Talk:Kosovo

A "disputed territory" should be removed.

I understand that Serbian propaganda has taken over this Wikipedia page, as all of the editors are Serbs, however, within the article the Republic of Kosovo is

A) Mentioned as a Republic B) Mentioned as having a government and a ruling body which is not the Republic of Serbia.

All these statements contradict each other. I suggest remove "a disputed territory" as it is not true, not in the list of global disputed territories, and is used as constant Serbian propaganda. If there is any level of Editor professionalism within you, I hope you will find it and let nationalism go.

Thank You. - BananaWaffle (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Single-purpose account? You bring up the issue, and then disappear. Your account has no User Page or Talk Page. Besides the nonsense about "Serb editors" somehow "owning" the article, you seem to be abusing WP:SOAP instead of doing what is best by utilizing Reliable Sources for the betterment of the article. I'm not a Serb, or an Albanian, nor a supporter of either side whatsoever, but the sources are there to see that nationalist Serbs and their supporters dispute the validity of the state of Kosovo. Everyone must understand that Wiki is just a "hobby encyclopedia" and world opinion will not be formed here. NATO is militarily backing the independence of Kosovo, so it is a de facto state, and the will only change if NATO stops supporting it (which ain't gonna happen for a long, long, long, long time.) So what is the point of this POV tag when this dispute is sourced? Waste of kilobits. 68.19.6.187 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Serbia is not the only country that considers Kosovo to be Serbian territory - about 85 UN members do. So its independence is undeniably disputed. By stating this, we are not taking sides - it is a plain fact backed up by numbers. Remember that Wikipedia must give a neutral point of view, so, whatever our personal views on the matter, it is important to give both sides of the story. But we do not say that Serbia's position is the correct one, and we do not say that Kosovo's position is the correct one. We just state facts, and say that some countries recognise Kosovo's independence and other countries don't. Don't let your own biases cloud your judgement of what is actually a very balanced article, which has had contributors from both sides of the fence, plus many who are neutrals. Bazonka (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP may be interested in List of territorial disputes. Maybe that would be the article to begin suggesting changes regarding Kosovo's status. --OJ (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There are non-UN member States recognised by less UN members without disputed territory label. So, where is the neutral point of view? --Skyfall (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You are right, Republic of Kosovo does not understand what neutral point of view is, and therefor, we must have that here, so readers can understand that Kosovo was established on political hodgepodge, and not international rights or historical exception. --Axiomus (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

So, is it the reason because states recognised by less UN members, as South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic don't have ‘’disputed territory’’ label? --Skyfall (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Asides the fact that this was heavily discussed by a multitude of editors in 2015 (check archives), the only valid reason to remove the item is that Kosovo is not subject to dispute (i.e. its sovereignty accepted the same way Belgium is with no other claimants). With regards the other articles, if they are in the list at List of territorial disputes then there can be no argument by any editor for their removal if someone wishes to add it to those articles. So if there are any NPOV problems, it is on those pages not this one. --OJ (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That terminology is agreed by so many users as the best, and the biggest argument is that other self proclaimed territories are far less disputed, while Kosovo is just a political weapon unlike other states. --Axiomus (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A political weapon by 108 states? What concept of democracy is this? Kosovo is reconized by 108 UN-members states, South Ossetia and Abkhazia by 6 states, so the NPOV problem is concerning that Serbian reasons have too many space bere. --Skyfall (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

About the ‘‘so readers can understand that Kosovo was established on political hodgepodge, and not international rights or historical exception‘‘, what are the international rights or historical exceptions of Northern Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey)? --Skyfall (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Its not weapon for 108 states. Most of those are some poor island or irrelevant nations that was ordered or paid millions to recognise. Its weapon of only several countries, first of all USA. But this is not the place for this kind of discussion. I dont see any problem at all. Kosovo is very, VERY disputed territory, and while is like that, this abbreviation should stay. Your other examples are also disputed, and should have the same explanation. --Axiomus (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

And one more thing. Kosovo is a disputed territory between two political entities called Republic of Kosovo and Republic of Serbia. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a republic, state proclaimed on the disputed territory. We should have distinction between those two. --Axiomus (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

To me, this is more an issue of styling and redundancy than of sourcing and semantics. If we say in first two sentences that Kosovo...is a partially recognised state ... that declared independence from Serbia; Serbia ... continues to claim it, it is pretty obvious that there is a "dispute" over its statehood, so the link to list of territorial disputes seems redundant. Granted, it is listed there, under #Disputes between UN-recognized states and others. Further, a "disputed territory" is in common parlance (and in our article territorial dispute, where it redirects) something that is concurrently claimed by two outside polities, not the very polity in question. But meh, I won't stand in a way of a good edit war... No such user (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

hehe, none is edit waring here, we are talking. :) Well, i beg to differ, and i will tell it in the easiest way. It is by far more neutral to say: "Something is disputed between that and that, while one think its this, and other think its that." Your proposition is like this: "Something is this. Someone thinks its that too, so its disputed what it is". As you can see, without this two words, we do not have NPOV, but POV with other opinions. Kosovo is disputed between two entities, while both entities think is something else. --Axiomus (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find a single argument why it should be removed. All I'm reading is why isn't it mentioned on other articles where there are fewer recognitions. If the latest pool of editors believe the article will be improved by the removal of this item from the first line then go ahead and do it. But just remember to add List of territorial disputes to the See also section. That should be a straightforward enough requirement for every self-proclaimed state including all those mentioned in this thread. --OJ (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

For uniformity, I've added "disputed territory" to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. --Skyfall (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding this statement to all unrecognised state articles for "uniformity". The edit in Northern Cyprus had to be reverted for the second time, the first sentence there is the result of a consensus reached in a discussion back in 2011 - not to mention that I believe "disputed territory" is highly redundant for the case of Northern Cyprus (and each case is unique so aspiring for "uniformity" is not really a valid argument). For other states, please use relevant talk pages; the discussion here only binds this article at the moment. --GGT (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to observe consensus everywhere and to achieve uniformity is for its outright removal from all articles including this one. I favour the inclusion of List of territorial disputes on each article on "See also". --OJ (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You cannot find a single argument why it should be removed. But for other users "disputed territory" is highly redundant for the case of Northern Cyprus. And Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (it has been already removed). We'll wait Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --Skyfall (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes SKyfall, I meant what I said. You're combining a comment from me with one from someone else who supports keeping the term. I haven't altogether been hostile towards you and those wishing for its removal, it would be nice you could appreciate this. --OJ (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Another user has removed the disputed territory definition also to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, with the motivations Redundant to partially recognised state and Redundant to the subsequent descriptor. ---Skyfall (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

On another note. There is most definitely some realpolitik motive in some places within Wikipedia. Sadly too few articles are maintained and worked on by editors from two sides of a perennial dispute. There is none more tendentious than the moron who pretends he is neutral (no specific people in this thread alluded to). I support a code of uniformity whereby territories have this wording removed altogether except if it refers to a land that is not recognised by the objecting party. With Kosovo this is not the case, as the land per its proclaimed-independence-borders are recognised in the Constitution of Serbia as Kosovo of some kind. --OJ (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So, do you consider a disputed territory also Abkhazia and Crimea? --Skyfall (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No I consider Abkhazia independent and Crimea a part of Russia! :) That's if you ask me! But yes the lands you cited are examples of disputed territories in that they are claimed by two separate entities. So it should be mentioned somewhere in those articles. --OJ (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Slavic name

@Yatzhek: You keep edit warring and inserting your version of the text without reaching consensus with other editors which is wrong. Would you explain here the reason of your addition? The fact that "Kosovo" is Serbian for "blackbird's" is already explained in the preceding paragraph, so you are duplicating information. Also, since the name is Serbian, it is obvious that it has no meaning in Albanian, we don't need to point that out. I'm totally puzzled why you think the meaning of the name in Polish language is important. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@ User:Vanjagenije - You accuse me of "edit-warring", while it's you who deleted SOURCED information, without any discussion about it. User:Thomas.W - don't you agree? Vanjagenije, you lie, as you intentionally make some false statements about the content I wanted to add. OK, so let me explain it to you:

The information I want to add are crucial and essential, mainly because the name Kosovo has a meaning not only in the Serbian language, but also in many other Slavic languages like Polish (mentioned Poland because it's quite far from Kosovo, and despite of that, the name Kosowo has nearly the same meaning in Polish! - "the area of blackbirds"), while neither "Kosovo" nor "Kosova" have no meaning in Albanian language at all. It's essential and it's a FACT! You accuse me of duplicating information, right? So please, tell me where exacltly in the article is an information about Kosovo being Slavic and having its origin from the Slavic languages? Yatzhek (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, calm down and do not resort to WP:personal attacks. Serbian is Slavic language, so it is obvious that words of Serbian origin are of Slavic origin. There are many words that are same or similar in different Slavic languages, but why is that important? Going in deep details just to explain that the name "Kosovo" has the same meaning in different Slavic languages seams to me as giving WP:UNDUE weight to that detail. You should not keep inserting your preferred text unless you reach consensus with other editors (See: WP:BRD, it is OK to revert other user's edit with arguments against it, and it is not OK to re-add the same edit without discussing it first.) Vanjagenije (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• What the word Kosovo can be interpreted as in the Polish language is totally irrelevant in an article about Kosovo, a geographic area that has never had any connection to Poland. Thomas.W ^talk 18:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@ User:Vanjagenije - why didnt you answer my question?

@ [[User:Thomas.W - "No connection at all"? This is hilarious. No offense, but you don't know history.

Anyway - Dont you think it has to be said, that the name Kosovo has a meaning not only in Serbian, but in many other Slavic languages, while it does not have any meaning in the Albanian language at all and therefore its origin seem to be Slavic? Don't you find it important? You accuse me of duplicating data... So show me, where in the article there is such an information? Answer me!!! Yatzhek (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The article currently states "Kosovo (Serbian Cyrillic: Косово, [kôsoʋo]) is the Serbian neuter possessive adjective of kos (кос) "blackbird", [...]. So, of course it has no meaning in Albanian since it is a Serbian word. Explaining again (in detail) that is has no meaning in Albanian is redundant. And since it is Serbian word, it is of Slavic origin, as Serbian is a Slavic language. Again, it is redundant to explain that in detail, all with Polish name. This is an article about Kosovo as a territory not about linguistic aspects of it's name. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a Serbian name, and Serbian is a Slavic language, so it's no surprise (and totally irrelevant) that the name has a similar meaning in other Slavic languages, just like a name in any of the Germanic languages would have a similar meaning in the other Germanic languages. Thomas.W ^talk 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

... and since it is being discussed on two different pages I'd like to point out here too that "no connection" in this context means that Kosovo never has belonged to Poland or been under Polish political influence. Thomas.W ^talk 19:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Both of you totally lost the point and try to dishearten my will to talk. But that useless, as you skip facts. The meaningless, Albanian word "Kosova" isnt Serbian, is it? Tell me, why can't there be an information that there are many villages in other Slavic countries called Kosowo/Kosovo? Why can't there be an information that the word actually has no meaning in Albanian language, while it has a meaning not only in Serbian, but in other Slavic languages, and that therefore is it suggested it has pure Slavic origin? Linguists and historians in Poland and Serbia discuss that topic, but why can't it be here in the section "Name" in the Kosovo article? Are you prejudiced towards the "Slavic name" theory? Because you seem to be. In the answer to this question give me some reasonable argument. Yatzhek (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Because that is irrelevant. Those villages were not named after (this) Kosovo, nor they have any connection to (this) Kosovo except the name. And, I don't understand your comment that "Kosova" isnt Serbian. "Kosova" is just Albanian version of the name, but the title of this article is "Kosovo", which is Serbian name and that is already explained in the article. Since two of us "totally lost the point", I am sure there are many editors who did not loose their point and who will come here soon and agree with you. I'm waiting to see them. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Without prejudice. The information posted is factual, though not helpful to any reader since there is no serious dispute as to the origin of the word Kosovo. In other words, it is purely promotional in that it is contrived to tie the region closer to the Serbian nation and weaken its ties to the Albanian nation. I mean Turks also live in Kosovo, why not say "Kosovo means nothing in any Turkic language". I think the term is that if it isn't broken, you shouldn't try to mend it. But if there should be a genuine Albanian claim as to the origin of the name as is the came with Đakovica (Gjakova in Albanian), then the Serbian perspective will not be supported by the fact that the same word is found in Russian and Polish because the basis for the Albanian-origin argument would mean that the entire Slavic connection is irrelevant. --OJ (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"@ User:Vanjagenije - Irrelevant" is what most biased Wikipedians use to say when they lose their argumentation and still want to make their point of view as the only point of view in the article. I know that those villages were not named one after another, it's obvious! The name "Kosovo/Kosowo" present in Poland or Russia clearly shows the naming customs outside the Balkans as being extremely similar. This is important! So, why can't this information be there? Moreover, I can't see any information in the article, that the Albanian variant has no meaning in the Albanian language, while you said the article covers that matter. Stop lying please. The beginning of the article suggests that the name "Kosovo" is an English variant of the Albanian "Kosova", which is clearly a lie and it tries to push the false "Albanian roots" theory through. My suggestion can be put in just one, FULLY SOURCED sentence. Why are you so mad about it? It is fully sourced and perfectly in the topic! Admit to your views. @ User talk:Oranges Juicy - There is a very serious dispute of the origin on the name Kosovo. You clearly don't know what is happening in Poland, or Serbia among the historians and linguists. So what that Turks live in Kosovo? Everyone knows that since 20 years Albanians are the majority there and that they rule there now. Therefore, the name and its meaning in the language of the current "owners" is crucial, don't you think? Yatzhek (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Abkhazia infobox RfC

Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Very unnecessary statement in the introduction

Hello all. I am of the opinion that the following statement "The country is poor by European standards with high unemployment, still not having fully recovered from the past conflict" in the Introduction is highly subjective, and very unnecessary. Moldova, for example, has a smaller GDP per capita yet no such statement can be found on the page about Moldova. IMF clasiffies Kosovo as a "lower middle income country", so I suggest we use that or similar terminology ("developing country" works as well). Thoughts? Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Strong sentence

I might lack of neutrality, but I must confess that seen the quite large recognition of Kosovo by the international community, the wording "Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially recognised state" is inappropriate. if we were to follow this logic the words "disputed territory" should be added also to Israel, Taiwan, Falkland Islands... Also it is somehow illogic that in this article the status of Kosovo is considered on the 26th July 2016 as more contentious than three years ago, even if in the meantime around 20 additional countries have recognized it. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is disputed, and it is partially recognized. What exactly is the problem with wording? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure it is disputed and partially recognized. Exactly as the other countries I listed above. I am just wondering why only Kosovo deserves to be characterized such as. And again, does it makes any sense that the wording classifies today the status of the country as even more disputed than 3 years ago, if we account that more countries have recognized it insofar? Silvio1973 (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Even the most ardent Serb nationalist knows, deep down, that as long as NATO stands (which is probably for at least the next century), Kosovo is an independent state, backed up by the invincible military might of NATO. Given time, this rubbish about it being 'disputed' will become as quaint as it has become for Israel, Taiwan, etc. Don't let the present lede spoil your day. 98.67.191.44 (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)