Talk:Kosovo

• • It seems the main entry has been defaced. It must be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

UN 2/3 majority

Pardon my ignorance. From my brief glance through a few papers it looks like the UN General Assembly could grant Kosovo membership if 2/3 of the nations approve. Why then is this not stated anywhere in the sections relating to independence. My only explanation is that the 2/3 general assembly vote can be overturned by the UNSC which does not sound too reasonable to me. Can anyone offer insight on this in the event that I am wrong in my reasoning. If I am right, then why do we not add this info to the independence section. Thanks

From the wiki article on the general assembly: Voting in the General Assembly on important questions – recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; budgetary matters – is by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Other questions are decided by majority vote XJeanLuc (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Because a couple of editors here have a strong bias and want to make the situation look as pessimistic for Kosovo as possible. Good find! --alchaemia (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a couple of days, there seems to be a debate at the UN General Assembly soon. If there is any development there, the article should be updated. --Tone 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that its a matter of pessimism for not including this data. I still don't know if this is or is not how the general assembly vote works. Like Tone suggested I'll wait for the articles that come out after the 8 October session of the UN when they discuss the legality of the situation. XJeanLuc (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The big question to be answered is: can an eventual Kosovo accession approval voting process in the UN General Assembly be blocked or vetoed by Russia… or not?--BalkanWalker (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo's not even close to a 2/3rds majority. Not even halfway there. UN has 192 members, 2/3rds would be 128. It's 51 at the moment, not even halfway there. In addition, both Russian and China (due to Tibet/Taiwan) will veto Kosovo on the security council. Furthermore Russia/China can veto any proposition to which Kosovo won't abstain, thus making Kosovo a de-facto non-entity in the UN. There is no way that Northern Kosovo where most of the Serbs live will go with Kosovo, just like the Kosovars, they too can secede. In addition the International Court of Justice is still to vote on Kosovo. With the Global Economy declining, the US's popularity's declining, and Kosovo's doing so as well. All of the above are facts; and the answer to your question BalkanWalker - is yes. Russia/China can either block it at admittance, or veto any proposition that Kosovo votes on. Moral of the story: Unilateral Declarations - not a great idea. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

50, not 51. And northern Kosovo cannot secede. They live in Serbia, why would they secede from Serbia? I support your "moral", but not the argument that economy or Russia/China ... The reason is the 143 countries (=192+Vatican-50), including EU and NATO members. Moral: they (Serbia, Kosovo, EU, US) were tired of negociations, so they wanted to end them and throw the problem to somebody else. Dc76\^talk 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. However it is 51, United Arab Emirates just recognized Kosovo. Also 2/3rds of 192 would be 128. If Vatican gets to vote, it would be 129. And if you don't think the economy has anything to do with it, you might want to see the reasons that Costa Rica, Liberia, Belize, Nauru, Burkina Faso, etc. recognized Kosovo. I somehow doubt that getting a sweet deal from the World Bank due to free lobbying by US lawyers on their behalf, did not impact Costa Rica's UN vote on Kosovo. Also, has to be 2/3rds overall, there is no -50. However, the thing is that when new governments come to power in the European countries, such as party switches, they may 'unrecognize' Kosovo as well. Hasn't happened yet, but I predict that some of the ones I listed may just do that within a year. And 51 to 141 is still not too high of a score. And EU's never tired of negotiations. US - Bush wanted to be successful at something, he has yet to achieve that. Serbia and Kosovo - you're probably right. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many countried recognise Kosovo. If a country applies to join the UN, they must be approved by the Security council BEFORE the general assembly will even vote on it. So without Russia or China's approval, the general assmebly will never come into play. In theory, 191 UN member states could recognise Kosovo, but one veto is all that's needed to stop them joining the UN.Guitar3000 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ICJ case

Why not include it into the article? --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's do that. --GOD OF JUSTICE 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ thing certainly does not belong in the introduction of the article; it simply isn't that important. At best, it belongs in the "International reaction..." subheading. --alchaemia (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very important and must be included in the intro. --Litany (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it mustn't. Beam 03:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec - you are splitting recognition by UN Members vs. non-UN Members, at the same time trying to ignore the ICJ, a UN entity? Double Standards much? "The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration." HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Include what? So far the ICJ has said nothing about the declaration of independence, what are you talking about? Colchicum (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=28492&Cr=Kosovo&Cr1= "UN World Court to give opinion on legality of Kosovo’s independence" 8 October 2008 – The General Assembly voted today to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a non-binding advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia.

At UN Headquarters, 77 Member States voted in favour of the resolution – which was put forward by Serbia – and six voted against, with 74 abstentions. Today’s meeting heard from nearly two dozen speakers, including Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremić. Kosovo, which has been administered by the UN since Western forces drove out Yugoslav forces amid inter-ethnic fighting in 1999, declared its independence in February. At last month’s annual high-level General Debate, Serbian President Boris Tadić said that as a result of Kosovo’s “unilateral, illegal illegitimate” move, “the very nature of the international system has been called into question.” Cause if Serbia wins, Kosovo's cannot legally join the UN, period. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not an opinion on Kosovo's independence, it is merely an address to the ICJ, which doesn't merit inclusion in the intro. Wait a year or so, and then we will see. Colchicum (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Official UN Article Title (from UN News Centre):"UN World Court to give opinion on legality of Kosovo’s independence"

Colchium's response: "It is not an opinion on Kosovo's independence"

I'm confused! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well since no one wants to explain to me why the ICJ Case should not be included in the article - go ahead and include it. It's been well over 48 hours. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ has not yet produced any opinion. The ICJ has not yet produced any opinion. The ICJ has not yet produced any opinion. As of now there is nothing to write about. Wait a year or so. Colchicum (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ case is under review of the UN. The ICJ case is under review of the UN. The ICJ case is under review of the UN. 77 UN nations, more then recognized Kosovo, voted so. 77 UN nations, more then recognized Kosovo, voted so. 77 UN nations, more then recognized Kosovo, voted so. I don't see why that shouldn't be included. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in the introduction "Serbia, backed by..., has asked for an advisory opinion" is not factually correct. Serbia hasn't asked anything from ICJ. General Assembly of the United Nations has asked for an advisory opinion. True, this was adopted as a proposal from Serbia, but from the point of adoption, this is not Serbia's request, it is a request from the UN GA and Serbia has the same standing in this request as every other UN member. So I would suggest to change this to "Supporting a proposal from Serbia, the General Assembly of the United Nations has asked for an advisory opinion...", or something like that. --Dzordzm (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Posting it in the Article. Thank you for that helpful suggestion! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert that, and remove any mention of the ICJ from the intro. It does not belong there, an introduction is just that: an introduction to the article. Please further discuss any future placement of ICJ occurrences prior to inclusion. Thanks, I appreciate you being cool enough to discuss this prior to taking further action. Beam 04:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:

Likewise, Serbia, backed by over a third of the UN states, has asked the UN International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on "the legality of the declaration under international law".

Beam 04:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Colchium - stop edit-warring

If you have a problem with my edit discuss it here, don't type "not here" and undo it. We had an extended discussion on the edit that I did above, and you had a right to state your viewpoint, which you failed to do. Then you went in and undid my edit, which again everyone could have argued for or against here. You failed to do so, and undid my edit without warning. Please respond and state your actions and why you acted so. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he's right. It's not going there. Please remove this talk section, and continue the discussion above. I have removed that "stuff" from the intro altogether. It doesn't belong there at all. Beam 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Beam, saying "he's right" and "that stuff doesn't belong there at all" isn't in any way, shape or form acceptable on Wikipedia. You have to explain why, which you have failed to do. Even some of your previous comments "No, it mustn't" are not acceptable for a Wikipedia editor. You must explain why, otherwise those comments will rightfully be ignored. You are not my sovereign, and I won't simply obey your orders. Nor are your statements facts of law. This talk section stays, until either Colchium explains himself or undoes his edit. And if you want to participate, I recommend that you start explaining too, instead of just giving orders. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I explained it above, perhaps you should read before you post? I'll repeat it though: It's the introduction to the article. It should introduce the article. What you would like to appear in the introduction, does not belong. Perhaps somewhere in the body of the article, but not in the introduction. I see as it blatantly obvious it doesn't go there, as I'm sure many others do, and have stated as much. Beam 07:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

50 countries

50 countries recognized Kosovo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.95.210 (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

51, to be more precisely or do you consider Taiwan not a country? --80.152.236.156 (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is not an internationally recognized country, and not a member of UN. — Emil J. 10:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is a country. --80.152.236.156 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It simply a government that claims to represent China.--Certh (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan has nothing to do with it. The total is 51 UN Member States, not including Taiwan, which would make it 52 if included in that list (See International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo).--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Recognition by Montenegro and Macedonia has demoralized Serbia or in other words, to Serbia it is like throwing the A Bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.205.64 (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

THis whole page needs to be updates because it has the whole history and status of Kosova (not Kosovo) under the point of view of Serbs. Also, i do not like the map of Kosova as a small reagionunder Serbia, as it is not it's historical map or present map. Please unlock this so that the 2008 updates get in place,a nd the History of Kosova is clarified and not "Serb"-nised. Also, please remove the double name on the cities. They are Albanian names and written and read in Albanian, and stay like that, they don't need translation in serbian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.74.170 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN calls it Kosovo. Is the UN a tool of Serbian Propaganda? If it is, why did Kosovo's leadership support Resolution 1244? Is Thaci a tool of Serbian Propaganda too? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

“partially recognised region”

Well, countries around the world haven’t been recognizing Kosovo as a region, but as an independent country. The term “region” is non-precise, since Serbia, Russia do also recognize Kosovo as a region — a region of of Serbia.

So I think country would be a more precise term for describing Kosovo… or, at least, something like a region partially recognized as an independent country.--BalkanWalker (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that 'region' does not apply at all. A better term would be 'state' or 'country', as those states recognizing Kosovo do as as a state/country, not a region. I would say '...a partially-recognized state.' --alchaemia (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. BalkanWalker's proposal is reasonable. --Tone 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, two. --84.56.251.225 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds logical--Lilonius (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I don't understand why it was changed in the first place... Emto (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and why does nobody change it now? What are we waiting for? --84.56.251.225 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is getting more and more POV, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are countries but not Kosovo? Emto (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is really a shame how some pro Serbian fanatics take this article for so long time as a hostage. Shame on them. Everybody trying to make this article more neutral is getting blocked/banned by this few pro Serbian administrators at Wikipedia. --Tubesship (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about: "region, partially recognized as a country". Sounds more precise and does not label the place one way or the other. Its best to be as clear as possible here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

sigh, can we just revert it back to the way it was? The thing is that Kosovo is a region, while the Republic of Kosovo is a partly-recognized recent institution. Using "Kosovo" as shorthand for "Republic of Kosovo" is misleading and implies the pro-recognition pov. Precisely because there is a dispute, it is imperative to consistently use "Republic of Kosovo" when the 2008 Republic is referred to. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out more clearly where "region, partially recognized as a country" is incorrect or POV towards either side of the dispute? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I will point it out clearly: it is incorrect and pov due to the fact that other "partially recognized countries," having far less recognition than Kosovo, are labelled as such, using the standard terminology, while Kosovo is singled out for special terminology. The simple fact is, the phrase "partially recognized" already implies that not everyone considers it a "country," it is only partial, so it is neutral and non-pov. It is not saying Kosovo IS a country, it is saying it is partially recognized as such by some countries, which is true, and Kosovo is in de facto control over its territory, not Serbia. That does not mean it is technically wrong to call it a region or a provice, or that it is technically wrong to call it a "region partially recognized as a country," only that it is wrong to mutilate the common, widely used terminology that applies to all partially-recognized states, simply because a faction of people are offended that the word "country" appear anywhere near Kosovo, even if this is the accepted way of saying it in the case of other entities with less international recognition.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

By that rationale, every country is first a region, and only then a country/state. We should then use "Germany is a region" for the article about Germany, and then have a section about the Federal Republic of Germany. Needless to say, it is pointless and a bad idea. --alchaemia (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is not Germany. While a country is a country and a region is a region, Kosovo is considered to be a region by half of the world and a country by the other half. It is only natural that we mention this "duality" in the lead. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And Germany is not South Africa. Your point? A country is a political project, not a final parameter of territory. Its size and shape can change, it can acquire or lose territory. It is, first and foremost, a region and only then a country, often times composed of several regions. The current definition is fine, for now. Should more recognitions follow, we can think about removing "partially-recognized" from the name completely. --alchaemia (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Germany is recognized as a country by 100% of the world's countries, while Kosovo is considered independent by circa 25% of the world's countries. Hence, the analogy with Germany, or South Africa for that matter, is incorrect. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't partially-recognized be there unless it is completely recognised? Nikola (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a decision based on consensus. I really can't figure out when it would be neutral enough to remove it. Is a majority of UN states recognizing enough ? Not all countries' recognitions have the same weight, say for instance that the number reaches 130, but Russia, China and India having not yet recognized. European countries play a more important role also i think, say if Europe becomes unanimous with the few states that don't recognize changing their position, it would not be a controversial issue anymore inside the EU and NATO, of course with Serbia still not recognizing problems will exist. These are just some factors, a more vague answer would be, when and if "partially recognized" becomes generally less notable. Meaning, the sources we use here to handle Kosovo's independence as something that doesn't raise so much controversy anymore, that will be the time...--Zakronian (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not until we have the same for the PRC, which is not recognized by 23 states. --alchaemia (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is childish. Please stop it, ok? You don't recognize a "region", you recognize a government as holding sovereignty over some specific region. It is idiotic to say a "region is partly recognized" as anything. Keep a clean difference between Kosovo the toponym (which doesn't need recognition by anyone, it simply sits there), and the Republic of Kosovo, the 2008 institution. There has been a huge debate on whether keep Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo separate to avoid exactly this sort of pointless debate, but the pro-independence crownd insisted the articles remain merged. I don't care if they do so, but as long as they do, be very sure to point out the difference between the two, right there in the lead. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The only childish thing here is your request to separate Kosovo, the region, from Kosovo, the country. They're one and all since Kosovo the country is exactly as big as Kosovo the region. You can make that request on something like Macedonia, for example, which is a region separated into three smaller regions with Macedonia, the state, claiming only a part of it. That's not the case with Kosovo, where Kosovo the country claims and has all of Kosovo under its direct or indirect control. --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

it is also blatantly incorrect that "Kosovo is de facto independent". This doesn't hold for all of Kosovo, since North Kosovo remains de facto part of Serbia (RoK has no real governance there). Ther rest of Kosovo also remains dependent on UN and EU presence to retain anything resembling rule of law. This is about as far from "de facto independence" as you can get. Kosovo has "partial de jure independence" to be sure, but that's hardly the same thing as "de facto independence". --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If anything, "North Kosovo" (there's no such thing, by the way) remains under the direct control of NATO (via their K-FOR force) and not Serbia. Serbia is laying a claim on it, but the territory is firmly under the control of K-FOR troops, who are, by invitation of the Kosovan authorities since 17.02.2008, the only security force authorized to maintain external and internal security for all of Kosovo. --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish you cared as much about the Abkhazia and South Ossetia articles. Colchicum (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

care to review my edit history? I cannot fix all of Wikipedia. But I could certainly try to chime in at the articles you mention. In return, may I interest you in helping fix the "Syriac/Assyrian/Aramaean ethnic mess? --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And this rest of Kosovo also remains dependent on UN and EU presence to retain anything resembling rule of law is original research of course, as well as many other claims. You haven't provided a single source to substantiate your claims and consider yourself in a position to teach others what is childish and what they should stop, while you are just another participant of the discussion. Funny. Colchicum (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

oh, wait, you aren't serious? Strike the above then. Did you even care to click on the North Kosovo link I shoved right under your nose? And spend 20 seconds reading it? As in "functions largely autonomously from the remainder of the ethnic-Albanian-majority state, instead operating as a de facto part of Serbia [BBC, Could Balkan break-up continue?, 22.02.08]." Then what is your point? Cleary, you must be amenable to the argument that we cannot claim that "Kosovo is de facto independent" at the Kosovo article, and at the same time that "North Kosovo is de facto part of Serbia" in the North Kosovo article? (a thing known to us scientists as "{{contradict}}ion") If you aren't, I am afraid you shouldn't try to follow any of this. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I certainly agree with your point about North Kosovo, but not with the rest of your claims. Colchicum (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

such as what? That the above debate is childish? Feel free to disagree then. My point is one of English usage, not 'fact' -- "partially recognized region" simply isn't good English. I also pointed out why not, because it isn't the region that is recognized (unless you talk pattren recognition or biochemistry), it is the Republic. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Republic is the region, since it, the Republic, is comprised of the entirety of the region and not just parts of it. This is elementary geography. --alchaemia (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"is a region located in the Balkans, and is considered by Serbia to be an autonomous province within its sovereign territory." Can it be more POV than that? This article is getting hopeless. 85.226.152.141 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

@dab - You went ahead with your POV edit and got the article under semi-protection status. Bad, bad play. There was no consensus established, and your definition was entirely POV but also not very encyclopedic. Pretty bad behavior right there. Hope you're happy with your "result." --alchaemia (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless dab is banned or blocked there is no hope because this administrator does not care about consensus as you mentioned, therefore I ask to ban or block dab. --Tubesship (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

IF asking for dab to be banned wasn't all you did here, maybe everyone else would take you seriously. BalkanFever 11:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the other way round as I cannot do anything without getting blocked or banned by dab. He prevents to correct this article as he is clearly pro serbian and against Kosovars as many users here will tell you, if you don't believe me. --Tubesship (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo vs South Ossetia and Abkazia

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CORRECT THE KOSOVO PAGE TO LOOK LIKE THAT OF SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKAZIA ( ie REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO)

OR AT LEAST MAKE THE OTHERS LOOK LIKE THAT OF KOSOVO ( ie PARTIALLY RECOGNIZED REPUBLIC)

THESE CHANGES ARE NEEDED AS I THINK THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO PORTRAY KOSOVO LIKE THIS SEEING AS SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKAZIA ARE IN A WEAKER POSITION

IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF RECOGNITIONS THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED AND THEY ARE BOTH PORTRAYED AS SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin gj (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Caps lock is not cool. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of Order

Why is Kosovo described as being only "de facto" independent? Kosovo has been de jure independent since 17 February. It receives ambassadors and is sending representatives abroad, hosts embassies and exercises sovereignty over its territory. It is tendentious to only list it as being "de facto" independent. The article should be amended to read that Kosovo is an independent state. You can posture about Serbia's claim on another page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, "de jure" maybe according to the Government of Canada, but "de jure" according to international law (UN Security Council Resolution 1244, UN Charter, Final Helsinki Act of the OSCE) Kosovo is part of Serbia, under UN administration. Also, it's not "de facto" independent at all - Pristina has no freedom to do anything, the UN is in control (soon EULEX). --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to posture your personal thoughts on the many forums on the internet. We're all about facts here :-) --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this for an intro:

'Kosovo (Albanian: Kosova, Kosovë; Serbian: Косово и Метохија; Kosovo i Metohija) is a landlocked, region in the Balkans bordering Albania to the west, Central Serbia to the north and east, the Republic of Macedonia to the south, and Montenegro to the northwest. The majority of the territory is de facto governed by the partially recognized Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës), (declared independence February 2008) currently recognized by 52 UN member states. The Republic of Serbia does not recognize the 'secession' of the region itself, and considers it a self-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija).

Kosovo was a part of the lands of Thraco-Illyrian tribes, then of the Roman, Byzantine, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Ottoman empires and for a period by the Germans during WW2. In the 20th century it was part of the Kingdom of Serbia and its successor state Yugoslavia. NATO bombed Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War in 1999 to halt the killing of civilians. The territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations (UNMIK).

Comparing Kosovo and South Ossetia articles

1. Why Kosovo article currently has two infoboxes, while South Ossetia article contains just one?
2. Why main Kosovo first infobox map in the article suggest that it is still part of Serbia, while the main South Ossetia first infobox map in the article suggest the it is completley separated from Georgia?

It seems like die-hard Slavorthodox-Nationalist POVs runs very high here in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.216.113 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well first off Kosovo does not have De Facto control of Northern Kosovo, whereas South Ossetia and Abkhazia have full De Facto control of their regions. That's facts and not POV. Secondly, as a person who saw what was happening earlier in the "International Response to the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo" article, or something like that, I can tell you that initially it was pure Albanian and NATO POV; when India said for instance that they won't recognize Kosovo until Russia does so, this was interepreted as India possibly recognizing Kosovo. Now when Wikipedia is moving more towards the center, the pro-Albanian/NATO editors whine about pro-Serbian POV. Quite hilarious to watch actually. For instance in the Russia article, one editor actually argued that Russia wasn't a nuclear super power, I mean they only have enough nukes to radiate to death over 90% of the World's Population, not a superpower, nothing to see here, moving on. Thank you for providing the entertainment. Also do remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Thank you! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Kosovar Government believes they are a special case unrelated to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Doesn't that warrant special treatment on Wikipedia? Where's your Patriotism? Listen to Thaci I tell ya! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Kosovo has two infoboxes because it is officially a province in Serbia. South Ossetia is not province in Georgia: Georgian government annulated South Ossetian authonomy and divided the region between other provinces.--Certh (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not biased either way, but this article has problems. Kosovo is a partially recognized sovereign nation which had de jure and de facto control of most of the country. I strongly suggest a Republic of Kosovo page and have another page for the region, as the historic region of Kosovo has different borders than the republic. What we should do on wikipedia is follow the lead of other encyclopedias, de facto countries from the 1970s like Rhodesia had articles which followed the same format as other countries. It will not take Serbia's consent for Kosovo to be an independent nation and this page should not be bogged down by that. It is silly to consider number of recognitions or UN recognition to be a factor. Did it matter who recognized North Vietnam versus South Vietnam or that they recognized each other in the 1970s? Look how the encyclopedias treated those two countries. Azalea pomp (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But northern Kosovo is not occupied or controlled by Serb armed forces, either. All of Kosovo, from north to south and from east to west, is occupied by NATO troops which impede the effective creation of a nini-“Republika Srpska in Kosovo” and separation of the territory or annexation into Serbia.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia nowadays are fully-occupied too, by Russian troops which impede the effective Georgian rule over these regions.

So there is no reason to show the maps of South Ossetia and Kosovo under different shades of grey (showing Kosovo vinculated to Serbia and South Ossetia non-vinculated with Georgia).

That current first map is 100% Serb pro POV and it does need to be changed. The only map which needs to be shown is the map of Kosovo. Why hasn't this map been changed already? Azalea pomp (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It’s because around 5 minutes later, a pro-Slavorthodox-Nationalist-POV editor reverses it, accusing the last editor of “vandal”, “Serbophobic”, “Albanian-POVer” and/or “uneducated who first need to discuss the change before make it” — even when the issue has already been widely discussed on the talk page.

Why does the simple fact that Kosovo's independence is completely disputed seem utterly incomprehensible? Around 75% (150/200) of the world's governments have failed to recognize its independence. De jure, the government of Kosovo does not have the support of either the UN or the majority of the world states, the Kosovar Albanian declaration does not secure its legitimacy, de facto, northern Kosovo is not under the control of the Kosovo government (though everything is under NATO protection). In recognition of these quite serious issues, Wikipedia does not choose to treat the Kosovar Albanian government as, for example, the United Kingdom, or France. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is that wikipedia needs to follow the example of other encyclopedias. The first map does not make any sense. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does not. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Direktor the question in the thread is, COMPARING Kosovo and South Ossetia. I see that you made no such comparsion above, do you believe that South Ossetia should be treated more like a country (with one infobox) in it's own article because it is more legitim, it is recognized by more states? Do you think that South Ossetia article should reflect it's statehood more so than the Kosovo article? The whole title of this thread is about comparsion between south ossetia article and the kosovo article. Hobartimus (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the thread, including the big black title above. Upon a closer examination, I'm sure you'll find I did indirectly refer to the issue by pointing out the fact that the Kosovar Albanian government does not control Kosovo (and Metohija) in its entirety, unlike South Ossetia. I also pointed out that circa 75% of the world's governments recognize Kosovo as represented by the second infobox, while no such infobox could be created for South Ossetia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Almost all countries of the world recognize South Ossetia as part of Georgia. How many countries recogize South Ossetia as an independent country? 1% of world governments? Do you claim that South Ossetia is recognized as independent by more countries than Kosovo? Hobartimus (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. What I meant was, with regard to the percentage, is that South Ossetia can't possibly have two infoboxes such as Kosovo, as the majority of the world (which does not recognize its independence) does not consider it as an autonomous political entity within Georgia. Therefore, the only "political entity infobox" that can be used for South Ossetia is that of it as an independent republic (even though it is even less internationally recognized than Kosovo). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If they do not consider it autonomous then be some type of Georgia infobox is still possible. In any case I think there is something to the idea that we should strive to establish some type of standard in these cases. I don't know if this should be done editing here or there but the two articles really could be closer in their methodology. Hobartimus (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

While I fully appreciate what you're trying to accomplish, one can't standardize things of a different type. Kosovo and South Ossetia present two entirely different cases altogether, and must be dealt with separately. Sensitive matters such as these must be dealt with on a case-to-case basis, otherwise we risk sacrificing the accurate representation of information for the sake of "standardization". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

All these talks about “north Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, so Kosovo is less independent than South Ossetia” are nonsense. Northern part of Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, but it is not controlled by Serbia either, and as far as I know Boris Tadic government even refuses to officially stablish official relations with the “Kosovo Serb Assembly”.

And we should note that South Ossetian independence is largely relative and many times rethorical, since all of its military is Russian, its main politicians are Russian, the Kokoity government talks about not true independence, but unification with Russia’s North Ossetia as a political goal. The Russian FSB border guards even control the Ossetian-Georgian border. And we cannot compare Russia with NATO or EU, since the first is a contry, and the secind are supra-national organizations with no centralized president or prime minister.

Abkhazia, also, had signed a treaty of friendship with Moscow which cedes a big part of the control of the control of the region, from the military to the currency — as the same way that South Ossetia, which also uses the Russian ruble.

Even Transnistria, which has its own currency but it is recognized by practically no one, has only a single infobox and is treated as more as an independent country than Kosovo. Why these different approaches? It seems like between Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Kosovo, only the last one is the big illegal, rogue, non-existent and illegitimate entity here.

Even Gagauzia has only a single infobox, too! It is really a shame how Kosova is treaten by serbian nationalists at Wikipedia! —Tubesship (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Um Gagauzia has the infobox of an autonomous province, like Vojvodina. Its really a shame you don't bother to read the article you're trying to present in support of your POV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Who do you try to fool? There is no difference, both are infoboxes with flag and coat of arms. Why not the same for Kosova? --84.56.212.2 (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd never dream of trying to "fool" you... The difference is quite simple, really, please read the following extremely carefully: The status of the Republic of Kosovo is completely disputed, the status of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia is not disputed anywhere in the world. The Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia has absolutely nothing to do with Kosovo or the current issue we are discussing here. Nothing at all. It's like saying "Wisconsin has only one infobox, why can't Kosovo!?" --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

All your talks are nonsense.
"All these talks about 'north Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, so Kosovo is less independent than South Ossetia' are nonsense."
Parts of northern Kosovo are undoubtedly not controlled by the Republic of Kosovo, both de facto and de jure (international law). Noone stated that "Kosovo is less independent than South Ossetia", that's your imagination. We are not here to "rate" the independence of Kosovo on some fictitious scale of yours. Furthermore, the eventual political goals of South Ossetia are completely irrelevant to these considerations, as are other meaningless facts you listed about several other partially recognized political entities.
"Northern part of Kosovo is not controlled by Albanians, but it is not controlled by Serbia either"
Irrelevant, as it is de jure a part of Serbia (UN administration), and is not under the de facto control of the Albanian government of the Republic of Kosovo. The Republic of Kosovo exists "de facto", where it does not "de facto" rule, it does not exist. It does not exist in northern Kosovo. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, The northern part of Kosovo does not change anything about the status of Kosovo(just check out Cyprus). By looking at your comments and changes in the article (that you do without consulting us others), it is very clear that you are very pro-serbian. I think that makes you unfit to do any big changes in the article. Emto (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Emto, the changes I made were discussed above. I do indeed have a stance on many issues, including Kosovo. I doubt any of the users here involved have not formed their own opinions on the matter. The question that presents itself is: should I make that opinion clear or conceal it?, a question that is straightforwardly answered by the infobox on my userpage. HOWEVER, I strive to be as objective and "professional" as possible. This is Wikipedia, and the policies and conventions hereof are absolutely paramount. In short, I do not care whether or not you think I am "fit to edit this article", that borders on a personal attack: comment on content, not on the contributor. In any case, if having an opinion on this matter makes one "unfit to edit", that would rule out 99% of all involved users (including yourself, I deem).
"The northern part of Kosovo does not change anything about the status of Kosovo"
I was not talking about the "status of Kosovo" at all. I was talking about the infobox. The northern part of Kosovo is not under the de facto control of the Republic of Kosovo. Legally, i.e. by UN international law (UN Security Council Resolution 1244, UN Charter, Final Helsinki Act of the OSCE), all of Kosovo is part of Serbia. Therefore, the Republic of Kosovo does not encompass the entirety of th region/province of Kosovo. That part which it does not really control is not under the de facto control of either the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia, but it is de jure a part of Serbia. Naturally, this fact does not really effect the "status of the Republic of Kosovo", nor does it make it any more or less independent. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Principality_of_Sealand It is getting more and more ridiculous, even Sealand has an infobox on top, so why not Kosova? --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, this incessant "listing" is getting ridiculous. Comment on the two very good reasons that have already explained "why not Kosova", a million "examples" add nothing to your argument as they do not have the same situation as Kosovo. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hell, where is the difference? Here claims Great Britain that this is his territory, there claims serbia the same, so where is the difference? And don't dare to say that Kosova has no influence over North Kosova, read this: http://www.imc-ko.org/index.php?id=358&l=e&p=7 --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OMFG, read the thread... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The link ist interesting, it says: "IMC takes action against illegal television station in Mitrovica", so how can you say that the northern part is NOT under control of Kosova? Maybe YOU should read the link!? --Tubesship (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Well, as far as we know, the conutries recognizing the Republic of Kosovo are recognizing it with the exact same borders of the former Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo. And about international law… well, it is not so monolithic and independent of interpretations, since we must remember that Dmitry Medvedev — in the same way that Hashim Thaci also did before — mentioned the Helsinki Final Act when the Russian government recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.--BalkanWalker (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but the northern parts of Kosovo under ethnic Serbian control (accepting UN administration) are at least "as legal" as the Republic of Kosovo. We're all still forgetting the fact that the rest of the world recognizes Kosovo as a UN-administered province. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But differently from the Republic of Kosovo (or the Republika Srpska of Bosnia), no country and no international orgazination in the world recognizes the northern part of Kosovo as a separate ethnic Serb nation or even as a sub-national separate entity.--BalkanWalker (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that? The UN administration is not terminated, and is still in effect. The Serbs in northern Kosovo do not consider themselves a separate entity, but merely continue to consider themselves citizens of the Serbian UN-administered province of Kosovo. They certainly have no less legitimacy than the Kosovar Albanian government.

However, as I've said before, even if there were no Serbian enclaves in northern Kosovo, still the dual-infobox system would be necessary as circa 75% of the world's governments do not recognize Kosovo itself as the Republic of Kosovo, but as the UN administered Serbian province. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Incostistency

In the Albanian people article, the 2007 estimate is around 2,100,000 Albanians in Kosovo. In the Kosovo article, the 2007 estimate is that around 2,100,000 people live in Kosovo altogether. Now, do people just write whatever they like as an "estimate" or does somebody really not like the fact that there are over 100,000 Serbs that were not cleansed from Kosovo yet? --GOD OF JUSTICE 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably the latter. Go ahead and make the changes on the "estimates". Also, I doubt there will be anymore ethnic clensing, it's too televised now, and NATO has screwed up the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, so now they have an actual crisis to worry about. Plus there's the financial collapse, so NATO's kinda screwed. BTW, and if you can find censuses on it, or something similar, it'd be great too! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro to the article is decieving and does not paint a true picture of the realities.

By international law, it is a province within the sovereign territory of the Republic of Serbia.

This statement should atleast be followed by the words of Mr.ahtisaari's which state that well over 65% of the world's wealth has eccepted Kosovo's independence in order to give a more balanced picture of the true realities on the ground - (http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=10&dd=19&nav_id=54336) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmadrid123 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/stats.php#passport shows that the number has rosen to 70.9 % of world's total nominal GDP. --Tubesship (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Following the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War, the territory came under the interim administration of the United Nations (UNMIK).

This should be followed by to halt the killings of civillians, which is a format many neutral news corps around the world employ, such as: (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36267120081101) http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Montenegro_deals_blow_to_Serbia_over_Kosovo.html?siteSect=143&sid=9828724&cKey=1223577452000&ty=ti (http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=198115) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmadrid123 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your sayings, so please feel free to correct the article. --Tubesship (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And how do I do that sir, it's locked(yes, i am a newbie)

That's a problem we have with some pro serbian administrators keeping this article locked. The best would be to ban this pro serbian administrators from this article, otherwise this article will be locked forever. --Tubesship (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. I had a lot of experience with the administrators who are looking at this article. Most of them are pro-Albanian. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)