Template:Article probation

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Kosovo Top‑importance Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Serbia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Albania Top‑importance Kosovo is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Yugoslavia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yugoslavia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5 Template:Notaforum

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

Albanian history about Kosovo is poor in studies and collections. Most of that assimilated by other populations and cultures, or non- existing any more. But time and history is on their side if they make an effort.

Serb history about Kosovo is based on the idolised figures and the Orthodox Church. No Serb historian speaks any other language form the region, or has ever made studies of the history based on facts and documents of the history archives in other neighbouring countries.

This fanatically cultivated history is based on the need of Serb population to feel like they belong. They have been lead to believe this martyr’s and glorified history that they use as a reference of virtue, nationalism and as a defence mechanism.

The success of Serb 'history' and their claims is based on that has not been contested by others, until recently.

Kosovo is not the cradle of Serbia but far from it.

Kosovo has been in the Serb attention only after the battle of 1389 of the Field of Kosovo.

Although in the battle of the Field of Kosovo most of the army that faced the Ottomans were Serbs, they were not the only. There were Albanians, Bulgarians, Vlach and other. The leader of Albanians that fought in that battle also died. There were thousands of Serbs fighting in that battle for the Ottoman Turks, who were pro, a neutral Serbia to the Ottoman invasion....trade / economical reasons....etc

There was no mass exodus from Kosovo of the Serb population. There is simply nothing to back that theory other than Orthodox Church/ fanatics.

My intention is not to irritate Serbs with this post, but simply to discuss facts rather then just claim history in ways that some think is better suited.

I welcome anybody to discuss with me in a /eye opener/ seeking for the truth/ attitude. But please bring only facts not stories. Albanian or Serb you may be.

Jon

Jon, you wrote No Serb historian speaks any other language form the region...

How can I make any rational argument with a person that makes such an ignorant generalization. As far as I can tell, ALMOST ALL Serbs that lived on Kosovo speak Albanian language. I have few friends from there, and yes, they do know Albanian. Some of them may as well be historians. No, your ignorance does not irritate me, it just makes me sad. Lakinekaki (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you friends historians or just people who live in the villages!!! I dont think you got right Jons' view. Piasoft (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I found an article — “Is Kosovo Serbia? We ask a historian” — on The Guardian about this. Here is the first three paragraphs:

Well, maybe it should be useful to cite this in the article or in the article about the history of Kosovo, anyway.

I don't think that the opinion of ONE out of N opinionators in the Guardian should matter that much so as to cite his opinions in a neutral-point-of-view article, such as this article on Kosovo!--_Arbër ^{Let's talk} 07:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is by N. Malcolm, who is anything but neutral. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the quote states straighforward historical facts, and does not take any position on the current dispute. All it is saying is that the perpetual harping on medieval history employed by both sides is inherently flawed. Historians know that ethnicities are malleable constructs. National mysticists by definition ignore that fact. Therefore any national mysticist appeal to "history" is bound to be debunked by historians. This holds equally true for Serbian national mysticists and for Albanian national mysticists. dab (𒁳) 10:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is untrue that Kosovo is the cradle of the Serbs, since they settled a much larger territory in the western part of the Balkans, and at first have centered around other territories, such as Duklja for instance; but on the other hand, it is of course certainly true that Kosovo is "the cradle" of Serbia, which this quote from the Guardian misses to point out. The mediaeval state of Serbia was truly centered around Kosovo, which is therefore poetically referred to as its cradle. Towns in Kosovo such as Peć, Prizren, Novo Brdo etc. were the important centres of the Serbian Church, Serbian nobility with the ruling house of Nemanjić, Serbian industry of that time and so on. This quote from the Guardian cleverly uses weasel wording, proving that Kosovo is not cradle of the ethnic Serbs but omitting its significance in the history of Serbia, so it’s not neutral at all to be cited in the articles on Wikipedia. --George D. Božović (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any event the history section of this article is flawed and it needs verification. Most of the statements are not sourced. There needs to be neutral sources from scholarly works. Anything else needs to be removed. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statements from a controversial journalist that just represents a pro-Albanian POV (like Hugo Roth is pro-Serbian) isn't really a scholarly work. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please did the Guardian list the name of the historian - I think not! By the way I study history and not one of my professors has stated to me when asked are the Albanians the direct decendents of Illyrians that they are I have always got a resounding "NO". So where this reporter got their Historian from I don't know. Majority of Historians actually agree more that Serbian history is correct than not.

Also Dardanians were not the only tribe to live in that region which they so purposely seem to leave out the Scordisci who's name actually comes from the Sar Mountain lived their as so the Thracians. Do they ever mention this - NO! Also there any evidence beyond any resonable doubt that the Illyrians alone lived there and that the Albanians are the direct decendents of them?! Once again no! Also if you read several historical the Romans conquered that particular region in 3BC! I only wish I had the text books with me so I could cite them.

Also it is quite hilarious to see that Kosovo had hardly any history on this page until February 2008. Also it is funny how you always use N.Malcolm for your so called historical evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.95.6 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on the relationship between the Albanians, Illyrians, Dacians, etc. The only consensus is that all of these groups speak or spoke an Indo-European language. Azalea pomp (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the "cradle of Serbia" I suppose would be ... White Serbia. Yes, that's a completely different place in Europe. They just decided to move it and walked south. After all, this was 1,400 years ago. Be that as it may, it should be obvious that tribal territories back in the migration period are completely irrelevant for the discussion of modern day politics. dab (𒁳) 17:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t agree with you. "They" who decided to move south were the Serbs not "Serbia" as such. Serbia is a country in the Balkans, and its mediaeval centre — or "the cradle" from which it developed — was Kosovo, regardless of its ethnic structure. Kosovo is not the cradle of the Serbs (who came from White Serbia), but it is "the cradle" of Serbia, as it is where Serbia was founded — Serbia wasn’t founded in the place you are referring to. Regardless of the tribal and ethnic territories, the country of Serbia as a political unit was founded and centered around Kosovo, as all or most of its important centres were located there (Prizren, Peć, Vučitrn, Novo Brdo, Trepča). --George D. Božović (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then your definition of "cradle" is arbitrary. The earliest known settlement of Serbs is White Serbia. All later movements are Serbs moving from A to B and founding some new settlement. Which will you pick as "cradle". According to our Medieval Serbia article, the "cradle" of the kingdom of Serbia may be the Principality of Zeta (today in Montenegro, not Kosovo). But how is that relevant? The kingdom of Serbia has ceased to exist centuries ago. Today, there is just a Republic of Serbia, the "cradle" of which appears to be Belgrade, where the Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro in 1992 created the "State Union of Serbia and Montenegro ". You can pick any other definition of "cradle", but it's just going to get more and more arbitrary. Maybe a reason to ask why we are discussing "cradles" in the first place, and what this has got to do with anything. dab (𒁳) 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right. Except that the migrations and settlements of Serbs do not matter at all. I was trying to say that the mediaeval Serbia was centered around Kosovo, regardless of its ethnic structure. Serbia as a country is a geopolitical unit, and may not be related to the Serbs as an ethnic group. Zeta (Doclea) was another kingdom that was founded in the Balkans and is the "cradle" of the present-day Montenegro. And of course, Kosovo is not the "cradle" of modern Serbia, as you point it out, but of the mediaeval kingdom and empire of Serbia. Perhaps it may not but it also may be relevant to mention, as the fact that Kosovo was the centre of the 13th—14th century Serbia, the location of its important institutions, industry, agriculture, the church etc., certainly belongs to Kosovo’s history. --George D. Božović (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosova is not 10,887km squared. There was an agreement by Slobodan Milosevic right before he was sent to the Hague with Macedonia on border demarcation which Slobodan Milosevic gave Macedonia over 10km squared to Macedonia. That is why there are talks between Kosovar Government and Macedonian Government for this land. The correct size is 10,902 or 10,912 (not sure which). I think we should keep an eye on this fact or have a disclaimer perhaps?? 128.206.160.181 (talk)Kosova2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it doesn't make much sense to have something like "not recognized" in the country info box. Since this would necessarily include even those countries which are undecided, have initiated the recognition process or whose positions are unknown. Either we change the wording in something like "explicitly not recognized by xx countries" or we give the total # of countries minus the # of countries recognizing Kosovo (obviously that doesn't make much sense) or we leave it out altogether. Gugganij (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the country infobox needs something like a "partially recognized" flag. Then we can just set that. After all, there are just about half a dozen countries in the world for which this description would apply. dab (𒁳) 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is, in fact, a partially-recognized country, like Israel. It can’t be called a region since all of Kosovo is controlled by the forces that assisted the independence of the country. To call Kosovo a mere "region" is to bend to pro-Serb POV. It would like to all in the article about Israel that the country does not exist and it's a mere "Palestinian territory under Zionist occupation", which would be very pro-Arab POV.

As for now, Kosovo is a country. It could be unjust in the opinion of the Serb nationalists, but this is the fact on the ground. Even in the case of the article about Northern Cyprus (which is recognized only by Turkey), the first description treats it as "a de facto independent republic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.171.54 (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Israel is recognized by most other nations as well as by the United Nations. So it is a far different situation. Kosovo independence isn't just disputed by the Serbia. Russia, China, and other nations - including some EU members with seperatists like Spain and Cyprus - emphatically still recognize Kosovo as a Serb province. Joseph (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Kosovo is internationally recognized country and the number of countries recognizing Kosovo is growing... Kosovo will never be part of Serbia, again. Never.Bosniak (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, internationally recognized? I think you have made a mistake. Also please stop with all that "Kosovo will never ever be a part of Serbia again". ;P It's spamming and WP:POINT, making you look as if you're some sort of a lobbist. :D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo has not been fully recognised by all the UN members, as a result of this Kosovo is not fully recognised as a country. No country can classify itself as one until it has complete UN backing. Kosovo is not a country.

That's correct. I see some recent vandalisms, in the meaning that they violate the NPOV, therefore I have undone the recent changes to more factually correct ones.--_Arbër ^{t •  ?} 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be two pages, one for the state/country Republic of Kosovo and one page about the historic region or province? This can be like Moldova/Moldavia. Kosovo like Israel is a country recognized by some and not others. We should not be POV and have a page that it is a state. Azalea pomp (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the labored "partially recognized" phrase is entirely unsatisfactory. A country is either recognized by another county or not. It may not be recognized by all countries, but then very few countries are. I would move to strike the qualifier and move the details to another sentence ("declared independence on, recognized by several states so far, but several other states have explicitly denied recognition"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Schulz, in legal terms, it is either recognized or not. 19 countries recognize it - 176 do not. In that manner, for countries which will obviously recognize Kosovo such as Slovenia, according to them Kosovo is still right now a part of Serbia. A Declaration of Independence is not an act that demands some sort of an open statement, which is just as political as any other - there is only one reaction: recognition or not. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The term "region" or even "territory" (as in "This article is about the territory in the Balkans. For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation).") is a far more NPOV term than either "country" or "Serbian province." Any country or state or province or even a city is a "region", so the term does not imply either statehood or non-statehood. And considering at last count that under 20 countries, out of 200+ worldwide nations, recognize Kosovo sovereignty and even the United Nations does not recognize it (in fact the UN Security Council [under resolution 1244] still recognized Serb sovereignty over Kosovo) it is prudent to use a NPOV term in the lead. Afterwards the aritcle can explain the differing opinions. Joseph (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not comparable. Israel is an internationally recognized country (perhaps the status could be compared to that of Palestine, rather), whose independence is questioned by some, and not Kosovo which was/is officially a part of Serbia (in a way, sort of, right now), which's independence is only recognized by some. The main also difference is that Israel is a sovereign country (in a way, so is North Cyprus) - Kosovo has a long way towards constitution. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a separate article for Kosovo as a partially-recognized country under Republic of Kosovo. It's quite possible northern Kosovo will be de facto separated from the rest of Kosovo so it may not be all of Kosovo in the country of Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds way too much like a POV fork, and one based heavily on speculation that Kosovo will be fully recognized, only to lose the north in a retro-secession. While I agree that 'the facts on the ground are that it is a country' to paraphrase above, and would prefer to use 'country' or 'nation', I can accept as compromise 'territory' as that word denotes some ownership, while 'region' can be used to describe the Sea of Tranquility and other unowned geographic features. ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs were majority on Kosovo and Metohija until Tito ordered by a declaration that all Serbs who were driven away from kosovo(around 450 000) cannot return to their homes,that happened just after the WWII.That is when Serbs became minority on Kosovo not in 19. century.--89.216.200.42 (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true.

Do you have a source for this? Probably not...I have a 1910 Hammond "Peoples of Europe" map and it shows Kosovo as being mostly Albanian with Serbs in the northern part of Kosovo. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The post by 89.216.200.42 stated that Serbians were the majority prior to Tito's actions (circa mid 1940s) and made no mention of Kosovo's demographic composition in 1910. Anyway its a minor point fun for bickering over. If you intend to use single items of "information" for the purpose of writing quality entries or educating others (especially for such hotly disputed topics), then I suggest you leave the Wikipedia community. Your kind of thinking is the kind that results in lowering of the quality of our articles. Simply refer to the Wikipedia article on Kosovo's demographic history and you can observe for yourself the varying (and somewhat contradictory) information with respect to demographics. Gkmx (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-------- -------

I think Wikipedia should just give up on having an article on Kosova. Clearly it will never be anything that anyone can rely on for solid information about the place. One hour it is biased towards one version of history, and another hour it is biased towards a second version. I really do not see any academic or other type of scholar choosing to pick something out of this article. It has pretty much turned into a "Let's see who can edit faster" game, going back and forth with rediculous frequency. Clearly the "officials" who run this project are too incompetent to do anything to bring stability to the article. So why not just shut it down completely and let people rely on other websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.92.25 (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated before, I do not know why the powers that be on wikipedia do not just create two articles, one for the Republic of Kosovo and another article for the region. This can relieve a lot of the problems because the article as it is now is garbage. It is biased, unsourced, inaccurate, and should not be viewed by anyone. As many people use wikipedia (for better or worse), there needs to be some responsibility for these articles. Azalea pomp (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share your view of the article's quality. I suppose it is as fair as is at all possible. The suggestion to {{split}} this into two articles has some merit, though. But it would not change much. We'll have an article at Republic of Kosovo and one at Kosovo (region). Then what will we do with Kosovo? Redirect it to Kosovo (disambiguation)? That's a possibility, but the only change will be that this article will then reside under a different title, it won't really affect its content. dab (𒁳) 14:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To describe it as a mere region goes too far towards the Serb POV. The facts on the ground are that it is independent state. It is unlikely to become a UN member but that is solely due to the Russian veto. The two Germanies didn't become UN members until 1973 - does anyone claim that Germany had not been independent before that date? Kosovo is recognized by 3 permanent members of the security council and six in total. The Serbian Governments POV that Kosovo ought not to be independent needs to be included but the fact is that it is.Dejvid (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's beside the point. A country can be independent. It will then have a certain territory. And the territory can correspond to a geographical region. In this case, that region is known as "Kosovo", and the state is known as "Republic of Kosovo". Compare "Italy" vs. the "Republic of Italy": not synonyms, although the shorter term is often loosely used as a short name for the state. "Italy" is literally as old as the hills, while the "Republic of Italy" dates to 1946. It is advisable to remain very clear on the distinction of "Kosovo" (the region) and the "Republic of Kosovo" (the state established 2008) in the case at hand. dab (𒁳) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid way of looking at it. However if you check you will find that is not how Wikpedia does it. Italy is a page on the Republic of Italy while the region is described in a (rather short) article on the Italian Peninsula.77.101.50.139 (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Signed by Dejvid (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Better examples are Abkhazia and South Ossetia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephf (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To have a "Kosovo" page and a "Republic of Kosovo" page would allow for less edit disputes. The Kosovo page can continue functioning as it has until recently and the "Republic of Kosovo" page can be the place where people can write about the self-governance in the Region and things related to the current Bananë Republikë of Kosovë. All in all, it would just make edit disputes more avoidable as "Kosovo" can continue offering factual accuracy and "Republic of Kosovo" can offer insight into the current state of affairs from the Albanian side. Gkmx (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history section currently states that the KLA were supported by mujahideen-fighters, with no citation. Is there any evidence for this?--Barend (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scotsman

November 30, 1998, Monday Pg. 7

US TACKLES ISLAMIC MILITANCY IN KOSOVO

Chris Stephen In Pristina

THE United States has asked Kosovo's ethnic Albanian rebels to distance themselves from so called Mujahideen fundamentalists, amid reports that Islamic extremists are arriving to fight in this war-torn province.

KLA leaders have accepted the US request, prompted by fears in Washington that the war in Kosovo will provide fertile ground for Muslim fundamentalists to take root.

Fundamentalists are well established in Albania, despite several raids by the CIA and Albanian security forces that seized five key members of Islamic Jihad and other Middle Eastern groups this summer.

Now a joint CIA-Albanian intelligence operation has reported Mujahideen units from at least half a dozen Middle East countries streaming across the border into Kosovo from safe bases in Albania.

The American request came at an October meeting of US envoys with the leaders of the ethnic-Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army at their headquarters in Geneva.

A senior KLA source told The Scotsman that the group agreed to the request: "It's a clear position; we don't want anything from these people," he said. "Even before they (the US) told us to be careful from them, we'd had this firm understanding."

Approximately a quarter of KLA members are Roman Catholics, and the organisation has insisted throughout this year's fighting that its war with the Serbs, who are Orthodox Christian, is nationalist, and not religious.

But Albanian intelligence services report an influx of Muslim extremists from a variety of countries into Kosovo. "We have information about three or four groups, there are Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, Algerians, Tunisians, Sudanese," said Fatos Klosi, director of the Albanian intelligence service.

The US request was top of a "shopping list" the KLA says the Americans gave it.

As well as refusing offers of help from the Mujahideen, the KLA says it agreed not to use terrorist tactics such as car bombings against the Serbs outside Kosovo.

It also promised not to foment revolt among the ethnic Albanian majority in neighbouring Macedonia.

The KLA is coy about saying what it got in return. So far the answer is very little. The US still says the group cannot be included in peace talks on Kosovo's future until it renounces violence.

But behind the rhetoric, the US is worried that unless it makes concessions, it might drive the rebel movement into the arms of the fundamentalists.

One vital concession to the KLA came earlier this year, when it had the unusual honour of being take off a register of organisations the US defines as "terrorists".

This is a valuable asset, not just in terms of public relations.

It also makes fund-raising among ethnic Albanians abroad much easier.

For the Americans, giving the KLA tacit support is a tightrope.

Shunning it might drive them into the arms of fundamentalists such as Osama Bin Laden -blamed for bombing US embassies in Africa this summer -whose men are already operating in Albania.

But supporting them could give a shot in the arm for the KLA's aim of full independence for Kosovo -something the West fears might fuel uprisings in other parts of the world.

For the moment, the US appears to be leaning on the side of support. Most observers in Kosovo think the current lull in fighting has more to do with winter weather than the ceasefire brokered under threats of NATO action in October.

The majority Albanian population remains committed to independence, and the Serb leadership remains committed to stopping that, with both sides rearming and planning for fighting in the spring.

It is also unclear if the KLA's Geneva leadership really controls all the rebel units on the ground, many of whom follow competing political factions.

How many Islamic volunteers are in Kosovo is equally uncertain. Few have been sighted by the western monitors in the province.

The full strength and political sway of Mujahideen units will only become clear when the spring arrives and warriors again pull the covers from their guns. Amenifus (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think nearly anyone reading the above would have to conclude that there exists dispute over almost everything said in the article. Accordingly, editors should adopt the highest standard of scholarship they can manage in documenting their statements. As of this writing, most citations are incomplete. Rather than endless bickering over which side of each dispute is right, why not get on with improving the citations that are there. For an article this active, it should only take a few days to get them all properly cited. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SS article. The history of Kosovo is discussed at History of Kosovo. What we want here is a brief summary of that article, just like with the remaining h2 sections in this article. I intend to mercilessly compress the excessive detail duplicated here, with the aim of compressing the "History" section, at present taking up over half of this article, to below a third of total article length. In particular, the "20th century" section is excessive, per the {{shorten}} tag. There is 20th century history of Kosovo, and I would ask people interested in discussing the 20th century history of Kosovo to work on that article. --dab (𒁳) 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a very funny article. Probably serbs wrote it!!! Piasoft (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the history section needs cleaning up by admin, it's repeating itself:

"The Ottomans brought Islamisation with them, particularly in towns, and later also created the Vilayet of Kosovo as one of the Ottoman territorial entities. Kosovo was taken by the Austrian forces during the Great War of 1683–1699 with help of 6,000 Albanians and their leader, the Catholic Archbishop Pjetër Bogdani, who published his classic Band of the Prophets in 1686. The campaign resulted in a brief liberation of Kosovo, but after a plague breakout among Austrians and Kosovars, the Turks soon recovered all their lost areas. Bogdani himself died in December 1689, while his remains were inhumanely exhumed by Turks and Tatars and fed to dogs.[8] The loss had a negative impact on the wellbeing all inhabitants of Kosovo, whose liberation was not realized in an 18th-century Austrian endeavor either. During the Ottoman period, nonetheless, there was recorded a great amount of endeavors to promote the Albanian language and culture. The Catholic cleric who authored the earliest known Albanian book, Gjon Buzuku, is believed to have been of Kosovar origin. Moreover, the Catholic bishop, Pjetër Bogdani, a native of Kosovo, published his classic Band of the Prophets in 1686, and later headed the anti-Ottoman movement. His engagement in the national cause culminated in 1689, when he raised a 20,000-member army comprised of Christian and Muslim Albanians, who joined the Austrians in their war against Turkey. The campaign resulted in a brief liberation of Kosovo, but after a plague breakout among Austrians and Kosovars, the Turks soon recovered all their lost areas. Bogdani himself died in December 1689, while his remains were inhumanely exhumed by Turks and Tatars and fed to dogs.[9] The loss had a negative impact on the wellbeing all inhabitants of Kosovo, whose liberation was not realized in an 18th-century Austrian endeavor either." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.249.192 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be somewhat presumptive of me...but would a decision on the ISO (and other organisation) codes be made any time this year? Or has one already been decided? In the back of my mind I half-recall a website suggesting KOS or KSV but I guess this may be nerdish dreaming....doktorb _words^deeds 15:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Soviet Union have a veto there? If so, don't expect an ISO code anytime soon. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

LOL !!! I dont think today there exists any Soviet Union. That's part of the history, just like yugoslavia.Piasoft (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Soviet Union is a little out of date now :) doktorb _words^deeds 10:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we redirect Kosova to Kosovo as it is used by the Kosovars themselves? --Tubesship (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Serbian name in the name box "Kosovo i Metohija"? That does not seem to be the translation of "Republika e Kosovës"... Shouldn't the name box always give the official names of the country in its official languages? Instead, this one give two different names in two different languages.. This is both confusing and inconsistent with the Wikipedia standard. Luis rib (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. CIA World Factbook has finally added Kosovo entry among other countries of the world! Here is a link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kv.html

2. And here is how map of Serbia looks like at CIA World FactBook! Here is a link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rb.html Bosniak (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the CIA. Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL who said that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.31.56 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we have saw before here, there are people who again and again alterate and/or revert the map of Kosovo in the main box of the article to say in a subtle way that “Kosovo is Serbia Forever”.

The current map on the article shows what I’m talking about:

And the map that was there before was recently altered by some recent user called… Serbish:

I think that this does not reflect the current situation on the ground, and as the same way that happens in other Wikipedia articles about other partially-recognized countries and territories (like the Falkland Islands, which Argentina still considers part of its territory occupied by UK):

So I think Kosovo should be shown in relation to Europe, not in relation to Serbian claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.172.128 (talk)

Lol at that map! you gotta admit though, that is kinda funny ... :D XYaAsehShalomX (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please have both the accepting and denying nations shown on the map? i understand that the 'maybe' nations aren't shown, but i feel the map lacks the 'naysayers', i suggest using red color for those if the supporters remain green, that is good for the visual backing of the difference (Jorian Drake (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Would it be better to have one article discussing Kosovo as a region (history, demographics, geography, culture with a section following to articles on the recent declaration of independence and governance) and another article for the Republic of Kosovo as a partial recognized state claiming the territory of Kosovo (newly adopted symbols, economy, etc.)? These two articles already exist, but I think most of the information on this article should be transfered to the Kosovo article. --Hegumen (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No it won't be better - here Kosovo is associated with the republic/province of Kosovo, which consists of the entire geographical area of Kosovo. This is different than the case of RoM and Macedonia, where the republic IS NOT associated with the entire region... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.91.72 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Hegumen, although the Peoples Republic of China dominates the Chinese mainland and is informally referred to as China, there is the claim by the Republic of China (situated in Taiwan) to the entire Chinese continent. Wikipedia currently has a section called China which is simply for the region, it divides into the two titles above for both states that lay claim to it.--R-41 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just nonsense. The article starts off calling Kosovo a region, yet we have an infobox right there calling it Republic of Kosovo, the name of the newly-declared nation, and the article has the same basic format of an article on an independent nation, yet it calls it a region rather than a nation. Then we have a separate article for the region of Kosovo which is really just a redirect for the article on geography of Kosovo. In fact, the article here is what you get when looking for Kosovo and it's treated like any other regular nation, which is far from what it is. With Macedonia where the only real dispute is the name, a rather silly dispute I might add, Wikipedia does not automatically go to the article on the nation, but goes to a disambiguation page. The same is true of China and Taiwan. Neither will send you to either country because one is not recognized as an independent country or as a having that name and the other is part of the official name for both countries. Since many large countries recognize Kosovo still as a province of Serbia under the official name of that province and other large countries recognize it as an independent na

tion under the name of Republic of Kosovo the fact Kosovo is automatically the article for the latter is just completely biased. I suggest having Kosovo go to the disambiguation page and actually have a separate article on Kosovo as a region rather than link to the geography page since it does generally correspond to a region of some historical significance. Then the contents of this article now would be under the article Republic of Kosovo which could actually call it a partially recognized state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Hegumen. We need a Republic of China/China type of approach here. This can be implemented rather quickly. dab (𒁳) 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to implement such a "China" solution for now. Please review it. I do think this is where we will end up eventually, but perhaps I have been over-bold. In this case, let's just revert the split for now and look at other options. dab (𒁳) 13:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not good in any case. Because of your copy-paste move, the history is not seen. Please, use the redirects and correct the mess. --Tone 14:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to simple moves, it is impossible to split an article without copy-pasting I am afraid. What would you like me to fix? I am also unsure how to deal with arbcom probation. I suggest it is reasonable to assume that both articles inherit the pertinent restrictions. dab (𒁳) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to the whole idea of the split. A simple fix for both GDFL issues resulting from the loss of article history and loss of authorship data as well as all other issues is to undo the split. I see that this suggestion was already formed above as, "but perhaps I have been over-bold. In this case, let's just revert the split for now and look at other options." I won't revert it myself since the article is on probation but I vote for exactly this solution the reverting of the split. Hobartimus (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL has nothing to do with it. Articles are split all the time. But if there is opposition to the split on grounds of content, I invite you to undo it and explain what the problem is. dab (𒁳) 17:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that GDFL said something about attributing the authors, which we do via the history. If the text is moved, at the new place the authors will no longer be visible. It's true that sometimes it can't be helped of course or my understanding of the whole thing might be simply weak. I'm against the split on content also but these types of choices should be made based on consensus maybe a survey is in order. As I said I won't touch the article with respect to the article probation, if split is what most editors want I'm fine with that too. Hobartimus (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible to copy the history before the split to the other page?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can we take technical and legal issues of article splitting to WP:SPLIT or Template talk:Split please, and focus on the topic itself here, please? My edit was intended as an illustration of what a "China / Republic of China" solution might look for in the case of Kosovo. If people don't like it, we can revert to where we were. But let us not drown this question by discussing technical details. dab (𒁳) 18:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The main article should be about the European country - "Kosovo". --Camptown (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hah, "country" as in region, or "country" as in Republic? You've got your finger right on it there. --dab (𒁳) 20:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should split Serbia instead - the land of splitting image... --Camptown (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for different articles. We need only 1 article on Kosovo, and that's Kosovo as a Republic. Bosniak (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose spliting. The majority of teh EU, NATO, UNSC permanant members and G8 recognise Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007apm (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose splitting. POV fork. Húsönd 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merely because in English language standard Kosovo is referring to the political entity primarily (if not solely). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!vote OPPOSE. Wasn't this vote JUST taken last weekend? This repetitive soliciting for !votes till one side gets its way is asinine. ThuranX (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sounds like a POV fork. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez. IT'S NOT A POV FORK! Fact is, presently this article is strongly biased just by the mere fact it is under Kosovo. A search for Kosovo on Google gets this article. This is a Western bias towards the Western position on Kosovo. That or it's Albanian bias, I don't know who started the article. However, this is simply unacceptable. There has to be some sort of split. I think having a separate article "Republic of Kosovo" and having this page be a disambiguation page is the only fair thing to do. Presently Russia, China, India, Argentina, Venezuela, Spain, Ukraine, and South Africa among others do not recognize Kosovo as a nation and continue to recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia. In particular, Russia, Spain, Venezuela, and Argentina are some countries which have made this explicit.

Having the article put Kosovo on the same level of nations like Germany, Canada, and Japan is just ridiculously biased. Kosovo is a highly controversial and rare case and should be approached with great caution. There is no caution with this article. This article is like a big "F-U" to Serbia. The whole thing is a mess because some people here want to assert their personal opinions on Kosovo. It's simple Kosovo's status is disputed, hotly disputed, and Wikipedia should not be taking sides. Right now Wikipedia is taking sides.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways dude, who cares about Serbia, they are irrelevant. Kosovo is independent, and neither you nor Serbia will change it. Bosniak (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, that's kind of my point. Many people wanting this article kept as is are biased towards one side, which is exactly the problem. The article represents a bias. That is simply unacceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply no reason to create a POV fork. I don't understand if arguments like "This article is like a big "F-U" to Serbia" were supposed to be taken seriously or not? Since the protection of the article was lifted the article was massively edited to conform to a Serbian POV by a series of edits. The evidence is all there in the history anyone can compare the two versions. Hobartimus (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making is this article just screams of bias by the mere fact that a controversial nation is treated like any old country.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. What they are trying to do is to conform this article to the Serbian POV. But no matter what I say, no matter what they say, no matter what God says, Kosovo will never be Serbia. And instead of wasting my time debating indisputable facts (such as that Kosovo will never be Serbia), I am going to get my champagne and celebrate Serbia's loss of Kosovo. I have been so happy since Kosovo's declaration of independence, I trully feel NEWBORN.Bosniak (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to conform it to any POV. That's why I'm suggesting this article be split, because right now it does conform to a POV, one favoring Kosovo's independence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with a pov fork. There is a Republic of Kosovo (since 2008). This article is about the region of Kosovo. About 60% of this article discusses the history (pre-2008) of the region which ostensibly has nothing to do with the disputed Republic. Implying that "Kosovo" is equivalent to the "Republic of Kosovo" is pov. It is one notable pov, but nevertheless pov. Now that the events have slowed down a bit, it appears likely that the status of the Republic of Kosovo will remain disputed at least for the next few years. There will be no way around treating the region separately from the Republic in order to comply with WP:NPOV: Doing so does not prejudice against independence, as is evident from e.g. Italian peninsula vs. Republic of Italy (nobody disputes the independence of the Republic of Italy, yet its territory can still be treated as a separate entity. dab (𒁳) 06:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, reviewing opinions above, the only "oppose" vote with a recognizable rationale is PaxEquilibrium's. The rest appears to be either trolling or failure to understand what is being proposed ("pov fork", "GFDL"). ThuranX, we are not "voting". We discussed the possibility above, and are now looking at its implementation. Until The RoK has at least UN recognition (which will take a couple of years at least it would seem), I really see no way around the split that would satisfy WP:NPOV. A possible alternative would be keeping a "Republic of Kosovo" h2 section within this article, and moving the country infobox to that, but country infoboxes pertinent to a section only are discouraged, and I do think the Republic of Kosovo is notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. PaxEquilibrium seems to propose that Kosovo should redirect to Republic of Kosovo, while the article on the territory could be at Kosovo (region). This is arguable I think, but open to criticism. The only entirely unbiased approach would be redirecting Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation). If we really can find no other consensus, we'll have to do that, but it's not nice in terms of navigability. dab (𒁳) 13:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't dismiss valid reasons for opposing as "failure to understand". I can understand the proposal and arguments very well and I still think splitting this article would be unnecessary, redundant and a POV fork. Húsönd 13:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but how is a split a pov fork? It goes without saying that a split should avoid pov forks. It is valid to keep summaries of dedicated articles in WP:SS articles. Otherwise, this article would already be a content fork, of History of Kosovo and other articles. Please explain why (a) you think the split is "unnecessary", and (b) why you (it appears) think it would necessarily result in a "pov fork". Unless you can explain some rationale for these claims, I do not think you should be making them. This article has de facto already been split into History of Kosovo, Geography of Kosovo, Politics of Kosovo, Demographics of Kosovo and Subdivisions of Kosovo. An article on the 2008 Republic at Republic of Kosovo would just add one more to these. How, do you argue, is it "redundant" or "pov" to have that, while it is ok to have "Ottoman Kosovo" or "Kosovo (UNMIK)"? dab (𒁳) 13:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing content that is taken from this article so that its size won't be excessive (leading to the creation of sub-articles such as History of Kosovo, etc.) and a POV fork. By creating an article about the region of Kosovo, you will provide Wikipedia with an article that is redundant (content about the region has its rightful place in articles such as Geography of Kosovo), thus unnecessary, and allowing the creation of a duplicate article of Kosovo that doesn't mention its de facto independence (purpose- pov). Húsönd 13:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confusing anything, since I happen to argue there is no "pov fork". A "pov fork" is an article with a scope identical to another one but pushing a different view. No such thing is happening here. Nobody suggests "duplication". There is a "Republic of Kosovo", declared 2008, which can have its own article just like the one declared 1990 can have one, here. What does this have to do with pov forks? Is China a pov fork of Republic of China? Is Indian subcontinent a pov fork of Republic of India? If not, pray explain how you can argue that Republic of Kosovo is a pov fork of Kosovo region. (the question of where unqualified Kosovo should redirect is independent of claims of "pov forks"). Needless to say, the "Kosovo region" article will mention up front that the region since 2008 is claimed by the Republic of Kosovo. I do not understand where you get your assumption that the article "doesn't mention" the fact, since it ostensibly did, and nobody suggested it shouldn't. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China is not the same as the Republic of China, and neither is the Indian subcontinent the same as India. The region of Kosovo coincides with the newborn republic, we need an article about the region of Kosovo as much as we need an article about the region of Belgium or the region of Finland. Húsönd 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except both of those countries are actually UN members, recognized by all relevant countries. No one seriously disputes their claims to sovereignty and nationhood. With Kosovo there's a huge division of opinion and right now this article takes a side.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

plus, the Republic of China in fact claims all of China as its territory. Just like the Republic of Kosovo claims all of the Kosovo region, while the region de facto remains under UN control, plus the Provisional Government has little or no governance over Northern Kosovo. You are dodging the issue. The point is that identifying the region and the Republic is not NPOV. The discussion should really end there, since WP:NPOV is not negotiable. Both povs are notable. One is held by the RoK and the "West", the other by Serbia, Russia and China. We do not favour one pov because it is held by the Western Hemisphere. dab (𒁳) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN membership and Kosovo's recognition have no relevance to this proposal. The dispute is already very well described in the article. I don't think this article takes a side, it is actually quite neutral. Húsönd 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the description is fine. The country infobox is not. If we can agree to remove the country infobox, the problem will be solved, but then we'll need a Republic of Kosovo article so we can place the infobox there, won't we. You can't slap a RoK flag on this article and still claim it is neutral on the dispute. dab (𒁳) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the infobox is fine, it reflects the de facto and partial de jure political situation of Kosovo. I would not oppose the insertion of another infobox that would reflect its status as a province of Serbia though. But again, the current infobox must by all means stay, it wouldn't be encyclopedic otherwise. Húsönd 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only hope that edits will be based on real consensus of editors whatever the final solution may be. Hobartimus (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this doesn't make sense. the infobox is for articles on states. the "Republic of Kosovo" is a state. "Kosovo" is a term in a sort of Schrodingerian state of flux, and this article is the untenable result of terminological confusion and conflation. The split is necessary to get straight on article scopes. What do you propose is the scope of this article? dab (𒁳) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the "split" tag. The same user who inititated the split has obviously redirected Republic of Kosovo into Kosovo again. --Camptown (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop trolling this discussion. dab (𒁳) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously running out of civilized arguments when you're barking "stop trolling". Why did you redirect the article if we were all so wrong? Where are your expounded coherent arguments when you actually need them? --Camptown (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the split tag back. I support having two articles, Kosovo (region) and Republic of Kosovo, with Kosovo as a disambig. Clearly, as this section shows, discussion is ongoing. Superm401 - Talk 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was redirected already back to Kosovo there is no reason to clutter this important main article with extra banners. There is still a great deal of outside intrest in the article such things make it look amateurish. Hobartimus (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Republic of Kosovo article was initially redirected by 2007apm, not Dbachmann, as claimed by Camptown. Second, it doesn't matter who redirected it because this issue is being actively discussed. It doesn't matter if there's outside interest either. We need to have an open discussion, and that means leaving the banner up. Superm401 - Talk 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. I never claimed that dab initiated the redirect in 2007, but did so yesterday, but left the tag on the Kosovo article for reasons not known to me. --Camptown (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support a split until Kosovo is recognised by a majority of UN member states. Until then the state of Kosovo is disputed. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is clear that we need a split one way or the other. Either keep this article under "Kosovo" discussing the 2008 state (which imho is non-neutral), or keep it as discussing the region and its history. One or the other needs to be branched out. Which will it be, Kosovo region or Republic of Kosovo? dab (𒁳) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so strongly about it I suggest we create a survey with the possible options such as 'Keep as is' 'Split and create Kosovo region' etc. It would be a good opportunity to gauge consensus regarding such a move. Survey should run for a standard time to allow in those user who don't edit the article every day I don't know what is the standard in such cases.Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no fixed opinion at all, except that WP:NPOV needs to be observed carefully. Slapping a country infobox onto "Kosovo" clearly violates this policy. There is a number of ways how this could be addressed. I also strongly recommend that "votes" along the lines of "Oppose!!! Kosovo will [never/always] be Serbia!", and unconstructive non-sequiturs of the Camptown variety, be ignored or even just removed per WP:TALK. Only contributors that appear to be aware of the problem wrt Wikipedia policies need be considered. dab (𒁳) 09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

opinion poll:

1. accommodate the "Republic of Kosovo" under Kosovo, "Kosovo the Autonomous Province" under Kosovo (UNMIK) and Kosovo the historical/geographical region under "Kosovo region".

2. accommodate the "Republic of Kosovo" under Republic of Kosovo, "Kosovo the Autonomous Province" under Kosovo (UNMIK) and Kosovo the historical/geographical region under "Kosovo".

• weak preference, others are arguable too. dab (𒁳) 15:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This one, or the one under this. It's the most suitable... And until the disputes have been settled (which may never happened, just look at China/Cyprus/Macedonia etc.). Chandlertalk 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. accommodate the "Republic of Kosovo" under Republic of Kosovo, "Kosovo the Autonomous Province" under Kosovo (UNMIK) and Kosovo the historical/geographical region under "Kosovo region", and redirect Kosovo to Kosovo (disambiguation).

4. keep all of "Kosovo as Autonomous Province of Serbia", "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo as geographical and historical region" in a single article, without a country infobox.

5. keep all of "Kosovo as Autonomous Province of Serbia", "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo as geographical and historical region" in a single article, with one customized infobox under "declaration of independence (2008)", and another one under "UN protectorate (1999 to present)".

Right now, there are two almost identical articles about Kosovo, i.e. Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo. I'd suggest that Republic of Kosovo be piped and merged (no need as it is identical) with Kosovo and accordingly be deleted. --Camptown (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A project page for a suggested deletion has been set up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Kosovo --Camptown (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the split should be made. However, untill that time, we should delete the flag, coat of arms, etc from the Kosovo article, since they are specific to the Republic of Kosovo and not the region of Kosovo.Osli73 (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camptown, you quite clearly have no idea how this works. If we decide not to split the article, we'll just redirect Republic of Kosovo back here. There is no way we'll delete the title, since it is the official name of the country. Comments like your "Maybe we should split Serbia instead - the land of splitting image" shows that not only have you no idea what is going on, but that you are actually trolling this discussion. dab (𒁳) 12:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just another typical comment from an editor who spends most of his time cracking down on other editors who don't agree with him, but actually care for this project. Yet, indeed, if it's "just" soooo easy, I'd ask this editor to redirect Republic of Kosovo right away (as it was until two days ago before this silly split). And if, in future, the article Kosovo grows out of proportion, there is always an opportunity to move some material to Kosovo (region) etc. --Camptown (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, except that instead of "cracking down", I'm actually expounding a coherent argument, while you seem to prefer random personal attacks, incoherent muddying of the issue and the occasional trollish aside. Now please stop your non sequiturs, contribute to the discussion coherently and in good faith, or else make use of your right to remain silent. dab (𒁳) 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh... So you're actually "expounding a coherent argument" (sic!).... --Camptown (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sic, indeed. "expounding" as in "set forth, declare, state in detail". "coherent" as in "of which all the parts are consistent, and hang well together" and "argument" as in "a reason urged in support of a proposition". Are there any questions, or are you just echoing my words back at me because you have run out of things to say? dab (𒁳) 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence: "Serbs, like Russians, are mainly Slavs by ethnicity while Kosovars are mostly ethnic Albanians." has no obvious connection with the chapter Declaration of independence under which it is written. Not to mention it is erroneous (as Slavs are not an ethnicity but a group of ethnicities speaking simmilar languages. And Serbs are claerly Serbs by ethicity and Russians, Russians) and irrelevant. I propose that the sentence be deleted; or at least be put in some sort of context. Rokpok (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO, NO, NO. You are deeplig wrong. Ethnitc (Rase) is somthing els als member of a Church. The ortodox church must make reform´s to be sayed so clean thate Serbs are Serbs and Russians are Russians!!!. This hase no to do with politic but Russians are like the Arab. We have the peopel in Maroko, they call himself arab, but they hase nothing to do with arabs ethnity. It is simpel, they speack some santens of arabish with ther old laungege and they call himself arab. There cultur and blut hase nothing to do with arabs more with fundamenta muslims witch makes masakers like in Algeria. Biologicel and politicel they are not arab (Simpel they are muslims, but not arab). It is a same situation with Russians and Serbs (Simpel they are Ortosox, but they are not all Serbs and Russians).

...I would like to point out that there are some discrepancies when it comes to links on the bottom of the page...For instance: There is a link to Sovereign states of Europe article, while Kosovo is not included in that article...it can be found in Unrecognized Republics, Territories or Regions, so link should be changed to match the List of Countries in Europe article. Also, there is a dead link on the bottom - International membership and history...it should be removed. 24.199.84.132 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)G[reply]

Can User:Dbachmann in detail explain why he moved the Kosovo infobox "per talk". I understand, there is no consensus to move the infobox. Yet, user:Dbachmann has done so repeatedly and I gather there are some editors who wonder on what basis "per talk" he justifies his action. --Camptown (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "no consensus" is mainly because people with a blatant POV want to push Kosovo statehood down everyone's threats and make them swallow. This article shouldn't exist as it does now. At the very least this article should be renamed to "Republic of Kosovo" and Kosovo being made a disambiguation page. At the most there should be a separate article for Kosovo as a historical region. Kosovo wasn't always called Kosovo, but China hasn't always been called China either. China in ancient times also did not cover the area it does today. So I see nothing wrong with having an article on the region of Kosovo in the mold of the article on China.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made very clear that as long as we do not implement the split, we have no dedicated article on the Republic, just one on "Kosovo" in general. Until we implement a split as laid out above, there is no way this article can be tagged with the "country" infobox. Camptown, you have repeatedly shown disconcerting lack of good faith, and unless you begin showing appreciation of this problem, and take some sort of coherent position wrt it, I don't think your continued objections should carry any weight. dab (𒁳) 07:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's Dbachmann's personal opinion. Dbachmann needs to get support before making important changes to articles such as this. And Dbachmann shouldn't remain a WP admin if he cannot understand that simple rule of order. I don't take any particular notice of Dbachmann's freshness against me, but the wp project doesn't benefit from admins who are repeatedly ignoring the rules and behave badly towards other editors, gets involved in endless debates etc. Dbachmann is not a roll model for an admin, and Dbachmann knows that perfectly well. --Camptown (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh-huh. a few diffs of yours from this page should suffice to establish where are you coming from. Further personal remarks to my talkpage please. now do you have anything you wish to say on the topic itself, or do you simply enjoy disrupting the debate here? dab (𒁳) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious camptown, what problem do you have with my proposal? What exactly is your objection to having this Kosovo dispute resolved through a separate article on Republic of Kosovo? Why don't we treat this issue with Kosovo like the issue with China? Kosovo is a historical region like China and like Macedonia, but it's also the name of a partially-recognized country, it's also the name of what is currently recognized by many countries as a Serbian province. So why do you have a problem with having the subject dealt with in the same manner as China?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are more practical than sentimental or logical in a historical perspective. Kosovo differs slightly from the Chinese example. There are not multiple Kosovan states (not yet anyway), so there is no practical need to distinguish one Kosovo state from another. Compare instead to the Russian example. "Russia" is by many Russians considered a territory somewhat bigger than the Russian Federation. Yet, the link Russia leads you to the article about the state (with links to disambigious links to other meanings of Russia, such as the territorial concept). The Republic of Kosovo will most likely be called just Kosovo, just like the Republic of Serbia will be called Serbia and so on. Therefore, the renaming of the article to "Republic of Kosovo" appears unnecessary as long as the country/fake state is not called that in daily speech (and now we are taking about the English speaking world outside Serbia). However, I'd support a split, but only if the country/fake state is called "Kosovo", and the territory is called e.g. "Kosovo (region)". After all the present region of Kosovo is even smaller than the country/fake state, so a split might be very well be justified. I also understand thate there are some Serbian concerns that the new country/fake state should not be "awarded" the part of the history which is so much related to Serbia and the Serbian Orthodox Church. But, as many countries have shifted greatly in size during the history, that shouldn't be to hard to solve. --Camptown (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to realize Russia and Kosovo are not similar. That's actually the problem. The question isn't whether it's practical or not. I'd say remaining neutral can be quite impractical. Perhaps instead of China I should specifically mention Taiwan. While most media call the nation Taiwan (like I just did) the article on Taiwan talks about the island or region, not the actual nation. The article on the nation is under its official name, not Taiwan. What I'm suggesting is basically the same thing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The China argument is extremely weak and might even damage the case of arguing for a split. The proposal is to follow a China/Taiwan structure as presently exist on Wikipedia but this structure was entirely made up by Wikipedia editors. If the proposal is to stick to and follow existing structures then we can easily find closer examples like the KOSOVO article in it's present or past state that was made up the same way as the China/Taiwan article structures. So this argument is actually for the status quo as it's for favouring pre-existing solutions in Wikipedia so this would be an argument against any possible split. That aside I think using China/Taiwan article structure as an example in an argument for anything relating to the case of Kosovo is known in Wiki terms as a variant of the classic WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Hobartimus (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can pull a policy out and say it proves their point. I'm saying we should use those as a model, not a justification. The present article is woefullly inadequate from various approaches. The best way to resolve this problem is by having a split.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it not going to be 6 stars on the flag off kosovo, it's only going to be 4 stars! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.72.70 (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed User:Dbachmann's most recent NPVO-tag. We all know that Kosovo is a mine field, so adding NPOV-tags is not very helpful, especially when the tag doesn't come with any elaboration of why it was put there in the first place. --Camptown (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it shouldn't be there? Just read the "split-discussion" and you'll see that the article's neutrality is disputed. Chandlertalk 20:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. You might state your position in the "options" poll above. Or then of course you might continue your trolling campaign in the present vein until some passing admin takes pity on this page and clamps down on you. dab (𒁳) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dab's replies are just as fresh as one can possibly expect... --Camptown (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article for 3 days in response to several ongoing edit wars. All involved users should mind the article probation, which will lead to sanctions if edit-warring continues, and use the time to discuss and try to resolve the disputes. If there's a desire to lift the protection early, you can make a request at WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also try to do something about the commons images. Protection was circumvented earlier by editing the main locator map on commons to push POV via the unprotected image. Hobartimus (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although I understand why the word region was used ("Region in the Balkans") I think that "a partially recognized country (or nation, either one) should be perfectly acceptable to all, and the most accurate & timely, which is of course what is important in an encyclopedia.

No one can deny its partial recognizition. As of today, 27 countries have recognized it. It may be hurtful to some, but it is fact.

"Region" would be more appropriate for places such as "Herzegovina" or "pre-1867 Italy".

I feel the use of the word region here is inappropriate/unnecessary.

Matt W. Geographer/Historian/Current Events Teacher Canada

Shopteacher (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I just realized this has already been posted above. Anyway, I reinforce it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shopteacher (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to support Matt's choice of language. "Partially recognized country" is an accurate description of the situation on the ground in Kosovo today. Darkspots (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support also. Hobartimus (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Matt W. --Cradel 21:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose This is a rehash of the above discussion. The current terminology is perfectly neutral. Additionally, "partially recognized country" could be added without necessitating any change of the "region" terminology. (In other words a sentence to the effect it is a partially recognized country could be added.) Joseph (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a region! - Kosovo is not a region, it's a state, a country, independent country, partially recognized country, separate from Serbia... recognized by major world powers.Bosniak (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo IS a region... just because there's a country called Kosovo "on top" of it, doesn't make it any less of a region, when talking about the history of Kosovo you can't talk about the history of this republic, because it has no history, the region of Kosovo however, have. Chandlertalk 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo is now a partially recognized independent country. That's a fact. Also Kosovo does have history. I know serbs whish it not have. Piasoft (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs do not "wish it not have" [sic] a history, as it has a rich Serb history. In any event, you can add that it is a de facto partially recognized republic without removing the fact that it is also a region. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name partialy recognized is more nuetral then country, or region, unless we split this into country and area.

Bascily, this is going to be th same war betweeen people. Naming it a region either implies we will make a article just for the country, or that it's part of serbia. Naming it a country is pov in that it masks the fact the majority either do not recognize it, havn't finished the planning to recognize it, or are "Nuetral". Part. recognized, is about as nuetral as we can get besides disputed territory.--Jakezing (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I see three ways to express the current situation:

• Kosovo is a region.
• Kosovo is the partially recognised Republic of Kosovo.
• Kosovo is the partially recognised Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

The first option is true and unambiguous. Depending on whom you're asking, either the second or the third option is true, but both options are never true at the same time. This results in an ambiguity. Simply claiming that Kosovo is a region would avoid any ambiguity: all partially recognised republics, as well as all partially recognised autonomous provinces, can be referred to as regions. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, Chandle I see your point about it beign a Region. It is a region. But countries (including partially recognized ones such as Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus) START OUT their article by saying that they are either a republic or de facto country. This should not be any different for Kosovo.

To compare, Italy is a region too, but that wikipedia article STARTS out by saying it is a country.

The point is, what an article initially calls something is what is most important. FIRST and FOREMOST, Kosovo is a country (partiaslly recognized or not) and secondmost, a region. Hence the term region shoul dbe considered secondary to the term country or republic.

Shopteacher (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is Abkhazia is not recognized by any country yet. However, Northern Cyprus is a different case from that, but only in that it's recognized by one country. However, Kosovo is unique from both. Taiwan is a more appropriate comparison though Taiwan does not officially declare independence. Unlike Northern Cyprus, Kosovo had a formal existence before independence and there was at least some legal basis for its independence. In effect, the recognition could be seen as a belated acknowledgment of the legal basis of Kosovo independence. This of course also separates it from Taiwan as Taiwan would have no legal basis to claim independence. It does share a legal basis for independence with Abkhazia, but Abkhazia is not recognized.

The uniqueness of Kosovo is why there's such a controversy and is also why this should be dealt with differently by Wikipedia. I'm in favor of having "partially-recognized state" but only if this is article is named "Republic of Kosovo" rather than just Kosovo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shopteacher yes, I know, I'm not saying it should say "is a region" I'm just pointing out that it is a region. I'm for the partially recognized beginning :) Chandlertalk 09:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To further my point even more, this page has the table on the right stating the varipus apsects of the country, (president, PM, population, etc.)

So on that note, whoever decided that "region" is appropriate when these stats are shown, is mistaken. The logic here is faulty.

Matt W. Geography/Historian/Ethnologist/teacher

Shopteacher (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kosovan page is updated and Kosovo is treated like any other sovereign state: Kosovo - on the map, the Serbian/Kosovan border is marked as the UNMIK-line... Also the Serbian page has been updated accordingly: Serbia, with the border on the map marked as the UNMIK-line. Maybe the CIA will update the border when the EULEX takes over after the UNMIK... --Camptown (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Kosovo" should be about the region of Kosovo to follow Wikipedia's own standards such as the articles China and Ireland which do not link to the countries commonly attributed to their names (i.e. "China" often refers to the People's Republic of China and Ireland often refers to the Republic of Ireland) but to the regions called by those names. Due to political controversy about the use of those names, Wikipedia's standards to them should apply to the article Kosovo. A separate article called Republic of Kosovo should be created on the fact that the claim to independence is highly controversial.--R-41 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is obviously fully protected. Can the semi-protection icon be removed? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding any future decision to have a split I think an appropriate response is to at least do the following:

1. Rename article to Republic of Kosovo calling it a partially-recognized state which declared independence from Serbia.
2. Make current article Kosovo a disambiguation page with the line "Kosovo is a disputed territory under international administration in the Balkans partially-recognized as an independent state under the name Republic of Kosovo or as a province of Serbia." With links to all other articles on places named Kosovo.
3. Have a new article under Kosovo (region) dealing with Kosovo as a region in the model of other articles on similar regions named on this discussion page.

This would be a sort of de-facto split, but ultimately this article would only change names with the rest being edited into articles from existing redirect pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs to be protected for a few weeks to let everyone calm down. You propose something it fails to get consensus days later you propose it again slightly differently? At least wait a few weeks before asking for the same thing that just was turned down. The article is on probation that should count for something. Hobartimus (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Kosovo into 2, 3, 4 or even more articles should only be a measure of last resort and there is no need for that yet. Indeed, what kind of content would be different in the "Kosovo region" and the "Republic of Kosovo" article? History, Geography, Demography, etc. should all be the same anyway - the only difference would be Politics. Why not incorporate this in the current single "Kosovo" article? Khuft (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is first and foremost with the infobox sporting the flag of the RoK right in the lead. The flag can be under "#recent history" alongside the UNMIK flag, but it cannot grace the lead unless we ostensibly make this article about toe RoK, not "Kosovo" in general. dab (𒁳) 14:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the history of the Republic of Kosovo will be dedicated to the formative process of the Republic, since 1989 or so. The history of Kosovo (the region) will discuss the timeframe reaching back to the Prehistoric Balkans. Yes there is a difference. The Devil's Advocate's suggestion is perfectly arguable, and is equivalent to option 3. above. Nothing has been "turned down" btw. Only two people, Chandler and myself, have even bothered to express an opinion wrt the possible options. If we count TdA's suggestion as a vote for option 3., we have in fact three votes in support of option 3. and no vote in opposition. Unless other people still want to chime in, I'd say this is a consensus (both Chandler and myself favoured option 2., but stated that option 3. is acceptable). If you object to option 3., pray express your opinion as to how you want to resolve the problem instead. (two infoboxes? no infobox? no flag in the infobox? two flags in the same infobox?) What we clearly cannot have is an article under "Kosovo" that shows a country infobox with only the flag of the Republic of Kosovo. This is a breach of WP:NPOV about as plainly as they get. I have nothing against the RoK, and I wish the UN would see their way to recognizing it already so our problems will go away, but at this point in time this simply isn't the case. dab (𒁳) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This split is completely unnessary. If "History of the Republic of Kosovo" only begins in 1989, then what happens to "history of Kosovo" after 1989? What will "History of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" be after 2008? Contrary to the previous mentioned cases of Ireland and China/Taiwan, we only have one territory here, the status of which is currently disputed, but with only one history, geography, etc.etc. Khuft (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are not making sense. Obviously the declaration of the RoK is part of the recent history of Kosovo. I am not suggesting a History of the Republic of Kosovo article, I am talking about the content of the "History" section in a prospective Republic of Kosovo article. --dab (𒁳) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying that the history of Kosovo and the history of the Republic of Kosovo are the same anyway. So it makes no sense to have part of Kosovo's history under a "Kosovo" article and another part under a "Republic of Kosovo" article. Khuft (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two infoboxes might be an option. However, we have to consider what additional info such an infobox would contain... is there still a Serb government of Kosovo and Metohija in exile somewhere? As for flags, Kosovo didn't have its own flag (I believe) - contrary to Vojvodina. So does this infobox really add a lot of additional info? Khuft (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the infobox suggests this article is about the Republic of Kosovo, while it is in fact about all of Kosovo, regardless of the various positions regarding the Republic. If we move the infobox to the relevant section, we'll just end up with a "main article: Republic of Kosovo" in that section, and will eventually export the infobox to a main article. That's just splitting the article in two steps. But I agree that if we move the infobox to the pertinent section, we'll at least have addressed the most urgent issue of NPOV violation. dab (𒁳) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't two Kosovos. There's just one, but the status is disputed. All other countries have their infobox on the top, however, so it wouldn't be consistent to have Kosovo's somewhere hidden inside the article. Khuft (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it wouldn't be "inconsistent", it would reflect the fact that the status of Kosovo as a "country" is disputed. --dab (𒁳) 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cyprus and ROC both have infobox country at the top of the article. If this helps... In any case, I am against having two articles, there is one Kosovo with a disputed status. --Tone 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but both deal with those areas as states and there seems to be no perspective on what this article is actually about. We call it a region but have a country infobox and deal with Kosovo in the article as though it were a country. So the talk of it as a region is completely inconsistent. However, if it's changed to partially-recognized state there's likely to be an uproar.

I'm not calling for a formal split, but really just a rename, creation of a new article, and having Kosovo redirect to the disambiguation page. This article would only be changed to make it consistent with other articles on states, there wouldn't be a need to move information or take anything out of this article. At the very least I think renaming this article to Republic of Kosovo is a good idea.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what would the other article contain? I see the danger of having either duplicate information on two articles, or of having two very biased articles (one pro-Kosovar/pro-Albanian, one pro-Serb). Khuft (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be on Kosovo as a region. There's already an article on Kosovo as a province.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very vague and doesn't give a convincing argument for having a separate article instead of including everything on the Kosovo page. Khuft (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think having two articles (RoK and Kosovo (region)) is really unnecessary because this would be something like this:
The RoK article explains everything about Kosovo (the region ,the country ,the province) while kosovo (region) only tells about the geoghraphy and history of Kosovo (which is already told at Geography of Kosovo and History of Kosovo , as well as in Kosovo).These two articles would have no additional information that isn't already in Kosovo article.Having two articles would only create confusion to other readers. We need a article for the region of kosovo as much as we need an article about the region of any other state in Europe. The region of kosovo , The Republic of Kosovo and the province of Kosovo are the same thing.So instead of having three articles about the same thing and with the same information (except one having less than the other (which only creates confusion)) it would be better to have one article (Kosovo) where we could explain in some section that it is a disputed territory--Cradel 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the articles on China or Taiwan to get an idea of what an article on Kosovo would contain. All the same this doesn't preclude the other points about renaming this article and having Kosovo lead to a disambiguation page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence is disputed by Serbia, Russia, Spain and 18 other nations." How are nations counted? Shouldn't it say that all countries not yet recognising Kosovo (= much more than just 18 countries) are disputing its independence? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Of course not - dispute means oppose. For example Lithuania has not yet recognised Kosovo, but its parliament is expected vote to recognise Kosovo on Monday 10 March. Only those nations that have stated that they are against Kosovo should be recorded as opposing Kosovo. 2007apm (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A country is not required to say that it doesn't recognise Kosovo for it to not recognise it. It can do nothing if it likes and still not recognise Kosovo. So really all countries that haven't "officially recognised Kosovo" do not recognise recognise Kosovo as an independant state. So only 28 countries currently recognise Kosovo, all the rest do not yet. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]