Template loop detected: Talk:Kosovo/Header

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. Europe High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:V0.5

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

Former article talkpages (archived) Talk:Kosovo/ Republic of Kosovo Kosovo (geopolitical region)

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This image does not really contribute to our understanding of Kosovo's declaration of independence, and either way I think better images could be found to gage Serbia's response to that declaration. A photograph of a passport is a little bit underwhelming.UBER ^(talk) 16:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the passport photo is not needed. However in UberCryxic's edit to remove it, he also (stealthily?) removed the photo of the Gračanica monastery. I then reinstated this image, which Lontech reverted with the comment: "no need to set it here because that picture for a long time is set in the place where the article Gračanica is. also may provoke other religions". That doesn't even make any sense. How can it "provoke" other religions? The monastery is a perfectly normal example of a religious structure in Kosovo, albeit one from the minority religion. Kosovo muslims can't object to it - there's no implication that it's from the only religion, or from a better religion. I just don't see what the problem is. Bazonka (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article never had religious content (picture), with reason. What you want to do with this is to create new conflicts based on religious views-- LONTECH  Talk  19:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How? Do moslems think that Gračanica doesn't exist? It is a religious building in Kosovo. If there was a picture of a mosque would the Christians object? No. This isn't taking sides. Bazonka (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second Bazonka here, a picture of a religious building isn't taking a side. Kosovo is famous for it's religious buildings, regardless of what you think of independence. We should keep the picture of Gračanica monastery. That stamped passport image should be moved to the Kosovo Passport article. IJA (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put the religious picture back now, no objections are apparent that make sense. Beam 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kedadi (talk · contribs) removed this from footnote:

.rs is the ccTLD of Serbia

As ICANN has not given Kosovo its own ccTLD, it is not neutral to remove this, as Kosovo status is disputed. I am for the return of this sentence, in order to obtain NPOV on this subject. --Tadija^speaks 18:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with .rs it is POV. As Kosovo does not have it's own ccTLD, then maybe .eu would be NPOV. Cheers. kedadial 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to mention the tld at all? It's more NPOV to say nothing. Bazonka (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree on removal of TLD. You are right, it is just better without it. --Tadija^speaks 21:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Bazonka (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has tagged the intro to this article with a "Dubious" statement - in particular the sentence "Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo, a self-declared independent state which has de facto control over much of the territory". To me this seems entirely clear and correct - I cannot see any reason for the Dubious tag. I propose its removal. Bazonka (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikiblame, Dab added it. I also see no reason for the Dubious tag. Cheers. kedadial 23:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Bazonka (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serb enclaves nowadays are under the authority of the Republic of Kosovo, so only the north remains out of control. I guess that this sentence needs to be updated. Cheers. kedadial 23:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Bazonka (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence, "... a self-declared independent state which has de facto control over much of the territory" was altered by Dab, by adding "much of" to it. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "most of" instead of "much of"? Or to remove it and say "... a self-declared independent state which has de facto control over the territory; the exceptions are Serb enclaves in North Kosovo." since it mentions where it does not have control? Cheers. kedadial 17:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Much of" and "most of" mean the same thing - I don't care which one is used. However, your suggested alternative sentence doesn't really read correctly without these words. A better alternative would be "...over the territory, with the exception of Serb enclaves in North Kosovo". Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint Bazonka and I support your proposed alternative.

P.S. After reading the intro of the article more carefully, I see that governance/control is being repeated twice:

• "Its majority is governed[1] by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state which has de facto control[2] over the territory, with the exception of Serb enclaves in North Kosovo.".

Do you think that it needs a review?

Cheers. kedadial 19:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's certainly not right. How about this alternative?

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory, with the exception of Serb enclaves in North Kosovo.

Bazonka (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is uncontroversial, so I've been bold and made the amendment. Revert and discuss if you think otherwise. Bazonka (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is not good. First, Serb enclaves are not just in North Kosovo, second, is it true that ROK have no influence only in North Kosovo? What about other enclaves? I doubt that very much. User:Kedadi should verify this, if he said so. Also, i would ask Bazonka to revert previous version until we find better solution together. This is not good. --Tadija^speaks 12:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down - I have reverted my edit. However I must point out that I did not make any factual changes - I merely reworded it so that it didn't say the same thing twice. Any factual errors were there before, and are still there after the revert. Bazonka (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, thanks... Dont know, i am actually against any major edits like this, unless some fine sources are inserted. But thank you, Bazonka, you are quite kind, and neutral. I trust you! :) I am just afraid that RoK does not have de facto control over any of those enclaves, as far as i know. Just that. In that light, those edits are unneeded. What do you think? --Tadija^speaks 12:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be happier if it said:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory, with the exception of some Serb enclaves.

? Bazonka (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but North Kosovo must be mentioned, as it is completely out of RoK government. And it is large. --Tadija^speaks 12:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in that case I suggest we use my proposed text above, only ending with either "...exception of some Serb enclaves, the largest of which is in North Kosovo" or "...exception of a Serb enclave in North Kosovo" as appropriate. I am not entirely familiar with the true situation so I don't feel able to say which is best. Bazonka (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Bazonka! Just, largest enclave is entire North Kosovo, it is not just placed in the north. So, i hope this is final:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory, with the exception of some Serb enclaves, the largest of which is entire North Kosovo.

This is totally Y for me. :) What do you say? It is important to create good heading. --Tadija^speaks 14:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically speaking, North Kosovo is not an enclave by definition... better to use and in this case. --Tone 14:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the word "entire" just looks wrong. Bazonka (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest "...exception of some Serb areas, the largest of which is North Kosovo." Bazonka (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is NPOV. Agree --Tadija^speaks 15:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Bazonka (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinformed

Citizens of these enclavave except north kosovo (municipalities) participated in elections held by the Republic of Kosovo in 2009 and have their deputies and elected their presidents (all serbs)

Check Pages 50 and 68 President of Sterpca and Gracanica also Ranilug

http://www.kqz-ks.org/SKQZ-WEB/al/zgjedhjetekosoves/materiale/rezultatet2009/komune/FinalCandidatesSeatsAllocation.pdf

Expept north kosovo where has been little participation Other enclaves should be deleted immediately.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Easiest thing to do is to remove the words after "Serb areas". The link (to Kosovo Serb enclaves) will provide more information (although that page may need amending). Bazonka (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also you can not say that does not have control of the north Kosovo because the Kosovo Police also operates and controls the Municipalities of North Mitrovica, Zvecan, Zubin Potok. but you can say that has not extended its authority LONTECH  Talk  21:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Let's make the intro vague enough to deal with all the inconsistencies. Bazonka (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that that is not true. Kosovo Police doesn't operate in North Kosovo. Do you have any sources for that? --Tadija^speaks 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever the true situation is - the current wording covers it. Bazonka (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RoK doesn't have de facto control of any kind over North Kosovo. I also dont think that "...the largest of which is North Kosovo" shouldn't be removed, as it shows that large section of Kosovo is not under RoK government. Sentence with just "Serb areas" is just not enough. --Tadija^speaks 21:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is this enough, also the commander of north KP station is Serb also Milija Milosheviq-- LONTECH  Talk  22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serb enclaves (like Gracanica, Strpce, etc) all over Kosovo, as of November 2009 (last elections held by RoK) are under the authority of RoK (Police, Courts, Municipalities, etc.). They are governed by local Serbs under the authority of RoK. North Kosovo (which by definition is not an enclave) remains with mixed and vague authority, like: RoK with the help of EULEX, UNMIK and the parallel Serb institutions (backed by Serbia).

As for the clarification I made above, I'm proposing this alternative:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory, with the exception of North Kosovo.

I believe it's NPOV, represents facts from the terrain and makes it clear for the reader to understand the situation. What do others think?

@Tadija: as a side note, Kosovo Police operates in North Kosovo.

@Lontech: <offtopic>Could you please use indentations (with :) for your comments? It's getting really hard to follow the discussion! Thanks.</offtopic>

Cheers. kedadial 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about saying something like "limited control in North Kosovo"? Bazonka (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely Agree with you regarding North Kosovo. It's much better saying "limited control in North Kosovo", since "with the exception of North Kosovo" assumes no control at all there. Cheers. kedadial 14:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not convinced that it is surely like that, but i Agree also. It is mainly neutral. --Tadija^speaks 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "extent of authority" is the appropriate word to use, but if the majority agrees to use the term control I would also Agree.-- LONTECH  Talk  18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Tadija agrees too. Bazonka I need your opinion whether this is technically correct:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory and limited control in North Kosovo.

What do you think? Cheers. kedadial 18:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps say "control over most of the territory", and I would say "with limited control" rather than "and limited control" (the latter wrongly implies that North Kosovo is outside the territory) otherwise fine. Bazonka (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. So

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory with limited control in North Kosovo.

Is this final? I say yes! :) --Tadija^speaks 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say yes too. Bazonka (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I almost agree but I have a couple of more suggestions:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory, with the exception of North Kosovo where it exercises limited control.

or as Lontech suggested the word "extent of authority":

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto authority over the territory, with the exception of North Kosovo where its extent of authority is limited.

What do you think? Cheers. kedadial 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No because that implies that North Kosovo is the only part where there's limited authority (there may be others). How about:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory; in North Kosovo its extent of authority is limited.

Are we there yet? Bazonka (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now i don't agree. :) Kedadi, you proposed "limited control", what happened now? "extent of authority" is just wrong. None of those two are good, and sentences sound a bit awkward. "where it exercises limited control"? This is my best, as we all agreed above:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory with limited control in North Kosovo.

So, Bazonka? :) --Tadija^speaks 22:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazonka: Nowadays, only the north remains with mixed and vague authority. Until November 2009 (last parliamentary and local elections held by RoK), all Serb enclaves were like that. I agree with your last proposal; the only dispute that we're having seems to be: "over the territory" vs. "over most of the territory". Cheers. kedadial 23:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kedadi, that is not important. We cannot know that, as there are no sources for ALL other enclaves. Previous version is neutral, anyway. It suppose to be just question of wording, not meaning. As i told, i agree to "over most of the territory" --Tadija^speaks 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serb enclaves didn't bind to RoK, until November 2009. Here are some sources that prove my point, that all Serb enclaves except North Kosovo are under the authority of RoK:

• Jakup Krasniqi (Speaker of the Assembly of Kosovo), makes a visit to Gračanica. Source with Google Translate
• Jakup Krasniqi (Speaker of the Assembly of Kosovo), hosted a meeting with the newly elected mayors from Serb enclaves of Gračanica, Štrpce, Klokot and Ranillug. Source with Google Translate
• Mayor Nikolic from Štrpce visits Urosevac. Source with Google Translate
• Hashim Thaçi (Prime minister of Kosovo), visits Štrpce and its newly elected mayor. Source with Google Translate.

Cheers. kedadial 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know all of that, but we cannot trust RoK government regarding this. It is logical that they want to merge all Kosovo into RoK. :) And it means nothing when someone from RoK visit someone else. None can forbid them that. I am talking about parallel institutions, not paying taxes, disputed government, regular, ordinary life is not present. That is missing in Serb enclaves. RoK does not have "control over the territory", only over "over most of the territory". Even if it is just North Kosovo, and it isn't, it is more then three entire municipalities. That is large. By not saying "most of", North Kosovo importance can be minimized, and that is not neutral, or needed in the article lead. I am still for the previews version of mine. With most of. --Tadija^speaks 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with Tadija's last suggestion. Bazonka (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with any change of the current version unless references are provided. Kedadi brought his references, so I'll wait for those who disagree with him to bring opposite references.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Why? Tadija's latest version above is broad enough to cover the situation where only N Kosovo is outside control, and the situation where there are other areas outside control. No references are needed. It fits all eventualities. Bazonka (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support the last alternative that you proposed:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory; in North Kosovo its extent of authority is limited.

Then we'll start a new thread regarding RoK control over Serb enclaves. What do you think? Cheers. kedadial 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support "over the territory" Technically is not correct to use "most of the territory" because the territory is not divided into 2 parts and these three municipalities do not cover more than 8% of the entire territory This part is also controlled but limited for the reasons mentioned above.-- LONTECH  Talk  17:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we are running in circles. Bazonka, I and Kedadi all agreed on "over most of the territory", per reasons explained above. Also, now on Kosovo page it is "over most of the territory", as that is neutral, and true, as agreed. Question is only how to write about North Kosovo. Bazonka and I agreed on "with limited control in North Kosovo", while Kedadi proposed "in North Kosovo its extent of authority is limited". So next, Kedadi should explain why he prefer this version over agreed one. I disagree with this one as it is not quite clear what this means. When you say for something, with limited control, it is easy to understand, and it is also more neutral then extent of authority. So, Kedadi, what do you say? :))) --Tadija^speaks 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true because this alternative was proposed by banzoka A better alternative would be "...over the territory, ........". Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC), and was supported by kedadi. Also I support extent of authority because this part is controlled by the KP. If we use word control then we should remove all limited control. Also control is more war term.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Bazonka at 07:36, 20 April 2010. Waiting for Kedadi respons. RoK in reality have only very limited control over North Kosovo, while term "extent of authority is limited" means that someone's authority is expanding over recognizable borders. As RoK borders are not internationally widely accepted, and as RoK clames part of it's own imaginative territory, it is not expanding anywhere, so that term is wrong. Lontech, please, add another section for your disputes, as this question has been disputed in a good and constructive way. If Kedadi dont respond in next 12h, it means that he agreed also to Bazonka and mine final version, so we can add it. Also, as no reliable source has been added here, i and we can also doubt that KP control North Kosovo. Even if it is like that, much, much more is needed for complete control over territory. As your arguments are already rejected per above discussion, and as Bazonka said that this version "fits all eventualities", which i agree also completely, please start another discusion about our second question, and that is how to include in the lead "Kosovo Serb enclaves" question. That was leaved for later, and that will be highly constructive. Thank you for your understanding. --Tadija^speaks 21:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh really Eulex isn't reliable source and now you are some kind of admin and you give other editors ultimatum.-- LONTECH  Talk  22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to the "extent of authority is limited" version. It may not be perfect, but it's better than what was in the article previously. Most people here seem to favour this version anyway. Bazonka (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to put a pov-title template on the Kosovan passport article as per discussion on the talk page. The discussion appears to have come to a stalemate so I am asking for some other opinion before I tag the article. Please discuss at the Talk:Kosovan passport for the time being. The issue may be connected to similar articles (Abkhazian passport and others) and I am not sure where to post this request. Best regards, --Biblbroks's talk 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put a pov-title template until you get at least most of the commenters to agree with you. 68.114.198.186 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what Biblbroks is complaining about. As Bazonka told him there, any entity claiming to be a state has citizens and may issue passports to them for those citizens to attempt to use for purposes of travel. Whether other states accept said documents is a separate question. The Republic of Kosovo exists, it claims statehood, and issues documents accordingly. Some states accept the passports, some don't. Some states accept the statehood of the RoK, some don't. Neither point affects the fact that the document in question is a Kosovan passport, just as the title states. 97.82.152.134 (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with you, and do not see why a big POV warning is necessary, but I think it would be best to use the Kosovo passport page when discussing fine details of Kosovo passports. :-) The discussion is long enough already; splitting it onto another talk page is just asking for trouble. But then again I went there to offer a third opinion rather than to get bogged down in epic debate... bobrayner (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Europe High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:V0.5

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

Former article talkpages (archived) Talk:Kosovo/ Republic of Kosovo Kosovo (geopolitical region)

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Passport image

This image does not really contribute to our understanding of Kosovo's declaration of independence, and either way I think better images could be found to gage Serbia's response to that declaration. A photograph of a passport is a little bit underwhelming.UBER ^(talk) 16:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the passport photo is not needed. However in UberCryxic's edit to remove it, he also (stealthily?) removed the photo of the Gračanica monastery. I then reinstated this image, which Lontech reverted with the comment: "no need to set it here because that picture for a long time is set in the place where the article Gračanica is. also may provoke other religions". That doesn't even make any sense. How can it "provoke" other religions? The monastery is a perfectly normal example of a religious structure in Kosovo, albeit one from the minority religion. Kosovo muslims can't object to it - there's no implication that it's from the only religion, or from a better religion. I just don't see what the problem is. Bazonka (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article never had religious content (picture), with reason. What you want to do with this is to create new conflicts based on religious views-- LONTECH  Talk  19:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How? Do moslems think that Gračanica doesn't exist? It is a religious building in Kosovo. If there was a picture of a mosque would the Christians object? No. This isn't taking sides. Bazonka (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second Bazonka here, a picture of a religious building isn't taking a side. Kosovo is famous for it's religious buildings, regardless of what you think of independence. We should keep the picture of Gračanica monastery. That stamped passport image should be moved to the Kosovo Passport article. IJA (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put the religious picture back now, no objections are apparent that make sense. Beam 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content: ccTLD

Kedadi (talk · contribs) removed this from footnote:

.rs is the ccTLD of Serbia

As ICANN has not given Kosovo its own ccTLD, it is not neutral to remove this, as Kosovo status is disputed. I am for the return of this sentence, in order to obtain NPOV on this subject. --Tadija^speaks 18:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with .rs it is POV. As Kosovo does not have it's own ccTLD, then maybe .eu would be NPOV. Cheers. kedadial 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to mention the tld at all? It's more NPOV to say nothing. Bazonka (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree on removal of TLD. You are right, it is just better without it. --Tadija^speaks 21:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Bazonka (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dubious" tag

Someone has tagged the intro to this article with a "Dubious" statement - in particular the sentence "Its majority is governed by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo, a self-declared independent state which has de facto control over much of the territory". To me this seems entirely clear and correct - I cannot see any reason for the Dubious tag. I propose its removal. Bazonka (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikiblame, Dab added it. I also see no reason for the Dubious tag. Cheers. kedadial 23:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Bazonka (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serb enclaves

Serb enclaves nowadays are under the authority of the Republic of Kosovo, so only the north remains out of control. I guess that this sentence needs to be updated. Cheers. kedadial 23:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Bazonka (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoK control over the territory

This sentence, "... a self-declared independent state which has de facto control over much of the territory" was altered by Dab, by adding "much of" to it. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "most of" instead of "much of"? Or to remove it and say "... a self-declared independent state which has de facto control over the territory; the exceptions are Serb enclaves in North Kosovo." since it mentions where it does not have control? Cheers. kedadial 17:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Much of" and "most of" mean the same thing - I don't care which one is used. However, your suggested alternative sentence doesn't really read correctly without these words. A better alternative would be "...over the territory, with the exception of Serb enclaves in North Kosovo". Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint Bazonka and I support your proposed alternative.

P.S. After reading the intro of the article more carefully, I see that governance/control is being repeated twice:

• "Its majority is governed[1] by the partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Serbian: Република Косово, Republika Kosovo), a self-declared independent state which has de facto control[2] over the territory, with the exception of Serb enclaves in North Kosovo.".

Do you think that it needs a review?

Cheers. kedadial 19:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's certainly not right. How about this alternative?

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory, with the exception of Serb enclaves in North Kosovo.

Bazonka (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is uncontroversial, so I've been bold and made the amendment. Revert and discuss if you think otherwise. Bazonka (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is not good. First, Serb enclaves are not just in North Kosovo, second, is it true that ROK have no influence only in North Kosovo? What about other enclaves? I doubt that very much. User:Kedadi should verify this, if he said so. Also, i would ask Bazonka to revert previous version until we find better solution together. This is not good. --Tadija^speaks 12:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down - I have reverted my edit. However I must point out that I did not make any factual changes - I merely reworded it so that it didn't say the same thing twice. Any factual errors were there before, and are still there after the revert. Bazonka (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, thanks... Dont know, i am actually against any major edits like this, unless some fine sources are inserted. But thank you, Bazonka, you are quite kind, and neutral. I trust you! :) I am just afraid that RoK does not have de facto control over any of those enclaves, as far as i know. Just that. In that light, those edits are unneeded. What do you think? --Tadija^speaks 12:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be happier if it said:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory, with the exception of some Serb enclaves.

? Bazonka (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but North Kosovo must be mentioned, as it is completely out of RoK government. And it is large. --Tadija^speaks 12:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in that case I suggest we use my proposed text above, only ending with either "...exception of some Serb enclaves, the largest of which is in North Kosovo" or "...exception of a Serb enclave in North Kosovo" as appropriate. I am not entirely familiar with the true situation so I don't feel able to say which is best. Bazonka (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Bazonka! Just, largest enclave is entire North Kosovo, it is not just placed in the north. So, i hope this is final:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory, with the exception of some Serb enclaves, the largest of which is entire North Kosovo.

This is totally Y for me. :) What do you say? It is important to create good heading. --Tadija^speaks 14:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically speaking, North Kosovo is not an enclave by definition... better to use and in this case. --Tone 14:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the word "entire" just looks wrong. Bazonka (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest "...exception of some Serb areas, the largest of which is North Kosovo." Bazonka (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is NPOV. Agree --Tadija^speaks 15:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Bazonka (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinformed

Citizens of these enclavave except north kosovo (municipalities) participated in elections held by the Republic of Kosovo in 2009 and have their deputies and elected their presidents (all serbs)

Check Pages 50 and 68 President of Sterpca and Gracanica also Ranilug

http://www.kqz-ks.org/SKQZ-WEB/al/zgjedhjetekosoves/materiale/rezultatet2009/komune/FinalCandidatesSeatsAllocation.pdf

Expept north kosovo where has been little participation Other enclaves should be deleted immediately.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Easiest thing to do is to remove the words after "Serb areas". The link (to Kosovo Serb enclaves) will provide more information (although that page may need amending). Bazonka (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also you can not say that does not have control of the north Kosovo because the Kosovo Police also operates and controls the Municipalities of North Mitrovica, Zvecan, Zubin Potok. but you can say that has not extended its authority LONTECH  Talk  21:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Let's make the intro vague enough to deal with all the inconsistencies. Bazonka (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that that is not true. Kosovo Police doesn't operate in North Kosovo. Do you have any sources for that? --Tadija^speaks 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever the true situation is - the current wording covers it. Bazonka (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RoK doesn't have de facto control of any kind over North Kosovo. I also dont think that "...the largest of which is North Kosovo" shouldn't be removed, as it shows that large section of Kosovo is not under RoK government. Sentence with just "Serb areas" is just not enough. --Tadija^speaks 21:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is this enough, also the commander of north KP station is Serb also Milija Milosheviq-- LONTECH  Talk  22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serb enclaves (like Gracanica, Strpce, etc) all over Kosovo, as of November 2009 (last elections held by RoK) are under the authority of RoK (Police, Courts, Municipalities, etc.). They are governed by local Serbs under the authority of RoK. North Kosovo (which by definition is not an enclave) remains with mixed and vague authority, like: RoK with the help of EULEX, UNMIK and the parallel Serb institutions (backed by Serbia).

As for the clarification I made above, I'm proposing this alternative:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory, with the exception of North Kosovo.

I believe it's NPOV, represents facts from the terrain and makes it clear for the reader to understand the situation. What do others think?

@Tadija: as a side note, Kosovo Police operates in North Kosovo.

@Lontech: <offtopic>Could you please use indentations (with :) for your comments? It's getting really hard to follow the discussion! Thanks.</offtopic>

Cheers. kedadial 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about saying something like "limited control in North Kosovo"? Bazonka (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely Agree with you regarding North Kosovo. It's much better saying "limited control in North Kosovo", since "with the exception of North Kosovo" assumes no control at all there. Cheers. kedadial 14:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not convinced that it is surely like that, but i Agree also. It is mainly neutral. --Tadija^speaks 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "extent of authority" is the appropriate word to use, but if the majority agrees to use the term control I would also Agree.-- LONTECH  Talk  18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Tadija agrees too. Bazonka I need your opinion whether this is technically correct:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory and limited control in North Kosovo.

What do you think? Cheers. kedadial 18:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps say "control over most of the territory", and I would say "with limited control" rather than "and limited control" (the latter wrongly implies that North Kosovo is outside the territory) otherwise fine. Bazonka (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. So

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory with limited control in North Kosovo.

Is this final? I say yes! :) --Tadija^speaks 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say yes too. Bazonka (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I almost agree but I have a couple of more suggestions:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over the territory, with the exception of North Kosovo where it exercises limited control.

or as Lontech suggested the word "extent of authority":

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto authority over the territory, with the exception of North Kosovo where its extent of authority is limited.

What do you think? Cheers. kedadial 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No because that implies that North Kosovo is the only part where there's limited authority (there may be others). How about:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory; in North Kosovo its extent of authority is limited.

Are we there yet? Bazonka (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now i don't agree. :) Kedadi, you proposed "limited control", what happened now? "extent of authority" is just wrong. None of those two are good, and sentences sound a bit awkward. "where it exercises limited control"? This is my best, as we all agreed above:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory with limited control in North Kosovo.

So, Bazonka? :) --Tadija^speaks 22:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazonka: Nowadays, only the north remains with mixed and vague authority. Until November 2009 (last parliamentary and local elections held by RoK), all Serb enclaves were like that. I agree with your last proposal; the only dispute that we're having seems to be: "over the territory" vs. "over most of the territory". Cheers. kedadial 23:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kedadi, that is not important. We cannot know that, as there are no sources for ALL other enclaves. Previous version is neutral, anyway. It suppose to be just question of wording, not meaning. As i told, i agree to "over most of the territory" --Tadija^speaks 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serb enclaves didn't bind to RoK, until November 2009. Here are some sources that prove my point, that all Serb enclaves except North Kosovo are under the authority of RoK:

• Jakup Krasniqi (Speaker of the Assembly of Kosovo), makes a visit to Gračanica. Source with Google Translate
• Jakup Krasniqi (Speaker of the Assembly of Kosovo), hosted a meeting with the newly elected mayors from Serb enclaves of Gračanica, Štrpce, Klokot and Ranillug. Source with Google Translate
• Mayor Nikolic from Štrpce visits Urosevac. Source with Google Translate
• Hashim Thaçi (Prime minister of Kosovo), visits Štrpce and its newly elected mayor. Source with Google Translate.

Cheers. kedadial 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know all of that, but we cannot trust RoK government regarding this. It is logical that they want to merge all Kosovo into RoK. :) And it means nothing when someone from RoK visit someone else. None can forbid them that. I am talking about parallel institutions, not paying taxes, disputed government, regular, ordinary life is not present. That is missing in Serb enclaves. RoK does not have "control over the territory", only over "over most of the territory". Even if it is just North Kosovo, and it isn't, it is more then three entire municipalities. That is large. By not saying "most of", North Kosovo importance can be minimized, and that is not neutral, or needed in the article lead. I am still for the previews version of mine. With most of. --Tadija^speaks 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with Tadija's last suggestion. Bazonka (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with any change of the current version unless references are provided. Kedadi brought his references, so I'll wait for those who disagree with him to bring opposite references.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Why? Tadija's latest version above is broad enough to cover the situation where only N Kosovo is outside control, and the situation where there are other areas outside control. No references are needed. It fits all eventualities. Bazonka (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support the last alternative that you proposed:

• The partially-recognised Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory; in North Kosovo its extent of authority is limited.

Then we'll start a new thread regarding RoK control over Serb enclaves. What do you think? Cheers. kedadial 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support "over the territory" Technically is not correct to use "most of the territory" because the territory is not divided into 2 parts and these three municipalities do not cover more than 8% of the entire territory This part is also controlled but limited for the reasons mentioned above.-- LONTECH  Talk  17:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we are running in circles. Bazonka, I and Kedadi all agreed on "over most of the territory", per reasons explained above. Also, now on Kosovo page it is "over most of the territory", as that is neutral, and true, as agreed. Question is only how to write about North Kosovo. Bazonka and I agreed on "with limited control in North Kosovo", while Kedadi proposed "in North Kosovo its extent of authority is limited". So next, Kedadi should explain why he prefer this version over agreed one. I disagree with this one as it is not quite clear what this means. When you say for something, with limited control, it is easy to understand, and it is also more neutral then extent of authority. So, Kedadi, what do you say? :))) --Tadija^speaks 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true because this alternative was proposed by banzoka A better alternative would be "...over the territory, ........". Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC), and was supported by kedadi. Also I support extent of authority because this part is controlled by the KP. If we use word control then we should remove all limited control. Also control is more war term.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Bazonka at 07:36, 20 April 2010. Waiting for Kedadi respons. RoK in reality have only very limited control over North Kosovo, while term "extent of authority is limited" means that someone's authority is expanding over recognizable borders. As RoK borders are not internationally widely accepted, and as RoK clames part of it's own imaginative territory, it is not expanding anywhere, so that term is wrong. Lontech, please, add another section for your disputes, as this question has been disputed in a good and constructive way. If Kedadi dont respond in next 12h, it means that he agreed also to Bazonka and mine final version, so we can add it. Also, as no reliable source has been added here, i and we can also doubt that KP control North Kosovo. Even if it is like that, much, much more is needed for complete control over territory. As your arguments are already rejected per above discussion, and as Bazonka said that this version "fits all eventualities", which i agree also completely, please start another discusion about our second question, and that is how to include in the lead "Kosovo Serb enclaves" question. That was leaved for later, and that will be highly constructive. Thank you for your understanding. --Tadija^speaks 21:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh really Eulex isn't reliable source and now you are some kind of admin and you give other editors ultimatum.-- LONTECH  Talk  22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to the "extent of authority is limited" version. It may not be perfect, but it's better than what was in the article previously. Most people here seem to favour this version anyway. Bazonka (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on Kosovan passport biased title

I am planning to put a pov-title template on the Kosovan passport article as per discussion on the talk page. The discussion appears to have come to a stalemate so I am asking for some other opinion before I tag the article. Please discuss at the Talk:Kosovan passport for the time being. The issue may be connected to similar articles (Abkhazian passport and others) and I am not sure where to post this request. Best regards, --Biblbroks's talk 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put a pov-title template until you get at least most of the commenters to agree with you. 68.114.198.186 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what Biblbroks is complaining about. As Bazonka told him there, any entity claiming to be a state has citizens and may issue passports to them for those citizens to attempt to use for purposes of travel. Whether other states accept said documents is a separate question. The Republic of Kosovo exists, it claims statehood, and issues documents accordingly. Some states accept the passports, some don't. Some states accept the statehood of the RoK, some don't. Neither point affects the fact that the document in question is a Kosovan passport, just as the title states. 97.82.152.134 (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with you, and do not see why a big POV warning is necessary, but I think it would be best to use the Kosovo passport page when discussing fine details of Kosovo passports. :-) The discussion is long enough already; splitting it onto another talk page is just asking for trouble. But then again I went there to offer a third opinion rather than to get bogged down in epic debate... bobrayner (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]