Talk:2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

History section

I don't have a burning interest on this, but as I was browsing this article, it became apparent to me that much of the introductory section would probably fit better in a new section entitled "Background" or something similar. I thought I'd toss that on here in case others who are more interested in this article agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.35.171 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Precedent

In a number of wikipedia articles on this subject, the wording "precedent" is used (e.g. 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence). In the media, it is widely addressed that some countries fear that Kosovo's declaration of independence is a precedent. In this article, the wording is "It is thus a precedent, affecting other contested territories in Europe and non-European parts of the former Soviet Union, such as Chechnya (which does have republic status).". This is not factual: it is a fear, an opinion, a statement, but not a fact. The text of Kosovo's declaration states that Kosovo is a special case " ... Observing that Kosovo is a special case arising from Yugoslavia's non-consensual breakup and is not a precedent for any other situation, Recalling the years of strife and violence in Kosovo, that disturbed the conscience of all civilized people, ... " (source: Full text of Kosovo declaration retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7249677.stm ). Proposal: change text, but do address the issue as the fear for making a precedent explains the behaviour of a number of countries in recognising Kosovo. Klungel (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully Agree. Jawohl (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1990 declaration of independence

Should we take to granted that the 1990 self-declaration of independence was not conducted by official Kosovan institutions, but rather an underground 'shadow' parliament? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It was actually conducted by 114 of the 123 Albanian members of the Kosovo Assembly on the steps of the Assembly building, from which they had been locked out by Serbian security forces. I suppose there might be a question about the legality/legitimacy of their decision (obviously Serbia disputed it and I have no idea if they were quorate or procedurally correct) but it seems clear that it was carried out by an official institution, albeit one that had just been deposed by the Serbian government. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But wasn't there a "legal" parliament? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was outright independence which the Kosovar Albanians declared in 1990; I think it declared itself a republic separate from Serbia within the Yugoslav federation. I'm sure that was what it was but I may be mistaken. Evlekis (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It was outright independence, hence Albania's act of diplomatic recognition. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I have to raise some objections regarding this future article. While overall not as bad as it could be, it does have some serious flaws:

• Term "Republic of Kosova" is used, which is not common term in the English language.
• Statement "Kosovo's declaration of independence was extremely controversial, as it was opposed by Serbia and its main ally Russia" creates the impression that it is only Serbia and Russia that oppose the independence, while in fact, for example, currently most members of the UN Security Council oppose it.
• Simlarly, "Serbia and Russia both regard Kosovo's declaration of independence as illegal and its recognition as a violation of international law" also creates the impression that it is only Serbia and Russia view it as illegal, while in fact I don't know of any entity that view it as legal.
• "Serbia has likewise vowed to oppose" - the annulment of the independence should be mentioned somewhere, this is probably a good place.
• "Serbia itself attempted to change the demographic balance in the region by settling Serbs and persuading Albanians and Turks to emigrate to Turkey" - if this is mentioned I see no reason why would mass ethnic cleansing of Serbs during 19th century be mentioned too. Similarly, somewhere after "from 1974 to 1989 it enjoyed very extensive rights of self-government", persecution of Serbs during the period could be mentioned too. Nikola (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Flags of Albania

Add that most of the flags shown on TV are of Albania. --Leladax (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not surprising - the Albanian flag is ubiquitous in Kosovo. I should mention, though, that it's seen more as a symbol of the Albanian people than Albania as a state (it's much older than the Albanian state). -- ChrisO (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So Kosovo will be a "beyond-territorial" settlement for both Albania and United States, which have interestingly good relations in recent years. This partnership would decrease the power of UN on international affairs and that of Serbia in the local conjuncture. We can understand it from the TV broadcasts which show people carrying flags of Albania, United States and Great Britain in Kosovo. I also started to wonder what will happen to the nation-states of the world because nearly all of them have different ethnic communities living on their territory. Deliogul (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if they have organized independence likely minorities, then they aren't truly nation states. 128.227.97.224 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

List of countries that have recognized Kosovo

Just a suggestion... It would be nice to see a list of countries that have recognized Kosovo, sorted by time of recognition. Uni4dfx (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In due course - it's a bit early at the moment, as nobody has granted recognition yet... -- ChrisO (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Uni4dfx (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article should be created though, with a brief description and criteria for inclusion (need 1 source or something). Hobartimus (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC says that the US and the UK should recognise it on Monday. That is to say, the UK will recognise it just as soon as the US gives it instruction to do so. But tomorrow, it should be official here. Evlekis (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason why no country has recognised it yet is because it's still a Sunday in many countries, or otherwise early Monday. Parliaments and similar bodies don't tend to work on Sundays (the Kosovan one was an extraordinary session) and there was no reason recognising independence was so urgent as to require them to work. It seems silly to suggest the UK is going to wait for the US's instructions since 1) They would have already receive any instruction, the declaration wasn't exactly a complete surprise 2) Any instruction would surely come from the White House who could have easily issued an instruction today, were it not for the fact they surely would have done so a long time ago... Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Try not to take the "instruction from USA" comment too seriously, I never suggested inserting it into an article; if you'd lived in the UK, you might have been familiar with an ongoing informal phenomenon that Britain is a U.S-puppet. Nobody means it seriously or offensively and I certianly didn't; it's just a passing gag in response to the UK very often voting the same way as the States. Nothing more. Evlekis (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that as it stands, I don't think any country has recognised Kosovo. I expect the first few countries to recognise Kosovo will be Oceanic countries. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You're going by the clock, but if you lived on a tropical island would you go to work early on Monday?--Lemmey (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are countries in Oceania which are not tropical islands. For example, Australia has indicated its intention to recognise Kosovo: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/18/2165197.htm --JocularConversation (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has indicated that he has begun the processes needed for Australia to recognise Kosovo, i added this to the article and cited the AAP article sourced from www.news.com.au.Zepher25 (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"President of Northern Cyprus Mehmet Ali Talat saluted the independence of Kosovo and hopes that the state is respected and assisted, in staunch opposition to the position of the Republic of Cyprus." Let's not forget that there is no internationally recognised Northern Cyprus state nor a Kossovarian one.And let's hope for the best cause Pandora's box has been opened again.--Thanatos|talk 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Expected/supported - difference between main page and introduction

The introduction states "Kosovo's second declaration of independence is expected to be widely supported by foreign states including most European Union member states and the United States." but the main page says "Kosovo's parliament unanimously endorses a unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia with the support of many Western governments". Has it actually been given declarations of support or is it just a general expectation? --Tombomp (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In this business, it can be taken as red that expectation invariably leads to deliverance. I recall no time when a country was expected to recognise something; vote a certain way; make an announcement etc. and then surprise everyone in the last minute. Not at this magnitude anyhow. The writing was on the wall. Kosovo's civil administration has been governed by an internal parliament, its defence has been conducted by international forces whose mandate has been to repel the presence of any security forces loyal to Belgrade; so when Hashim Thaçi says that he will declare independence, then such he will, as we saw today. This morning, he had only been expected to do so. We all knew what that meant. So the international governments of the main forces which have been present in Kosovo are very unlikely to back down after having given the independent Kosovo proposal a public thumbs-up. When Croatia and Slovenia parted with Yugoslavia in June 1991, they quickly put their plans on hold. By October, they had redeclared; were recognised by January 1992 and soon after, they joined the UN. The developments here seem to be happening a lot faster, and all the indications are that Kosovo will join the UN and other organisations quicker than people realise it. Evlekis (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it still seems fairly doubtful Kosovo will join the UN, since I believe such a matter comes before the Security Council and Russia have veto power there. However it does seem likely that many countries will recognise Kosovan independence Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in between. The declaration was only able to be made currently because Western governments had signaled their support ahead of time, through positive public statements and indication that they planned to recognize independence if it were declared. However they haven't yet officially recognized it (that's expected on Monday). So I think it's fair to say that it was done "with the support of many Western governments", if you take "support" to mean something broader than formal, declared support. --Delirium (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Pristina government, around 100 countries have said they'll recognise Kosovo. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Several notifications (regarding the history bit)

1. What's the point in the "for some time" bit?

2. There were Christian Albanians and very large populations of Moslem Serbs.

3. The notion of the Montenegrins is very controversial. They emerged with the recognition of Montenegrin distinct nationality in 1945 and in the censuses of 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991 (former?) Serbs that are descendants of Montenegrin colonists were registered as Montenegrins. However after the collapse of the Communist regime, there has never been any notion of a Montenegrin identity in Kosovo, and parallel with the Serb national (re?) awakening amongst the Montenegrins, it included in the 21st all (without any [known] exception) nationally-declared Montenegrins in Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

North Kosovo

Did the declaration say anything about North Kosovo? It seems to me in any case the article should discuss this more since it's an important part of the background. I suspect there are many people wh don't know that there is a part of what is formally known as Kosovo that is not controlled by the newly independent Kosovan government. Especially since Serbia specifically mentioned increasing protections for the parts of Kosovo they still control, mentioning it will help explain what Serbia was referring to Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC as first source

Its anti-Serbian bias on the matter is more than obvious even to non-Serbs. I don't think it should be the very first source on the matter. --Leladax (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrations in Belgrade

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

The Brazilian embassy wasn't demolished, the ambassador's Mercedes was. If you call a few toppled dumpsters "severe destruction", I'd have to agree with you. 200 hooligans does not make a revolution (and idiots are a global disease). Years of experience taught me not to trust television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.135.2 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Flags picture is not representative

90% of the flags shown yesterday on international TV were the flags of Albania. --Leladax (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because the new Kosovo flag was only adopted yesterday... David (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Albania borders Kosovo and there were mass celebrations in Albania; this is information of importance. Concealing it with a completely unrepresentative picture of three flags (and let's all laugh, a flag representing EU, not even 1% were using it), can be considered an attempt to inflict propaganda on wikipedia.--Leladax (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The new flag was revealed the day the UDI was declared. How could have people had this flag if no one knew about it? Jawohl (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia

I removed the reference to Indonesia having the world's largest Muslim population since although true, in the context of the article it's misleading. From what I can tell, countries with large Muslim populations are generally expected to recognise Kosovo. Indonesia is one of a number of exceptions. According to sources, their reason for not recognising Kosovo is primarily because they have a number of seperatists movements, similarly to Sri Lanka, Spain, Greece, Cyprus etc (who have also rejected the declaration). So they think recognising a unilateral seperatist movement is therefore a bad idea. If the article provided sufficient background to explain why them having a large Muslim population was relevant, then it would be fine but simply mentioning it without explaination, it's irrelevant and potentially misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

== Reactions ==http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence&action=edit&section=12

On international reactions: China is worried about the future peace and stability in the balkan region as a result of this... act. http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/243012.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The reaction of Canada should also be noted. Fear by the national government over the sovereignty of a state has plagued Canada for a long time. Kosovo sovereignty raises issues of Quebec sovereignty. This is a link from the CBC outlining governmental fear and ethnic Albanian reaction: http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/080217/n021746A.html Please update.

Phoebe Yeh, spokesperson for the Republic of China's (Taiwan) Foreign Ministry stated that, "We congratulate the Kosovo people on their winning independence and hope they enjoy the fruits of democracy and freedom. [...] Democracy and self-determination are the rights endorsed by the United Nations. The Republic of China always supports sovereign countries' seeking democracy, sovereignty and independence through peaceful means." i think this is total unnecessary, the status of republic of china(taiwan) itself is disputed, how can it "recongnize" another country.[1] For more info if u read chinese [2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.48.143 (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have been reading wikipedia at all you would know that this isn't an issue. Taiwan (Republic of China) is a recognized state under wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore communist propaganda does not count as sources. Mods please change text regarding "...Phoebe Yeh, spokesperson for the Republic of China's (Taiwan) (a state not recognised by the UN) Foreign Ministry..." it is unneccesary, does not add anything to an article about Kosovo's independence, and if we were to keep it, I think it would only be fair to list after every country whether they too were part of the U.N. or not. Also, I also dispute whether China's retort back has anything to do with this article either. There comment is directed at Taiwan whereas Taiwan's is directed to Kosovo, the subject of this article. Vinniereno (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, Kosovo has been recognized by countries like America and France which have a combination of classical liberal ideals and stable, homogeneous populations. Kosovo's independence has been condemned by countries which are worried about the destabilizing force of secession within their own borders or regions. That is, the national aspirations of most of the population of the tiny "country" of Kosovo are being backed by those who have no experience or stake in secession and civil war. Meanwhile, the opposition consists of nations who are terrified that the precedent set by this insignificant Balkan backwater will destroy or destabilize their regions leading to civil wars, border wars, and wars of secession. And, of course this pseudo-state is located within historic Serbia, and has produced aggrieved Serbs on both side of the putative border, as well as stirring up anti-Western sentiment in an already bellicose Russia. On the other hand, at least we Americans will have ONE European country where we are liked. 67.163.163.28 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Highway

There should be some text on this: [4] Contralya (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Some notes on the map...

Some notes about Image:Kosovo recognition.png:

• Shouldn't Serbia be marked in gray, instead of green?
• Tasmania, part of Australia, is marked in gray, while the rest of Australia is marked in green. I suspect that something is wrong here.
• I read somewhere (maybe here on Wikipedia) that Turkey has recognised the independence of Kosovo. If that's the case, Turkey's colour needs to be adjusted.
• Some French DOM-TOMs are marked in gray, while metropolitan France is marked in dark green. I suspect that the whole French Republic should be marked in dark green.
• The Ryūkyū Islands and Tsushima are marked in gray, while the rest of Japan is marked in light green.
• Açores, Madeira, Islas Balearas, Plazas de soberanía and Mallorca are marked in colours differing from those of Spain and Portugal. This ought to be wrong.
• Some UK dependencies ([[Falkland Islands etc.) have colours differing from that of UK proper. Is this intentional?
• Shetland is part of the UK, so it should have the same colour as the rest of the UK!
• Some Russian island north of Siberia are wrongly coloured.
• The colours of Netherlands Antilles and Aruba should probably be the same as those of Netherlands proper.
• Crete is part of Greece, and should thus be Greece-coloured. And it seems that some Greek islands off Turkey's coast are Turkey-coloured.
• Alandia should have the same colour as the rest of Finland.
• Gotlandia should have the same colour as the rest of Sweden.
• Svalbard should have the same colour as the rest of Norway.
• Some Italian islands have the wrong colour. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

I had fixed some of those problems already on the Commons version, but it turns out there's already Image:Kosovo relations.png, so requested delete of above. Kelvinc (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Kosovo relations.png": wrong colour of Faroe Islands, Gotlandia and Bornholm. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

And Tsushima Islands, Shetland etc... (212.247.11.155 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

Well let's concentrate on "Kosovo relations.png". It's not hard to update it. Just copy the image file and use a paint program. Kelvinc (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotlandia, Bornholm, Azores, Madeira, Tsushima fixed. The islands north of the UK are the Faroes, not the Shetlands: as Danish possessions light blue is correct. Cyprus is now corrected partitioned. Kelvinc (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a Europe issue can we get a second map with a close up of the Europe. It likely has the most weight there with Russia - Balkans- east/west Europe.--Lemmey (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

After the meeting of EU on Kosovo's independence in Brussels, Bulgaria is among the 6 countries from EU that won't recognize Kosovo's independence. Unfortunately my source is only in Bulgarian. --161.3.1.42 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Error on map

Please note that the black patch on the map which is supposed to represent Kosovo is NOT Kosovo but Montenegro. This is erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.246.10 (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Legality of succession

According to this article and the BBC, "Belgrade has said Kosovo's declaration violates international law." Does anyone know what aspect of int'l law they are basing this on? Maybe a section on the declaration of independence as it relates to international law would help maintain NPOV? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That might be the UN principle of inviolability of borders213.131.7.83 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's the UN Charter (Article 2), the CSCE Helsinki Final Act (Article IV), the "Badinter Borders principle" and UNSCR 1244. --El Cazangero (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this should be included in the article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

...and the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (though far less relevant as not an international treaty, but rather internal). I've disposed most of it over at User talk:Envoy202#1244 UNSCR so if anyone is interested, most/all of it is there. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems you've made your own argument. It would be more appropriate to detail the Serbian government's legal argument in 2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Serbian_reaction. Superm401 - Talk 14:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a Serbian government's argument or my own, but a general one rather. It deals with both supporters and opponents of Kosovo independence, and the sources are European most legal experts (Presidents of Constitutional Courts of Western Europe, the Brussels European Center,...); most of the sources are non-Serbian IMHO. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming

Regarding the nomenclature, say, of Priština, this is a Serbian name. In fact, it has been agreed that the official languages of Kosovo are Albanian followed by Serbian. Therefore, the name Prishtina should be written in Albania. Follow this link for my complete suggestion: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Kosovo, the newborn state.--Arbër (Let's Talk) 10:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, place names should be in English. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Yes, in English, but which name? The article, quite correctly, gives three variants in the definition, without suggesting the merits of any of them. On the other hand, Wikipedia naming guidelines stipulate using the common English name, if it exists, or the name used by the entity itself (a city government on its webpage, in this case) in the English language. Accordingly, since there is no English common name, other than the Serbian name rendered without diacritics in inferior typesetting contexts, it remains by default that we use the name the city webpage uses. In fact, the website consistently uses "Prishtina" on its English-language webpage. I hope this helps while we await the formal adoption of the specific Wikipedia Kosovo naming policy (which also stipulates using "Prishtina", so no change would be involved if we adopt it on generic grounds as motivated here.) --Mareklug ^talk 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody put a "citation needed" on the February 21st events...

The figures are all approximate values, because no official figures have been given. The embassy being nearly demolished was shown on EuroNews, CNN, BBC, and on our local TV stations, all live, from the scene. No chance on citation there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfan 410 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of stories from the websites of the news orgs you listed. You just have to find the right ones. I've already added one citation. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Superfan 410 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and Serbia

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

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

I did that out of concern that the Serb/Albanian/Kosovar edit war was getting out of hand again. Please stick to NPOV. Thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

About the maps showing Kosovo in Europe

I think that the map

is more neutral than

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

Independent of any kind of opinions, the situation of Kosovo is, completely de facto and partially de jure, of much more independence than Bosnia's Republika Srpska. I think it is better to show Kosovo as a separate entity inside Europe, and not as a province of Serbia (which is not the real situation on the ground since 1999 and even more in 2008), IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epcott (talk • contribs) 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree until the final status is solved. Look at Israel and Palestine.Mike Babic (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Embassy photo

The source for the embassy photo, Yahoo News/AP, explicitly says the attackers were Serbs. Unless you have a contrary source, don't remove that fact. Superm401 - Talk 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the description bellow is better…

Significance of Kosovo to the Serbian Orthodox Church

…since the map is clearly an ecclesiastical, not a political one. Serbia (the country) and Serbian Orthodox Church (the religious group) are two separate entities, at least in theory…

This MAP needs to be deleted immediately considering that this is Kosova's DOI, it serves absolutely no factual importance and is only pushing a Serbian POV agenda. Also the borders (with Montenegro) is completely inaccurate. If this map can relate to Serbia's reaction, which I checked, than you could include it in this article but since this map is not mentioned or tied to the article it is only taking up space and its not nPOV. Kosova2008 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

International reaction maps

Since there arose a protracted and so far insoluble controversy over map content, International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article's editors have settled on a map which shows only the official recognitions in dark green, and renders all other states gray. This happened long time ago, and I just now included this map as the main one in the appropriate section which references that article with its {{main}} template. I also included the other viewpoint in the map controversy, without removing the one which was pictured here all along. I gave them both a neutral and factual common heading, in an invisible table arranged vertically. The two map legends differ substantially albeit say roughtly similar things, and reflect the legends on Commons that accompany these maps. All three maps are work in progress, and are being updated as situation warrants. If the recognition controversy ever gets resolved, with the situation clarified objectively, there'll be fewer maps to show. --Mareklug ^talk 09:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please include only verified information re: other countries' reaction

I have removed some of the countries listed, as well as the claim that 32 countries officially rejected this declaration of independence, because there are no sources that would support this content. Specifically, there is no source indicating that 32 countries officially rejected Kosovo's independence. In fact, far fewer have. There is also no basis for writing, that 23 other countries expressed concern or desire for further negotiations, since, again there is no source that supports this claim as cast. Several countries have made a range of suggestions, phrased in various ways, amounting to wishing for Serbia and Kosovo to keep talking, but these suggestions range from explicitly having them negotiate as equals, or using the old framework: as Serbia vs. Serbia's province. Its best to resist injecting unsubstantiated claims and making a misleading impression amounting to introducing a bias in reporting as well as original research. --Mareklug ^talk 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

pristina letters ?

declaration of independence was written in PRISTINA font, which is standard for programs like Photoshop. That font was developed by Albanian emigrants in the USA. Can anyone confirm this?

www.free-fonts.com/cgi-bin/fsearch.pl?search=pristina www.myfonts.com/fonts/linotype/pristina/ www.fontstock.net/search/0/font%20pristina.html 213.149.105.21 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see

Here And discuss it there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Albanian bakers

An interesting to add would be that ethnic Albanian bakers, which are numerically significant in other Balkan countries (I can confirm this in my town, Zagreb), celebrated the independence by giving away products in their bakeries. It was featured in Croatian news, but I can't cite any sources as I don't remember. 89.201.132.155 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the map of contry have recognize Kosovo is Malwi

In the map of contry have recognize Kosovo is Malwi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Malawi has recognized Kosovo, and therefore appears on the map. What exactly is your point? — Emil J. 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of declaration

The question of who exactly issued the declaration and in what capacity was and evidently remains much disputed. For neutrality, we must be precise and balanced. It is not enough to state one thing and then say the ICJ found otherwise. I shall edit accordingly.--Rallette (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Military action against Croatia?

"When Croatia recognized Kosovo as an independent republic,Russian spokesman in the nato Drnitrij Rogozin said that they could and will use force if Croatia doesn't cancel their recognizing of Kosovo. However,no Russian military action was ever taken" [part]

Any sources on that? Some light googling I tried didn't help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rospaya (talk • contribs) 11:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MkativerataCCI (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/yugoslavia.htm
  • In Demographics of Kosovo on 2011-03-17 06:44:16, 404 Not Found
  • In History of Kosovo on 2011-03-29 15:05:04, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence on 2011-06-16 13:44:40, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/4146?PHPSESSID=8cd9d5b0df1ae0bbae8d3ddf647ec715
  • In History of Kosovo on 2011-03-29 15:05:19, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence on 2011-06-16 13:44:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

An interesting case to compare with

BBC News - Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?--189.33.160.48 (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A problem

Antidiskriminator, why have you cherrypicked a detail from a primary source - a court document - and put them in the lede? Is it because it skews the article in a certain direction? That is no way to get a neutral article. Reliable independent sources don't emphasise that point at all - did you know that? bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely because of the neutrality this text should be presented to the readers of the article. Neutrality of the court. "the Court did not require taking a position on whether or not international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence". Per BRD I reverted your bold removal of cited text. You should not edit war and revert me because it is BRD, not BRRD. Please revert yourself. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do people keep on distorting the lede by inserting weasel wording from a primary source? bobrayner (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The tag-teaming is quite obvious. Stop it. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This might be a good read for you: Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Buttons (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Buttons, why have you cherrypicked a detail from a primary source - a court document - and put them in the lede? Is it because it skews the article in a certain direction? That is no way to get a neutral article. Reliable independent sources don't emphasise that point at all - did you know that? bobrayner (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayer, why don't you take the time to actually address opposing views (as Antidiskriminator has done) instead of just repeating yourself over and over? Show some respect to fellow editors and stop treating them like idiots with your snarky, passive aggressive tone. Buttons (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This cherry picked addition to the introduction is also in violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Also a consensus must be achieved before controversial or potentially controversial content is included; edit warring will not achieve this. I would like to remind users that this article is primarily about the Declaration of Independence, not the ICJ verdict. IJA (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The text added to the article is not controversial. The consensus, based on arguments, is necessary for both exclusion and inclusion. The ICJ verdict is directly related to the topic of this article, so argument that this article is not about the verdict is not valid. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is contraversial because people are contesting it FACT. It is being contested on the grounds of it being cherry picked information which deserves no place in the introduction of this article as it gives Undue Weight. What I said about the ICJ was a reminder, not an argument. Buttons is going into far too mcuh detail re the ICJ on the introduction of an article about the Declaration of Independence. Also I never said that the ICJ wasn't related. IJA (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Nobody has ever contested that text you insist to be removed from this article is part of ICJ verdict. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Then you are obviously misunderstood. "Nobody has ever contested that text you insist to be removed from this article is part of ICJ verdict." I don't even know what that means, it doesn't make sense. What is clear is that two users have contested the inclusion of cherry picked info. Another thing that is clear, there is no consensus to have it included in the intro either. IJA (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment was not understandable. I will simplify it: Either present sources for your claim that text added to the article is controversial and list of scholars who contested it, or restore the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How about you present sources for your argument that it isn't controversial and list scholars who say it is neutral. IJA (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversy issue is your argument: "It is contraversial because people are contesting it FACT." (diff). Either present sources for your controversy/contested position (list of scholars and their works) or restore the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, I'm not saying it is controversial because the content is disputed (which you seem to think I'm saying), I'm saying it is a controversial edit because it is small cherry picked issue which deserves no place in the introduction of this relevant article. It is not necessary for this content to be included in the introduction, it is more suitable in the main body of the article in the ICJ section. It isn't vital for the reader/ audience to be informed of this issue in the introduction of an article titled "2008 Kosovo declaration of independence"; doing so would be purposely over emphasising a small issue (in context to this article) and would therefore be in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. That is why it is "controversial". IJA (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No sources to support your controversy claim - no valid argument to remove text from the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It was controversial because it goes against WP:UNDUE and is overemphasing a minority issue re the wording of a question which has sweet FA to do with this article topic. IJA (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

IJA, you clearly don't (or choose not to) understand what undue weight actually means if you think providing the entirety of the ICJ's opinion violates that rule. According to you and your tag-teaming partner, Bobrayner, as long as Kosovo independence is presented in a positive light, then its nice and neutral for the reader which is not only hypocritical by violates WP:NPOV. Buttons (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a minor thing which is suitable in the main text of the article but it isn't so important that it is required in the introduction of an article called "2008 Kosovo declaration of independence". The issue regarding the specific question which Serbia chose to submit to the ICJ has very little to do to with the "2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" and therefore is not necessary when introducing this topic to our readers and audience. It is more appropriate to include this issue in the main body of the article, not in the introduction itself. Including this issue in the introduction is overemphasising a point and is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. IJA (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If that's your reasoning, then the ICJ's opinion should not be in the lead paragraph at all. Because including the courts finding that the UDI did not violate international law only, is also cherrypicking to skew the article in a certain direction. Fair enough? Buttons (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the ICJ shouldn't be in the lead, I'm saying the issue re Serbia's wording of the question shouldn't be in the lead as it isn't relevant when introducing the topic. IJA (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, see that's the sort of double standard I mentioned before that you and Bobrayner have made yourselves famous for. Buttons (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)