|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kosovo article.|
|The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages.|
|In accordance with sanctions authorised for this article:|
|Useful information for this article
|Kosovo has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 17, 2015.|
|Threads older than 2 months may be archived by.|
|On March 19, 2014, it was proposed that this article be moved from to . The result of the debate was moved as proposed. (See discussion.)|
|The content of Republic of Kosovo was merged into Kosovo on 23 May 2014. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
Ethnic percentages in the infobox
Bad idea. This is a delicate and complex topic not suitable for the infobox. The CIA factbook is moreover an undesirable source as it states that "minorities such as Serbs may be underrepresented". Athenean (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Removed it yet again. Not only are such ethnic percentages in the infobox a bad idea, the source itself says it may be inaccurate. There is thus no way we should it for the infobox. Athenean (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Whats the problem? Almost all the other countries use infobox. So why cant there be the same in kosovo articel??? And it dosent say that they are still counting it already counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadribistrica (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not "under counting", but "under-counted", meaning that the source itself states that numbers are not accurate: "these estimates may under-represent Serb, Roma, and some other ethnic minorities because they are based on the 2011 Kosovo national census, which excluded northern Kosovo (a largely Serb-inhabited region) and was partially boycotted by Serb and Roma communities in southern Kosovo". Even if it would be nice to have "ethnic groups" in the infobox, it is a bad idea to have numbers that are explicitly presented as unreliable. --T*U (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Athenean. The last population census conducted on all the population of Kosovo was the 1981 Yugoslav census (1991 and 2002 censuses were boycotted by Albanians, and 2011 census was boycotted by Serbs). But, the 1981 data is too outdated to be included, and we don't have any other accurate data. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Really unnecessary, it's not commonplace on other country/province infoboxes, and it's not as if the information is useful, as Kosovo is not that diverse as, say, Bosnia and Herzegovina. I'm going to go ahead and revert the edit. As well as this, as previously stated, the ethnic information may be incorrect. --User:LeoC12 (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems logical to make Kosmet redirect to Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija now rather than Kosovo, but given the contentiousness of this subject, I'd like people here to sign off on such a change. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, the best thing to do is transfer this discussion to Talk:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija so that we can all take a closer look at things. If the redirect goes ahead as you propose, it will not affect the Kosovo article so we don't need to make this talk page any longer. --OJ (TALK) 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Redundancy in Demographics?
Is the following not redundant: "CIA World Factbook estimates the following ratio: 88% Albanians, 8% Kosovo Serbs and 4% other ethnic groups. According to CIA The World Factbook estimated data from July 2009, Kosovo's population stands at 1,804,838 persons. It stated that ethnic composition is "Albanians 88%, Serbs 7%, other 5% (Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Turk, Ashkali, Egyptian, Janjevci – Croats)"." 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hugo999: What is the point of this edit? Category:2008 in Kosovo and Category:2008 in Serbia are categories for articles about events that happened in 2008. How can "Kosovo" be an event on Kosovo? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- These categories seem pointless for this article. You could put a category for every year in Kosovo on this article. I think these categories should be removed. IJA (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I removed those categories from the article, since they are obviously for events, and "Kosovo" is not an event. I also removed the Category:2008 establishments in Kosovo. I don't see how "Kosovo" can be an "establishment in Kosovo", sounds weird. I also removed the Category:Independence of Kosovo, as that category is for the articles about events and people connected to the independence of Kosovo, and this article is a general article on Kosovo, not specifically connected to the independence of Kosovo. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
December 2015 edit war on category (Countries in Europe)
To the two parties who engaged in the edit-warring these past days, you may be interested in the following:
- Talk:Kosovo/Archive 31 - just look at the very top section (Categorisation) and you'll find a lengthy debate on the subject of whether Kosovo belongs to Category:Countries in Europe (but the extremely long thread transforms at some stage into the wording of the lede).
I argued against the inclusion and removed it here, here, and also here. Then a few days later, I restored the category for reasons we discussed in the attached thread. I believe (not having checked thoroughly) that the category remained in place from that time until its removal these past days. So to avoid opening old wounds and provoking fresh debate on matters discussed time and time again, I am going to explain why I, an original opponent, reneged and replaced a category which I removed three times.
Proponents of the category argued that diplomatic recognition from every state was not a prerequisite to be deemed a "country" and to support this some mentioned Taiwan and Israel, that reliable sources were referring to Kosovo as a "country" (example), and since Kosovo had its own flag, anthem, constitution, etc., this meant it met the criteria for inclusion within the category. They cited a majority of countries recognising Kosovo's independence.
Opponents argued Israel and Taiwan were incommensurable since the former is not disputed with regards most of the land it claims and the latter contests the whole of China with its rival PRC, one of whom is recognised by everyone; they argued that widely disputed status is not silenced by acknowledgements from sources, and demonstrated this with unrecognised Somaliland (example); they argued all self-proclaimed states adopt a flag, anthem and the rest of the properties associated with independence. They argued that the then-80 or so countries not to recognise Kosovo called for parity in presentation.
My (current) position:
First of all, the idea that South Ossetia and others are "puppet states" is a matter of opinion, negligible, but moreover irrelevant. Furthermore, there are those who consider the Republic of Kosovo as a puppet to the western powers. The bottom line is that if this is so, they would not be alone, the same could be said of many of the Pacific microstates, and even bigger more established countries who find themselves subjected to another country's influence. For example, the Saudi campaign in Yemen is precisely to keep a regime within that country loyal to Saudi Arabia. In the jungle, the strongest survive, and sooner or later if peace cannot be achieved, one belligerent will eventually be conquered and the other will take the throne, but none of this puts question marks over Yemen's sovereignty or integrity.
With regards recognition, Kosovo (by my count) ranks second among disputed/partially recognised lands. I believe that State of Palestine comes first, while in third place is the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, all of which is claimed by Morocco. Both of these entities feature their respective Countries in category.
With regards South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and other lesser recognised states, I have no objections to those articles having their country category, but would prefer a "counter article" to exist to demonstrate how the region is seen in the eyes of the host to dispute its independence.
On these notes, I simply could not argue any further for the category's continued absence and therefore boldly restored it myself. I ask that it remain, and that the points I have given here be taken into consideration as I feel there is no other way to demonstrate impartiality and objectivity.
- This is a non-issue. The edit warring party shows up once a month and causes trouble. They'll be gone soon enough and be causing trouble on another article some time next month. This article is stable and peaceful. Lets not have a debate on something which isn't needed. We all know that Kosovo is partially recognised and that Serbia claims it, the article is very clear on this. I too agree that the category remains. Kind regards IJA (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, two warring parties, two reverts each but one breached the technicality whilst the other IMHO could be said to have WP:GAMEd the system by reporting the violation (to which he was party) and then restoring his revision. I took the "edit warring" past the limit at both Genocide Convention and Pomaks in Turkey these past months but upon realising my mistake, I self-reverted before anyone even counted my revisions let alone submit a report - and to this very day the revisions remain as the other parties preferred. All I was aiming to do was maintain that stability which you rightly mention, but if I am to be honest, I was reaching out more to the party that removed the category in the hope that he can see that I emphasise with his position and that the current version to include it is on balance more appropriate. Admins from what I can see on the other hand appear only to concern themselves with rules and policies and show no interest in right or wrong. I feel the less they are involved, the better, so this is why I feel it is best to sometimes mediate rather than jump to one side (i.e. "Revert POV, Western Sahara is a country and has its category despite being recognised by fewer, Kosovo has an autonomous province article"). I hope you see my point. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)