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 Ђорђе Д. Божовић (talk | contribs) at 14:31, 24 February 2008 (→Changes to article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Article probation

Previous discussion have been archived. Editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to see also Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (especially the last few)
Please also see this subpage which contains a list of descriptions of Kosovo's status from other sources:

Template:V0.5

The text is not realistic, its very-much wining side history. Citations should be found for the earliest history of Kosovo, internacionaly it is Kosovo, in Albanian it is "Kosova", so change the name everywhere where it is Kosova change it with Kosovo, and add at the begging that it is Kosovo in English, Kosova in Albanian. I've always liked wiki for the truth. So my opinion is that this text its pro-albanian. Not, that someone on purpose did it, but because of misleading information that are given by difrent medias in western world. Pay attention, on the part with Dardania, and pay attention in every place where it says that Serbian made exodus. I do not ask you to delete, i just want you to also present the serbian-side story about Kosovo, so readers can make conclusion.

Article should be merged

This article should be merged into Serbia. This should be done ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.124.184 (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On wbhat presedence?--Jakezing (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well?--Jakezing (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Kosova has not been a part of Serbia since Sunday. Wandering Star (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
De jure it is, because Kosovo is province (other federal units like Croatia or Macedonia were Republics with higher level of autonomy), and by legislative province can't separate from domestic republic unilaterally. WHY A REFERENDUM WASN'T HELD IN KOSOVO, AND IN MONTENEGRO WAS? -Because Kosovans haven't had law base to organize referendum without agreement with Serbia.

Another misapprehension is that dissolution of Yugoslavia ends with Kosovan. The dissolution ended with Montenegrin legal independence process, because Montenegro is Republic. Albanians already had their domestic country (Albania) so this is not separatism (e.g. Basque don't have their domestic country, neither Croats in 1990), this is secessionism.Navyworth (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on other countries which declared independence, and which recieved less international recognition than Kosova has. Biafra is an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafra), and the Nigerians aren;t going apeshit over the fact that Wikipedia has an article about Biafra, even though Nigeria never formally recognized the secession of Biafra from it, and continues to claim that Biafra was an illegitimate state. You have a political axe to grind, and this is clouding your judgment. Even if Kosova only lasts for a week, it still deserves a Wiki page, much as there are Wikipages describing other independent states whose legitimacy are or have been in dispute. Wandering Star (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Take a look around you. Specifically, at the situation of this page. With all of the critical edits (not to mention the controversy) that need to be addressed, making a a change like merging this article would be disastrous. Also, it would be a politically-motivated move. In short, it would be contrary to the continue stability of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.30.146 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it lets merge all of the fifty states with the United States article. This article is way too big to be merged. Orracle107 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the continuation of the current article; i.e., no merge. There is obviously too much information for this to be merged as proposed. I think a consensue is forming on this issue here and that it may be appropriate to remove the merge tag pretty soon. N2e (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosova, not Kosovo

THe Kosovars refer to their country by the name Kosova. Kosovo is the name the Serbs applied to what was then a province in their country. The Republic of Kosova deserves to be called by it's proper name in Wikipedia, and this article should be renamed to reflect the independence of this country and it's people. Wandering Star (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totaly agree. This should reflect the new reality in the Balkans.
And yet thats not how the world works now is it? Most people refer to it as kosovo, and look at some other articles. Wikipedia uses the most common used term or name, wikipedia is nuetral, and since most of the world calls it kosovo we pick that name. now, give me a document where it says kosova, issued by the goverment of kosovo, and we may change it to kosova.--Jakezing (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here's their Declaration of Independence. http://www.assembly-kosova.org/common/docs/Kosovo%20Declaration%20of%20Independence%20-%20English%20Version.pdf

Issued by the Republic of KOSOVA.

Wandering Star (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 26 Kosovos and zero Kosovas. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is Serbian word delivered from word Kos what means small black bird, and that black bird is certenly not an eagle. That word is taken from Serbian. If anybody has explination what word kos means in albanian, post.Navyworth (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The international name is "Kosovo", so I think it should be called as such. It's the intenational community who decides the (English) name of a country, not wikipedians! Vitaltrust (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On English wikipedia it is the English names that should be prevalent. Hence Kosovo in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.19.3 (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Even though it is already resolved, wouldnt it have been resolved instantly if we had cited japan and germany? After all, their articles use the english names and not the names used within the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphamone (talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonym

Whats the Demonym for Kosovo? Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kosovars" or "Kosovans", afaik, the former seems more common. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and the latter is more correct. Nikola (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then i guess an admin should include it in the infobox? Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the correct Demonym is "Kosovars" and not "Kosovans". Please do not invent new unnecessary words here. Piasoft 09:45, 19 February 2008 (ETC)
No one is inventing any new words: both "Kosovar" and "Kosovan" have been in use for many decades (see the Oxford English Dict.). "Kosovan" should be added to the list of demonyms. Unfortunately I can't do it myself as the admin seem to have locked the article. 10:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.211.143 (talk)
What dictionary ? U need citation about this. "Kosovars" is the official and correct term. "Kosovans" is only used by some british media. In International english it is "Kosovars" see thefreedictionary.com. See also: [The Guardian] [CNN.com] [Reuters]
If you follow this logic than you should say Serbians and Kosovans !!! But I think it is Serbs and Kosovars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.70.231 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a debate and a dual usage. "Kosovars" has been a widely accepted norm by media organizations and diplomats. Several English dictionariees use Kosovans (as in Mexico - Mexican) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.161.138 (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't find appropriate. For us who know who and what is Kosovo, "Kosovans" just doesnt make sense. It was never used form Albanians or by Serbs. This is just an invented word of people who dont know nth about this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.70.231 (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
never heard Kosovans before this discussion, I've always seen Kosovars. However since the US president says Grecians instead of Greeks maybe there are people who say Kosovans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.19.3 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? Albanians and Serbs don't dictate what the English word should be. We don't call the French les Français (when speaking English). "Kosovan" is correct English. 19:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.211.143 (talk)

Protection?

I think full-protection is in order. There seems to be quite a substantial number of edit revisions here and protection would be the best thing to do until everything can be established with consensus. Rudget. 15:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGREED! People are even renaming the file names of the map, that is how strognly some vandals feel about this and as such full protection is needed. Abc30 (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed . Let people have their say . --My.life.is.muzik... (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to "let people have their say". It is to provide encyclopedic articles based on information that is agreed by a consesus, preferably using the discussion page. Abc30 (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
** Disagreed . Let people have the possibility to let the World know about the independence of Kosovo . Kosovo HAS been declared independent, Serbia DOES refuse to accept it, these are the FACTS, and Wikipedia fails to deliver this kind of information to the People . Someone who is NOT from the Eastern Yurp may be fooled or just at least confused . The article SHOULD be unlocked, so that the People of Kosovo and/or Serbia, being in the centre of what's happening ATM, would be able to EDIT the article and provide us, the Rest of the World, with the freshest and most recent information . Please unlock the article, otherwise it means introducing censorship and oppression of both the People and the Freedom of Speech and Information on Wikipedia. --My.life.is.muzik... (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news outlet but an encyclopedia; the priority is not to produce most up-to-date -information but quality encyclopedia articles. Freedom of speech or democracy aren't the issue here either; this is Wikipedia, not a public forum. 89.27.19.182 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
people from Kosovo/Serbia would be equaly be confused by all of this as well. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already stated my opinion, but let's not get into a wheel war here, ok? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree With such rapidly changing news, this article is going to be quickly outdated. I doubt the level of semi-protected vandalism will be moreoverwhelming than an FA article. Joshdboz (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you want admins to be wheel-warring over whether or not to protect this article? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I just don't think full-protection should be used on current events. Joshdboz (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - the custom here appears to be semi protection of current events. However, this particular article has been in a squabble for some time, and that's why some admins might want full protection. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think protection is a terrible idea right now, what is worse is the 6 admins who have edited the article since then, IMHO all should be temporarily desysopped for a month for bringing the encyclopedia into disrupte and taking the mickey out of our policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This wasa HORRIBLE pre-emptive protection. Bad call, Rudget. ThuranX (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, at least to the extent of full protection. And what makes it worse is that editing has continued after protection. I'm not even sure I see enough justification for semi-protection. RxS (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you all joking. Block the page for at minimum 24 hours untis situation will be more clear. Like in other languages people did. Strange you have not done it before. About what kind of qualitive edits of the article now can we speak?Dima1 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map Changes

The map on this article has been changed to show Kosovo as Independent, so now surely the map on the article Serbia should be changed to exclude Kosovo, or show Kosovo in a different colour to express (Territory claimed by Serbia)? The person who changed the Kosovo map may posses a Serbia excluding Kosovo map, so I appeal to him/her to use his resources and consider making appropriate changes to the article Serbia

(Umbongo91 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've just made such a map it's under Image:Serbia without Kososvo in Europe.png Hobartimus (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Serbia is still claiming it contains also Kosovo, downright exclusion in the map would be equally POV as inclusion. I'd favour having Kosovo in a different shade, as a disputed territory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. like it's done here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What shade are you looking for? A shaded version was already used in this article to indicate the location of Kosovo within Serbia which were colored with a light color and Kosovo with a deeper color. Hobartimus (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a location map of Serbia, I'd think of a lighter shade of red, perhaps? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect info in first paragraph

"This is also the position of the remainder of the international community including United Nations." referring to Serbia's rejection of Kosovo's independence. The UN has taken no stand, yet. There have been no statements from the UN. So far only Russia and Serbia have rejected Kosovo's independence.

checkY Removed. Rudget. 16:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Text is still there in the lead. Frankchn (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SELF - PROCLAIMED!!!!! Every Country is self proclaimed! Please USE COUNTRY OR STATE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.97.146 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia SHOULD recognise the declaration

Some people seem to think that Wikipedia should ignore the declaration until other countries have acknowledged it. This is not necessary. As long as we for now use the term "self-declared" then it is accurate enough. Abc30 (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is a fact that they declared independence. That should be noted. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For start, I suggest this edit, which should not be controversial. Nikola (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but the map part IS controversial. The inclusion of Serbia on the map implies that Kosovo is part of Serbia, which of course the Kosovan government would disagree with. It could be considered to the same as including Germany on a map of France - two separate countries. Abc30 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how about "The provisional parliament of Kosovo approved a declaration of independence on 17 February 2008, just before 3 pm local time, which the Government of Serbia proactively declared annuled"? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as does practically everyone else. No country has yet recognised Kosovo's independence. But even if you consider the map controversial, the rest should not be. Nikola (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is ridiculous. How about "The provisional parliament of Kosovo declared that it approved a declaration of independence on 17 February 2008, just before 3 pm local time, which the Government of Serbia proactively declared annuled"? Nikola (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nikola, based on your page, you are not exactly 'neutral' in this.--RobNS 16:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The provisional Kosovo parliament declared independence ... which the Government of Serbia proactively declared annulled." — Rickyrab | Talk 16:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
?? Is what I say contentious, or not? Nikola (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you pointed out an opinion of yours on your user page, and it's perfectly okay to point out opinions of yours on your own user page. As for me, I admit to being pro-independence for the moment because, hey, a new country doesn't come around every day. And I'm an American, anyhow. And my country declared independence unilaterally itself. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that for the same reasons you are supporting the independence of the Republic of Serbian Krajina or the Republic of Srpska. Nikola (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. I am neither Serb nor Albanian. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, shouldn't a country's name have a spelling that one could actually pronounce? How the heck is one supposed to say "Srpska"? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As for me, I admit to being pro-independence for the moment because, hey, a new country doesn't come around every day. And I'm an American, anyhow. And my country declared independence unilaterally itself." Excuse me, but this sounds absolutely idiotic. Would you say this twice if would California or Texas wanted to seclude from the USA? It is the essence of all the problems in a world because all the "main and rich" countries think that they have right to put their nose in a business that shouldn't interest them. Even though, Kosovo is in their part of interest, what about than with Spain and their regions like Basque or Catalonia striving for independence? What about UK with Scotland and Northern Ireland? What about France and Corsica? I guess you are supporting all these seclusive parties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.194.142 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland and Ireland willingly joined the United Kingdom in the 18th century, and there is no real movement for it's independence. The United States settled it's problems with seccession in the 19th century.Schism500 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, not really they didn't. Secondly, Ireland already seceded the UK and thirdly, Scotland is actually already becoming independent (slowly). :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence unilaterally and today they have a seat in UN. We should be aware of that 92% of Kosovo is populated by Albanians who have gone through terrebile mistreatment and violations by Serbian army, police and paramilitaries. Serbia, technically, lost the war in Kosovo therefore it doesn't have any moral right to have soverignity over Kosovo. The superpowers are accepting Kosovo as a new country and every other country should do so, unless they want to see another war in Ballkans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetonm (talk • contribs) 12:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is not similar to Slovenia or Croatia, which were both states within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and had the right to declare their independence. The situation in Kosovo is not as simple as the above comment suggests. The Serb people of Kosovo have also been the target of violence from the Albanian people of the region. This is one of the ways in which the population ratio in Kosovo reached from (roughly) 65% Albanian and 35% Serbian in 1940 to 92% Albanian and 6% Serbian today (see Demographic_history_of_Kosovo, [1]). So it's not that easy to conclude if the independence of Kosovo is right or if it is a good thing. Anyway, it is a delicate subject and I think Wikipedia should try to stay as neutral as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.8.96 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why there is as few Serbians living in Kosovo today is becuase Serbia lost the war, otherwise you wouldn't have found a single Albanian living in Kosovo today. Did you forget the ethnic cleansing? Over 1 million Albanians were forced to leave Kosovo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.71.220 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite population ratio in Kosovo reached from (roughly) 65% Albanian and 35% Serbian in 1940 to 92% Albanian and 6% Serbian today !!!! Do you have any proof of this coming from target of violence of albanians. Please lets be responsible. 80.78.70.231 (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNPROTECT IT (?)

Let people have the possibility to let the World know about the independence of Kosovo . Kosovo HAS been declared independent, Serbia DOES refuse to accept it, these are the FACTS, and Wikipedia fails to deliver this kind of information to the People . Someone who is NOT from the Eastern Yurp may be fooled or just at least confused . The article SHOULD be unlocked, so that the People of Kosovo and/or Serbia, being in the centre of what's happening ATM, would be able to EDIT the article and provide us, the Rest of the World, with the freshest and most recent information . Please unlock the article, otherwise it means introducing censorship and oppression of both the People and the Freedom of Speech and Information on Wikipedia. --My.life.is.muzik... (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting the same content on this page. Your opinion is already in consideration. Rudget. 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People from Kosovo/Serbia would be equaly be confused by all of this as well. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't actually read the article as it currently stands in its protected state. All of the facts that you mention, including that fact that Serbia does not recognise independence, ARE included in the intro. Abc30 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

typo

please correct it: [Gorani]]s --> Goranis. SyP (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rudget. 15:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

flag and coat of arms

see german wikipedia, and sources: http://www.ks-gov.net/ and http://www.kosovapress.com/ks/index.php?cid=2,2,38792. sincerly yours, --Petar Marjanovic 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The parliament was going to vote on state symbols but the signing of the declaration is taking so long that they stopped reporting on it. Mikebloke (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flag was just chosen , but the coat of arms is going to be chosen some other time
Its the yellow map og kosovo in a blue field sourrounded at the top by white stars--Cradel 16:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just saw it but I wish I saw the vote. Mikebloke (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On this very moment, on CNN, we can see the prime minister of Kosovo, together with the president, they indeed just showed the official flag, which is already updated on the dutch wikipedia page. --SalaSSin (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see the governor of Louisiana on CNN, discussing the US presidential election. Of course, CNN may be showing different things in different parts of the world. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Dammit, American TV news is so America-centric. Internet news is typically a lot better. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.... CNN Belgium (Europe probably...) is non stop showing everything about the declared independance of Kosovo... Check the video on CNN Europe: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/17/kosovo.independence/index.html#cnnSTCVideo , in the second second (lolz) you can view the coat of arms...--SalaSSin (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just checked the french page on wikipedia, they already updated flag & coat of arms--SalaSSin (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool — Rickyrab | Talk 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-insert the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaltrust (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested article improvements

Cwolfsheep (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These actions can be completed when the article is automatically unprotected in 2 hours and 7 minutes. Rudget. 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo uses the calling code of Monaco. I suspect a different code might be issued if enough international recognizion is achieved. The TLD will likewise be assigned when the country is recognized. Remember, whatever your thoughts about an independent Kosovo, the country is unrecognized and even after the next few days will be unrecognized by the majority of nations. Wikipedia is not a political tool nor a tool of the USA and UK (which will recognize Kosovo tomorrow). 213.230.130.56 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lede paragraph

The last sentence of the first paragraph: "This is also the position of the remainder of the international community". What does this mean? It appears to say that the rest of the international community considers Kosovo a part of Serbia. I realize that no other countries have recognized independence yet, but is this really an accurate statement? I'm not sure that it's necessary. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 17:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I see it, it seems that the US and its NATO allies support the independence movement while Serbia and Russia oppose it. Sources for that should be found rather easily so I think that sentence should be modified. Frankchn (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh deer...

This is a bit of a problem with wikipedia. Someone always jumps on new news to try and make radical changes as fast as possible. Aren't you jumping the gun a wee bit with this? The blank flag and other details in a nation template like that just looks silly--128.240.229.65 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag and COA

{{editprotected}} The Parliament of Kosovo has adopted Image:Flag of Kosovo.svg as the flag and Image:Kosovo pisg ca.png as the coat of arms. Would it be possible to put these in the infobox? --Philip Stevens (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to be a stickler, but have you got verification of the adoption? Rudget. 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also looking for some way to verify the adoption before adding the symbols, and haven't found anything yet. When someone finds a source, please add it to the Flag of Kosovo & Coat of arms of Kosovo articles first, and the rest will be automatic :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made .svg version of the flag, for easier manipulation. Image:Flag_of_Kosovo.svg. --Ningyou (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been searching but I can't find it online. I've only seen it on TV. --Philip Stevens (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flag has been added per AGF. It might be removed though, so keep your eyes peeled for any verification as soon as. Rudget. 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and you can see the coat of arms behind Thaci in following CNN video: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/17/kosovo.independence/index.html#cnnSTCVideo --SalaSSin (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this [2]. It says white, even though in the photo you can see the map is actually yellow, like in the original .PNG. We'll have to wait. --Ningyou (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think we ought to delay using the flag until it becomes more certain. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the flag has been updated, please insert the COA too, it can be found on french wikipedia page, and can be found in the video i cited a bit higher, as confirmation.--SalaSSin (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mere presence of a symbol in a video is not actual confirmation of it being legally adopted as the country's coat of arms. We need something more concrete: preferably the actual text of the resolution, or at the very least a press report. Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is presumably present there as it was the arms of the Provisional Government of Kosovo. That of course does not mean it will become the arms of the State of Kosovo. We should keep these questionable symbols out of the page until developments become clearer.--Breadandcheese (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Let's put them in as provisional symbols rather than permanent symbols. Encyclopedias are supposed to represent the truth as far as it exists, and omitting information doesn't present the truth. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my bad :-S, however i agree with Rickyrab...--SalaSSin (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why ? Because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, even a provisional symbol is verifiable if reliable sources report it. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, nobody disputes that :-) But do we have any concrete verification of any symbol being adopted, be it provisionally or permanently ? I haven't seen any, yet. - Ev (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
< - - - - - - - - - - - Reset indent
Yes, we have, i saw on CNN Europe the flag being presented in the parliament of Kosovo (still searching for any videofeed of this on internet, however.--SalaSSin (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSHAM53437920080217--SalaSSin (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my first post to this section, I'm also searching for sources. To be honest, I would very much prefer to have something in writing (the adoption's text, an official press release or at least a press report) than a video. - Ev (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reuter's article by Matt Robinson only states that "a new flag, with the outline of Kosovo in yellow on a blue background under six stars, was carried into parliament". That doesn't say much. let's be patient and wait a couple of days for good sources to appear. - Ev (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i found the flag in an article of a Priština news agency on http://www.kosovapress.com/ks/index.php?cid=1,2,38819 , however, as i don't understand a word of this language, i can't tell whether this is official or not. Someone?--SalaSSin (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, SalaSSin :-) Parliament adopted the flag of Kosovo state, Kosovapress, Pristina, 17 February 2008. I will add it to the Flag of Kosovo article now, with due credits to you :-) Ev (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

I see that the coat of arms has been updated, but why does the flag still show a '?' when the new Flag of Kosovo has been uploaded onto Wikipedia? (Umbongo91 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Empty your cache and load the page again. --Ningyou (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Flag of Kosovo

Flag of Kosovo

The parliament has deemed this to be the flag. No need to argue over this issue.

The new flag being presented in front of Kosovo's Parliament 17. February, 2008

Thank you, Vseferović (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're trying to find reliable sources (the adoption's text, an official press release, or at least a press report) to add to the Flag of Kosovo article. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Its just that someone removed it from the article, so I decided to post the link. I completely agree with you. Probably by tomorrow there will be more concrete information. Thank you, Vseferović (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seal

I made a request for the interim seal to be SVGified on WP:GL - hope this helps. 67.41.182.153 (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both logos (PSIG and new one) SVGified. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official Kosovo symbols, please update article

http://zeljko-heimer-fame.from.hr/descr/ks.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.16.107 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and Abkhazia

While flags, symbols and data for the self-declared republic should be included - so should the flags, symbols and data for the de jure autonomous province. This is what has been practiced on the pages for the de facto states Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It's a fair and unbiased way to do things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misha bb (talk • contribs) 11:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...if this is not done, it will be a major inconsistency. There is no objective reason that there should be differences in the handling of Abkhazia et al., and the handling of Kosovo. These are all self-declared republics who are de jure part of another country. If this article is to remain locked until disputes are solved (i.e. for the next hundred years - look at North Cyprus) then I suggest the administrators insert the flags, symbols, data for the province Kosovo and Metohija of the Republic of Serbia. Once again, I have no agenda pro or con sovreignty for saying this - I only desire that the same kind of entities should be treated in the same kind of way. --Misha bb (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abkhazia has no international recognition what so ever. Refer to wikipedia if you need more info on the matter. Thank you. Piasoft (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware that Abkhazia and South Ossetia is not recongized by anyone, and the fact that Kosovo has some recognition does constitute an important difference. However, all these three "states" are essentially the same in that they are self-declared states who de jure are provinces of other countries. I find it hard to accept that one should refer only to the de facto situation and not also the de jure situation. However, I find it even more hard to accept that one should operate with double standards...--Misha bb (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not an important difference for you ... tell this to the US, and the rest of the countries who recognise Kosovo as Independent Republic. Albania also sef-declared independence. Slovenia did the same. I dont think sef-declared is an argument. No one expects the de jure to come from Belgrade or Moscow.!!! Abkhazia(and some other cases) are just desperate arguments of Serbia and Russia for the Kosovo case. Piasoft (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of content

Sensitive content needs control over editing!

One has to take into consideration that Kosovo is still part of Serbia. One part of Kosovo will never accept independence and current independence can be compared to Cyprus where Turkey proclaimed independence. For some country to be accepted internationally has to be approved by United Nation security council. Even so called Turkish part of Cyprus is accepted by some countries not by United Nation.

Kosovo is Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.17.185 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia makes no particular presumptions either way. As the page says, it is a self proclaimed independent republic - not dissimilar to the stance taken on the Northern Cyprus page.--Breadandcheese (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's very hard to understand situation at hand and one has look at international law as the only option. I understand this fact may hurt many albanians living in Kosovo but current official status of Kosovo according to international law is that Kosovo is part of Serbia. We'll see what future will bring and wait for decision of United Nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.17.185 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is Taiwan really part of China? That country never actually declared independence, yet it is de facto independent. How should we explain that? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current articles on those subject seem to describe the situation pretty well: Taiwan is either Chinese Taipei or run by the Republic of China, but Beijing considers it to be part of the People's Republic of China and thus subject to Beijing rule, not Taipei rule. But Beijing's stance is not the de facto situation, given the military and political positions of those in power on Taiwan. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no. The status of the two Chines is as its name suggests - two Chinas. Both mutually claim each other and don't recognize the other. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try telling that to the one-China diplomats. LOL — Rickyrab | Talk 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, independence is a touchy subject when people are closely connected to the land. We Jews have the same problem: Eretz Yisrael, and a lot of Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be part of that country. Palestinians would disagree, and the de facto situation there appears to be kind of independence in some parts and Israeli control in some parts.... I know how a Serb might feel. Nonetheless, a country has declared independence and some countries are apparently on the verge of recognizing it. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far Russia, Cyprus and Spain have declared against it, following the Serbian Head of Government and Head of State's objections. Only Taiwan has greeted it and Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossettia, which announced intensified attempts for recognition of independence. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A one China diplomat is likely to recognise that there are currently two entities which proclaim themselves to be the one true China. They simply don't agree on who is right. The PRC one China diplomat will of course proclaim that the PRC is the true one China and the other one is a renegade whereas the ROC one China diplomat will of course proclaim that the ROC is the one true China and the other one is a renegade. BTW, Taiwan is quite a different situation from Kosovo for the reasons already mentioned. Furthermore, nearly every single major country still accepts the one China policy. (And as has already been mentioned, even the ROC currently accepts the one China policy, they just don't believe the PRC is the real China) Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of Taiwanese today do not dispute the legitimacy of the PRC, but do dispute the PRC's claim to govern Taiwan. It is true that a "Greater China" ideology does exist, and that the ROC is used as a shield to defend that ideology. However, the ROC's "one China" policy is a relic of a constitution that was passed before the existence of the PRC. But in Taiwan, belief in the illegitimacy of the PRC died with Chiang Kai-Shek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.66.10.146 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia is in a very delicate situation right now. They should be more realistic and look toward the future that is awaiting them, that is EU and NATO. Today, the superpowers accepted the declaration of independence of Kosovo and in a week or so, around 100 countries will be accepting Kosovo as a the most newly born state. This leads us to understanding the reality that Kosovo sooner or later will have a seat in UN, unless Serbia wants to be locked within its territory and make its diplomatic affairs with superpowers even worse, which defenitely Serbia don't want this scenario to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetonm (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Република Косово"

I don't think the term "Република Косово" exists in Serbian language. It should be removed from the article. And why there's a map of Kosovo as an independent country? It's true that it pronounced it's independence today, but it is not internationally recognized and it is not a member of the UN. Notice that those remarks are not a provocation, but an objective evaluation of the article (I'm not Serbian or Kosovar). --SOMNIVM (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is often a lag period between proclamation of independence and international recognition. Meetings have to be conducted. Official recognition has to be done via whatever official procedures exist. And so on and so forth. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but during this period we should stick to what is internationally recognized. --SOMNIVM (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish translation

Why is there a Turkish translation of "Kosovo"? Turks only account for 1% of the population. I think this should be removed - 67.41.182.153 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There are also 1-2% of Gorani, many of them defining themselves as Bulgarians or Macedonians, so if there is a Turkish translation, Bulgarian one should be available too (though, it is the same as the Serbian one).--SOMNIVM (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why there is turkish, I think is becouse it has been formally recognized as third official language in Kosovo. But need sources on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.70.231 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish is official in a local level. Not in a state level, but still considering the influence of Ottoman Empire in the Balkans I don't think that the Turkish translation in the article should pose a problem.

Arpagjiki (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is that the architects for an independent Kosovo, have chosen to represent their new country as one which is multi-ethnic; the Pan-EU style flag contains six stars, each to represent one of six key nations. I can imagine that this is a symbolic gesture so as to create a welcome outward appearance that whilst it is inevitibly dominated by its Albanian interest, five other ethnic groups can claim Kosovo to be a nation state. I presume that the stars represent: Albanians; Serbs; Roma; Turks; Bosniaks, and Gorani. Naturally these are not the sole ethnic groups in Kosovo. For instance, some Janjevs remain. They may call themselves Croatian or Janjev, but they are surely a seventh group. So however the Gorani choose to identify, a special status has been awarded to them for free. To my knowledge, they do actually declare as Gorani; but have for some reason, chosen Macedonian to be their communal official language; possibly because they see themsleves as closer to Torbesh/Pomaks than Bosniaks, but this is mere speculation. Obviously, the mood among other nationalities is mixed: we know this for the wrong reasons - during the fighting, there were non-Albanians who were victims of Serbian/Belgrade attacks; likewise, many non-Serbs were the victims of KLA/Albanian atrocity. I can't say I have ever come across a Serb who has supported a breakaway Kosovo; but as the situation stands, the independent Kosovo is nominally multi-ethnic, and Turks are definitely one of the nations, however few. In addition, I agree with Arpagjiki about the historical importance of Turkish as the main language for many centuries. Evlekis (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Kosovo template

If there is a view among Kosovars that Kosovo is sovereign, and if recognition is expected, then isn't calling Kosovo a non-sovereign territory POV? I wanted to make a footnote in that template about Kosovo's declaration of independence, but, alas, it was under cascading protection. So I removed the template as being POV. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic?!

This is NOT what we agreed on before, we agreed on the term "region". I hope that those that have participated in the discussion with me will support our agreement. Thank you. --GOD OF JUSTICE 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and I really have no sides in this, but based on your User page, you are obviously very biased here. I have no problem with Kosovo being what it wants to be, be it its own country, or a part of Serbia. Either way is OK with most of the world. But they have decided to go it alone, and they may be worse off for it, and Serbia maybe better off, who knows, and it is what it is. --RobNS 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Kosovo isn't the first country to have done this sort of thing. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government." — Rickyrab | Talk 19:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the use of "republic" either. Why don't we change it to "a self-declared independent state". I read quickly though their declaration of independence, and there's only one reference to Kosovo as a republic. I didn't see where they formally declared the name of their state. "State" seems like the most neutral term we could use (when preceded by self-declared...), and when they come up with a formal name, we can use that. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self declared nation state, ok. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Nation state" is a horrible term that carries connotations of ethnicity, and is precisely the kind of term we need to avoid. "Country" or "state" would be much better. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but some of us are more used to states being places like New Jersey and New York. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why not "country"? — Rickyrab | Talk 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is to be expected that Americans would only look at the term "State" as being something within their own nation. Most people recognise Americans aren't the brightest crayon in the box when it comes to International issues. From what I remember, the term "State" comes from France. Most international institutions use the term "State", two very good examples being the United Nations and European Union. The member nations of such organisations are called "Member States". But again, we're talking about American understanding here :S. Mattrix18 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't assume everyone who self-identifies as Serbian is automatically a nationalist with a POV to push. God of Justice is making a perfectly rational argument here. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
good point — Rickyrab | Talk 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed republic to state. We can continue to discuss the correct term (I don't care for region) but "republic" needed to go. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickyrab, take a look at State. I think the relevant portion is this:
  • Country denotes a geographical area
  • Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, origins, and history. However, the adjectives national and international also refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly states, as in national capital, international law
  • State refers to the set of governing institutions that has sovereignty over a definite territory
State is simply the most accurate term, and in political science and international relations we use the term "state" most often. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 'state' is not appropriate for Kosovo at this time as they don't have a constitution. 'Country' would be a better compromise IMHO. --158.36.227.175 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the term "Republic of Kosova" would be appropriate after the United States and most European Union members recognise it on Monday as such. Other nations such as Australia will follow soon after. The point is most of the world will recognise it, except for only a few of Serbia's allies. Israel is a State even though it is not recognised by most of the Arab world. The argument about Kosova not having a constitution is clutching at straws. The United Kingdom does not have a specific constitutional document either, but does have a constitution through its basic laws and also common law. Mattrix18 (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riots / demonstrations in Belgrade

We could not the reaction from Belgrade. There are numerous demonstrations across the city, police is all around. They were mostly acted against the US and Slovenian embassies. There are injured people and a severe destruction across the streets. Serbian TV also stated that Brazil's embassy has just been demolished. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in the article, then. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could also add the Serbian government's resolution, passed by the parliament, which declared the declaration of independence invalid. The National Assembly will also hold a session tomorrow to reconfirm that, and the State will organize in Thursday (Government and Parliament in coordination) what is supposed to be the most massive meeting in Serbia's history, with all of Serbian political leaders present. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear about the disturbances, Pax. Try to add such info to the sub-articles (for example, in a "reactions in Serbia" section of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence one). Later on, when things calm down, we can see how much of that should be mentioned here, in the main article's summary. And please remember to add the necessary references :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that my "stress level" is at the top right now. My best friend's car has been demolished by the demonstrators. Not only that Brazil's embassy is damaged, but also the seat of the Liberal Democratic Party. 18 people are injured so far. Balkans constantly keep dissappointing me over and OVER and OVER and over again. I now that right now I'm not usual neutral, calm or whatever-myself, but I am SICK of all this....again. I have just reconfirmed myself that I'm moving to Germany, Canada or Spain pronto. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, eventually the reactions section may become a separate article, if the events become numerous enough... — Rickyrab | Talk 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we already have from Taiwan, Russia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossettia, Cyprus and Spain. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't spotted those yet, where can I read more? Maybe we should expand List of states that have recognized the Republic of Kosovo as the article with international reactions or it there another one already? --Tone 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understood that's only for internationally recognized (UN-seated) countries? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reaction in Belgrade has nothing to do with the Republic of Kosova. The riots are simply a "news item", that do not belong in an article about a nation. That would be like adding a paragraph about the Seattle WTO riots inside the wiki on the United States of America. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it isn't indymedia, it isn't the BBC. If you like writing about news, why not go on wikinews? Mattrix18 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Brazil? Brazil hasn't even done anything yet. That was stupid and irrational. So was the Liberal Democratic Party incident. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hooligans. The Slovenian embassy was attacked, luckily only windows were smashed. They are attacking the Albanian embassy right now. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're now having another go at the US embassy, and also will try to attack the Government of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope there are still people keeping their calm, or opposing to violence in this matter. It never solves anything... Btw, pax, you're welcome in Belgium ;-)--SalaSSin (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on kosova text

i'm albanian from kukes, an albanian province which is closely related to Kosovo. until the borders were closed it went with kosovo, and although i'm not ggod on using your page i must give my say. this article seems terribly serbian directed, and wouldn't it be signed wikipedia i'd have a laugh on it and let it go. first the history of Dardania starts thousands of years before the 9-th century. dardani got a meaning in albanian, "land of pears", and there were people who lived it. at the battle of kosovo was aan alliance of all the balkan princes, many albanians, like Gjergj Muzaka, or the Dukagjini, leaded by King Lazar, and the territory of the war was not serbian but Balkanian, or albanian at closest watch. millosh obiliq in our history is known as an albanian named Kopiliq, and we do not discuss the consequences came to the labanian nation by that defeat. the middle Ages are a grat struggle of the balkanians to win their freedom, but the most fiercely fighting theturks, the albanians, were the most forgotten. the turkish jeune turks revolution started on kosovo leaded by albanians, and there were no serbs in there. it was that the cause who gave fire to serbian expansion on albanian damage. next, i'm from kukes, and my great grand father, Avdi Koka and a lot of his cousins were killed by what u call a retreating and defeated army. it passed three times through my land in recent, modern history, from 1912 to 1920 and brought death thrice to our land. poeple from our lands tell that mothers were killed with their children on their arms with a sole bullet, and pregnant women were raped and then taken off their fetus to be given to dogs. these are not things done by a retreating and defeated army, who comes well armed and well organised to occupy and destroy. things well seen on the masacre of Bosnia. serbs are treated as victims in your article. how should i feel? should i denounce u for diffamation? my ancestros blood was poured by serbian bayonets, and u call them victims? shouldn't u consult better and independent sources and write a more decent article? i'm sorry for disturbing, but reading your article left me a bad taste. and i'm here thinking of the story of the lamb and the woolf. who was guilty? of course the lamb. the woolf was hungry, and greedy, and ate the lamb. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkinak (talk • contribs) 20:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, find a reliable source, and write about it. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to direct attention to this related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanians in Serbia (2nd nomination). It's a complicated case that would benefit from more discussion than it received last time. Thanks! // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit improper template

Firstly, recognition of its independence is yet unrecognized by anyone - it should be noted.

Second of all, the PISG institutions are there only to aid UNMIK in governance. Declaration of Independence of Kosovo can't be issued by the Assembly of Kosovo, but by Joachim Rucker. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, how is it with Kosovo being administered by UN? Does this change now when the assembly declared independence? --Tone 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It changes only if UNMIK recognizes that. The PISG Assembly of Kosovo is no sovereign body of Kosovo at all and has no legal power to this kind of act at all (this precisely isn't even controversial, it really can't do it). In the following days that will change. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official title

Again, content is being changed and in this case official name/title...this page should be locked only to reputable members of wikipedia. Not for anybody to make a change with new member account...official name is KOSOVO not KOSOVa (as explained in article Kosovo, o/serbian and a/albanian way of saying).

Officially KOSOVO is stil part of Serbia and official title should be KOSOVO!

This article should be locked from further editing to only reputable members. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.17.185 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Re. "Ivanljig (Talk | contribs) (72,386 bytes) (kosovo is not the country yet, Serbia annulment declarations of the independence, and UN 1244resolution is still on power.)":

Yeah, tell it to the former American colonies, you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiscient (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? Kosovo's not a colony. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the point.
Consider "Serbia annulment declarations of independence" in the light of the outcome to the "Britain annulment declarations of independence" controversy(ies):
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
--Wikiscient (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independence

Kosovo cannot be recognised by Wikipedia as an independent country until it has been recognised by the United Nations. There are many territories around the world claiming to be independent countries but cannot be internationally recognised as a sovereign state until the United Nations recognises it to be so. Signsolid (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not the mouthpiece of the United Nations. We reflect on de facto sovereignty, not de jure sovereignty, although we also discuss controversies involving the latter. —Kurykh 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it has got no de facto sovereignty. The UNMIK still administers it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is obligatory that "self-declared" be removed only after recognized by the UN as suggested above. Switzerland only became UN member several years ago, not even mentioning the fact that countries have existed long before the UN was founded. Taiwan is listed as a country (Republic of China) in Wikipedia, but as far as I know it is common knowledge that they aren't recognized by the UN. With regard to small countries at least in the past, quite recent past history it wasn't always clear if a country was or wasn't formally recognized by another country across the globe. I suggest removing "self-declared" once 1/4 of World countries (about 50) recognize Kosovo formally. Unless there are rules or guidelines I am unaware about. --Bete (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is that it doesn't fulfill any criteria for a state. Switzerland is a secular country - not the case of Kosovo, which probably won't be that for the next 20 years or so. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

Which one is the actual coat of arms of Kosovo?

There's constant switching between the two, and we need to settle on one, or none at all. —Kurykh 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is the coa of the Provisional Institutions of Self Government, while the first one is the flag introduced after the independence declaration (but not legally adopted yet) and the only proposed as the "coat of arms of Kosovo" so, if there has to be one, it should be the first. --B1mbo (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article must display one, it would probably be the image at left (see Coat of arms of Kosovo). I would prefer to display none until one is officially adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could use the dummy image (Sin escudo.svg) until a consensus is reached or the situation regarding the coat of arms is confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dn9ahx (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one on the left is the new coat of arms of the country. David (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosova Press has also the left image showing [4] Alexanderpas (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one on the left is not yet approved by international community. 194.249.99.162 (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be approved by the international community. —Kurykh 01:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On changing the PISG logo image

The image of the provisional coat should be replaced by its new vectored version, Image:Coat of arms of the PISG of Kosovo.svg. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In their OWN words

"We, the democratically elected leaders of our people, hereby declare Kosovo to be an independent and sovereign state. This declaration reflects the will of our people and it is in full accordance with the recommendations of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement.

We declare Kosovo to be a democratic, secular and multiethnic republic, guided by the principles of non-discrimination and equal protection under the law."[5] --Jambalaya (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can provision gouverment legally declare independence?

Looking at what is the gouverment of Kosovo, I find no authority to declare the independence. It sais that they are temporary form of gouverment until status is internationally negotiated. This nulls the independence in the eyes of law, no matter whether individual gouverments recognoize it or not. Neither the UMNIK mission has such authority to the best of my knowledge. Can someone check this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Institutions_of_Self-Government —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.79.154 (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Funny new country

Self proclaimed, with no currency and hymn of it own, UN administred ... I think this is far from independence. Especially if it is becoming independent from Serbia, then it will become independent when it is recognoized by Serbia and UN in general. Until then it is UN administred province of Serbia no matter what politicians say. Where are the consulats, currency, army, police etc. everything that makes de facto country? And de jure is obviously disputable,too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.44.135 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said for many countries in Europe - the Vatican City, Andorra, San Marino, Lichtenstein, Morocco all don't have their own currencies, armies, etc. But they are countries. David (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, Morocco had a currency and an army, and wasn't located in Europe. Do you mean Montenegro? AecisBrievenbus 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Monaco. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry!! Meant Monaco. David (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're drifting off-topic, but: Monaco has a currency and something of a military. AecisBrievenbus 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It uses the Euro just like Kosovo does. And just like Kosovo it relies on a foreign power for its security against other foreign powers. David (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Monaco uses the Euro just like the Netherlands, France, Finland and all the other countries with the Euro. It even has the right to mint its own Euro coins. AecisBrievenbus 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, major difference to compared states is: a) they have strong historical background of their independence b) they are recognoized by UN and countries on whose territories they are c) they are NOT under UN administration d) they are not self proclaimed

About euro: Only country that I know that is not EU member and uses euro is Montenegro. I think Kosovo uses euro just because its under EU/UMNIK administration, so its easier to foreigners + it has no central bank of its own.

Plus as far as I know Parliament of Kossovo should not have authority of such act, so its decision is automatically nulled (they are only provisional gouverment). Also, northern part of Kosovo does not recognoize it, so its likely they will devide among themselves.

In many ways, this is another Balkanization and unique case, no matter how much EU/US politicans say it is not ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.72.116 (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra also uses the Euro and like Montenegro it doesn't mint its own coins. Monacco, Vatican City and San Marino use the Euro but DO mint their own coins. Other countries like Estonia, Latvia and Bosnia Hercegovina have fixed their currencies to the Euro. I agree though that some Wikipedians are getting a little carried away and treating Kosovo as a 'real' country when barely a handful of countries have recognized it and the fact that its 'parent' country (Serbia) refuses to acknowledge it and also at least one Security Council member (Russia and maybe also PR China) refuse to acknowledge it. Without UN Security Council recognition it isn't a country. 213.230.155.25 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition by UN is certainly not a standard to be considered a country. Switzerland wasn't a member of UN until recently. Ireland applied for membership in early 1950'ies and was vetoed several times by Soviet Union, before it became a UN member. Actually Soviet Union had a policy of delaying applications of Western countries. Slovenia was only recognized as a state by US only 6 months after declaration, Kosovo was recognized merely 24 hours after declaration. So by all means - Kosovo has a right to call itself a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.161.138 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take any criteria, but country run by a foreign civic and military mission, without its currency and real history (as country/or history of Kosovar nation - that kind of nation does not exist), made by self proclamation of provisional gouverment does not have any right to call itself a country. UN membership and recognition are civilizational standards since 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.26.200 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the template...

Suppose someone wants to talk about Kosovo and reveals that it is appropriately related to the article because they're saying "Please, I can't find this info anywhere in Kosovo's Wikipedia article". What kind of response is appropriate here?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal interpretation, but I think that just means "Don't turn this into alot of unprofitable discussions (Or in this case, riots)". If they're after information that legitimately belongs in this articel, but can't find it, I don't think that's grounds for removing it. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place names

The most interesting thing aobut toponyms in Kosovo is they have Serbian origin. Even the name of "state", Kosovo means Black Bird's in Serbian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.254.65 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since primary language of the new country is Albanian, primary Kosovo place names used in English Wikipedia should be Albanian place names - for example the name of the Kosovan capital that we mostly use in Wikipedia should be Prishtina, not Priština. 81.18.54.245 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No all the place names should be in ENGLISH where an English form is available. So it should be Pristina. Abc30 (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before discussing changes to the naming of this article and all Kosovo-related topics, please review our general naming conventions and the specific ones on geographic names and using English.
The names will be changed only if common English usage switches from the current ones to something else. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosova not Kosovo

Kosovo is old. The new name of the new state is KosovA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.220.244 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is KosovO. And you will have to provide further evidence before making such claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.160.18 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's Kosovo in the English language still. David (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As David has said, this is the English language Wikipedia, and the rules of the English language apply. That's why the article on Germany is called Germany, and not Deutschland. Kosovo is still known in the English language as Kosovo. AecisBrievenbus 23:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Kosova
The main name of the article is Kosovo. Please change it to Kosova, and when u search for "kosova" i wish that it will apear.=D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.220.244 (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English name is Kosovo and it shall stay like this. There is a redirect existing for Kosova. And it is also mentioned in the introduction that the Albanian name is Kosova. We have discussed this before. --Tone 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before discussing changes to the naming of this article and all Kosovo-related topics, please review our general naming conventions and the specific ones on geographic names and using English.
The name will be changed only if common English usage switches from Kosovo to something else. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The official name is "Republic of Kosova" not "KosovO". Does Wikipedia list Kolkata as "Calcutta"? NO! Kosovo is Kosova User:Samian —Preceding comment was added at 00:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In English it's Kosovo just as Germany is called Deutschland in German and Germany in English. Signsolid (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to stick with Kosovo as well, as it is common English usage. If things change later, that is fine, but let's just leave it at that for now. SorryGuy  Talk  00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to use this opportunity to remind some of the users getting frustrated over this issue to observe and respect the Wikipedia policy of WP:Etiquette

Signsolid (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


In terms of a simple comparison, compare the Google news hits for Kosova and for Kosovo. Google trends indicates something similar. The goal, remember, if to use the commonly used term. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of articles displayed for Kosovo on the Google news search is 14,235 and 130 for Kosova. Signsolid (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raw Google searches are hardly a good indicator of general usage. Try instead the six methods proposed in the naming conventions on geographic names (which includes Google Scholar and Google Books, but only when used carefully). - Best regards, Ev (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the coming days, the new Kosovan Constitution will define the country's name as Kosova, and urge other countries to address the country as such even in their native language. Just like East Timor is Timor-Leste, Ivory Coast is Côte D'ivoire...So we should wait for a couple of more days in order to change the name from Kosovo to Kosova. We need to have exact evidence for this name shift in English. Wikiturk (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the government wants us to call it by a certain name, does not mean that we will. The East Timor article is located at East Timor with the English spelling, because despite what the government wants, nobody in English calls it Timor-Leste. As for Cote d'Ivoire, this name has found its way into the English language because of reasons such as that country's participation in sporting events using that name. IF people in the USA, the UK and other English speaking parts of the world start calling Kosovo Kosova in their everyday conversations, THEN the page will be renamed. Abc30 (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people use "Timor-Leste" and I wish more would - it's so much more evocative than the pedestrian "East Timor". But you're right in that the vast majority of people still say "East Timor", so that's, for now, the correct English title. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

independence declaration

I would strongly suggest that the inevitable disagreements surrounding the independence declaration be discussed here on the talk page rather than through reverts and edit summaries. The other option is page protection. - Revolving Bugbear 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely and totally agree. I have gone ahead and contacted people on their talk pages to let them know they should discuss here before making changes. Cheers, SorryGuy  Talk  00:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History part

"The Slavic tribes, although nominally under Byzantine vassalage, essentially ruled themselves."

This surely must be joke. Here we are in a situation where the independence of Kosovo has all but been affirmed by most states that have any real bearing on this issue, and wikipedia writes speculations, such the one above, for truths. Nobody knows for sure the demographical characteristics of Kosovo during the ottoman occupation. Below you will find a reference to that effect.

Well I suggest that you first discuss then make an article for a country that is self-proclaimed independent. Now, this policy isn't the policy of an encyclopedia. With all my respect an encyclopedia doesn't recognize states the way NATO does and the fact that there is an article when the state is not recognized yet means that it's not part of an encyclopedia. I hereby request that changes like this don't happen without careful planning. This encyclopedia is for international use and I assume that some won't be pleased with this change (I'm not serbian), for it is a change against the most basic rules of being objective. If self-proclaimed countries are to be considered de facto and de jure independent then anyone could decide to become independent and be recognized. I don't want to flame here but it is indeed curious how a nation carries flags of an other nation (People of Kosovo carried Albanian flags). Is this a hint? If you ask me this article should not exist in Wikipedia, because it's simply not objective.

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=4273926506535 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.77.72 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you posted states that the author of the book "has consulted several critical archives with the notable and curious exception of Serbian archives". What's your point besides that? That Wikipedia should ask NATO about the history of Kosovo? Vyx (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an eye on POV pushers

Everyone should keep an eye on the following editors, constantly reverting this article and violating the NPOV policy:

☆ CieloEstrellado 01:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you on your talk page, name-calling does not help in constructing a NPOV article. If you feel as statement is POV, please explain why and justify such with policy. However, calling established editors names does not help anyone and does not assume good faith. If you could please explain why you feel their editing is POV, or explain how you would like to make the article more NPOV, it is appriciated. SorryGuy  Talk  01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified my post, as requested. Saying all of them had a pro-Kosovo agenda was unfair. Some probably are just over enthusiastic over the self-declaration of independence of a small country and suffer from Recentism. My bad. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs to reflect that Kosovo is an independent country which is in the process of getting recognized by most of the major states of the world. Azalea pomp (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if you and other editors could have bothered to read the discussion under #When above. The version of the intro that I just restored is one that was worked out before the declaration of independence. The version you've just restored is, frankly, badly written and factually incorrect (it's not "internationally recognized as a province of Serbia" - that's the central point of the controversy, since many countries have said that they'll recognise its independence). And for the record, you've reached your three reverts, so please stop repeatedly reverting. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me how it is badly written (examples) and how it is factually inaccurate. If Kosovo is not recognized as a province of Serbia then how is it recognized then? Certainly not as an independent country. many countries have said that they'll recognise its independence Yes, but they haven't done so officially yet. Don't jump the gun. The intro you're pushing for is horribly written and suffers from a bad case of recentism. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where shall we start? It doesn't mention the international community's view (the partial recognition of Kosovo that's coming today). It's inconsistent with how we treat other breakaway states like Northern Cyprus, Transnistria etc, which we don't describe as "disputed regions" - they're states, whether you like it or not. A "disputed region" is just too vague - most disputed regions are not in fact states. It doesn't mention the international presence in Kosovo - UNMIK, KFOR, EULEX etc. It's ungrammatical. In short, it's simply not satisfactory, as it leaves out a great deal of vital infomation, it isn't very well written and it's inconsistent. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, I've been singled out because I reverted a massive attack on the article last night when the whole article was changed to a position as though nothing had happened and Kosovo was merely a part of Serbia. This is ridiculous. Those who pretend that Kosovo is still part of Serbia are living in denial. David (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone please keep an eye on KosMetfan, he's so quickly reverting the page after someone reloaded the one we're all agreeing to, it makes me dizzy...--SalaSSin (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked him for 24 hours for vandalising a number of other articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mention the international community's view (the partial recognition of Kosovo that's coming today) You said so yourself, coming, it hasn't happened, don't jump the gun. It doesn't mention the international presence in Kosovo - UNMIK, KFOR, EULEX etc. Are you blind, it does mention UNMIK and KFOR, but not with those names, as for EULEX, it's non existant right now in Kosovo, don't jump the gun. It's ungrammatical. How? it isn't very well written How? ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to say but EULEX has already started. [EULEX Kosovo Mission]

Infobox

I'm kind of baffled at the current situation of this article. The country exists, whether we want it to or not, it has an official flag, official name(s), all makings of a de facto sovereign state. It's just its inception and the recognition of it that is politically controversial. Can we just have some agreement on whether the official names (Republic of Kosovo and the Albanian and Serbian names) and flag be posted in the infobox? —Kurykh 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, thus my "A PLAGUE ON ALL YOUR HOUSES" comment and my merciless trimming of the infobox. We do not take any position on whether it is a republic behaving freely or an autonomous province behaving badly; we only say that it is Kosovo. DS (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in support them, for the reasons you cite, but at the moment I am unsure if there is consensus for it. SorryGuy  Talk  02:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't we have the interim seal in the infobox? - 67.41.182.153 (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, we do not take any position. That means that if the Assembly of Kosovo call their country "The republic of Kosovo" then we're doing it too. --Jambalaya (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2008

(UTC)

The article needs to be protected from these eccentric edits that Kosovo is anything but an independent country. It has declared its independence and it has and will be recognized by most states. So therefore this page needs to reflect this. Azalea pomp (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you tone down the attitude that edits conflicting your point of view are somehow "eccentric" and should be barred from the article. It is inflammatory and surely not helpful to reaching any kind of consensus. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have ANY proof or a list of all the countries who will recognize Kosovo?... The article here on wikipedia only has a hand full of countries, about the same amount of countries who have declared they wont recognize it... What I've read Russia will probably prohibit them from joining the UN. And th Serbian-Russian team will try to get as many of their friends together to not recognize Kosovo. Btw, I declare this room as the Republic of Cooltown. Give me a article as a country... I mean it will be recognized by most states. Chandlertalk 06:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, and overly political debate

I feel like everybody here is simply wasting their time. and I don't mean this in a mean way at all, but quite in the literal way. There are so many places that have "State" status (i.e. Infobox with flag, coat of arms, etc) on Wikipedia, despite having a disputed status : Republic of China aka Taiwan, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic aka Western Sahara, and if you really want me to, I will go find all the other places. Just like in the Kosovo article, it is well explained in these pre-cited articles that the claim of these places to statehood are not universally recognized, and we all seem to be happy with that. I feel like those who are decrying the "recentism" and the political motivations of those who are eager to make sure that Wikipedia matches the reality on the ground, should maybe (at least for some of them) look into political motivations of their own. Themalau (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and Regions of Kosovo

The "country" heading on the right side of the screen dictates that the cities and regions of kosovo are still "Serbia" while this is not true due to the fact they declared "self independence". These should be changed to reflect this.

If you dont know what i am talking about, here is an example.

When i click on "Dragaš" in the section entitled "Administrative Divisions", Municipalities" on the Kosovo page it reads on the right side in the information bar

Country Flag of Serbia Serbia Province Flag of Kosovo Kosovo (under UN Administration) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muscatp (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name - REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA!

I think the article should reflect official usage so I am changing the main name title to Republic of Kosovo.--Getoar (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean article name or name in infobox? —Kurykh 06:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning it should say:Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo etc..--Taulant23 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the name on the inbox should say REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA, while the article should be titled as Taulant put it.--Getoar (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the capital city should appear as Prishtina. It is compliant with English spelling/pronounciation as well as that of the first official langauge.--Getoar (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. In English, Pristina or Priština is the more common spelling, and we follow the more common English spelling. Prishtina is rarely encountered. For precedent, see Kiev/Kyiv. —Kurykh 06:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as transitional president/prime minister anymore, I believe. I removed those terms as I think they are not appropriate since Kosova declared its independence. Likewise, Ruecker's name should be taken off soon.--Getoar (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise on capital name: Pristina, with no diacritic. The Albanian version is simply not commonly seen in English, no matter how fiercely one may protest. —Kurykh 06:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't compromise on such issues, but I'll just wait for the Kosovar government to suggest the official name Prishtina for use in foreign languages. Then I believe we'd have to choose Prishtina.--Getoar (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No we do not have to choose Prishtina; we are not government mouthpieces. If you don't compromise then you leave me no choice but to stand my ground. Per longstanding precedent and convention, we aim for the most common English spelling, not what the Kosovo government dictates us to do. In this case, Pristina is the most common by a large margin. Please see the Kiev naming dispute (where the Russian name, Kiev, took precedence over Kyiv, the Ukrainian name, due to common English usage of the former) before further commenting. Just because Pristina happens to be a Serbian derivation does not mean it cannot be the most common name in English. And I note you gave no response to my previous comment regarding this, which is just a rehash of what I just said, but you just reverted it with the same repudiated and discredited reason. —Kurykh 08:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an outsider and native English speaker, I suggest we go for Pristina, which is the usage in the UK. If, as Getoar notes, the Kosovar government requests that the world uses Prishtina, major media outlets will comply, as they did, for example, in the case of Cote d'Ivoire (formerly Ivory Coast), and we can then follow suit. Until then, we should use the common English spelling, and we can note the variants. Grace Note (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Pristina, without an H or a diacritic is the most common spelling I have seen. Wikipedia should use the English spelling in most common usage amongst native English speakers. Abc30 (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Kosova

I have just started to work on the history section. I have not offered citations so far, but I promise I will have them ready soon. The separate article on the history of Kosova could be expanded, but the main articles should not include too many information and usually useless and dubious demographic analyses. My edits are good-willed and I would beg you to trust me until I provide reliable references (I’ll bring English ones mostly so you can easily agree on the issues).--Getoar (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the best thing to do, for now, would be to work on the History of Kosovo and History of modern Kosovo articles first, adding sources, and then fix up this section later. BalkanFever 08:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in English its Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more. It is now Kosova according to their government, like it or not.
Since when have governments decided on the spelling of English language? --88.114.235.225 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The League was supported by the Ottoman Sultan because of its Pan-Islamic ideology and political aspirations of a unified Albanian people under the Ottoman umbrella. The movement gradually became anti-Christian and spread great anxiety among Christian Albanians and especially among Christian Serbs."? I believe the League was initially pan-Islamic,but religious leaders were not accepted later on.That "religious" character was overcome by the leaders of the League, seeing that Albanians hosted all three major religions."Anti-christian" is harsh at least,not to say wrong!The character of the League was purely nationalistic,but not religious fanatism.I suggest that this statement is changed.Amenifus (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Kosovo, Serbia’s southern province, is the very essence of Serbian statehood and it’s spiritual and cultural identity. The cultural and demographic strength of Serbs is best illustrated by the presence of 1.500 monuments of Serbian culture identified so far.[reply]

In the old tradition the Serbian nation celebrates the bravery of their ancestors who met the invading Ottomans on the Field of Blackbird (In Serbian: “Kosovo Polje”) in 1389. "Our forefathers chose death over slavery. They lost the kingdom on Earth for the kingdom in the Heaven." This courage to stand for one's own beliefs, to defend one's own way of life over the wish of foreign powers to conquer and subdue remained the backbone of the Serbian consciousness and national identity.

Later on, the Battle of Kosovo acquired mythical dimensions of a crucial historical event, greatly affecting the destiny of the Serbian nation. The rich Serbian epic poetry’s many cycles of poems devoted to Kosovo are a pearl of that treasure and it was seen as moral and psychological support to the Serbian people during the centuries of horrendous slavery under the Turks

In 1912, Kosovo was finally liberated from the Turks and once again became part of Serbia. (sourse please)

"During the 19th century, many of the conquered peoples in the Balkans increasingly wanted their own nations. In 1878 Albanian leaders met in the town of Prizren, in Kosovo, where they founded the League of Prizren (Albanian League) to promote a free, unified Albania in all Albanian-populated territories. The league also sought to develop Albanian language, education, and culture, and in 1908 Albanian leaders adopted a national alphabet based on the Latin script. Between 1910 and 1912 Albanian nationalists waged an armed struggle against the Ottomans, who had refused to give Albania autonomy (self-rule). The Ottomans were simultaneously attacked and, in 1912, defeated by Serb, Greek, and Bulgarian armies in what was later called the First Balkan War (see Balkan Wars). Albania immediately proclaimed its independence from the Ottoman Empire. At a conference following the war, Britain, Germany, Russia, Austria, France, and Italy (collectively known as the Great Powers) agreed to accept Albanian independence, but because of strong pressures from Albania’s neighbors, the Great Powers gave the Albanian-inhabited region of Kosovo to Serbia and much of the Çamëria region to Greece. Roughly half the Albanian population was left outside the country’s borders."[1](directly quoted from Encarta)


The tragic story of Serbs in Kosovo --------

The ethnic cleansing of Serbs by the Albanian settlers has marked Kosovo’s history in the 20th and 21st century.

During World War II, Kosovo was siezed by Albanian fascists, who got a free hand to terrorize the Serbs. Until August 1941 alone, over 10,000 Serbs were killed and between 80,000 and 100,000 Serbs were expelled, while roughly the same number of Albanians from Albania were brought to settle in these Serbian lands. Mustafa Kruja, the Prime Minister of Albania, was in Kosovo in June 1942, and at a meeting with the Albanian leaders of Kosovo, he said: "We should endeavor to ensure that the Serb population of Kosovo be – the area be cleansed of them and all Serbs who had been living there for centuries should be termed colonialists and sent to concentration camps in Albania. The Serb settlers should be killed."

After the war, the Commnist authorities favorized the Albanians at the expense of Serbs, and allowed the uncontrolled settlement of Albanian immingrants and tolerated different methods of ethnic discrimination against Serbs. When Kosovo got the status of an autonomous province in 1974, it basically received almost all of the powers the rest of the republics in Yugoslavia had. This gave them the means to engage in a silent ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo.

In a New York Times article published on July 12th 1982, it is stated that “the exodus of Serbs is admittedly one of the main problems that the authorities have to contend with in Kosovo, an autonomous province of Yugoslavia inhabited largely by Albanians.” Regarding the Albanians that want to separate from Yugoslavia, Becir Hoti, a Government official in Kosovo stated that '”the nationalists have a two-point platform […] first to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then the merger with Albania to form a greater Albania.”

1871 - Serbs: 64% Albanians: 32% 1948 - Serbs: 24% Albanians: 65% 1971 - Serbs: 18% Albanians: 74% 1995 - Serbs: 7% Albanians: 90% 2008 - Serbs: 5% Albanians: 92%

In an attempt to prevent the secession of Kosovo, Serbian government in 1990 abolished Kosovo Albanian autonomy. The Albanian rebels formed the KLA and began attacks on Serb police and civillians, as well as Albanians perceived as being allied with the Yugoslav Government. In 1998 the Government brought in the army and police to quell the rebellion. The civil war lasted until 1999 when NATO, which was supporting the KLA (deemed a terrorist organization by the CIA only a few years before that), intervened against Yugoslavia and caused 500.000 Kosovo Albanians to flee the province to Macedonia and Albania. After the war, despite the international presence, KLA organized the persecutions of the Serb population and more than 200.000 Serbs fled Kosovo. Only 90.000 Serbs remained living in total isolation, dispersed in several KFOR protected Serb enclaves.

International precedent -------------

Regions that the Kosovo precedent would have an impact on globally:

Transnistria (Moldova) Papua (Indonesia) W. Sahara (Morocco) Scotland (UK) Wales (UK) Quebec (Canada) Basque (Spain) Catalonia (Spain) Self-proclaimed Turkish Rep. of Northern Cyprus Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Georgia) The Kurds (Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran) Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan)

Also affecting: Parts of Macedonia, Greece, Slovakia and Romania.

Split

I think this article should be split, into Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo. The Republic of Kosovo is not, in spite of enthusiastic wikinationalists and crystballing arguments, not widely internationally recognized. There needs to be one article on Kosovo, its history, geography, demographics, etc., covering a larger historical span and one of the Republic. If some material is covered in both, that is not a major problem. Compare Western Sahara and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Also, note that China doesn't redirect to People's Republic of China, in spite that PRC controls the major part of Chinese territory and is overwhelmingly recognised as the government of China. --Soman (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is not an argument. Therefore, its conclusion cannot be accepted. You could never talk about, say, China, and the Republic of China, because its a contradictory suggestion. So, I don't think it's a good idea to have two different articles. That would double Wikipedia's efforts to maintain neutrality and unbiasedness. --Arber (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following your argument. China and Republic of China are two separate articles. --Soman (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are contextually different than an would-be Kosovo/Republic of Kosovo split! --Arber (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, slightly. But the case remains, that wikipedia cannot only take into account de facto control. In order for the article namespace Kosovo to be identical with the Republic of Kosovo, it is needed that their is some assertion of international recognition (and not just expected recognitions). There are no definate limits here, it is of course a bit arbitrary, but I'd say that if there is an overwhelming international recognition and/or UN membership, then it would make sense to have Republic of Kosovo redirect to Kosovo. In the meanwhile, we should make a POV remark of negating Serbian claims to the area, there is still a Serbian administrative region, de jure, named Kosovo-Metohija. My suggestion would be to have a temporary solution similar to that of China, namely stating links to Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo-Metohija in the lead, and letting the article Kosovo deal with history, culture, geography etc.. --Soman (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pristina, NOT Prishtina or Priština

Please see the discussion at Talk:Priština. I have opened a survey to move that page to Pristina (with no H or diacritic) as this is the most common ENGLISH spelling and this is the ENGLISH wikipedia. Please see the discussion on that page and familiarise yourself with the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (use_English). Discuss and vote at the Pristina talk page. This page will need to follow the outcome of that discussion. Abc30 (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official and primary language of the Republic of Kosovo is Albanian. Therefore, the name of the Capital City of Kosovo would be Prishtina, not Pristina. It's like saying Nueva York instead of New York just because there are many Hispanics living in NY... --Arber (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right but please understand that this is the english wikipedia , look at belgrade it isnt named beograd even though serbian is the primary language there--Cradel 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is really quite simple. Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy says Name your pages in English. We don't call Germany 'Deutschland'. We don't call Belgrade 'Beograd'. We only use native spellings if they have entered common usage such that they have replaced the English spelling, as in the case of Cote d'Ivoire. Abc30 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but you do call Tirana as is, and you do call Ankara as is, and you do call Prishtina as is. The version Pristina is just a Serbian version which has hindered the real name, as it used to be recognized.--Arber (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tirana and Ankara are the names of thse places in ENGLISH. That is why we use those names. They are the English language names for those cities. Pristina is the English name for this city. The BBC, CNN and all other English speaking organisations use PRISTINA. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is the truth.[6][7] Abc30 (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the title of the article on New York City in the Spanish Wikipedia is indeed Nueva York. Article titles use the most common version of place names in the particular language of the host Wikipedia. Powers T 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! The reason we have many different language versions of Wikipedia is so that each one uses its own language. This one should use ENGLISH. Abc30 (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me, but it's the fact. Take a look at this page: University of Prishtina. At the first paragraph, it shows the Albanian name of the university, the Serbian name, and the Latin name, which is: "Universitas Studiorum Prishtiniensis". Even in the Latin language it is written with the Albanian letter "sh", and not with "s"! Consider this, for one.--Arber (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the English wikipedia, not the Latin one. Abc30 (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. Since there is no official usage yet, one should use the original name, which is Prishtina. In addition, I used the Latin Name to show that even an old language such as Latin recognizes the name as Prishtina. Please, do not commit logical fallacies, such as the one you just did.

Man just put it PRISHTINA... welcome to the new reality. The things changed! thank you. ps: there are may reasons why Prsitina and not PRISHTINA, but this onw is the original, and very soon will be internaionaly known. Greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.105.48.199 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless. The situation is as it is. No point in arguing. Like saying Pristina means it's not independent right now (which I think it shouldn't be, but that's just me). Give it a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.135.2 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Kosovo

There should be a section of the article addressing the history and state of religion in Kosovo. Probably best in the culture section.--Ason Abdullah (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent republic"

Please argue the removal of clarification note that the republic is only independent de-facto. For example, in Transnistria article it is said that the republic is de-facto (but nopt de-jure) independent.--Certh (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Kosovo will soon be a partially recognized country in South Eastern Europe. We could link the "partially recognized" words with the Kosovo independence process and recognition article to allow people the option to see who recognizes it and who doesn't. As far as the republic part goes, there should not be any doubts about that by now. It is a republic, it has declared itself a republic, it will be recognized by many as a republic, and it will be ruled as a republic. That is enough to make it de-jure. Being a UN member is not a "de-jure" pre-requisite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.128.186 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is not anymore a self-declared de-facto independant republic since many countries recognize it. Stasm 20:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check on another article Kosovo (UNMIK)

I have tagegd this for speedy deletion but thought I would quickly come here and check if this article should have been left as it was. It assert(ed) that Kosovo was a state of the United nations until 2008, giving it the UN flag, etc, which si why I requested speedy delte for patent nonsense. Just wanted to check I wasn't having work deleted that was sanctioned as a main article split. - Fritzpoll (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like non-sense. To assert that Kosovo formed a different state between the Kosovo War and yesterday certainly seems bizarre, and there's no use for such an article. There should just be one article for Kosovo and here the earlier history of the territory is amply described. TSO1D (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was UNMIK terminated after declaration of independence?--Certh (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've moved to PROD this now. - Fritzpoll (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo

I agree with the opinion above that the articles for Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo should be split.

I believe there is one point totally ignored in this discussion. As it was mentioned, one of the criteria of statehood is "full control of the claimed territory". But Republic of Kosovo doesn't have it. I am not speaking about the fact that Kosovo is rather being controlled than controlling anything (the only force that controls the whole territory of Kosovo is KFOR and therefore it's still de facto an international protectorate). I'm pointing out at the fact that the Serbian exclaves haven't recognized the authority of the Prishtina and still consider themselves subjects of Belgrade. The Prishtina government has partial control of the territory only, and this fact should be noted in the article. While the minor exclaves seem to be overrun by Prishtina in near future, it's very unlikely that Belgrade will agree to let go the Serbian-populated north without a fight.

Hence, we have here a classical case of a territory split into "legally incompatible" divisions (like in Koreas, former Germanys, Chinas etc.). Today we have three political entities that coexist on the territory of Kosovo: the Serbian Kraj, the independent republic, and the international protectorate. Every one of them should have a separate article — other than Kosovo.

  • Samoa ≠ neither Independent State of Samoa nor American Samoa.
  • Korea ≠ neither Republic of Korea nor DPRK.
  • China ≠ neither Republic of China nor People's Republic of China.
  • Germany ≠ neither FRG nor GDR (before 1990).

To associate the article for all Kosovo with state symbols of Albanian Kosova and its government wouldn't be just violation of the neutral POV principle, it would be contradiction to the truth as well. Hellerick (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flawlessly argued. Might I also add Macedonia ≠ FYROM. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that there is already a separate article on the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo. --Soman (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Probably when the heat dies out a little, people will recognize that this is what must be done here, too. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map on this article has already been updated to show an independent kosovo but what about the maps on other countries ? Should they be changed too or wait until someone recognizes it and then change the maps only on those countries that recognize it  ? --Cradel 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah personally I think it's probably a good idea to wait and see what level of international recognition it gets before changing all the other maps of Europe. Abc30 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition by other countries

Please, try to keep these discussions at the appropriate subpage, Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Doing so will help centralize discussions and reduce excessive posting in this talk page, thus simplifying work in the main article. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries already recognised

  • Afghanistan []
  • Albania []
  • Australia []
  • France []
  • USA []

Afghanistan

This was what I've heard today--Ezzex (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources? --Cradel 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Afgahnistan: Vijesti.hr Template:Hr icon Vseferović (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In following weeks there will be many stories to come but till is fully recognized by United Nations this article should be locked from editing or create new article of self declared independence. Is there separate article for Turkish part of Cyprus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.81.105 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is: Northern Cyprus. - Ev (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of unrecognized states do have Wiki articles. 128.227.97.59 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albania

no sources?

[8] --Agüeybaná 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albania recognised Independece of Kosovo on 21 October 1991 based on a resolution of the Albanian Parliament. Today (19 February 2008) Albania established diplomatic Relations with The Republic of Kosovo at ambasador level. source: Top-Channel Mr. Islam Lauka is the new ambassador of Albania in Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piasoft (talk • contribs) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU

Germany, France, Italy and UK all recognizing. Spain not. "Germany said 17 of the European Union's 27 members had decided on quick recognition" vhttp://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSHAM53437920080218 --AlexSuricata (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, try to keep these discussions at the appropriate subpage, Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Doing so will help centralize discussions and reduce excessive posting in this talk page, thus simplifying work in the main article. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland/Éire will recognize an independent Kosovo. [9] --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  20:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Bulgaria, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, Hungary joined or were joining the early recognizers."
"The Czech Republic, Netherlands, Portugal, Greece and Slovakia were still making up their minds." [10]
"Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania have indicated they too are not keen to recognise Kosovo."[11]--AlexSuricata (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries

In the "Republic of Kosovo infobox in the introduction, there is a section termed "independence", consisting of two items: declared, bearing the date of 17 February, 2008; and recognized, bearing the date of 18 February, 2008.

However, in other countries' similar infoboxes the item recognized is only used to reflect the date when seccession was recognized by the State from which the country in question declared independence, and the date provided next to it is always the date of such recognition by the State suffering the loss of dominion over the territory.

Thus, since Serbia has not recognized Kosovo's declaration of independence (perhaps some day it will, just as was the case when Britain recognized America's independence; when Portugal recognized Brazil's separation, etc), the recognized item should be excluded for the time being. --Antonio Basto (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have to add Costa Rica As well recognized today. Source: [top-channel]

USA

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/18/kosovo.independence/index.html?iref=newssearch 68.45.106.216 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorg Bush votes for many things.



Umm... why is the old article here, and not the one after declared independence? Seems Serbian nationalists are reverting the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.18.36 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My original comment was edited. This is the article confirming that the US has recognized Kosovo.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/18/kosovo.independence/index.html 68.45.106.216 (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France

France has recognized independence: Reuterus Template:En icon Vseferović (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Great Powers

Germany, Italy, France, Britain, America all recognise the Republic of Kosovo: BBC.

[12]

David (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sadly enough, the sentence is a self-declared independent state" in the leading section should be changed in light of the fact that it's no longer just Kosovo claiming independence but its new status is being recognized by other states as well. Dapiks (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
America is a continent, do you mean the United States of America?
Actually Mr. Pedantic, there is no continent America, there's a North America and a South America. NN
Why are there two continents named after that Vespucci guy? Why not call North America Turtle Island and South America something else? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, why not just call the New World America, and then call North America Turtle Island and South America "Cordillera and Amazonia", or some such name. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nah, that whole name scheme is about as silly as West Gondwanaland and East Gondwanaland to refer to parts of "Gondwanaland". 204.52.215.107 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America reffers to North America AND South America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.229.50 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective

Someone should add some perspective on what happened in 1990 [13]. NN

Proposal for Wikipedia Treatment of Kosovo Sovereignty

Many issues have been brought up in these discussions: when is a country a country? What is the legitimacy of unilateral independence? What should wikipedia do, and how is this consistent with other nations that have become independent in recent years?

I. When is a country a country:

As many people have pointed out, The Montevideo Convention defines a "state," but one of the key charactereistics of a sovereign state is its ability to engage in diplomatic relations. States normally fall into two categories: those recognized by most other recognized states, those recognized by only one or a few states (or only by unrecognized states). For practical purposes, many people consider UN recognition the litmus test of legitimate sovereignty, but as some have already pointed out, it is not legally necessary. Simply being recognized at all by somebody is also not enough, as in the case of Northern Cyprus or Taiwan. Conversely, simply being opposed by one or more countries is not enough to negate sovereignty, no matter how powerful those in opposition, otherwise, long-established states could esily lose legitimacy on the political whim of a few enemies.

Conclusions:

1. The legal definition of a state is based on certain rational guidelines, but, the final legal status of a state is subjective, as there exists no process in international law to pass final and unequivocal judgment, or to officially confer de jure status. No amount of legal argument changes the basic existence of that subjectivity, which is dependant on the majority opinion of the international community. 2. It is valid to debate whether any self-declared state, and also the international community, are right or wrong, whether they have legal and/or moral precedent, but the conclusions of such arguments should not be the technical determiners of de jure sovereignty. 3. Majority support is crucial, but absolute consensus is not.

II. What is the legitimacy of a unilateral declaration of independence?

Some people have argued that there is the danger of a "Kosovo Precedent." Their position is that any unilateral declaration is illegal, regardless of the circumstances, and if the international community recognizes one, then it sets a precedent for any other breakaway movement, such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Other people have pointed out that the United states unilaterally declared independence, and many, many other countries followed its example. But, the United States Declaration of Independence does not argue for a general, unilateral right without cause; on the contrary, it clearly defines the circumstances that legitimize secession:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This document argues that:

  • People do have the right to unilaterally dissolve, revolt against, or declare independence from, an abusive government.
  • People, however, do not have the right to declare independence casually, and should only do so when a long train of abuses makes it absolutely necessary.
  • People are morally obligated to justify their independence to the nations of the earth.

Conclusions:

1. International laws, and indeed the very sovereignty of nations, ultimately derives from the people who inhabit those nations, as reflected in the US Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration on the Rights of Man, and the United Nations Charter, as well as many subsequent national and international declarations. 2. The legality of a Kosovo declaration of independence resides in the strength of its moral grounds and argument for independence, and on international recognition of that argument as valid. 3. Kosovo's declaration, and international recognition, by itself, does not set a "Kosovo precedent," because the precedent of unilateral secession is already well-established. The real issue is the subsequent international recognition and opinion on the causes for secession. 4. When international opinion differs, majority rule should apply, under the United Nations principle of equal sovereignty.

III. My personal opinion on the status of Kosovo:

Serbia originally held full legal and moral sovereignty over Kosovo, but defaulted on that sovereignty when it engaged in ethnic cleansing. When that happened, Kosovo obtained the right to secede. This does not establish a "Kosovo Precedent," it actually follows the existing precedent that's been followed and recognized dozens of times around the world. Kosovo has the right to unilaterally declare independence not because the Kosovars randomly feel like it, but because their original government, the Serbian government, did not protect their rights as Serbians, or their basic human dignity; their government tried to destroy them, and has not made a significant effort to pay reparation or to reconcile with them. Because the Serbian government derives its right to exsist from the people it rules, it has abdicated its sovereignty over the territory and over the people it abused, which is now and therefore the sovereign nation of Kosovo.

Miloshevic was found unguilty of any ethnic clensing in Kosovo by the trial. Besides that, now Serbia is governed by completely different people, e.g. political opponents of Miloshevic.--Certh (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IV. Recommendation for Article Treatment:

When either A. 50+1% of the sovereign states of the world extend formal diplomatic recognition to Kosovo, or B. the United Nations extends diplomatic recognition, then the Wikipedia article should treat Kosovo as any other established sovereign country, and not as a "de facto" or "self declared" state. The controversy over persistent claims against Kosovo's independence should, at that point, be consigned to its own subsection or separate article.

--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, though I would like to make it clear to everyone reading this that it is all just your own personal opinion and isn't any kind of official wikipedia policy. Abc30 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and it's also worth pointing out that the definition of a "country" is hazy anyway. England, Scotland and Wales are commonly referred to as countries (which of course they once were) despite not having any international diplomatic recognition of any sort. What we can say is that Kosovo is a self-governing state which has declared itself independent. It's in broadly the same category as Northern Cyprus, Transnistria or Abkhazia; those articles provide some useful pointers for how we should describe Kosovo's current status. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does the official wikipedia policy in this matter? If there is none, maybe one should be introduced? I guess some people won't recognize Kosovo at any point in time, however, if the majority of the world's reconized countries recognize Kosovo, I really can't see why Kosovo shouldn't be treated as a sovereign state by Wikipedia. Of course, the fact that a couple of countries hasn't recognized Kosovo should be included. 83.227.38.72 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also agree that, because of same reasons, North Kosovo has the right to secede from the remainder and remain in Serbia? Also, no matter because in some historical sentences unilateral secession might seem justified and legal, it is a precedent according to Precedent Law. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but to me that feels like we're talking more about 'Where to draw the border' rather than 'Should Kosovo be treated as a state, if the majority of countries in the world recognize it' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.214.178 (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research. Wikipedia should say exactly what the sources say. Nothing more, nothing less. The American Declaration of Independence is not a source on the Kosovar Declaration of Independence. - Revolving Bugbear 21:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if we could use the term 'nation state' as much as possible when discussing stuff like this. It avoids misunderstandings and confusion on the difference between a 'nation' (typically a group of people who consider themselves to have a common national identity - see the comment about England, Scotland etc. above), a 'state' (either a governmental entity, or in some jurisdictions a sub-national unit e.g. in the US), and a 'country' (does it mean in the social sense of a group of people, or the geographical sense of a chunk of land, or a governmental entity). 'Nation state', on the other hand, is clearly understood as meaning the Montevideo stuff that was mentioned above. Cynical (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet recognised by Germany

Although it states so in the main article that Kosovo had been recognised by France, USA, Germany etc. that is simply not true. German Foreign Ministry just ANNOUNCED this step for Wednesday 20th of February AFTER a vote in the parliament "Bundestag". Most other European countries also just ANNOUNCED their willingness to consider such a step. That said, it should be added that Afghanistan was the first state worldwide to accept an independent Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.114.86.209 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized by the United States 18 February 2008

Hello USA is just a country! Why you refer it alone and you dont refer to all the countries that recognise the republic of kosovo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feta (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the USA is one of the most powerful states in the world. David (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what, might makes right or something? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, yes. It's because of the United States that Kosovo even got to this point.UberCryxic (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, that's exactly what the Serbian PM said. At any rate, the US point of view is certainly as respectable as any other, it is however not any more "right" than the Russian or Chinese ones, as far as NPOV is concerned. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The United States is one of the three countries which have a central role in this situation - the others being Serbia and Russia. So it's natural (and not in any way NPOV-problematic) to give the actions and opinions of those countries more prominence than those of (say) the UK or Australia. Cynical (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer USA as "right" since it saved those people and gave them freedom and dignity, rather then Serbia (and Russia supported it also) who tried to eliminate them at all costs. Is this "right" enough to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piasoft (talk • contribs) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"recognition"

In the info box, it shows the date of Kosovo's "recognition." Is that wholly appropriate? How can you have one date for recognition when not everyone has recognized it? I looked at a few other country pages and have not seen anything similar to this. Or is this a special case? --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Kosovo (UNMIK)

Could I ask some of you as experts in this area to comment on this splinter article that was created today. The Afd listing can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo (UNMIK). Many thanks - Fritzpoll (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map should be similar to those in articles of similar de facto entities

This article though trying to make NPOV stance got some Pro-Kosovan attitude. First of all, I object to use of the map showing Kosovo as just another sovereign country in Europe as Germany or France. I think that Wikipedia should be consistent in its portrayal of various self-declared republics such as Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Kosovo etc. The map on Northern Cyprus entry shows it next to Greek Cyprus, the map on Abkhazia entry shows it within Georgia etc. The map should show Kosovo's location within Serbia as it is yet considered part of Serbia by majority of international community. 2. Kosovo is not sovereign country. It is administered by the UNMIK. Wikipedia should support NPOV attitude, therefore it has to support the status quo. Wikipedia articles should not getting quickly edited in favour of Recentism but properly considered and debated. It does not matter that the US or Afghanistan recognized Kosovo because if sovereignty is not generally recognized by international community (including the UN) it makes no difference if independence was recognized by Turkey (as it is for Northern Cyprus) or by the US (as it is here). I propose to debate it here before I'm going to edit the article in order to make it more NPOV.Merrybrit (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is considered a sovereign country by the United States and some other countries. That viewpoint should also be included. Likewise, viewpoints of Pluto as a planet and as a dwarf planet should also be included in any discussion of planethood with respect to the solar system and of Pluto itself. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That point of view should of course be included and I also disagree with Merrybrit's idea of Wikipedia "supporting" this or that POV. However, I agree completely with Merrybrit's primary objection, that is, the map. Until such time when Kosovar independence is uncontroversial, the map should stick to the standards of articles about other similarly controversial de facto entities such as those mentioned above. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section

The history section, and in particular the section on antiquity and the middle ages, reads like a nationalist rant written by an amateur historian. It is filled with romantic, unsourced statements about antiquity is very anti-Serbian. I changed it, but it was reverted almost instantly. It is very POV and biased and something needs to be done about this. --Tsourkpk (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the history part is not well written. There are not enough references. You can't say that Milosevic was covering his back! What kind of neutrality is this?

Nation status

I think the whole nation definition debate should move to more official grounds, how about setting up a debate for this somewhere? And if there is already a discussion on this somewhere like the Community well or whatever how about a link? Right now the discussion is spread over a number of pages and hard to follow. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where else is discussion occurring on the matter? I would be willing to set up Talk:Kosovo/Statehood Definition or even Talk:Kovoso/Definition in the same manner that discussion on waterboarding led to Talk:Waterboarding/Definition if anyone is interested. I think a discussion in that form might work best, but if some centralized discussion is going on elsewhere that works for me as well. SorryGuy  Talk  02:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, most of this subject has been beaten to death repeatedly over the years on the various talk pages belonging to List of countries and related articles. The Tom (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was a consensus ever reached? :) +Hexagon1 (t) 07:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus are you talking about !!! It self-declared inependence. And it is being recognised as such from many countries as times leaves behind.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piasoft (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could people please start remembering that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. It is pointless to set up a discussion on whether or not Kosovo should be considered a nation or not, because that would be original research. All we have to do is have this article, and allow it to present the various viewpoints on Kosovo. Quite simple really, if only people would stop making edits to article they have deeply vested interests in (which is, of course, difficult, I realise). Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite: is pointless to set up a discussion on whether or not Kosovo should be considered a nation or not. No one is discussing this topic because the Nation is called Albanian Nation (Including Albanian State, Kosova, ethinic albanian minority in Macedonia and Montenegro). On this topic there is no discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piasoft (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good god, morons everywhere. I was talking about a DEFINITION of the word nation in terms of Wikipedia. Not some bloody nationalistic disputes that have no place on Wikipedia, or anywhere for that matter. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but definition of Nation is already there! Piasoft (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*bangs head against wall* Next! +Hexagon1 (t) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and Dardania

The views on whether Dardania is an Illyrian name or not are mixed. Check the respective page, BEFORE the 2008 Kosovo UDI. Dardani were Thraco-Illyrian. Citing respective article: "The element Dardan appears to be found in the toponymy of both the Illyrians (Dardi, Dardani) and the Thracians (Dardanos)." and "The distribution of ancient names found inscribed in Dardania are one of the main evidences that support the idea that the Dardani were Thracians commingled with Illyrians. Thracian names are found mostly in eastern Dardania, from Scupi to Naissus and Remesiana, although some Illyrian names occur. Illyrian names are dominant in the western areas, where Thracian names are not found".

Moreover, User:Getoar changed the term "region" into "country". And, Gjon Buzuku "was born in the village of Ljare (Kraja) in Bar, Montenegro close to Northern Albania (Kraje is located on the shores of Lake Scutari)." (from respective article), not "is believed to have been born in Kosovo", as User:Getoar's chenge says on Kosovo. AND, about Pjetër Bogdani: "He contributed a force of 6,000 Albanian soldiers to the Austrian army which had arrived in Priština and accompanied it to capture Prizren." (respective article) Furthermore, User:Getoar's sources seem to be Albanian POV and the user has been "honoured" with The Barnstar of National Merit "For the awesome work on Kosovo,and the Albanian related articles".

Would you assume good faith in such changes after they were repeated over and over again?

Why is an Albanian POV being pushed from people who consider Dardania to be synonymous of Kosovo and Illyrians synonymous of Albanians?

You can check the respective article on Illyrians to see whether there is a consensus or not on what Illyrians were. Cause, last time I checked there wasn't.

Is Kosovo part of Albania?

Who is gonna clean-up the article NOW, after like 10 edits??? Heracletus (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add that: "The ethnogenesis of the Illyrians remains a problem for modern prehistorians." from the Illyrians article. But, no, go change everything to read different for all I care. Heracletus (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's added all kind of POV crap, never mind the Dardanian stuff. The history section is full of romantic POV statements about the "hard working generous Dardanians" and the "Serbian peril". It's unbelievable. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Region/country/province/state etc.

In most situations, Wikipedia articles concerning the various countries/nations/etc. in the world cover both the "country" (ie, the dirt and trees and rocks and cows and spot-where-medieval-warrior-X-was-struck-down) and the "state" (ie, the generally more modern organization with, as they say in school, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.) Because 99.9% of the time country and state fade blurrily into one another, this is more than acceptable, (and indeed leads to the colloquial use of the terms as synonymous in English and most languages).

For instance, the article on France begins "France, officially the French Republic...." To split hairs, the country is "France" and the state is "the French Republic", but the two are effectively synonymous so nobody has any problem with that. In a few weird cases, the patch of ground (ie Taiwan) and the state that controls it (ie, the Republic of China) do sit in different articles.

The problem is that this article is about a patch of ground without an unambiguous connection to a particular state apparatus. To those who recognize the recently-declared republic, Kosovo is the Republic of Kosovo. To those who reject it, Kosovo is the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

So where most other articles have only got two creatures, we've basically got three, represented in the lede of the article by three phrases in bold text. The NPOV way of handling this, as I see it anyway, is to open by defining "Kosovo" in purely geohistorical terms, defining each of the Republic and Autonomous Province in purely political terms, and make clear to the reader that there is no universally-understood way of mixing and matching them. There's absolutely no disputing that Kosovo exists, is commonly called Kosovo in English, covers a certain patch of ground in Europe, has certain people living in it, and has had certain things happen in it over the past thousands of years. That point should be made immediately in the article, and is with the statement that "Kosovo is a region in the Balkans etc. etc."

But we cannot adopt the position that whatever the "Republic of Kosovo" is (depending on your perspective, a state, a self-declared republic, an neo-Wahabbi emirate, a source of peace and justice, or a source of all evil in the world) is what "Kosovo" is. Conversely, we can't say that because the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" is a province, "Kosovo" is a "province". So the article can't start with "Kosovo is a self-declared republic" or "Kosovo is a Serbian province."

"Country" has to be out as an option because in the eyes of many readers it is synonymous with "state." I had previously considered "territory" appropriate, but I was convinced that that connotes non-sovereignty, so "region" it is, barring someone coming up with something mutually acceptable to everyone. (How about "Kosovo is roughly 11,000 square kilometers somewhere in the general vicinity of Skopje that far too many people have died fighting over". :) )

Am I making my rationale clear? The Tom (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant Pristina/Prishtina/Priština. Skopje is in Macedonia/[that country north of Greece]. —Kurykh 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant Skopje, in the country whose name we dare not speak. That other place is the town with the politicized caron whose name we dare not speak ;). The Tom (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "disputed territory"? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Israel isnt't recognised by many countries either, that doesn't prevent it from being shown as an independent country on wikipedia. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont say anything against Israel. You are not allowed. Israel is the best country on the planet, and the Jewishes are the best nation on the galaxy. And the have always right. And they are so good people, they have never harmed anyone and they are so willing to help anyone that needs a second hand. You should respect them.--Feta (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has a 159-to-34 recognition, plus UN membership. When Kosovo gets that, I think you'll have a better case. The Tom (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. But, why not drop Israel out of Wikipedia, too? There are people out there, who think that Israel doesn't exist. So, there must be sources. So, we can PROVE that Israel doesn't exist, as people here prove that Dardania was Illyrian, that Illyrians were only Albanians, that Kosovo not only is a country, but also that it has a very very long history of being an Albanian one.
-POV?? -No, I got sources. Heracletus (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing Kosovo, you're discussing Illyria. The Illyrian thing is in some other thread, not here. —Kurykh 02:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear on this whole Israel digression, I don't think we're well served by trying to find some lede now that will have to last into the indefinite future, or lay down some sort of regulations for how things get handled with every ensuing int'l recognition. If Kosovo hits Israel-level recognition, I'm sure the issue will be reopened. If the US changes its mind and proclaims the corpse of Slobodan Milosevic dictator for life, we can reopen it, too. The Tom (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This argument has been made at least two times further up above (this page urgently needs to be archived). IMHO, the best solution is to split the article into Kosovo (ie the place) and Republic of Kosovo/Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija/etc (ie all the political entities in Kosovo, the place). --Michalis Famelis (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a fair argument, but ultimately a foolish one. The RoC/Taiwan get separate articles in part because they aren't/weren't geographical coterminal, and because it's common for islands to get their own articles. But Kosovo/RoK/APKiM all sit on the exact same patch of earth, defined purely by political borders. Also, it's almost impossible to separate the history and geography that weaves together all three. We'd probably wind up with an Albanian-POV RoK article, a Serbian-POV APKiM article, and a stripped down Kosovo article with nothing but people arguing over pears. The Tom (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't focus on China so much. You mentioned the Country-That-Must-Not-Be-Named above, so the Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia/Macedonia (Greece) trichotomy comes to my mind as a parallel. Additionally it is not quite that accurate to say that RoK and Kosovo coinside, since the Serbian-held northern territories are de facto outside RoK (mirroring the way RoK is de facto outside Serbia). Also, I know you didn't mean to be offensive but do avoid words like "foolish", as this talk page can easily explode. (It's the Balkans, I know... :-) ) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my apologies. The Tom (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(moved up from below) The main problem, as I noted above, has been editors insisting that the lead has to say "Kosovo is a self-declared republic" which simply cannot be done while entertaining a NPOV. Saying "The Republic of Kosovo is a self-declared republic" is absolutely fine. Saying "Kosovo" full-stop is is obviously problematic. The Tom (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why the article has to be split between Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo. But until that happens we will treat Kosovo as a self-declared republic in this article. As it is your version remains inconsistent, as it declares Kosovo a disputed region while displaying a whole infobox there which says Republic of Kosovo with flags and all. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox merely summarizes attributes that are associated with the Republic of Kosovo (note large writing across its top) and makes no claim to have them apply to the entire patch of ground. As for a split, as I was saying above, I'd like to think we could work around this well enough that this wouldn't be necessary, but if it "has" to be done, I imagine there ought to be a broader consensus. Certainly all this talk of how until then "we will treat Kosovo as a self-declared republic in this article" strikes me as a highly inappropriate position to take unilaterally. The Tom (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A RoK country infobox certainly gives an endorsement to RoK. Saying otherwise is being naïve. And if we were to also place an infobox for APoKaM, should it go before or after the RoK infobox? Or side by side while occupying the whole page's width? It's not practical. The infobox in your version should be strictly about the characteristics of the region, its people, but not its government. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Un-indent) So, how about a formal split proposal? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting is inconsistent with how we treat other separatist territories. The separatist republic of Northern Cyprus doesn't physically include the entire north of Cyprus. The separatist republic of Abkhazia doesn't physically include the whole of Abkhazia. The separatist republic of South Ossetia doesn't physically include the whole of South Ossetia. And so on. Of course, the important point here is that the separatist republics in question, like the Republic of Kosovo, control the vast majority of the claimed territory; therefore the name of the territory is conventionally used as the short form for the name of the republic (like France = Republic of France). Additionally in Kosovo's case, Serb-populated North Kosovo (which constitutes only 10% of the territory) is still legally constituted under both Kosovo and Serbian law as part of Kosovo and the Pristina government is still the only legally-recognised governing authority in the region; Serbia has talked about setting up a separate Serb-run legislature in the north but hasn't done so yet. There's no need to split the article, and I would consider it a POV fork if someone did do this; it would be an instant candidate for deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
South Africa also doesn't physically include all of south Africa, which is why we have a separate article called southern Africa. Likewise, we often refer to the United States of America as America, and the European Union as Europe, yet they're not really the same, and we have different articles in those cases. And then of course there's Western Sahara/Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Taiwan/Republic of China, two examples to counter your theory that Wikipedia treats all separatist territories the same. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Cyprus doesn't claim to be Cyprus and Abkhazia doesn't claim to be Georgia. Therefore there is no ambiguosity here and we can have the article for Georgia to be identical with the one for Republic of Georgia.
But we have two political entities claiming to be Kosovo. Therefore we should have two articles for every one and one neutral article for "geographical" Kosovo.Hellerick (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally come to the conclusion that we just name it a country because of how it operates from now on, however include the fact that it is disputed by Serbia. The fact that it's "self-proclaimed" is an automatic given deriving from the declaration of independence which declares Kosovo an independent country. The "partially recognized" fragment which I proposed is explained later in the article, but I agree that it is a secondary matter so it shouldn't appear on the opening sentence either. I propose 3 things:

I. Paragraph 1 should contain:

A. Kosovo be called a landlocked country disputed by Serbia, on the basis of: 1) it's geographical position 2) the term the entity has declared itself (independent country) and how it's parliament operates from now on in both internal and external matters (independent country) 3) the Serbian dispute fragment should be enough to re-direct users into learning more about it
B. The neighboring countries that border it are mentioned.

II. Paragraph 2 should contain:

A. Partial recognition as an independent country explanation.
B. UNMIK status and EULEX prospective.

III. Paragraph 3 should contain:

A. Serbia's dispute on the matter and what it considers Kosovo to be.
B. Explanation on other countries that do not recognize Kosovo.

How about this order of business? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exo (talk • contribs) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that Kosovo is a geographic region claimed as the territory of two separate political entities: the Republic of Kosovo and the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (part of Serbia). While I personally recognize the Republic of Kosovo, I don't see how it's disputable that it is separate from the disputed region called Kosovo. I think this page should be titled "Republic of Kosovo", and a separate disambiguation page for various meanings of the term Kosovo should exist as "Kosovo". After all, next door, the Republic of Macedonia article is found on the page "Republic of Macedonia", while "Macedonia" is a disambiguation page for all the various and sometimes conflicting definitions of Macedonia. Kudzu1 (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the veto power in the UN is important

The veto power is important because a) Serbs and supporters are using the Russian and Chinese position as evidence against recognizing Kosovo, while b) the other three veto-wielders are actually in favor of recognition; also, c) the veto is used exclusively by powerful, nuclear-armed countries that won the Second World War. Their voice carries influence. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But it is a complex issue that requires a few lines of explanation. That sort of content does not belong in the lead. The Tom (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So let's put it further down and flesh it out a little. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. Frankly, there's all this back and forth in the lead, but the section on the actual independence further down the is pretty hurting and has been completely neglected. The Tom (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't revert the whole intro just because of one problematic praragraph that was added later. I've deleted the problematic paragraph and restored the intro. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly hasn't been the main problem. The main problem, as I noted above, has been editors insisting that the lead has to say "Kosovo is a self-declared republic" which simply cannot be done while entertaining a NPOV. The Tom (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
conversation moved above

Partially recognized country

The best proposal out there so far is PARTIALLY RECOGNIZED COUNTRY.

This takes in consideration the fact that some countries do recognize Kosovo as a country, while it also underlines the fact that it is partially recognized as such. It is the best wording that exists for this scenario and it should be the default until further events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exo (talk • contribs) 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


FOR GOD'S SAKE, EDITORS PLEASE DECIDE ON SOMETHING SEMI NEUTRAL, AND LOCK THIS DAMN ARTICLE FOREVER. IT KEEPS CHANGING EVERY 2 SECONDS, MAKING IT LOOK NOT LIKE A RELIABLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, BUT LIKE A CHILDREN'S TUG-OF-WAR GAME. IT IS RIDICULOUS BEHAVIOR. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT SERBS AND ALBANIANS CANNOT AGREE ON ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. SO PLEASE, MAKE A NEUTRAL SOUNDING OPENING PHRASE LIKE THE ONE PROPOSED ABOVE, AND LOCK THE DAMN ARTICLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.92.25 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use ALL CAPS on an already contentious article. It does not help matters. —Kurykh 05:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A self-declaration and partial recognition are enough to qualify as a country. In addition, Kosovo will operate as a country within itself as well as towards countries who do recognize it. I urge the editors to agree on the country terminology for 3 simple reasons: A) It is self-declared B) It is recognized as such by many other countries C) It will operate as a country. There is only 2 counter-arguments out there which say: You need UN membership or full international recognition to be a country, both of which are not the standard. There are more arguments than counter-arguments favoring the term country.

But, I believe it is necessary to specify it's current standing as a country, and I urge you to support these 2 key descriptions sorrounding the word country: A) SELF-PROCLAIMED B) PARTIALLY RECOGNIZED

This way the readers will be able to know what it calls itself and what others call it. The rest of the article can explain the various disputes on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exo (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC) So is this the way this encyclopedia acts? You people simply don't care about Serbia and you're all out for Kosovo? (Don't say anything against that I've watched the reactions of today's superpowers and they're outrageous). For god's sake show some kind of respect and be objective. If everyone was to put self-proclaimed countries on Wikipedia then I could proclaim my house as my own independent country and require that there's an article about it. Please get serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.160.218 ([[User talk:79.131.160.218|ta —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Well, why not move to the Conch Republic then? ;-) — Rickyrab | Talk 23:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as partially recognized country. There are only self-declared independent countries and internationally recognized countries. Kosovo has not been internationally recognized yet, so please don't rush and call it internationally recognized (or anything that contains words "internationally" and "recognized" as that's completely false statement). "Internationally recognized by 12 countries" is just absurd and doesn't make any sense. It should be removed as soon as possible to avoid confusion. --Rocky88 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Countries that Recognized Kosovo State

We should open a new categoy in the article listing all the major world powers who have recognized newly independent state of Kosovo. Bosniak (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is already at International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. —Kurykh 06:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In no special order: The United States of America, Britain, France, Australia, Turkey, Germany... did I miss any?

There's no need to post it on this article. You can just link to the page above. —Kurykh 06:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a list of countries that recognize Kosovo without all the clutter, and distraction the international reaction article became a huge mess with even countries that said nothing either way getting a different color on the map and subsections in the article. Hobartimus (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I personally think that if we're going to enumerate the countries that have recognized it, we should as well display the list of those who claim that will not recognize Kosovo (or Kosova or whatever)as an independent region. It as been airing on the news in several countries that Spain, Cyprus, Romenia, Bulgaria, Russia, Greece, Slovakia and some more have stated their not acceptance to the status. So i believe it makes sense to put the 2 lists, as they come into the general public. —Preceding Filipe Sardinha comment added by 81.84.82.24 (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note on demographics section

I'm new here, so I'm wasn't sure wether to just go ahead and edit the article or to propose the change first. Anyway, the demographics section says

The people’s growth rate in Kosovo is 1.3%. Over an 82-year period (1921-2003) the population grew 4.6 times. If growth continues at such a pace, based on some estimations, the population will be 4.5 million by 2050.

This seems a little silly, since it's a conditional statement and you don't need to estimate it. Furthermore, if the population growth remains at 1.3% the population would be about 4.2 million by 2050, not 4.5 million. The reference gives the exact quote above and makes no reference to the estimations itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.188.140 (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

serbian governance nonexistant, citation needed?

I am deleting the citation needed. I need a citation for citation neeeded. From my understanding the region is now (from within) seen almost entirely as self-controlled, but this isn't because they've seceded from Serbia so much as that they're ending the previous NATO AND UN control by replacing it with self-governance.

I would love to see ANY evidence that Serbia has been running the show in Kosovo or that they are now.

I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying, does Serbia have any real power WITHIN the province? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.179.88 (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the governance of the province has since 1999 has been independent of Serbia and supervised by the UN, soon to be the EU. David (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I would love to see ANY evidence that Serbia has been running the show in Kosovo or that they are now." There is none, after losing the 1999 war Serbia had to withdraw it's troops and relinquish any control over Kosovo. Hobartimus (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you said that Kosovo has been under the UN administration since 1999? I was under the impression that the NATO was supervising the administration.

Serbia pays doles, pensions, and some wages to local Serbian population. This is a kind of state activity I guess. Hellerick (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same does the Greek governement with the so called greek minorities in Albania, but that does not mean that Albania has no control over its territory. Same applies to Kosova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.70.231 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian mafia in Kosovo, their drugs and arms trafficking...

...have not been addressed in the article. Amazingly. Garik 11 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is a logical fallacy. It would also imply to discuss Serbian mafia world-wide, while the readers are only interested in Serbia as a country...--Arber (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some historical facts

I think some historical facts shuld be mention in articul just against some nationalst serbs claims although Kosova (90% ethnic Albanian) appeared as multiethnic state , i must say very forwarded in to day balkan.

Paragraph 7: Of course, in any event we could only prove the Albanians did, and never that they did not, precede the Slavs. [14]--Dodona (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De-facto indipendent?

It should be noted that Kosovo is not member of UN nor OSCE and that is not recognised by some members of Security Council. Due the fact that NATO is responsible for security and full legal power is in hands of UNMIK (and EULEX) independence and sovereignty of Kosovo is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.163.250 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being members of the UN or OSCE is not a necessary criteria for countries becoming de jure. You may aware of the fact that Switzerland became a member of the UN only in 2002 and Vatican is still not a member. Besides, there are many recognized and sovereign countries, where some of their authorities are delegated to other countries like Monaco (France) and Bhutan (India). Above all, all 27 EU member states delegated much of their soveregnity in the areas like fisheries and envirmonment to the Union... As Kosovan Parliament declared, the independence of Kosovo will be transitional and supervised as is proposed by Ahtisaari for a certain period of time. Wikiturk (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an Empire of Fraudulence

It will implode from its own lies and deceits. It is POOR QUALITY DRIVEL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

) --Dollgash (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, but you fail to say what is "poor quality" about Wikipedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo cities

I ask editors to update articles on kosovo cities to state that kosovo isnt a province of serbia anymore but an independent country , as this page sayes--Cradel 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate

The international status of Kosovo is at present hanging in the balance. Per WP:NPOV we cannot prejudice the case. I suggest this article be moved to Republic of Kosovo, and the title Kosovo should disambiguate between Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo District. Redirecting "Republic of Kosovo" to "Kosovo" implies identity of the two, which is taking the position of the US/UK/France as opposed to Russia/Spain/Romania. We can't do that. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see also Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija redirects here. This is rather confusing. The lead needs to be rephrased at least. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 18:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is the neutral term which comes between Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija and Republic of Kosovo. And Kosovo District is not the same as the whole Kosovo. If you look at the map you will see it is only 1 of 5 districts located around Pristina http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/M_kosovo02.png --Avala (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tottaly agree. This is the fourth time this proposal has come up (the last one was "#Region/country/province/state etc.") and all previous have been left hanging. I'm putting up a Template:Split so we can have some real discussion about it. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New title for the de facto state, "Kosovo (de facto state)", with another article "Kosovo (region)" with "Kosovo" as a re-direct page to either
The idea above would be an excellent way to avoid inflaming tensions on Wikipedia. Everyone who is aware of the situation occuring in Kosovo will realize two things, (1) Serbs do not recognize Kosovo as a state due to the cultural history of Serbia which resides in the region, (2) The Albanian majority have voted on enormous margins to create a state. Thus, like the article "Macedonia", the article "Kosovo" should be a redirect page to two articles Kosovo (de facto state) and Kosovo (region). This way, as Kosovo will inevitably remain disputed, an article called "Kosovo" will not be imposing any view on anyone if it becomes a re-direct to two articles, one on the region and one on the de facto state.--R-41 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Republic of Kosovo would be a better name than Kosovo (de facto state). --Michalis Famelis (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree completely. Disambiguate like China and People's Republic of China--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will have trouble with what will link to what. It's better to have it all explained in one article than having double articles on Serbian and Albanian view. --Avala (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this kind of splitting. The so-called article about the so-called Kosovo District seems like a recent invention of Serb fanatics (the same SRS-Obraz footbal-loving shaved heads that destroyed McDonald's in Belgrade and bombed UN cars in Mitrovica) who don't want to see that Kosovo now is an independent nation. The Article about Abkhazia is not divided, so Kosovo article should not be divided, too.
The Kosovo District was an invention of Slobodan Milosevic regime who annuled the eutonomy of Kosovo and took the politics and police control of the region. Even nowadays the now reasonably democratic government of Serbia did not consider the return of Kosovo to the Milosevic-era status of "no autonomy".
Let's stop this astroturfing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.179.204 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the case of Kosovo cannot be compared to Macedonian case, since there is no adjacent neighboring regions outside Kosovo which are called "Kosovo". The same goes to the Chinese, since there is no two different disputing governments controlling two different areas (as in the case of Red China and Formosa); the whole of Kosovo now is occupied and conrolled with NATO, UN and EU forces, troops and police (see Kosovo Protection Corps and Kosovo Police Service).
First of all, don't get frustrated and don't call people names. There is not any kind of astroturfing taking place. Additionaly, we are not discussing the politics of Kosovo, or Milosevic's actions here, we are discussing how to deal with the existence of two political entities on the same country. I might remind you that the independence is not (at least not yet) uncontroversial and there is a mass of people that continue to refuse to acknowledge it. Your point of view that the independence is an objective fact is completely respectable, however under the WP:NPOV policy, we cannot as yet have Wikipedia "taking sides" in this conflict. So the splitting is proposed as a way to find a constructive compromise that would solve any ambiguities and NPOV problems. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michalis, I saw your user page, and it seems like you're a very devout Greek Orthodox. It doesn't seems you are the most isent person to comment here (you know, there is a background on what I am saying...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.179.204 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although he gave me a good idea. The article Abkhazia has several infoboxes. We should have 2 here: Kosovo (Republic) and Kosovo (Serbian Autonomous province)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not to feed this anonymous user's trolling.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However I must stress that any further personal attacks will be reported. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As we can see the consequences in the past few days on Wikipedia of having the search of the word "Kosovo" linking to the de facto state has caused enough problems. Further, acceptance of Kosovo on the world stage is not universal, major countries China, Russia, and Spain all have agreed to continue to recognize Serbia's claim to the region. I agree that the article "Kosovo" should become a disambiguation page. One to an article called Republic of Kosovo for the de facto state, and another to an article called Kosovo (region) to describe the history of the region itself without claiming who has legal jurisdiction over it, and perhaps maintaining the article of Kosovo as a Serbian province for Serbia's continuing claim, even though Serbia has no actual control over the territory now. But most definately there should be an article called Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region.--R-41 (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a constructive compromise is not spliting but just leting all facts to be told on one topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piasoft (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not advise elaborate splitting as in the China / PRC case: it is likely that Kosovo will become established as a widely reconized state in the near future. This is just a question of sitting it out while consensus forms. The article will just need to insert disclaimers wherever necessary for now. E.g. the flag cannot just be presented as "the flag of Kosovo", it is, rather, "the suggested flag for the Republic of Kosovo". We will be looking at a case comparable to Republic of China. I suppose it will be best to redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation), and move this article to Republic of Kosovo. The "Kosovo region" isn't a historical region like China, or an island like Taiwan. It is an administrative division. The only "historical area" called Kosovo is the Kosovo Field, which I understand is just some meadow. There can be no meaningful article on Kosovo (historical region), hence redirect Kosovo to the disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the difference between Taiwan Province (Republic of China) and Taiwan Province (People's Republic of China). Maybe separate Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija articles are needed in the same way. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Strongly agree However, I don't think this should be moved. Kosovo is a historical region mentioned in various times in the past such as the Battle of Kosovo so Kosovo does not mean Republic of Kosovo. Create a new article in the redirect page Republic of Kosovo and move most of the relevant information there. We should use the articles on Taiwan and other disputed nations like Macedonia as a guide. Keep this article as it's about the region of Kosovo, but then have an article on the Republic of Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia

The article says "Several countries in the region (Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Romania, Greece) are undetermined on or will not recognize independence at this time either for internal reasons or in fear not to damage relations with Serbia.", but that's incorrect for Macedonia. See the statement by its Defense Minister: "Macedonia's position regarding Kosovo's independence is clear. For us, the independence is acceptable and should be implemented on the basis of the Ahtisaari's plan." [15]. NN 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Croatia is closer to recognizing than not recognizing, see: "We will examine the whole situation, but I can not give a precise date when it (the recognition of Kosovo) will happen. We will do it together with the majority of EU members – said the PM in Vukovar." [16] so again it's misleading to put it in that sentence. NN 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge material from Kosovo (UNMIK)

The consensus during the AfD for the above article was to merge its content into this article. I would do it myself, but I am unqualified in this topic area to adequately make the changes. Can someone please help with this? - Fritzpoll (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Certainly this is a well-sourced article, but it is about but a brief portion of Kosovo's long history. It should be aprt of the article. Also, I think the first place anyone looking for information on the subject would be under Kososvo. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't actually a discussion on whether or not to merge, Fritz was simply asking help with the merger. TSO1D (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the merge has now been disputed on the talk page of the other article, so a discussion should take place to confirm consensus. - Fritzpoll (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well darn. I followed the link here. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo i Metohia, Kosovo UNMIK, Republika e Kosovës must be part of history. In this wiki is more history befor the 600-years (without argument) then the history of last 60-years, about witch we hawe facts (arguments, and they are Kosovo i Metohia; Kosovo UNMIK; Republika e Kosovës since last 20 years). This is the sicne history of the Kosovo, before 1912 is mitologie. About history of Kosovo event serb or albanians diden´t realy care to investigete the history. It is full of mitology and propagander. The names of the Kosovo inhabers during history wous not serb, albanians???? Open your eyes. RASHKA IS NOT SERBIA???? RASHKA IS RASHKA, SERBIA IS SERBIA. This is not importen for the serb and albanians today, but wery importen for Serbian ortodox Church and Kosovo Ortodox Church (Bizantin Church in Constatinopole, the black eagel) in one side and for the experts of history. We are going to see in near futur the real face of BYZANS and PAN-SLAVIA.

Add map?

Would it be viable to add the this map

to the Declaration of Independence as that particular section discusses countries that have so far recognized Kosovo?--Always Ahead (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

We have a whole article almost interly, well, completly dedicated to that issue.--Jakezing (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-proclaimed no longer viable, it's partially recognized

Kosovo is no longer a self-proclaimed republic. Many countries recognize it as such, so it's not something that it proclaims only by itself anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exo (talk • contribs) 02:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought up alot, read the entire talk page, as of now we keep self proclaimed, it's nuetral, saying its part of serbia is point of view, so is fully recognized. PI is nuetral, as nuetrla as were gonan get for now.--Jakezing (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-proclaimed is also inflamatory because it connotates that only Kosovo proclaims this by itself. The truth is that other countries recognize it, therefore it cannot be just self-proclaimed. It's not a question of neutrality, it's a question of current state of affairs. The current state is partially recognized. Self-proclaimed contradicts partially recognized. Partially recognized is the current status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exo (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
learn to sign your posts dude, and why the hell didn't you just do that in the first friken place instead of deleting it, you coulda posted that instead of deleting the whole thing and THEN adding more to that part. title.--Jakezing (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the signing. Self-proclaimed contradicts partially recognized. Partially recognized is a much more acceptable and realistic situation that takes in consideration the self-proclaimation and partial recognition as well. And notice also that Serbia's dispute on the matter is also mentioned. Since the word country is highly questionable, the word republic is the most neutral for the moment being, but the self-proclaimed part is just not true. It's partially recognized, and not just by irrelevant countries...it's not enough to ignore the partial recognition. Exo (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also learn to add "::" and ":::" as it goes on please. What i don't get is, why didnt you, in that first edit, just repalce self proclaim with part. recognized?--Jakezing (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's self-proclaimed is automatically assumed, just like in other republics. But since someone is insisting on clarifying what kind of republic it is (self-proclaimed or partially recognized), then the word self-proclaimed is no longer viable due to the recognition by others as well. Look, we're all trying to adjust things in a way that depicts reality as much as possible, without sounding too biased or too neglectful of the reality on the ground. We're talking about an entity right in the middle of Europe here, which has actually been recognized as an independent country by the heavyweights in the EU along with the US, and most of the EU is in the process of doing the same. This is more than enough to drop the "self-proclaimed" terminology which imposes a "denial" sort of air, concentrating on the fact that Kosovo proclaimed itself independent, and completely not acknowleding the partial recognition, while Serbia's dispute is also mentioned. Why is the self-proclamation and Serbia's dispute mentioned, but the partial recognition isn't? It swings the sentiment into a biased atmosphere. Partially recognized should be a very agreeable term, and it's much more factic than just a self-proclamation. Exo (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, lets get this clear, I personnaly recognize that kosovo is independant. Why? I don't know. And secondly, i was never on this about the fact "is it a coumntry of self claimed", i was on the fact you just removed it but never gave a explination on what to do about the other 110 some countries who currently do not recognize it. What i am asking here is, why, in that first edit you made that removed the self proclaimed, why didnt you, in that same edit, just add in the "partial recognition", why waste time with 2 edits?--Jakezing (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jakezing, please comment on this page with less heat and more light. —Kurykh 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, we're all trying to adjust the "opening sentence" into a generally acceptable reality. My first reaction was to remove the self-proclaimed, because the fact is that it's multi-proclaimed at this point, by many prominent countries. Then you reversed the edit and I tried to compromise by inserting "partially recognized", a term that is very neutral and very agreeable and a reality, so that's why I made a second edit, so that we could strike a deal in replacing self-proclaimed with partially recognized. Otherwise, it's not fair to leave "disputed by Serbia in there either". My ideal solution would be paragraph one just calls it a landlocked republic. Then the second paragraph explains the partial recognition, and the third paragraph explains the dispute by Serbia and the countries who oppose it or are neutral to the situation. But since you guys want to have a definition of the republic and the dispute by Serbia in the opening sentence, then "self proclaimed" is too vague, the reality at this point is "partially recognized". Exo (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed self proclaimed is just outright false at this point. It is proclaimed as such by many countries at this point the text should be changed to partially recognized. Also to include the disputed by Serbia part is very POV. Similalrly one could include "recognized by the US the only superpower of the world." Hobartimus (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's recognized by a number of countries doesn't hide the fact that it's self-proclaimed. Even if all the countries in the world recognized it, it will still have been self-proclaimed, because it wasn't inside an international agreement, nor with agreement of the country it currently belongs to - Serbia. Once it enters the UN, it will be a republic, until then it's not but a case like Cyprus, Baskia etc. But even then - there will be the fact that Albanians self proclaimed their province a republic. --Ml01172 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same did Slovenia, Albania.. etc. they all self-proclaimed independece. Isnt it great. :) Piasoft (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble brewing

Serbia has sent close to 200 cars with people into Kosovo. NN 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So? Thats about as notable as all the random things left at the white house and all those stuff entering bagdad or DC from out of country(DC) or out of region(bagdad)--Jakezing (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And then thats begs this question, if iran sent a plane filled with iranians, should we be worried? NO, this isn't notable, when cars blow up and guns are shot, then we can comment on this.--Jakezing (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just making a statement, how'd you go off on such tangents? Not everything needs an analogy you know. NN 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
We might as well note the fact that the White House press corps has written graffiti on the wall og the old White House indoor pool (which is under the floor of the current White House press briefing room). 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There Will be war. I bet my life on it. SERBIA IS PISSED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.69.57 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that if Serbia starts a war over this, then that raises the risk of nuclear powers Russia (which supports the Serbs) and America (which supports Kosovo) getting drawn into it. On the other hand, that scenario might simply play out like all those Cold War proxy wars did - with the Great Powers supplying troops to each side but the war remaining localized.204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry! They will not risk the Eurovision Song Contest by going to war. --Muniswede (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've started confrontations, beating up people (including journalists) [17]. NN 03:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be problems occurring, but I believe that first, Kosovo is 100% ocuupied by US-led NATO troops (including the north of the country), and second, that there is the democratic peace precedent: as long as Serbia will be democratic, there will be no military response. Just a SRS-Russian-backed coup d'état overthrowing Boris Tadic as commander-in-chief of Serbian armed forces could drastically change the situation. But I hope this will not happen.

Kosovo#Kosovo_War

I have tagged several statements as alleged and/or for fact-checking. Can someone please review this section, and make approriate edits? Bearian (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added back some information and added another Fact? tag. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This triggered a 78-day NATO campaign in 1999. At first limited to military targets in Kosovo proper, the bombing campaign was soon extended to cover targets all over Yugoslavia, including bridges, power stations, factories, broadcasting stations, post offices, and various government buildings." <---- they missed to say that many schools and hospitals were bombed, as well as civilian buildings. I live in Novi Sad and I am eye witness of ruined schools and civilian buildings, since I happened to live right near them. I am adding this and providing some evidence links : [18] ; [19] . Sorry it is only on serbian, most of the news in other countries were filtered, I am looking forward to find more valuable evidences on english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrakoslava (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

since the flag has no UN recognition, it may be safer to display Image:Coat of arms of the PISG of Kosovo.svg in the infobox for the time being. The proposed national flag can still be shown elsewhere in the article, with due disclaimers. dab (𒁳) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized

I see some see Kosovo as rezognized already, so I have a question - is this American and British encyclopedia, in which American and British politics count, or is it an encyclopedia IN English? By now, it's not even close to the majority of countries having recognized Kosovo as state, yet we already talk about Republic of Kosovo. E.g. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus had been a long time recognized by Turkey, yet we don't call it a republic. Please do the same with Kosovo, I know some of you tend to think Albanians are the martyrs that deserve it, but, apart from the fact that it's not nearly true, it also isn't important in such touchy international matters. --Ml01172 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Republic of Kosovo is partially recognized. That is:

  • to some countries (USA, France, Albania, etc.), "Kosovo" refers to the "Republic of Kosovo"
  • to some coutries (Russia, China, Spain, etc.), "Kosovo" refers to the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" of Serbia

Some countries, and notably the UN, have issued no statement. This means, for the purposes of the UN, the status quo ante persists. The status quo ante is "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". This may change any day now, but we shall not anticipate events. We'll wait until they happen and then update the article. This means that until further notice, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija needs to keep redirecting here, and needs to appear alongside "Republic of Kosovo" in boldface in the lead. I'm sorry if some people are unhappy about this, but that's a simple consequence of our WP:NPOV policy. I also remind people that this article is under arbcom probation, and undiscussed reverts may results in blocks immediately (no, edit summaries like "cut the crap" do not count as "discussion"). thanks. dab (𒁳) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentially, since Kosovo is partially recognized, and since Taiwan is also partially recognized, I have extended that phrase to the lead of the Taiwan article. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not confuse Taiwan and Kosovo. Kosovo has declared its independence from Serbia and its independence has been and will be recognized by most states of the world. Taiwan has not declared its independence from China. Taiwan is where the exiled Republic of China government is currently located and that is it. A few countries have recognized the government of the ROC as the rightful government of China, but those are few. A country can either recognize the People's Republic or the ROC, but not both. So let us not compare Taiwan and Kosovo, two very different cases. Taiwan is the name of an island, not a country. Azalea pomp (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would only add that it possibly will be recognized by most states. Any number of things can happen, and we try to avoid using our WP:CRYSTALBALLs too much around here. John Carter (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Azalea I think you're getting ahead of yourself... most countries have NOT recognized Kosovo. And to the China thing.. I havn't read that much about it but isn't the thing you recognize or not, is ROC includes all of mainland china and just not the island of Taiwan? Or at least what i've been taught in school is that ROC is recognized by most countries as a country that controls Taiwan, but nothing more? might be wrong though. Chandlertalk 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did not say most countries have I said will. I may be crystal-balling a bit, but hey this is discussion. Back to Taiwan, most governments who had recognized the ROC as the legitimate government of China have switched to the PRC (including the United States). Again, a government can either recognize the ROC or the PRC, not both. Countries can still have economic relations with the ROC, but not recognize it as the legitimate government of China. No country has as its policy recognizing the PRC as China and the ROC as Taiwan because the ROC on Taiwan does not have a policy that Taiwan is an independent country. Azalea pomp (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm well won't there be a similar situation here then? I mean Serbia will see Kosovo as theirs etc. Will countries really be able to recognize both countries? As they occupies the same area? Chandlertalk 06:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serbia and Kosovo occupie the same area !? I dont think this is correct. Piasoft (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN does not lists it as a state

Have you heard about international law and about UN? Косовска Митровица (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does "international law" include human rights that serbia violated for so many years by doing genocide (killing and raping)?!Piasoft (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What genocide? and what killing and raping are you talking about? Bring your sources and let us see them. Косовска Митровица (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rhetoric needs to be backed up, Piasoft. And no, the CNN news channel is not a valid source. lol XcepticZP (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Example, Cuska Massacre [20], also besides CNN i noticed Reuters, and The Guardian, but there are a lot lot more. so read better. Piasoft (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Survivor of Kosovo Massacre Describes the Killing Garden [21] Piasoft (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, why silence now Косовска Митровица and User:XcepticZP? Or do you want me to involve in the "sourcing" of reality and make you mute forever? Weak up - you're living in a fake reality that your propaganda machine has created. Bardhylius (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language used for Kosovo placenames

The Wikipedia manual of style says that for placenames, the current widely accepted English name or in absence thereof, the current local official name is to be used..

Almost all towns, cities, rivers, mountains etc have no widely accepted English names, so we should use the "local official name". The problem is which name is the official? the Serbian or the Albanian one? Both claim the territory, so one could argue that both are official.

Currently, they are at the Serbian names: Crnoljeva (Serb.) instead of Carralevë (Alb.), Zvečan (Serb.) instead of Zveçan (Alb.), etc.

We can only have one name and by choosing that name, we choose a POV. Any solution to this problem? bogdan (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say this? There is Albanian majority, how can you still defy them the right of the names being in Albanian first? YOU ARE A POV!! Bardhylius (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting argument to this problem is that almost all the places have a direct root in Serbian language. For example Zvečan is from Serbian word "zvečati" (tinkle, jingle), Crnoljeva is from "crno liti" (shower down in black, like water etc.), Mitrovica is from Christian st. Mitar (st. Dimitrije, i.e. st. Demetrius - Serbs are 100% Christians, Albanians are 97% muslims), the whole Kosovo name comes from the Serbian word "Blackberry field". Apart from telling us who "occupied" the territory, these words can also tell us the answer to the original question in this paragraph. --Ml01172 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More examples could be welcome (only big places are mentioned):
  • Glogovac (from "Glog", hawthorn) (albanian Gllogovc)
  • Novo Brdo (literally "new hill") (albanian Novobërdë)
  • Lipljan (from "lipa",linden-tree) (alb. Lipjan)
  • Istok (literally "East" in Serbian) (alb. Istog)
  • Peć (literally oven, stove) (alb. Pejë)

Needless to say, none of these words have any meaning in Albanian language. --Ml01172 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have a meaning in Albanian because they were changed during the Serbia's authority over Kosovo. These names may well be (not to say certainly will) changed to an Albanian meaning (due to Albanian 92% majority, thus the first language), e.g. Suhareka being changed to Theranda, or Istog to Burim etc. This makes your argument invalid. Bardhylius (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the new atlases of Kosovo come out next year, we can see which names are used and go from there. Wikipedia needs to follow the consensus of the atlas makers. Azalea pomp (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at UNMIK documents, I have postet her before year a go. Hipi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.176.54 (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Math error

In this line: "The ethnic balance of Kosovo tilted as the number of Albanians tripled, rising from almost 75% to over 90%..." the arithmetic doesn't work. I expect that the number of Albanians increased by one-third had been meant, but I don't know the numbers so I'm not sure. The sentence as it stands does not make sense. Pete St.John (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Groups

Are you kidding me? Why not Population like the rest of the world? Bardhylius (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Kosovo

Please add this map to the article. Greetings from Finland --MikasFIN (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides of opinions

So far there's the YES side and the NO side... As an encyclopedia, it would be not only nice but nessesary to present both sides of opinions so to stay neutral. For example, the article should state the cause of the original conflict in much MUCH more details. The point of view, perspective, and intentions of the nations who are supporting/against its independence should also be stated. As it is an important aspect of the entire conflict. (international recognition is needed for a state to become actually independent, for example, Quebec and Taiwan is not independent, but Singapore is.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2005 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2005 (talk • contribs) [reply]

It's simple let us see what the atlases and other encyclopedias do. Wikipedia should model itself after those. There is no need to consider user opinions. There is no YES or NO side to an encyclopedic article. It simply states neutral facts. Azalea pomp (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan is a sovereign state under the official name of "Republic of China". They manage their own business independently of PRC since 1940s. As for Quebec, there is no declaration of independence from Canada to this end.Wikiturk (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Taiwan is not a sovereign state. Taiwan is the island where the Republic of China is currently located. The Republic of China has never claimed Taiwan as an independent country. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language of Kosovo

To be more precise, the people of Kosovo speak Gheg Albanian. This should be mentioned in the article. --Amazonien (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Kosovars speak the Gheg dialect of Albanian, but is the official language the same as the Standard Albanian of Albania (which is based mostly on Tosk)? Azalea pomp (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as far as Albanian language is concerned, in Kosova formal albanian language is the Standard Albanian, spoken also in Albania.Gheg Albanian is spoken as slang, and the same applies to north Albania. However, language should be referred as Albanian dispite the dialects.Piasoft (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Gheg Albanian is not "slang". I have stated I assume that Standard Albanian is the official language and probably the language of education while Gheg Albanian is the spoken language. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for 'Slang'. That is what I wanted to say Azalea pomp , just expressed my self incorrectly.:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piasoft (talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing history

I see someone has cut out the medieval history section about Serbian Kosovo. Is this because there is nothing to write about ALbanians before the Turks came ? Hxseek (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was removed because it was unsourced? Before anyone includes "history" or ethnic distributions of any area (especially a long time ago) needs to include academic sources. Azalea pomp (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was sources. I fear it might have been removed for partisan reasons. Not a big problem though, the sources aren;t going anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 10:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was standard to delete all unsourced statements? That seems very crude and really is un-wiki like... XcepticZP (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editportected request: update on Croatia's stance

{{editprotected}} Please remove Croatia from the following passage in Kosovo#Declaration of Independence, 2008, on the basis of this news item, one of many to the same effect: [22]:

Several countries in the region (Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Romania, Greece) are undetermined on or will not recognize independence at this time either for internal reasons or in fear of damaging relations with Serbia.

Croatia's recogniton of Kosovo, after Germany's yesterday, is imminent. In this matter, and like updates, please consult with the constantly updated commons:Image:Kosovo relations.png. --Mareklug talk 08:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The article you refered to explicitly states that Croatia won't recognize Kosovo's independence yet, just as the passage says. And maps from the commons aren't a reliable source. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave links above that show Macedonia and Croatia going towards recognizing, but I guess people prefer to bias them this way instead. NN 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please add the following interwikis:

-- Prince Kassad (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Regards, Ev (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proserbian history

Hey guys, History in this page, is uncited and certainly proserbian, read this (it is written in 20 century section): “Albanian refugees from the territories conquered in the 1876–1877 Serbo-Turkish war and the 1877–1878 Russo-Turkish war are now known as 'muhaxher' (which means 'refugee', from Arabic muhajir). Their descendants still have the same surname, Muhaxheri. It is estimated that 200,000 to 400,000 Serbs were cleansed out of the Vilayet of Kosovo between 1876 and 1912 by Turks and their Albanian allies, especially during the Greek-Ottoman War in 1897.[citation needed]“ It needs to be cleand up, until a source is griven. Do you agree? --217.24.247.208 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add a Further Reading section

Please add a Further Reading section with the following entry: *Malcom, Noel. Kosovo: A Short History (Paperback)), 1999, University Pres New York, ISBN 0060977752

thanks. Evenfiel (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please format this reference in the {{cite book}} format and re-enable the request. Sandstein (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there was such a format, because it seems that everybody cites books in Wikipedia the way they feel like it. I can edit the article myself now. Thanks anyway. Evenfiel (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Border with Serbia

"Kosovo borders on Serbia's Podunavlje and Podrinje regions to the north"

Why not just "Kosovo borders Serbia on the north"? Bardhylius (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Kosovo, an integral part of Serbia, is included in Serbia, borders Albania to South? Косовска Митровица (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the formulation with the regions is best because it is the most neutral description of Kosovo's position, without any implication one way or another regarding the territory's statehood. TSO1D (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. It doesn't stay in line with the description that the overview was given. The overview gives you an impression of the reality, which is an independent Kosovo. To oppose that in latter sentences by "trying to stay neutral" is a bit silly. You can't stay it's independent then it doesn't quite border Serbia. It's controversial. I call for the administrators to change the sentence to "borders with Serbia in the north" as soon as possible. Bardhylius (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Why not Kosovo, an integral part of Serbia, is included in Serbia, borders Albania to South?' I am sorry to say Косовска that that ship has now sailed, as we say. Having said that, I am not taking sides, and can imagine how a Serb must feel. But the reality is, Kosovo is becoming an internationally recognized nation. Even my own country, Canada, is not far from recognizing it.--RobNS 18:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Kosovo is Serbia! :) 89.216.135.2 (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KOSOVA IS NOT PART OF SERBIA AS A MATTER OF FACT!--Getoar (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, should the sentence "Kosovo [...] is a partially recognized, landlocked republic in southeastern Europe" be changed into something else, since some countries don't recognise it as a republic? (How should partially unrecognised countries be dealt with?) (130.237.227.61 (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Can't we just leave it alone? Whether that sentence implies any recognition seems to be left to the imagination/illusion/beliefs of the reader >_> --BirdKr (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

  • It is: "Kosovo borders on Serbia's Podunavlje and Podrinje regions to the north"
  • Change to: "Kosovo borders on Serbia to the north"

Bardhylius (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please I just want to remind everybody to distinguish the word Nation. "Kosovo is an internationally recognized nation" is incorrect. Note that Kosovo is an internationally recognized state/country. Nation is a broder concept and ethnic albanian Kosovars belong to the Albanian Nation. Piasoft (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Bardhylius's proposed edit is declined. This phrasing implies recognition, on the part of Wikipedia, that Kosovo is not part of Serbia. Given Kosovo's current contested status, that would violate WP:NPOV, as would recognition of the Serbian position. Sandstein (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the contrary. Generally there are many elements in the article that imply Wikipedia recognises Kosovo as independent, but in a more respectful way to those who don't. In this sense, I think it's wrong to follow that line and suddenly deviate it by saying it does not quite border with Serbia. In fact, the most WP:NPOV thing to do for Wiki here is to say that Kosovo is de-facto an independent state, excluding the North Kosovo which is de-facto under Serbian administration. Bardhylius (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive demonstrations

There are currently massive demonstrations in Belgrade, with a million people estimated, called: "Kosovo is Serbia". Can somebody put this in the article? 89.216.135.2 (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you create a proper account and do it then?--RobNS 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better to mention the protests at 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence instead? (130.237.227.61 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have an account, I was just wondering where to mention them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.135.2 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I put it in the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Can someone please check for mistakes? Much obliged. Superfan 410 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just heard in the news that the protesters number about 200 thousand, not even close to a million. Húsönd 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah , I heard that on CNN from the editor of the VIP magazine in Belgrade , somewhere about 150-200 thousand--Cradel 20:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to Kosovo's independence, but not necessarily Kosovo in general. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KOSOVO'S INDEPENDENCE

Shouldn't there be an article about the countries that recognise Kosovo as an own state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgcube111 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is, both the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and the countries that recognize it. The latter is known as International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. --BirdKr (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Declaration of Independence, 2008" the second sentences starts:

In a following day several countries (United States...

It should probably read:

The following day several countries (including the United States...

Henryhartley (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)  Done Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KOSOVO'S SYMBOLS

Could someone update the colours of the Kosovo flag. Officialy the map of Kosovo on the flag and the coat of arms is gold in colour not yellow.

Here are the links from Kosovo's state/national broadcaster.

Flag: http://video2.rtklive.com/img/flamuri.pdf

Coat of Arms: http://video2.rtklive.com/img/stema.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitech999 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded an edited version of the image at this location Image:521px-Coat of arms of Kosovo.svg.png. I am unable to copy this over the current version, if anyone can do this, please do so. Dn9ahx (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New flag of Kosovo

Flag of Kosovo
Flag of Kosovo
Flag of Kosovo
Flag of Kosovo

The map on the current flag image seems too small. I made two new suggestions which seem to be closer to the truth:

--Camptown (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the flag which the president and PM of Kosovo are holding has a bright yellow hue similar to the one used currently in the article.
see: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1zMRGritCtusBjGtSPaGxk1ef-wD8USBI2G0
also, there are other sources like this article on BBC or this, all of which use yellow. I suspect the version you have is a misinterpretation of the meaning of the colour Gold in heraldry. Gold (French or) simply means "yellow", not the actual colour of gold.
bogdan (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When it comes to the map/stars proportion, I guessed (are there any specific guidelines yet?) it should conform to the coat of arms. --Camptown (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and Serbia

I have put the following notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement:

The 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence a few days ago touched off (or reignited) a ferocious edit war on Kosovo that spilled over to Serbia, the reason being that some asserted that Kosovo was an independent state, while others said it wasn't. It is my understanding that Kosovo was already under Arbcom probation at the time (whatever that means), and that Serbia was likely under the same probation, because of earlier assertations along the same lines. Currently, both pages are protected for a week. I'm not at all sure that this was the right thing to do (I am NOT an admin, so don't ask me), and I'm not at all sure that a week's protection is enough (or too much, for that matter). What says Arbcom? — Rickyrab | Talk 06:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that out of concern that the Serb/Albanian/Kosovar edit war was getting out of hand again. Please stick to NPOV. Thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo will NEVER be part of Serbia

Can we include statement from Condoleza Rice and the U.S. administration that Kosovo will never be part of Serbia? 209.53.181.69 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a source for that statement, and find somewhere in the article where it fits, perhaps. Chandlertalk 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources for you. 123 Bardhylius (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, it was part of Serbia historically....204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't. Serbia occupied it in 1913 and from then up to the Kosovo war 1999, they committed various forms of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Bardhylius (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it is true, 1913 - 1999 (86 year) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piasoft (talk • contribs) 11:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s not true. Kosovo was central part of Serbian medieval state. Here is an article about Serbian medieval state from Britannica. Britannica: Serbia The Golden Age--Marko M (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes?! I see you want to get to historical arguments. So what before that ? What about before your mediaval gold age. Well if you want to refer to that history than read this modern history of Balkans. here Albanians are in the balkans at least 1800-2000 years before the slavs. I dont see your argument standing with medieval age. If there is any population who can have history discussions with albanians are only the Greeks, but certanly not the serbs!!! Piasoft (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend, are you telling me that I should read Modern history of Balkans to learn that Illyrians are Albanian ancestors. First, at the end of every article on Wikipedia there are references and sources. I can’t find any at the end of this piece about modern Balkan history. Second, with all due respect to the author of the text, he is not university professor of history nor he is known in scientific circles by his work although he holds a Ph.D. in History from Indiana University with a thesis on Habsburg foreign policy in Macedonia in the period preceding the Balkan Wars. For reference, First Balkan war started in 1912.

Let’s get serious. In the book “The Oxford illustrated history of prehistoric Europe” by author Barry Cunliffe, ex Professor of European archeology at the University of Oxford, there is no mention of the origin of Albanians although there are a lot of historical facts about Illyrians. No serious historian or archeologist would risk his reputation by supporting such theories. Now, I will and this discussion since, according to you, I as a Serbian am not in titled to discus history with you, obviously an Albanian. Best regards, --Marko M (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marko M, don't dig in a hole you've accidentally created. The proverb goes something like that. If you get further into history you will only disprove your claims. All the Slavs descended in Balkans in the 7th century. Albanian are descendants to the native Illyrians who were there since the Big Bang. And how come you never explain how there are 92% ethnic Albanians. Bardhylius (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is Revanchism.Its not proven anyways about the Illyrians.Megistias (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you referring to? Bardhylius (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

camp bondsteel

Please add info about this military base [23]

Since it is largest US military base in Europe and beyond, it certainly deserves a mention in the UN Governance section. Lakinekaki (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map status

What's the status on getting a two-shaded map? I can see how it would be useful here, and there's a furious edit war going on in Serbia over this issue. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please omit this remark in bold

"Several countries in the region (Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Romania, Greece) are undetermined on or will not recognize independence at this time either for internal reasons or in fear of damaging relations with Serbia."

The above bolded sentence fragment as an opinion and is not necessarily true. Some of these countries listed do not believe in an independent Kosovo due to entirely other reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvasecka (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy

I see Serbian arguments are treated as with no value at all, although they are stronger than all the others. Once USA, UK, France, Belgium, and 10-15 other countries recognized Kosovo's independence, English wikipedia administrators allow Albanian vandals to write their labels and maps, or personally do so. English, German and French language speakers forget that 10-15 countries they come from, and that form the major part of North America and Western Europe do not represent the whole world, and that Wikipedians shouldn't act on behalf of their countries, but on behalf proven facts. These are: Kosovo is far from being fully recognized in the world (though it might be in days to follow), big countries like Russia, India, China, Brasil either deny its independence and entrance into UN or suggest further negotiations. However, I can't resist the feeling that administrators here follow only what their governments and media say, making this not Encyclopedia in English, but English encyclopedia or, what is worse and more real, American encyclopedia. Just wanted to make my point for the edit history. Yours act are to be remembered as well, you should be aware of that. --Ml01172 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo really should have consulted with Wikipedia before they declared independence. It is was most unconsiderate of them. BTW, noone ever recognized this country but we still have a very detailed article on it. Meh.--Lairor (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Lairor! Cheers  ;-) --RobNS 05:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You people sound like lawyers. You're ridiculous. I just loaded the "Kosov[?]" page to look up a detail about its people, are realized at the last second that you would have tied the page up in so much petty hairsplitting that the phrase "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" looks dignified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.139.1 (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says in the article that it never was a country... So I don't see what point you're trying to make, no one is denying that the article of Kosovo should exist. Chandlertalk 05:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a national government exists, it's at least technically a country. So the CSA was a country, even though other countries didn't recognize it as such. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, "it was never properly an independent country", before you changed it. Chandlertalk 09:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's still POV. Recognition by other countries does not an independence make. The existence of a country, or a state, government, with institutions and people that follow them, and not other governments, are the essence of independence. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the unsigned comment "You people sound like lawyers." Sorry, I didn't know how to sign a comment, and just looked it up. And I, too, appreciate Lairor's comment.68.99.139.1 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Josh Knape[reply]

I believe Kosovo meets two of the requirements of a country according to intl. law
  1. government institutions - yep
  2. control of its territory - yep (with the help of Nato, but that's beside the point)
  3. internatinal legitimacy (ie UNSC approval) - nope
So, it really shouldn't be that difficult. Just say that "Kosovo is a country but that it's independence is not recognized by all, including Serbia, Russia, China, Spain, the UNSC, etc..."Osli73 (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is no reason at this point in time to treat this differently from Transnistria. Once Kosovo gets UN recognition, things will lie different, but at present, we really cannot within WP:NPOV treat Kosovo as a sovereign state. Let's be reasonable about this. Things look bright for the RoK, most of Europe will come round to recognize it by the look of things, and Russia+China probably won't care enough to put any of their weight behind Serbia over a rather unexciting minor patch of land like that. This will likely happen in a few weeks. Which will mean we can update the article in a few weeks. Our Albanian editors will just need the discipline to sit out the intervening time and accept the current "Transnistria"-like status of the RoK. dab (𒁳) 10:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about China, but they're rather obsessed with Serbia in Russia, and for a good reason. Remember, the Russian Empire basically fell apart after trying to protect the Serbs from Austrians. For the last few days the absolute majority of political programmes in Russia were dedicated to the events in Kosovo. And it isn't a tiny patch of land, it's roughly 20% of total land area of Serbia, and it's about the size of an average European minor in terms of population. If Russia has any principles, it will use all of its diplomatic power to boycott this Albanian-controlled territory, so I'd abstain from making such remarks. --Humanophage (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see Transnistria to be recognised from any country what so far as independent. Sorry but it is nth similar to Kosovo. Piasoft (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's also Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is recognised by one country. Alæxis¿question? 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the same happened for Kosovo in 1991. It was recognised by only one country. And since then arguments for its independece have changed. I hope all you guys are able to look reality, no matter how bad this could be for the Orthodox community. Piasoft (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the major difference between a country recognised by 17 countries (as of now) or even ~30 of them and a country that is recognised by one country? And there's also Taiwan recognised by 20-something states iirc. Since none of these countries is in UN now (and won't be there in foreseeable future) they all should be treated equally here in Wikipedia. Alæxis¿question? 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split template removal

I think that we should have the split template removed. No serious discussion about splitting the article is taking place anywhere on this talk page, just a few mentions that failed to draw interest. And I doubt that there would ever be any consensus on creating a POV fork of this article. Húsönd 12:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to a split and support the request for removal. gidonb (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Kosovo

What do you mean by "Kosovo borders on Serbia's Podunavlje and Podrinje regions to the north" in the introductory section? It is not true, Kosovo doesn't share borders with either of these geographic regions of Serbia. --George D. Božović (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Kosovo borders on Central Serbia, which I think is undisputed? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think it would be much more accurate to say : "Kosovo borders Serbia .(end of sentence)" ... --Cradel 23:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be undisputed that Kosovo borders Serbia, if Serbia says that Kosovo is part of Serbia? We wouldn't say that southern England borders England, or that England borders Britain, or that Canada borders North America. 86.165.211.143 (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I would be nice if someone can provide a sound file of the word "Kosovo" in native and English languages? I found only IPA thing /kɔˈsɔva/ in Albanian and /ˈkɔsɔvɔ/ in Serbian. --Manop - TH (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now, what does the Greek language has to do with Kosov[?] at the first sentence of the article ?!

PLACE-NAMES

A hotly debated issue has been the one pertaining to place-names in Kosovo, but little improvement has been done. Consider for example the name of the capital city, Prishtina. Its pronunciation is very phonetic if the Albanian spelling is used. However, Pristina has been in use in English-language media with the only reason to reflect the then official Serbian spelling Priština (pronounced Prishtina nevertheless). Wikipedia has been using Priština to comply with primary official use not the common English spelling. But now since Kosovo is an independent country, the place-names should reflect the primary official and popular usage (Albanian is the first official language in Kosovo). Therefore, I would truly appreciate it if there is an agreement for the move from Priština to Prishtina. Some have argued that it should simply be Pristina, since that’s used more in English, but before it was Priština not Pristina; it was Serbian not English, so let it be Albanian now. Furthermore, it is pronounced Prishtina in English to and it is very likely that English-language media will start using this form now to make it easy for their English-speaking readers.--Getoar (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP should follow the example of other major English-language media. Unless and until most of the major media (BBC, CNN, Times, New York Times, etc) begin using "Prishtina", we should stick with the usual, accepted, standard English spelling "Pristina". 86.165.211.143 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section is out of control

I noticed that no sooner was the protection on the page lifted, several users proceeded to immediately revert to a highly POV, pre-protection version of the History section [[24]]. The current version is written from an extreme pro-Albanian POV. I have never seen anything like it. Dardanians as Albanians? The "'romantic vision in Serbian culture regarding Kosova as the “cradle of the Serbian civilization'"? The "Serbian peril"? This is unbelievable. I propose restoring it to the version before User: Pjetër Bogdani modified it, which is the only neutral one. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should change the External Links. Why should there be pro-albanian or pro-serbian sites? We should remove all the links that don’t belong there, and classify them differently, ex. Government, History, Tourism, Culture, Overviews, News, etc.--Rinigjon (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The External links section should conform with WP:External links which states that a lack of links is not in itself a reason to add links. I have replaced the huge linkfarm with the portal (the most relevant link of all), wikiatlas, wikitravel, the UN Interim Administration link, one republican link, one provincial government link and one tourism link. That is all that is needed. Green Giant (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "PARTIALLY RECOGNIZED" is factually wrong

The term "partially recognized" for Kosovo is incorrect, because Israel is also not recognized by some Arab countries, and yet we don't consider Israel to be "partially recognized" state. Kosovo is an independent, internationally recognized country, whose recognition is 'contested' or 'opposed' by some, and fully supported by major Western powers (e.g. the USA, Britain, France, etc). Bosniak (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is such a misfortune that so many countries are led by crazy, anti-democratic leaders who do not want to see peace in the world because it's contrary to their chances to remain in power.--Getoar (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getoar, it's unfortunate, but there is nothing we can do. We have the United States and Western powers on one side defending freedom, and we have axis of evil (Russia, North Korea, Serbia etc) on the other side. Hopefully, good will prevail. God bless president Bush, God bless NATO, and God bless Western powers and Freedom. Bosniak (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is totally misleading. Israel has normal relations with 161 countries. Kosovo apparently has normal relations with 17, soon to be around 30 or 35. Many very large countries which recognize Israel have expressed reservations about Kosovo independence, including China, India, Brazil, S. Africa, and Mexico. <eleland/talkedits> 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
eleland, your comparison is rather humorous. You point out that Israel has normal relations with 161 countries, duh! Israel has been around for 50+ years, and Kosovo for a few days. In the next 50 years, Kosovo will also have normal relations with 161 countries or even more. I mean, duh!Bosniak (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, than "in a few days," Kosovo will be a fully recognized sovereign nation. There is no rush, and Wikipedia does not predict the future. Also, please watch your tone - that goes for everyone here. <eleland/talkedits> 08:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth mentioning that Israel is a full member of the United Nations, while Kosovo is currently not. <eleland/talkedits> 08:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
disagree. See the List of unrecognized countries - Kosovo like Taiwan and the Sahrawi Republic is recognized by a number of countries, but is not yet member of the UN and the majority of the countries do not recognize it YET. This is in contrast to Cyprus, Israel, North/South Korea that are practicaly undisputed and only non-recognized by special-case countries (like Cyprus-Turkey, Israel-Arab states, North-South Korea). 88.203.201.214 (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)][reply]
dude, gets your facts straight. Taiwan is recognized by only 23 countries, duh! Bosniak (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More countries that Kosovo then... And there are countries who will never recognize it because of situations they have with minority ethnic groups wanting to break free. Chandlertalk 07:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get you either, if I have a look at your user page you have a ubx with "This user is an atheist." in it, but use "God bless W" "God bless NATO"? You also seem to be from Bosnia, a country that hasnt recognized Kosovo, probably one reason why is because of the Republika Srpska might want som 'freedom' too? Chandlertalk 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop mentioning Taiwan, they haven't even declared independence. How can they be compared? You can't recognize a country that hasn't recognized itself as sovereign. NN 07:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't they recognize them selfs as China? Chandlertalk 07:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what nonsense. the Republic of China is a founding member of the UN. Their de-facto territory is the island of Taiwan. Compare the Republic of Kosovo to the Republic of China once it is a full UN member. How does the fact that Israel is partially recognized make it any less true that Kosovo is partially recognized? Israel has UN recognition (since 1947). Compare Kosovo to Israel once it has UN recognition. It seems likely that Kosovo will be fully recognized in a few months' time. It isn't now. dab (𒁳) 10:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo cities infoboxes

We should really find a consensus on how to display infoboxes on kosovo city articles .Should we putt :Country=Serbia , Province=Kosovo or just Country=Kosovo.
I think we should putt the latter butt not everyone agrees . Any suggestions ?--Cradel 14:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we need some preliminary solution showing "(disputed)" with appropriate links for the time being. dab (𒁳) 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the cities just be claimed to be part of "Kosovo", without specifying whether Kosovo is a country or a province? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

History

The history section is being added by incredibly POV and heavily disputed information by User:Dodona. We should protect the current neutral version. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

try to be more careful, you undid a lot of organisation work I just did. Also, the section on 20th century history is insanely long. Please try to reduce it dramatically, and invest some effort in building the sub-article linked. dab (𒁳) 16:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've done some cleanup. The "History" section still takes up a third of the whole article. It needs to be shortened even more. But the worst excesses are addressed for now, I think. dab (𒁳) 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be more on the controversy?

Seems to me there are massive controversies in europe about the fairness of taking a bit of another country and makeing it a new coutry, even in countries where the goverment officiall recognizes the new country there are political parties who object. The article seems to be very light on this area. --IceHunter (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really bother me. Kosovo is independent and will never be part of Serbia.Bosniak (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it bothers ppl who want to show all sides of a conflict, and try to keep the article as neutral as possible, you can just GTFO. Chandlertalk 06:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHY is the History section unacceptable

1. It uses constantly "Kosova" instead of "Kosovo".

2. It mentions a fictive Dardania to the 19th century.

3. It refers to a lot of info totally unrelated to Kosovo.

4. It deletes a bunch of info from the neutral previous version.

In accordance to some of the content which seems patent nonsense and wishful thinking, this is completely against Wikipedia standards. I see absolutely no reason why is the previous neutral version rewritten and recommend no further edit there, but discussion in here. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, it is highly romantic and POV in tone. Nonsense about the the Dardanians being "generous" and "hardworking" and the "Serbian peril" is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Dardania is discussed in its own article. At most, one or two sentences should suffice. I've brought this up in the discussion at least twice before, only to be ignored (see above). Will seek admin help if this continues. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a side effect of lifting the full protection... But I agree with both of you, the section discusses things not really connected with the topic and is occasionally POV. --Tone 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose that the proetection be re-instated. Current situation is out of control. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

calm down. I don't see any mention of "Kosova". The adjective "Kosovar" is a different matter. Let's take this slowly, step by step. The history section needs to be shortened further, and you can help tighten it towards relevance in the process. dab (𒁳) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contributions that are patently violating WP:NPOV should be reverted no sight (WP:SNOW). This is difficult enough as it is. Edit-warring throwaway accounts should be blocked on sight. dab (𒁳) 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only uses of 'Kosova', outside of the word' Kosovar', are either references to the Albanian language, or to the distinct governemnt of the 1990's. There's no problem with that that I can see. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first word in Getoar's version was "Kosova". This is not shortening, but insertion of Greater Albanian ultra-nationalist revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PPNjegos (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't there when I looked at the article. If 'Kosova' is a problem, it's one not in evidence in the current version, and the article should stay that way. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, current version is neutralish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PPNjegos (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralish is not a word I guess.
I changed Kosova to Kosovo to comply with the general use in wikipedia. I have far more sources than the current version. We can't overload this section now with data about ancient battles. As we come closer to the present we write more, I believe. Nevertheless, we should not repudiate ancient history nor the existence of a Serbian state that included Kosovo. A paragraph about the Battles of Kosovo should be enough.--Getoar (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAKE A LOOK AT THE EDITED PROPOSAL User:Getoar/Notebook. I've made changes to reflect your remarks and added some more sources.--Getoar (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like your version particularly. However, my biggest problem is found by tracking the history of Dardania, which miraculously all is now in one article about the peoples of dardania, and whose empire has shrunk, according to Wikiality, from a large area to JUST Kosovo. It's amazing how the borders reconfigured retroactively. I note that before the Kosovo mess, Dardania, Balkans explained that the dardanian empire was much larger, but now Dardani says it's just Kosovo. very interesting rewritings of history to suit a POV. ThuranX (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dependent clause in intro

I removed the phrase "as independent from Serbia," from the intro, where it read "Kosovo...is a partially recognized as independent from Serbia, landlocked republic in southeastern Europe. " This is a clumsy phrasing and needs work. Perhaps stating 'Kosovo broke away from Serbia." Or somethign to that effect. Dropping that phrase into the middle of the sentence it was in, however, was very poorly written material which seemed designed to almost taunt the serbian POV editors here. As such, I've removed it in the hopes that a stronger introduction can be reached. ThuranX (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is partially recognised as an independent country, and partially as being an autonomous province of Serbia. The wording needs to be very carefully chosen. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
NOT what I said, or was talking about. I'm not here to argue the idiotic POVs that are making this entire article a war zone; I fixed one lousy phrase which did not read well at all. I even suggested alternate solutions. Putting a dependent clause in the midst of adjectives like that is not good grammar or writing, that's it. ThuranX (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is disputed by...

"Kosovo's sovereignity is disputed by Serbia, Russia, China, Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Greece, Cyprus and other nations."

I find this very POV. Shall we also name that many countries that recognise Republic of Kosovo? Mentioning Serbia, Russia and Spain is enough. Serbia represents the "other" party in the dispute, Russia represents the major force (similar to USA) and Spain represents one EU member in a partly EU-handled process. Bardhylius (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is POV. Most of the world recognises Serbia and Kosovo a part of it so does Serbia. PPNjegos (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That comment sounds like it's steering back into a political fight. We need to figure out how many, and which nations, should be int he list of nations disputign the sovereignty as regards this one sentence. Serbia is covered elsewhere, so perhaps this should focus on the larger diplomatic recognitions worldwide. Russia has been outspoken in its' opposition, so I agree they belong. Why should or should not all the others mentioned be included? ThuranX (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good case for mentioning Spain as showing that "the west" isn't united, that the EU-15 aren't unanimous. There's also a good case for mentioning Romania and Greece because these are fellow Balkan countries (and EU countries), and one of them shares a border with Serbia, which shows that Serbia's neighbours aren't all against it. Finally China is important as one of the five permanent members of the UN security council. 01:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.211.143 (talk)
Then let's explain the objections of russia as a Serbian ally and memeber of the UN Security council and china as a member of the security council, since they have a political say. Although, can't we instead divide this up into sections under objecting states? Or put that into the article on the declaration? Perhaps we should use the para to shunt readers to that article, keeping this focused explicitly on the nation's history, politics and cultural identity, not unlike most other nation articles, avoiding much of the controversy now occuring? ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we should recognize that Kosovo split from Siberia Serbia and that both sides have claims to back themselfs up, and that the Russians are allies of Serbia. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kosovo's sovereignity is disputed by Serbia, Russia etc.", then I suppose there should also be a mention about "Kosovo's non-sovereignity is disputed by the UK, the US etc." (212.247.11.155 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm changing it to my proposition. Any complaints? Bardhylius (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double edit war on images -probation is circumvented?

Since protection was lifted as far as I can see a double edit war is going on with the images, once there is the edit war on which file should go to the infobox which changes several times a day and then comes the one on the images themselves which goes on even on commons where not everyone has an account. Why was protection lifted in the first place? And why is Serbia protected at the same time? Hobartimus (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNMIK

Someone forgot that those leaders are no sovereign leaders and that Kosovo is STILL administered by the UNMIK, that is that Joachim Rucker is its Head of State. PPNjegos (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruecker still retains some powers but he is not the head of state and has never been. He is only an administrator, head of UNMIK, and his powers are being transfered in large to the government of Kosovo. In about four months the transitory period will be over.--Getoar (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPNjegos, keep dreaming. Kosoo is gone. Kosovo will never be part of Serbia. Maybe in your imagination, but - of course - reality is different. Bosniak (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some Serbs disagree, they think Kosovo has always been part of Serbia. Let's agree to disagree, ok?204.52.215.13 (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL FOR THE HISTORY SECTION

I think that this User:Getoar/Notebook should replace some of the current history section. It has way more sources. Please offer your thoughts.--Getoar (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Yes it should , the current article lacks a lot of information that is mentioned here , and its not like we are making this up , there are the sources ,read them--Cradel 00:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Hi i Think your history proposal is good. it explains thoroughly the history of Kosovo from a neutral point of view and has alot more detail in it about its history than the current article has on it at the moment i think it should definitely be considered for use in the article. Gr8opinionater (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2008 (GMT).

Thank you for your support. I understand I did not discuss my earlier edits, but the history section was challenged for lack of references and verifiability, so I proceeded with changes and offered explanations in the edit summary. I have made significant changes and altered biased-sounding language.--Getoar (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Disagree
The version in your notebook is highly unbalanced and unsuitable in its current form. It is written from an entirely Albanian POV and tries deliberately to minimize any Serbian connection to Kosovo. Specifically:
1)The first two paragraphs about the Dardanians and the Roman emperors are completely irrelevant to the article. Dardania is discussed in its own article and furthermore Kosovo was not called Dardania until the 19th century. The etymology of Dardania is also false. There is no relation between Kosovo and Dardania other than a strictly geographic one.
2)The sentence about Illyrian culture being preserved in Dardania is also nonsense. The Slavs arrived in the 6th century AD and the article MUST mention this. It was indeed the cradle of the Serbian state, and this must not be in "quotes".
3)The whole second paragraph of the "Ottoman conquest" is also highly POV. It uses highly romantic wording such as "Kosovo was a typical redoubt of defiant people who fought against the new regime in quest for their national liberty". This kind of stuff has no place in an encyclopedia. It also is written as if Albanians were the only people in Kosovo and makes no mentions of the Serbs. In fact, Ottoman census records are clear that Kosovo was almost 100% Serbian at the time of conquest, and the proportion of albanians increased after each Serbian uprising and massacres by the Ottomans (see Demographic history of Kosovo).
4)Same goes for the next paragraph. Only Albanians are mentioned.
5)Way to much room given to the Albanian national movement.
I suggest you take a good look at the current version of the history section. That is NPOV. Your version is written from an entirely Albanian POV and is highly unbalanced. Not surprisingly, this is due to the fact that all your sources are exclusively Albanian. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the current article , isn't that a little por-serbian instead of neutral ?--Cradel 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is it pro-Serbian? Because it doesn't state that Dardanians=Albanians and have been there since the Big Bang? Kosovo was indeed the center of Serbian culture in the middle ages, as the innumerable Serbian monuments in Kosovo today attest. You might not like it but that's the way it is. The data from historical censuses is also undisputable. Kosovo was 99% Slavic/Serbian at the time of the Ottoman conquest. Take a look at Demographic history of Kosovo to see what I mean. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 98%. 1% were ethnic Albanians and 1% others. But by the time of 15th century Ottoman annexation, western Kosovo (Metohija) had already a sizable Albanian minority. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my sources are actually Russian and I'll be adding some more English ones.

Dardania should be mentioned because it’s part of Kosovo’s history. More information of course is found in the corresponding article. There are articles about modern Kosovar history as well and that does not mean that we should not talk about it here.

About the arrivals of Slavs, that could be included, but Serbs did not settle in Kosovo in the 6th century.

As to the cradle issue, that is how Serbs regard it and not how it is. The Serbian state was founded just north of Kosovo in Raska and Christianity in general is not attached to holy places like Judaism and Islam.

Furthermore, I talked about Albanians in the 19th and early 20th century because there's nothing important to say about Serbs. The League of Prizren e.g. is very significant to the Albanian history and was founded in Kosovo, but I did not call Kosovo the birthplace of modern Albania as some may prefer to call it. Nevertheless, the crucial points of the Albanian national movement pertain to Kosovo; it was established there.--Getoar (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1) About Dardania, User:Dbachmann answered you on his talk page here [[25]]. Don't pretend you don't know about it.
2) Slavs did indeed arrive in the Southern Balkans in the 6th century. That is common knowledge.
3) The ancient Dardanians, whatever they spoke, were certainly not the ancestors of today's Kosovo Albanians.
4) The large number and significance of the Serbian monuments in Kosovo (Gracanica, Decani, etc.) are indeed proof that this was the cradle of the Serbian culture.
5) As the census records show, Kosovo was virtually 99% Serbian at the time of Ottoman conquest and for several years afterward. The percentage of albanians started increasing with each Serbian uprising and subsequent Ottoman reprisals and depopulation.
6)Nothing important to say about Serbs? That is just your own POV. Although I do agree that the league of Prizren is significant in Albanian history and should be included.
--Tsourkpk (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He should have answered in my talkpage, not his. Sources mention a Kingdom of Dardania actually and Slavs arrived in the Southern Balkans in the 6th century, but the Serbs settled in Kosovo only in late 13th century (or 1190s). There are Orthodox monuments in Kosovo, but if you read what N. Malcolm, professor at Oxford, says then you'll realize it was not the very heart of the Serbian state (only the geographical center). The demographic issue was never solved, but Malcolm says there is a period when Serbs constituted a majority. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the Albanians came in and took Serbian lands by force or with Ottoman assistance. Don't forget: Ottoman census usually reflects religion (here Serbian Orth.). We could perhaps talk about 19th century Kosovo Serbs in a longer article, but they are not significant for this section.--Getoar (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1)Serbs are Slav, yes? Slavs settled as far south as Greece in 6th century AD, how could they not settle Kosovo as well.
2)How is "heart" different from "geogrpahical center"? The cultural and spiritual significance of the monuments I mentioned (they are UNESCO World Heritage Sites after all) is conclusive evidence that Kosovo is the cultural and spiritual heartland of Serbia. If it wasn't Kosovo, then why aren't these World Heritage Sites found in Raska or somewhere else/
3)The Ottoman census records seem pretty conclusive to me.
4)19th century Kosovo Serbs in another article (But 19th century Albanians in this article, of course)? What are you talking about? That doesn't make any sense. Both are relevant, so both should be mentioned. It seems that the very mention of the words "Serbs" and "Serbian" consitutes Serbian propaganda as far as you're concerned. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavs did not settle in all places they went through. UNESCO protection does not assert holiness for a place; meeting the UNESCO criteria does not lower the spiritual and national importance of e.g. Raska or Zica (the latter was burnt down and then the Patriarchate moved to Peja). As I said, the Ottoman census usually reflects religious affiliation; the Serbian state discouraged Catholicism (if repressed sounds Alb-POV). Finally, unnecessary overuse of the words Serb and Serbian makes make the article SPOV. I can’t talk about Serbs of that period because they did not do anything that amounts to the importance of the League of Prizren. Other articles may include more information and details, so Serbs could be mentioned.--Getoar (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Ottoman census did distinguish between Orthodox Christians (which most Serbs were) and Roman Catholics, which I believe most Albanians were before the Ottoman conquest. And the Ottoman records show an overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians with very few Roman Catholics in Kosovo in the years immediately following the conquest. whatever, we need to give this some time until a consensus develops. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, that is exactly what the current history section says:

Fully absorbed into the Serbian Kingdom until the end of the 12th, it became the secular and spiritual center of the Serbian medieval state of the Nemanyiden dynasty in the 13th century, with the Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Peć, while Prizren was the secular center. The zenith was reached with the formation of a Serbian Empire in 1346, which after 1371 transformed from a centralized absolutist medieval monarchy to a feudal realm. Kosovo became the hereditary land of the House of Branković and Vučitrn and Priština flourished.

This seems to be in broad agreement with what you're saying, and all of it is true. Where is the bias in it? It seems to me that you want it omitted from the article because you don't like it, not because it is inaccurate or irrelevant. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Agree. I believe Getoar's history proposal is better. It is from a more neutral POV and it also has more sources. I propose to use his proposal, and if there are disagreements we can address them by modifying that version.--Rinigjon (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The current lame section should be replaced. It is selective in time period and issues and has practically no sources. If there is doubt about my hardcopy sources, I could verify them for you. I reiterate it, the current version is rather lame than pro-Serb and yet both.--Getoar (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, it seems like some are actually thinking that my proposed version is going to be the unchangeable Gospel. I am proposing a new version, but all are welcome to add or improve as long as they offer sources and the points they make are significant.--Getoar (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vuk Branković and the House of Branković, History of Medieval Serbia and the various maps there show Serbs in Kosovo. BalkanFever 02:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Getoar, your history proposal looks good and there is no need to change. Also your point on the other who have something to add or improve show a lot that you are tolerant in many areas. --Zeke sq-N (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree More sources more neutral. Hobartimus (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It’s 5:1. I believe I can now make the necessary changes. And please feel free to discuss further changes. Thank you.--Getoar (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don’t think Malcolm is neutral nor are most of the sources in your proposal. You seem to follow the Albanian sources while you have no Serbian sources. And what’s your source for the claim that the name Dardania derives from an Albanian word? --George D. Božović (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the maps showing Kosovo in Europe

I think that the map



is more neutral than



Because the latter is more adequate to represent sub-national entities, like



Independent of any kind of opinions, the situation of Kosovo is, completely de facto and partially de jure, of much more independence than Bosnia's Republika Srpska. I think it is better to show Kosovo as a separate entity inside Europe, and not as a province of Serbia (which is not the real situation on the ground since 1999 and even more in 2008), IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epcott (talk • contribs) 05:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is more neutral to depict the specific geographic area described, regardless of claims of sovereignty. ThuranX (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the map history of the image!! after the second map was in the article someone attacked it in commons to circumvent the article probation and instead of replacing the image in the article that suits his POV with on of the many different ones that already exist he modified the image where it's not possible to revert it without a commons account. Of course this only resulted in the map taken down but the point is to really watch out when linking commons images, it's not possible to put them on your watch list and they can be altered even while discussion about them is taking place here Hobartimus (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Kosovo is now independent of Serbia.--Getoar (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to article

How does "Dardania" come from the Albanian word for pear? BalkanFever 09:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian pear=dardhë from that darda from that Dardania--Cradel 10:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a linguistics source for that claim rather than a bare observation of similarity of the two words. --George D. Božović (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Uncooperative editing

As a first step towards bringing back a semblance of sanity to the editing of this page, I want to impose the following rule, under the authority of the Arbcom parole:

Every edit to the Kosovo page must be accompanied with a clear, informative edit summary explaining what is being changed. In particular, every edit that is a revert, if only partial, must be clearly marked as such.

Failure to observe this rule (by any but the most innocent of newbies) will be met with short blocks as disruptive behaviour. Thank you – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561564_10/Albania.html#p79
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=193701559"