Jump to content

Talk:Kosovo

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.114.94.17 (talk) at 12:22, 17 November 2010 (→Maps: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The link to Abdul Hamid in the text "The Albanians threatened to march all the way to Salonika and reimpose Abdul Hamid." appears to link to the incorrect Abdul Hamid. I think Abdul Hamid II is the correct one, but I am not sure. 75.85.180.14 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is antiserbian, this article strongly supports only albanian side and point of view, and this will be published in "Politika", most selled newspaper in Serbia! --109.121.31.67 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I hope it doesn't mention my user name in any bad capacity! This article is not that anti-Serbian. Ask the Albanians who would prefer to change the intro to "country" and see if it is anti-Serb. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija -like redirects

I see that many variants of "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" redirect here (including such written in cyrillic). I propose that we redirect them to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (disambiguation) - or if possible directly to an article such as: Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1946-1974), Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999). Alinor (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be determined that they are not referring to the current Serb conception of KiM, then they should be redirected appropriately. If they are making reference to current events, they should stay as is. Unless, of course, we were to split this article. (Note: While I support splitting the article, I don't want to start another argument about it. I was just covering all possibilities.) --Khajidha (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't noticed that this article is not only about RoK. It has only the RoK infobox and no APKiM or UNMIK infoboxes - so I assumed that it is only about RoK - that's why I found it strange for APKiM redirects to go here.
So, the problem is not only in the redirects, it is in the whole structure/topic of the article!
I think the current setup is entirely inappropriate - if the article "Kosovo" is to be a combo-article covering both Kosovar POV and Serbian POV - then it should include infoboxes for both POVs (as the two POVs imply entirely different statuses). I understand that it will be difficult to decide what is put first, but having one of them missing is even worse - and misleading. Also, I don't know if Serbian POV should be represented by APKiM infobox or UNMIK infobox (these are already existing in the respective articles) - after all UNMIK is "accepted" by Serbia.
Such double POV arrangement seems inappropriate to me. Current situation: we have articles for former/current APKiM and UNMIK, but we don't have article for Republic of Kosovo. We also don't have articles devoted to Kosovo as a region/territory (in the sense of physical/natural properties, not in the political or administrative sense), we don't have article explaining Kosovar position on Kosovo, we don't have article Serbian position on Kosovo. The current Kosovo article is an awful mix of all these topics (both such that have their own articles and such that don't have separate articles). I propose the following arrangement (but reading your comment above it seems to open a can of worms):
  1. Kosovo to be devoted to as "general description" of the region/territory with sections
    • about the physical/natural properties of the region/territory - parts of the current "Geography" section
    • about the historical developments up to somewhere in the 20th century (up to 1912 or 1990) - most of the current "History" section
    • with brief section about demographics, languages, culture
    • with a separate section "Status of Kosovo" or similar - somewhere at the bottom where the recent (post 1990) political developments are briefly described - with links to the main articles of RoKosova, APKiM, UNMIK, RoK. Maybe mix it with the current "Name" section in "Status and names of Kosovo"
    • remarks about current political status and Kosovar/Serbian POVs to be kept mostly out of the lead section (otherwise it will become too big) and put into the "Status" section in the bottom
  2. Republic of Kosovo to get most of the sections (and the RoK infobox) of the current article (parts/summaries of them can be put in the general Kosovo article, relevant/ammended parts of them can be put in APKiM and/or UNMIK article) - this can be considered to show the Kosovar POV - or a separate Kosovar position on Kosovo or Albanian position on Kosovo article can be made
  3. Serbian Status Proposal for Kosovo (already existing) - this can be considered to show the Serbian POV - or a separate Serbian position on Kosovo article can be made
  4. pre-lead & disambiguate navigation helps ("XXX redirects here, for other uses see YYY", "This article is about XXX, for other uses see YYY") changes to relevant articles:
  5. The redirects to be changed:
You and I seem to be in complete agreement, but many users here seem to disagree. I don't know why it is so hard to understand that the physical place is separate from the social structure erected upon it and that different social structures can exist in the same physical space. USUALLY this does not occur and the physical space and social structure can be covered in one article. When exceptional circumstances occur, however, this can and should be recognized with an exceptional article structure. --Khajidha (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what are the objections? Maybe we should put some "split proposal" template in the article linking to this discussion?
The group of articles about Palestine, State of Palestine, Palestinian National Authority, Governance of the Gaza Strip, Palestine Liberation Organization, Palestinian territories, Israeli-occupied territories, etc. is a good example for another similar case like the triad here of Serbia/UNMIK/Republic of Kosovo. Alinor (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By similar I mean - it is an example of having different articles for the "general description" of the region/territory, for each of the "opposed to each other" governing authorities. Please, don't start arguments like "Kosovo is not like Palestine, because ..." - I don't claim it is. Alinor (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree completely with this great wonderful proposal! I tried to propose this multiple time alredy, but each time i was sabotaged by few problematic users. Whatever you decide, i would love to participate, PLEASE just inform me on my talk page. Also, i propose split templates, that would be the best. Alinor, i propose to create new section, with your main proposal. Or we can use this one above? Anyway, i am here, and i am willing to help to fix this unbelievable POV horror that we have now... --WhiteWriter speaks 16:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)WhiteWriter please don't try again without consensus because last time a large number of editors tuned your proposal down and some of them ended up complaining at AE about your actions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think to add a variant of Template:Split linking to this discussion (if the page protection allows me to), but could someone please point me to the previous discussions on such proposals? Alinor (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the most recent of the many split discussions, you may want to read archives Talk:Kosovo/Archive 25 and Talk:Kosovo/Archive 26.
Consensus can change, of course, but it gets a little tiring when some people who disagree with the consensus just want to try over and over again. To complain that one is sabotaged by problematic users is profoundly unhelpful; for people who genuinely believe (or pretend) that they have have The Truth and everybody else either helps or heeds them, wikipedia will be a very frustrating place, because wikipedia runs on consensus.
There wasn't even consensus to place a split template on the page, last time around.
This tends to turn into a very long debate so I would suggest putting it under its own heading if you wish to discuss further. bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some of the previous discussions (haven't read everything) and if I understand correctly the previous proposal were different - they proposed almost all material to go into the "general" Kosovo article, the RoK was referred to by the proposal "de facto ... disputed" (I think this doesn't help to have impartial debate) and wasn't clear what content will go there, the UNMIK was to go into APKiM article, etc. Then the comments revolved around "Serbia has no control over Kosovo, including North Kosovo", etc.
The current proposal is different than that. First it doesn't deal with the questions of how controls what, what the status is according to different POVs, etc. - the proposal is exactly about that - leave POVs to the appropriate articles and use Kosovo only for physical features/pre-1990 history - with only small section devoted to "Name and status" - mostly linking to the POV-articles.
I don't understand how anybody could be happy with the current status quo - the Republic of Kosovo does not have its own article - the current one is "pested" with APKiM-POV remarks. Even Somaliland article is more Somaliland-focused than this (and Somaliland has ZERO recognitions - for those that like to count recognitions and non-recognitions). On the other side, the APKiM-POV is pushed to the sidelines, there is no APKiM infobox (the reason I misunderstood the topic and started this discussion)! How could anybody claim that the status quo represents both POVs, when it actually represents neither?
What is the problem of putting APKiM and RoK POVs in their own articles (APKiM already has an article), UNMIK POV (that is different from the other two) also has an article. I think that the editors who support one of the POVs should concentrate on explaining it with great details on its own dedicated article - with just small remarks "the other POVs are the following: link1, link2, link3" - not like here to make "essay" delaboration in a mixed article. Espicially for UNMIK and APKiM POVs - they have their own articles, but their POVs are not explained well even there - for example - current functions/mandate of UNMIK, if/how it gave up tasks to EULEX (which tasks), to RoK (which tasks); Serbia position on APKiM - "since 1999 it is under UN administration", OK, but then "elections organized by Serbia produced the APKiM assembly->Serb APKiM Council, President" - so, is Belgrad officially working with these APKiM structures or it works with UNMIK (and what about EULEX?) - and only unofficially supports the APKiM structures? - the RoK POV also leaves many things unexplained - again about UNMIK-RoK relations - PISG were part of UNMIK, now it seems that they are part of RoK - how was the transition made? documents, sources. Is the old UNMIK currency regulation (4/1999) in force ("allowing official payments to be done in dinars, but with additional charge for exchange costs")? etc. And general questions - does Serbia put customs duties on goods coming from Kosovo? And from North Kosovo? Are there serbian border guards and customs officiers at the Serbia-Kosovo crossing, or is it considered by Serbia "internal administrative boundary, not border"? What about foreign debt of Serbia+Kosovo - how/whether it is divided? What about shares/immovable properties in Kosovo owned by Serbian entities/citizens? And vice-versa? What about RoK representation in organizations where the membership is of UNMIK? etc. the list of unanswered questions could continue.
Instead on focusing on delivering content with sources, etc. - we argue if we need source for "state with limited recognition" against "disputed territory with limited recognition" or if we should count recognitions or non-recognitions. I think, that by dividing the article into RoK, APKiM, UNMIK and historical/physical "general Kosovo" - all POVs would be represented much better, each in their own article.
By putting all in the same place is like requiring from Wikipedia editors to agree on common position - a thing that politicians could not do for 20 years. This is just a magnet for reverts, vandalism, etc. - so, the page is protected.
practical question - so, if putting a split-template is not acceptable, what can be done? Alinor (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creating separate articles to avoid the irksome chore of getting "Wikipedia editors to agree on common position" would be a POV fork. I'd rather get a NPOV here than create two separate POV ghettoes (which would, themselves, still attract lots of reverts and vandalism). bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor, you are very much welcome to propose some solution and add split-templates. None can ban you to propose split. Thats one of the main wiki rules, as you know. You must know that you have here some editors that find this subject very personal and emotional, so they can try to stop you, or there can be some minor problems, as i unfortunately find out. As i told you, just add new section with your proposal alongside split templates. With your fine explanation, every neutral admin will be willing to read what you have. Also, only arguments can win here. This horror needs to be fixed. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bobrayner, i don't agree that this is a POV fork proposal. RoK and APKiM and UNMIK are three different things, that's why putting them in a single article results in the problems described all over these 27 talk pages. There is one single thing that is common to all three and it is that the three are "administrations/governments" of the same territory - Kosovo. How much any one of these three is "legitimate", how much any one of these has "real control", etc. is irrelevant. I think it is better that we have one article, containing only the common things (Kosovo history pre-1990, geography, etc.) - and the other articles to deal with their own topic (and mention the others only when required in order to explain something about their topic).
WhiteWriter, thanks for the support! But it seems that the issue is very controversial (and entrenched) and right now I don't have time to be dragged into such discussion - I made my proposal above - if the editors here like it - they could easily implement it. I was just passing by and saw the strange redirects (some of them could be corrected even without the article split). Alinor (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems that splitting the article would allow clearer presentation of each side. Just as a debate has each participant speak individually instead of having everyone speaking at once and trying to drown out the other side's points. Yes, there should be a prominent note reminding people that these other POVs exist and linking to the presentation of each, but each government/administration should be presented in its own article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put a "split proposed" template in the article lead on October 30, 2010. Alinor (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Disagree. This was already a long debate. I agree that the current article leaves much questions unanswered. And, really, the whole article requires to be re-edited. It has to be shortened and it should redirect to other pages that are already created, and have much more information (e.g. APKM). However, Kosovo referring to the geographic territory would only be POV, meaning, Kosovo is not a real state. And this in itself is disputable. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, it was a long debate, so it shouldn't be debated anymore? Kosovo is not a real state is fact. Kosovo cannot be compared with Poland, America, or any other fully recognized state. Kosovo status is disputed, and excluding that fact is POV.
Agree. absolutely, completely, with no doubts! This split may be only real solution to save wikipedia from being propaganda tool. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - This is the solution I have always favored. Having both ROK and APKIM in the same article means that neither can be given the full focus each deserves. --Khajidha (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - per Khajidha. Moreover, I always found it odd that the infobox of this article says "Republic of Kosovo" at the very top. Athenean (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The previous situation of multiple infoboxes was horrendous and opens us up to debates about to which to give priority. Having just one means that at least some of the information isn't correct from one or the other viewpoint. --Khajidha (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fact. Without other side, this page is not neutral. And i think that this is almost unquestionable, like the common sense. One side, without other side, not equal to full. :) A bit of a poetry! :) :) --WhiteWriter speaks 19:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - The only possible solution for ending the Wikipedia dispute! --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously WhiteWriter is trying to gain consensus again only about one month after the vast majority of users without a conflict of interest rejected it. I suppose I'll have to inform them because this isn't a voting competition.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is completely untrue. Thank god we have archive to check. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per WhiteWriter, Khajidha, Athenean and UrbanVillager.--Andrija (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - strongly agree! right way to end this endless dispute. --Alexmilt (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - This seems quite reasonable and will fix several issues.Alexikoua (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ca you all just read WP:ARBMAC2 first! —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This split proposal is based on ARBMAC. Wikipedia is NOT propaganda tool! --WhiteWriter speaks 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's not start again with trying to move Republic of Kosovo to a different name. This split was already rejected. And stop voting, wikipedia is not a democracy. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody is voting - they are just expressing agreement/disagreement with the proposal, right?
As I explained above - former split proposals were different - and if I am not mistaken - they were with POVish intentions and POVish proposed results.
Anna Comnena, this proposal has nothing to do with "Kosovo is/isn't a real state". It is only about arranging content in appropriate places.
Enric Naval, this proposal is not "to move Republic of Kosovo to a different name" - it is a proposal to leave RoK as it is (point2 above: "Republic of Kosovo to get most of the sections (and the RoK infobox) of the current article") and separate pre-1990 history content in another place - so that the RoK article is not mixed with APKiM/UNMIK content.
The current setup is simply wrong - Kosovo POV supporters added all RoK state-article content (including infobox), but Serbia POV supporters insisted that APKiM (and UNMIK?) content should be there too - and added it as well (albeit without infoboxes). This is a horrible mess.
The main question is - what is the topic of the "Kosovo" article?
  1. Kosovo (disambiguation)
  2. Kosovo (region) (history/geography) - currently redirecting to Kosovo
  3. Republic of Kosovo (Kosovar POV) - currently redirecting to Kosovo
  4. UNMIK (UNSC POV)
  5. APKiM (Serbia POV) - currently redirecting to Kosovo, but actually represented here and see also the second sub-point of proposal point5
  6. some mix of the above?
See for example Macedonia - it is a Macedonia (disambiguation) with links to Macedonia (region), Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece). I am sure that both RoM and Greece POV supporters would like their article to reside under 'just "Macedonia"', also Greece POV supporters would prefer the RoM article to reside under "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", etc. But at least each topic has its own article and a sensible balance is reached between the POVs - by using the common name for a disambiguation page, etc.
So, I propose a little change to the proposal - the general description/history/geography sections (point1 of the proposal) should reside in Kosovo (region) (and change point4 sub-point3 and point5 sub-point4 accordingly).
Another question is where should Kosovo redirect - to: Kosovo (region), Kosovo (disambiguation), Republic of Kosovo, UNMIK or Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1999-) (linking to here, see sub-point2 of point5)? I think we should choose region or disambiguation, as the other options would be objected by the different POV camps. The other option is like Cyprus - there is the article for Republic of Cyprus, and it has in the heading a navigation link to Cyprus (disambiguation) - but in this case we will have to decide what POV gets the Kosovo - RoK, UNMIK or APKiM.
In fact, I think that the opposition to the current proposal is grounded in the insistence of RoK POV supporters that their article is under Kosovo and that no other POV should "usurp" this name. But the current result is that there is no RoK article at all - there is only a RoK/APKiM mixed article. Alinor (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Kosovo" is the most common name for the Republic of Kosovo, and it's most commonly used to refer to the Republic of Kosovo. This has already been discussed many times, and it was discussed recently.
In the case of Macedonia, there was not a most common use, and so they made a disambiguation page (there was a big discussion in Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia, which resulted in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)).
For Cyprus, see the arguments at Talk:Cyprus#What_is_meant_by_Cyprus. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is such consensus reached, then Kosovo should redirect to Republic of Kosovo (or vice versa) - and this article should "get most of the sections (and the RoK infobox) of the current article" plus a little history and a little about UNMIK/Serbia POV, etc. as per the proposal; Kosovo (region) should get pre-1990 history, geography; APKiM material should go to APKiM article; UNMIK material should go to UNMIK article; redirects should be re-arranged accordingly - as per the proposal, but with Kosovo (region) for the general article instead of Kosovo (this affects mostly sub-point6 of point5). Alinor (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that in order to avoid such debates in the future, the article should be Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo to redirect there. That way it will be clear what the topic is - e.g. RoK. If in the future someone wants to raise the issue of "what should be in the Kosovo page - a redirect to RoK or something of the other options here above?" - this will be discussed at Talk:Kosovo instead of Talk:Republic of Kosovo - and consequentially any edit-revert wars (or edits that go unnoticed along these wars) would not result in a situation like the current one - an article with unclear topic - and no real RoK article to represent Kosovar POV.
A related issue is if Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999) should be renamed to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) - to more clearly represent Serbian POV - as currently th APKiM 1990-1999 article contains a section for events after 1999 (including also events after 2008). Alinor (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about countries cover everything about the country, including geography, history, etc. And again, Kosovo is the most common name for the country, and the most common use of the name is to refer to the country. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that Serbia POV supporters agree that "the most common use of the word 'Kosovo' is to refer to the 'Republic of Kosovo' proclaimed in 2008".
I don't understand what do you suggest. If the topic of the article should be RoK - then APKiM/UNMIK/etc. should be mentioned only briefly (with links) - in relevant places (such as police/judicary/etc. for UNMIK; Serbian structures like "assembly for KiM"/etc. for APKiM). Also, an article about RoK will not begin with "it is a disputed territory", because it is a country, right? An article about Kosovo-in-general could begin with "it is a disputed territory" (disputed between RoK, Serbia and maybe UNMIK - I still don't see a proper explanation of the RoK-UNMIK relationship), but an article about RoK should begin with "it is a partially recognized state" or similar wording. Also an article about RoK will not have all APKiM redirects pointing to it, would it?
Nobody is opposed to including history/geography texts in a RoK article - but as the pre-1990 is at least "shared" between both POVs - it should be part of the Kosovo (region) or History of Kosovo main articles (with summary history section in RoK article). Also, most of the countries (with enough content) have separate "History of XXX" articles and don't try to include EVERYTHING on the main page.
So, if I understand you correctly you think that Kosovo should have as topic the Republic of Kosovo. Do you agree Kosovo to redirect to Republic of Kosovo (thus having the same effect, but greatly reducing the potential for conflicts - as I explained above - as the topic would be crystal clear)? And what do you propose for Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999) and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) (see above). Alinor (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is not a country. Kosovo is disputed territory. Someone think that that territory it is country, but then, it is called Republic of Kosovo. Someone claim it as Serbian province, and then it is called Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
Kosovo ≠ Republic of Kosovo.
Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
Kosovo is mix of those two. But as those two are opposite sides, they cannot be represented together. If you do not agree that Kosovo is disputed, than your help here can be quite limited. It is FACT that Kosovo is disputed. Also, i highly doubt that most common use should be guideline for this, and if that is your main argument, that it is a poor one. We should follow here much more important and significant rules then WP:COMMON NAME. And voting was not rejected, it was sabotaged by few users. And until we all agree, solutions will be proposed. None cannot stop that. --WhiteWriter speaks 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WhiteWriter please don't make comments like voting was sabotaged by few users. Wikipedia is neither a democracy, where consensus is determined by the votes a faction can gather nor a directory of ideologies, where each pov is represented by its own article.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are not votes, i don't think so. This people just express their attitude toward the proposal. And i think that if China, Macedonia, Cyprus, and all other similar wikipedia problems were fixed in "split way", Kosovo shouldn't be exception. And as for now, all i see is that at least 7 (Seven) users argumentatively agree to split this article. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No previous proposal has been as well detailed as this one, that alone merits our attention and consideration. --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not important what people think, Kosovo IS an independent country. It has the control over the territory, it has its own passports (that are mostly recognized), it has its own government, and most importantly, it has sovereignty. As for Taiwan and other examples WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that it is important what are peoples arguments. That is one of the main guidelines on wikipedia about dispute resolution. If you think that this article and this subject is not disputed, you are welcome to explain all of this restrictions, sanctions, and etc. on this page. Also, this is not place to discuss what Kosovo is, and what is not, this is place to fix inconsistency with article content. This proposition by Alinor is one of the greatest propositions i saw in all of those years on English wiki regarding this page, because it is best way to show every possible pov, and to remain neutral in all related parts of wikipedia. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Kosovo is independent country - nobody questions that. But there are 'notable' POVs (like the POV of Serbia government) that question the "rights", "validity" (and "existence"?) of the RoK. Thus it is independent, but with "limited recognition"/"partially recognized".
With this proposal we will decouple the two issues. We can have a proper RoK article, a Kosovo (region) article - and then, separately decide if Kosovo should redirect to RoK, Kosovo (region), or Kosovo (disambiguation) (that contains much more uses of the word Kosovo - some even outside of the Kosovo (region) - yes, I know that these are not the "most commonly used").
Anna Comnena, I don't understand your position - it seems that you supports the Kosovar POV, but at the same time you defend the status quo - where the RoK doesn't have its own article. This leads to the question above: 'what is the topic of the "Kosovo" article?' Alinor (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo should be disambiguation page. This page has to be renamed to Republic of Kosovo. Keeping this page with infobox country (without infobox that portray Kosovo as Serbian province) doesn't help much to NPOV. Read WP:TRUTH-- Bojan  Talk  03:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Disagree with the split.--Getoar TX (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Please explain why you disagree. Alinor (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the arguments of the vast majority of the support votes from the Serb editors that are nothing more than agree per other editors or this is the only possible solution. Alinor you should know that this isn't going to get split just because all semi-active Serb editors decided to vote for its split because we've had multiple discussions (and not votes) that refuted this proposal(although even after all this voting activity there's still no consensus for the split).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the positions (agree/disagree) expressed above contain at least some limited explanation. And for the "agree" positions it could be assumed that if no explanation is given then they support the explanation given in the proposal itself. In contrast this particular position contains only "disagree/agree".
I understand that some editors are opposed - but why? What is the topic of the article according to the opposers? RoK or something else? Because currently the article is not written as a RoK article. And that is what I find strange - the opposers of the proposal here are at the same time supporters of the Kosovar POV. Thus it is reasonable to assume that they should be very unhappy with the status quo where RoK doesn't have an article at all. But they don't accept a proposal that will make RoK a topic an article!? There isn't any feedback even on the proposal Kosovo to redirect to their article (RoK) - but I assume that this will be heavily disputed by Serbian POV supporters anyway. Alinor (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My explanation was: If you split Kosovo, it means the it is not a country (Serbian perspective). If you do not split, it will remain neutral, as it has an explanatory text on the lead. You can read from archive, all of these arguments have been mentioned many times earlier. Now that we had a consensus, you sparkled new hopes for "Serbian editors". —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anna, if we do not split Kosovo and keeping only infobox country, it means that Kosovo is sovereign country. Footnote about status that would actually nobody read is insufficient. -- Bojan  Talk  05:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My explanation: Currently APKIM redirects here but it is not an article about that entity. The infobox is designed for ROK, not APKIM. On the other side, if this is the ROK article then it should be listed as a partially recognized country not a disputed territory. The region is disputed between ROK and Serbia (APKIM), but an article about ROK must start with the assumption that it exists. As is, the article is a confusing mush of conflicting viewpoints neither of which can be explained properly because the opposite viewpoint is forced into the discussion. In separate articles the appropriate viewpoint can be articulated in full with only a short paragraph noting the dispute and directing the reader to the appropriate article for more information. --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, APKM shouldn't redirect to Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija?? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Khajidha.
Anna Comnena, I think that the proposals here are different from the previous split proposals - and implementing these would be neutral, would increase comprehensibility, would reduce the potential for conflicts/edit-wars. Why are you opposed to a proper Republic of Kosovo article (to get most of the current content) without APKiM connotations? (only a small note)
In any case the status quo should be changed - the article should have a clear topic. Kosovo (region), Kosovo (disambiguation) or Republic of Kosovo - whatever, but it should be clear. As it currently stands its topic seems to be Kosovo (region) (as it clearly isn't neither RoK nor APKiM nor UNMIK) and thus should either have both RoK and APKiM infoboxes or neither infobox - but I find such solution worse than the proposed split.
Enric Naval, if you look at the dab APKM page you provided you will clearly see what is the problem with this article. The first entitiy in the APKM dab page is Kosovo. Why? Because the topic of this article contains three separate things - Kosovo (region), Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1999-).
That's why I proposed (summarized):
  • Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–1999) to be renamed to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) - to more clearly represent Serbian POV - as currently the APKiM 1990-1999 article contains a section for events after 1999 (including also events after 2008)
  • Republic of Kosovo to have its own article (clearly representing Kosovar POV)
  • Kosovo (region) article to be established with the pre-1990 history, geography related to the territory of Kosovo - both RoK and APKiM articles will contain/link to parts of this article (e.g. I don't suggest to make this content exclusive to the "region"-article - the other articles will not be "deprived" of this content)
  • Kosovo to be a redirect. It can redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) or to Kosovo (region) - I think that both POV camps would not agree the other camp to "usurp" the name by redirecting to RoK/APKiM. In any case, any such dispute about "Our usage of Kosovo is more common than yours" will have much less implications if it is over the redirect target - the RoK/APKiM/Kosovo (region) articles will remain "clear" of such edit-wars. As we all see the result of the last such dispute is that we have an article that mixes unmixable topics. Also, making this separation now will ensure that if consensus changes in the future a reversal will be very easy to do - just change a redirect or move&redirect APKiM/RoK to Kosovo. Currently any change goes trough establishment (by utilizing current mixed content) of two "new" articles: Kosovo (region) and RoK (APKiM needs only a change in the years in its name).
So, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija dab page should not link to Kosovo (region) and Republic of Kosovo, but only to APKiM pre-1974, SAP Kosovo, APKiM(s) post-1990. But currently it has to link to Kosovo because of the mixup. Alinor (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that nobody opposes point1 and point3 above? Also, I think that even Serbia POV supporters would agree that RoK exists and is notable enough to have its own article (validity of RoK itself, its actions and claims is a separate issue that may be debated and disputed), so point2 also seems to be not so controversial.
The root cause of the problem, IMHO, is that both RoK and APKiM supporters want Kosovo to be "their" article. But we see the horrible result - no "real RoK" article and APKiM article without APKiM infobox - both mixed into one article.
I think that it would be much more neutral (and has additional benefits as explained above) if Kosovo redirects to Kosovo (region) or Kosovo (disambiguation). Alinor (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected APKM to the disambiguation page, and moved Kosovo to the end of its list (in chronological order, like an older version of the page). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what do you (and everyone else) think about the proposal above? Alinor (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor's proposal is overlooking one fact, any solution that does not redirect Kosovo to its sovereign territory is POV, it means that Kosovo is not a country. Also it makes both sides equal. Like, Serbs say this... Albanians say this... We should find something in the middle. When in fact (de facto and de jure) Kosovo is independent. There are no Institutions of Serbia in Kosovo, there is No Army of Serbia in Kosovo. There are only Kosovar institutions and International ones. Kosovo is also recognized in the world (though not fully). A Kosovar can travel with his passport everywhere in the World (including countries that have not officially recognized it's independence).

So a solution would be if Kosovo article would mainly contain information about Kosovo as a country and territory with an explanation about the challenges with Serbia. And another article should be made about Kosovo-Serbia relations. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some institutions of Serbia does exist in Kosovo. Kosovo is not a country, it is a disputed territory. I fount it is hard, if not impossible, to reconcile two contradictory entity in just one article. -- Bojan  Talk  19:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some institutions of Serbia exist in Northern Kosovo. That might become Serbia after talks. But on other parts of Kosovo there are institutions of Serbia. So it is only Norther Kosovo that is disputed. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Kosovo is disputed. You know, NPOV is not when you agree with just yourself. -- Bojan  Talk  20:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Comnena, by reading your comment I see that my assumption above was correct - the root cause of the problem is "who gets the Kosovo article".
Where RoK passports are accepted (there is no "Kosovar passport" - there are "RoK passport" and "Serbian Directorate passport") is irrelevant for the topic (a side note: RoK passports are accepted in some countries that don't recognize RoK, but they are still not accepted everywhere). Same for institutions, etc. - who controls what and how RoK has almost total control over Kosovo (region) is irrelevant - nobody questions that.
The fact is that Serbia doesn't recognize the RoK existence and claims that Kosovo (region) is APKiM under provisional UNMIK administration. Yes, on the ground Serbian institutions may have only small influence, but still their POV is highly relevant and notable. And alas, I can't find neither good explanation of the relationship between "Serbian assembly for KiM" and Belgrade government (if any?), nor good explanation of the de-jure/formal relationship between RoK and UNMIK (if any?). As a side note - you speak about "Kosovo-Serbia relations", but the situation is as follows: there are no Serbia-RoK relations. There are Serbia-UNMIK relations, Serbia-EULEX relations and there were Serbia-PISG relations (status talks), but there are no RoK-Serbia relations. Please note the fact how unusable/misleading the wording "Kosovo-Serbia relations" is. I assume that you referred to "RoK-Serbia", but I can't be sure (maybe you referred to "UNMIK-Serbia" or "PISG-Serbia", etc.) - that's why it is better that we call everything with its official name (e.g. RoK instead of "Kosovo" - when speaking about the independent state; APKiM instead of "Kosovo" - when speaking about the province of Serbia).
Anna Comnena, currently Kosovo is not an article about RoK, but about Kosovo (region), RoK and APKiM. In the whole Wikipedia there is no article focused solely on RoK (the state that you refer to by its short-form name "Kosovo"). I assume that you don't like this status quo.
All this leads to the point that each of APKiM, UNMIK and RoK should have its own article. Do we all agree here?
Do we also agree to a Kosovo (region) article with the pre-1990 history/geography? (to be also duplicated in/linked from RoK and APKiM)
If we implement these three articles there will be a huge improvement over the status quo - in fact the biggest change will be that RoK will have its own article - separate from APKiM.
And the only issue left would be - where to redirect Kosovo. Kosovo (disambiguation) is a good point, as there are much more "Kosovo"s that the RoK/APKiM anyway. Alinor (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor, I believe that your initiative is highly appreciated. You have raised the level of argumentation. On these grounds, with the your comment above, I will have to deal with two last points:
1. The root of the problem is not "who gets the Kosovo article"! It is not Serbian Kosovo vs. Kosovar Kosovo! It's Kosovar Kosovo vs "Neutral" Kosovo. At this point of development in Kosovo's history, "Neutral" is a not-recognition! States that are "neutral" towards Kosovo, do not recognize it. This does not mean that we should not have NPOV, but we should read what WP:NPOV really means. Kosovo is a hard case! No simple solution!
2. Kosovo is not more RoK than Serbia is RoS. I really do not understand where did that come from.
Furthermore, an article that would explain the Kosovo issues with Serbia could be much appreciated. (You can call it whatever you want) But that could be an important link of the current Kosovo article.

—Anna Comnena (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if some editors don't say it out loud, it is just about "who gets the Kosovo article". That is only one reason for blocking this logical split for so long. Also, Alinor, if would be time to invite some administrators to see this, and do the next step in here. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the real sticking point seems to be where to redirect the unmodified term Kosovo. --Khajidha (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. And while we have here this monster mix article, with Republika e Kosovës being first to see, sure that every pro-RoK user will oppose this split to neutrality. Article like this is almost violation of ARBMAC Final decision. Wikipedia is not propaganda tool! And by pointless trolling comments, every discusion becomes TLDR, and none is willing to reread it, and it is gone in the wind. It was like this for long time, even when we have some kind of agreement about splitting. Alinor, as this is greatest proposition in long time, please, invite administrators that are introduced with ARBMAC and Kosovo subjects, and ask for conclusions. There is no unclear or undiscussed subjects anymore. It is time for closure. --WhiteWriter speaks 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object if someone puts this to arbitration, mediation or some other suitable procedure for resolving the issue, but I have already gone further in this issue than I intended. Alinor (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Comnena, I still don't understand your position fully - do you like the following aspects of the status quo: topic of Kosovo article is not only RoK, but also APKiM; there is no article solely dedicated to "Kosovo as a country" (RoK)? (I suppose you agrees that this properly describes the status quo articles?)
I think that the only reason why RoK POV supporters agree to such anti-RoK arrangement is because they somehow managed to remove the other infoboxes (UNMIK and/or APKiM). At the same time I think that Serbia POV supporters agree to RoK infobox to be the only one in the Kosovo article (anti-Serbia arrangement) only because they somehow managed to make its topic to include APKiM (and thus "depriving" RoK of a Wikipedia article). I don't think the aim of Wikipedia is to have such tit-for-toe arrangements that are at the same time misleading. If the topic of Kosovo article are both RoK and APKiM, then there should be at least two (if not even three) infoboxes. If the topic of Kosovo article should be only RoK (as you seem to suggest, but I'm not sure since you don't seem to reject the status quo) - then it should be rewritten in this way.
The proposal here will put everything where it belongs (let's leave aside for the moment the issue of Kosovo redirect - I find it as root cause - you disagree with me on that).
Now about the two points you have wrote above.
  • "Kosovo is not more RoK than Serbia is RoS." - yes and the Serbia article starts with "Serbia, officially the Republic of Serbia [RoS], is a landlocked country located ..." The problem is that the status quo Kosovo article starts with "Kosovo is a disputed territory ... Republic of Kosovo this and that ... Serbia's Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija this and that" - a true RoK article should start with "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a landlocked partially recognized country located in the Balkans." (or similar wording). In this specific debate (dealing with the topic of the Kosovo article) comments we just have to use the full official names RoK/APKiM instead of "simply Kosovo" - because otherwise it is unclear who we refer to (unless you know whose POV supporter is the user writing the comment). Outside of this debate it is obvious that you won't say "I am going to visit friends in the Republic/Province/Territory/Entity/Whatever of Kosovo" but will simply say "in Kosovo".
  • "root cause is not ..." - I understand your arguments here. It is irrelevant if I agree with them (see below), but as a side note - I find part of them incorrect - not all countries that don't recognize Kosovo are "neutral to the issue". If that was the case Kosovo would have been UN member already. Some of the countries are "actively non-recognizing", they are "rejecting recognition", not simply "don't care to do the paperwork". The obvious example is Serbia, but there are others. Yes, you could say that the "active non-recognizers" are "clearly a minority", but at this stage this is very hard/impossible to prove - so far there are 72 formal recognitions and you can only guess that 30-35 more would recognize it sooner or later.
Anyway, these arguments (and some of your previous arguments) will be relevant to a potential debate about the root-cause-IMHO "where should Kosovo redirect?" (e.g. you give arguments in favor of redirecting to an article about RoK) - but the main point of the current debate is that RoK/APKiM articles should be kept separate. This is a separate issue (that's why I said that these arguments are irrelevant). As I pointed out before - if we decouple RoK/APKiM/Kosovo (region) it would be much easier to focus on the issue of Kosovo redirect - and to have a meaningful debate about it.
It seems that you may have something against a potential Kosovo (region) article. I explained multiple times above that this does not mean that RoK/APKiM articles will be "deprived of their history" - editors could copy as much as they find useful.
So, Anna Comnena (and anybody else that wants to comment of course), would you clarify three things:
  1. Do you agree that the status quo should be changed by separating RoK/APKiM?
  2. Do you agree that we establish a Kosovo (region) article?
  3. Do you agree Kosovo to redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) for a short period during which interested editors could provide arguments for changing the redirect to RoK/APKiM/Kosovo(region)? (if there was already a debate on the issue of "common usage of the term Kosovo" - or whatever the relevant Wikipedia policy is - we can immediately utilize its conclusion) Alinor (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo (cyan) and Metohija (yellow)
  1. Yes.
  2. Hm. What would this article include? Kosovo is name for one basin and part of on that territory (the second one is Metohija)
  3. Agree, but not for a short period. It should be until final status is known. -- Bojan  Talk  10:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding #2 - it will contain content as described in point1 at the top of this section.
Regarding #3 - nothing is final in Wikipedia - everything can be discussed and subsequently changed. I think that as soon as we implement this change there will be RoK POV editors suggesting to redirect there and APKiM POV editors suggesting to redirect there. The decision will depend on the arguments those (and other) editors bring. Alinor (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor, your persistence is admirable. I want to make one thing clear though. I am only for this status quo as a compromise, anything less than this goes beyond compromise, it becomes Serbian POV. It would make Kosovo's independence relative and it would make it look like only one of many POV's. When in fact this is the main POV.
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Maybe (but I really do not see a point there).
Another thing. I am against Kosovo being treated as a disputed territory. Disputed between who? It's inhabitants and Serbia?
—Anna Comnena (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding question no 2.: what about area colored cyan? If we have article Metohija, then it is logical to have article on Kosovo basin. Regarding question no 3: you won't see any new arguments until Serbia recognize independence of Kosovo or until Kosovo returns to Serbia.-- Bojan  Talk  16:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC) ently".[reply]

About #2. Bojan, what do you suggest? Two articles - Kosovo (region) and Metohija? I think that most of the content relates to both, so maybe it's better to keep them together. I am not opposed to a split - if somebody with knowledge on the subject can sort out the content. Anyway, Anna Comnena is opposed to #2 in any form so, this becomes a moot point for the moment.
We already have History of Kosovo and Geography of Kosovo, so we could easily implement the RoK/APKiM split without #2 - RoK editors will copy content they deem relevant to the RoK topic and APKiM editors will copy content they deem relevant to the APKiM topic (for both I propose a short history/geography summary with link to the main articles - but respective editors could agree on something else).
We can go without a Kosovo (region) article, but then we will have to redirect all links from subpoint6 of point5 somewhere else - I propose to the same place where we redirect Kosovo itself.
About #3. Bojan, you may be right (it depends on what arguments people bring) - I only wanted to point out that we can't decide anything "permanently".
Anna Comnena, the current Kosovo article starts with "Kosovo is a disputed territory". Also it is clear between who is it disputed - between the authorities of RoK and RoS. Yes, a majority (but not all) of the inhabitants support/prefer RoK. This is important, but the positions of the outside world are also important. Anyway, I don't think that a Republic of Kosovo article will be anti-Kosovar. Alinor (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Agreed.
  2. The existing History of Kosovo and Geography of Kosovo articles could serve this purpose.
  3. Agreed. --Khajidha (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already agreed above, same as other people. Also, Khajidha proposition for 2. question is fine, although i agree on kosovo region article too. It seems that we all agree! Is that possible!? :) :) Yes, it is!!! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 15:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since it seems that all agree I suggest to implement the changes. I already moved APKIM1990-1999 to APKiM1990-. The next step is to move content from Kosovo to Republic of Kosovo (plus some wording tweaks mostly in the lead) - but I suggest that this is done by some editor more involved with the Kosovo article. The next step would be to re-arrange the redirects and here I could also help. Alinor (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't all agree, and you are just ignoring past discussions. If you want to make that move, first make a RfC to get outside comments. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason why I even posted the merge-proposal only reluctantly - and why I suggested that a more involved editor implements the changes.
Anyway, nobody is ignoring past discussions, but they didn't solve the problems, so we try to address them now.
Enric Naval, do you prefer the status quo? What is your position on these last three points/questions above? Alinor (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enric Naval, do you disagree with the proposition that this article is flawed? Aside from the issues already raised, am I the only one who thinks it odd that the History section on this page is almost twice as long as the History section on the Egypt page. In fact, the last 20 years of history on this page is almost as long as the entire history of Egypt section! Shouldn't this be condensed and the bulk of the information transferred to the 20th century history of Kosovo article? --Khajidha (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enric Naval, if you dont explain you attitude with normal useful arguments, your disagreement is irrelevant for us. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking like no one raised any argument at Talk:Kosovo/Archive_26#Separation and Talk:Kosovo/Archive_25#ICJ_verdict. I already pointed at WP:COMMON and at other country articles. I explained why Macedonia was a different case. I pointed to a discussion of why Republic of Cyprus is a redirect to Cyprus, just like Kosovo.
WP:COMMON is the strongest argument for changing an article title, and you are all trying to ignore it. See also WP:NPOV#Naming. In summary:
  • TO POINT KOSOVO TO "KOSOVO (DISAMBIGUATION)", YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT THE REPUBLIC IS NOT THE MOST COMMON MEANING OF "KOSOVO". OR THAT "KOSOVO" COMMONLY REFERS TO SOMETHING OTHER THAT THE REPUBLIC. THAT'S DONE BY SHOWING VERIFIABLE RELIABLE SOURCES
  • TO MOVE KOSOVO TO "REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO" YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT, WHEN REFERRING TO THE REPUBLIC, "REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO" IS MORE COMMON THAT SIMPLY "KOSOVO". AGAIN, SOURCES.
  • TO POINT KOSOVO TO "KOSOVO (REGION)" TO NEED TO SHOW THAT "KOSOVO" COMMONLY REFERS TO THE REGION INSTEAD OF THE REPUBLIC. AGAIN, SOURCES.
The country of Macedonia was moved to Republic of Macedonia because it wasn't the most common usage of "Macedonia", see Proposal B. Republic of Macedonia. Show here that sources commonly use "Kosovo", or find consensys via RfC / centralized discussion / one of the paths at WP:DR. Don't move the article until you have done that. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enric Naval, have you even readed the above discussion? You refer to 'older' 3 points. The currently discussed are:
  1. Do you agree that the status quo should be changed by separating RoK/APKiM?
  2. Do you agree that we establish a Kosovo (region) article? (the current consensus is to use the already existing History of Kosovo and Geography of Kosovo articles instead)
  3. Do you agree Kosovo to redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) for a short period during which interested editors could provide arguments for changing the redirect to RoK/APKiM/Kosovo(region)? (if there was already a debate on the issue of "common usage of the term Kosovo" - or whatever the relevant Wikipedia policy is - we can immediately utilize its conclusion) - see comment from 09:32, 7 November 2010
So, the question is not to change the article title, but to have a meaningful article topic. As you can see in the discussion above - currently the topic of this article is not RoK, but both RoK and APKiM. If the status quo topic is to remain then a second (and third?) infobox should be added. The proposal above avoids that by separating RoK and APKiM.
Regarding your CAPITAL LETTER comments.
First - do you like the following aspects of the status quo: the topic of Kosovo article is not only RoK, but also APKiM; there is no article solely dedicated to "Kosovo as a country" (RoK) in the whole Wikipedia? (I suppose you agrees that this properly describes the status quo articles? - see above for additional examples)
As the status quo Kosovo article topic are both APKiM and RoK - redirecting to Kosovo (disambiguation) (where these two are linked from) would just retain the current arrangement (in relation to naming) - and anyway this is proposed only as temporary measure during the debate.The arguments you provide could be utilized in the envisioned in point3 debate. If the others agree I won't object redirecting to RoK from the start - and leaving for other editors to bring arguments for changing the redirect (that you seems to disagree). Alinor (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression (and voted as such) that we were looking to make this article the ROK article, to make the APKIM (most recent Serbian conception) article encompass all data about APKIM up to and including the current situation, to condense the history section and move much of it to the relevant history articles, and redirect Kosovo to wherever is most appropriate. I don't see how your objections apply to that scenario. It is not necessarily a POV fork to separate different viewpoints when they manifest as separate things the way the ROK/APKIM "viewpoints" do. For one example of the problems with this article - I'm still trying to figure out what the infobox is referring to because I don't know of any version of Republic of Kosovo that is "within Serbia" the way the map shows. APKIM is within Serbia, ROK is outside of it. --Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) they are already separated, Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija_(1990–) and Kosovo (and I redirected APKiM to the desambiguation page, like APKM)
2) there are already those two articles for history and geography
3) no. "Kosovo" is the most common name for RoK, there is no reason to point to the desambiguation for any period of time. About WP:COMMON discussions, looking at archives, the most recent one was in March 2008 Talk:Kosovo/Archive_18#Move. A few discussions cite WP:COMMON for using "Kosovo" instead of "Kosova" Talk:Kosovo/Archive_15#Kosova.2C_not_Kosovo. I'll just open a new section below.
--Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1)If the articles are separated, why does ANY form of "Autonomous Province" redirect here? Why is Kosovo still shown inside of Serbia on the map in the infobox? If this is the ROK article, neither of those should apply.
2)Agreed, but there still seems to be far too much detail on this page for a summary.
3)Have no opinion as to the target of the Kosovo redirect. --Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)Because of Serbia still calling it APKM. The map in {{Republic of Kosovo}} was changed in July 2010 with edit summary "Edits per Kosovo talk page"[3], I have no idea what talk page discussion he is talking about, maybe Talk:Kosovo/Archive_25#Infobox. In my opinion, it should use File:Kosovo map-en1.svg, but I don't really care about it.

2)The solution is editing those sections to reduce their size.

--Enric Naval (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)If this page is covering the Serbian conception of the region as APKIM, then it is (by definition) NOT the ROK page. There is already a page for APKIM where that information and viewpoint could be covered. This page should cover the ROK. Yes, there should be a note mentioning the dispute, but the data presented should be consistent with the conception of the ROK.
2)Agreed, that was part of what this proposal was about. --Khajidha (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enric Naval, the status quo topic of the Kosovo article is 'not RoK. We have already gone trough this above, but I will copy part of it here: "the status quo Kosovo article starts with "Kosovo is a disputed territory ... Republic of Kosovo this and that ... Serbia's Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija this and that" - a true RoK article should start with "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a landlocked partially recognized country located in the Balkans." (or similar wording). " If you insist on keeping the status quo - then we should add APKiM infobox (and maybe UNMIK infobox) below the RoK infobox (each of them showing appropriate map).
Currently on Wikipedia there is no article whose topic is only RoK.
Also I would suggest that you read the above comments on 'the root cause of the problem is "who gets the Kosovo article".' and the 09:32, 7 November 2010 comment about my assumption how the status quo mixup was achieved and why it is supported by both RoK POV and Serbia POV camps. Alinor (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most common name

In reference to WP:COMMON WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV#Naming.

Looking at the first 100 hits in Google News, all use simply "Kosovo" when talking about the republic. They only use "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" when quoting what Serbian representatives have said. Searching "republic of kosovo" has a lot less results[4]. Articles that use "republic of kosovo" also use "kosovo" to name the republic [5][6] --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments could be brought forward in the potential debate on "where should Kosovo redirect?". But what do you suggest with them in the current debate on "should we separate RoK and APKiM?" ? Alinor (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You absolutely don't understand, Eric, and per this post you show us that. You are saying that then, this article should represent ONLY RoK, as "first 100 hits in Google News use simply "Kosovo" when talking about the republic". And WE are saying that this article CANNOT represent only RoK, as there are others, much more important rules and guidelines then WP:COMMONNAME in this case. And, Kosovo is equal to "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" also, as you may see in your falsely presented "100 hits only for RoK". So, as both entity's are presented as Kosovo, that cannot be decisive rule for this article. Also, you know that number of Google hits doesn't mean anything special for disputed, important articles like this one. And also, most important thing.
Kosovo ≠ Republik of Kosovo
RoK is only one part of Kosovo meaning. That's why this article should be split. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is the common name for the Republic of Kosovo and the region itself. The APKM is used only in context with Serbian claims, so please WhiteWriter don't make or deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case this debate should be held after we have separate RoK/APKiM articles. Because currently it serves no purpose - there is no RoK article.
That's what the proposal above is about - to have a Republic of Kosovo article - and then to focus a separate debate on the Kosovo redirect issue. Alinor (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand is: Why should we separate before we discuss? —Anna Comnena (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because we all agree that the status quo mix topic is not properly defined and that RoK and APKiM should be described in separate articles.
Separating RoK/APKiM will be a big improvement over the status quo. Also it would allow for the "furious" debate on Kosovo redirect to be conducted on a separate talk page (and resulting edit-wars to affect only a redirect page) from the RoK/APKiM pages and will not affect the RoK/APKiM articles (I think that the current problem of non-topic of the Kosovo status quo article is a result of exactly this - both POVs clashed - and settled for the current awful status quo). Alinor (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@WhiteWriter. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV#Naming say that RoK should be in "Kosovo". If there are other policies or guidelines, then please point them out here.
@Alinor. There are already articles for the region of kosovo, they are History of Kosovo and Geography of Kosovo. The article for the country occupying the region has a summary of them and links them. Just like Spain, France, Germany, Russia, etc. Heck, just like Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania. Even Yugoslavia has the same structure that Kosovo has now. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Enric Naval, currently there is no "article for the country occupying the region". There is one article about APKiM (not a country) and there is another article about both APKiM (not a country) and RoK (country). There is no article about RoK. Please read my comment right above this subsection. Actually I think that RoK is the only case of state with limited recognition that has no article on Wikipedia. I asked you above what do you think of this situation? Alinor (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo is the article for "Republic of Kosovo", the same way as Serbia is the article for "Republic of Serbia". I can't say it more succinctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not arguing that point. I am arguing that a Republic of Kosovo article should not have any indication of also being the current Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article. No form of APKIM should redirect to this page, as (to the ROK) that is the past. ROK should not be shown as being within the borders of Serbia on the map. There are multiple articles for different versions of APKIM, all such data should be moved to those articles (or a new one for the current Serbian conception of APKIM). All references to APKIM on this page should be as a historical situation, not as a current fact. This article should only have a short notice saying that countries that do not recognize Kosovo's independence still consider it to be an autonomous province of Serbia with a link to the appropriate article. --Khajidha (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict
No. The topic is clearly defined in the lead - Kosovo is a disputed territory with two claimants - 'by the independent state RoK' and 'by RoS as APKiM region under UNMIK administration'. Currently there is no article whose topic is only RoK without APKiM. You may insist that the topic of Kosovo should be changed to RoK, but in the status quo it is not so.
What I am proposing is to have an article whose topic is RoK and not RoK+APKiM. And because of the controversial issue of "who gets the Kosovo article" I propose to decouple it from the RoK/APKiM/whatever articles - by making it a redirect - initially to Kosovo (disambiguation) (as the most neutral destination article) and following a quick debate it can be changed to redirect to RoK or another destination (depending on the outcome of the debate) - the arguments you supply here will be relevant to that debate.
Even if the debate comes to the conclusion Kosovo to be redirecting to Republic of Kosovo the content should remain under the RoK heading so that the topic is explicitly clear - otherwise we will get again to the current status quo situation - where the TOPIC of the article is CONFUSING. This is totally unacceptable. Not to mention that consequently the quality of the content suffers and is susceptible to edit-wars. Alinor (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Khajidha. Change those redirects to point to Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija.
About maps, I made a new section below.
The rest of stuff, it can be fixed by editing the article.
@Alinor. This article is already only about the RoK. It only mentions that it was once the APKM, and that Serbia claims it as APKM. The APKM is covered at Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija_(1990–). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The current topic of the Kosovo article is about "Kosovo as disputed territory" (between RoK and RoS) and not about "Republic of Kosovo, the partially recognized independent state". That's why the redirects are pointing here, that's why the map is such. Just look at the lead:
  1. Begins with the topic - "Kosovo is a disputed territory"
  2. next sentence is about one of the claimants - RoK
  3. next sentence is about the other claimant - RoS/APKiM
Above you practically propose to change the topic to RoK. I don't know if this will be accepted, but obviously it wasn't acceptable before - because the result is the current RoK/APKiM mixed topic.
Anyway, if you want the topic changed - please propose that. And I don't see why you are opposed to Republic of Kosovo article with Kosovo redirecting to it (if RoK POV arguments are accepted) or redirecting to Kosovo (disambiguation) (if RoK POV arguments are not accepted - RoK POV supporters will reject Serbia POV proposals for redirect, so it will stay in this way). In both cases the improvement over the status quo will be significant. Alinor (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Enric Naval, I have removed the note at the top of the page about APKIM redirecting here as it is not true (I checked). The opening needs to be rephrased slightly, from "Kosovo is a disputed territory" to "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a partially recognized state." The sentence about Serbia's rejection of independence can stay. I will respond to your map proposal below. --Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Double checked redirects and changed any that were explicitly about a non-independent Kosovo. That is, any that included the words autonomous, province, or Serbia or the abbreviation AP. I did not change the various unmodified versions of Kosovo and Metohija, but will not object if others do. --Khajidha (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People, this is not ok. You already moved APKIM redirect from this article, but RoK CANNOT stay alone in here! This is exactly what are we opposing! It is completely unacceptable to change the topic of this article to RoK. And i will not agree to this, neither one who is introduced to wikipedia guidelines. If you started article separation, then RoK must be moved now to article Republic of Kosovo, as everyone else agreed except one editor. Once again, "Who gets the Kosovo article". Neither one! That is only way possible! --WhiteWriter speaks 17:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I agreed to. I agreed to the separation of APKIM and ROK with "Kosovo" to go wherever seemed best. Usage in English seems to be in favor of Kosovo = ROK, so that is what is developing. --Khajidha (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that in such controversial case the best solution is for Kosovo to redirect to Kosovo (disambiguation) (the most neutral), but I will not oppose if other editors agree between themselves to redirect it to Republic of Kosovo.
At the same time I find it a bad idea the topic of Kosovo itself to be "only RoK" - this will lead us back to square one after some time/edits past by. Having RoK in Republic of Kosovo is in no way derogatory to it, especially if Kosovo redirects there. But the main point is to decouple Kosovo article from the RoK/APKiM/whatever content - so that edit-wars over the issue "who gets the Kosovo name" do not influence negatively the articles themselves - the warring sides could discuss and revert as much as they like - and this will not get in the way of unrelated edits aiming to improve the quality of RoK article, of APKiM article, etc. Also, this will remove the need to have a all kinds of disclaimers in lead, humongous history section, etc.
And on the procedure. I was asking about the topic since very long time ago. Nobody proposed "let's change it to RoK", but now this is done "by the back door". Alinor (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
an example. IMHO the question of RoK-UNMIK relations is much more important, relevant, notable, whatever - than the question of "who gets the Kosovo tag in Wikipedia". The proposal to have an article Republic of Kosovo with an indisputable topic - the independent state RoK (regardless of who recognizes it, etc.) will allow these two questions to be separated - editors interested in "who gets Kosovo-tag" would discuss their issues at Talk:Kosovo, debating whether/how to change the redirect. The editors interested in RoK itself would discuss their issues at Talk:Republic of Kosovo - and hopefully would increase the quality of the RoK article (the same is true for the APKiM article - see some questions in my post above from 10:40, 17 October 2010 - the most important one - does RoS government recognize and work (how?) with the current 'Serbian Assembly for Kosovo' and how the actions of this assembly/other APKiM structures in North Kosovo mix with the actions of UNMIK, EULEX or RoK?). Alinor (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is violation of dispute resolution, and violation of agreement of all those people above! We started the separation, and separation must continue. As you, Erin Naval, separated APKiM redirect from this article, YOU ALREADY STARTED SEPARATION! If we don't create Republik of Kosovo article, honestly, as i completely lost my patience, i will report this situation to the administrators. As Alinor told you, this "by the back door" move is unbelievable! If Eric Naval was bold in starting separation, he must finish it, or someone else must do that. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care where "Kosovo" redirects to, but the coexistence of ROK and APKIM in one article needs to be ended. --Khajidha (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Khajidha, Kosovo will not redirect. Kosovo will remain just as explained by Alinor above. "general description" of the region/territory. I created article where we should prepare new Republic of Kosovo article. PLEASE, JOIN, and fix and prepare it for (re)creation.
Also, here we should have just Template:Kosovo infobox, as it once was, and this template should be moved to RoK article. Then in this template we should remove Serbian and other links. What do you say, Alinor? --WhiteWriter speaks 12:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference if you do anything without a consensus I'll ask for admin intervention WhiteWriter.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will remember you that consensus is mostly for split now. Also, if you dont have any useful comment, dont troll the discussion. --WhiteWriter speaks 15:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with that, but I think there were editors above who suggested that instead of Kosovo (region) we could use History of Kosovo and Geography of Kosovo. Also, I think that redirecting Kosovo anywhere, regardless where will be a big improvement - since it will separate edits improving articles from edits part of the conflict "who gets Kosovo". Anyway, I don't object using Kosovo for "general description". Alinor (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Alinor, see Republic of Kosovo article prepare area, and fix it as you find it useful. I would love to invite other editors also to fix it, so that would be our general creation. Anyway, it will be fixed when we move it. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)WhiteWriter consensus isn't mostly for split. Alinor at first you proposed two pov articles, while now you're proposing three pov articles in order to please as many users as possible with as many CFORKS as possible.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what you mean. Initially I proposed RoK/APKiM/Kosovo-history&geography (located at Kosovo) articles, then it was suggested the general article to be named Kosovo (region) and I agreed; then other users suggested that there is no need for Kosovo (region) because the content is present (will be moved) in another articles - I agreed, now I again agree with Kosovo (region) as WhiteWriter proposed it right above.
At no time was there any POVfork - RoK and APKiM are different things, they exist simultaneously and independently of each other. It is the position of Kosovars and Serbians over each of these two that is POVed - Kosovar POV is "APKiM is a historical entity, its structures are illegitimate", Serbian POV is "RoK is illegitimate" - but these POVs do not diminish the fact the RoK is existing and that it seems that some APKiM structures also exist. Alinor (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

A - Kosovo with Serbia (world view)
C - Just Kosovo (world view)
B - Just Kosovo (geography)

The map has to be changed in {{Republic of Kosovo}}. Back when there where two infoboxes, there was a compromise at Talk:Kosovo/Archive_18#The_Infoboxes and Talk:Kosovo/Archive_18#On_using_the_locator_maps, to use A in one infobox and B in the other. Now there is only one infobox, and I suggest using C. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such discussion serves no purpose. If a RoK article gets separated from the current RoK/APKiM article - then, naturally, a map of Kosovo outside Serbia will be used in the RoK article. If the status quo remains - then a second infobox has to be added and each infobox will have the relevant map - RoK infobox map of Kosovo outside Serbia, APKiM infobox map of Kosovo inside Serbia.
Actually your proposal above (to use a map of Kosovo outside Serbia without addressing the issue of topic separation) looks like attempt to tilt the balance toward the RoK POV. Such moves would be unnecessary if RoK has its own article. Alinor (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer choice C, but would like it even more if it were like A but without the darker shading in Serbia. --Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This can be accepted only in Republic of Kosovo article. So, with this proposal you basically started separation, so this redirect should be came article now. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WhiteWriter please don't make OR deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, there is no point in discussing a map, before we have a consensus about the topic of the article. Because, IMHO, the map selection is obvious/automatic - if we have clear decision on the topic. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe now you can understand why is the page the way it is, Alinor. Kosovo is RoK but it is also a bit APKM. That is confusing, of course, but that is also why I would suggest to remove it at all (the APKM part) and make the page only about RoK (as other countries are). As you may have noticed not all editors would agree on that. —82.114.94.17 (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republic

The Republic of Kosovo has: its own Controlled Territory, its Population and Sovereignty, which are the three musts for being a state. Majuru (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly questionable subject, and intro must have community consensus to be edited in that way. You may propose here your version, and we will talk about it. Thanks! --WhiteWriter speaks 20:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a partially recognized Republic, that means it's recognized by 70 or 80 other countries, but it's disputed by only one, Serbia. It will take time to reach a consensus on that, but eventually consensus will come. Look at Israel, for example. Majuru (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your theory is incorrect. It is recognised by 70-80 as you say, and not recognised by the rest. The "dispute" factor works two ways, those that do not recognise Kosovo (including those that will at a later date) at present recognise Serbia's territorial integrity over the land, as such, they "dispute" the republic; for those 70-80 that recognise, they "dispute" Serbia's claim on the land, so this way or that way, it is still disputed. In addition, Serbia is not alone in its outright rejection of the republic, there are a handful of sympathising nations. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's recognized by many countries, which is enough to call it "partially-recognized" (see List of unrecognized or partially recognized countries, a redirect to "List of states with limited recognition")
P.D.: Agh, Diplomatic recognition doesn't have a section for "partial recognition".
P.D.D.: Note that Kosovo is also listed at List of disputed territories, a redirect of "List of territorial disputes". After all, it's a territory and it's at dispute. However, I think that it has gained enough recognition to label it as "partially recognized". --Enric Naval (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is related to the mixed topic issue - see above discussion. Alinor (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


@Evelkis, so what? There are a lot of republics that are disputed, see China for example. Can you give me the WP guidelines for defining states v. "disputed" states? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? China is anything but disputed, its borders are clearly marked and the country has ties with every other government in the world. The trouble there is that the land is split in terms of which Chinese authority governs which particular area, and world states in turn recognise one of the two rival authorities. Serbia/Kosovo is not an example of two power bases claiming sovereignty of one entire region making it impossible for one to recognise the other, it is a case of one region declaring independence and the host (or ex-host) rejecting the move. So the analogy involving China does not stretch. Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt to deflect the question is useless. I would still like to see WP guidelines that defines "states" v. "disputed" territories.

I'm waiting!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.198.186 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not deflecting anything, just stating the differences between the China situation and Kosovo. If we remove the "disputed" part and present Kosovo no differently from Sweden or Bhutan, we are ignoring the fact that its ex-host continues to take issue as well as over half the world's states presently recognising the status quo ante. Evlekis (Евлекис) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable removal of sentence from the lede

I don't understand, and don't agree with, the removal of this sentence from the lede [7]. There is nothing "too disputed" about it, and it is perfectly well-sourced. If the lede is to include a historical summary, then for sure that Serbs consider Kosovo the cradle of their culture should be mentioned. That goes to the very core of the conflict, and our readers should know this upfront. Any sources in the literature on the Kosovo conflict mention that Serbs consider Kosovo the cradle of their culture. Whatever the merits of this belief, it is central to the subject of this article, and any brief summary of the topic should include it. It seems to me that it was removed on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds and nothing more. Its placement was moreover strange and clumsy, and disrupted the flow of the article. Athenean (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of a number of editors that has shaped this entry since its introduction by Cinema C. We need to be careful with it because its status as a crux is purely a sentimental phenomenon cherished by the Serbian nation. The land is of equal importance for one reason or another to Albanians. I don't like many parts of it, such as the silly statement that the Serb stgate never originated from Kosovo. Who said that it did? I stated in previous comments, a cradle is where an infant sleeps, it is not the womb. And why do we need Noel Malcolm as a source for the irrelevant remark? All right, he might be a historian and a usable source, but we no more require his services for this than Michael Palin to tell us that Eritrea split from Ethiopia in 1993; it happens to be an international event and people know this to have happened. For historical territories we need maps, not vexatious commentary from apologists in conflict. Evlekis (Евлекис) 12:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know when Serbs started to consider Kosovo the cradle of their culture. Was it in the XIX century, with the rise of nationalisms? Or was it sooner, and the nationalisms simply took the pre-existing idea and radicalized it? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources strongly suggest that Kosovo was made the cradle of Serbs only during the 20th century rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding historical and religious importance of numerous monuments on Kosovo, and regarding other sources, it seems that it wasn't only in the 20th century. That would be impossible. Peć Patriarchate, seat of Serbian Orthodox Church, numerous monastery's built by Serbian kings and Emperors, site of the Battle of Kosovo.... There are a lot of sources that claim this. Also, i dont see that any source "strongly suggest"... Can you point it out? It seems that it wasn't like like you said. --WhiteWriter speaks 08:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That says nothing about Serbs considering it a cradle. Can you bring any sources that say Serbs considered Kosovo their cradle before the rise of nationalism?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just wait to collect few, please! --WhiteWriter speaks 08:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you reverted me, you should have them already available.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that Serbs want to recover "their" land of Kosovo since the Battle of Kosovo Polje) in 1389.Brown Alumni Magazine (not a very reliable source, but somewhere to start)

Also the Western America diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church (there are lots of references to shared culture between Kosovar Albanians and Serbs):

"The Patriarch became Milletbasha or leader of all Serbian and Bulgarian Orthodox, ruling from Pec in Kosovo [he means the Patriarchate of Peć, circa 1330)]. If we look for the seedbed of the idea of a "Greater Serbia," it may come from the Pec patriarchate under Ottoman rule rather than from the medieval kingdoms. This reorganization gave the Serbs the possibility of preserving their religion, language and cohesive identity."[8]

The name "Cradle of Serbian culture" was probably the catchy name that nationalism used, but the sentiment existed already. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, that is precisely what I was going to say when logging back in to catch up on updates. "Cradle" and "crux" are purely rhetorical, and rightly as Zjarri states, have only in recent times been incorporated into the fabric of Serbian consciousness. But as you also rightly say, the sentiment has stood for longer, and is based on actual occurrences that took place on the territory of modern-day Kosovo and not some fiction. Well argued. Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoK-UNMIK relations

What is the UNMIK position and relations with RoK? Before 2008 the "Assembly of Kosovo", "President of Kosovo", etc. were part of the PISG as constituted by the UNMIK. What happened to the UNMIK's PISG after the declaration of independence? As you can seehere this declaration was not issued by the PISG/"Assembly of Kosovo" (contrary to what most news reports and Wikipedia articles state) - it was issued by the same people that were members of the PISG Assembly, but not in the name of/by the institution "Assembly of Kosovo" (or at least that is what the ICJ states in its opinion - and that's why this declaration does not violate "international law"). I assume that after the declaration of RoK the PISG were somehow replaced by their RoK analogs - but how? Did UNMIK issue some "regulations" about this transfer? Are there documents signed between UNMIK and RoK? What about documents signed between EULEX and RoK? Or UNMIK silently "abandoned" the PISG and these functions started to be provided by the analogous RoK institutions? But there should be some interaction between UNMIK and RoK - UNMIK is still on the ground in Kosovo, right? Does EULEX server as an intermediary between them or what? Alinor (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know only some of those questions. I will be brief. UNMIK currently is present mainly in north of Kosovo (Mitrovica). It is the only link between Kosovo and Serbia, as you may know, Serbia does not cooperate with Kosovo's Institutions, only with UNMIK. Relations between Eulex and Kosovo are direct. Kosovo's Constitution calls for a mission (such as Eulex) to assist them in state-building. So: UNMIK is only present where there are gaps between Kosovo-Serbia. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what about the transfer between PISG/UNMIK and RoK in 2008 and more importantly about the current RoK-UNMIK relations. North Kosovo is one thing, but it is also interesting what is the mechanism of expressing the RoK position by UNMIK in those international organizations/treaties where UNMIK is representing "Kosovo" (here). Before 2008 it is clear - PISG were "part of" UNMIK, thus they had established mechanisms for communication. But now there are no more PISG (or are they? Maybe RoK institutions work in "double hatted" manner - having two stamps, two official gazettes, etc. - one for RoK and one for PISG/UNMIK?). And the opposite - if UNMIK undertakes some commitment in CEFTA for example - how is it going to implement it? Before 2008, the PISG would implement it as they were part of UNMIK, but now - RoK institutions may have a different opinion and may refuse to implement such international commitment. Alinor (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions. I do not know the answers for all that. But I can sure find out. Is there any particular reason why you need all this? —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree this are important questions for the entire Kosovo#Government_and_politics section. Essentially, the question is, who is running Kosovo. This is particularly acute after Thaci lost the vote of confidence.[9][10] We know Kosovo is officially run by an opaque collaboration between UNMIK, EULEX and RoK authorities, but so far I haven't been able to figure out how this works either in theory or in practice. According to the EU at least[11] the situation is really bleak. Not only is EULEX constantly investigating government corruption, now UNMIK is itself accused of corruption[12]. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find some information about Kosovo-UNMIK-EULEX relations. There are in fact four big factors in Kosovo right now it seems. UNMIK, Kosovo Government, EULEX and ICO (International Civilian Office). ICO is independent while EULEX is filling the gap of UNMIK's third and fourth column or wherever UNMIK cannot function. When UNMIK sends its reports to the UN, it gathers information as an appendix from EULEX. Apparently, even if EULEX was called by Kosovo's Government (I do not find any proof for that, only ICO is called by Kosovo Government) it is still under UNMIK modality somehow. It uses UNMIK legislature to function.
Another interesting fact is, that Peter Faith, is currently holding two positions that are contradictory to each other. One as International Civilian Representative in Kosovo where he oversees Kosovo's Independence (and accepts it), on the other hand he is European Union Special Representative which is a position neutral to Kosovo's status.
There are some interesting things happening. Now that the Government has "collapsed", elections will be held on 12 December—which might be supported by Serbian Institutions. It seems there is going to be change in Government, it remains to see how will all this reflect on Kosovo-Serbia negotiations.
I will tell a joke, I hope it will no be offensive to any community. But it is just a joke that I heard from an OSCE guy, we need to lighten the mood a bit: A Serbian guy going to Kosovo. At the border an EULEX policemen stops him and asks: - Name and Surname? Dragan Milenovic. - Occupation? No. This time only visiting.
—Anna Comnena (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, most of the EU member states (all except Spain and Greece) have recognized the RoK, so it stands to reason that the EULEX at least has no interest in making a fuss about not recognizing it, especially as that presumably would not improve collaboration. They just cannot go on record saying they recognize it but in all other aspects they effectively do. I really hope they manage to build a stable government in December, the country could use it. I like your joke by the way, sounds like a genuine soundbite collected in the field :) --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no particular reason I ask - I just find it strange that in pages after pages of articles and talk discussions I couldn't find the answers to such "basic" issue. So, if you can find out - this will be a great contribution to the affected articles. As I understand RoK/ICO (and KFOR?) are in total harmony as RoK constitution mentions ICO and "international military mission". Also, EULEX and UNMIK are in total harmony - EULEX "called in" (and "reporting to"?) by UNMIK. UNMIK and EULEX obviously do not recognize RoK (as UNGA/UNSC and EU do not recognize it), but it seems that in practice they have a good level of cooperation (corruption, law and order, individual president/government of RoK, etc. issues are separate things). Serbia does not recognize RoK and in practice has none (or very tense?) interaction with it. Serbia does work with and recognize the authority of UNMIK (and EULEX?). But maybe "reluctantly"? The logic/link breaks in the point of interaction between RoK and UNMIK/EULEX (this is related to the question "what happened with the PISG?". Alinor (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. The reason is that the "basic issue" for our involved editors are questions like, are the Albanians descended from the Illyrians, or is Kosovo the cradle of Serbian civilization. Real-life questions of economy or government are simply too bleak and disheartening to command attention. Imo, that's the difference between nationalism and patriotism. An Albanian nationalist will invest his energy in defending his nation's glorious Illyrian roots. A Kosovar patriot, on the other hand, will devote his energies to the thankless task of fighting corruption in his home country. The Balkans desperately needs less nationalism and more patriotism. --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are on the issue. I try to defend an Albanian perspective, because there are less editors who do so. And that is not because it has less to defend, but there are more editors from nationalities that have prejudges towards Albanians, as a result of their own national myth. Every nationality has a myth (duh!). Since we are on the Kosovo article. I would agree with you that it is an epitome of all these nationalistic problems. I would very much be FOR any change in the article that would strip anything disputable, and (I don't know?) maybe only focus on economy, development, Eulex-Unmik-Government-Serbia issues. But I sincerely doubt that an article about geography is the solution. The article is very long and has much parts that contradict each other. Instead of creating many POV articles, we could focus on making this one better. Maybe a better structure. Shorter texts... —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Anna Comnena's proposal above, maybe the controversy should be shifted away from this article and onto the ones that specifically deal with the controversial subjects that have produced 26 pages of archives so far (Illyrians, Medieval Kosovo, etc.).Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::Anna says "every nation has a myth". she is wrong about the Kosovar Albanians because they have no myths only facts. As a nation they struggled for centuries under all sorts of foreign rule until they got their independence in 2008, that is a fact not a fiction. The last years saw them overcome Holocaust style genocide and ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Serbian invaders and Greater Serb enthusaists. I guess we can start the article by confirming that Kosovo is not a disupted territory but an outright country, I mean the USA, UK and 69 other democratic states recognize it and the figure is set to increase, month by moth it has gone up and up. The only myth in Kosovo is the so-called "North Kosovo" question which Serbs still think is theirs, but it isn't, the most powerful force there is UNMIK and UNMIK recognizes Kosovan rule over Kosovo!! Checkmate! Only Serbia still disputes Kosovo but that too will change once they hold another revolution like 10 years ago, cos hey want to join NATO, the UN, the EU and all other organizations and they cannot do that unles they recognize Kosovo. So let's help the Serbs by calling Kosovo a country ourselves. Balanced Justice (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banned sockpuppet of User:Sinbad Barron --WhiteWriter speaks 11:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify one fact - Serbia is full member of the UN since 10 years. I don't know if Kosovo recognition is condition for EU membership (it may be a de facto condition - I think that the EU hasn't prepared the Serbia negotiations framework yet) and I don't know if Serbia wants to join NATO and I don't know what other organizations Serbia wants to join, but can't because of Kosovo.
"UNMIK recognizes Kosovan rule over Kosovo" - would you clarify/source this taking in account the discussion above your comment - please define "Kosvan rule" (does this mean RoK, PISG or something else?) and please explain the relationship between UNMIK and the RoK/PISG/something else. It seems that UNMIK is not opposed to RoK on practical level, but it remains a total mystery how they interact. If you live in Kosovo maybe you can share with us some information from local newspapers - analyses, etc. on this issue. Alinor (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&oldid=397292526"