Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Botushali (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 31 July 2024 (→Lead sentence: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

We should use the term "partially recognized country"

In a short description, Kosovo is claimed as a country. Having in mind its non resolved international status, I propose that we use the term "partially recognized country", or "country under international dispute", instead of just "country in Southeast Europe". 194.24.248.216 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it’s not recognized by China, Russia, or India. China and India alone account for the majority of the world’s population. Outright calling it a country is disingenuous and biased. I’m neither Serb or Albanian just an American calling it as I see it. 76.219.122.229 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Country#Statehood....no guesswork pls...we regurgitate sources that follow international law. Moxy- 04:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good point, but this edit won't be made, but this won't be done, since encyclopedia is influenced by US politics, and at the moment, US recognizes Kosovo as a country. Alven192 (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if 70% of the world's population doesn't recognize Kosovo as a country, why have you noted "Country" instead of "Territory" or something similar? 212.200.181.124 (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan and Kosovo / "partial diplomatic recognition"

Kosovo has more UN member states (104) than Taiwan (12) that recognize it, yet Taiwan's article simply states it as a "country", while Kosovo's states it as a "country with partial diplomatic recognition". This seems biased to me. Is there any specific reason why Kosovo has this bit while Taiwan doesn't? Game2Winter (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're very different situations. Regarding this article specifically, Kosovo's partial diplomatic recognition has been a key aspect of its international engagement since it declared statehood. Kosovo leverages its partial recognition to gain further international presence, see eg. recent COE vote. CMD (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that recognition of Taiwan doesn't matter? Game2Winter (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan isn't partially recognised in the same way, it's a rump state that emerged from a civil war rather than a breakaway state. It doesn't really have recognition as its own separate independent state in the way Kosovo does. CMD (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So according to you, Taiwan has even less recognition than Kosovo. If that is the case, why should Taiwan's description be "a country" with no addons, while Kosovo's description has "partial diplomatic recognition" in it? Game2Winter (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is simple to describe. Taiwan has the largest paragraph of its lead as an add-on, plus an entire body section devoted to the subject. CMD (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about biased, but I also don't think we need to be saying it in the lead... Looking though the talk history I can't actually find a consensus for that specific language (if someone can that would be helpful, I assume its in there somewhere). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a bit of discussion in and among the window-dressing discussions of country vs state. Regarding history, the language has been in the lead in some form since the declaration of statehood (early eg.), and continues to form a notable aspect of the country's international personality. CMD (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not generally note notable aspects of a country's international personality in the first sentence of the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not generally in question. CMD (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't in question here, or at least not that I am aware of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of formal recognition is not a judgement of how a country is more eligible to be defined as an independent state, which is a unilateral political act by a government based on their political interests for the admission to a country’s statehood. That depends on the hard power of a nation to project its influence in the global arena against what they deemed a subject as “disputed regimes”.
In this case, Kosovo receives more formal recognition, not because they are more important or legitimate than one another, which is only because Serbia as a small power does not have the same influence to prevent other states from establishing international relations with Kosovo as Chinese government did, and it's proved that the NATO nations have the full capability to intervene since the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. If Serbia is a nuclear country or a permanent member in the UN systems, or one of five most ranked economic or military powers of the world, then we can compare them in an equal basis. Sheherherhers (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what, specifically, gives Taiwan legitimacy that Kosovo does’t have? Game2Winter (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan as a sovereign state inherited from the former Chinese Republic, As a nation in its own right that is existed long before the establishment of communist China (PRC) and the island was never placed under the PRC rule in history, therefore no one would actually consider Taiwan as a PRC province or a breakaway state seceded from the PRC, despite being asserted by the communist regime as such. The ROC on Taiwan was also a former UN member state between 1945 and 1971. In this aspect, it’s different course in comparison with the formation of Kosovo, which was already an autonomous province ruled by Belgrade during the former Yugoslavian era.
The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's in fact more similar to the current situation of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as "countries" as well, and simultaneously they have been claiming the legitimacy over entire Korean peninsula in their respective constitution that is similar to the cross-strait relations. This circumstance would not affect the way we have viewed them as two sovereign countries exercise sovereignty in their each actual-controlled territories, rather than seeing them as “One Korea” with two governments, same criteria applies to the ROC and PRC. Sheherherhers (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to you, the Gaddafi loyalist holdouts in Libya should have such considerations too, as they were never controlled by the current Libyan government? Game2Winter (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should read thoroughly what criterian in regards to a national authority that can be considered a sovereign state, before keep giving me uncomparable answers. #Country#Statehood
Or you may enlight me how many permanent population, and how much defined territories the Gaddafi loyalists have currently hold?? or where exactly the Gaddafi loyalist government located? Its statehood and authority based on what law basis? Or how many foreign countries have engaged formal relations with the Gaddafi loyalists, including any foreign diplomatic missions? Answering those to me before we talk. Sheherherhers (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the Gaddafi loyalists qualify to be called a state. I'm just saying that the virtue of having controlled the country in the past/never having territory being controlled by foreign powers is a very poor way to assess eligibility for statehood. Game2Winter (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're just cherry-picking my points to rebut and avoiding some of the most significant reasons about the issue, even some other editors have pointed out that before my response. It's your problem to neglect it.
1. Taiwan/ROC is never a breakaway state as Kosovo, which did not secede from the communist China, they were two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's more similar to present-day North/south Korea relations, despite competing each other in overlapping territorial claims, they're generally two states co-existed.
2. Taiwan have satisfied all the criterian of four pillar elements that constitute a sovereign state, not to mention that it used to attend as a full member state in the UN. The declarative theory outlined in the 1933 Montevideo Convention describes a state in Article 1 as:
  1. Having a permanent population
  2. Having a defined territory
  3. Having a government
  4. Having the ability to enter into relations with foreign states
These whole Kosovo-Taiwan debate, to be frankly, are virtually based on a false analogy to deliberately confuse Taiwan (ROC) with other breakaway states, which means you tend to use the partial-recognized feature in order to categorise them all together and disregard their historical context that emerged from, while making your own judgement regarding the use of "country" in Taiwan topic as an unfair treatment upon other states also with lesser universal recognition.
Last but not least, the creation and continuity of a state is only a factual issue, not a legal question. Declarations and recognition by other states cannot have any impact on their existence. According to the declaratory theory of recognition, the act of recognition signifies no more than the acceptance of an already-existing factual situation— i.e., conformity with the criteria of statehood, the recognition of third states is not a requirement for being a state. Most of the cited declarations by politicians from other states are not legal statements but solely political intents.
citing reference: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/declaratory-and-constitutive-theories-of-state.php
Sheherherhers (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) A "rival state" does not deserve classification as a country. For example, the Houthis in Yemen, even though they control the majority of the Yemeni population, are not considered a country by anybody.
2) The Montevideo Convention's criteria are not enough for a state to be considered a "country". For example, Somaliland fulfills all the criteria, yet it is not considered a country. Besides, even if it was, Kosovo already fulfills all the criteria, so there is no need to treat it differently than Taiwan.
3) Whether a state is a "rival government" or a "breakaway state" does not matter, as there is no practical difference between the two. In all reality, they function the same.
4) If that is the case, that would apply to all unrecognized states. Why does Taiwan get special treatment?
Game2Winter (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation section update

The current description of the highways refers to the Macedonian border, but that country is now called Northern Macedonia. 98.51.241.186 (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you! Typical Albanian (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

Please remove this sentence: 

The official conventional long name of the state is Republic of Kosovo, as defined by the Constitution of Kosovo, and is used to represent Kosovo internationally.

and replace it with this one: 

The Constitution of Kosovo defines the state's official conventional long name to be Republic of Kosovo.  It is used to represent Kosovo internationally.

The active voice is probably better, and the "and is" element sounds a little ungrammatical. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: why not The official conventional long name, as defined by the Constitution, is Republic of Kosovo? The part about being used to represent Kosovo internationally seems self-evident. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like your wording better than mine, and I agree with your reasoning. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing as part of "Operation Horseshoe"

@Typical Albanian: You're engaging in WP:OR & personal opinion rather than following the encyclopedia's guideline of neutrality with your edit here. The Operation Horseshoe article itself states that there is doubt as to whether the plan existed and whether that specific plan was carried out when Albanians were expelled during the Kosovo War.

Besides the German minister Loquai who stated that it was not authentic, I'll add Wolfgram from the European Journal of Communication here:

As to the actual existence of such a plan or its contents, no credible evidence has yet surfaced, although the German Defense Ministry claimed on 19 April 1999 to have delivered such evidence to chief prosecutor Louise Arbour in the Hague. None of this material has seen the light of day at the trial, and the entire Operation Horseshoe story failed to materialize in the prosecution’s case against Milošević, although such evidence, if it existed, should have been critical to their case.

And there are other RS/scholars who doubt it. For example, Professor Raju G. C. Thomas of Marquette University who writes in Yugoslavia Unraveled: Sovereignty, Self-determination, Intervention that: "[the political scientist] Kelly Greenhill points out in her chapter in this book, there is no evidence that such a "Horseshoe Plan" existed." (p.17); "Daalder and O'Hanlon claim that Milosevic set out to put Operation Horseshoe into effect in November 1998 and that the coordinated attack (was to) involve a broad swath of territory, in the shape of a horseshoe, moving from the northeast down to the west and back to the southeast of Kosovo... However this depiction of Serb intentions is wholly at odds with the actual pattern of outflows during the crisis.." (p.228)

Therefore, at best we can say the fleeing and expulsion was an alleged ethnic cleansing plan codenamed "Operation Horseshoe" but that this has been questioned. However, attributing the expulsions to Operation Horseshoe is unnecessary altogether when it is sufficient to simply describe the events plainly as they were. --Griboski (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

@Horse Eye's Back: The lead sentence was established as a result of a March 2023 RFC: Talk:Kosovo/Archive_33#RFC.

You state the RFC's scope only extended to the use of the word country. But this is not true.

As can be seen from the discussion, the initiator proposed: "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition."

The closer stated: "Based on all of this, the consensus seems to be that the opening sentence of the article should read as laid out in the proposal "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition."

That is the consensus and stable version that's been there ever since. If you want to change it, you should seek consensus and/or file an RFC. Unilaterally removing it is unproductive.--Griboski (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blatant misrepresentation... In context it is clearly only provided as an example "Should the lead sentence of this article on Kosovo describe Kosovo using the specific word "country"? For example: Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition. ?" The RfC is about a specific word and nothing else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The results of the RFC are plainly obvious, regardless of how you want to twist it. I'm just letting you know that you need a new consensus to override the existing one. --Griboski (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you are denying the existance of the words "For example" or are you disputing their meaning? To most the meaning of "For example" is obvious, but if you think it isn't then explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you ignoring the closer's conclusion and the consensus/stable version stemming from the RFC result that's been there for the past 16 months?
Kosovo's recognition has been an important aspect since its declaration of independence. Major countries like Brazil, China, Greece, India and Russia do not recognize it. It is reasonable to note this status in the lead, as it always has been in some form. Perhaps it should be tweaked, but this should be done via consensus building.
This article is a controversial topic with divergent views. Outright removal without consensus won't get you what you want. --Griboski (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring anything, a consenus/conclusion only exists in its given context... It can't be disconnected from that context. Unless I'm missing something nobody is proposing that we don't cover it in the lead, what has been challenged is covering it in the very first sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC close literally states Based on all of this, the consensus seems to be that the opening sentence of the article should read as laid out in the proposal "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition." Khirurg (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is laid out in the proposal is an example... The only part of the sentence in question was the word "country" so there is no way to interpret the close as being a consensus on the entire sentence. The close literally could not be what you say it is, the closer did not have that power in this context (they can't make a supervote and only three editors of thirty eight editors even mentioned the "partial diplomatic recognition" part). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great point. The way the RfC was formulated did not state explicitly that the opening sentence should include "partial diplomatic recognition". Botushali (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=1237701056"