

And there was a consensus to have one infobox which you lot have ignored. You need to get a consensus before making such edits. Here is the consensus to have one infobox [5]. No new consensus has been made to have three infoboxes. A consensus is vital for the sake of the article. IJA (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One more time, did you even read my explanation of that process and false "consensus" in the section above "Kosovo article split"? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone agreed to one infobox, there was no opposition. That is a consensus. You're really struggling to argue that it isn't a consensus because you now later on don't agree with what has already been agreed. IJA (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

IJA, if you refer to this discussion WhiteWriter is right that it was already explained multiple times why it isn't a real consensus. Also, there are disagreement statements even at this discussion (but after the 26 hours when the other infoboxes were deleted). Anyway, the most recent discussion (a 30 day RFC) above shows that there is no consensus for these deletions (that's why the infoboxes got restored).

If you want only one infobox I suggest that you support some of the options for article with only one topic in the section above about topic change. Until the article has mixed topic RoK+APKiM it should have multiple infoboxes. Alinor (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks Alinor. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I added information to the infoboxes (per the initial comment of this section) without re-arranging [6]. Alinor (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A consensus to have a single infobox was reached last summer [[7]]. Stop adding multiple infoboxes to the article. Alinor, this edit of yours is against consensus reached--Mr Eckerslay (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the section "Kosovo article split" first. Alinor's edit is totally valid. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Liar source :)

This is part from the lede:

Serbian Empire, 1355 A.D.

despite the fact that medieval Serbia did not evolve from Kosovo itself.

Reference

Although we have one source, it is quite clear that it is wrong. Kosovo was not part of the earliest Principality of Serbia, but later (as you may see from Serbia in the Middle Ages and Serbian Empire articles), Kosovo is in the "heart" of the Serbian state. This sentence should be removed, as it is clearly false. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up your side of the argument? Without evidence, there is nothing "clear" about your assertion. Bazonka (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, see image on the right? You see where is Kosovo? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not an especially detailed map - it proves nothing. Note that I'm not taking sides here, because my knowledge is not strong in this area, I just have concerns with you saying that something is "clear" when you have no (or unclear) evidence to back it up. Bazonka (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but did you see articles about Serbian empire?? From Belgrade to Greece! Kosovo is in the middle! There are no way to escape it. Saying that kosovo was never part of that empire is geographical nonsense!

Few images

Serbian Empire

Based on German map from Tzar Dušan time

Serbian Empire 1355

Emperor Dusan's Serbia

Do i really need to post all the written sources here? You have it in those two articles i mentioned above. I am sorry, but it is completely clear that Kosovo became part of Serbia then. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so Kosovo was part of the Serbian empire in medieval times. But that is not what the sentence to which you object says. It says that Serbian culture etc did not emanate from Kosovo. Showing maps with Kosovo as part of Serbia is irrelevant. It's like me showing you a map of the British Empire to prove that England's culture came from India. Not proof. Bazonka (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OMG, man, why dont you tell me!? I didn't saw the sentence well! "...medieval Serbia did not evolve from Kosovo..." I was convinced that it was "didn't include Kosovo"... I am sorry, but that was obvious, nothing else! :) :) :) One big apology! I should wear spectacles! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Organ theft allegations

I added a short summary on the recent Marty report. I think the case is sufficiently notable that a brief mention here is in order. In fact, I'm surprised this wasn't done already. Athenean (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "Organ theft Allegations" section and added a see also link it through to it in the Kosovo War section. We don't have a section on the article Serbia about "Alleged War Crimes" why have a section on Kosovo about them? It seems rather POV to have a full section for them, explicitly drawing attention to it. Remember this article is about "Kosovo" the place, alleged organ theft isn't and shouldn't be a major topic for this article. One sentence maximum should be more than enough. If we were to have a section on the Serbia article called "Alleged War Crimes" many people here would complain. The same applies here. IJA (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. The organ theft allegations are big news I'll have you know, and recent. Every major media outlet has covered them. The Council of Europe just endorsed Marty's report and the investigation is ongoing. Don't you think that's pretty significant? What seems POV is to remove the section completely, especially when every sentence is sourced. We have a section on the recent economic crisis in Greece, I don't see why we shouldn't have a brief mention of the organ theft allegations here, unless it is to "defend" Kosovo's "honor". Athenean (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the one talking nonsense. You're right this is news, recent news and this isn't wikinews; it is wikipedia aka an encyclopaedia. This encyclopaedic article is about Kosovo, it gives general information about Kosovo in an article; it is an overview on Kosovo. What is so important about Kosovo as a whole that the "organ theft allegations" are so important? Please tell me. This additional information is about news as you have stated, I agree it is news however this isn't Wikinews it is Wikipedia. Also you say brief mention, you have made a complete new section on it, a full paragraph. If you were to meet someone who knew nothing about Kosovo and they wanted a quick overview on Kosovo, you wouldn't give a lecture on the organ theft allegations. The Organ theft allegations are not important when it comes to an entire article on Kosovo. If the article was on the Kosovo War, war crimes in Kosovo, of the KLA etc I could see your point; but when it comes to a brief overview on Kosovo which this article is about, what makes the organ theft allegations so important? Specifically having a full paragraph on Kosovo and explicitly telling the audience about these allegation is POV. We don't have a full section about Serbian war crimes on ethnic-Albanians in this article. Why? Because alleged War Crimes are not important or essential when it comes to giving an overview on a place. Tell me, would you oppose or revert if I were to add alleged Serbian Serbian War crimes section to this article or to the article "Serbia"? I ask you to remove these controversial edits until you can get a consensus for their necessity to the article and explain why the average person who wants a brief overview on Kosovo should read a full paragraph on the alleged organ trade. Remember it is POV to explicitly mention certain things. General overviews shouldn't include controversial topics, ok have a link and/or a brief sentence but don't give it a full section/ paragraph. You're explicitly drawing the audiences attentional to such an controversial and alleged subject when there is no reason to. Ok on other articles more related to the subject I agree there should be something about it, however not on an article such as this when it doesn't have much to do with it, you just seem to want it there to give s bad impression of Albanians, Thaci and Kosovo. Please remove this for the reasons I have stated or I will take to a higher level for the reasons I have stated. Please gain a consensus before making such very controversial edits. IJA (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, calm down and stop accusing me of trying to guess my motives. My additions are only 5 sentences long, which is tiny compared to the overall length of the article. According to your line of reasoning, we shouldn't have a "Law and Order" section either, yet we do. Tell me, according to you, shouldn't we also remove the Law and Order section for the reasons you give above? Doesn't it also "give a bad impression of Albanians and Kosovo"? Isn't it true that other countries don't have sections like that? As for the "this isn't wikinews" argument, articles about the organ allegations have been continuously appearing in the news since December, when Marty's report came out. And they will continue to do so in the future (there will be investigations, court cases, etc..). This is isn't some trivial one-off incident that will go away. The organ theft allegations are also extremely important in that they affect perceptions of Kosovo's legitimacy: If they had surfaced before the declaration of independence, perhaps a lot of countries would have refrained from recognizing kosovo (and maybe some will retract their recognitions now). Furthermore, the organ theft was well-known to Western intelligence agencies, who chose to keep quiet for the sake of foreign-policy objective in the Balkan region. Don't you think that is extremely important and should be mentioned? Thus, my point is that this isn't some trivial non-event, but goes to the heart of the independence debate. Lastly, you claim that on other articles more related to the subject I agree there should be something about it, but if this article isn't related to the subject, then what is? While I agree with you that there should be a consensus for my additions, but how can this consensus be achieved if you remove them? Feel free to take it to whatever "higher level" you want (you could start with an RfC for one), however, I have a feeling that you will be disappointed. Athenean (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to the sanctions of this article and discuss any content reversions on the talk page. and BRD. Btw I tried to make a compromise edit between the two versions. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt it needs to be mentioned. IJA: these are major allegations endorsed by the Council of Europe involving the Prime Minister. It can't be a serious proposition to have no mention. However, Athenian's edit is way over the top in length and language used - the level of detail, particularly as they are allegations, is not yet warranted. On the other hand, ZjarriRrethues's compromise proposal is too oblique and assumes the reader knows what it is all about. I suggest add ing to Rule of Law this sentence: "The Council of Europe has endorsed a report by Swiss MP Dick Marty and called for a full investigation into its allegations that a criminal network tied to the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Prime Minister, Hashim Thaci, executed prisoners and harvested their kidneys for organ transplantation." with this source added. I'm going to introduce it unless there is striong objection. DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me, though I would break it up into two sentences: I would the first sentence from my additions, and add your after it. Athenean (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry just done it (with tweak) before seeing your post. See what you think. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is that it is still a little oblique, requiring the reader to know the back story. I would propose something along the lines of: "In 2010 a report by Swiss MP Dick Marty claimed to have found evidence that a criminal network tied to the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Prime Minister, Hashim Thaci, executed prisoners and harvested their kidneys for organ trafficking. On Jaunary 25 2010, the Council of Europe endorsed the report and called for a full and seriouss investigation into its content". Athenean (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, done. DeCausa (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should read "uncovered evidence" or "found evidence", and "trafficking" instead of "transplantation. The organs were sold and flown for transplantation in Istanbul according to the source, otherwise it's good. Athenean (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make the changes, go ahead I don't object - but I don't think they're necessary. It says they 'harvested them for...' not that they carried out the transplant. Your other change is purely stylistic - I don't care. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)