Talk:Kosovo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Standardize demonym/adjectival to Kosovar[edit]

It seems like some places on WP are using Kosovan while others are using Kosovar, but in official contexts (e.g., US governmental contexts) and even according to popularity, Kosovar should be the canonical demonym/adjectival to mean "of or relating to Kosovo". Even this article itself lists Kosovar first. Does anyone have any thoughts or large opposition to this? If not, I will be changing it in a week's time to Kosovar across the board. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't seen "Kosovan" used anywhere so far, "Kosovar" is what I've seen being used. S.G ReDark (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you're welcome to use Kosovar instead of Kosovan. Therandas (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022[edit]

Change 'Kosovo' To Kosovo and Metohija Oliver Delattre (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Differing treatment between Kosovo and Taiwan[edit]

Why is it that Taiwan could be considered a "country" in the lead, but not Kosovo, being a "partially recognised" state? Kosovo, like Palestine, has much more global recognition than Taiwan, are they not? Kosovo is a part of multiple international organizations, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, (both of which Taiwan is not a part of) and the Council of Europe, and is recognized by more UN members (100) than Taiwan (13) does. Even Palestine has more recognition (138) than Taiwan (and Kosovo itself) and yet are not given a status of a "country". What makes Taiwan so special over Kosovo, or better yet, over other partially recognised nations with much more intentional recognition in multiple areas? 220.72.157.38 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is Kosovo special enough to be considered a "state" when Taiwan is not? CMD (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no objection to using the word state or country or better yet, state/country DominusVilicus (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I most definitely object to state or country because it rides roughshod over one half of the debate and places the other half on a pedestal. That said, the community has already crossed the rubicon on the "it borders Serbia" on the most bone-headed and gargabe argumentation I have ever read. In the current climate of the White Helmets being a benevolent force for good, Russia being Mr Bad Guy and Ukraine the innocent babe in the woods, and the concomitant factor that many decent editors have left the project leaving only the disciples of New World Order at the reins, I doubt that the opposition to "state" is going to achieve success due to might being right. But while the talk page allows us to discuss the article's content, I will continue to exercise this freedom. No there is no correlation between Taiwan and Kosovo. Just because they have parallels such as limited recognition and as a consequence, limited membership to international organisations, does not mean they share the same backstory. First, Taiwan is shorthand for Republic of China. Contrary to rife ignorance among armchair pundits in the west, Taiwan has never declared independence, and one of its biggest parties the Kuomintang does not even support such a move, preferring Cross-Strait relations per the One China Policy: i.e. to claim territorial integrity over all of China with the inclusion of Mongolia which it never allowed to go free. Its related co-examples include pre-2001 Afghanistan, contested between Emirate and State during those years. Korea is also similar with what we call "North" and "South" claiming single country in full. Kosovo is an example of a body which has declared independence from a bigger state, so its co-examples include Somaliland, Lugansk (2014-2022), Abkhazia, even ISIS for said periods that ISIS controlled its claimed territories. The State of Palestine was declared in 1988, has about two thirds recognition, and contains territory that is not claimed by any other competing state (e.g. Israel does not claim Gaza as its own). The refusal by about a third of states to recognise Palestine revolves mostly around wider poltical loyalty. The question of how many diplomatic recognitions Kosovo has over its real peers (ISIS, South Ossetia, etc.) demonstrates not so much how much of a country it is but how much success it has achieved in its goals. For FIFA to admit Kosovo but not Artsakh is not based on a survey as to how much you control, or how many recognise you, but who influences you. It is thereby a circular argument. So yes it will probably be the case that it becomes "country" with "disputed" status relegated to line two, but it will not be on any sound reasoning nor the fact that comparison with Taiwan should have merit. --OJ (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Less soapboxing, OJ, and more discussion of Reliable Sources to improve the article - your personal views are less than useless for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.216.187 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of recognitions[edit]

There was a discussion about the number of recognitions in the relevant talkpage and the main article should reflect those changes. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In his initial edit, Ранко_Николић brought up an interesting point. He specifically claimed Not an improvement. Do not POV push with Twitter posts by Kosovo* representatives used as a source. I would like to add something regarding this claim. If we go to the page International recognition of Kosovo and look at the sources that the recognition of Kosovo's independence was withdrawn, we see that the countries in that list can be separated into 3 categories:
Category 1. Ghana: The deputy foreign minister of the country claimed that Ghana's decision to recognize Kosovo was premature and they reconsidered their position. Therefore, there is good credibility to the claim that Ghana has withdrawn its recognition of Kosovo's independence.
Category 2. Burundi, Lesotho, Comoros, Dominica, Grenada, Nauru. In all of these cases, Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dačić met with the representatives of those countries and afterwards claimed that they had agreed to suspend the recognition of Kosovo "until the conclusion of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue" and so on. In this case, even if we don't see the Serbian Foreign Minister as a credible source, the fact that he made the announcement with the representatives of those countries being present gives considerable credibility to his claims.
Category 3. Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Madagascar, Togo, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone. In all of these cases, Ivica Dačić claimed that recognition of Kosovo's independence has been withdrawn, but did not provide any verbal note, nor any other evidence. Therefore, these claims of derecognition are dubious at best. Dacic made similar evidenceless claims about Palau and Suriname, but recently Kosovo's President[3] and Foreign Minister[4] met the foreign ministers of said countries and discussed the deepening of bilateral relations. In light of these events, one wonders if countries in the third group should be in the list of "derecognizers" at all. The evidence that they recognized Kosovo is a verbal note, while the evidence that they derecognized Kosovo is a claim by Kosovo's rival in a dispute, with zero outside corroboration.
What Ранко_Николић calls Twitter posts by Kosovo* representatives fall in Category 2. They are indeed claims by the representatives of Kosovo, but there is evidence that these representatives had bilateral meetings with the representatives of the other countries, after which they made those claims (photos, mentioning said diplomats in their tweets). Counterevidence to that is just a claim by Serbia's Foreign Minister that these countries have withdrawn recognition (Category 3). So there is absolutely no doubt that Category 2 has primacy over Category 3. It simply has far more credibility. One important question is whether Category 3 should exist at all, or whether Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Madagascar, Togo, Central African Republic, and Sierra Leone should simply be returned to the list of recognizing countries. If we follow Ранко_Николић's advice and remove one-sided, unprovable claims, then the number of recognitions of Kosovo's independence should be 106, not 100. That's something we can discuss in the future in International Recognition of Kosovo. -Uniacademic (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources which describe the diplomatic relations between Kosovo and other states are sufficient. ILBobby's comment sums up how sources should be used in this context [5].--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note that Ранко_Николић would also appear to be pushing a POV. Not very subtly either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)I didn't noticeReply[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for the edits after my revert. There is a requirement that every revert is explained on the talkpage, but there is no explanation for any of the reverts by Ранко_Николић.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're thinking of WP:BRD which is an optional method of seeking consensus but is not in any way required. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ранко_Николић is sabotaging the page with propaganda and actions should be taken so he/she won't keep reverting sourceful edits. Therandas (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

@ElderZamzam: why do you think we should be using an opinion piece in the infobox? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My concerns are not related to the opinion piece in the infobox. My concerns are related to the removal of the opposing claim to the territory encompassing Kosovo. An edit war initially evolved over text referring to UNSC 1244.[6] However, you went one step ahead and removed any reference to the opposing claims made by Serbia.[7] Having the opposing view is in line with other similar contexts including: South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland and Transnistria. All those editors involved in the UNSC 1244 edit war should have reached a consensus on the talk page as it is a contentious statement, however it has now gone out of control. This is the reason why this page has a 1 revert per 24 hour rule. ElderZamzam (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why in the world would you restore the restore the opinion piece in the infobox? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2022[edit]

Remove the sentence "A significant portion of politicians in both the EU and the US had feared that a premature declaration could boost support in Serbia for the nationalist candidate, Tomislav Nikolić.[142]".

As much as I personally despise Nikolic, he was a center-right candidate running on a center-right platform. The article used as a source [142] makes no reference to him. In fact, it acknowledges that the election was won by a center-left, pro-EU candidate. 24.135.14.178 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, this sentence has been sitting around for more than 14 years – it was first inserted, with the same source, on 3 February 2008 [8], i.e. just before the election in question and before the declaration of independence. However, the source page on BBC was edited and modified several times over the years, and it's no longer easy to find out what it was saying back then. The version you can see today, and also the one that was linked to when somebody added an archive link and and a "retrieved on" mark in July 2009, were from a later date, after the election. Unfortunately, webarchive didn't archive any snapshots of the source page around that time. The nearest ones I can find are one from 9 June 2007, archived on 24 October 2007, and one from 21 February 2008, archived on 7 March 2008. Neither of them mentions the concern about Nikolić, but it's quite possible that there was an intermediate version of the page that did mention it, from the time period between when the "postponement" would have been decided (supposedly after June 2007?) and the election itself (4 February) and declaration of independence (17 February). – So, difficult to decide what to do with this, for the moment. Fut.Perf. 20:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Interesting... I personally suppose that, since the information cannot be verified, we should probably remove the sentence. Even if it was not added in bad faith and its mention of Nikolić really was there at a given time, but it was not archived and we cannot find it now, I think we should probably remove it. At the same time, it sounds like the sentence might easily be true... So, perhaps we can keep it for a while, but replace the source with a 'citation needed' tag whilst we seek an alternative source for it. If no-one can find it after some time, we then delete it. What do you think? LongLivePortugal (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]