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 Beamathan (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 4 April 2008 (→‎The Infoboxes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Article probation

Template:V0.5


Purpose of article

If there's only this article, and not separate articles for Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (geopolitical region), this artice has to do a lot. It has to describe Kosovo, while fairly treating both the claims of the Republic of Kosovo and Serbia. Currently, it doesn't even come close to doing that. Despite promises above to the contrary, there are no dual-infoboxes or anything of the sort. The first paragraph is entirely about Kosovo and the article generally follows that theme.

The article either needs to be modified to address thoroughly the Serbian claims to Kosovo, or we need to redo the split with this becoming Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo describing the region.

Ignoring the Serbian view is not an option. Superm401 - Talk 03:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Republic of Kosovo has to have its own article because of the fact it has been recognized by so many countries. Wikipedia has never before not had an article on a state which has been recognized as independent by any number of countries, let alone 35 and, in particular, countries such as the United States, Japan, and most of the EU countries. It's quite possible Macedonia and Montenegro will end up recognizing and we might even see a surprise from Slovakia and Greece. The Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized state and has been recognized by a large number of nations so there should be an article on the Republic of Kosovo, but it has to be under that title, not under the title of Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously agree with you. But I just made a major edit that takes one step towards making this the article for Kosovo (the region), the Republic of Kosovo, and the province. I still think it favors the RoK viewpoint, and isn't going to work. Superm401 - Talk 04:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see a problem because I see so many people write "I think" or "I believe". What we need to do is see what the published encyclopedias, dictionaries, almanacs, atlases do about Kosovo. Wikipedia follows their lead. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right and also the English WP would be the only major WP that would not give infos about the newly born country when typing in "Kosovo", so let us merge and not split. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the English WP is also often the only WP with the resources to tackle dedicated nationalist trolling. Other projects will follow suit once we carve out a neutral solution here. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Bachmann, I think user Azalea is not a nationalist troll as much as I think you are not a racist troll and therefore you should excuse yourself for insulting others. --Tubesship (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mention or refer to Azalea. This article has been protected because of significant activity of nationalist trolls, usually using throwaway accounts, but some of them also posing as naive but bona fide editors. We will implement a neutral coverage of the topic per Wikipedia core policy regardless of such activity, it will just require some effort, and probably indefinite article semiprotection. No problem, Wikipedia has lots of articles on disputed topics. How, did you think, did we arrive at a decent coverage on the Arab-Israeli conflict? By just asking people to be reasonable and nice to one another? The Kosovo dispute is just a ripple compared to that torrent of dispute. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant what "published encyclopedias" do (as if Wikipedia weren't published). They don't have the same policies as us. Superm401 - Talk 10:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is absolutely not irrelevant, because if you contradict ALL of them, please make a reality check. Immiately, please! --Tubesship (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to realise that there is only one Kosovo, with one Government, under the ultimate authority of UNMIK. The recent declaration of independence does not change this. The only dispute is whether Kosovo is a province of Serbia, or a Sovereign state. (Serbia does accept that under UNSC 1244, it has no power over Kosovo, as the executive and legislative power of Kosovo is vested in the Special Representative and the institutions created by him, ie Government of Kosovo and the Assembly of Kosovo. The only right Serbia can claim over Kosovo is the right for the president of Serbia to be the head of state of Kosovo.

The reason why you need two articles for China is that, de facto, there are two Chinas, the Republic of China in Taiwan and the Chinese Peoples Republic, situated in the mainland. Certainly there is only one article for Northern Cyprus which Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is redirected to. Likewise Transnistria and South Ossetia have only one article, and these three countries have no international recognition, or recognition by only one state

To say that Kosovo, which the majority of European countries together with a majority of the members of the United Nations Security Council, recognize needs two articles, when the above three do not is absurd.

It is alos ridiculous to have two infoboxes, with the only difference the name of the name of Kosovo. 2007apm (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is the pro-independence point of view. It is one of two notable positions in a territorial dispute. Understand that Wikipedia cannot take sides in such a dispute due to its core policy. We can report your point of view, but we cannot treat it as WP:TRUTH. There is obviously only one Kosovo region, but there are two opinions as to its governance, one of them being the Republic of Kosovo (declared 2008). The RoK is an entity declared in February. Kosovo is a piece of land in the Balkans. Two different items, two articles. This talkpage may need a FAQ subpage explaining WP fundamentals, along the lines of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. dab (𒁳) 10:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Bachmann, stop instructing others in an inapproptiate manner but think why people like you are in a minority position. --Tubesship (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not subject to vote. Superm401 - Talk 10:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Telling the facts is neither against NPOV. Ask Jimbo if you do not believe me. --Tubesship (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mean "the facts", because government legitimacy is opinion, not fact. You mean The Truth, i.e your views, which you think are universal. Superm401 - Talk 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am disturbed that before the split people said things like "Two infoboxes, i don't care 400 infoboxes is FINE." (Beamathan) and "Merging together with Kosovo (geopolitical region) would be even better, it would make the article more informative." (Tubesship). They were saying it should be about region, province, and state; now, those who were against the split want Kosovo to be about only the state. Dbachmann said, "What we need is precisely one central article which explains the dispute without taking sides. This is Kosovo (region) at present, but obviously it should reside at Kosovo."
I don't see what is changed. If we're only having a single article (Kosovo) it has to be about everything, not just the Republic (as Dbachmann argued in his revert).
2007apm, if the only difference is the name, why do Kosovars not like it being called "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija". Obviously, it's a big difference, not just a name. Superm401 - Talk 10:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about what Kosovars like but what kind of info the readers of WP are expecting when they type in "Kosovo" or "Kosova". --Tubesship (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't have a "Reader Expect" policy. We have WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability policy. The readers will catch on; they're not as stupid as you pretend. Superm401 - Talk 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Again you are distorting facts as it is a fact that WP is made not for editors but for readers, this is the raison d'etre of WP, please think about it. This is not a world outside the world nor outside the reality. And accept, that the reality is not like you want it to be but it is like it is. --Tubesship (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-quote myself:

..regarding this matter. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Pax, but I don't quite follow your argument. UNMIK, the unquestioned authority in Kosovo per UNSCR 1244, did not make a determination on the validity or legality of the Kosovo Assembly's declaration of independence. UNMIK determined that their 1244 mandate did not oblige them to pass judgment on such a matter. If UNMIK had declared the declaration illegal (something arguably within its competencies to do), I can guarantee that Kosovo's independence would not have enjoyed such widespread and quick support from so many countries, especially in Europe and other places with a historic dedication to upholding international law. The reality is that neither UNMIK, nor the UN Secretariat, nor the UN General Assembly, nor the Security Council (the UN's highest body in charge of peace and security) has determined that Kosovo's independence was a violation of 1244 or general principles of international law. Either way, however, I'm still not convinced how any particular argument about the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence justifies splitting the article into all these various forks. I just visited the South Ossetia article and noticed that there is only one article, not two (i.e., one to reflect the Georgian "reality" and another to reflect the Ossetians' "reality"). The Republic of Kosovo exists -- some recognize it as an independent state, some believe it an illegitimate or "illegal" creation. I don't understand why a single article cannot accurately and faithfully address this dispute, including a thumbnail sketch of the various legal arguments that reliable sources are presenting in favor or against Kosovo's independence. Furthermore, I'd note that I have problems with the basic idea of a "region" called Kosovo. You don't have to go back for into history to see that the place now called "Kosovo," defined in its current borders, has not always been identified as a region with those same borders. Various Ottoman vilayet boundaries overlaped and criss-crossed in Kosovo, Metohija/Dukagini was often treated as a separate region and the three northern Kosovo municipalities were only attached to the region of Kosovo in the mid-20th century. Someone would have to do a better job explaining what the "region" of Kosovo is, since it is not a very neat historic category. Envoy202 (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's precise what I said - it pertained neutral. It decided neither to legalize the decision - nor did it abolish it - but left to UN Member States to decide on their own. Similar to the EU.
But the main point is that UNSCR 1244 is still in act. Which means that "legally" Kosovo is still a part of Serbia, according to Kosovo itself (the UNMIK). The European Union has drawn European Integrations plan for Kosovo - defining it as "Kosovo under UNSCR 1244". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 1244 is still in effect. But it is a giant, controversial leap to say that the fact 1244 is still on the books means anything about status. Don't take my word for it -- note that the legal departments of dozens of countries have apparently determined that 1244 did not present a barrier to their countries' recognition of Kosovo's independence. To argue otherwise, is to argue that these states, including some known for their exceptional adherence to international law (e.g., Belgium, Canada) have committed a mass and coordinated violation of international law. That's exactly what Belgrade alleges, but it's just not compelling. As for the EU, the EU also does not have a position on Kosovo's status -- it's another giant leap to say that this means the EU as an organization regards Kosovo is part of Serbia. Bottom line: the assertion that 1244 means Kosovo is "'legally' part of Serbia" is a minority opinion. Decisions on the article should not be based on one person's legal research, especially if that opinion is obviously contested and controversial. Envoy202 (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articel must have a same stuctur like the articel about Serbia. All other article must be putit like a article History of Serbia or other States. The history of Kosovo it startit with proclamed Republik in 1992, since thate time it was the war to be regotased from the UN members. The time from 1992 to 1999 is a time of Okuption.

You can write here wout you wount, but you are going to write about the Kosovo state like you write about Serbian state. And wenn you start to write the history of Kosovo, then you must take the time in witch the name Kosovo cames out as entrity (Kosovo Vilaet). The rest is not history of Kosovo, but the Parahistory (Pre-History of Kosovo) and this is meaning the history of the teritory. The rest is history of somthing els but not Kosovo (Iliry, Dardania, Rome, Bisantyn, Rashka, Sllav ortodox states, bullgariens, ortodox serbs and till new time SCS-Kindom, or what I know ).--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

This talk page is over 400 KB long. Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving of threads over 14 days old? Superm401 - Talk 11:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussions take longer , perhaps it would be best to archive manually --Cradel 11:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice if it archived threads where the last post, the last activity in the thread was more than 2 weeks old, not the thread itself. Don't know if that's how the bot is set up. Hobartimus (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archive of article talk pages are ignored by bots. I would suggest to take discussions that are resolved and just archive manually. Also, removing commentary will also help take down the size of this page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archive everything that hasn't been replied to in 3 hours, let's start over. Beam (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hobartimus, that is how the bot works (14 days from the newest time). I want to use User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo, specifically:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Kosovo/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 17
|maxarchivesize = 250K
}}
Manually archiving would work in theory, but in practice it's not being done often enough. Superm401 - Talk 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the 14 days is from the last post, I'm cool with that. Beam (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the serbs

You can not help your country if you traing to protect samthing what you can not protect. The only think what you can do, is to protect thate what yu can protect. Beliv me, Im specing from 100 years experianc of albanias. Belive the time. --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum, keep that in mind. --Tone 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag Discussion Regarding the intro: PLEASE give your opinion

I have removed the POV Tag from the article and sent Pax the following message:

Pax. I'm going to revert your addition of the POV tag regarding the intro. I'm going to start a topic in the Talk, and propose the POV tag. Hopefully we can discuss and change the intro (or depending on consensus not) and if it goes horribley wrong, than we'll decide to add the POV tag. It just takes away from the article too much for there not to be a dedicated discussion regarding changing it. I'm not trying to be an ass, come discuss it or hit up my talk page. We can do this, let me and you work together.

Ok so here's the deal. By removing this tag, I am not saying that the intro is Neutral or not filled with POV. On the contrary I am, in removing it, not representing an opinion on the intro. I removed so that we, we the editors, can discuss it.

What do you want changed from the Intro if you think it needs a POV Tag? What do you want added, taken away, or left alone? People who think the intro is just dandy please speak up as well. I want everyone who cares to give their 2 cents regarding the Intro. But PLEASE do not just say "I don't like it" or "It's not neutral." If you want something changed, added, or taken away, post an example of what change you are suggesting.

I say that if in a day or two we can't agree on the Intro, using facts and sources and civil discussion, than the POV/Neutrality tag should be put back on. But I believe that we can do this together people. Let us at least get the intro done between us. Also, please don't just put the tag back. Give the editors a day or two, than slap it on if we can't get anywhere with it.

It should have been discussed first anyway before a tag was added. Let's discuss it together than make a decision together. Beam (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro I created/amended we had just before the page was locked seemed pretty nice to me (far from perfect, but at least much better than this one). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go copy it and paste it here if you don't. That will be a great place to start our discussion, and check your talk page! Beam (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro section has just been marked POV. I will not go into what may be wrong with what it currently says but in what it does not say. All the intro is about reactions to independence. The intros of articles about countries or regions usually say more. I seriously think that we need to cut this part and rewrite it in a manner like: Kosovo is a (region probably) in the Balkans in Europe, this big, with this many people. Ethnicaly, there are ?% of Albanians, ?% Serbs and ?% others. The region has been settled since then, after that part of the Roman empire, Serb state, Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia, since 1999 under UNMIK control and then in 2008 declared independence as Republic of Kosovo. This move was recognized by ? countries (as of now) while some other countries, including Serbia, object and still regard Kosovo as KosMet province. Naming countries that recognized/opposed independence in the very intro is nonproductive, that's why links are for. So, any opinions on the first scratch? Trying to be NPOV and trying to sound like an intro. --Tone 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it important that we put at least a rough tally of the countries opposed and supporting the split. But, this doesn't have to be in the intro. What after the intro? Also, if it is in the intro I say we don't name any countries, just give the number (if anything). I'd feel it better if it said (in place of This move was recognized by ? countries (as of now) while some other countries, including Serbia, object and still regard Kosovo as KosMet province. )

This move was International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence objected to by Serbia.

Than, it really frees up the intro for other stuff. If the user is all about knowing what countries do what at that exact moment, they click the link. If they can wait until the next paragraph (or lower) we can give a brief summary stating something like

The declaration was opposed by Serbia, Russia, China, and many other nations, while being supported by The United States, Britain, and Canada among a total of ## countries.

Of course that can be reworded or whatever, but if we want a NPOV article I think we should spend as LITTLE time on the riff raff associated with the Declaration as possible. I think that's a good way to help us come to an agreeable article. Just stick to the facts, be as brief as we can, while providing a summary of what the reader would be looking for. Add links to further detailed articles regarding the declaration where applicable. Beam (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about This move received a mixed reaction from international community and was strongly opposed by Serbia. So we cover everything. Serbia should be mentioned here, of course. In fact, if we apply this summarizing approach to the whole article, we can in fact move closer to a NPOV article titeled Kosovo and covering everything. --Tone 23:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tone, I like it. I got a couple small suggestions, how about The declaration received varied reactions from the international community and was strongly opposed by Serbia.? And man, I am so happy to hear that you think we cooperatively as a group can make this article feature quality. Beam (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better indeed. Wording variations can still be made but at least we started anew. About feature quality, I have already expressed an opinion that this article is one of the tests for WP efficiency. We can make this article good, but on of the FA criteria is stability that is not applicable here the moment the protection is lifted. Anyway, let's try to do our best. What do you think about the beginning of my intro? I followed the pattern of some other articles. --Tone 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you need to go get that information that you just represented with "this big" etc. And let's work on it from there, ok?Beam (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of comparison, I looked at how the Britannica Online encyclopedia handled the Kosovo article introduction. They wrote: "[Kosovo is a] self-declared independent country in the Balkans region of Europe. Although the United States and several members of the European Union (EU) recognize Kosovo's independence, Serbia, Russia, and a number of other countries, including some in the EU, do not." I found that very interesting. Envoy202 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think our intro will end up better. That's a good intro for an article on the actual declaration but not for an article on Kosovo. We're going to mention the declaration but it shouldn't be the whole intro. There is an article on the declaration, which we will summarize after the intro, and link to it as well.Beam (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At firs we are here in Wikipedia and not Britanica, i you have forgotit Secend, the neutalety betwen editors and the readers (realty). With many compromises you have lost realty. And you are going so far, that you are presenting the reader 0,7=1. In Britanica and als were they have there rouls of presenting realty. Other ways we cane make a copy from other sorches and put here (with your logic). 3. They dident refresh they sides, or they have a same problem like english wikipedia with serbian propagander (mony).-- Your INTRO with insider POV is nothing without POV of all Wikipedia. This is meanig Serbian and Kosovo articles most be editit paralel.Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first paragraph of this section. Than edit your post, and make a suggestion with example or comment on the suggestions made, or how the intro is right now. Otherwise, you're not being helpful.Beam (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't remove a POV tag during an active dispute. I still believe this article (including the intro) should be about the region, not just RoK. The best thing to do is redo the split. It's been reverted, but no better solution has been provided. However, if we're only to have this article, it needs to cover everything (RoK, the province, the actual region). This is important because people are trying to delete (Kosovo (region). Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and think Beam had his good reason to do like he did. There is no POV in the article but you admitted that the article itself is your problem, not the info in it, otherwise you could point out what exactly is POV in it. As long as you do not do this, the POV tag should be removed. --Tubesship (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Superm, we're on the same page. One article about everything. It's a summary about the country/region. I say we link as much as possible to the more defined articles on declaration, political strafe, etc. Ok? Beam (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oks, let's have this done. So, what we have now as a proposition is approx this: Kosovo is a region in the Balkans in Europe, size of 10,908 km², with population 1,900,000. Ethnicaly, there are 92% of Albanians, 4% Serbs and some Bosniaks, Goranis, Turks and Roma. The region has been settled since Neolithic, after that part of the Roman empire, Serb state, Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia, since 1999 under UNMIK control and then in 2008 declared independence as Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës, Serbian: Република Косово). The declaration received varied reactions from the international community and was strongly opposed by Serbia. This needs polishing but first, let's see if everything we should have in the intro is included. --Tone 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend updating to the most recent population estimate: 2,100,000. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about two templates? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took 1,900,000 from the infobox but 2100000 is fine as well. The two templates are probably the hardest part of the whole thing, if you mean infobox country and province of Serbia template. I think both should be included somehow, if we want to have one article on Kosovo. Maybe lower down in the text? Anyway, let's focus on the intro first, one step at a time (hope this works...) --Tone 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Envoy202's idea of following Britannica, and reiterate Fut. Perf.'s great proposal of eliminating the infobox, at least for now, so the oversimplification all infoboxes represent doesn't stand in the way of writting the actual text. - Ev (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about: Kosovo' is a region in the Balkans in Europe, the size of 10,908 km², with a population of 2100000. Ethnicaly, there are 92% of Albanians, 4% Serbs, and the remaining 4$ is made up of Bosniaks, Goranis, Turks and Roma. The region has been settled since the Neolithic era. Since then it has been a part of the Roman empire, Serb state, Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia, since 1999 under UNMIK control and then in 2008 declared independence as Republic of Kosovo (Serbian: Република Косово, Albanian: Republika e Kosovës). This declaration received varied reactions from the international community and is strongly opposed by Serbia. ?????!?!?!?!? Also, two infoboxes isn't a bad idea.Beam (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you start mentioning "being part of" go in sequential order, you jumped from Roman empire to Serb than you go back to Ottoman than Yugoslavia. Since '99 it has been under UN control not UNMIK control. Also why don't we kill the Serbian/Albanian translation..why should the Serbian one come first or vice versus? Also just say that the DOI has received varied reactions and kill it there. If the viewer wants to know what "varied reactions" means than when they go to "INT reaction to 2008..." they will read about Serbia and Russia's opposition. That's my 2 cents Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't we mention what Kosovo has been a part of in history? Also, we list both ways of translation, who cares about order? I changed it on a whim. It can be changed back, but why? Does it bother you THAT much? Beam (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why talk about ethnic make-up? Also, probably Kingdom of Serbia or something like that rather than Serb state would be better. BalkanFever 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is Kkngdom of Serbia the generally accepted term?Beam (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On further inspection, it's been part of pretty much all these Serbian <whatever you want to call them>. Maybe just part of historical Serbia. "Serb state" doesn't make much sense. BalkanFever 03:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Beam, I did not say we shouldn't mention in what country/territory/kindom/or state it has been but I said state it in logical order, from oldest to newest.You said: "Since then it has been a part of the Roman empire, Serb state, Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia, since 1999 under UNMIK control and then in 2008"
I propose:"Since then it has been part of the Roman empire, Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia, than from '99 to '08 under the direct control of UN through Resolution 1244."
Did I mention anywhere that translation bothers me? You are jumping to conclusions, don't make assumptions just because my name is "Kosova2008". Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make assumptions about my assumptions. Seriously. If you have no problem with the translation than can we leave it there? Also, why not "UNMIK Control" instead of "direct control of (the) UN through Resolution 1244."? Beam (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • My suggestion:

Kosovo is a region in Southeastern Europe, covering 10,908 km², with a population of 2,100,000. The region has been settled since the Neolithic era, and has been part of the Roman empire, historical Serbia, the Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia (as part of Serbia) and since 1999 under UNMIK control. In 2008 it declared independence as the Republic of Kosovo (Serbian: Република Косово; Albanian: Republika e Kosovës). This declaration received varied reactions from the international community and is strongly opposed by Serbia.

It borders Central Serbia to the north and east, Montenegro to the northwest, Albania to the west and the Republic of Macedonia to the south. The capital is Pristina, and other cities in the region include Peć, Prizren and Mitrovica.

BalkanFever 04:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why are we discussing the intro of Kosovo (region) on this talkpage? I thought we were clear that this article discusses the Republic of Kosovo, as made plain by the infobox. You want to discuss the history of Kosovo, edit History of Kosovo. You want to discuss the region in context, edit Kosovo (region). dab (𒁳) 09:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, you mean the article that will soon be deleted or merged into this one? BalkanFever 09:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DBACHMAN (dab),we're probably going to have two infoboxes for this all encompassing article. But first we work out the intro. Any suggestions that you'd like to share DBACHMAN? Beam (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are we good with BalkanFever's version for now? Beam (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added our intro. It is of course still up for further editing. I have started a new section in this Talk Page to deal with the next part of the article, which in my opinion is the info boxes. CONGRATULATIONS GUYS! We have proven the doubters that we can do this. Awesome! Beam (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Area of Kosova

Up until recently it said 10887km2, but recently everyone is reporting that it is 10,908km2. Now the best source for this would be the Statistical Office of Kosova [1] or USAID [2]. We all know that the territory is disputed which is why there are demarcations with Rep of Macedonia about an area of 25-50km2. I think this article should reflect on the new information. Also I can't change the area in miles or the position in size right now it's 166th I think. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some land dispute, of about 10+-KM, that makes the difference between the numbers? Beam (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SOK says 10,908km2, the 10887 info came from SOK, you are right and the dispute is for 35-50km2 of land. Until that is disputed WP should

reflect on what is current which is 10,908km2. Kosova2008 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three projekts

We can go together with three projects as preventive task force. Other ways the Kosovo and Serbia article are not stable. The Serbs clean there propaganda at Serbian Wikipedia, the Albanians at Albanian Wikipedia. The first move is chancing the intro to both states and adopt to three projects. This it will take one week, if we have lock.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ups! For the begin they cane use for they propaganda the section of history or demography. (This candy of people are ill we can not late them without Wikipedia)--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease and desist. Beam (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this we need technical help to be protected only one section.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea what you're saying. "The first move is chancing the intro to both states and adopt to three projects." Huh? A certain degree of English fluency is necessary for productive contributions on the English Wikipedia. Superm401 - Talk 04:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three projects is referring to the SQ Wiki the Serbian WK and the EN Wiki. The SErbian WIki is 90% propaganda, the Albanian is more pro-Kosovar and the EN WIKI is at complete war. Kosova2008 (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Serbo-Croatian WP (sh:Kosovo i Metohija) also need to be checked for POV statements? (Stefan2 (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
No, it seems NPOV. And so does Croatian. The Bosnian is pro-Albanian. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't worry about what other projects do to articles unrelated to Kosovo. Only we can worry about our own house and our own affairs. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have right. But you are forgetting that this is project is not "your" house, but a room in our house WikiMedia, in witch is burning.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German wikipedia has more or leas neutral intro. They use the words with double meaning, witch sims that is "cooling people", But my personal meaning is : They say to Serbs you have right, and to Albanians you have right and is far from realty. --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-declared?

To begin with, I'm neither Albanian nor Serb and don't have any particular stake in these arguments. One thing that's always bothered me in this article, however, is the wording "self-declared." My question to the editors here is, why is this description even necessary? I mean, what else would Kosovo be? By definition, every territory that considers itself independent is "self-declared" - it's not as if independence is imposed upon territories to any significant degree. I can't help but feel that these two-words were put in there to make the independence seem even more illegitimate (oh no! they were ::gasp:: "self-declared") rather than to contribute to a reader's understanding of the text. - Toolazytosignin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.185.220 (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Declared?

I believe, in 1776, the United States Declared its Independence. Wasn't it self-declared?

the adjective is inappropriate to the very subject....It is a rather strong bias, solely attempting to use words that would rather illegitimize the statehood of republic of kosovo.

I am neither ALbanian nor a Serb. The adjective self-declared is misfit. Must change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term "self-declared" indicates an Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), made without the consent of the parent state and whose validity is questioned by some relevant parties. As mentioned above, this was also the case of the US in 1776.
The same term, or an equivalent, is often used in reference to Kosovo:
  • Britannica: "Kosovo [is a] self-declared independent country in the Balkans region of Europe."
  • The BBC's profile of Kosovo: "Kosovo [...] unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in February 2008. Status: Declared itself independent 17 February 2008."
  • Google News search.
Regards, Ev (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is simple to account for. I could declare Kosovo to be independent of Serbia. Which is different from Kosovo itself declaring independence. Beam (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's silly that the article reads "self-declared". Kosova declared independence, as in the whole entire country of Kosova. The politician's such as Hashim Thaçi who read out the DOI had a mandate by the people of Kosova therefore you can't say it is "self-declared". Here is some info about DOI,

"Declarations of Independence are typically made without the consent of the parent state, and hence are sometimes called unilateral declarations of independence (UDI), particularly by those who question the declarations' validity." "SELF-DECLARED" sounds rhetorical, I am guessing the POV editors are trying to push a "self proclaimed" agenda. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am no POV editor, thank you very much. How is "unilaterally declared" to you? Sound good? Beam (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again (guy who started this topic here). Unilateral makes a lot more sense, because that just implies (correctly) that they did this without the support/recognition of Serbia. - Toolazytosignin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.185.220 (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beam, I don't like "unilaterally declared" because that implies it was one sided. It should read DOI because it was a unanimous vote 109:0. Did the United States of America declare independence or issue a unilateral declaration of independence? One look at [United States Declaration of Independence] talks about a DOI not a UDI. I'm sure you question that validity of the DOI so you are trying to label it a "unilateral independence", that's your POV. Kosova2008 (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


of course the US "self-declared" independence back in 1776. The US are also recognized by the international community. While the American Revolutionary War was ongoing, we would naturally have considered the USA "self-declared" or "unilaterally declared" in the interest of NPOV. That's some time ago. The RoK at present has only partial recognition. Thus, its independence is "unilaterally declared", and not recognized by the entity it declared independence from. This may be different in another 30 years. If so, please come back in 30 years. Also, I find it practically pointless to debate with accounts named "Kosova2008" or similar. This screams "WP:COI pov warrior single purpose account". We have no use for such editors, sorry. dab (𒁳) 07:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kosovo self-declared independence. On the other hand, Montenegro's declaration of independence in 2006 wasn't "self-" for an example. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SO are we good on "unilaterally declared"? And Kosova2008, I honestly don't care about Kosovo, I'm intrigued by this article. I believe that a bunch of strangers from varying backgrounds and countries can make a NEUTRAL article about a very POV subject. That would be something! Oh, and the Continental Congress of the United States definitely "self-declared" independence. Britain sure as hell didn't declare it for the US.Beam (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to understand, how it is easy to understand everithing here: Propaganda for the primitiv people or children under 12-years.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hipi, what do you really want? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make a Serbian and Kosovo related article relevant to the Englishh people.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition by Taiwan?

I know this is a strong attempt to destroy the Republic of Kosovo. What a website this is...They added Taiwan..How about Japan, Canada?

Sorry, but Republic of Kosovo recognizes only one China. PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or later, I think we will cut down on the countries mentioned in here, since it will be too large to maintain. We have a separate article of what nation recognized Kosovo as a state. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should do this now. It is significant that the USA and some EU bigshots recognize it, and it is important to state the number of countries recognizing it, but it is pointless to give a full list here. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Kosovo article not Taiwan. You can open a souch section when Kosovo wount to be member of the UN.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapes in Kosowo

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/fry/

"In total, Human Rights Watch found credible accounts of ninety-six cases of sexual assault by Yugoslav soldiers, Serbian police, or paramilitaries during the period of NATO bombing, and the actual number is probably much higher. "

"Much higher" surely does not mean 20.000 rapes. Sorry, but the claim of 20 thousand rapes simply does not hold the water. The disgusting part is that those rapes were committed by both paramilitaries as well as police and soldiers, which speaks badly about Serbian discipline. Szopen (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can leave that out of the article, however there are a BUNCH of more detailed articles about the NATO bombing, which we will link from the article. I mean, maybe a line like "Atrocities were committed, see LINK for more information." Or however we can word it. Beam (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For souch things is article Kosovo War--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

ok, a lot of confusion and antagonistic noise comes from the fact that this is the article on the Republic of Kosovo residing at Kosovo. This has of course historical reasons, since it was the Kosovo article that became edited in order to reflect the declaration of independence in February. Things have cooled down a bit and we need to get the article scopes and titles straight. We first need to move this article to Republic of Kosovo. We can then decide where Kosovo should redirect to. There are three possibilities:

  1. Kosovo (disambiguation)
  2. Kosovo (region)
  3. Republic of Kosovo

While option 1. is clearly the most neutral, I suppose all three are arguable. Arguments on which option we should favour need to be based on WP:DAB and WP:NC. Please give your opinion on which option best complies with policy (not just "your opinion" uninformed by WP policy). dab (𒁳) 11:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to be a kind of a running gag as you ask every few days for the same thing? Again, no, no, no. Read this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Oppose_split.2C_move.2C_rename_and_variants and read this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Proposal_to_merge_from_Kosovo_.28geopolitical_region.29 and now please stop it, nobody can laugh anymore about this kind of joke. --Tubesship (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ts, we had a strawpoll, and the constructive comments were quite clear cut. Yes this page is being trolled, what else is new. I explicitly asked for comments informed by policy and MoS, which would seem to rule you out. thanks, dab (𒁳) 13:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my english is not perfect, so what do you mean with MoS and what with outruling? --Tubesship (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:COMMONNAME, I think Kosovo should redirect to Republic of Kosovo. BalkanFever 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does "Germany" redirect to "Federal Republic of Germany"? No. Was this answer clear enough? --Tubesship (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? This article is on Kosovo. Kosovo has declared independence as the RoK. That's it. That's all that needs to be said. I think Republic of Kosovo should redirect to Kosovo. For now. Beam (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly ,*sigh* -Cradel 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every week we have a "proprosal" to raname this article as RoK. It is getting rediculous! Of course, Kosovo, should be about the Republic of Kosovo. 2007apm (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO. You don't get it. This article is about Kosovo, which has recently unilaterally declared independence as the RoK. Get it? Beam (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections removed by User:Shanticm

User:Shanticm decided to remove my spelling/style corrections (diff) on 31 March, 2008. I have no idea as for why this would be necessary. Whereas he has contributed material (diff) it doesn't lead to him owning these sections of the article. (Shanticm isn't a vandal account, see for example this) Plus, a second point, saying "probably vast mineral deposits" isn't accurate, if some porcelain clay and low-grade coal are the major minerals. --Vuo (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... i do not like your "spelling/style corrections". And it is my right to dislike it... I will not undo it because i am less stubborn than you are. Have a nice day and please contribute to this article with some original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanticm (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A native speaker of English could re-check the style. Meanwhile, it would be helpful to show what exactly is not an improvement. Main corrections: clarifying specialist terms, separating mining since mining is not in the energy sector, un-capitalised common nouns (chromium, etc.) If these corrections introduce a factual inaccuracy, then it should be immediately corrected. ---Vuo (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Neutrality is impossible without a split

Right now the Republic of Kosovo is the only partially-recognized state which does not have its own article. If this article is made to be about the region of Kosovo and all information of the Republic of Kosovo is kept here it slants against independence because it puts Kosovo beneath other partially-recognized states implying that somehow the "state" of Kosovo is not equal to other partially-recognized and even some unrecognized states including the 1990's Republic of Kosova abolished in 2000. However, if this article titled Kosovo is made into the article on the Republic of Kosovo it will not be neutral because it will act as though Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo are the same thing when many do not consider the Republic of Kosovo to be the same as Kosovo, including some Kosovars.

So what we have is a clear conflict which can not be reconciled simply by changing the content of this article. Renaming this article to Republic of Kosovo would resolve part of the problem but leave another. If Kosovo simply redirects to Republic of Kosovo it will still treat the Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo as though they are the same thing, even though this is not recognized by most of the international community.

In other words something else has to be put under the title Kosovo to provide an effective middle ground, something which will not imply Kosovo as either a province or country, but instead as a disputed region. That means either a disambiguation page or a page on the region of Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You're very wrong, and this didn't need its own section. As I've stated repeatedly, the article is about Kosovo. Just recently they declared independence. That's it. What is so hard to understand about that? I don't see how people can't understand it. However, as a group, we will prevail and create a great article that is NPOV. I hope you decide to help us. Beam (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does need its own section because what has to be understood is exactly why there is a need for a separate article as there hasn't been an argument clear enough to point out how neutrality is impossible with only a single article. You don't even seem to be understanding the problem. Either we have no article specifically for the Republic of Kosovo degrading its status considerably in comparison to other partially-recognized states and even unrecognized states who mostly have their own articles, including the unrecognized Republic of Kosova which ceased to exist in 2000 or we make this the article and push a pro-independence POV against those who consider Kosovo to be a province of Serbia under temporary UN control, which happens to be the majority world opinion. If there is no separate article those are the only two possibilities for this article, neither are NPOV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, DevilsAdvocate, but I disagree with your conclusion. First, I'd note that the Republic of Kosovo exists. Some people may think it's an illegal creation, others consider it an independent state -- but it clearly does exist! It has a government, letterhead, a flag, leaders, and soon will have a constitution. To create various article forks representing different "realities" seems odd and inconsistent with Wikipedia practice. Note that Wikipedia has only single articles for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two self-proclaimed states that have nowhere near the legitimacy and international recognition as Kosovo. For of those places, "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" both display the flags and anthems of the self-declared independent governments, even as they report accurately the fierce arguments about the legality and legitimacy of their independence claims. In the interests of consistency, I don't see why we would treat Kosovo differently. I recognize, DevilsAdvocate, your good-faith effort to split the difference on this one. But I'd argue that in addition to being bad editing practice, splitting the article actually leans us way far toward an anti-West/pro-Serb POV (think of the whole Kostunica argument that the Republic of Kosovo is a "phony state."). I trust the collective wisdom of Wikipedia editors to edit and characterize accurately the Republic of Kosovo's contested status. Envoy202 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not recognized by any country, while Kosovo is recognized by 36. Only Western Sahara is recognized by more countries and if you look the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic does have its own article. Northern Cyprus which is recognized only by Turkey also has an article for it as a partially-recognized state, not as a region. All other partially-recognized states have an article for them as a partially-recognized state and so do most unrecognized states. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are the exception and most likely for the same reason this article hasn't been split, overwhelming nationalist bias.
Obviously articles on present conventions of Kosovo can all deal with the disputed status of Kosovo and in a neutral manner nothing will prevent that, but the question here is one of the scope and subject of the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Western Sahara analogy is false -- the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a government-in-exile. As such, its current existence is not tied to the territory of Western Sahara. It's simply a different "thing" and therefore merits its own article. Envoy202 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Western Sahara is recognized as an independent state by more countries than Kosovo and the government recognized by all of those countries is the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. It's not like the Central Tibetan Administration or Republic of Ichkeria which do not have any actual control over their claimed territory or recognition. It's only really considered to be in exile because its de-facto seat is in Algeria. Love how you and everyone else however ignore the glaring contradiction of the unrecognized Republic of Kosova having its own article while the Republic of Kosovo, recognized by 36 countries, does not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one article for Northern Cyprus which Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is redirected to. Likewise Transnistria and South Ossetia have only one article, and these three countries have no international recognition, or recognition by only one state. Therefore we need only one article for Kosovo. 2007apm (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument makes no sense because those governments being recognized by less or no countries would actually have less claim to their own independent articles. Also Northern Cyprus is an article on the partially-recognized state, not the region.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell facts aren't POV. We present the facts. That's it. Beam (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are not POV but how the facts are presented can be POV. The question is not simply what the facts are but the context and subject of an article. The proposals for having all info on the Republic of Kosovo in one article as a region when put in context of all of Wikipedia implies the Republic of Kosovo is not as legitimate as Northern Cyprus or Western Sahara. Having it about the Republic of Kosovo implies the Republic of Kosovo and the territory of Kosovo are the same, when that is actually hotly disputed among many countries.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get away from debating respective POVs and instead just one big step back and ask ourselves, "Does it make sense to create two articles to describe the same place?" You know, in the voluminous debate above someone asked a simple question, "When people type in 'Kosovo' to Wikipedia, what are they expecting to find?" I don't think they expect to find an article about a "region," as if that category could somehow be separated out from the historical and political realities of today. Furthermore, it wouldn't be nice to ask our hypothetical reader to click to another article just to find out basic information about Kosovo's governance and (contested) status. I think Abkhazia and South Ossetia are great precedents for just having one article to describe one place. Both of those articles talk about the history of the areas and the conflicts surrounding their current status. Heck, President Putin, who has always tried to link these conflicts to Kosovo, would be pleased if we used the same model! So, DevilsAdvocate, would you argue on those pages to create two forks -- one representing the Georgian POV and one representing the POV of the Ossetians or Abkhaz? I'm making this article totally independent of any POV and I do recognize that you're trying hard to find a good compromise. Nevertheless, I'd think that a Serbian nationalist and an Albanian nationalist could both agree that it's a bit wacky to have multiple articles for the same place. Envoy202 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this nonsense POV fork bullshit is really pissing me off. A POV fork is an article which is essentially a reiteration of another article modified to push a positive or negative viewpoint towards the subject. How is having an article on Republic of Kosovo in the same vein as articles on Republic of China, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and, of course, Republic of Kosova pushing a POV?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the "Proposal to Merge" section of Talk for why you are wrong regarding those articles you list. Please, think about it. We can do this. If we list facts, we can do this. We are going to work together, please work with us, or don't impede us. Thank you. Beam (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offense. I just don't think those examples you cite are valid. Republic of China is not comparable: you're talking about a separate government with a defined territory over which its governance extends (versus its territorial pretensions). Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is also different, especially since, as you noted, its de facto capital is not even in the country it purports to represent. I think that Abkhazia and South Ossetia represent the best parallels: single articles describing a single territory (even if its sovereignty is disputed). As for the "Republic of Kosova" having its own article, I'd argue that since that entity is no longer extant, then, yes, it does deserve its own article -- it's a historical artifact, not a government in existence today. I agree with Beamathan that instead of trying to create all these separate articles, we should just create one article for Kosovo. I'd like to restart discussion above on a suitable intro for that article. Envoy202 (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia and South Ossetia???? What is this??? This is a article about Kosovo recotnased as State from english spoket countries. For more "Abkhazia, South Ossetia" and other rusian point of view (opinion) go to the Russian Wikipedia ther you can finde "Kosovo i Metohia Pokraina" ;"Republik Akazia" etc. You are in wrong Wikipedia. In Russian Wikipedia the time is stopit yoi cann finde there thate what you are lokin for--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info Boxes - The next step in our Kosovo Article - PLEASE give your opinion

Ok guys, great job on the intro. If you have further suggestions regarding the intro please see the section that deals with it.

This section is about the infobox. I propose, along with DBACHMAN, and many others that we use two info boxes. One infobox for the RoK and one for Kosovo as part of Serbia. We are well on our way to the goal of a NPOV article on Kosovo. I'm very proud!Beam (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of people would support this but first the discussions about the split, merge, rename etc should be resolved. Hobartimus (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is solved with a consensus against the split, merge, rename, etc. --Tubesship (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really and truly believe that a merge is the correct action to take. I will just briefly say this about the merge: Kosovo is a place. An article about a place, a single place, should not be split because some serbians and albanians are whiney about "pov". I believe in the power of random people, and our abillity to create a NPOV article. If we stick to the facts, and present them in a way that a reader seeks, I know we can achieve NPOV. And if that is the case and I am right, than there is no need for a split article. Please also note that there was never a consensus for a split in the first place. It was all very recent. Those changes should have never happened. It appeared to be done out of desperation caused by the inability to achieve NPOV. We, together, can now achieve that with hard work. I believe that the Intro we are using is good, and encourage anyone who doesn't think so to please give their suggestion for improvement. My theory on the whole RoK is to say it happened, and then link to the article that specifically discusses the Declaration of Independence. This article on Kosovo is not supposed to be a minute by minute account of Kosovo. It's supposed to be a summary of the country, and provide the basic information one would expect. If we are brief and concise regarding the facts of the declaration, and link to where a reader can read about it, than I know we can do it NPOV. The intro mentions it, and and links to where the reader can find out more. If it was ok with everyone, I would leave it at that and never mention the RoK again in the article. But we'll see. Beam (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the good work you are doing. Thank you very much, dear Beam! :-) --Tubesship (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you just don't get it. Verifiability is irrelevant to neutrality. It is certainly possible to have a neutral infobox, a neutral description of independence, and so forth, but in the end it doesn't address the key problem, this article can not be the article for the Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo as a region at the same time and maintain its neutrality. It's not a matter of cooperation or "quitting" but a simple matter of standards. What message do you think it sends when the "Republic of Kosova" which was never recognized by any country has its own article and yet no article exists on the "Republic of Kosovo" recognized by 36 countries and the only article where it's brought up the subject is buried in the article? More countries are going to recognize Kosovo, I can guarantee it. The Czech Republic, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Lithuania are all likely to recognize Kosovo. Beyond that it's possible Slovakia and Greece will ultimately decide to recognize Kosovo. What happens if it starts gaining steam? What if Indonesia, East Timor, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Colombia, Bangladesh, and Armenia recognize Kosovo? If over 50 countries recognize Kosovo can this article still conceal the Republic of Kosovo as though we're trying to hide a crime? The more countries that recognize Kosovo the more this article will be pressured to change into an article on the RoK. It's not going to be fixed just by wishing it wasn't true. I also suggest you don't make such racist implications like only Serbs and Albanians would oppose a split, actually as far as I can tell most Albanians are against it because they want this article to be on the RoK.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Devil, there is no difference between "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo" as there is no difference between "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Germany", so please stop trolling as you repeat yourself the whole time. We got it. And you are not gonna change our minds by trolling. Got it? --Tubesship (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If and when there is a real world consensus we will address it then. For now the solution I present is NPOV and if based on facts, and linking to main articles when applicable, will work out nicely. Also, it is VERY important to realize that we aren't making a determination of the declaration being right/wrong/superfantastic, we will present brief and concise facts as neccessary and link to the main article on RoK, Declaration etc. This will provide the greatest chance for NPOV. Beam (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no main article on the Republic of Kosovo. I can't help but wonder how it is possible that you don't get how that's a problem. In 1991 the Republic of Kosova was proclaimed, but wasn't recognized and it did not control nearly as much territory yet it has its own article. The Republic of Kosovo is declared in 2008, currently recognized by 36 countries and you're suggesting we should hardly pay it mind.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Mr. Devil, there is no difference between "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo" like there is no difference between "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Germany", so please stop trolling as you repeat yourself the whole time. We got it. And you are not gonna change our minds by trolling. Got it? So just stop it. Now. --Tubesship (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support what Beam wants to do? He said he wants to cut down mentions of the Republic of Kosovo and hardly deal with it in the article. Surely you don't want that. Like it or not the only way to have a comprehensive article on the Republic of Kosovo as a partially-recognized country without violating neutrality policy is to have a separate article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again and again and again, Mr. Devil, there is no difference between "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo" like there is no difference between "Federal Republic of Germany" and "Germany", therefore all your sayings is so sensless, so useless. Please just stop it. Now. Immediately. --Tubesship (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tubesship, you may not have followed international news recently, but you may be interested to learn that there are no territorial disputes surrounding Germany since 1945. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Germany and I am aware of this disputes. Germany was not recognized by the UN until 1973 and there was the unification in 1989 as the wall in Berlin came down and still there are the "Vertriebenenverbände" claiming their real estates in Poland and so on... Every country has its shadows. --Tubesship (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fine, not 1945, I grant you. Still, last time I checked, Germany was a full member of the UN. dab (𒁳) 21:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, my examples were all after 1945 and here is another one: In 1950 the island Helgoland was even occupied by to protesting students, hissing flags there causing a broad discussion in Germany resulting in a parliament resolution in 1951, in which Germany demanded the island back from England: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helgoland#Nach_dem_Zweiten_Weltkrieg --Tubesship (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I'd like to address the info box, which has been an item of conflict for this article, and probably was a issue that lead to thoughts of splitting. I say we have a split info box that provides the common information shared by the Serbian Kosovo and RoK, as well as the differences in a neutral way, simply facts. Or if you can't do that in one infobox, than we have have two. I think that's the best way to do this, and have spoken with DBACHMAN (dab) and he gave his support. Tubbe, I believe, agrees. And I have seen others mention it, but not pursue it recently. What do you guys think? Beam (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up, where is this concensus? I wanna see who was for it and against it. DAB you took an article which was for Republic of Kosova and turned it into something completely else and I want to know where the great minds of WP came and agreed to completely destroy the article. The only reason why people would ever search "kosova" or "Republic of Kosova" is because they want to see ROK not this. Kosova2008 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be there a second info box somewhere below in the text with the Serbian POV claiming this state still as their region. Everybody reading this would realize how ridiculous this Serbian denying of the reality is. --Tubesship (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uh-huh. I am sorry, but I am not aware of any precedent using two country infoboxes in the same article. We can try a "neutral" infobox as seen at Western Sahara. If the articles are merged, there is no way the RoK flag will grace it in the lead, since that would clearly violate NPOV. We did a strawpoll, see #Options above. Out of 11 votes, only one supported a merge. And that was without explanation. I am sorry, but consensus is clearly against merging the RoK article with that on the Kosovo region. I submit, for obvious reasons: The RoK is perfectly notable and deserves its own article, but it isn't possible to equate Kosovo with the RoK, for reasons of NPOV. Beamathan and Tubesship, if you support "two infoboxes", which was option nr. 5. above, why didn't you vote for it? If you belatedly add your votes, it will still be 3 to 9 against this option. I can see a "two infoboxes" as a preliminary dirty hack at best. The people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries may want to have a say in this, I do not think they will be pleased to have their system messed up just because some people are skulking over a territorial dispute. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_%28geopolitical_region%29 there you wrote: "two infoboxes? I have suggested that option". Why do you distort fact? Ain't you instead supposed to be a "role model" as an administrator? There were polls against renaming, moving, splitting and variants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Oppose_split.2C_move.2C_rename_and_variants but there was a consensus about merging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Proposal_to_merge_from_Kosovo_.28geopolitical_region.29Honestly, are you trolling? As an admin? Why are you asking every few days the same question if you do not want to hear the answer? --Tubesship (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you must be hysterical, please try to pay some attention at least. I have suggested a "two infoboxes" solution, as option 5 in the strawpoll. It has received 1 out of 11 votes. The current consensus is for one RoK article and one Kosovo region article. We are now discussing questions of titling. Either contribute to this informedly and constructively or go away and write a blog. dab (𒁳) 09:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, why would anybody care what the wikiproject's "system" is with that infobox? The whole reason why we are debating here is that Kosovo, whatever it is, is clearly not just another country like all the others. So why would we expect that a standard infobox template would fit it? The whole infobox issue has been given far too much importance. Infoboxes are bad. Infoboxes give no room for NPOV, because anything that's in an infobox is easily understood as asserted in Wikipedia's own voice rather than attributed. Especially the use of symbols like flags in an infobox is highly problematic, because it can be read as what it clearly shouldn't be, a badge of recognition by Wikipedia. Therefore, I keep saying: take stuff out of boxes, and split boxes up. Not simply "two infoboxes" competing, but divided up neatly: one box containing only the neutral bits of information (like uncontested geographical info), one box containing only the info related to the political institution of the RoK, possibly another with the info related to the Serbian province, if there is a need for such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no consensus for removing flag and infobox. Neither flag and infobox are POV nor is reality POV. --Tubesship (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the point is that the "pro-independence" crowd wants to see a RoK flag at the top of an article called "Kosovo". I understand the sentiment, but it violates NPOV. We can consider a "neutral" infobox (no flags) on the "Kosovo" article (as in Western Sahara) and then do a separate Republic of Kosovo article (as in Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic). This is option 2 above. The one that got the most support. I really don't know why we are still discussing this, long after the possible options have been laid out and people have been able to state their preference. Option 2 is the most sensible. Anything else is puerile hysteria by our current pov-pushing "editor cloud". I know this is silly. Pissing contests involving flags always are. Unless we get some ballsy admin enforcing probation and clamping down on the hysterical pov-pushing, we'll still have to deal with the silliness. I seriously see no point in merging two article if that means we'll have to do some complicated "neat" division within the merged article. dab (𒁳) 09:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The independence of Kosova is a fact. Telling facts is never POV. Learn to live with it or... --Tubesship (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry dab, but that "consensus" for two separate articles, I simply don't see it. I don't know why your straw poll found so little echo (I wasn't around to vote at the time it was opened, unfortunately), but insisting on its results now doesn't seem very constructive to me. And I definitely don't accept the logic that concerns about infobox complications should count as an argument for or against merging. Infoboxes musn't dictate our article structure. First comes the article structure, then the box. – Oh, and yes, Tubesship, stop pushing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why we need an infobox at all. If it's causing controversy, get rid of it and incorporate the material in the infobox into the article. Moreschi (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, it's a double-bind. With the symbolic significance this infobox issue has been loaded with, the problem is, having the infobox will be perceived as endorsing the Albanian POV, but conversely: not having the box will be perceived by the other side as explicitly denying the Albanian POV, and thus as equally strongly "taking sides". Silly, but that's how it's currently working, Wikipedia is a slave to its own editorial conventions. That's why I think custom-made tweaked boxes may be the most useful way out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FuturePerfect -- Kosovo probably deserves a sui generis solution. I think we can be guided by non-controversial precedents in other articles: for example, articles on Abkhazia, Taiwan, South Ossetia all have their own infoboxes and display the flag of the region -- as we've said before, all of those regions enjoy far less legitimacy and recognition for their statehood than Kosovo. For that matter, France, Switzerland and San Marino (states with virtually unquestioned legitimacy) also all have their own infoboxes with flags. So, theoretically, even the "pro" and the "anti" camps can agree on this one. Regarding the flag itself, it's a non-POV point of fact that a flag of Kosovo exists (again, with some seeing it as the symbol of an "illegal" entity and others seeing it as the flag of a sovereign state). It strikes me as odd to not have the flag, especially since possessing a flag is not a defining criteria of statehood -- lots of sub-state and non-state entities have their own flags. Not having the flag up front is an unreasonable accommodation of the Serb POV crowd, all of whom would prefer that Kosovo fly proudly the flag of the Republic of Serbia... Envoy202 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look, there are several possible solutions. Yes, the strawpoll got buried in the ethnic trolling, don't blame me. Some admin should enforce order here, or sane debate is impossible. The five options are all possibilities I can make out. No viable alternative has been suggested. We may need a sui generis solution, but which one? We need to be informed by precedents. Look through Category:Disputed territories.

So, if the consensus currently tends towards option 5 (multiple infoboxes), so be it: I agreed this is one option from the beginning. This would mean a South Ossetia type of solution, with a "neutral" infobox at the top. It's ok, that's a possibility. If you think this has most support at present, why not do another strawpoll like a reasonable Wikipedian. You will note that South Ossetian Republic redirects to South Ossetia, and corresponds to a h2 section there. I would argue that the notability of the Republic of Kosovo is greater than that of the Republic of South Ossetia, and that because of that, there can be a separate Republic of Kosovo article instead of just a h2 section dedicated to it. That would again be option 2 / the China solution. So the question at present appears to be: do we want

  1. a China/Western Sahara type solution (separate Republic of Kosovo article with its own infobox)
  2. a South Ossetia/Abkhazia type (one single article, "Republic of Kosovo" is a h2 section)

Both are arguable, but I am exasperated that the pro-independence pov-pushers rally for the latter, which would actually give the RoK lesser profile than the former. dab (𒁳) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the motivation of the pro-independence editors, which to a degree I can understand, is not so much the iconicity of having "more profile" of the Republic through it being in its own article, but the iconicity of having coverage of the Republic inseparable from that of its territory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thanks for the links to the Ossetia/Abkhazia cases, I hadn't seen those. Just what I had in mind. That would work perfectly for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, fine, I'll say again, I have no objection to merging (Abkhazia/South Ossetia style). "Republic of Kosovo" will then be a h2 section of the Kosovo article. No doubt, as this article will grow, the "RoK" h2-section will grow very long, and then we'll branch out a {{main}} article per WP:SS, and that will be us back where we started ("China" style solution). If the pov boys really force us to take the long route, so be it, but I expect you see the futility. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see why it would have to become overly long. Most potential bloat sections (history, demographics, etc.) would be common to the whole article and hence not under that section; and the big bloaters about the current political issues ("international reaction to independence" etc.) are already factored out anyway. Only "politics", "government", "constitution" etc., and if those get too long, they can be factored out individually as is done with other states. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you are right. As I said, I do think both options are arguable. After all, both options have precedents. dab (𒁳) 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new strawpoll

ok, since the former strawpoll appears to have been ignored as too complicated by some people, let us make this easy. We have two basic options. Please see the discussion immediately above. Now, which option to you prefer? Please sign at the appropriate place, giving a short reasoning. dab (𒁳) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this poll is effectively doubling the current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo (geopolitical region). One might disagree that that was the most suitable venue for such a decision, but now it's been run, and its question was essentially the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it was a deletion discussion and as such fundamentally flawed. But of course, if there is a consensus to merge, we will merge, per Abkhazia/South Ossetia. dab (𒁳) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. one article (merge), multiple infoboxes ("Abkhazia" style)
  • per above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough of this, the community is giving a clear position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo (geopolitical region). Bringing up the same discussion is stubbornly useless and denotes ontempt for anti-split users. Húsönd 14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and enough of this polling. How many times to you want us to repeat ourselves? --Tubesship (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • we can do this. This approach is the most reasonable. --Tone 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the AfD: I think that one single, comprehensive article would be the option most beneficial to our readership. If having two [multiple expletives consored] infoboxes (or none at all) clears the way forward, I'm all for it. - Ev (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. multiple articles (split), one infobox each ("China" style)
3. one article per entity (split) and one infobox .

Clearly, in Abkhazia, the official government (which controls some of the terrority, has different people from the rebel government, therefore, two infoboxes are required. With Kosovo, there is no pro Serbian government, and ever if Kosovo wasn't inependent, its government (established under the Special Representative) would be identical to to the government of independent Kosovo. What info would you put in teh infobox for the "Province of K&M". 2007apm (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • One article, one infobox. There is just one country which has a government for Kosovo. Kosovo and Metohija has no Serbian leadership, because it exists just on the paper of the constitution of Serbia. It makes no more sense than to add a Norwegian infobox on Antarctica because they claim a part of it. bogdan (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • this is not arguable. Wikipedia cannot endorse either point of view in this territorial dispute, no way, see WP:NPOV. The second infobox is not for "Serbia" anyway, but for "UNMIK", which does have significant presence in the region. dab (𒁳) 06:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Bogdan. One article, one infobox is the best solution. --Tubesship (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • per bogdan --Cradel 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Somaliland" style is the "multiple articles" solution above. You will note that Somaliland redirects to Republic of Somaliland. the other articles are Puntland and Maakhir. This would correspond to three articles, Republic of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (UNMIK) and Kosovo region, the very solution I have been preferring all along. Kosovo would need to redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) for neutrality. You continue to ignore the UN/Serbian position as if it were non-existent. It is alright for you to support Kosovar independence, but you cannot on Wikipedia treat it as if it was undisputed. dab (𒁳) 11:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok I'm removing it but see that Somaliland doesn't redirect to Somaliland (disambiguation) but Republic of Somaliland, so if there would be three articles on Kosovo but Kosovo woulredirect to Republic of Kosovo , I would support that.--Cradel 11:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • you will note, if you will, that unlike the "Kosovo" case, there is no region known as Somaliland. Just historical entities, plus one contemporary entity. dab (𒁳) 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually if you see the articles Puntland and Maakhir, you will see that these articles aren't about Somaliland but about a region that borders somaliland seeking autonomy and an autonomus region inside Somaliland, so unlike your multiple article solution this is not the same case like in Kosovo where those three articles would all be about the same thing only in different points of view (WP:POVFORK).So the Somaliland style is actually a one article, one infobox "solution" not a "multiple articles" solution --Cradel 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, same as above. People want to read about Republic of Kosova. Kosova2008 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Dardania, Ancient Kosovo

If wikipedia can go that far, how come it ommitts an important fact that Kosovo was an Independent country in the ancient times known as Kingdom of Dardania? Serbs have no history in Kosovo. Make sure you also use some non-biased facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.211.13 (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this one. The first paragraph needs to mention the ancient Independent country of Kosovo, Kingdom of Dardania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichealSanders (talk • contribs) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source? If it's factual I have no problem including it in the list. Beam (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
relevance? This is the article on the RoK. You want to discuss Dardania, go and edit Dardania (Europe). dab (𒁳) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dbachmann above, Dardania is irrelevant to this article.Osli73 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NAME

According to the Wikipedia naming rules on articles related to Kosovo, Prishtina and all the other places will be changed based on these rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles). We've all agreed on this but no admin or such person of power has corrected any names (i.e. (S)Priština → (A)Prishtina). The MoS even says,

On the principle that self-identifying entities are named primarily according to the term that they use for themselves, and since anglicised equivalents do not exist for Kosovo placenames, local official placenames are to be used. In practice this means using Albanian names for Albanian-governed localities and Serbian names for Serbian-governed localities. In each case, articles must start with the predominant local placename followed by the equivalent name in the other language.

--Kosova2008 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, "Pristina" is an exception. In English, there is a well-established useage of "Pristina." Virtually all English-language sources use neither the Serbian "Priština" nor the Albanian "Prishtina." As for other names, I think the dual-use (e.g., "Ferizaj/Urosevac") is also pretty well established and should be followed. Envoy202 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Envoy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still I would prefer to see "Pristina" changed to "Prishtina" because "Prishtina" is not unknown in English speaking countries and it is the official name, here you see it on the governmental homepage: http://www.prishtina-komuna.org/ --Tubesship (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only times I've ever in my life seen the usage "Prishtina" have been in Albanian-produced documents, such as the Kosovo government page you cite. Newspapers, web articles, maps, etc. have very consistently used the English place name "Pristina." While there might be an exception here or there, I think "Pristina" is pretty well-established English language usage. It might be a little murkier with other cities (e.g., Pec/Peja or for that matter Obilic/Obiliq), but "Pristina" is different. Envoy202 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosova2008, that is a proposed policy. I don't think we need an official policy in Wikipedia for each disputed region. We have a general rule to stick at the most used terms in English language. We should apply this rule for Kosovo also. In Albanian or Serbian Wikipedia should be used the names most used in those languages. BTW, the independentist government of Kosovo recognized both Albanian and Serbian as official languages.--MariusM (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as in all laws will be made available in 3 languages not city names. Republic of Kosova only recognizes the names which it has given city/towns under UNMIK, this would explain why all Kosovar Government only recognize GJAKOVA AND PRISHTINA, not "dakovica" or "djakovica" or "djakovica metohija". Kosova2008 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for removing this article, completely!

I have been using intensively Wikipedia in last three years for my educational purposes, to get informed about things that I am interested in, even for fun… English part of Wikipedia is very important, since English is most important language in the world (this is just my opinion).

I read this article recently and started myself to add comments in a discussion, because I was/am unhappy how some events are described.

This article about Kosovo looks like articles about other countries that are recognized and members of UN (f.ex.Bulgaria).. It is applied the same format - layout . Very often in the discussion is emphasized: number of the countries that have recognized Kosovo (KosovA – however you want). Now that number is 36 and that is one of the crucial arguments that we should have article about Kosovo (Kosova) arranged as an article for an independent state.

In Kosovo’s article ca. 4413 words were used (roughly calculate by MS Word word-count tool) to describe Kosovo as an independent state recognized by 36 courtiers. Similar articles about f.ex. Slovenia or Latvia (kind of the same size countries) has ca. 4110 and 3388 words, respectively. Discussion provoked by Kosovo article has arisen to ca. 73101 words (over 16x larger then article itself) while for the other two mentioned ca 10000 and ca 4000, respectively.

Now we have in a top header invitation to merge Kosovo (geopolitical_region) into this article or section based on some thoughts of user bogdan, and again huge, good for nothing discussion about that. Maybe to propose the other way around action - merging Kosovo article with Kosovo (geopolitical_region) ? Kosovo (geopolitical_region) is obviously less problematic just ca 2000 word in the discussion section.and let's create more and more discussion. Do we want that?

Keeping such a problematic article as it is and in the same time proposing activities like merging away less problematic article with this one is nothing else but thoughtless creation of more and more useless discussion.

Here is one, quite logical proposal. Let’s remove this article and wait until situation become clear. I think, we can agree based on which criteria we can define a situation as clear: Is it Kosovo(a)'s membership in UN, recognition of at least half of the world (counting number of the countries or counting population), or you give suggestion...

Be smart and remove this article. Be patient and wait for the final solution of Kosovo status. Then make an article about Republic of Kosovo or UNMIK Kosovo, Kosovo-Albania or Kosovo and Metohia or whatever will be. There is absolutly no need for all this torturing and wasting time. NB! I will not defend or comment any of the comments either from proalbanian or proserbian editors, commentators, web-warriors... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.91.24 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but that's out of the question. We have articles on all sorts of territorial disputes. We need to be neutral, but we cannot just decide to not cover a topic. You may want to register and contribute towards fixing the problems though. dab (𒁳) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with 129.241.91.24. This is pretty ridiculous. I had thought that we could do it, but people are so very biased and unhappy in general that maybe not. Beam (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let me get this straight, you "actually agree" with the anon that we should have no article on Kosovo, at all? Of course we agree this talkpage is ridiculous. This is a case five bona fide editors could bring to a satisfactory conclusion within half an hour. But this is Wikipedia, we take the long route... dab (𒁳) 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I truly hope you don't think of yourself as a bonafide editor. Truly, you couldn't. Could you? You think you're part of the solution? You are maybe the #1 reason I feel like giving up on this article. You've argued the same crap over and over, and it's been refuted. How many more times will you bring up China? How many more times does it have to be explained that you're wrong and that this is different? Your insulting towards other people, including me, and then claim that 5 bona fide editors could do this? Not with you around they couldn't.Beam (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think as I have mentioned before is that Wikipedia needs to follow what other encyclopedias and almanacs have done. For example, Rhodesia had a UDI back in the 1960s and 1970s. Few countries recognized Rhodesia and it was not in the UN. It still had an article in every encyclopedia and almanac as the Republic of Rhodesia (at least after 1970). Its flag was shown with the other countries' flags. Rhodesia did not have recognition, but it had sovereignty. A case for Kosovo is even stronger than Rhodesia as it has much more recognition. The problem is that there is so much nationalism that a neutral article cannot seem to stabilize. How about everyone wait and see what the published well-known and sourced books do about Kosovo. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You pointed to an interesting point as you mentioned the souveranity. I already agreed that we might use a second info box showing Serbian POV but as Serbia has no more sovereignty over Kosova this should be accentuated. And of course I do not believe that Beam will really delete this article but this should seem as a cry for help. Especially against admin dab as he is really disruptive and should be banned, honestly. He as an admin even deleted my writings on my own talk page, he is an abusive admin and his admin status should be revoked at least, if he is not banned. --Tubesship (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop insulting people around (me, dab, etcetera), claiming they should be banned (especially while defending a banned troll yourself)?
Yeah, 36 countries recognize Kosovo. But you know what? 157. Kosovo's provisional institutions consider themselves legitimate bodies of an independent country, while Serbia denies it - which has the "counterweight"? Especially since UNSCR 1244 as for now still remains - as per act by which the UNMIK - the supreme Kosovar body rather than the transitional PISG - a part of the Republic of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to tell us with the number 157? Do you want to connote, that 157 countries opposes Kosovas independence? To prove you wrong here what I wrote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unrecognized_countries#Changing_the_heading : "Croatia for example is not recognized by Namibia, Burundi, Liberia and so on...". The answer I got was: "That a country like Bhutan hasn't gotten around to recognizing Croatia, in the greater scheme of things, doesn't matter too much. However, if they refused to recognize Croatia because, say, they recognize (hypothetically) Serbia's claim over the region, THAT would make it worthy...". The same counts for Kosova. Fact is, most countries are still undecided but that does not mean, they oppose Kosovas independence. Fact is furthermore that there are less countries actively opposing than acively supporting Kosovas independence. Get over it, please. --Tubesship (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)BTW, not 36 but 37.[reply]
I agree with Tubeshhip 100%. An encyclopedic article for a country is not written based on the % of countries which recognize or not recognize a country's UDI. When do encyclopedias and atlases come out? I hope we don't have to wait a whole year for the new ones to come out... Azalea pomp (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the text? His point is to compare the status of partially recognized political entities to fully internationally-recognized countries. And if such a thing is applied here, we should also apply it to other secessionist political entities. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop comparing Kosovo to Croatia? Croatia is recognized by practically everyone, its independence isn't disputed by anyone, and it's a sovereign internationally-recognized country. I already told you this. Also, the point in here is your continuous incivility.
Opposing or supporting Kosovo independence is irrelevant. Recognition and non-recognition is that which is. Oh and the number of countries opposing Kosovo's UDI outnumbers the one opposing it, yeah. And no, 36 - not 37. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am used to having blatant pov-pushing accounts rant against me and calling for my being banned for about, oh, three years now. It means I must be doing something right. You can't defend neutrality and be everybody's darling. dab (𒁳) 07:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 years now? I guess it is almost high noon. Do not be too proud of being so contested but be more reflective, please. --Tubesship (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do take criticism seriously. When it comes from veteran editors who know the game and whom I respect. Criticism from single-topic pov-pushing accounts is irrelevant, or indeed shows I am helping the project. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said this about my name, and I'm telling you not to assume thing. I picked this name because I liked it. 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs)

Constitution of Kosovo

All related to this subject, please head over to Talk:Constitution of Kosovo. There is an ongoing controversy over the article (Getoar has been introducing historically unrelated [at least to my opinion] info, and I have finally made him discuss). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Independence

The article says that Kosova declared independence from Serbia, which is something that has been echoed by the media. Could someone point to me where in the DOI of Kosova it says that "we are declaring independence from Serbia"? In the contrary Kosova declared independence from Yugoslavia which is why the DOI reads:

"Observing that Kosovo is a special case arising from Yugoslavia's non-consensual breakup and is not a precedent for any other situation,"
" We hereby undertake the international obligations of Kosovo, including those concluded on our behalf by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and treaty and other obligations of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to which we are bound as a former constituent part, including the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations. We shall cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We intend to seek membership in international organisations, in which Kosovo shall seek to contribute to the pursuit of international peace and stability. "
"Kosovo declares its commitment to peace and stability in our region of southeast Europe. Our independence brings to an end the process of Yugoslavia's violent dissolution. While this process has been a painful one, we shall work tirelessly to contribute to a reconciliation that would allow southeast Europe to move beyond the conflicts of our past and forge new links of regional cooperation. We shall therefore work together with our neighbours to advance a common European future."

The reason why the media has got this information wrong is because the DOI is based on the Ahtisaari Plan which speaks of "supervised independence from Serbia". The Assembly of Kosova based their actions on the Ahtisaari Plan but they declared independence from Yugoslavia, Kosova is the end of the chapter of the brutal breakup of Yugoslavia. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian conservatives

...Serbian Radical Party, Democratic Party of Serbia, New Serbia, Socialist Party of Serbia, Party of United Pensioners of Serbia and United Serbia are leading at all polls. They will likely win on 11 May and form a new government. This will be an end to all the democratic regimes that governed since 2000 and reached an utter failure, as it will include forces who governed under Slobodan Milosevic.

Kosovo is "instilling them" with power. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, do you want to write an article solely on the RoK and the Declaration with me?Beam (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is there a consensus on it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is Reachable

First, I have edited the article. I have not changed the Subject of the article, which until the merge is FINALLY done, remains RoK. I left the first sentence which leads off with "The Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës, Serbian: Република Косово), commonly referred to as Kosovo[citation needed] (Albanian: Kosova" the rest of the intro is now much more NPOV. I also did not touch anything else such as the actual line that states " This article is about the partially recognized Republic declared in February 2008. See Kosovo (region) for the region. " With that out of the way let me BRIEFLY lay out how I see this article becoming NPOV and about Kosovo as a whole, which benefits the reader most.

I will make an analogy, bare with me please. I'd like to think of Kosovo as a timeline. The purpose of an article about Kosovo would be a brief summarization of this timeline along with pertinent details that tell the reader about Kosvo. This most recent Declaration of Independence is but a small part of this timeline. If we treat this article as such we can do it in a NPOV manner. This article if made NPOV and encompassing the topic of Kosovo will not resemble the ideal solution to either proserb or proalbanian editors whom are biased. To me it is simple, there is a place called Kosovo. This article is about that place. If this place has a history of thousands of years than why would an article about this place have to heavily focus on the RoK or the declaration? It doesn't. I say we present the facts, and present them in a NPOV context. We can link to further articles regarding the RoK, and if there isn't one yet, than we can make one. The RoK should not dominate this article if we want it about Kosovo. If having two infoboxes is the best way to be NPOV, than we should do it. After the intro and info boxes I don't see that many obstacles for this article. Thank you for reading, and baring with my timeline analogy.Beam (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Note: I have finally seen that the idea to merge is approaching consensus, and that Kosovo (geopolitical region) is up for deletion -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_%28geopolitical_region%29#ATTENTION If this is the case than this makes my ideas including the intro and infoboxes practical and the right course to take. After such a merge is completed we would remove the first line and start with just "Kosovo." We could then address the infoboxes. Note: I tried to create Republic_of_Kosovo as a stub after I noticed that Kosovo (geopolitical region) is up for deletion. I am in discussions with an administrator. Beam (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the stub as a review show a mess of arguments and no real consensus. I suggest waiting until the direction of the geographic region article is settled and then move on. However, if others agree with the splits, go ahead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

since there seems to be emerging consensus for an "Abkhazia" solution, I suggest we can do the merge now. If consensus should shift towards a split again, we can still {{split}} Republic of Kosovo as a WP:SS sub-article at some later point in time. dab (𒁳) 06:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed a merge towards the "Abkhazia" solution. We have three infoboxes now, which clutter the article a little bit, and they should probably be editied as to avoid redundancy (we don't need three infoboxes repeating uncontroversial information like capital, area or population). dab (𒁳) 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion of the article is needed now to fit the infoboxes properly. That, or we get rid of the UNMIK infobox. BalkanFever 07:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why the UNMIK one and not the Republic one? The Merging scenario entails multiple infoboxes by necessity. This was why I was uncomfortable with it. You want to get rid of multiple infoboxes? Seek consensus for a {{split}} into one article per political entity. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What of the Afd that was ongoing? Should that be closed? Hobartimus (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. It was never valid to begin with. Let somebody who cares about protocol do the honours. dab (𒁳) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Let's archive most of this talk page to preserve some usefulness. Hobartimus (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a lot easier if people didn't keep inserting new sections at the top, messing up the age of the posts. That chunk still leaves the page gigantic but someone else should go through one and one and archive sections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[Italy], [Brazil], [France], [Germany] all have one thing in common, in their intro they all say the name of the country in english than in the paranthesis is the name in their language (German in Germany, France in French, etc). Why does Kosova has it in English, Albanian, and Serb? It is logically flawed. Also the intro should reflect the territory such as "latitude X and something Y". Kosova2008 (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Kosova? --GOD OF JUSTICE 07:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just type it in and you will see. --Tubesship (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

The flag and the infobox should be on top like in every other article about countries. --Tubesship (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, put it back. Kosovo is not Abkhazia. --Camptown (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After the threats I recieved from the admins dab and Fut.Perf. I decided to restrain myself but informed a Steward to care about this case. Let us wait and see. --Tubesship (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with this! Structure is fine just text is too long now… over 6000 words! Kosovo is not that important to be granted with such a giant text. I’ll give soon my suggestions about removing some pathetic parts.

sovereignty and recognition of Kosovo’s unilateral declared independence is still a problem. I don’t see why somebody who wants to be informed about Kosovo should see the first flag and the infobox about something that is not worldwide recognized and supported. I understand Albanian users like Tubesship, but you will have to wait till Kosova become like every other country, if become. To user Camptown: this is not place where you can put your thoughts “what is” or “what is not” without supporting with any reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IGøR (talk • contribs) 10:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits are illogical and dishonest. It talks about a region - which declared its independence (I thought the Republic of Kosov had done so). It messes the republic's infobox with the UN rep etc etc. It is not even consistent with Abkhazia, and Dab knows that, but he is obviously too influenced by Serbian nationalistic propaganda to act accordingly. --Camptown (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, editing this article takes too much energy right now. So I leave it for other editors to "play" with. And if you think that WP recognizes nations - Fine! However, infoboxes should not come in templates. --Camptown (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell? You just clamored for merging, and merging we did. If you want an article on the Republic of Kosovo, your position is splitting. Place a {{split}} template in the section "Republic of Kosovo", and if you can gain consensus for this, we can branch out a Republic of Kosovo article with its own infobox. That is the solution I have been advocating all along, getting ranted at by Albanian nationalists for it. Can you decide what you want soon? No, you cannot get a single "Kosovo" article that is in fact about the "Republic of Kosovo". That's of course what you would like to happen, but that's something that needs to happen in the real world first (majority or universal recognition), and only then on Wikipedia. This article as it stands is about the Kosovo region as a whole. The "Republic of Kosovo" and the "Republic of Serbia" are two entities claiming the territory. Both entities need to be treated even-handedly in this article. You want an article focusing on the entity "Republic of Kosovo" specifically? Then you are advocating a {{split}}. Now stop blaming me for a de facto international dispute, thank you very much. I have nothing against the RoK at all. As soon as it becomes a full UN member, or is recognized by >150 or so nations, I'll be happy to treat it as a sovereign country like any other. dab (𒁳) 11:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)#[reply]

No, we will for sure not wait till over 150 countries will recognize or till the UN will do so, because remember that even Germany was not an UN member until 1973 and that already now 70 percent of the world GDP producing countries recognized Kosova. And about the other countries not recognizing Kosova I had a dispute here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unrecognized_countries#Changing_the_heading and I wrote there: "Croatia for example is not recognized by Namibia, Burundi, Liberia and so on...". The answer I got was: "That a country like Bhutan hasn't gotten around to recognizing Croatia, in the greater scheme of things, doesn't matter too much. However, if they refused to recognize Croatia because, say, they recognize (hypothetically) Serbia's claim over the region, THAT would make it worthy...". The same counts for Kosova. Fact is, most countries are still undecided but that does not mean, they oppose Kosovas independence. Fact is furthermore that there are less countries actively opposing than acively supporting Kosovas independence. --Tubesship (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treating this article as just a normal country-style article with an undisputed normal country box at the top is absolutely out of the question. Tubeship, forget it. Your insistence at this point is pure disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it is undisputed. You can write this in the article. Nevertheless there are much more disputed countries that are treated in a country-style way with country box and flag at the top, like for example Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic or like Transnistria with no country recognizing them and no UN seat or like Northern Cyprus also with no UN seat and with only one country recognizing them. So is not there a double standard? Or what else is the reason for this inequality in handling this cases? --Tubesship (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that "out of question" - when was that consensus reached? --Camptown (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
back in 2000, when the foundational principles of Wikimedia were laid down. NPOV is not a "consensus", it's what you agree to before you even begin editing here. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, as you never need to agree to anything before you start to edit... --Camptown (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tubesship, you have two options: have an article about the Republic of Kosovo ostensibly. This is what I supported and what you ranted against. Or an article about Kosovo in general, for which the 2008 declaration of independence is just a minor recentism. Choose, but be aware that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Choose an article's scope, and then stick to that scope. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not tell me what I have to do, please. Especially after being so disruptive about this article. I would prefer if you would stay far away from ethnical related articles. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked that before. Unfailingly by nationalist trolls, who would like to turn this into Armeno-pedia, Assyro-pedia, Hindutva-pedia, or, as it happens, Albano-pedia. Sorry, wrong project. Incidentially, this isn't even an "ethnical related article" at all. dab (𒁳) 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I not only "would prefer" you, Tubesship, to stay away, but I'm getting ever closer to the point where I definitely will get you to stay away. You are aware of the article probation as well as WP:MOSMAC, right? I have a feeling a topic ban for a couple of weeks is waiting around the corner. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know there are 2 different spots on earth called Macedonia, one inside Greece and one called FYROM? --Tubesship (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's somehow relevant to the point, you apparently haven't understood anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion before and everybody agreed that Macedonia cannot be compared to Kosova and that is why we decided not to use a disambiguation page in Kosova like in Macedonia. --Tubesship (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, sorry, I meant ARBMAC, not MOSMAC... Read that one. Wasn't meant to be a point about content, but a rather blunt hint with the cluetrout. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content is what counts. And what is a cluetrout? Not even Oxfords dictionary knows... --Tubesship (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TROUT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, sorry, I meant... never mind, Douglas Adams would say: Thanks For All the Fish. --Tubesship (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This layout seems good. I wondered why Abkhazian model wasn't used before. It shows all sides without favoring any (some suggested to include only republic or just geographic calling it the only relevant respecitvely but that's POV taking and shouldn't be considered).--Avala (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV shift

Ok, I woke up this morning to an article that had references to the Republic of Kosovo as mere decoration. NPOV doesn't mean that we have to shun disputed content. The Republic of Kosovo was by far the most relevant infobox and should've stayed at the top. Húsönd 12:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hm, I thought you wanted to merge this into an article on the region in general, Abkhasia style? The most relevant infobox is at the top, the ones further down merely contain the disputed items (flags, government, etc.). The majority position is that Kosovo is autonomous within Serbia. A notable minority position is that Kosovo is an independent republic. See WP:WEIGHT for how to deal with this situation. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually, I barely noticed Abkhasia. My position there was for the merger, not specifically Abkhasia. I'll strike it to avoid confusion. Kosovo is a de facto independent, de jure recognized as such by many countries. I dispute that a simple region infobox would be more relevant than the Republic's. But, I won't make a fuss out of it. The important thing is to keep this article NPOV. Húsönd 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you've got it. de jure recognized by 36 countries, not recognized by 156 countries. A.k.a. "partially recognized". It's a dispute. Is it true you are a Wikipedia admin? You must have heard of the concept of Wikipedia not taking sides in disputes. I am sorry to be forced to defend the Russian/Serbian pov here. I would defend the US/Albanian one just as much if this talkpage happened to be flooded by Serbian instead of Albanian trolls. For some reason, there is an eerie silence on that front. dab (𒁳) 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following your above comment I shall henceforth refrain from engaging in a discussion with you on this matter. I have a strict policy against feeding the trolls and I open no exceptions to admins. Húsönd 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Husond, you've pretty much almost ruined the article single handedly, but the Good News is that Tube will love you. Beam (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be jealous! *LOL* --Tubesship (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) BTW: If you have to shorten my name you better say "Ship" like in "Shiptar". ;-)[reply]

How convenient is it to just strike stuff out after the article has been merged? What a joke. Beam (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I barely edit the article, how did I almost ruin it? Húsönd 02:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exaggerations aside you're not helping.Beam (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kosova

Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) should be merged with Kosova. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why? it's a historical entity. We don't merge Ottoman Kosovo, do we. Try to be reasonable. dab (𒁳) 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Bachmann, I am reasonable and therefore I will tell you the difference: Ottoman Kosovo is not the same when you look at the map, but Republic of Kosova (1990–2000) is located at the very same spot. And by the way, as administrator Husond already said: "dab will you please stop making such ludicrous accusations? The way you are contesting everyone is hardly worthy of an admin.", here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kosovo_%28geopolitical_region%29 Please do what he said and restrain from saying I am not reasonable. This is not good for the atmosphere here.--Tubesship (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we can discuss the merge suggestion at Talk:Republic of Kosova (1990–2000). Clearly, if there is a merge, it needs to be merged into the most pertinent super-topic. dab (𒁳) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insert Picture

Some vandal deleted this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VeshjeKombetare.JPG and the section about culture in the other article before merging. Please reinsert. Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Some of Those who stood by me in making this Merge happen:

What are you doing? What happened to NPOV? Did you only want this merge to allow your own POV to occur?

We need to work together. This will not work out to your own personal bias. Many of the things I suggested, and BASED my argument for merge on are now seemingly forgotten. I fought very hard believing that this article would be more neutral. That it didn't' make sense to have an article on Kosovo be split. After all it is just one country and we're talking it about in one time line. This whole RoK thing happened within the last year. Yes I know that independence has been pursued for years. I get it. This is a summary of Kosovo. If this whole article is on Kosovo, how much needs to be on the RoK? Beam (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1. one article (merge), multiple infoboxes ("Abkhazia" style)

So after the merge is done you switch your opinions? The only person who didn't out of those above is tone. I'm sorry to go on about this, but I'm almost disgusted. Beam (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merger should be done by the AfD's closing admin. The article I discovered this morning has nothing to do with the NPOV article I defend. Húsönd 16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
any "npov" revision you can point to? Article merges aren't done at afd, I am appalled you can be an admin without even a basic grasp of Wikipedia procedure. The issue was with WP:CFORK. There is nothing at WP:DEL that would remotely justify deletion of an article on the Kosovo region. We decide to merge things, fine, nothing to do with AfD. We don't delete forks, we merge them. Can you at least WP:AGF and recognize that I doing my best in helping maintain NPOV in the face of adversity? I have no idea why you keep suggesting the RoK is "more notable" than UNMIK. Both sides of the dispute have comparable notability, and you would be hard put to establish that one is more "important" or "correct" than the other. dab (𒁳) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily assume good faith and recognize that you're doing your best in helping maintain NPOV, but frankly I don't think you're helping at all. Accusing me of not knowing procedures and be an unworthy admin won't help either. In my view, we simply disagree. Accusing an admin of not knowing the basics because of different opinions probably tells more about you than about me. As for the comparable notability of the two sides, I also disagree. The Republic of Kosovo is more relevant because it's the only de facto entity, whereas the Serbian province only has partial de jure recognition. It is the republic that has actual control over the territory and therefore its infobox should be at the top. The Serbian province one is nothing more than a political dispute. It should by all means be there, but I don't think that it has more importance than the Republic of Kosovo's. Húsönd 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second, dab was comparing RoK with UNMIK not with the Serbian province. UNMIK is very much a "de facto" entity, actually a good deal more than the RoK. But that said, I agree that we ought to be dealing with this in a spirit of mutual AGF. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Husond is right, especially as Kosova has now been granted similar status like Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, they are all officially recognised as potential candidates for an EU accession. [3] [4] --Tubesship (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one has to recheck the European Commission for Enlargement documents. While Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey are called by their respective names (except "FYROM" for RoM), Kosovo is called specifically "Kosovo under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244" always. This clearly separates it from the other European integration processes, as UNSCR 1244 makes Kosovo a part of the Republic of Serbia. And regarding how the EU interprets the resolution and the acts, see the Kosovo under UNSCR 1244 entry on its website and its political profile, where it's clearly defined as a part of Serbia. Yet another thing we should have on our mind is the Stabilization and Association Process treaty that has been initiated with Serbia, which also includes that Serbia's southern province [Kosovo] is under UNMIK administration, so that it doesn't directly refer to it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, I'd urge caution. You repeated two statements above that are both demonstrably POV. First, you said, "UNSCR 1244 makes Kosovo a part of the Republic of Serbia." As you know and we can observe from current events, this is nowhere near a universally accepted proposition! Furthermore, you implied that the EU, through its SAA process, was somehow expressing an opinion on Kosovo's status. If you'll recall, on February 18 EU Foreign Ministers issued a statement saying explicitly that responding to Kosovo's declaration of independence was a matter for member states; now that nearly 3/4 of the EU has recognized, it's pretty clear that there is no "EU position" that can be cited in this discussion. Envoy202 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No understatement necessary, after nearly 3/4 of the EU has recognized one can say that the EU position is rather pro than contra independence. So the claiming of an contra position of the EU is quite ridiculous and this interpretation is far from reality. --Tubesship (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely what I mean. The EU left the decision to its member states. As an international program for European Integrations, it doesn't observe Kosovo as an independent country from Serbia - because no compromise has been reached on that issue. Yes, majority of EU member states recognize Kosovo - but that still doesn't change the fact that EU does not deal with such matters, that's for the UN. Don't get me wrong (either of you two), but if you find something wrong, go and write to the European Commission for Enlargement so that they change it. ;)
Envoy202, please let me quote article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia:
..now you don't expect that some scientist could clone a man and then claim that there is no universally accepted proposition in the Serbian state, so that he cannot be really blamed for that which he did.
But even this is irrelevant. Like I wrote to the up, I knew someone could come and claim something like that, so I supplemented the links which evidently depict the interpretation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 by the European Commission for Enlargement, in regards to the "Kosovo under UNSCR 1244" entity which is a potential candidate for European integrations. In the end, I'd also like to add that European Integrations have started even before 2005, of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo separately, as a compromise of then's authorities of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro - so a separate process from that of Serbia's actually relates to this, and not the recent actions (Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, or even Montenegro's secession). In the end I'd also like to remind that the SAP treaty initiated with Serbia relates to Kosovo as a part of it (though under UNMIK administration). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with Husond on one part, the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government [that consider the Republic of Kosovo an independent country] aren't the true "controller" of Kosovo, but the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo is [which considers it a part of the Republic of Serbia]. This makes the situation clearly separate from those of Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossettia or North Cyprus, because those separatist entities have control and fulfill de fact sovereignty and independence over their claimed territory. The situation of Kosovo is far more similar to the one East Timor was under a very similar international UN-mandated governing. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the deletion discussion as a merge, since the consensus seemed to have been moving towards this option and the merge was in fact completed today. IMO, the article looks much better now but we should not give hands up. The most constructive way to work on this article is to have all the comments here, not on various afd pages. Great work, everyone. --Tone 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beam, while you do seem to be neutral on this subject I think you are rather naive as well. Me and several other editors said ultimately that many editors wanted a merge just so they could push their POV. Several of the editors against a split made clear their desires and intention for a merged article, namely that it should be about Kosovo as a country. I can only assume they don't support a separate article on the partially-recognized state because they feel it de-legitimizes Kosovo's independence, no matter whether such an article is consistent with Wikipedia practice and neutral. All these splits and unilateral actions have simply been the actions of editors to try and find some middle ground where there can be an article on Kosovo as a region or territory free of any dispute over POV and another on it as a partially-recognized state that neutrally described exactly what the Republic of Kosovo was, not accommodate an Albanian or Serbian POV. Before this split another split was carried out with this article about the region and another about the Republic of Kosovo. Ultimately what happened was exactly the same as pro-Kosovo editors put it up for AfD and ultimately it was redirected back to the article on Kosovo. It's pure and blatant obstructionism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I presented the Merge, and the way it gained consensus was NPOV. These people who deceived just to get a merge are so biased, it's scary. The right way to do this article is merged, about Kosovo. As I say repeatedly the RoK's several months does not need to dominate an article about the whole Kosovo. A merged article is the correct way to do it. Bias must not ruin it. NPOV will prevail. Beam (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Intro - What happened?

The intro as of right now is horrible and does not portray an NPOV. As the merge approached, a merge I fought for, we had formed the following intro:


Kosovo is a region in Southeastern Europe, covering 10,908 km², with a population of 2,100,000. The region has been settled since the Neolithic era, and has been part of the Roman empire, historical Serbia, the Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia (as part of Serbia) and since 1999 under UNMIK control. In 2008 it declared independence as the Republic of Kosovo (Serbian: Република Косово; Albanian: Republika e Kosovës). This declaration received varied reactions from the international community and is strongly opposed by Serbia.

It borders Central Serbia to the north and east, Montenegro to the northwest, Albania to the west and the Republic of Macedonia to the south. The capital is Pristina, and other cities in the region include Peć, Prizren and Mitrovica.

I have reinstated it TWICE now only to have reverted, and eventually what I would call "raped." I do not want to get into an edit war, but this intro agreed upon by people with varying backgrounds is so very NPOV... why remove it? Did those with a pro-albanian view only agree with me on this intro to get it merged, and then abandon NPOV for their own twisted and biased POV? What's happened? I again propose that this be the intro. I will reiterate once again that this article is about Kosovo, not solely the RoK. The RoK is but a small part of Kosovo as a whole. Beam (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse adding NATO (that is, KFOR) to the intro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beam you seem to have a hard time understanding the fact that Republic of Kosova is commonly referred as "kosovo". When you go to American article (USA) you read about the United States of America, at the beginning the political stuff than you get into history and whatnot --- not the other way around. Also "geopolitical", I'm not sure what that word has to do with the intro. Kosova2008 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the current intro and it's not too bad. Doesn't seem to go either Serbian or Kosovar POV. But I think that we should get rid of the first infobox and put its data on both remaining infoboxes. Húsönd 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is something that needs to be done, together with the correct placing of the flag like in other articles about countries. --Tubesship (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, how about this:

The Republic of Kosovo is a region in Southeastern Europe, covering 10,908 km², with a population of 2,100,000. The region has been settled since the Neolithic era, and has been part of the Roman empire, historical Serbia, the Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia (as part of Serbia) and since 1999 under UNMIK control. In 2008 Kosovo declared independence as the Republic of Kosovo (Serbian: Република Косово; Albanian: Republika e Kosovës). This declaration received varied reactions from the international community and is strongly opposed by Serbia.

It borders Central Serbia to the north and east, Montenegro to the northwest, Albania to the west and the Republic of Macedonia to the south. The capital is Pristina, and other cities in the region include Peć, Prizren and Mitrovica.

Or no? Beam (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add UNMIK and KFOR to that, and I'll support. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest getting rid of "has been settled since the Neolithic era". That (as the first bit of information about the whole region, no less!) adds no encyclopedic value whatsoever. What regions of Europe have not been settled since the Neolithic? (except the mountain tops and the far north perhaps). And are you really sure it wasn't also settled in the Palaeolithic? Why was this added in the first place - as an attempt to neutralise the who-was-there-first issue of how far back to go with previous states, by reductio ad absurdum? Nice try, but I don't think it really makes much sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. The into is a bit clunky but seems to maneuver a solid middle ground. I'm not quite sure what "UNMIK control" mean, but it's probably not bad to fuzz that particular issue. I agree strongly with FuturePerfect on the Neolithic point -- it looks pretty goofy in there. I'd also suggest changing the major city names to reflect the dual-language policy (i.e., "Pec/Peja").Envoy202 (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so change it so it's the way you guys like it, if no one objects, post it. Beam (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beam I actually agree with you. It sounds nice except for the "it's been settled" it doesn't flow well. Also why did you round up the population? You could have used the exact number, "..is a region with as of [insert year) (ex) 2007 it has 2,138,509". I think that's more factually valuable. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because:
a) that is just a population estimate
b) it's highly inappropriate to put detailed and not rounded up numbers in countries direct data (especially the intro), unless explicitly demanded by the article's content, there are infoboxed and other templates for that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's fair enough as it stands. FutPerf is right that the Neolithic sticks out a bit: it's correct, but doesn't belong in the lead (Kosovo was settled in the Neolithic, along with the entire continent, no big deal). What I absolutely have to object to is the phrasing "The Republic of Kosovo is a region". No. "Kosovo" is a region. The "Republic of Kosovo" is only the latest political entity that has (partial) governance over the region. The legal status of the Republic of Kosovo is disputed. While the existence of Kosovo (the region) is of course a straightforward fact. It is absolutely necessary to begin this article by characterizing Kosovo as a region with such and such properties, and then state that it is disputed territory, under (at least, partial) governance of the RoK since February. dab (𒁳) 08:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the territory itself is not disputed but the state, so we should write state instead of territory. And the region of Kosova is also not the same as it was in Ottoman empire for example, so I do not see, why we should take the serbian POV regarding the region. Nowadays the region is the same as the state, but in former times it was not, it was much bigger, just have a look at the Ottoman maps. --Tubesship (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..and KFOR? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
true. we should mention all of UNMIK, KFOR and EULEX: these are the entities administrating Kosovo de facto. Which means that Kosovo is at this point in time under de facto governance of the UN, the NATO and the EU. These institutions collaborate and overlap with the RoK government, but they are in theory deployed based on UNSCR 1244. This is just a minor tweak to the present intro, I don't see the point of this proposal, since its main change seems to be the messing up of the terms "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo". It is essential that we remain clear on the distinction. dab (𒁳) 09:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However - EULEX is only deploying and there is so far no direct statement that UNMIK will hand it over to EULEX so far. For now, EULEX should not be in the intro. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, yes, at present EULEX isn't all that important. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the Serbs fail on the battle fields, they take their struggle to Wikipeida. And this article is a mess - compare to Northern Cyprus which has only been recognized by ONE country - the occupier. --Camptown (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At whom is your first sentence aimed? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like how this article is redirected from everything. There should be a split since we can't decide with two articles, article of "kosovo" and article of "Rep. of Kosova". Either "kosovo"/"kosova" should lead to the category page where a person may pick which article he/she wants to read. Kosova2008 (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the answer to my question. ;))) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No split pushing, please. I also dislike the intro but we can work on that. What I dislike at the intro is that it writes: "In February 2008, the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, an assembly under UNMIK, declared the territory's independence". It should be noted that a democratically elected parliament did so. --Tubesship (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, under the name of NPOV editors are trying to turn what is actual on the ground (Rep. of Kosova) into a region which was conquered blah and blah.I just never knew that to get the words "Rep. of Kosova is ...." in a wikipedia article you needed UN membership. Kosova has been recognized by the world's most powerful economies (70%)..whether you like it or not the ISG (international steering group) will make sure Kosova joins international organizations including UN. If the support of all these powerful allies doesn't make you a country than Idk what does. Kosova2008 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because todays Kosova is the Republic of Kosova, this is a matter of fact. So no split, please, but improving this article, there is enough to be done. --Tubesship (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of noting in the intro that it was democratically elected parliament, that'd be like POV support of its actions and then we'll start over again the dispute of the UDI itself. Besides, where else are such things pointed out? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point as it is written: "...the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government". What Institutions? It was the parliament, like in every other democratic country, too. --Tubesship (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Declaration of Independence became valid when it was signed by the three PISG leaders - President, Premier and Speaker; it was previously adopted by the Government and then the Parliament. So yes, "all" of it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As an example look at the Zimbabwe article. It doesn't talk of the current government until paragraph 5. Please take note. Beam (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, but Zimbabwe is nothing like Kosovo (internationally-recognized, sovereign control) - better check United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was using it as an example of how a country article should be. Beam (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know - but that is not really for this article is it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Zimbabwe and at East Timor and what I saw were flags and info boxes right at the beginning. So why not in this article, too? There are countries that are much more disputed than Kosova, nevertheless all of them have their info box and flag at the top. And besides the placing the Kosova infobox does not have the infos it ought to have. --Tubesship (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article is pretty much fine as it is. yes, the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government were democratically elected. Yes, there is notable recognition of the RoK. No the RoK doesn't have de facto governance over the entire region. No, we cannot treat the RoK as just another country, certainly not as long as the UN Security Council is split right across the middle. It's ok. Give it a year or two and the RoK will begin to look more and more like just another country. At present, it's still sad mess barely held together by UN and NATO. dab (𒁳) 21:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that's true, I think the non-biased elements of this talk-page can agree that an article about Kosovo should not focus on the RoK. Beam (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you need relevant data to Kosovo oand Serbia

When you need relevant data to Kosovo and Serbia article, to make the relevant image of this two countries under the English people (all of you), you have my support. But to play as a instrument in the hand of some game makers I don´t have a time.

I have given to English Wikipedia mostly relevant data for the Kosovo related articles. But, propagande´s and game makers has manipulated this data. I don´t know to so good English, but this is not meaning that I´m stupid, and I don˙t want to make politic here.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And no, you're far from a neutral user, I can understand Albanian enough to observe just some of your articles on the Albanian Wikipedia, like Doktrina e shenjt serbe where apparently Miloš Obrenović, Ilija Garašanin, Serbo-Croatian literal Nobel-prize winner Ivo Andrić (sic!) and the entire Serbian & Montenegrin intelligence throughout the entire history have apparently conspired an age-long plan to exterminate all Albanians from the face of the earth, or most of other of your Kosovo-related contributions, according to which Albanians have lived in Kosovo for 10,000 and none other, while between 1912 and 1999 the Serbs, who happen to be ethnic demons with a retarded desire to ethnically cleanse all non-Serbs from the face of the earth, continually conducted genocide on the Albanian angels without stop and tried to colonize the Heart of Albano-Illyria. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey pax it would be wise to be respectful before you speak. I read all 3 articles and nothing is mentioned of "10,000" years. It is true that the Serbs have attempted many times to get rid of all Albanians. Why do you think Turkey has more Albanians than Kosova itself? Cultural and "ethnic purity" as Slobodan "the butcher" Milosevic said were what Serbia wants. If you don't wish to believe facts than do not but don't make the Serbs as peace loving people..one look at rtk website you can find footage that Serbian Cetniks recorded as they shot ak-47s point blank in the head of innocent Bosnian civilians. If you wish to discuss this, reply at my page. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol I love you pax. Beam (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, everyone, if you want to continue this exchange, please do so at user talk pages. Remember:

Wikipedia:Talk page: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

In other words, this is not a forum. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Infoboxes

I thought the Infoboxes are here to evade a pro-Albanian POV (one pro-one side and the other pro-another) but instead, they both depict it... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about that a while ago. None seems to present Kosovo as a Serbian province. Maybe we should insert that infobox we had prior to the declaration of independence. Húsönd 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HOLY CRAP HUSOND! That was the plan all along man. That was one of the conditions for the merge i fought VERY HARD for. Two infoboxes. I'd say three, one common, and the two with differences between Serb and Albanian POVs but I guess two makes sense. Beam (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=203184480"